Revision as of 01:14, 1 July 2005

I'm on a wikibreak at the moment. Try email if it's urgent.

My RFA: Thanks

Thank you again for nominating me and your support on my RFA. Now that I have been promoted, I promise to be as hardworking and fair with the admin tools as I have been with the other areas here on Misplaced Pages. See you around and happy editing. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racist edit

Although I appreciate that you reverted the edit, I am more concerned with whether it was a sock puppet of a member on these boards who is currently under threat of arbitration. Is there a way to find out?

Guy Montag 01:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response

You started it ...again. Don't say you've "ditched" my good faith edits and expect me to roll over. Don't order me to do anything. What do you really care about the article for anyway? If all you wish to do is use it as a place to incorporate your POV then why not go find some blog to post your biases?--MONGO 04:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Tony, I thank you for pointing out my flaws...for there are so many...I am just a MONGO afterall. I am just nothing when I stand in your light...--MONGO 07:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack on Coolcat's talk page

Hi, Tony. Coolcat has a comment re Stereotek and myself on his talk page saying that we should go screw ourselves; I've struck it out twice and would appreciate it if you would suggest to him that he should cease posting such comments; thanks. — Davenbelle 05:03, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

GWB article

I was displeased when you stated in your edit over me that you "ditched" my edit. I responded that you were a vandal for which I apologize. I hold you to a higher level of imput than to refer to a revert over me as ditching but forgive you for this. I also forgive you for your politics as I know you are British and politics there are inherently more liberal than in the U.S. I also respect your not using 3RR as a tool to suppress but think that in cases of blatent vandalism, you should reconsider.--MONGO 19:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw that you blocked him. Glad to see that you block vandals...I also have a question....you have warned me for not "gaming" the 3RR and at times I have been close and, well, without going into it anymore, was just blocked. Regardless, I see JamesMLane also had 3 reverts in 24 hours and was coming close to going over his "limit"...yet I didn't see any warnings from you to him of this issue...political motivations perhaps? Have a nice day, Tony, gotta git to work ya know....--MONGO 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Danzig

Hi Tony. I saw your changes to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page regarding the 3RR and consensus. I note that, in the conditions to the page, there is this phrase: "An absolute majority (50% or more) wins the vote, where neutral and abstain votes are excluded." Can I ask why you arbitrarily changed this? If you feel it needs rediscussion, then you should bring it up on discussion, not make the decision yourself. smoddy 18:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Still, you made that edit without discussing the change. I would maintain that it would be more sensitive and more respectful of the many users who have quoted that decision if you were to have brought it up on the talk page beforehand. smoddy 21:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You may want to check Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fix_the_loopholes and help us fix this policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) **I think the whole point of the vote was that there was no other way. Consensus would never have been reached, so an unconventional system was needed to counteract that. I agree that it wasn't perfect, but desperate times call for drastic measures. "Be bold" is all well and good, but there are occasions, particularly in especially controversial areas, when it is better to "be cautious". This isn't unwiki, it's just polite. smoddy 11:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Hi. Sorry, but I rolled back your edits on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, after Jayjg rolled back Talk:Gdansk/Vote. The vote was already the outcome of a dispute resolution process, and there was an explicit support of an enforcement of the outcome of the vote. I also think this is necessary, because a vote has no effect whatsoever if it is not enforced, and some people just ignore community consensus. Let me know if you want to discuss that inmore detail. Sorry again. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with Tony on this one. I voted against the original "enforcement" provision, having just such anxieties. While I hardly want to encourage User:Halibutt's disruptive activity, it could certainly be argued that he does have a point. Under what interpretation did this vote achieve "rough consensus"? Was Chris_73 and appropriate person to "call" the vote, given his status as an, in not the active proponent of such measures? And should policy debates for an open-ended number of articles be taking place on the talk pages of single articles, anyway? Alai 17:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What Alai said. Changes to wikipedia-wide policy should be discussed wikipedia-wide. Also, there wasn't consensus for the exception from the 3RR, just a majority. --W(t) 17:33, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The problem with any community consensus is that some people just don't care about consensus, citations or references, and simply revert back to their preferred version only three times per day. In my opinion, Misplaced Pages lacks any good methods to curb such a behavior. Having the whole vote on Gdansk (or any other content question) would have been a waste of time if there is no way to enforce it. I am not sure if the 3RR exemption is the best way, or if there are other ways. I am happy for any suggestions in that direction. Maybe Piotrus's proposal discussion will lead to a better solution. As for now, I would continue to support the 3RR exemption, even though the rule can be misused like most other rules, too. Regarding the vote outcome, with the current count it is 61%. This is not stellar, I agree, but still way more than half (Whole EU constitutions fail on such votes ;) Plus, many voters explicitly opposed the label "Vandalism", but may have supported it otherwise. But again, I am open for suggestions. Another thing I would like to get off my chest: I have no particular interest in Poland, or the naming of these places. Before starting the vote, I did pretty much no edits in this area at all. I merely tried to solve one large dispute by a vote. There was a strong majority for double naming, and since then I am trying to enforce this outcome. While I do not care much about the naming in individual articles, I revert some users who despite vote consensus mass-removed any double naming on hundreds of articles. Thanks for listening -- Chris 73 Talk 18:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Revert on VP (misc)

My reverting your insertion of pages worth of multi-year old conversations about the London Underground from points unknown is far easier to understand than why you put them there in the first place. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I obliterated the actual intended comment along with everything else, which would explain your annoyance. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Knock it off

Your repeated following me around, making attacks on me and reverting my comments are not acceptable. I will not put up with it. Knock it off. RickK 23:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

Hi Tony,

Let's discuss what's going on in Time Cube. The person we are trying to get banned has been editing the Time Cube pages for two years, and has baited a number of users into long discussions of his crackpot theories. After the page was protected from this person, an RfC was posted, about three weeks ago. I responded to the RfC, and after discussion among those paying attention to the article, we agreed that the person would never be convinced to stop.

We could take the matter straight to arbitration, but I wanted to make sure they would realize how strongly our case is supported, hence the poll. The poll is also listed on RfC—Sean κ. + 03:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two Rams Butting Heads

Hope you don't mind me dropping in to say 'Hi'... I've seen you lurking around the Vfd discussion and on Vfd, natch. So when this came up, I thought I'd say a personal Hi and pick your brain as I dropped in on Mr Tans Talk page to deliver a heads up, to wit, I reinserted the Map he'd deleted from Tsushima Strait. In looking at the last version of Mr Tans, and the reverted version you unprotected, I'm puzzled. There are a number of truly trivial stylistic changes, (e.g. The Famous Castle Vs. no 'the'). But why is the significant add - a whole sentence about a political entity totally ommitted? Is Tans historical point in dispute, or is this an overreaction to 'yet another Tan Change' by someone? btw here's what I wrote him...

I left the first two comments in the talk page on Tsushima strait... this is what we call a "heads up" in American slang; in general, a courtesy. (I put the map back).

• Map is better than nothing. Did you miss the inset showing the relative size, position and locations of Korea and Japan?. It's also free since it's in the system already. It will do until I learn how to request a map and one is generated.

• We need to add relative and absolute sizes of the Tsu-Shima strait and Korea Srait. One historian mentioned the Korea Str. as circa 64 nautical miles - near a degree of Longitude, and as I recall, the Islands are offset more towards Korea. I was skimming rather than purusing, so should be able to run that down sometime very soon. Would rather have geographer or navigator input instead of historian, but he's likely to be close. Someone also dropped the hyphen as is used by Brittish historian Richard Hough ("The Fleet that Had to Die"). My principle focus is on the Russo-Japanese war +/- a couple of decades. Drop me a note if the map bugs you enough to request a replacement! ttfn Fabartus 03:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see you're already in a near shooting war with a few folks. Hope you leave the map until it can be improved. If I can help you with phrasing something, drop me a note. If complicated, send me your email (first) via my user page 'email this user' and I'll send you mine back (so you can send the larger document). I have no chinese, but am willing to help you phrase things properly and perhaps overcome some of the problems you are having in the above. Best wishes. Frank Fabartus 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hope I won't regret the diplomacy! Can you also tell me how to request Map support? Thanks Fabartus 04:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus dispute

Hi! I noticed that you unprotected the Cyprus dispute page on June 11. As of today (June 13), one of the users previously involved in edit-warring (and currently subject to a RfAr), made some fairly massive edits. I don't know if they're historically accurate or not, so I dropped a note on User:Snchduer's talk page, since he seemed one of the more moderate edittors involved in the project, asking him to check it out. You might want to take a quick peek at it as well. Best Wishes! Scimitar 19:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I've confirmed it's vandalism. --Scimitar 21:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, that isn't vandalism per se, but his edits to my user page and to that of ChrisO are. It looks like he's under a 24-hour block now. --Scimitar 22:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your unprotection of the Cyprus dispute article was somewhat inappropriate since the conflict that resulted in its protection has not been resolved. Please let me know on what grounds you have unprotected the article (except that it was protected for a long time ... 12 days that is). --Ank99 09:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines.I don't want to formalize all votes and surveys, only those that like Gdansk/Vote infringe/break other official policies like the 3RR in case of Gdansk/Vote. Fuzzy and inbinding votes are good - but not in important matters. as Gdansk/Vote headache have demonstrated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

apartheid

There are some reverters there, that do not contribute to the Discussion and are deleting with no justification. Please review. 69.217.125.53 21:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/No_Answers in Genesis

I've changed my vote. However, the article still needs a pretty massive cleanup and POV removal, along with references to prove notability. --Scimitar 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reducing VFD load

Hi there! I was wondering if the speedy criteria suggested in that page would actually help, so I did some analysis of old VFD pages, and wrote it down on Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load/Analysis. I found several dozens of pages in clear categories (mainly 'vanity') that always got >80% delete votes, and in most cases no keep votes whatsoever. I also found no real false positives. However, would you please look over my statistics and see if you find any mistakes, or things subject to different interpretation? Thanks, Radiant_>|< 11:51, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• I'd have to disagree; CSDs are stricter than that. For instance, CSD#1 isn't "short articles", it's "very short articles with little or no context". Similarly, this CSD is not "vanity", it's "articles about a person that do not assert significance or imporatance". All counter-examples you list clearly assert importance, as does Cheryl Campbell. Zetor is not a person, it's a tractor. You do have a good point about fictional people, the criterion should be reworded to account only for real people.
• Admins rarely abuse current speedy criteria, and if they do they get taken to task on VFU and admonished and rarely do it again. As long as this criterion is clearly not named 'vanity' but something significantly stricter than that, I see no reason to suspect why it would be more abused than the present ones. And it would keep over a dozen unanimous deletes off VFD, daily. Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the obvious way to avoid CSD abuse would be to replace one vague rule (#1) by a small number of well-defined ones. At the moment, attack pages and forks (among others) are deleted with some regularity, despite having to matching criterion in CSD. But those deletions are seldom contested. That means that, apparently, the rules conflict with common sense. This means that either the rules will have to be amended and partially give way to common sense, or the rules will get increasingly ignored to the point where they are meaningless. Thus, we should expand the CSDs a bit, and stamp down hard on any transgressions. Radiant_>|< 09:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I appreciate hearing your concerns for rewording the proposal. Given the amount of support it has received so far I do intend to make this an official proposal in the near future, but wording and specifics are very important. I would like to simultaneously propose a moratorium on 'bending the rules' on CSD - WP has very few strict rules and policies, but this happens to be one of them. They are mutable given enough support, but should not be crossed on a whim. By the way, you claimed that we see a lot of improper VFD nominations for vanity, from Admins... I would like to see some evidence thereof, because it's an important issue that needs addressing. Radiant_>|< 12:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid

I used protection because this person uses anons, so a block might not help that much. But feel free to lift the protection if you block them. (And thanks for consulting me - having done so, I'm happy to support whatever actions you take.) Noel (talk) 15:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been cutting it fine :) But I'll go find some other vandals to look after. Dewet 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, the Apartheid editor is back and reverting again. I'm hoping you have the magic touch that can deal with this. Thanks. Jayjg 20:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

physical space - errors

Hi I saw your vote to save Physical space but I have just put in some comments about how wrong it is and I hope you'll rescind your vote. It may kind of look good to the casual reader, but it misses the whole idea of curved spaces; the curvature is defined by the geometry within them and it is misleading to look outside. I think there are some popular books on this and I can look for them if you want. But we are stuck here in a 4-dimensional space and the "straight lines" this guy is thinking of are actually the geodesics in it; you cannot wish away the curvature and stick our universe in a larger flat space. Thanks for reading. Pdn 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Physical space

OK - thanks for reply. You seem to have a reasonable point. I do wonder if it is cleanable, though. The whole title "Physical space" is misleading. The contents for physics could be deleted, and entries put in for "artistic space" or "artistic space concepts," "psychological space" (which we all need so much), etc. Large parts of the article were also written by people identified only by an I.P. address.Pdn 18:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kantar

Thank you Tony Sidaway !
Please send along any other elements in the original entry besides that main content... for Kantar
For example, the writer, any links, et cetera...
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Worries about speedies

Yes, I see how that can happen even now - but that was an instance of an admin not reading the history of a vandalized page before deleting it, and it was quickly found and recovered, and I'm sure the admin will pay better attention in the future. Of course, so should the lot of us, but I fail to see how this would become worse if two or three CSDs are added. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• "He is most famous for his tireless campaigns to have the death penalty abolished." - asserts notability. Once more, this was quickly found and recovered. It is indicative that some admins should be more careful with speedy'ing, but existing fallback mechanisms (reading the logs, VFU, speedy restoring) do work. The question, ultimately, is a tradeoff between costs and benefits. Adding a couple of speedy criteria would save the dozens of VFD frequenters about twenty discussions per day (not to mention the fact that these are precisely those votes that tend to attract sock puppet keep votes and exasperating spurious discussion). It would plausibly lead to a couple more improper speedies. But analyzing the recent undelete log, I find a total of twelve undeletions amidst the last two thousand deletes, of which only two were actually about articles (the rest were procedural, undoing one's own delete within minutes, restoring a deleted template's talk page, etc). Consider the efficiency. Radiant_>|< 13:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm glad that you are not bothered by the current VFD load, but fact is that many people are, as indicated in that discussion. Also, there is no reason to suspect that VFD would stop growing. Radiant_>|< 14:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Foreskin fetish

Tony, there are several problems with using the term 'intact' rather than 'uncircumcised' here.

The first is that when there are a choice of words, we should use the most precise. Intact has a more general meaning, yet the fact that we wish to convey is that the penis has a foreskin (equivalently, has not been circumcised).

The second is that uncircumcised is always correct, whereas 'intact' may not be. Consider a penis with a pierced foreskin. It is clearly not intact, yet it is uncircumcised. If we use the more general meaning here, we may be factually incorrect. A hypothetical foreskin fetishist might be driven wild with primaeval lust over this particular foreskin, yet it is not intact. If we say 'uncircumcised', however, we are correct.

Finally, if you remember, Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda vehicle. The terms "intact" and "mutilated" are heavily pushed by anti-circumcision activists, yet are imprecise (and arguably inaccurate) and often less suitable, as I've explained. Using a less accurate term with positive connotations is subtle propaganda, like changing instances of 'circumcised' to 'genitally enhanced'. Uncircumcised is a neutral, accurate term, literally meaning 'not circumcised'.

It may well be that there are 'intact penis fetishists' in the world, and clearly there would be an overlap with foreskin fetishism. However, there is no good reason to exclude foreskin fetishists who don't reject a pierced or tattooed penis.

- Jakew 13:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I have no disagreement with your assertion that a circumcised penis is not intact. That is not the issue.

The fact is that a penis can have a foreskin, yet not be intact. I'm intrigued by your assertion that: "A pierced ear, nipple or nose is still an intact organ and indeed usually the piercing will heal unless delibrately kept open." How do you reconcile this with Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary's requirement that it must be "in the original state?"

What if a penis has a foreskin, but has been bifurcated or subincised? Is it intact then? What if a glansectomy has been performed?

It must be clear that while the presence of a foreskin is required for a penis to be intact, it is not the only requirement. - Jakew 14:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid

That's fine by me, Tony. Thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin 21:33, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Yo. You are a longtime witness to my dispute between me and Davenbelle and Stereotek. It would be great to have what you think at the RfC case below. --Cool Cat 10:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

Hi. As you can see here my rfc cases future looks grim. how should I proceed now? --Cool Cat 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat/Davenbelle/Stereotek

Hi there! From your comments I believe you're going to do some informal mediation between this triad. Would you object if I deleted the unendorsed RFC, as Daven&Stero requested? Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Moved to User:Coolcat/Davenbelle and Stereotek, good idea. Radiant_>|< 13:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat's RfC

I find it hard to see what has happend recently on the RfC page, as anything else than Coolcat ignoring Wikipedias policies, and attempting to force his will through. I see it as something similar to what he did today regarding the Antiwar.com article, or when redirected the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article, ignoring the clear concensus on the talk page. Such behavior should in my opinion absolutely NOT be encouraged or rewarded in any way, so because of that I actually still think that this specific RfC should be deleted as it originally was supposed to. -- Stereotek 14:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, fair enough. I can see it's gone now. And of course you can still read it, in case you wanted to use it for mediation ;) Radiant_>|< 14:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mediate?

Hi Tony

I know you're not an official mediator, but I wondered if you'd be willing to try to help calm down a situation here. The reason why I'm asking you is basically that we disagree so often that I can't see that the person concerned is likely to regard you as having a pro-circumcision (or pro-Jewish or pro-gay) agenda.

The person concerned has agreed in principle, if with some antagonism, to mediation through somebody.

The mediation is partly over conduct, but also over some edits with which most users seem to disagree.

You'll find the original disagreement over at .

Examples of the conduct can be found there. Also at: and .

If you decline, I understand. - Jakew 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony,

You're exactly right, and I should have stated his username. I apologise for that. I hope that he won't hold your past disagreement against you, but obviously I have no idea. Would you mind asking whether he'd accept non-binding mediation with yourself? If so, what in your view is the best way to proceed? If not, does he have a preference for an alternative person?

Thanks. - Jakew 22:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiki leave

OK, I know I have handed my mess in your hands for a second time. I have a business trip starting the day after till Wendsday. This should give you the time you need I think. Oh btw. I have the RFC thing backed up. I intend to intorduce my cases again if your atempts fail yet again. I'll advertise it this time ;) --Cool Cat 20:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done, Tony

Well done, Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by MARMOT (talk • contribs) 22:26, 16 Jun 2005 UTC (UTC)

Trey Stone

Hey Tony, He's going to articles and copying pasting versions from a text editor or something, erasing new contributions in the process. Note how I changed El Salvador lead to read country rather than republic , then he comes and inserts his own Neutrality is an arbitrator and blocked him, and now we have to undergo that for naught? Well, it's easy enough with a rollback button. Naturally, I am treating the erasing of new contributions with the copying of old vers as vandalism, pure and simple. Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 08:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I also just spotted that he was back to edit warring. I've blocked him again for six hours. I told him to behave well but I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that he's utterly incapable of exercising self-control. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With him gone, I finally got moderately collegial dialogue moving in the notorious Fidel talk page, not without some hitches, but still. Anyway, it's too bad Neutrality is away since he was the one who blocked Trey Stone indefinitely. It would be good to hear his take on how to deal with this situation. A six hour repreieve you say? Wee. This is where I would place one of those animated gif image macro you so detest, try to guess of which complexion! Cordially & sincerely yours, El_C 08:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier you had posted that you were not going to intervene. IMO you changed your mind at a most inappropriate time, since Neutrality is now away. This makes it seem as if you are more inclined to give Trey Stone the benefit of the doubt than Neutrality. Please reverse your move and instead discuss this matter with Ben when he reserves. 172 09:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize you said that, Tony. Could you please account for the change of heart? Thanks. El_C 09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll respond here rather than going to both of your talk pages.

Trey asked for an admin review. For various reasons unrelated to the merits of the case I refused, but I asked on WP:ANI to see if someone else would do so.

Nobody did. Meanwhile while I won't review his recent behavior there are two points that suggest that an indefinite block may be unsuitable at this time:

1. He is subject to an arbitration case. If arbcom wants him blocked or banned from certain activities it can issue an injunction, but it hasn't done so. I'm aware that Neutrality is an arbitrator, but he apparently wasn't acting pursuant to a published injunction when he blocked Trey Stone.
2. He isn't an imminent threat to the wellbeing of Misplaced Pages and, although he is clearly considered to be a serious problem for Misplaced Pages in the medium-to-long term if he keeps alienating other editors, no member of arbcom, Neutrality included, has yet tabled any unconditional bans as a remedy.

So there doesn't seem to be any overriding policy reason for this indefinite block, and in the interests of natural justice it is better if Trey Stone is able to respond to the case as it proceeds.

I released the block temporarily, pending the conclusion of the arbitration case. When Trey resumed edit warring, I blocked him again for six hours. When that block expires, he knows he must not revert (except for say reverting vandalism such as page blanking) or I will simply restore the indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of justice, Tony, I hereby appoint you to watch over and account for his actions closely so long as he is unblocked by you. El_C 11:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please also play your part. I don't expect you and Trey to be friendly, but please give him a chance to show that he can collaborate. Try to take his edits as honest attempts to make the article better. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You lifted his block. I had to fix his vandalism. You unblocked a user which Nuetrality blocked indefinitely as a vandal and a troll. Coincidentally, a day after Neutrality left. Had it been yesterday, you could have gauged on his response. You say: it is better if Trey Stone is able to respond to the case as it proceeds. I am not involved in his case, Tony. This is your mess, you deal with it. I've done plenty for that article in the last few days. It is your turn to play your part, Tony. El_C 12:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he's going to disrput the relative peace I helped build in that article during the time he was gone: with Kapil, Commandante, 172, and others, I will not lift a finger, Tony. But I will be looking squarely at you, and I will be holding you accountable. And for your information, I have never been in any dispute with Trey Stone, ever, nor have I yet to really interact with him at this point, for that matter. El_C 13:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, there is absolutely no doubt as to what the outcome is going to be. Trey Stone has never moderated his behavior over the past year and a half, and he will not do it this time. Further, you will not have the time needed to adequately baby-sit him. (Trey Stone often makes up to a hundred edits a day.) El C, since you have never been in any dispute with Trey Stone, I think that you should go ahead and restore Neutrality's block right now. 172 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boy, you sure sound pissed. I'm sorry if I upset you, but it's wrong to claim that you've never been in a dispute with Trey Stone when you've just reverted his edits six times this morning. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My emotional state is besides the point, Tony. Those six reverts were vandalism as I shown directly above. He was earsing any newer contributions by copypasting older ones overtop, without accounting for changes. Are you playing games? El_C 13:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to accept that you regard what you describe--clearly reverts to an earlier version of the article--as vandalism. I'm utterly baffled by this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, so wikifying American was just something he objected to, geographically? El_C 13:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Trey Stone would object to my helpful corrections to the lead, that reorganized the sentence, wikified, etc. His copypasting of the older version didn't change any content on that end. Trey Stone has been around enough now to know that one should try to keep impovements (grammatical, wikiing, etc.), yet he chose to ignore these. What do you call that, Tony? El_C 13:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the comment that puzzles me most. Looking at the article, it's clear that Trey Stone simply reverted to his own previous version of the article. I don't know what meaning you intend to convey by "copypasting of the older version", but if it means "go to article history, click on chosen previous version of article, insert edit summary and press 'Save page'" then it's correct. This activity is also known as a revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And how is allowing him to respond to the case as it proceeds related to him editing and/or vandalizing articles? El_C 13:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he started vandalizing articles, that would be another matter. Naturally the absence of an injunction, which arbcom could have issued but did not, means that Trey Stone is free to edit any article within the policy constraints that apply to any other editor--except for the revert limitation I have imposed as a condition of his temporary unblocking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you not read my first message closely, Tony? That was vandalism. El_C 13:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have imposed as a condition It's strange that you seem to be arguing that Ben had no right to impose restrictions on Trey Stone's editing while you imply that you yourself have the power to 'impose' certain regulations as 'conditions.' Your interference is not only helpful, but now indefensible in terms of any consistent argument. I'm beginning to suspect that your actions are not motivated by good faith, and perhaps have to do with your own longstanding biases against me. El C, you have every right to restore the block, and, IMO, the duty to do so, as a responsible administrator. 172 13:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Tony, I'm "pissed," 172. That's funny, I don't feel pissed, but I thank him for the mischaracterization, I guess. Heh. /bows El_C 13:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172, I never known Tony to exhibit any bias against me, whatsoever. El_C 13:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Tony seems to dislike me; I'm not aware of any of your interactions with him outside this conversation. (Everyking once brought up a comment by Tony implying that I have no business editing on Misplaced Pages, and that he'd be glad to see me gone.) 172 13:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Or maybe, I don't see. I have no idea anymore. I'm quite preplexed by his responses to my comments.El_C 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dunno if I have biases against 172 as I barely became aware of him prior to some big arbcom kerfuffle. I'm not gainsaying Neutrality's block, which I think was probably justified by the full circumstances, but I'm distinguishing it from the arbcom case and making a personal decision to defer such action, without examining its merits, until the end of the arbcom case. I don't do block wars so if someone else jumps in and blocks Trey Stone that's game over for Trey as far as I'm concerned. I obviously don't want to give Trey carte blanche to abuse this freedom so I've told him he mustn't revert war.

My impression that El_C sounded "pissed" was due to his edits of 12:54 and 13:23 UTC, which was in turn I think due to my insensitive wording of suggestions in my own prior edit--for which I apologise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe my response was quite appropriate considering the suggestion, Tony, though I do admit to not have really cared to sugar coat it, that does not mean I am pissed. Dosen't matter. All I was saying is: if you're going to unblock, you gotta be prepared to do the work. I knew right away Trey Stone was vandalizing because he did not seem to care less about non-content improvements. As soon as I saw that American was unwikified, I knew he never bothered. But you're going to argue with me over the semantics of vandalism? I accept your apology, of course, glaldy, I just wish I'd get some introspection on your part on the issues I raised above. El_C 14:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you still sound pissed to me. But that's not the point. If you're pissed it's because I pissed you off, for which I apologise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I could find that post by Everyking, which quotes an IRC log, but it's not important. Just keep on eye on him, since he's here under your patronage. 172 14:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't dislike you, but I did make some remarks on your behavior at one time. I've also said negative things about Everyking's behavior, although I think he's also a fundamentally good guy and, like you, normally an asset to Misplaced Pages. That latter reason is, by the way, why I have agreed to a proposal that I alongside two others should mentor James. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James doesn't need a mentor. I wish he'd give up on those damn Ashlee Simpson articles and devote all that every to more important topics, but, beyond that silly preoccupation, he's unfailingly informed, civil, and reasonable; and he often assumes good faith to a fault, when dealing with vandals who cry 'admin abuse.' 172 14:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is a good chap, but his obsession with Ashley Simpson and his blind spot in that area suggest to me that he does need a mentor. This gives him more freedom that has had had in the recent past, and allows him to demonstrate that he's gotten over it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Final note

My final note, Tony. I have to get going. I just wish to say that I am dissapointed by the way you have approached this, and the manner in which you responded to my comments above. If my opinion matters to you, you will reread all my comments closely again, and hopefuly reiterate or respond to those ones you thus far failed to address (and I mean, systemically). Finally, I will say again: I worked hard to build the peace in that article, and at the very least during my absence, I expect you to keep it. Thanks for reading. El_C 14:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm still struck by the fact that you interpret reverts as vandalism. I won't get into a "systematic" response to your comments, because Misplaced Pages isn't a Usenet forum and the technology isn't suited to protracted, point-by-point debate, nor does the subject merit it. I'll just leave it that reverts normally aren't considered vandalism and I see no reason to do so here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm struck by your refusal to interpert events critically, and I will not be speaking to you any further. Goodbye. El_C 19:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend you. I just don't agree with your interpretation and cannot understand, from what you have written, how Trey's edits, as you described them, were distinct from reverts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sad to see yet more hysteria involving this user, and applaud Mr. Sidaway for his meritorious conduct thruout. Sam Spade 21:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm probably went a bit far w "hysterics", but Tony Sidaway is a particularly fine user, and your interaction with him upset me. Sam Spade 00:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Tony is deleting my hysteric edits, I'm just going to smile politely. :) El_C 00:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halfway edits

I trust that my current halfway edits do not constitute reversion. I am willing to discuss changes on Talk pages, and have done so J. Parker Stone 19:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my defense

the reason I was blocked in the first place has to do with "vandalism" on said page, a part of which was the removal of personal attacks, which according to official policy I have every right to do. J. Parker Stone 19:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Inviting folks to become users

Tony, you took exception with my handling of an anonymus user on the Talk:Terri Schiavo page. I'm rather confused by this. You asked that I not "pressure" people into becoming users. I didn't think I was, rather that I was offering an invitation and a link to do so. In fact, my invitation was significantly less strident that those made by others on the same Talk page. You're obviously an editor of note. How would you suggest I handle this in the future?--ghost 12:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well you implied that only logged-in users were members. Fact is we're open to anyone. I didn't mean to offend you but felt that this was a form of pressure. We do have a lot of valued editors who don't, and won't, create a user account. They're as much members as you or I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I made the request simply because the editors on that page really like when new voices join, and we like to have a name to match the contributions. I coach my invitations better in the future. Thanks for the clarification.--ghost 12:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harrumph! Where were you when Neutrality and others virtually ran off one of our better editors (LRod), never to return, a couple of months ago by reverting his edits to Terri Schiavo on sight solely because he wasn't registered. In fact, Ghost probably remembers it. Duckecho 13:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do, and that's why I questioned it. Although in fairness, Tony's been on vac.--ghost 13:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't always find myself in agreement with Neutrality's attitude to Misplaced Pages. Just because he's a fellow administrator and an elected member of arbcom, does not mean I have to agree with him or that I believe all of his beliefs are congruent with, or even compatible with, Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that brings up a question. I've had a problem with him on more than one occasion making wholesale hit-and-run edits on Terri Schiavo with no discussion on the talk page and contrary to consensus laboriously reached among active editors. And they're frequently not even good edits. I have seen similar complaints recently addressed to him on his talk page. I can't believe this person is an admin. I find it even more incredible that he's on the arbitration committee. If he's the answer, I'm scared as to what the question is. Is there no accountability anywhere in Wiki-dom? What's to be done about someone like that? Duckecho 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators are subject to election, and administrators are subject to the same rules as everybody else. I don't always endorse his actions. That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with his edits (any more than mine, for instance). Obviously I don't like it when anyone behaves in a way that frightens other editors away, but I have no personal knowledge of any such behavior on his part. If you have a specific gripe, tackle him about it. If this doesn't get anywhere, make up a RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

ok. while the topic can be contraversial I did not remove anything. See how again my edits and hard work is gone. Please assist. --Cool Cat 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen this? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But like "Bad Wolf" of Dr. Who, Same individuals are appearing on all wiki time frames. I just want to deal and reason with individuals and not senseless reverts. You were talking about doing something about this on RfC page. I am all ears.

I see you as a guide as you are one hell of a guide. Should I reopen my RfC case directly and tell it to the two people (you and silsor) to comment? Or some other course of action? --Cool Cat 23:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm short of time. Try to find diffs and whatnot showing people engaging in following. I need to see evidence that people, a tight group of them, appear on articles for the first time after you first edit them, and perform patently unreasonable edits, particularly reverts, in response to yours. If you can support this, I think it should be documented. Do so in email. My email address is well advertised; you may be asked to validate your email address if this is the first time you've emailed me. If I agree with you I will make an effort to dissuade those people from engaging in stalking. If you get no reply in email tell me so on this talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu

I thought it was in the text; I've added it now. Putting it in the intro, as well as other trivia like the Glasgow rectorship, were clearly POV pushing. I agree that AI is not a "neutral" site; would you be willing to move the links to their correct section? Jayjg 17:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon School - Thanks.

Tony, I thank you for the information that you responded to my comment about Brandon School, as it is very helpful. I have only been editing for less than a week, and I'm learning new things everyday. I was advised in a Wiki forum, to learn the process by doing Vfd's, but I guess they didn't tell me of the other options that are available when editing pages. Thanks again. Srcrowl 02:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

RFC against MARMOT

Hello Tony. As a somewhat involved party concerning User:MARMOT, I invite you to comment on the RFC that was just created. It may be found here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/MARMOT. Thanks! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:10, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Insight into the situation

"Allow me to give my assurances that I would never intentionally manipulate a page, poll or RfC. The principle of assume good faith has been circumvented, and I hope you will endorse this." MARMOT 10:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue here Tony, is that not many of the edits would individually qualify for a block, MARMOT knows this and is just wasting people's time. This is one way to end it, as it is clear polite discussion and requests is having no effect. I'd rather see the guy discuss whatever issues he has in the proper channels, but apparently he doesn't care too. The overwhelming majority of MARMOT's edits are not helpful, so taken as a whole that makes the ArbCom case worth it. If you think it is a waste of time, then you block him yourself. Otherwise, opposing the Arbcom will just keep MARMOT wasting more of everyone's time. - Taxman 12:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are responsible for this

As always Trey Stone is attacking the very same articles, making reverts, presenting the same circular arguments on talk, and declaring that while he has time to revert and POV articles, he does not have time to do any actual reading on these subjects. 172 02:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't have time to read your personally-selected books on this subject, no. i am getting ready to go to college and am looking to do things with my friends before i leave over the summer -- wikipedia is not high on my priorities. and my arguments have been far more substantive than your condescending "well this is the reality" attitude. J. Parker Stone 02:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i am getting ready to go to college and you don't have time to read? You'll fail out in no time if that's your attitude, especially at Occidental. If you are majoring in history or a social science, you will find yourself assigned quite a few books and articles that I have listed in articles, and your professors will be far less willing to tolerate bullshit than I am on Misplaced Pages. On Misplaced Pages you get to talk back to me here and you get away with not having done any reading, but you would not if you were taking a class with me-- same with your professors next year. 172 02:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, of course i read for classes. do you even think about what you're posting? J. Parker Stone 02:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and i apologize that i don't take wikipedia as seriously as academia. so sorry.

BTW, I love how you say "talk back" as if you're in a position of authority J. Parker Stone 02:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I am not concerned about his personal attacks so much as the attitude that he has no obligation to do any serious reading and thinking on a subject, but instead can get his way on any article by wearning down opposition... Just take not of his edit above. 172 02:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i have already addressed this, and i don't need to be a "professional" historian to edit articles on wikipedia. J. Parker Stone 02:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone, no one is saying that you need to be a historian, but you need to take Misplaced Pages more seriously than you admit to taking it above. You must back up your assertions on talk pages with meaningful citations, not conflate your own beliefs with fact (have you ever read Misplaced Pages:No original research?). When I provide you with list of solid scholarship, including some texts that I have been using in courses before you were probably born, you cannot just disregard it and go ahead with reverting and attacking me for holding beliefs that I do not profess. 172 03:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the edits on History of the United States (1988-present) have more to do with rewording and toning down the POV than factual data. J. Parker Stone 10:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I know this is old, but I couldn't help but be reminded of it while you're reminding me of my political ignorance and unprofessionalism:

Or this: J. Parker Stone 06:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are all out of context. We were in a heated dispute over the actions of the Clinton administration and South Korea, **not** the actions of North Korea. I admitted that I'd thought that the Sunshine Policy was working; Adam obviously considered it appeasement. He called my stance-- the same as Clinton and Albright's at the time-- Stalinism, so I engaged in tit-for-tat hyperbole in my edit summaries, comparing his stance (the same as that of hard-liners in the Bush administration) to another form of tyranny. In retrospect that was unjustified, no matter how I was being treated, but at the same time it is unfair to ignore that my comments were not unprovoked. Also, the McCarthy picture was a polemical response to Adam's placing of a "hero of socialist labor medal" to "Cde. 172" from the "Dear leader" on my own page. Again, I regret the response, but it was not unprovoked. 172 10:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A scholarly response. J. Parker Stone 05:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking Mentorship

The Everyking mentorship has officially been approved by the arbitration committee (see here) and is now in effect. →Raul654 05:51, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't foresee any need for that. If anything does need to be discussed, we have the article talk pages. Everyking 11:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartheid

Tony, just to let you know that I've protected Apartheid again because of more reverting, and a possible 3RR violation, by an anon IP and a new user account, possibly the same person. However, as you've been keeping an eye on the page, feel free to unlock and proceed as you see fit. Cheers, SlimVirgin 20:51, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg has violated the 3Revert rule. Jayjg's actions are unacceptable. SlimVirgin is often found working with jayjg to circumvent the 3R rule on Misplaced Pages. People have not addressed the inclusion, it's all about ad hominem attacks and ad hominem illogic to support the deletions. Have a great day!!69.221.63.132 21:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony: the ad hominem attacks against me have to stop. I prefer that the Talk revolve aroung the Inclusion, but it never does. Please help me! A two-word inclusion that is fact does not destabilize an article!

If this chap has broken the 3RR, make a valid report on WP:AN3. I can't see it myself, and in any case I don't enforce that rule. In any case I think it must be obvious to you by now that you won't get your way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for supporting my RFA. Guettarda 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy of Wiki to newcomers

Who appointed you to tell the world I have made no notribution to wiki? I registered my user name yesterday, that's correct, well done on your important research there, but listen dude, 'anyone can edit wiki', i've been a long term reader and editor of wiki in an anonymous capacity. This anonymous capacity has no less validity than that of a registered user, registered users to not even have to provide email addresses anyway. You want a list of my former IPs so you can go and research and tell the world what articles i've edited? Economic factors led me to take so long to register (I used a public library computer for some time...)and that's irrelevant anyway because one of the list of benefits they state for registering is the ability to vote on deletion. So whether i've been 'registered' for ten minutes or a day pal, i'm gonna excercise my RIGHT to vote. Now go and complain to the authorities if you think I, as a user, a newly 'registered', need undermining... thanks, you're obviously really in favor of new blood participating in the wiki project, we need more like you. Do some more research next time before EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S VOTES. My user page explains I have been an avid reader and editor in an anonynous capacity, maybe because I don't seek accolades for my work, which is in direct contrast to your user page. Thanks for the welcome.--0001 01:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ended

Don't worry about me Tony. I'm completely, wholly, and utterly done with any internal wiki participation after two days. I've had it. I won't vote for anything anymore, this thing is set to become a glorified toy catalog filled with pop culture crap and pokemons and unsigned band bios...i understand now I should have made clear I was new pseudonym user, and not a new user altogether, I should have stated that it says to state that, I only read it today. Maybe i'll just take breather for a couple of months. I had gotten fond of cleaning up articles and when I joined I had no idea that a hardline clique was actually running the delete part...i don't however think the credibility can be assertained from simply the edit histories, or if someone's anonymous...if it is abundantly clear someone has thoroughly 'read' the articles up for delete, and thier comment makes a sensical argument, then it should be left alone. Also to you could tell them 'google hits' is a little bit useful, but you shouldn't be dictated to by google...some subject matter which is clearly gonna be meaningless in 5 years doesn't belong here does it? I don't know, actually man, I really don't think I have a clue. I'm depressed now. Sorry to bark at you I just had like ten users pay out on me and I dunno I just reckon i'll roll it up for now dude, use wiki for research, and maybe plan a couple of big articles on my word processor and try em out in a couple months. I think maybe one's experience of wiki can become jaded if you sit there looking at what people do and don't want in wiki. I initially fell in love with it just for reading and learning...I can read this stuff for hours...i'm gonna revert to that. I think that's for me don't you?

Again, you are responsible

For taking it upon yourself to "mentor" Trey Stone, you owe me a response to his libelous comments on this page. 172 08:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you're gonna keep raving about "libel" BS then I take back the GD comments. J. Parker Stone 08:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's like watching a married couple squabbling. Hey, you guys, make up and be friends. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd do that but it'd involve too much systematic verbiage. J. Parker Stone 21:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for guidance

In reference to your (IMHO slightly aserbic) comments to User:001 under the VFD for Books about George W. Bush, could you advise me, as a relative newcomer to Wiki, where the official do-not-do list is for those wishing to avoid being tagged as trolls. It is hard enough avoiding being a "newbie" (whose views are unwanted as unformed), a "flamer" (because one sues language that someone else elects to consider inflammatory), or a "sockpuppet" (for being in agreement with someone with whom the Clique are in dis-agreement). Thank you (in advance) for your assistance. --Simon Cursitor 12:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mesereau(x)

I note that the mad-deleter seems to have lain low, or given up or something. Myself, I'd have left the whole thing for 2 weeks (to give the spammers time to move on) and then have cleaned house from the more extreme inwards, also removing the "hello - I can't be bothered a capitalise this surname" merchants as well. I am starting to think that spam-deletion sometimes just encourages spam-vandals (who just want to be *noticed* really). In the medium term, they move on, and you can clean the floor after them. Pace, now I think of it Blue Peter and the elephant. Thank you. --Simon Cursitor 10:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

???

Please stop acting in a disruptive manner (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Enviroknot). If you don't quit fighting with other editors I will block you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When are you claiming I have done so? It is a number of other editors who have been harassing ME.Enviroknot 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

I'm beginning to wonder if Silverback's recent string of edits on FOX News is in violation of the 3RR. Could you take a look? It seems like he is usually very careful about following the letter of the 3RR - always skirting the line, never going over. crazyeddie 17:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooh err, missus

I'll take it as read, then, that WP doesn't want my edits. Smileyrepublic 21:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your insults to me

   * You have edited with this user from 25 May.

What does that have to do with anything?

   * In that time you have made over three hundred edits, but just forty-eight edits in article space.

And the rest were reverting vandalism. What's your point?

   * Even so, by your FIFTH day editing with this username, you were revert warring on Dhimmi

What are we supposed to do about people who are trying to insert falsehoods into articles? Especially when they are users like Yuber who refuse to discuss their edits rationally?

   * You've been engaged in edit warring recently on Jihad.

See the above. Attempting to insert false information to Misplaced Pages is vandalism.

   * You're stirring up a rather ugly flame war on the same article and related ones.

Who have I flamed, and how? I would appreciate seeing some specifics.

   * You're engaged in pretty general violations of WP:NPA.

Again, specifics? Enviroknot 00:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your reply to me you said you had only been reverting vandalism, you indicate that you think that other editors are inserting falsehoods in articles and you seem to think that this means you can do what you like. You act as if you haven't done anything wrong, and yet you've been engaged in some of the most toxic behavior I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. You ask for specifics, but the arbitration case is full of specifics. I'll give one particularly worrying case: an edit summary "Users were challenged to provide evidence of liberal movements in Talk: none were forthcoming. Feel free to put forth evidence of existence of liberal groups in Islamic nations if you wish." You used this summary to justify inserting the statement: " However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states." This blatantly dishonest reasoning--taking silence on a matter as evidence for an unsupported factual statement--is extremely inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Blatantly dishonest"? Hardly. The user making the edit - read, DELETING THE INFORMATION - is supposed to provide factual basis for doing so. NO Muslim nation has a liberal government or rising liberal political parties. They are hard to find and always far outnumbered by non-liberal Muslims in nations that do not consider themselves "Islamic." This is not an "unsupported factual statement", this is reality. Even in liberal nations like the Netherlands and Canada, the Muslim populations refuse to acclimate to liberal standards. Please do not insult my intelligence by claiming this is an "unsupported" statement.

And again, it was a REVERT to those who were engaged in an organized campaign of stripping information FROM the article in question. They did not provide any factual basis to justify their removals.Enviroknot 11:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is recommended practice to remove unsupported statements of fact from articles. You are putting it the wrong way round when you say that someone should disprove a statement in order to remove it. The reverse is the case. A statement of fact that is not supported does not belong in Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right, it is recommended practice to remove unsupported statements of fact. Therefore, PROPER NPOV would require that the assertion that liberal muslims exist in numbers large enough to make a political or social difference, in the Middle East or otherwise, MUST BE SOURCED. These users are refusing to do so. Their only "source" is a dubious Liberal movements within Islam article which contains no demographic information and is largely original research itself - violating both Misplaced Pages policy on original research and policy on not sourcing articles to other articles only.

If you STILL think I am wrong, please explain why without insulting me. I would also appreciate it if you would tell your toady Calton to stop claiming that every vandal he finds is me, and get him to stop vandalizing my user and talk pages. You have been making it nearly impossible for me to assume you are operating in good faith.Enviroknot 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You say "PROPER NPOV would require that the assertion that liberal muslims exist in numbers large enough to make a political or social difference, in the Middle East or otherwise, MUST BE SOURCED." You're right. However you must not manufacture your own unsupported statements to counter statements made by other people. Simply ask them to support the thesis that liberal islamic voices are significant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively I could make edits to their statements or remove their claims from the article; however, they would likely accuse me of vandalism. And since they refuse to support their thesis, what am I supposed to do? It's bad enough dealing with the bad-faith idiots who continually claim I am using sockpuppets when I am not, but I am working very hard here to operate in good faith and it seems you and your fellow editors are refusing to take that seriously - as you did above.

I would also remind you that I was not the one who inserted the statement about liberal Muslim movements lacking power and support. It has been repeatedly reverted in and out of that article by many editors, whether it was put there to balance the wild and unsupported claims about "liberal Muslims" or not.Enviroknot 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thousands of Misplaced Pages editors make good edits on the Wiki and resolve their differences within Misplaced Pages behavior guidelines. Anarchists have worked alongside fascists on the same article and produced good, neutral work. To achieve that kind of result, trust is vital. You must learn to trust other editors and communicate your concerns about them as you would communicate them to a beloved brother.

And what am I supposed to do about you? I gave you the benefit of the doubt below and you gave me the same tired line. I have been telling you the truth and operating in good faith and you have given none back.Enviroknot 18:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roger Moss (photographer)

Thanks! And good riddance to Roger. Radiant_>|< 22:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations, your bad faith has won.

It appears Arbitration Committee has twisted a Request for Arbitration to include me in it, and has further decided that I may not edit anywhere.

This will likely be my last message to you. It is a pity that your bad faith is mirrored by the rest of Misplaced Pages.Enviroknot 03:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think David Gerard said it best when he suggested that you seem to be incapable of accepting that we're smarter than you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean, you are incapable of accepting when someone tells the truth.Enviroknot 18:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're telling the truth, then David Gerard, a man whom I have known online for some ten years, whose reputation is unimpeachable, and whom I have met recently, and regard as a friend, is a man who would lie at the drop of a hat, with no obvious motive. We should talk. You know my name and my location. You can email me --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interested in an L.A.-area Wiki meetup?

It appears as though L.A. has never had a Wiki meetup. Would you be interested in attending such an event? If so, checkout User:Eric Shalov/Wikimeetup.

- Eric 06:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to college in LA. And my name's Eric. COINCIDENCE?!?!?!?!?

Maybe I'll go and accost Tony about supporting banishing me from wik... J. Parker Stone 21:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is the first time someone has suggested that I was a California resident. I wish I was. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

A proposal has been made on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves to rename Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (movies) and move it to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (films). Please see the discussion and vote on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (movies). --Viriditas | Talk 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Michael Moore edit

It was wrong to remove the reference to the family who were scandalized and appalled at their son's funeral being in Moore's movie without permission. This is very legitimate criticism of Moore and deserves mention.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmay (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Checkers

Hi Tony! I think I restored the wrong version of the Misplaced Pages:Checkers article. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think you may have noticed that I have now submitted the thing to VFD (Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Checkers). Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:40 (UTC)

In re Terri Schiavo (partially restored)

> (Earlier personal attack and intentional distortion of my statement) You are falsely accusing me of using my administrator status. (Denied)

> (Later) Now I recognise that you *are* a problem user and as an administrator I've added you to my list of editors to watch carefully. I want you to read and, over the next few weeks, demonstrate a clear understanding No personal attacks.

Now you may consider yourself accused of misusing your administrator status and engaging in a personal attack. Your idea of a debate over a difference of opinion is apparently to throw your weight around. Well done. Have fun. Duckecho (Talk) 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

For a second time you falsely accuse me of throwing my weight around. Do read No personal attacks, and attempt to implement it in your engagements with others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)

If I may...You're both right, and both wrong. The proprietorial attitude came thru from both of you, but isn't entirely out of place, because you're both respected editors. However, I must protest Duckecho being blacklisted over this matter. And if he is, then I think it would be best if you added yourself. This was a misunderstanding that's spirialed out of proportion. Nothing more.--ghost 30 June 2005 19:49 (UTC)

With respect, I think the problem, which I would have taken up with Duckecho had I not been in the wrong by making a bad edit, was his unnecessarily vituperative edit summary. Such summaries make for bad editing environments. I shall be watching Duckecho's edits, his comments and not least of all his edit summaries. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)

Understood. Since you feel it necessary to monitor a User, I'd like your blessing to do the same for you. Can you please instruct me in how to do so?--ghost 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

a partial reply to this nonsense is here. Because of one "vituperative edit summary", you are taking it upon yourself to monitor "Duckecho's edits, his comments, and not least of all his edit summaries"? And this edit summary was in response to something you admit was a bad edit? Sheesh. You screwed up. Duck fixed it and threw you some attitude. you apologize for the bad edit on his talk page, Duck says he appreciates it, tells you we've had a bunch of drive-bys from folks who do straight vandalism or insert wrong information. Then you tell him "Beware of the proprietorial attitude"???? Apparently, you took everything he said as a personal attack against you and specific other editors, rather than as a list of problems we've been dealing with. He then makes some general remarks about people who fell off a turnip truck coming in and editing the page, and you take it as more "personal attacks"? Nothing Duck said was proprietorial. We've had a lot of problems on the Terri Schiavo page for months. It is currently in mediation because it's gotten so bad. That isn't being proprietorial, it's reporting status. You admit you did a bad edit. Duck fixed it with an edit summary that had attitude. You apologized for the bad edit, he said he appreciated it. Everything after that, proprietorial behaviour and personal attacks is stuff that you invented. It didn't happen. But it appears you've sunk your teeth into this one and are too invested to let it go. "I shall be watching Duckecho"??? No, you just disqualified yourself from ever being able to render any sort of neutral administrative judgement with regards to Duckecho. You're the one who is carrying around the grudge here. FuelWagon 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

• Here's my two cents worth: Tony does have a point that duck can be proprietal; a look at his contributions, while difficult and lengthy, would eventually verify this. His comments about wack-jobs who've just fallen off the turnip truck indicate he thinks that there are weirdoes out there. That alone, I would agree with Duck, is not offensive, and both of you do appear to contribute. However, taken in the context of his attitude towards NCdave and calling Ann a Pain in the @--, it becomes clear that Duck's faulty logic that the courts must necessarily be NPOV is flawed at the base. That is not to say that he is clueless. Most of his edits seem responsible, and his 500-word summary on improvements for the Schiavo article did not show much bias, but the preceding three links revealed bias was there but dormant. My conclusion is that both of you over-reacted; I would not have snapped back at Tony, but instead acknowledged that I do have a slight amount of proprietoral (spelling?) attitude and then proceeded to justify it by my contributions. Likewise, I am not critical of Tony for making a small typo. We all do. Also, his comment wasn't "evil," but I think I would not have been as critical of Duck regarding the turnip truck comment. Duck has done enough other weird things to criticize, but he also benevolently put in a link to my court case in the activism and protest section back on May 14, two days before my birthday. I bragged about my prowess in court, win lose or draw, and he continues to make generally responsible edits, but if you have time, Tony, you are welcome to keep an eye on us, so long as you follow the context and discussion. --GordonWattsDotCom 1 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)

Removal of Quotes for Michael Moore

Why exactly did you remove the quotes from the Michael Moore article. Was it because

1.They are in Wikiquote, and therefore do not need to be replicated in the article 2.They have been chosen arbitrarily, or in a POV manner

Please explain. TDC June 30, 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I also agree. Would you also care to chime in the Ann Coulter article on this subject as I feel the two are very similar and I have made little progress convincing other editors. TDC June 30, 2005 16:45 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TDC"

Charles Chan

You're probably right; i shot from the hip in response to a deceptive appearance of a dump job taken from a highly structured Web page. Thanks for the correction. --Jerzy·t 30 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)