User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 09 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Community block of Tony Sidaways is hereby proposed 2 Loaded words 3 CWoI and Kosovo 4 Archiving of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard 5 question about ArbComm & Arthur Ellis

[edit] Community block of Tony Sidaways is hereby proposed

Not just Newyorkbrad's, Tony, but never mind. Who cares if you respond or not. You made your outright defiance of criticism well known by now. So, you can just not post anything as well as saying that something is "unworthy" of your response.

But seriously, what do we do with Tony. I propose the community block. But do as you please. I am off to write an article. --Irpen 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous. What, like 40,000 edits and you want to propose a community block? I find this to be an effort to "out" another Wikipedian pretty disgusting.--MONGO 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony has, in my opinion, exhausted the community's patience. However, I feel that blocking him would do more harm than good. Would someone that Tony actually listens to (if such exists) please pull him aside and explain to him that his increasingly bizarre behavior is disruptive? Friday (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he has exuasted the patience of many. Blocking seems a bit harsh though. I wouldn't mind putting him up for possible recall as an admin though. I would urge him to voluntarilly stand for a resysoping. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict):As not a supporter of blocks in general, I can't agree with this idea. I do agree that his recent behavior needs to be addressed, and would readily participate in any formal action. —Nate Scheffey 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given Tony a community block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the above discussion, this block feels at best premature, and at worst unnecessary. I do not feel that the block serves to resolve the dispute in any way. Isopropyl 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me. If the Lego block was premature then when would you apply a Lego block? :) Haukur 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to click the link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit, I wasn't sure what was going to be on the other end of the link either. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I've been made a fool of. Isopropyl 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal seems to consist solely of a slice of some dissipated conversation, without presenting any reason why a community block would be appropriate, it is a pretty ridiculous move on the part of the nominator. —Centrx→talk • 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my 22:34 comments above here, which after edit conflict, wound up in the previous section. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it would be a bad idea to go around blocking admins just for giving someone a cool-off block and putting it up for review. :)

But it's an intriguing idea. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony and I have had quite a few disagreements, but I strongly oppose any such actions. Follow proper procedures and take it to RfC and RfAr if you don't like the way things are happening. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, broke my pledge and interrupted the work on the article for a second. First of all, I am restoring this thread after deletion that stated "This is noticeboard not a discussion forum". This is exactly an appropriate place for the discussion of community blocks. Much lesser part of community watches Tony's page. --Irpen

(edit conflict)I already did. Now a response to Zoe. Fine, if you insist. I will try to put aside some time to take it to ArbCom if Tony doesn't cool down. RfC is utterly useless. Everyone has commented on that already more than once: Tony himself, those appauled by his activity and his few supporters. I hope ArbCom can be avoided and Tony will take a wiki-vacation and comes back cool as a cucumber. --Irpen 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't run it through RfC first, the Arbcom will reject it out of hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I seriusly disagree with the comments of both of those commentators, obviously I can't accept the reasoning for the proposed self-imposed vacation. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. You're replying to nothing, my comment isn't here any more. Drini removed it (can't think why). Bishonen | talk 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

The conversation's been refactored all over the place (not due to Tony in any way, I hasten to add). I had to post my latest comment (before this one) four times to get it to stick once. It wasn't that great even the first time. :) Newyorkbrad 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Most of it's absurd stuff in any case. I blocked a problem editor for three hours, I didn't steal the crown jewels. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to endorse this proposed block solely so my post will be removed by a member of the Cabal and I can have bragging rights at UnEncycloTruthia AntiWikiReviewica or whatever it is people are wittering on about instead of writing articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surreal, and also a flame magnet, so I'll probably remove it soon. Nothing of any import has been achieved. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to achieve something, anyway. Yesterday I got sick of the debate over recused arbitrators at RfAr Talk, but my thinking about the issues led me to begin on a complete rewrite and expansion of recusal in mainspace, which when I'm done with it, may be a pretty decent article. So at least some good came out of all the sniping. Now I have to figure out what article topic today's events should point me to drafting. (I realize I'm giving you the opportunity for a snappy comeback here. :) ) Newyorkbrad 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well remove my warning too, but for the sake of wikipedia, please, next time you decided to block an established editor connected to the argument about Carnildo promotion please do not do it yourself. Instead ask any of more than one thousand active administrators to do it for you. Sometimes an additional pair of eyes might be helpful. Your blocks caused enough disruption already. abakharev 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you can remove this as well but please read that first. Your misuse of the block button causes a significant community outrage all too often. The best thing you can do after the Wikivacation, if you just can't accept the temporary break, is to simply not to use the block against any well-established editor simply because, as the community's (or like you call it "mob's") reaction to such your actions shows that they appear often unwarranted and harmful. Uncalled for blocks hurt some users. Go block trolls and socks all right. But as far as well-established and reputable users are conserned, there are over 1000 other admins. Post a message to WP:ANI and see what they do. I bet a bottle of the beverage of your choice that in similar circumstances no one but yourself would gave blocked Ghirla and Giano. Anyway, I hope (still, maybe mistakenly) that you will draw some lessons from this. Now you can delete it if this is how you feel. --Irpen 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You may find it hard to understand, but I haven't misused my block button in this case. I have performed two blocks that, on discussion, some other administrators disagreed with. I submitted both of them to review. The first one was a response to a complaint by Cowman109 on Ghirlandajo's disruptive activities. The second one was a response to observation of extremely paranoid and unacceptable accusations about the arbitration committee, Angela (former Foundation officer) and others. I acted as an administrator should. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew that you just won't get it ever!. OK, never mind. The community respect to your actions (including blocks) is such that they don't mean much in block log anyway. And this is only getting reinforced if falling is the best contribution you made to the main namespace. Have a good one! Go continue in your self-righteoussness! Since you refuse to stop you will be stopped (IMO sooner rather than later) because "Wikipedia is cleverer than you are". --Irpen 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think I've got enough community respect, thank you very much. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Arg this is a bad idea. Man you don't block an editor for sysop actions absent an emergency, the proper remedy would be to request de-sysopping. That at least would be consistent. If an editor is being disruptive as an editor (e.g. vandalism or whatever) then blocking would be the remedy. Herostratus 06:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded words

Hi Tony, Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the following less often?

• fatuous
• paranoid
• baseless

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have used the word "fatuous" to describe a fatuous and clearly false suggestion.
• I have used the word "paranoid" to describe a clearly false and baseless accusation of malicious manipulation that was, however, made sincerely.
• I have used the word "baseless" to describe a baseless accusation.

Don't mistake this for loaded language. Wild, absolutely incredible accusations are being made. We must describe them for what they are. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you meant to sidestep the question or not, but I'm curious as to your answer. Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the above (and others) less often? --Kbdank71 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Obviously the correct word has to be used for the situation. When people have, as it were, strayed from the facts, sometimes you need to tell them clearly that they're completely wrong. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in this life is that some targets are very hard to hit exactly. Arriving on time for things, for one. Sending a message to someone is another. If you aim for exactly what you want, sometimes you overshoot, sometimes you undershoot. If you want to be on time reliably, you have to aim at being early.

In this instance, the cost of overshooting greatly exceeds the cost of undershooting. If you undershoot when trying to explain something, no real damage is done, the other person can ask a question and you can try again. But if you overshoot, if you overstate how low your opinion of someone is, it's really hard to recover. (Unless the other person is prepared to cut you some slack, as you and I are to each other.) But if the other person isn't feeling patient, perhaps because they have a history with you, or are having a bad day, or just because they are the sort of person who is inclined to overstate things, then you can get into a vicious circle where everything that gets said makes things worse.

Now, maybe you _are_ using these words acurately. But your counterparts in this converstation don't agree, or they wouldn't have made the wildy fatuous, paranoid and baseless statements in the first place. So if you want to influence them, you need to take a different tactic. Just telling them they're wrong won't help them understand why, it just turns them hostile. We can only call things as we see them, but it helps if we use language that can be heard.[1]

You are more interested in being understood, than in scoring points, aren't you? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, how about I phrase it this way, then: It's pretty clear that where you've gone lately, conflict has followed. Your words and a good deal of your actions rub many people the wrong way. Do you even care to get a better response from people? --Kbdank71 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The places I go? It's not surprising I pick up a bit of flack. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So that'd be a no, then. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Another of my favourite pages is http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther Regards, Ben Aveling 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to overshoot. If you're honest and you undershoot, there would be some who thought your were being dishonest and hiding behind polite words. If you overshot, people would think you're being undiplomatic. Figure it out for yourself. I haven't stated my opinion of anyone. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say dishonest and hiding. I'd say you were trying to be polite. And I wouldn't say undiplomatic. Other words, but not that. Either way, though, I've got my answer. Thanks for the explanation. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: supposed somebody has already become so confused that he has accused you of a breathtakingly ridiculous falsehood. If you try to be polite and say "oh I think you're wrong you know" and try to weedle about it, you're not going to convince the fellow, he's too far gone. But if you don't respond in a forthright manner there's always the chance that some of the publicly stated falsehoods will be believed by some reasonable people simply because they appear to have gone undenied or denied in an insufficiently forthright manner. In the circumstances, it's much better to be thought a little rude that to be thought dishonest. Utterly false, extremely defamatory, paranoid, baseless and frankly stupid allegations have been made about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats. Let's not mince words, let's call them that. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say "false and defamatory"? Why add "paranoid and stupid"? What good does that do? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the precise explanations in my responses above. Giano clearly sincerely believes the outrageous falsehoods that he has published. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder what you both thought, by the way, of the appropriateness of permitting Wikipedians to make such baseless and false slurs against some of the most trusted Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Couriously, I was just trying to work out what he said that's so annoyed you. Was it this: "The arbcom, (all of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here) calculated and estimated the response from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [2] . (note: no one has censored Kelly Martin for such a stupid error) How far dare they go? They have now taken a vow of silence, so must be judged or damned together. They will survive because as I have said they divide and rule, poor old Sidaway though they use him as their barometer. Even I am never that cruel - but he is getting away with blue murder - so they assess and calculate. Sinister isn't it? Doubtless the next comment will be Giano is paranoid! Well I am not, I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" [3] ? I have to admit, it's wierd. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed in the least, so don't worry about that. However such paranoid ravings have no place on Wikipedia. I still think it would have been best to give him a few hours of downtime. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I don't know. I agree, rants like that are unhelpful. But blocking him for saying what he thinks won't change his mind or improve his behaviour - far from it. What would Miss Manners do? The only reputation he was damaging was his own. I'd say that one of the standard warnings is appropriate for a first offence, followed by a short block if he repeats. But the focus should be on the fact that what he was saying was unacceptable, not on our assessment of his mental stability.

Do me a favour? The next time you want to describe someone's comments as paranoid, including a link so that I can see for myself? Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do in a case of such serious attacks is to stop them. He had been at it for days and warnings had no effect. I don't take the view that his ravings were without effect. Your mileage may vary. I cited samples of his accusations in the block report on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume I read everything you write at WP:AN. I agree, his behaviour is a problem. But your response to it, that too has caused problems. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I misjudged the sheer amount of fuss a brief block would cause. This is one of the hazards of adminship. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could tell you "do this next time, and the result will be better". Ben Aveling 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, when a case gets this bad, there is no "better" And that's normally where you'll find me, at the pointy end. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You've reminded me of one of my favourite posts on rec.bridge. In essence, the question was "How can I play $X cards to get out of situtation $Y" and the answer was "I wouldn't get into situation $Y." It wasn't a very comforting reply, but the second bridge player had a point. The first bridge player's bidding had dug him into such a deep hole that skillful play of the available cards could not extract him. Some situations are easier to avoid than to repair. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah but that would assume that we cause the situations we try, and sometimes fail, to defuse. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Rather, in trying to defuse situation $N, we cause situation $N+1. Ben Aveling 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And coming back aroudn to the orginal topic, using loaded words - even when they're accurate - is being part of the cause and, by their nature, a failure to diffuse. You need not call someones comments "baseless" to prove them so. -- Isogolem 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is gained from not calling baseless and damaging allegations "baseless". Except perhaps the impression, among at least some people of good will, that one is being cagey and evasive. I do not wish to give that impression. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony - 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Ah, here's an example of two different ways I could respond to this:

1. Tony your response above is paranoid and baseless. Your claim that "nothing is gained" from making an effort to be polite is willfully ignorant of reality. Your response implies both that cagey and evasive are equivalent (which they obviously are not), and that making any effort to be polite is equivalent to being dishonest (which it also is not). Your comments may avoid giving the impression evasion, but including such defamatory language is instead guaranteed to give the impression of denegrating other users under a false banner of "honesty".
2. Tony, I don't agree with you that "nothing is gained". Significant portions of wikipedia policy and guideline are devoted to asking poeople to be polite, including WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and of course WP:CIVIL. Using words like "baseless" (let alone paranoid), skirts the edge of civility and absolutely breaks AGF. That kind of language is more likely to draw people to the accused's defense (and on to flame wars), whereas a calm neutral tone response (even if brief) is not. In a straw poll, I think most users would say they'd rather deal with comments that are cagey or level-headed, than with comments that break the spirit of WP:CIVIL. I actually find loaded words more indicative of evasion than less loaded ones - IME, it is easier to hide logical fallacies in loaded word comments. By using loaded words (especially without cites), you actually make it harder for me to distiguish your quite valid comments from those of the trolls and vandals.

So, which of these two comments is better?

Neither is much use. Both are based on the false premise that it is uncivil to identify a baseless and false accusation as baseless and false. Both falsely suggest that we should pussyfoot about clearly baseless, false and damaging accusations, treating them with a weight equal to serious, well founded suggestions. Taken seriously, both would damage Wikipedia very badly. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, do you think that you've addressed the point Isogolem was trying to make? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up.  :) Thanks, it's been fun! -- Isogolem 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CWoI and Kosovo

How is Croatian War of Independence related to Kosovo? Don't get me wrong, I support any decission which would help stop ultranationalist edit warring on Croatian War of Independence article, but I just fail to see the connection between this article and the Kosovo one, so I'm just plain curious... --Dijxtra 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the articles unprotected by User:Dmcdevit. He asked me to put the notice on all of those. If you think there has been an error, please consult him. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, nice. --Dijxtra 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It was an error, we are still waiting for a correction though. (See [4]) Laughing Man 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Tony,

I think your actions here, here, here, and other similar places on this page, were out of line. It looks a lot like you were removing criticism of yourself. Could you please tell me if you think these actions were the right thing to do, and why? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested cleaning up the noticeboard, and was encouraged to do so. I did it once and then it was reverted with the suggestion that the material should instead be archived, so I did that. I'm not a bureaucrat so obviously that is the wrong place to put criticism of me. Indeed most of the stuff I removed had absiolutely no place on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You "cleaned up" the noticeboard by archiving sections that were critical of you, even though many of the comments were less than 24 hours old and the discussion was clearly ongoing. That really seems inappropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the whole discussion was innappropriate and I already removed a chuck that attacked the bcrats a day ago. If Tony has junk posted there, then it can go to. But this discussion does need to be trimmed down regardless, as it keeps quickly going in an unproductive direction .Voice-of-All 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed most of the removed material was just John Reid trying to harass bureaucrats. This was unfit for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not a bureaucrat. People who want to complain about me should do so elsewhere so that the bureaucrats don't have to wade through it to get to the important stuff. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. 1)What was all that crap doing on the BN? We seem to have Tony-related comments everywhere these days - perhaps we need a special 'wikiproject Sidaway' to keep them all together. 2)If we're being pedantic, perhaps Tony shouldn't have moved comments related to himself - but they sure needed moving. If he'd poked me, I'd have done it. The point is, they're gone now - good - move on....unless ... of course.... *sly grin* ... one is looking for another stick with which to beat Tony... in which case.......*evil laugh* --Doc 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "beating" Tony, and I don't think I'm being pedantic to suggest that this is a problem. It appears that Tony is selectively "archiving" only discussion he doesn't like, while leaving older, less active, discussion. I don't think it's acceptable behavior. This is another example. I'd like to ask that you, Tony, refrain from doing this. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. --Quadell 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unreasonable. I think the example you give shows just how unreasonable you're being. I think this ridiculous, false and corrosive nonsense about archiving stuff simply because I don't like it is the problem. Clutter is a problem and it should be addressed and those who address it shouldn't be subject to nonsensical allegations. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd tried to intervene and stop John harassing the bureaucrats, so inevitably there were some comments critical of me. I did ask others to refactor, but was asked to do it myself. "You're a clerk." --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why only archive some discussion, based on that person's viewpoint, but leave older and less active discussion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On review, you answered that: because you though of John's questions as "harrassment". I disagree, but I understand your reasoning. --Quadell 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John's unproductive, hostile and unwikipedian badgering was painful and this was the subject of many comments. I'm convinced that I did the right thing, and only saddened that it was left to me to do it. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If people on wiki are dissatisfied and have a grouse, it's best to give them the space to do so and keep it in-house. And talk to them like reasonable human beings. Otherwise it just looks as though any dissent is going to be stamped on, which creates a stifled and fearful atmosphere, makes people frustrated that they cannot be heard, drives them to other notice boards off wiki, and gives more fuel to those who are critical of wiki. If what is being said is not true, then it can be pointed out and exposed. If it is true, then it should be listened to. There is nothing to fear in the truth. A healthy community should be strong enough to take such things in its stride. Tyrenius 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let them find a place to engage in their complaints. But let them not be permitted to drag Wikipedia into the slime with ridiculous and harmful complaints, expressed in a manner far beyond what any person would accept as reasonable. If I received an email from Giano, Ghirlandajo or any other of these editors expressed in the mannner that they have been inflicting upon Wikipedia for many months and years, I would ignore it. If he continued I might pop his email address into my idiot bin.

There is legitimate dissent, and it is alive on these pages and elsewhere. But gross trolling, silliness and paranoia are destructive to such legitimate dissent. We can discuss the real issues without trolling newbies with crap about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats all being involved in some weird fantastic conspiracy. Such mindless and stupid noise does not belong anywhere, and certainly not on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, the ArbCom will decide exactly how disruptive Ghirlandajo is - perhaps it might have been more effective if you had tried some sort of dispute resolution with him, or with Giano, before you blocked either of them.
2. In any case, where are these "ridiculous and harmful complaints" that have been "inflicted on Wikipedia" for months? I would be interested to see you provide some examples from Giano. And who are the the nameless other editors?
3. I have seen hardly a single voice in favour of your block of Giano. Surely you accept that you should not block someone in a matter in which you yourself were clearly involved?
4. You claim to have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. You have driven off a contributor who has written many featured articles, not to mention diverted the attentions of the many editors replying here from more productive tasks: does that advance the encyclopedia? It seems to me that your recent actions are being disruptive. Please stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No reply, I see. I take from your failure to respond that your references to "ridiculous and harmful complaints" that have been "inflicted on Wikipedia" by Giano for months are just hot air. That fact that you see no problem in blocking editors with whom you are in conflict displays a stunning lack of propriety. And you are clearly unable to recognise that you are having an harmful infuence on the encyclopedia. It also seems to be a complete waste of time talking to you, because you take absolutely no notice of what other people say, rarely responding more that to dismiss their concerns with an disrespectful adjective (such as "silly"). I have absolutely no confidence in you as an administrator. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can I archive this thread for you - seems to be a waste of time? --Doc 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a little surprised and shocked at the tone of ALoan's follow-up. This is a very large discussion and it would be quite surprising if I had succeeded in noticing and replying to every single edit by every single participant. Now that I do see ALoan's request, however, I do not feel motivated to add a further elaboration. The observation that Ghirlandajo has been inflicting disruptive behavior on Wikipedians for well over a year is well documented elsewhere (and I suspect that ALoan is aware of this because he refers to the application for arbitration). The observation that Giano's accusations were absurd and extremely damaging is almost a truism and I've cited those accusations enough to establish the point for those who are capable of agreement with it.

The idea that I was somehow involved in a dispute of some kind with either Ghirlandajo or Giano is something that they have both pushed very hard, so I'm not surprised that there are people who believe this to be the case. It is, however, untrue. I was only involved to the extent that any good administrator attempts to maintain order on the wiki and prevent other editors from disrupting it for their own ends--in this case, an apparent vendetta and shrieking campaign against other editors.

I take no satisfaction in Giano's announcement of his departure, but nor am I responsible for it. He had clearly made up his mind that some of its day-to-day running was in the hands of people of almost indescribably gross moral turpitude, and he did not shrink from stating this opinion at length. In the circumstances, his departure was inevitable. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(If Tony is prepared to reply, then I would like to also, so hang fire for the moment, please.)

If some people are expressing such views vocally, then many more will also share them unspoken. That is a problem. It happens when people feel that things are happening which they do not understand and are powerless to do anything about. Trolling and paranoia are by definition not the same action. Trolling is done by someone who has power and exercises it over others to undermine them. Paranoia is someone who feels helpless and disempowered. Trolling, like all bullying, needs a stern and uncompromising response to show someone they're not welcome. Paranoia demands understanding and sympathy to show someone they are accepted. To treat paranoia like trolling exacerbates the problem and confirms the person that they are right — that there are in fact implacable forces opposed to them. Our participation in any situation is not neutral, but becomes a potent factor. It can make the difference between turning someone into a friend or an enemy.

You come across as a robust individual, so it may be hard to empathise with a very different temperament. The "no nonsense" approach can be very effective in many cases. When it's right, it clears up things instantly. However, when it's wrong, it leaves a resentful sense of injustice, not just in the person directly affected, but in bystanders too, and poisons a community. This is also something to be aware of as a presentation to newbies (and oldies for that matter too), and is also a problem that needs to be addressed. Stamping on dissent, however seemingly inappropriate, can create consequences which are worse than allowing it to work through to a natural conclusion.

A stable, secure environment can only be created when justice is not only done, but seen to be done and proved to be done to the satisfaction of reasonable people. This can be a torturous process in the short term, but desirable in the long term. These are not comments targeted at your actions in the present circumstances, as I have not studied them sufficiently to make a pronouncement. I only offer such thoughts as something which might be worth considering and taking on board as a resource which can lead to a better outcome in certain cases.

Tyrenius 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. However we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members. If we don't have trustworthy bureaucrats and arbitrators, as Giano claimed, then either we act as one and overthrow them all or we move elsewhere. Obviously I think the very idea is beyond fatuous so if you want to try either option you're welcome. But here we saw Wikipedia's consensus based system in action. I saw an editor whose actions in my opinions harmed the encyclopedia so badly and imminently that I blocked him for three hours and submitted the block for review on WP:AN. Other administrators disagreed with me and I know of not one single admin who agreed with me, and that's fine. I did the right thing and I was told that my judgement was wrong. That's fine, that's how it's supposed to work. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to work, when it doesn't work as well as it could. Your fellow admins don't want to be in the position where they unanimously disagree with you. You're a principled person and work hard for the project. This is something people recognise and respect you for. It's obvious they care for you and are trying really hard to communicate. They don't want to have a go at you, feel awkward about doing so, and yet feel they have to speak out, because of their conscience.

Principled people like yourself achieve change, but have a habit of pushing to increasing extremes, until they force a reaction to bring about their own demise, after which humanity returns to muddling through with compromise again. The nature of principles is black and white, either/or, right or wrong. On this basis "we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members."

The interpretation creates the reality that has to be dealt with, and begs the question by assuming that, even if the statement is accusatory, wild and malicious, the inevitable consequence of its presence is going to be damaging to the project. The damage to the project can depend very much on the way it's handled. The project is pretty robust and can accommodate some wild accusations sometimes (depending on who made them for one thing), and furthermore be able to talk through some of those accusations in a civilised way, to find out if there is something to be learnt on both sides. Maybe there's something that 'crats and arbitrators can amend. That's a more realistic possibility than unwavering support or complete overthrow. If there are two options, take the third.

It may take the mediating type, which you've said you're not, but there's a team here and that type is in it, so they can be called on in situations where it's appropriate. It's worth trying, particularly with users who are both valuable contributors and apparent transgressors.

The job of taking on the labours of Hercules creates a lot of stress, which can build up insidiously, so take care of yourself.

Tyrenius 06:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about ArbComm & Arthur Ellis

Hi Tony. I see that the ArbComm on Warren Kinsella is effectively over now that the vote to pass has been closed. The main point is that Arthur Ellis, who is currently under a one-week block for using socks to evade 3RR, is to be banned from certain articles and not use IPs. He's attacked me with with this message through an IP, which I've blocked. The question: should this be reported on the ArbComm enforcement page even though the ArbComm has not been formally closed? Bucketsofg 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any harm to report the incident on the talk page of the arbitration case, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella, if only because it keeps records related to this editor together. The log of blocks and bans is specifically for enforcement of the remedies in the case, so blocks made before the case is formally closed probably don't belong there. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)