Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:55, 16 March 2007

Lost in space

Bits of the Workshop keep disappearing, most recently through User:Tony Sidaway and User:Bunchofgrapes removing "unhelpful nastiness", and some of the remaining discussion has lost context as a result. Just so the original discussion is not lost, and the remaining comments make more sense, here are diffs to their removal:

• Mackensen removing Tony Sidaway's "Proposed principle" that "Problems with Misplaced Pages should be addressed by discussion, rather than piecemeal attempts to entrap and discredit other editors", accompanied by his comment that "the troll and his mates play merry hell until they gets an arbitration case", references to "the Scoobie Gang" (Tony Sidaway's "informal name for the collection of close associates of Worldtraveller who, purporting to believe the blocked editor to be someone they didn't know, suddenly showed up and started making a very, very loud noise over Inshaneee's behavior ... User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Geogre and User:Bishonen.") and to "Vigilanteism", with replies for various people - (removing principle per consent of parties)

• Tony Sidaway removing a comment by Bunchofgrapes asking Tony Sidaway to "tone it down" and a comment by ALoan thanking Tony Sidaway for his "usual constructive and insightful contributions" - (removing unhelpful nastiness)
• Tony Sidaway removing a comment by Bunchofgrapes raising his "cause to suspect" that Tony Sidaway has been "editing all this time from an insane asylum" and Tony Sidaway's reply asking Bunchofgrapes to "stop abusing this workshop" - (ditto)

• Bunchofgrapes removing a comment by Tony Sidaway about his "reasonable suspicion" that Bishonen, Geogre and Bunchofgrapes "knew more about the case than they're disclosing", an explanatory reply by Bunchofgrapes, and Tony Sidaway's acknowledgement of his doubts being allayed satisfactorily - (removing unhelpful nastiness)
• Bunchofgrapes removing comment by User:Tony Sidaway about "the Scoobies" "behaving very, very oddly for some time now" - (ditto)

I have not done an exhaustive check of the edit history, so there may be other comments that have been removed or refactored that I have not noticed and listed above.

I also think Tony Sidaway's comments in the "Comment by parties" sections should be moved to the "Comment by others" section: although he added himself as a party (quite why is a little unclear), he later removed himself, and he is not a party now. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I may or may not be a party to this case--that's purely for the arbitrators to decide. As a formal matter I have always added myself to cases in which I have given evidence. This has never been a matter of controversy before and I've no idea why it is now exciting controversy. Because of the unnecessary upset, I have removed myself from the list.

Moving my comments from one section to another at this stage would probably only make a mess of the workshop, so I haven't done it. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the arbitrators will make such decisions at they think fit - but you always add yourself as a party to a case where you add evidence? I am not aware of anyone else doing that - indeed, I was not aware that you always did it. Is it a recommended practice? Why do you do it? How often have you done it, and when did you do it last, as a matter of interest?

It is unfortunate that your comments and actions seem so often to cause "unnecessary" upset. I have no idea why that happens - do you? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're trying to play Perry Mason, so I'll leave it there. --Tony Sidaway 21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perry Mason? I don't know what you mean. I was simply interested to know why you would pursue such a course of action: as I said, I am not aware of anyone else doing it, and wondered if it was or ought to be recommended (I can see reasons in favour and reasons against). I suppose I could trawl through previous RFArbs to find out for myself when you have done it before, but I thought it would be easier for you to point me to a previous occasion than for me to do some arbitration archaeology. Shrug - clearly it is too much trouble for you to answer such questions. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perry Mason was a fictional defense attorney who frequently got his clients acquitted by investigating and uncovering the real criminal, often on the witness stand. The name survives in popular culture as a way of saying that someone is 'acting as a detective' and/or 'trying to catch the bad guy'. Tony apparently has a penchant for 1960s television references. --CBD 00:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I think ALoan is honestly trying to understand and is worth talking to. Despite his obvious sympathy for Giano I have always found ALoan to be open to opinions from others in my dealings with him.

As to the specific question, Tony is one of those people who prefers to speak his mind and trust other people to fill in the blanks. He can be blunt which requires a little interpretation sometimes by his audience. Due to his history with "the scoobies" they all view everything he says with suspicion and jump on anything that can be remotely misinterpreted, which, regrettably, is most of what Tony says.

An ideal world would actually be two worlds, one for Tony and one for the scoobies. Unfortunately that isn't likely to happen. I don't really see a viable solution.

In other news, I am completely opposed to anyone removing anyone else's comments. It is just plain childish to pretend you can force someone to "unsay" something, all it serves to do is confuse the conversation for anyone else trying to figure out what happened later. --Ideogram 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't call us the Scoobies, Beavis. Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll call you whatever the hell I want and you can call me whatever the hell you want. You already do anyway. --Ideogram 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just don't call me late for dinner. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Thanks, humor always helps. --Ideogram 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss the case in favor of reopening the RfC

Comments, favorable or unfavorable, are requested on the motion/suggestion I have presented here. I am noting this on the talkpage mostly so it doesn't get overlooked in the lengthy workshop. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Principle 5.x

While reading this over I noticed a point that seems to be missed. Principle 5.x, which deals with how administrators should be willing to discuss their actions, is never really followed up on below. Below much is said of Inshannee's apology (i,e, whether or not it was sufficent), but I think that question is irrelvant. There is no principle stating that admins should apologize for their mistakes. The principle says admins should be willing to discuss their actions. So there should be a statement of fact that Inshanee's was or was not adhereing to that principle. I honestly didn't read through the AN/I discussion. And perhaps there is evidence there of Inshanee doing so. However looking only at his one comment addressed to Worldtraveller, although I see an apology there is no discussion.--BirgitteSB 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Tony still editing the project page?

Arbitrators, if you are incapable of maintaining order, which increasingly appears to be the case, it's best to come clean about it, upfront. Thx. El_C 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, as Lear said in Act I, "Mend your speech a little / Lest you may mar your fortunes." The Workshop is open for the free exchange of ideas. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of the discussion, which started off appallingly, has improved somewhat. Perhaps next time we can skip the appalling phase. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is incapable of maintaining order. I may be partially to blame by suggesting Tony is not the only culprit, but the committee has failed to come to the conclusion that limits must be imposed. Fred Bauder 14:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am making efforts to avoid worsening things, but have not proven particularly good at this in the past. I'll obviously take notice of any ban. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the clerks (which means me since Brad is recused and Cowman is on a break) could have been more proactive by actually removing certain discussions earlier to "nip it in the bud." I'm not sure how well that would have been received, however. Thatcher131 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)