User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2007 02 09
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hi Tony
I just saw this and I am sorry you found my edit ridiculous, tricky, intrusive and utterly pathetic. I had no idea your opinion on coded signatures was so strong to bring you to that point. All others around seem to like it, and respect my comments and contributions, as I chose to respect the WP:SIG guideline (well, to the limit, that is). For more details in the history of my sig, I'll refer you to this subpage. Please also notice that I have contributed in shortening several long coded signatures of other users in my signature shop. Other than that, I'll be using my simple and dull username when you're around. PS. Feel free to visit my shop for a siggy too! :-) NikoSilver 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pre-query on RFA
Another admin has asked if I want to stand for an RfA diff. I am presoliciting your opinion. While months ago, I think the heated debate that we were both involved in during the formation of Wikipedia:T1 and T2 debates is one of the top three conflicts I've been involved in here at Wikipedia. I therefore solicit your opinion particularly in the area of dispute handling. The most recent significant dispute was probably one about the article Kyra Phillips, where the records on my talk (a portion of all of them) are archived at User talk:GRBerry/Archive 2#Kyra Phillips and the immediately following section of that page. GRBerry 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GreekWarrior
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
GreekWarrior is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. Following any ban GreekWarrior is placed on probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period should he engage in disruptive behavior. All blocks or bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GreekWarrior#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 08:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Babur
You protected this page in July. I am unable to edit this page. I cannot revert vandalism by 134.173.173.18 to earlier version. Any help is appreciated. Siddiqui 21:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alberto Fujimori
As you can see [1] [2], someone is now making political speeches and intimidating other users by stating that his POV is the correct. I'm letting you know about this, and urging you to stop this POV pusher from further actions. Messhermit 21:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not only that: compare the language that he enjoys to use with a previous attempt from my part to moderate his zealot and irrational behavior [3]. Doesn't this proves that he has a political agenda? Messhermit 21:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reliable Sources
Tony, can you kindly tell me if Salon.com qualifies as a reputable or reliable source as per WP:BLP & WP:RS? Salon.com is an internet "magazine" that does not publish a newspaper, magazine, or anything else in harcopy form. On the Sathya Sai Baba article there are numerous mentions to Michelle Goldberg's article entitled "Untouchable?". Needless to say, this article has only been published on Salon.com and has never been published in reputable media newspapers, magazines or the like. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information about Sathya Sai Baba, how can it be used as a reputable or reliabe source when it has never been published in hardcopy form by reputable media? It is only available on the internet as an online article. To me, this appears to violate WP:BLP & WP:RS. Thank you. SSS108 talk-email 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alienus again
Could you semi-protect the articles Yaron Brook, Leonard Peikoff, and Randroid? Alienus is currently attacking those pages. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 18:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Andries reinsertion of critical website
Tony, Andries is once again reinserting Robert Priddy's critical and negative website against Sathya Sai Baba on Priddy's wiki-page: Ref. SSS108 talk-email 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Retrieval request
Can you retreive the contents of the page "DUMBA" deleted on 11/30/2006. Some admins tried to paste the contents of the page onto my Talk page, but the did not get the complete version (which was several paragraphs long when it was deleted on 11/30/2006), they got an earlier version.
Thanks for any assistance. Jasonfb 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carmel College, St Helens
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Carmel College, St Helens, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Carmel College, St Helens. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Slowking Man 10:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blushes Magazine
Tony - saw the entry for the above magazine. I am trying to locate information on the person behind the venture: Alan Bell, do you have any information other than the fact that the gentleman has since passed away? User:Steve bloomer
- No idea. It was just one of those thing you saw from time to time in newsagents--I looked at a copy once, wondering what the term "blushes" could refer to. I think I added the encyclopedia entry for completeness, entering stuff I'd obtained from a google search as a starter, but there seems to be scant available information on the title. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] user:Terryeo is indefinitely blocked
Tony, you may recall the problems I had with Terryeo. Well, he is gone from wikipedia for a while Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. He really was creating problems with other editors. I hope you see this now. --Fahrenheit451 02:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I never doubted this. The link you have just cited shows that I blocked him twice under his probation--the highest number of recorded blocks on that block log. --82.18.13.80 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC) (Tony Sidaway)
[edit] user:AndriesViolating ArbCom Ruling
Tony, since you warned Andries about not including the link attacking Sathya Sai Baba on Robert Priddy's wiki-page, he has re-added the link 5 times and said that the will continue to do so. No one seems willing to do anything about this and I am personally getting tired of dealing with this issue when neither ArbCom or Admin are willing to even so much as comment on it. What am I supposed to now? See my complaint (refiled for the second time): Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Robert_Priddy_-_this_section_moved_here_from_WP:AIV SSS108 talk-email 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- To summarize my view on this matter. Not linking to Robert Priddy's homepage in his own article contradicts generally accepted Wikipedia practices. It would be similar to not linking to Michael Moore's homepage because it is libellous of George W. Bush. See Talk:Michael_Moore#Violation_of_WP:BLP. Ãnyway, due to the fact that my request for clarification on this matter was ignored by the arbcom, SSS108 and I now have a dispute about the question how to proceed with dispute resolution. Andries 17:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Robert Priddy's homepage is already listed on his Wiki-page. The link that Andries wants to incude is one of 3 Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites run by Priddy. Priddy's life history, schooling, personal writings, poems, jokes, essay's, etc., are all located on the link that is currently on his Wiki-page. Andries' interest in including the Anti-Sai link on Priddy's page is not being argued from a NPOV or concern over right or wrong. He is making his arguments to push his Anti-Sai POV due his former webmaster status and current "Main Representative, Sueprvisor and Contact" status on the largest Anti-Sai Site on the internet. SSS108 talk-email 16:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not link to Priddy's homepage critical of Sathya Sai Baba. His website critical of SSB fits the Wikipedia definition of homepage and hence should be linked to according to WP:EL. If Priddy is notable then it is because of his writings critical of Sathya Sai Baba. As if we can link to anything in the article Michael Moore except the homepage of Moore that is critical of George W. Bush. Absurd. Andries 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Not when there is an ArbCom decision in force. Also, an editor is willing to mediate. Since you appeared to be willing to mediate this dispute, please agree Here. SSS108 talk-email 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fear!
"Seems to lack fear"?! I like that -- but I'm not quite sure what you mean! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I mean that you seem to lack fear: that is to say, your behavior on Wikipedia suggests to me that you are not unduly influenced by fear. --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Priddy
User:SSS108 is giving you as key witness for a rather creative and IMHO totally misguided interpretation of the ArbCom ruling re Sathya Sai Baba. Please see my arguments at [[4]]. I've also brought the issue to [5]. --Pjacobi 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mentorship
Hi, I have run into a few conflicts lately and I'm thinking I could use a mentor to help me progress as a user. You were recommended in the discussion, User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Mentorship. Are you interested? Alan.ca 03:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I regret that I do not have enough spare time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment. I wish you good fortune in finding a suitable mentor; perhaps an editor who has worked on mediating disputes might be suitable. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Zeq probation violation
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Zeq_disruption_in_violation_of_probation --70.48.71.15 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I don't normally use profanity on-wiki...
But fuck me gently, nice to see that the self-imposed exile from this account has ended.
I checked you contributions as I intended linking them to a note on Cyde's talk. Just go read it and pretend I sent you the same one, ok?
brenneman 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
PS - I bloody hate the archive bot. It seems to me it strips away a layer of information on the user. Look at this naked page, bare of the scent of Sidaway. What are the advantages of it again?
- I didn't exile myself from Wikipedia; I was (and still expect to be to a certain extent) simply far too busy because of work commitments. If you check my page header you will see that all archived edits are accessible; the history feature also stores all edits on the page. While I was busy on Wikipedia this page would often fill up very quickly and the archive bot was the only easy way to handle the mass of information. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comment
I have responded to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard here [6]. If you want all this dragged up yet again, believe me, that will be no problem. I am determined to see this through to the end, no matter how bitter and nasty it may be, the truth is already now in the open and recognised as such, so your words on the subject are rather hollow. The day that some of the occupants of the admin channel decided to have me blocked, was indeed a very bad day for channel - because it is now of no consequence or creditability, in fact many now regard it as a joke. Giano 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I say again, you're a fantasist and it's unfortunate that some people have taken your wild fantasies seriously. As long as you comply with Wikipedia policy, however, I'll be happy. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well you have called me far worse than a fantasist, just more of the insults we have all come to expect. Sadly for you, you are becoming increasingly alone in your belief of me, in fact it is not a belief is it? for you know the truth very well, I'm not quite sure what that makes you. Not that really matters to anyone what you are, or do, or do not, beleive these days. Take care. Giano 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] About Licorne
Thank you a thousand time. Now he vandalizes the french wikipédia, and thanks to you and the Arbitration Committee we have learn which king of guy he is. Barraki 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please
Please stop responding to and making comments concerning Giano. Your comments are just as uncivil as you perceive his to be, and at this point the whole mess is simply becoming disruptive. I'm not sure whatever happened to WP:NPA and Comment on content, not on contributors, so I am firmly requesting that you follow suit and stop escalating this mess further. Thank you. Cowman109 22:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have restricted my recent responses to refutations of his false and very damaging accusations. I will avoid even doing that from now on. --Tony Sidaway 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Tony. I read the postings on this matter regarding Giano and I think you are wrong targeting this guy, like you did me when the now banned user Terryeo clearly and repeatedly taunted and provoked me, and you blocked me. The only time that I was ever blocked. You ran a coercive "you agree with wikipedia policy?" crap on me and I played your game to get unblocked. I was hoping that you have reformed over time. You need to do some soul searching.--Fahrenheit451 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think I did the right thing with you. You had continued to launch personal attacks on another editor despite being warned repeatedly. To see that you were not sincere in your agreement to conform to Wikipedia policy is saddening. I assumed good faith and as you have now admitted that you were simply "playing along", this was obviously an error. Giano must also conform to Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You got it wrong again, Tony. You were irresponsible about not dealing with Terryeo, the "other editor" who you pointedly fail to mention. I do not think you assume good faith at all. I agreed with wikipedia policy before your coercive arm twisting. It looks to me that you are on some sort of strange self-serving power trip. You must also conform to wikipedia policy. I don't think you are going to be an admin for long. I am on to your game.--Fahrenheit451 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just found this: [7] So, you are no longer an admin. --Fahrenheit451 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again, baiting is not on. Please refrain from doing so. Moreschi Deletion! 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No baiting. Please refrain from falsely accusing me of that. --Fahrenheit451 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's simply incorrect to state that I was "irresponsible about not dealing with Terryeo," Examination of Terryeo's block log shows that I blocked him three times, and was responsible for more blocks of Terryeo than any other editor, and that in all he was blocked by me for total of 16 days over a period of slightly less than two months. I also dealt compendiously and detail with Fahrenheit457's attacks and provocative edits directed at Terryeo. The one did not excuse the other. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
True that you blocked him, but you falsely accused me of "provocative edits" which is nonsense. My alleged "attacks" were responses to Terryeo's attacks and provocation. I think you should take a look that you could have wrong targeted me. --Fahrenheit451 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pot and kettle
Tony, sorry for chiming in. We may have different opinions of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, what degree of incivility constitutes a blockable offense as well as what constitutes frivolous invoking of these policies as a weapon to shut down the dissent, but in any event with your own record of behavior you are the last person to talk civility and personal attacks. Please desist. --Irpen 15:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to differ on that. I've no idea what I've said to upset you, but never mind. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does Irpen "have to agree to differ on that"? He does not have to do anything for you. You seem to upset lots of editors. Do you enjoy it?--Fahrenheit451 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Baiting of this sort is unacceptable. Please stop it. Moreschi Deletion! 14:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop falsely accusing me of that. --Fahrenheit451 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] War of the Pacific and Tacna Region
I'm currently writing to you because I am having troubles once again with User:Bdean1963, one of the parties involved in the previous Alberto Fujimori dispute. I voluntarily retired from Wikipedia for a couple of months due to College activities, and as soon as I get back this user is once again making my Wikipedia experience something not pleasant at all. Once again there was a massive RV War between the two of us and I actually have to request Wikipedia to protect the pages. Unfortunately, the fact that Bdean was camping the whole day allowed him to get the article protected while his POV was present in the articles. I can't fight against that, because it was a matter of pure luck, but I don't like his attitude at all. Messhermit 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that it's current behavior towards my person is unacceptable, with derogatory terms against my editions and my person: "[Messhermit] remedial understanding of scholarship"[8], "[Bdean1963] recommend Wikipideians review User:Messhermit’s poor record of editing Wikipedia."[9] (to name a few of his most recent attacks). Every single time that I edit something that he doesn't like, he immediately adds something similar to this: "rv edits by User:Messhermit who has been banned from editing other Wiki essays associated with Peru" [10]. Is this treatment fair? It is more than clear that Bdean has turned this into something personal. Messhermit 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I don't know what to do and what not, since he apparently gets away with whatever he does, keeping this authoritarian approach. I'm asking you to guide me here because I believe that I have not done anything that goes against the main ideas of Wikipedia and because I feel that my rights as a Wikipedian are being disregarded by someone that only knows how to destroy, but not contribute. You banned me because of the way of how I handled something, not because of my editions. Unless you clarify the reasons of my banning to this person, he will not stop. He got away unpunished that time, and he doesn't miss a single chance to shovel it in my face. Messhermit 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I will be waiting for your answer and I would appreciate any suggestion that you may have. Please do it as soon as possible. Thanks. Messhermit 02:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I moved your ArbCom "statement" back with the other statements.
Hi Tony. I moved your ArbCom "statement" back with the other statements, on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC. That talk page is not just for arbs, anyone can make comments there, so I think that is the correct place for your comments. Paul August ☎ 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is obviously intended as a response to a specific arbitration proposal. I've removed it from the page to which it was moved. I've no objection to its removal from other places, but it definitely doesn't belong where it has been placed. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok that's fine with me. Paul August ☎ 20:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Messhermit
User:Messhermit is on probation, and "may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator." He has also been banned for one year "from editing articles which relate to the conflict between Peru and Ecuador." (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit). Messhermit has moved on from disrupting pages related to the conflict between the war in Peru and Ecuador to disrupting pages related to the war between Peru and Chile. (See [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. I do not know if it would be appropriate to ban Messhermit from editing pages related to the war between Peru and Chile, but you might want to look into it. --Descendall 17:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no longer involved in resolving issues arising from arbitration cases. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- This issue can be brought to the Arbitration Enforcement page if you believe it requires current administrator attention. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
