User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 10 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

purge edit icons
Archive: Interim • 10/25 • 10/14 • 09/24 • 09/21 • 09/18 • 09/16 • 09/05 • 08/23 • 08/15 • 08/01 • 07/27 • 07/22 • 07/19 • 07/15 • 07/06 • 07/01 • 06/25 • 06/18 • 06/15 • 06/14 • 06/07 • 06/03 • 05/30 • 05/25 • 05/20 • 05/10 • 04/08 • 03/15 • 02/13 • 02/02 • 01/27 • 01/19 • 01/06 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004  edit

Contents

[edit] Take a break

image:Stop_hand.png This notice is being given to you by another administrator (Friday) in lieu of a block.
Friday believes that a block is justified but, as a courtesy, is refraining from enacting one. In return, you are asked to discontinue any controversial edits at once until this issue is discussed and resolved.

This was offensive, over the top, and generally unhelpful. Take a break from editing and cool down. reconsider your approach to the project. Friday (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Being above an admin does not make Tony above the law. This is the final straw in a long series of disruptive comments and personal attacks. I have therefore blocked Tony for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset and I don't need to cool down (but I think some others may do.) I have nothing to add to my observation that I have lanced the boil [1]. A slight smell is inevitable and it'll dissipate in time. I'll sit out the block that JoshuaZ has made. It wouldn't be in the interests of Wikipedia to add further to this silliness. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Having discussed this matter at length I think Wikipedia will benefit from an absence by me for seven days. I am quite unrepentant. I believe that I did a good thing. I leave the matter in the hands of the arbitration committee and would happily resign from all editing on Wikipedia should this improve the encyclopedia. . --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I can understand, to some extent, why you thought what you did a few days ago was a good thing. But what about what you wrote today? Do you think that particular post served any useful purpose at all, stirring the embers back into flames? Was that, too, a good thing?
If you want (or have been urged) to spend a week on Wikibreak, that is probably a good idea. But I think an even better idea is that you spend a week, or a month, on a complete leave from your administrative duties (blocking, warning, clerking, ...) and ... edit some articles. Remind yourself where the fun of this project is supposed to lie. Even falling has sections waiting to be finished. That, to me, would show more of a commitment by you than any words on this page to the project you've been trying to serve. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Tony, I'd also like to repeat what I have attempted to explain before- these sorts of remarks don't help matters at all. They don't accomplish anything and often make people more angry. They often cause far more damage than what small help they give. JoshuaZ 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is right. Tony, your behavior has been particularly polemical and divisive. If you were a userbox, you'd get speedy deleted for this. Friday (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It is nice to see a strong a firm admin reaction to a user who apparently considers himself above the law (and whose interests are apparently everything but writing an encyclopedia as I can see from the facts). Joshua and Friday, please accept my thanks and encouragements! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be unblocked at all until you gain some understanding of how to not say things so insensitive as to make good contributers want to pound their keyboards into dust in a shouting rage. Maybe we should have a policy to that effect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an idea... Wikipedia:Contributors are above all or something? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
We kind of have it already - Don't be a dick - although being on meta has allowed it to avoid the "policy" tag, and retain some of its simplicity and importance. As for the block, I support JoshuaZ's 24 hours - but would be wary of imposing anything further now. Unfortunately I get the feeling that Tony is going to continue this behaviour when the block expires. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong. the wub "?!" 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Protoss Archon 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've meditated over this for a number of days. I didn't contest the block because I felt at the time that it would divide the community if I did so, and I recognised that the misreading of my unfortunately worded comment was reasonable and the outrage it caused was also reasonable. I can only apologise for making a very poor choice of words in a very delicate situation. To describe any respected Wikipedian as a "boil" is unthinkable. Those who believed that I intended to say that were quite right to block me. Out of respect for their justifiable outrage, I did not quibble. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A comment by Newyorkbrad

Warring is never helpful, regardless of the cause or the provocation, real or imagined. That goes for absolutely everyone. There are issues to be addressed, to be sure, and I've been thinking about trying to inject a comment addressing some of them, but I don't imagine that at this point I or anyone else would be heard above the general commotion.
As for you, Tony, you seem incapable of taking a full and complete Wikibreak. I can empathize; unlike you, I've been active for less than three months, yet I know I'd miss this place if I were gone for a week myself. I will repeat a suggestion that I made above (in the middle of threaded discussion, so you may have missed it): Why not step over to mainspace and edit an article or two? All the fun of editing, yet quite a lot less of the stress and controversy. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I find suggestions like this unhelpful. I have edited thousands of articles. I notice that you refer to "stress". If I found editing Wikipedia stressful, I would not do it. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[Written in response to now-redeleted material].Once again, I find myself sighing. My comment was meant to be supportive of Tony's call for everyone to stop warring, and as a suggestion for him to ease himself back from Wikibreak. It wasn't meant as an attack of any nature and I'm sorry about how he took it and how the thread has turned. It appears that at this point, there is absolutely nothing that I or anyone can say without offending someone and/or starting a contentious and hurtful argument. I give up. Newyorkbrad 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't offend me, but I don't think it was a particularly helpful suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aggressive campaiging

He's still at it ([2]). I'm not sure what to make of this. Radiant! 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are one of the most admired editors on Wikipedia (I know you won't let that go to your head; we all have our faults and you're aware of this) precisely because you have a very good brain and can come up with workable solutions to serious problems. Work your magic. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


I am not so admired or respected but I am also not part of any cabal relating to this matter. Nevertheless, I object to both the edit war (which I believe was occurring on both sides of the issue), to the protection and to the current version of the page. [Here] are my comments.--Blue Tie 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your kind remarks on my rfa. I'm just writing to correct a typo (I dare not change remarks on my own RfA). I think you meant for one of those 2003's to be a 2006 or something. Thanks again! :) —Pengo 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No the remark is written as intended. Prior to mid-2005, RFAs typically did not attract much attention. Since then, it has become quite common for RFA to attract huge numbers of RFA groupies who all support one another. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My accidental rollbacks and the subsequent reversions of the rollback

Hi Tony,

I don't know if you watch pages that you edit so I'm not sure if you saw the response that I left to the note you left on my Talk Page. I've been having this problem on a bunch of pages that I try to read and I just figured out what was going on. I finally figured out what was causing those accidental rollbacks. It's not all "sloppy mousing" on my part. The slowness of my browser in processing Javascript is also partly to blame. If you care to read the details, they're explained more fully on my Talk Page. Now that I understand what's going on, it will be easier to avoid repeating this mistake. Once again, my apologies. --Richard 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Thanks for responding. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya!

Hey, I just noticed your name on a tweak of that PZ Myers page. So this is where you've gotten to, deep in the bowels of Wikipedia.

Like a tapeworm. :) --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 20:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Deleted sources for Alberto Fujimori

I am breaking my wikivacations because I notice something creepy: It is now possible to remove paragraphs with sources [3] because someone "does not like" what it is stated? Messhermit 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely frowned upon, and can be disruptive if done without consensus. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look. Looks like a good faith attempt to "be bold". The edit summary indicated an opinion that the deleted text was unremarkable because the reported phenomenon occurred in a number of other countries as well. Certainly an argument for deletion that is open for debate. Just because a statement is sourced doesn't mean it is encyclopedic. In any event, the edit in question has been reverted. If the editor tries to revert the revert, it will be time to suggest a discussion on the Talk Page. --Richard 22:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring my signature

Tony,
Leaving everything else aside, forgetting for the moment that I've asked you several times not to, ignoring the meaningless User:Tony Sidaway/No refactor, refactoring my signature on my talk page is well and truly outside the bounds of what's reasonable. --Aaron Brenneman 07:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll pander to your concerns for now, but you may note that the discussion page is quickly filling up with clutter. Perhaps you would be kind enough to clear it up yourself. --Tony Sidaway 09:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Why?

Why did you resign from clerking? Scobell302 08:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to resign by the Arbitration Committee. See my statement in evidence in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence#Statement, in which you will see that I opined that it probably isn't a good idea to appoint a controversial sysop as a clerk. The Committee agrees with me. --Tony Sidaway 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Bummer, man. I feel the "controversy" surround you is a direct consequence of your openness, honesty, humility and willingness to put the interests of Wikipedia ahead of all else -- dam the consequences. Please consider running for the arbcom again next election.

Applause for a well written resignation statement. [4] For what it's worth, you did a good job as clerk - reading the cool, dispassionate clerk statements and comparing to ... well, a few of your other actions :-) ... I found it hard to believe they were done by the same person. I hope that's something your successors strive to imitate. Is there a barnstar for that sort of thing? AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to the "for what it's worth" category, I first encountered Tony in his role as the ArbCom clerk. I found him to be very professional and knowledgeable in his role of the clerk and was quite surprised to learn a few weeks later about some of his other history with the project. His contributions to ArbCom's functioning will surely be missed. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] It's time to ban GreekWarrior...for good

In his short return today, GreekWarrior (talk • contribs) (remember him?) has made the following contributions:

  • You skopjeans just don't get it, we could take your 2 bit country in 2 days if we wanted to, we wouldn't even need more than 1 division and about 5 F-16's. [5]
  • Well done my fellow Greeks, we have defeated Roydosan and now he runs like cattle. HEIL! [6]
  • I have created a Greek Art page, much to Adam Carr's disgust, which includes stubs of Ancient/Byzantine/Modern Greek Art.
    Help would be greatly appreciated. HEIL! [7]
  • KEEP YOUR ANTI-GREEK SHIT TO YOURSELF! GREEKWARRIOR IS BACK! EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BEEN EDITING BEFORE THAT EVEN! [8]
  • Turkic barbarians run for the hills! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! [9]

I think a ban is long overdue... —Khoikhoi 02:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a comment about this recommending a community ban. Enough is enough. --Tony Sidaway 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. BTW, now he's editing as 86.140.42.67 (talk • contribs) —Khoikhoi 04:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] let's stick to facts

Tony, I don't think you make false statements on purpose, but you do make them and I request that you study the issue. You accused me of all sins in the front matter modification issue and have just posted another false claim at the Workshop. May I ask you to study the history and see that, contrary to your accusation of me Wikilawyering, fillibustering and whatnots, it was me, who merged your idea to the Front Matter as I explained multiple times. It would be better if you modify the erroneous statements than me having to rebutt the same stuff posted multiple times to multiple places. Thank you. --Irpen 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My older account of these events is here. I was somewhat passionate, still not incicivil, at the time, for which I apologize, but facts remain facts. --Irpen 21:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The statement is true. I grew very tired of your endless attempts to change the subject from the matter at hand to some personal dispute that you should have taken to my talk page. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that while I actually merged your proposal to the text of the front matter, your posting suggest that I was sabbotaging it. It is simply false. I guess you forgot and don't care to check for yourself. Too bad. --Irpen 21:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You've changed the subject. Did you notice that? --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow you. You repeatedly accused me of senseless beakering on the front matter. The facts are that quite opposite to poo-pooing your idea, I implemented it. I was upset by your what seemed to me arrogant way of trying to do things and I said so. There is nothing more to it.

Now, you are making some statements at the Workshop that misrepresent my role and imply that I tried procedural means to prevent the change contrary to the fact that I actually supported and implemented it. It would save time and space if the overloaded workshop is spared from misleading statements followed by rebuttals. That's the only thing I wanted to tell you. --Irpen 22:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I said you kept trying to push your personal issues with me onto the talk page where it really didn't belong. I don't think that you can understand why your comments were grossly inappropriate and likely to sideline discussion. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As the title of my section says, let's just stick to facts, OK? Many people, yourslef included, made many grossly inappropriate and likely to sideline discussion comments at those hot times. I am human and I also cannot fully dissociate from the emotions that surrounded the overall drama. You are no less human. However, the issue at hand is that as far as the implementation of the change to the RfA description you proposed, I supported and implemented your idea while your posts to the workshop imply that I used frivolous tricks to obstruct such change. That's why I called up on you to revise them since they, together with necessary rebuttals, take space at the already overladed page. There is nothing more to it. --Irpen 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well maybe I might have sidelined at one point, but that's a new accusation. I believe I tried very hard to stick to the subject, and the fact that I, after consulting widely on IRC, successfully performed a pretty serious refactoring suggests that I'm pretty serious about it.
I think you did go some way towards trying to support me, once you realised that there was serious support for it. However it was an uphill struggle trying to get you out of the "attack Tony" mode you had gotten yourself into. You're not the first person I've met who just blithely assumes bad faith when he encounters someone who thinking differs from yours, so I wasn't that bothered. It was a minor vexation in a rather exciting and fruitful period. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the first paragraph and I don't care what goes on at IRC, especially in view of disgusting things rooted in IRC dealings that come to Wikipedia. Please spare me from the details.

My support to modify the page was my own and had nothing to do with who else supported it. While accepting the idea of yours, I was appalled by both the arrogant form of its initial implementation and the arrogant way you persisted with that. In the end of the day, I included the very same idea into an existing policy page by integrating it in the text rather than stating it into a blunt, arrogant and uninterpretable 1 line guideline, or, only a slightly less arrogant way you attempted, to paste the disconnected sentence into the very first paragraph. My final version, still there, met consensus. Your pasting of the disconnected sentence in the first paragraph did not. All along I had to bear with your accusing me in Wikilawyering, revert warring and filibustering.

The accusation that I assume bad faith from those who disagree with me is amusing. I suggest you visit the talk pages of the real articles (the space you pay little attention to) on the most controversial topics on the history of Eastern Europe to find hundreds of articles where I resolve disputes with many editors with whom I disagree.

I was not in an "attack Tony" mode at any moment. If you look in my attempts to engage you into some communication, you will find nothing of that sort. I assume that by "attacks" you mean my reaction to certain specific offences. In fact not a single message I posted was an attack or even bordered incivility.

But, again, you (not me) diverted the discussion from the subject. The issue is a simple one. Your comments at the workshop imply that I used some sneaky means to obstruct the change of front matter (either because they came from you or because I did not like them or whatever) while in fact I was very receptive to this idea and implemented it in a way that met consensus. If you please seize bringing up by non-existing obstructionism and, better yet, even refactor your original misleading statement, you would help the ArbCom case by relieving it from having to sort out the accusations that contradict the facts. --Irpen 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now. If you accuse someone of "forcing" a change that's an attack. If you accuse someone of being a vexatious litigant that's an attack. You did come round in the end, I think, but for a lot of the time you seemed to be just attacking me for the sake of it. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Again? Ok, I've said it all... --Irpen 05:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

FYI I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously you're saying that some unidentified people are upset that I don't do something they want me to do and, moreover, they wouldn't be nearly as upset as they are if I did whatever it is you say they want me to do. Well I have to reply that I in my turn could possibly be persuaded to be slightly, but not very much, upset that they (whoever they are) might think that, and it's conceivable that I might be convinced to feel a little bit happier if they didn't do whatever it is that they do, provided you could convince me that they're doing it and they, whoever they are, are harming Wikipedia by whatever it is whoever they are are supposedly doing. But it's okay for them to do what they do. Which they don't say, whoever they are. By the way, who are they? And why should I care? --Tony Sidaway

[edit] Looking for an admin

We are looking for an admin here:[[10]]. Having already dealt with this user in the past, maybe you could oblige. I apologise in advance for the ridiculously long discussion... Thanks, Yandman 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Why did you block me from the West Bank page. I had helped create it, and I frequently contribute valuable information to the page.David Betesh

You're not blocked and your username has never been blocked, but you could still see a block message with my name if for some reason you use the same ISP as someone who has been blocked and there is a shared proxy that both you and the other user use. Please email me if this recurs, giving a full copy of the block message, and I'll fix it. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagiographer and Squeakbox

Based on Mackensen's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hagiographer, do you think there is enough evidence to support blocking Hagiographer for violating the personal attack parole that was extended to him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans? (Also note that 2 weeks ago, Hagiographer prodded the same article, but he got away with it because I was the only one watching WP:AE at the time. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2#User:Hagiographer and the Squeakbox section below it.) Thanks.

Never mind. Jayjg found that Hagiographer was someone's sock and indef blocked it. Thatcher131 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the laugh

I enjoyed this greatly: [11]. -- SCZenz 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Please stop your serbs in your project--Hipi Zhdripi 06:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An appeal

At the heart of the current crisis is disunity. Wikipedia is one community but editors have begun to treat it as a battleground where they fight for their own interests, forgetting that it's only a means for producing a high quality free encyclopedia. Attacking the ultimate mechanism of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee, weakens us all. I appeal to all editors to stop warring. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Dbiv and replaced with probation

In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.

The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk • contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk • contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat stuff. Congratulations, David. Thanks Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway

[edit] help needed on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw

Hi. I have a problem at Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. There is a piece of text included in that article which is based on a French news article. Now the original text on which this French news article is based, is available as primary source at Google Cache, in English. Now the English version makes the inclusion of the piece of text in the article irrelevant, because there is a mistranslation of the primary source in the French article. But somehow other editors insist on using the (incorrect) French news article. Could you help please? I've tried to talk it out on the talk page, to no avail. I've asked for full page protection at WP:RPP, because other editors don't like to use the talk page it seems. Intangible 20:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fucking hilarious

you rock!

I like it, too, but it is not my work. A troll gave this as a gift after I deleted his joke audio versions of real articles. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Tony, after I asked you to back off on your personal attacks on Bishonen, you have kept up your personalized attacks -- in the ArbCom workshop of all places [12] -- accusing her of "rabble rousing" and having a "malicious streak". Desist these attacks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that asking another editor in good standing to resign Wikipedia is pretty malicious. --Tony Sidaway 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not. You may believe it was the wrong thing to do, but your assumption of bad faith here is completely uncalled for. Tone it down. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Tony, For whatever it's worth, I don't believe that Bishonen was being malicious, or rabble rousing, or that she deliberately misread what you wrote. And if you did, then the correct place to deal with it is on her talk page[13]. OK, there's probably more people reading there than reading at the Arbcomm workshop, but that's not the point. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I've already said that I think it's just about credible that she misread what I wrote. I didn't like what she did to Kelly. I think someone has to say that it was unacceptable, and that has to be said on the workshop page of the arbitration in which those people have proposed a motion that Kelly be desysopped by the Committee. That is utterly beyond belief, it's just so twisted and ugly that I find it difficult to believe that the person who made that proposal is an experienced Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Then say on the workshop page that you believe Kelly is held to be in good standing by the majority of wikipedians, then go here and have the rest of the discussion there. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you do realise you're hurting people? Ben Aveling 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not hurting anyone. But I am, I'm now coming to realise, quite disturbed at the mindless and vindictive hounding and bullying of Kelly, and the blitheness with which it has been condoned. That is not the Wikipedia I joined, and it's time for me to go. --Tony Sidaway 08:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you are hurting people. I'm sorry about what happened with Kelly. I had my disagreements with her; I don't think she gave credit to people who wanted to contribute to Wikipedia in ways different to her own. But the final outcome was not good, and I don't think it was what anyone really wanted, and it doesn't have to be final. Perhaps there were people calling for her to go, but I think the main voices were calling for her to change certain attitudes. I guess that would have been harder for her to do than leaving was. Her decision doesn't have to be final, and it doesn't have to be your decision. This is not the wikipedia you joined, and you are not the same person who joined it. Both are older, and dare I guess larger? And just perhaps, wiser and more accomodating? Nothing happens here that cannot be repaired, except what happens in peoples' heads. All the best, Ben Aveling 08:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Kelly was hounded and bullied from English Wikipedia and I don't think it can hurt anybody if we face this truth. On reflection I don't think it would be right for me to leave permanently simply because I find this situation utterly outside my capacity to express disgust for. Those who deliberately played a part in that, and those who have gloated over it, even to the extent of proposing that she be formally desysopped, must reconcile that with their own putative commitment to the project.
We should perhaps try to live to understand why this act was perpetrated and what good those who harried Kelly thought they could achieve for the project by demanding that she give up what they had no right to ask that she give up. I'm doing some quiet, relatively anonymous work on another WikiMedia encyclopedia project. My commitment to the overall project is not diminished, but I think I'm seeing a very ugly thing in English Wikipedia politics and it would be best to let the discussion on that matter proceed without my laboring the point that we have, as a community, deliberately and maliciously driven off a great Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I find it astounding that you can, with a straight face, carry on about this "bullying." The blame for Kelly Martin being taken up on her double-dog dare can be laid at no one's feet but her own. - brenneman 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, if you said "Ask me to leave and I'll leave", I'd say "no, even though we have our differences I have always valued your contribution to the project." And I'd mean it. It might suit my peace of mind if you wandered off, but it would not be good for Wikipedia, So I think it's reasonable to ask why this was done. I do know that Kelly was looking for a way out of the project, but that's a different matter from someone taking her up on it. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, if you can believe I'm not a troll for long enough to read this message instead of just removing it, I have an answer to your question. 1) Nobody that I know of asked her to leave. They (well, I- I was one of them) took her up on her offer to resign adminship and whatever other privileges she has. There is a difference here. 2) As to why anyone would do this, well, it's because the people who asked her to give up those rights thought the project was better off without having her in those positions. I believed this then, and still do today. Friday (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You have been misled. See Kelly's talk page. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not trying to be dense, but I have no idea what you mean. If you mean that some people did ask her to leave, sure, that's possible- it's just not people that I'm aware of. If you mean I'm misled about the project being better off without her as (for example) an admin, well, that's a matter of opinion, certainly, and I could be wrong about it. For what it's worth, I'm basing that particular opinion of mine on her own editing behavior, not something else. Friday (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Please look at the discussion on Kelly's talk page, and interpret what I have said (You have been misled. See Kelly's talk page.) solely on the basis of the statements it contains that contradict the misstatements that you have mistakenly made here. Kelly acted stupidly, Bishonen and others for reasons I don't think I'll ever understand took her up on that. The project has been harmed by this. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I also am having difficuty parsing your statements. Are you saying that somewhere in the conversation you've linked someone asked Kelly to leave? I don't see that. - brenneman {L}

[edit] Your opinion, please

Hi! We welcome your opinion, or participation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines where we are attempting to develop useful guidelines to help solve a variety of problems. Atom 15:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We don't give praise often enough

BTW, Congratulations on your decision to give up the clerkship. It was a couragous and correct decision, and I'm sure it was the right one and I'm sure it was hard. I hope I would have the courage to make the same decision if I were in the same position. Cheers, Ben Aveling 08:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to resign by the committee. I was happy to do so, but I think I was a great clerk, and the standards I brought to the task have paved the way for the continuation of the clerk caste. But appointing a controversial admin to the position of clerk is not a good idea. I was fair, and always recused where there was the slightest suggestion of involvement, but I led a dual life. We need anonymous, faceless clerks. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"anonymous, faceless clerks" Do I qualify for this phrase? FloNight 00:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Come back in six months time and we can talk about it. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Did I start something here? Flo, as far as I'm concerned, clerk is the sort of job where if you're doing the job, and no-one notices that you're doing it, then you're probably doing it right. Tony, I think you should have said "low profile". And I repeat, Tony, congratulations on deciding to take the committee's request well. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries Ben Aveling. I remarked because I found the comment interesting. If I didn't like what he said likely you would never know because I would tell him in private. Take care, FloNight 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't take full responsibility for "anonymous, faceless". I think it's from someone else, possibly an arbitrator. We do badly need quietly competent people rather than attention-getting divas. --Tony Sidaway 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
You have to take some responsibility. They may not have been your words originally, but you were playing with them. Tony, I'm sorry if I'm hard on you sometimes. It's just that I know you can be a more effective contributor. Regads, Ben Aveling 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ben, I think you should probably look very closely at recent edits by Fred Bauder. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tony, Fred has about 50 edits in the 24 hours prior to your statement. There was the bad-taste comment about the yellow star, and his opinion that you are a bit trollable. If that's not what you're refering to, can you give me a clue? In case you don't want to do so publically I'll enable email, probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I felt that his comments about the trolling were right on the money. I have been aware of trolling on Wikipedia for a good long time now, but also painfully aware that I do not have an effective strategy for dealing with it. Nevertheless I find it difficult to avoid doing something. --Tony Sidaway 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A couple of options that work well for me: ask someone else for their opinion (me, if you like); take a walk before you respond; ask a question before stating your position; state your position without explaining why. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I inadvertently removed one of your comments, FloNight. Looks like it might have been some kind of edit conflict. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you acted with good grace but overall the whole thing sucks. Can anybody pretend that they did not know up front that you are a policy wonk and intolerant of process for its own sake? I'm not getting drawn into the Carnildo thing, but I saw not one example of you making an inappropriate comment as clerk. Maybe I wasn't looking hard anough. Whatever, fuck 'em. The day an admin - or any committed Wikipeidan - can't do what they think is right will be a sad day indeed. Guy 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-desysop

I've requested desysopping [14]. The issue is my judgement. I believe I have very good judgement; others disagree. Therefore my judgement is very poor. A person with poor judgement should not be a sysop. --Tony Sidaway 00:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposing that others disagree with a person's judgement, that does not entail that the person's judgement is poor. —Centrx→talk • 00:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's true. However when they disagree with his self-evaluation, and that self-evaluation is based on hundreds of cases carefully examined, then it follows that his self-evaluation is seriously faulty. This isn't me disagreeing with the consensus view on whether such and such an article should be deleted. This is my perceptions on a very broad range of matters being severely divergent. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


I think that this was more of a passive-aggressive thing.Voice-of-All 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I will leave it for User:Voice of All to explain his/her comment. For my part, I view this development with mixed emotions. I do think that Tony has had a lot of negative effect on Wikipedia through his inflammatory and abrasive edits and edit summaries. I did not like the way he conducted himself in the post-Carnildo RFA debate although it's clear that he was not the worst offender and that there were several who crossed the line into incivility and disruptiveness.
All the above notwithstanding, it's equally clear that he has helped the project immensely through his work as an admin and as ArbCom clerk. I think it is unfortunate that Tony has chosen to request desysopping rather than resolving to change his editing style so as to be less disruptive. In the end, we lose a valued contributor to the project and this is not a good thing. --Richard 01:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather him stay as an admin. However, the "others disagree" obviously applies to any opinion by anyone usually, so I see doubt that Tony's above statement is earnest in that sense. It seems more written out of annoyance than calm reason. Either way I don't think desysopping is needed.Voice-of-All 01:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, Tony's second reply makes more sense. Still though, I'd rather seek discussion about these topics rather than desysop. It seems in the interest of the project to keep the sysop rights, Tony.Voice-of-All 01:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, it could be read as annoyance by someone who doesn't know me well. No, it's my honest view. I think my self-assessment is so wildly divergent from the general view that it cannot possibly be correct. Therefore my judgement is very poor. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
So you believed you could foresee things well enough to steer Wikipedia through its controversies. So you might have been wrong about that. That doesn't mean you can't be a little less ambitious, it doesn't mean you can't help Wikipedia by doing... you know... normal admin stuff. --Interiot 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The few things that I did with my bit were the things I thought needed to be done. We have plenty of sysops who can do the mundane stuff. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony! I want to thank you for making a responsible decision. That you found this a proper resolution to these controversies is a finding which I respect. I know that I have been among your critics (perhaps the most vocal), though I will say that there are some qualities you possess which I appreciate: dedication to the encyclopedia, fair open-mindedness about new contributors, and not seeking retaliation against your critics. Hope to still see you around as a regular editor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony - I don't want to rub salt into any wounds, but I just wanted to say that I think this is the right decision, at least for the time being. I agree that your judgements (and self-judgements) often seem to be quite far away from many other admins and editors. Please take the time to reflect, and I hope you will come back as a new, invigorated admin and editor, just with a slightly more collegiate, and less confrontational, working style.

For what it is worth, I have seen nothing but praise for your clerking activities, but I think your activities as an admin unfortunately led to some confusion between the two roles. If you would like to carry on, perhaps ArbCom might like to accept you back as a clerk now that the admining will not get in the way. Alternatively, perhaps it is time to edit some articles in mainspace? Falling is not entirely finished, to my eyes. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It does miss one of the most popular places to fall... Regards, Ben Aveling :-) 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, as you know, we've had our differences in the past, but I'm personally sorry to see you make such a decision. You must do what you think is right. If/when you reconsider, you have my support. Best wishes, Jakew 10:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I was talking to you in #wikipedia last night/early hours of this morning about this decision. I think personally, that the way you and Kelly Martin were treated as Admins within WP is disgraceful. The fact that a community votes to pick admins and then disagrees with them to the point of practically forcing someone out of a post is wrong. I know it happens itrw, but even so, it sucks, and it sucks big time. If this is truely what you want, then no-one on here can stop you. But as I said in channel last night, I have had dealings with you in the past and found you to be fair and professional. You don't screw someone for doing their job.
Please reconsider this before you do a lemming, we don't throw talent away on Wikipedia without a fight. Thor Malmjursson 10:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC) In Crisis
I don't think that Tony voluntarily surrendering the sysop bit is going to improve anything. It might give him more time to actually build the encyclopaedia - I'm not the only admin to actively consider setting up a role account to allow actal editing without the distractions of adminship - but it won't fix the fact that, fundamentally, Tony is usually right. We do get things wrong, a lot of the time, and sometimes (often) "fuck process" is precisely the right response. All that is going to happen is that the process wonks are going to have one less target, there will be one fewer admins who think first about what is good for the encyclopaedia and a poor second about jumping through hoops and arbitrary demands for shrubberies. There are plenty of examples where Tony has been aggressively trolled by drama queens, but very few where he has acted harshly towards genuinely valuable contributors. Even SPUI, a serial disruptor in and among his many good edits, has been treated with courtesy and patience by Tony, which is more than I could manage. Guy 11:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In my assessment this self-desysop shall harm the larger interest of wikipedia as we shall be losing the services of a good administrator. I would request Tony to please reconsider his decision. --Bhadani 11:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
~125 admin actions a month? we will get by.Geni 10:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Whilst I have my own personal take on events, it is so preposterous that it must be wrong. My advice may often be of some use to third parties in possession of the requisite buttons and bits. If so, they must seek it out and act themselves, rather than depend upon me to perform the actions on their behalf. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I (as with Guy and Bhadani) judge your de-sysopping to be of great loss to Wikipedia. Whilst I haven't always agreed with you, I have usually judged you actions and views to be correct. I believe my judgement of you is a very good judgement, I believe I am a good judge of what is good for Wikipedia; others seemingly strongly disagree (even apparently you). Is my judgement therefore that poor? Should I, with such poor judgement of what is good for Wikipedia, continue to be a sysop?--Doc 13:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sadly some people are finding my self-desysopping "worrying" for other reasons. I think I should clarify here that I don't expect my view on my fitness to use a bit change. I do not intend to ask for it back. I do not intend to apply on Requests for adminship. My edits are just as persuasive whether I make them with or without a sysop bit, for the most part. In certain circumstances I think they may be more persuasive without. --Tony Sidaway 13:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was you having the sysop bit that was troubling to some users, but rather when your descision to use it was sometimes troubling. I respect your descision though. Moe Epsilon 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I respect your decision, Tony, but this isn't what I wanted either. Newyorkbrad 22:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's never been a badge, it was a tool. If your tool is broken you stop using it. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A from-the-sidelines comment: this is the right course of action. I have noticed, if only from my watchlist, the debates your recent editing has caused. They have not aided the encylcopedia IMO, because too many of them have simply caused wasted talk time regardless of intent. I don't doubt that you mean it (on inclusionism, on RfA procedure, on userboxes, on user blocks, on anything). Agree on some, disagree on others, and I do recall defending your editing once upon a time. But too much time has been spent by too many editors regarding User:Tony Sidaway and related over the last three weeks.
This is from the sidelines (except for a brief comment at RfA front matter, which you might remember) precisely because I think these user-specific boondoggles are a problem with Wiki and participating in them only validates them. Your voluntary desysop request, and your stated reasoning, strikes me as a fair acknowledgement of these problems. And, to state what's been stated above, the main space is sitting there: a vast field waiting for seeds. You can still contribute. You may find, without the glare, that Wikipedia is a more rewarding place when you're putzing about the articles and categories you happen to enjoy, rather than engaging in talk discussions constantly. Marskell 23:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You and Kelly Martin have protected wikipedia from attempts at control by the church of scientology. Now with both of you gone, this is a black omen. Anomo 17:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If I ever did, it was a pure coincidence. I was never aware of any serious and concerted attempts by the church of scientology to control Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey tony

Saw you had some references to some permissions areticles on meta. I'm trying to protect pages and allow access to them to a new group but I don't seem to be making it work. I've followed the instructions at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protect and everything as far as that seems to be i order. i used the group 'bank' and have added the following to my LocalSettings

$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['move']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['read']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['edit']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['createpage']      = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['createtalk']      = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['upload']          = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['reupload']        = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['reupload-shared'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['minoredit']       = true;
$wgRestrictionLevels[] = 'bank';
$wgGroupPermissions['bank']['protect']         = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank']['editinterface']   = true;

but members of the'bank' group don't seem to be able to edit the page when it is protected and delegated to the 'bank' group please send me an e-mail at mrgenixus@gmail.com if you can help me. \ Thanks, Ben West

This section is ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) This section is ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey page

Hi noticed you have the page locked - fully understand but I have some real edits to add - can add to the legality of keeping monkeys (I can add the UK perspective where a change in the law is being campaigned for to make it harder to keep them)

Also the Links there is the Monkey Sanctuary in Looe Cornwall which is doing international work on rescuing pet monkeys and the rehabilitation of pet monkeys and teaching them to handle social groups. They've been going since the 1960s and have a socially and behaviourally stable colony of wooly monkeys and are rehabilitating Capuchin monkeys rescued from homes in the UK.

The other section I wanted to add to was the section on keeping monkeys as pets - implication of keeping an animal used to large group social interaction into a household of two or three other individuals. Social Heirarchy alterations in adolescence and early adulthood particularly for males.

Thanks

  Andy
That page has been semi-protected by User:Centrx. You can request unprotection of the article on Requests for page protection. Alternatively registering an account an waiting a few days will enable you to edit any semiprotected article. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subverting community consensus

After reading the exchange higher above on this page between Tony and Xoloz, I am confused. Tony wrote "an attempt, successful for the moment, by a small group to subvert the community consensus for its own ends". These words sound to me something that Giano et al. would write about the b'crats and ArbCom. I have no understanding of what it means when Tony writes it. Tony, please explain for my enlightenment, what the succesful attempt to subvert community consensus is from your perspective.

--Richard 03:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply describing what happened: the bureaucrats declared a decision, based on prevailing consensus, which they fully explained, and a small number of protesters successfully parleyed it up into a "revolt" of sorts. No harm done, but a lesson to be learned in managing personal grievances so they don't become political footballs as in this case. --Tony Sidaway 02:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hang tough.

I just blocked some troll that I suspect is Wiki brah and who was gloating over bringing him back. What an idiot. He seemed especially pleased that you were going through hell. Hang in there, bro. You are one of the good ones. - Lucky 6.9 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going through hell, though he could be excused for thinking I am. :)
Thanks for the nice words. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgement

Tony,

You turned in your bit because you were forced to conclude that your judgement was unreliable. Or something like that, right? So why are you still holding forth on the ArbCom pages, and still presenting your opinions as truths? You admit your views are suspect, and they are clearly inflammatory... what is your goal? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am representing my opinions as my opinions. If they are incorrect then they can be safely ignored. I don't think they are in the least bit inflammatory; my goal is to represent my opinions as faithfully as I possibly can. Only by airing all reasonable opinions can we reach consensus. Please ignore my opinion if you consider it to be incorrect. I do not. I honestly believe it to be a true representation of what has happened. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've always found your opinions food for thought. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sixth Party System

[edit] Sixth Party System

Sixth Party System was an article regarding the U.S. Party Systems, from the nations founding until today. It was deleted, leaving it the only missing piece from the 1st thru the 7th Party Systems.

The Seventh Party System recently survived an AfD. It is illogical to delete a previous party system, leaving an inconsistancy between the First Party System and the Seventh Party System.

Please excuse me if my formatting of this request is somewhat inconsistant. I'm not a habitual undelete requester (in fact this is my first :-) Thank You Joseph 19:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry that I can't help with your undeletion request. I recently asked for my sysop bit to be removed. Please ask for help from someone else in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. --Tony Sidaway 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It was in fact deleted through WP:PROD. Since I see a request here to keep the article, I have gone ahead and undeleted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trusted people

Copied from User_talk:Xoloz#Trusted_people

You write: How can Wikipedia have a fixed apparatus against which to campaign. We aren't a bureaucracy, are we?

It's not a bureaucracy, but important functions are carried out only by trusted people chosen by the community for that function, most notably administrators, bureaucrats and arbitrators. The community decides how that works; it is decided by discussion, not decided by a small section of the community wielding a big stick. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

End copied section

Hi,

I agree with your comment whole-heartedly, especially, "The community decides how that works; it is decided by discussion, not decided by a small section of the community wielding a big stick." I believe "the insurrectionists" argued the bureaucrats (and yourself, Ms. Martin, and other persons supporting them) were "a small section of the community wielding a big stick." We have here a harmony of principle, and a diametrically opposed application of that principle by two groups.

Note, of course, that I am not an insurrectionist: I supported the re-sysopping, and only registered polite objections regarding the method under which it was carried out. I do have sympathy, though, for the notion that certain users -- "a small section of the community wielding a big stick" -- have a history of acting impolitely. I once called these users "elite" at the Userbox RfC, you may remember, and did include you among them. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My own part in this (and Kelly's) was quite inconsequential. To describe the community's selected representatives (the bureaucrats and the arbitrators) as "a small section of the community wielding a big stick" is simply a deliberately perverse bit of rhetoric. And yes, you have repeatedly made disgraceful and false charges similar to those made by the those who have provoked the recent coup. That is not something to be proud of. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
"disgraceful and false" charges? You now deny you have acted incivilly? I'm genuinely surprised, as I have been impressed with your humility of late. It is sad that you cannot see how your conduct, even as far back as last year, led to this tempest. What you call a "deliberately perverse bit of rhetoric" is my restatement of how I took Geogre's claims. I have no quarrel with the bureaucrats, only with the manners of some supporting them. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Stick to the subject. Don't try to focus on personalities when the issue I raised concerns an attempt, successful for the moment, by a small group to subvert the community consensus for its own ends. If this is merely your way of engaging in some bizarre and indefensible bit of personal attack, then stop wasting your time. --Tony Sidaway 02:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony, first I'd ask that you cease using language such as "coup." It's inflammatory and unnecessary. But apart from that, I'm struggling to make sense of the above exchange. It appears to start off with an agreement: That Wikipedia operates best when consensus and discourse are used to solve problems. Then things go off the fails...
I realise that my attempts to communicate are often interpreted as needling. I am, however, genuinely trying to make some headway. These are straight-forward questions, with no other agenda attached:
  • What disgraceful and false charges has Xoloz made? (Diffs are the best way to answer this one.)
  • What community consensus has been subverted?
  • What is the "big stick" that this unnamed group wields?
This almost certainly will be relegated to the bucket of a "Xoloz and brenneman tag-team" or even "kicking someone when they are down" by some members of the community. It will be an abondanment of good faith on their part, but an understandable one. I have made several public statements about lack of good faith on your part, but I recant those without prevarication.
I simply want to understand.
brenneman {L} 04:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Tony, stop digging. Aaron, get the fuck off this page - you can't possibly help here.--Doc 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
That incivility was uncalled for Doc. — Moe 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it was totally called for. Ask Aaron, I strongly suspect he will agree.--Doc 21:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc. This is one of those situations where the noisemakers are best ignored. --Tony Sidaway 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Or, alternatively, another example of the sort of attitude which got you into this mess in the first place. People who disagree with you are not 'noisemakers', 'boils', or whatever other pejorative you choose to come up with today. Nor are those who agree with you exempt from WP:CIVIL. Cynical 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be another way of looking at it. Not one that I find particularly useful (there comes a point at which repetition of the same question long after it has been answered becomes "noisemaking"). The criticism might also be more apposite if it didn't come with a repetition of the false implication that I have ever referred to anyone as a "boil". It would also have helped had you not used the canard phrase "people who disagree with you." It's a bit of a giveaway, indicating that you don't intend to engage in discussion but to deliberately and perversely misread my words. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re [15]

Speedy deletions are ordinarily performed on pages which meet some CSD. Wikipedia:Process is Important does not meet any CSD; hence, its speedy deletion did not conform to the ordinary deletion process, which would have been an MFD nomination. Perhaps this situation demonstrates that process is important :) John254 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you would draw such a conclusion from the sequence of events. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This section is ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_Archive_2006_10_14_03f7.html"