User talk:Tony Sidaway/Werdnabot archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 A bot of yours? 2 Elephant's graveyard 3 Talk Page Archival 4 probation 5 Horizon 6 Brandt RfAr case 7 Arbitration clerking 8 John Bambenek 9 "Troll" 10 Scoobies? 11 Dubya vandalism page 12 Clarification for the paranoid 13 Response to your recent comment at RFArb 14 Thanks

[edit] A bot of yours?

Hello Tony. I was recently looking over the new user logs and saw this. I've seen people spoof as a bot of yours before, so I just wanted to check with you about it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another administrator looked it over and blocked the fake bot. Sorry for rushing to this page without reading the current notice at the top :P. I'll email next time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I was coming to ask the same thing. The question is now how to fix those moves? Where was the original page located? Hbdragon88 23:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the fake bot was simply creating new pages and redirecting the pre-existing ones to them. Pgk took care of most of them.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant's graveyard

Hi Toni, a felt half-eternity ago, you made this change to the article Elephant's graveyard, mentioning Rupert Sheldrake explaining the truth behind the myth. I wonder whether you may still have the reference for the change. On one hand, I would just be curious to learn more, on the other hand, I haven't found much on Sheldrake and the Elephant's graveyard so far. While I know that Sheldrake has also published something on elephants (their ability to cry or so), at least google links elephants and the topic of the legendary graveyards more to David Sheldrick, Kenian Tsavo National Park founder and animal researcher. Can you help me out? Thanks, Ibn Battuta 08:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the edit, or why I made it. I think it should probably be removed. There is also a reference in the article Elephant, but it seems to be later than mine. Perhaps you should query it there first. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page Archival

Sorry if this sounds mean, but you forgot to add this to your Archive template: User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2007_02_09. Once again, I'm sorry if this sounds mean. I'm just letting you know about this. Toonmon2005 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Not at all mean. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope that you have a pleasant weekend:). Toonmon2005 01:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] probation

User:Karl Meier is, as you know, currently on probation after it was found that he edit wars extensively across a series of articles, including Islamophobia. i believe his recent behaviour is unfortunately a resumption of what got him on probation in the first place. i thought it appropriate to notify you as you were previously involved in enforcing the ArbCom rulings in this case. regards, ITAQALLAH 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Do note that Karl Meier appears to be plagued by an anon IP editor who is likely Wikistalking him. This has occured with Karl before. (→Netscott) 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm not involved in enforcement at the moment. There are a few people around who might see themselves as having reasons to bug Karl with the intention of provoking him, and examination of the arbitration cases he has been involved in would reveal likely suspects. --Tony Sidaway 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizon

Are you sure about taking out the reference to The Register? It seemed to me to be quite usefuln and appropriate, but then I suppose I do read El Reg so I may be biased. It does convey the point about dumbing down and sensationalism reasonably well. But if another reference is better, wouldn't it be better to leave the ref. to The Register in until a better one can be found? Davy p 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A wiki-edit asserting "there must be something better than this" is not helpful. If you think there "must be" something better, go find it. (I've contributed to the page, as an ex-Producer of Horizon, but the Reg ref wasn't mine). El Ingles 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but really is The Register the best we can do? I removed it because I don't think it's acceptable as a reliable source. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. See talk:Horizon (TV series). Fourohfour 12:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to believe that we need reliable sources for this, and while such sources are abundantly available we shouldn't be using silly ones like The Register, which is basically no more or less than a blog. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you think of "The Register", it's not a blog. Period. It's a news site (albeit with a somewhat mischievous style on occasion), and a well-known one at that.

Whilst there are cases were it could be argued that The Register was an inappropriate reference, this is not one of them. Fourohfour 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandt RfAr case

Tony: I saw your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war/Proposed decision. FYI, the procedure we have been using is to leave the arbitrators' votes and comments on the /Proposed decision page, and to substitute the final vote totals when the decision is copied onto the main case page. Am I overlooking something, or is there a reason we should use a different procedure here? Please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That edit was an error and I reverted it tried to revert it at once. I had been editing the proposed decision in situ and forgot to copy it to the final decision before closing the edit. I think the rest of my close is accurate. I've asked some people to check it for me, and Proto has now replied confirming the numbers. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I thought with your prior experience you might have had something specific in mind. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, we've been posting decisions to the new community noticeboard (WP:CN) as well as AN and AER. Newyorkbrad 21:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in favor of extreme parsimony in these matters (one chap once tried to have the clerks update all kinds of secondary lists of banned users, users on probation, etc, when the task is already time-consuming and exacting enough). But if you decided that this should be done I recommend that you add it to the list of procedures to be carried out. I did consult that list this time to see if things had changed. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Back a couple of months ago, there was a chap who wanted the clerks to keep the rejected cases list updated. I told him I wasn't interested but he could if he wanted to. Funny thing, he seems to be too busy now to do it. I think his initials were NYB, but I can't remember for sure :) Thatcher131 16:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean, too busy to do more than this? Newyorkbrad 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Before I purged it, I had 1000 pages on my watchlist with an average of 100 pages showing recent (<3 days) changes. Yet another reason for a holiday. Thatcher131 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in my own view on this, it's that I can think of lots of good reasons *not* to have a list of rejected arbitration applications, and few good reasons to have one. Sometimes arbitrators may make an interesting statement in rejecting an arbitration case, and perhaps it might be worth recording that. This might be more use than a collection of rejected rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration clerking

Following up on your closure yesterday of the Brandt case, are you planning to get back into arbitration clerking more regularly, or was this more along the lines of "one final appearance"? If you are looking to participate (and assuming the arbitrators don't have a view), please keep an eye on the clerks' noticeboard that Thatcher131 has set up at WP:AC/CN to make sure there are no issues such as two people planning to do the same task on the same case. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I nagged James F to review his opposition to close yesterday. He did so, and after a little discussion on whether I should follow through and close the arbitration I did just that. James_F didn't express a view on this, but I always adopted the approach that good clerking is always welcome, and my view on this hasn't changed.

The clerks noticeboard was set up in January, 2006 by User:Raul654, and I'm familiar with its uses. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Freak's re-sysopping was done days earlier than the other parts, so the dates on front page should probably reflect that. BTW, welcome back, you were always an excellent clerk. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The resysopping did occur earlier, but the date is the formal date of the decision to endorse that. The clerk role is very, very time-consuming and I felt that I'd done my bit when I stepped down in September, so don't expect to see me doing this kind of work regularly in the future. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Bambenek

Hi Tony. Do you have any thoughts on the merits of the current "John Bambenek" arbitration request? I ask because you were mentioned here. Paul August ☎ 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Any involvement I had must have been peripheral. I remember nothing much about the case and have no knowledge of the events described in the application. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Troll"

Please don't attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by pointlessly accusing someone of being a "disruptive troll". Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if my summary was incorrect, but you have been blocked by the following admnistrators, some of them several times: User:Khoikhoi, User:Rockpocket, User:Inshaneee, User:A Man In Black, User:Steel359, and User:Kingboyk. If they were all mistaken, then it's quite an extraordinary coincidence. Please restore the reversion on the evidence page. You are entitled to add your own rebuttal in your own section. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, this user has had some rough edges, but is a long-time, good-faith contributor and should by no means be referred to as a troll. A Link ..., please don't change other people's evidence on arbitration cases, even where (as here) you have reason to strongly disagree with it. (N.B.: Written as an individual editor, I'm not clerking the case.) Newyorkbrad 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'm guessing that your adminship was removed for, among many things, not understanding policy or guidelines (like, for instance, claiming that someone is a person whos intentions on Wikipedia are to disrupt it). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My adminship was removed on my own request. I decided that my judgement was not adequate to the task. However here we're talking about the judgement of quite a number of people none of whom are Tony Sidaway. As I say you're entitled to rebut my evidence. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, so you showed I was a troll in any way? Funny, all I see is another elitist Wikipedian who arbitrarily declares other users' actions trolling.

Also, the evidence is pointless. The troll comment was inappropriate, and without it, the fact that he blocked me (and his block was regarded as being a bad one by many administrators) for something that I've never been blocked for before is not evidence. Kingboyk's block was disputed, A Man In Black's block was inappropriate (he violated 3RR by "just barely avoiding making four reversions", and he also blocked someone while in a dispute), InShaneee's 96 hour block was highly disputed (and bringing up a block which involved him wheel warring against several other admins doesn't work in his favor), Khoikhoi attempted a block on me once before for "gaming the system" by just barely avoiding violating 3RR, and when InShaneee did just that in my most recent block (which was two months ago), he let it slide - in fact, I had to spend a great deal of time to even get him to warn InShaneee not to do it. If I'm a troll for gaming the system, so is InShaneee. The only legitimate blocks I have on my system are 3RR violations. And while they can be disruptive, they are not "trolling". Some editors really need to learn policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the arbitration committee can evaluate whatever evidence you and I may present appropriately. Again I apologise if I've misinterpreted your activities. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is - what have I done on Wikipedia that could be called trolling by the loosest definition of the word? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure the Arbitration Committee is capable of considering the evidence and arriving at a fair and equitable conclusion. I'd say that this is the kind of silliness that made my mind up that you're really interested in trolling. It's good that you've also managed to do excellent work since then. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be a good reason to claim I was a "troll"? I reacted to a bad admin's bad actions. The fact that he blocked me for - literally - defying him and then my getting miffed? Yeah, I would like to file that under "admin abuse" before "trolling" any day. The fact that the ultimatum he would have to do for an RfAr not to go forward is apologize and improve himself as a Wikipedian hardly constitutes "trying to disrupt Wikipedia". Did I ask him to do anything that would remotely disrupt Wikipedia or do damage to Wikipedia? No. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of your work, I'd say that your gratuitous use of terms like "another elitist Wikipedian", "a bad admin's bad actions", and frankly your entire completely ott demeanor constitutes de facto trolling. I'm happy that you've found a way to contribute to Wikipedia, but I do worry that your activities and manner of expressing yourself, which is apparently condoned by people who should know better, would tend to drive good people away. To put it in a nutshell, I would run a mile rather than interact with people who show so little respect for themselves and their fellows as you do in your hectoring attacks on established, trusted Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called an elitist Wikipedian, don't arbitrarily declare people to be trolls. Also, sorry, but in general, I only show respect to people who haven't done anything that makes them not deserve any (such as blocking someone for not treating them with respect - but at the same time, doesn't return the exact same thing to them). I won't be called a troll for taking InShaneee to task for wheel warring, vindictive blocks, protecting user talk pages to prevent me from disputing the block, assuming bad faith, insulting people, reverting good faith edits as trolling to articles, violating 3RR + getting people blocked for it at the exact same time, etc. I question you for taking me to task for assaulting the actions of InShaneee and his quality as an admin, or your attitude, but trying to defend InShaneee for wheel warring, hypocritically edit warring, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, vindictively long and unnecessary blocks, and disrupting editing of Wikipedia articles based on an assuming bad faith. Shows a little bit of bias toward InShaneee. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scoobies?

Which clique are you referring to as "Scoobies" ? Georgewilliamherbert 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubya vandalism page

Is the page current? I tried clicking on the link to the tools page, and it didn't work. Thanks, Andjam 14:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification for the paranoid

As one of your identified "Scoobies" (you do know, if this refers to Scooby Doo, those were the good guys, right? I almost picture you tearing off your mask and exclaiming "...and I would have gotten away with it if not for those darned kids"), I guess I have a right to comment here. I won't bother dirtying up the workshop more by dignifying your blathering there, Tony. It's a bit sad how paranoid you've become, but poetic, since leveling accusations of paranoia has been such a favorite pastime for you previously. Anyway: if I recall correctly, I was one of the earlier respondents on AN/I to back the IP's point of view. I had absolutely no idea it was WorldTraveller. (Incidentally, WorldTraveller and I have nothing but an incidental history together, no friendship at all.) I thought it was a newbie. My post there was written with that belief firmly in mind. I could not believe the way Inshaneee bit a (I-thought) newbie there, and I was even more appalled at the support he was getting for doing so. As best I can recall, I received absolutely no communication of any sort pointing me to that thread on AN/I or any other aspect of that dispute. It simply caught my eye. Later, when the IP was revealed to be a longstanding editor, I was quite dismayed, embarrassed by both sides, and didn't comment any more. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I should be very grateful if you did not remove my comments from the InShaneee RFArb, particularly with an edit summary like "removing unhelpful nastiness". My comment was not in the least unhelpful or nasty, and I am sorry that you consider it to be so. It is always a pleasure to read your constructive and insightful contributions. -- ALoan (Talk) 03:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your recent comment at RFArb

In my defence, the irrelevance of my unfortunate earlier proposals only emerged over time. Sometimes reasonable suspicions are wrong. I'm all growed up now and I know that I bear primary responsibility for the reaction.--Tony Sidaway 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said nothing on this matter before now, but I hope by my other contributions you can see me as somewhat neutral/reasonable here. Suspicions, however reasonable, which result from assuming bad faith motivations are always inappropriate. Wrong, right, or indifferent; they are inappropriate. If people really do have bad faith motivations, they generally correct you when you present them with how their actions could be based on good faith motivations. They are usually quite proud in and will not let you believe they misunderstood something. Your early actions at the arbcom case would have still been inapropriate even if the suspicions had not been wrong. Anyone who cannot agree with that, or at least disagree but still live by it for pragmatic reasons, is going to continually encounter problems on a wiki. There is my unasked for advice for the week, no response required, just think about it. Best regards.--BirgitteSB 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was the biggest error of judgement I've ever made on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for putting it in the correct place.Azerbaijani 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)