| Revision as of 15:42, 6 September 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →"Chat room buddies": I was about to ask you to please remove the baseless slur.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:07, 6 September 2006 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits User:Cool Cat/Ex-CVUNext edit → | ||
| Line 320: | Line 320: | ||
| ::Now you're just being silly. I don't see that the project is helped by us sniping at each other, so I see no useful purpose to continuing along these lines. ] ] 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | ::Now you're just being silly. I don't see that the project is helped by us sniping at each other, so I see no useful purpose to continuing along these lines. ] ] 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I was about to ask you to please remove the baseless slur. --] 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | ::: I was about to ask you to please remove the baseless slur. --] 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| I do not think lightly of . There was no personal attacks involved. You lost what you had left of my trust in you, if that matters at all to you (obviously it doesnt with this case and entier Moby Dick thing among other things) --<small>] ]</small> 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:07, 6 September 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Listen to this page (2 parts, 7 minutes)  These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated Error: no date provided, and do not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
|
 |
Cows
Do you like cows? --Naelphin 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix
Tony, HELP! I do not know if you notice or not but Wikipediatrix has a very short fuse and seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. We have articles on here that she has continually gotten involved in. When we have asked her to help us she became very confrontational and even claimed we were editing under different names. It got to the point that other editors were calling her down for her antics. I surely hope that this is not a regular problem that everyone has to deal with in thier dealings with her? She has tagged yet the same article on David L Cook for "cites" We went in and gave what we had. Such as a quote from Bob Hope. That comment was made at a banquet full of comedians and not recorded by television or radio. We have tried to explain these things and she still comes right back and tags everything again. I do not know if this is all she has to do all day but it certainly is very hard to deal with someone who has this kind of agenda. We are not Wiki savy and do not claim to be. We have gone in when we check these things to see if everything is done right and if not we try to fix them. I do not know how to cite the things she is talking about. Most of the things that are said between celebrities or at functions are not things that are citable in our opinion. Could you please help us? We need to get this woman off of our backs! She is very nasty. Thanks Daylon Ware IAMAS Corporation 9:14, 2006,25,07 (UTC)
- She's doing a good job. Please see Verifiability and Reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for Bob Hope's opinion on David L. Cook, then we can't use it. --Tony Sidaway 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Hagiographer
I have had problems with this user before. Thanks fort getting him to stop altering my user page in unpleasant ways. he has here altered my signature to that of another user, User:Pura Paja, please can you discourage him from doing so, SqueakBox 03:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alienus
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
Sam Korn 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind the sollogs
Hi. As you had a clear opinion on its predecessor, I thought you might also have one on this. (Though of course you're away right now....) -- Hoary 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom
Sorry for your being pulled into this, but you're named as an involved party. It'shere. rootology (T) 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Clerk duties call.
You may want to decide to move this or at minimum separate it from Ed's statement. JoshuaZ 02:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox has to be blocked for, at least a month
Excuse me, Tony but I believe Squeak Box has to blocked for a month. Instead of respecting his one month ban he created User:Skanking to go on editing. It has been demonstrated. Everything is explained in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SqueakBox_2. If you're not going to enforce the block, at least explain me why not. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
SqueakBox's not respecting his ban
User:SqueakBox hasn't respected his ban after being blocked. The anonymous user 63.245.13.229 has edited SqueakBox's user page to restore the insult by which you blocked him (). SqueakBox has admitted previously that that IP was him (). By the way, the user page still has the insult against me. I believed personal attacks are not allowed in the Misplaced Pages so I think it should be removed. I can't do it myself because User:Guettarda has protected the page. I suppose he didn't realize what was really going on.
In regard to my block and all that, I find it reasonable but, in fact, I'm not very interested in the article. Simply, I didn't understand, and I don't understand, what was the purpose of the absurd redirects so I removed them. In my humble opinion, redirects are used when two titles are valid for the same article. In other cases, redirects are pure vandalism: they don't allow anybody to edit or read an article. As far as I know, the Misplaced Pages prides on its effectiveness at fighting vandalism. If you analyze it, I've only edited a Zapatero related article once, when I removed from the main article the information I thought to be obsolete. All the other times, and they have been only three, I've simply removed the redirects. That is, as far as I know I've removed vandalism. And for that, from my point of view, you've blocked me from editing the articles. I'm not very interested in editing them, only that I find it kind of absurd. Vandalism is a serious threat to the Misplaced Pages, and I'm blocked from editing an article from which I've removed vandalism (in my view). So, I would like you to explain to me (or to tell me where I can find an explanation) if the use of redirects to prevent other users from editing or reading specific articles is vandalism or not. And if it is, why it's been allowed for so long.
If you think it's vandalism, in my opinion it's pretty clear it is, I think it should be clearly stated as such in the articles where it should be made clear that anybody redirecting the articles without, at least, a previous consensus will be treated as a vandal.
Thank you for reading this long message, :-) Hagiographer 06:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wiarthurhu, redux
Hi Tony, thought I'd alert you to a new development in the case of this banned user who is now asking for a lifting of the ban under certain conditions. As you took place in the original discussion leading to the ban I thought I should contact you directly about this new discussion. Thanks, Gwernol 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Gibraltarian
Hi Tony Sideway, would it be possible to semiprotect User:Ecemaml and User Talk:Ecemaml pages? Gibraltarian is back as you are surely aware... Thanks, Asterion 14:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Aggressive user
In the course of a challenging edit war around the Waldorf education article, one new Misplaced Pages user (User:Pete K) is employing rather offensive personal attacks on the talk page. There seem to be no neutral participants who can suggest an appropriate tone for the discussion; more precisely, one has, and has been ignored. Can you help? See Talk:Waldorf education.
The user also has a tendency to editorialize in the article; the distinction between describing his personal opinions or experiences, on the one hand, and verifiable information, on the other, seems to be unclear to him. The article needs clean-up, and some useful results are coming out of the discussion, but I for one am often uncomfortable with the tone and style.
Hoping you can help in some way! Hgilbert 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Insults
I inform you administrator about insults .--PIO 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Dear Other Guy
Sorry, i'm not him, but I could introduce if you'd like. We talked once here on Misplaced Pages and i'm sure we've probably met each other before this at one meeting or another. Vice President In Charge Of Office Supplies 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ready to archive. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Award
|
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| This award is for your efforts to make Misplaced Pages a better place. Martial Law |
- This award is also for the Arbitration Committee as well. This is one Wikipedian who is thanking you for doing a often thankless, often resented job. Martial Law 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
More Alienus socks
88.198.213.138 I believe is a new Alienus sockpuppet. It has been editing the articles silent protagonist and crony capitalism. In addition, 81.169.180.248, another Alienus sockpuppet has been editing Objectivism (Ayn Rand) in addition to other articles. Would it be possible to semi-protect the articles that these IP's edit? Thanks. LaszloWalrus 03:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. LaszloWalrus 22:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Alienus is continuing to use anon socks, on articles like pseudoreligion and crony capitalism. Is there a way to have these IP's blocked or these articles protected from anon users, or to have Alienus's ban extended beyond a year? LaszloWalrus 15:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Each time he socks like this, his one-year ban is reset. --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. LaszloWalrus 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bugging you, but Alienus has a new sockpuppet, 217.10.142.170. LaszloWalrus 18:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Willothewisp
I came over here a while ago and got a load of spoken articles in stupid voices deleted that had been created by User:Willothewisp. If you like that readout of your user page then that's fine, but can you block him to stop him messing around any longer? Judging by the previous sounds he's contributed, I'm sure you weren't intended to like it, and I think it's just going to carry on with doing articles and making Misplaced Pages look stupid. Archer7 08:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- He hasn't done anything in two months. I think he was just a prankster. The audio of my talk page was, to my mind, obviously intended as a bit of good natured leg-pulling. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Kilt wearers
Mate I want to know why you think it is an incredibly ridiculous category. We have cateogries on class ring wearers and wikipedians by parenthood. I wonder why you feel the pinch about this one. Unitedroad 15:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Those are ridiculous categories, too. What possible relevance can this vomit-inducing nonsense have to the encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway 15:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2/Proposed decision
The lead section says 7 is a majority, the motion to close says it's 6. Where did the discreprency come from? - Mgm| 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- A bit of ad hocery. Clearly the arbitrators involve are happy that 6-0 is adequate. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
A Poet's Life
I reversed you because you, again, closed the AfD early, even after a DRV showed some issue with your early close. Stop doing it, and stop referring to a useless essay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to work for me. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Edit ban on all highway articles?
Could you please clarify your statement: "I hereby ban all of those involved from editing or moving those articles until we have all agreed on a policy" at AN/I? Some of us have quietly been making constructive edits while this whole debate is taking place. We're not doing moves, we're not edit warring, we're not doing anything that is controversial in any way. We would like to be able to continue making valid contributions to highway articles. Your statement was rather all-inclusive, and its inclusiveness has been questioned. We just want to be sure we're not going to be violating any such ruling. Homefryes 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I misspoke. I meant "from moving." --Tony Sidaway 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. — Homefryes •Do 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ugly signatures
Hi Tony. Quite how ugly does a signature have to be to do you think to justify asking the user to change it? I'm reluctant to push this user too much as we already have a disagreement and he'll think I'm picking on him. Nonetheless I find this signature excessive and I particularly dislike that it contains no mention of the user's actual user name:
- (horrible mess removed)
What do you think? --kingboyk 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's vile. Ask him to change it. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Would you ask him? I've had enough flame and hellfire on my talk page lately, and he doesn't know you... I think your flameproof pants are stronger than mine too :) --kingboyk 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Hipcrime (Usenet)
The problem we are facing here is that our one person (and I am fairly convinced that is what it is) seems very capable of spoofing his IP or doing whatever else he needs to do to move around usernames/IPs. A block, then, is only marginally useful, and a ban from editing the article could only be enforceable until he finds another IP address... I think the old watchlist is as good a solution as anything else. (ESkog) 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly. Or just bung it on semiprotection. I won't do that myself because I've edited it. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hiya!
Hey, I just noticed your name on a tweak of that PZ Myers page. So this is where you've gotten to, deep in the bowels of Misplaced Pages.
- Like a tapeworm. :) --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You know what
Hi,
Screw bureaucracy, sure, but give the issue a day or two, eh? Certainly, more than five hours. Also, at least let somebody who hasn't commented close the thing. Doc and I made peace: why'd you have to go and make my day less calm? :( Best wishes, Xoloz 19:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Xoloz, I've no desire to breach our peace. Perhaps you are right here. Perhaps, as an involved party, Tony should have left it to another to close. If speedy closing was appropriate, somone else would have done it. However, equally, as the opener of the discussion, perhaps you should not have been the one to reopen it. Perhaps, if it needed re-opening, someone else should have done that? :) Just a thought, --Doc 20:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhhhhhhaps... but, in my defense, one strong argument in favor of my capacity to reopen is that I still have no position (formal or otherwise) on this little page. In opening, I did abstain, you know. (As an aside, Doc, if you admit to a "frustration with process" generally, trying to "out-process" a
wonklawyer like me is probably not good for your health!) Also, reopening needs to happen quickly; or else, after a possible DRV, we risking having to "relist" it, which just about nobody really wants, do we now? Xoloz 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Perhhhhhhaps... but, in my defense, one strong argument in favor of my capacity to reopen is that I still have no position (formal or otherwise) on this little page. In opening, I did abstain, you know. (As an aside, Doc, if you admit to a "frustration with process" generally, trying to "out-process" a
- As a very rusty law graduate - and an argumentative old sod, I assure you I'm well capable of out doing the wonks in wonkery. ;) --Doc 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you have no position, why did you undelete the page? --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is very likely that some defenders of the page have not yet had sufficient notice or time to comment. I am preserving for the as-yet-unspoken at least a little window of time in which they might comment. Generally, this is the reason all debates have fixed time-durations of some kind: so the first guy who comes along to "vote" doesn't declare a unanimity of one and close the thing. Opportunity to be heard is key, yes?
- Besides, although I have no opinion, I have an honest self-interest in debate continuing for a bit. I'm waiting for an answer from Lar. :) Xoloz 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The key is surely getting rubbish like this off the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No hassle. I made an honest attempt to kill this silly thing; my conscience is clean. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Has your conscience ever been otherwise? ;) Xoloz 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Image deletion
Would you mind expanding on this, please? All fair use images are copyright infringements (presumably). pfctdayelise 01:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The image is a Getty property and concerns an ongoing news event. In my opinion it exposed Misplaced Pages for copyright infringement that clearly could reduce Getty's income from the image. While it may be possible at some time in the future to use an image like that somewhere on Misplaced Pages, at the time of deletion the image's potential for use had not been adequately justified. --Tony Sidaway 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Tony. Nandesuka 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thankyou for explaining that. That makes sense and I have no issue with that. However it's not at all what is expressed in the deletion log, or what was expressed to me on the image page (by others) before it was deleted. And it's frankly not an obvious or set in stone part of WP policy. A note to let me know might have been nice. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Protection on Pseudoreligion
Tony,
I noticed that you added a semi-protect on Pseudoreligion due to some edit-warring going on, and possible sockpuppetry. The principal user involved, whom I understand you've dealt with in the past, user:LaszloWalrus appears to be continuing an edit-war campaign for which he's previously been blocked: removing sourced references to Objectivism. In this article, as well as on the article's Talk page a number of citations were provided for this individual. He continues to remove the references, often numerous times a day, even after being warned multiple times on his talk page to stop. Please take a look to see what you feel is appropriate. I will refrain from reverting his latest content deletion. Thx, --Leflyman 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I may be too involved on this matter--I've really only been addressing what seem to be ban violations by another user on LaszloWalrus' request. I'm also aware that he himself has been prone to tendentious editing and I've blocked him in the past. However I'd rather you took this to WP:ANI and ask another administrator to review this. I think this would be fairer to all. --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Understood; thank you. --Leflyman 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Juro
All the staff were done in the past. Annoying POV pusher , clearly with a hate/angster against hungarians (see the few previous links, i put in). He even had block(s) for this. How/where can I ask for a third view comment? Or ask for banning him from editing articles related to Hungary and Hungarians? The wikipedia's arbitration pages are better then tha maze was in Crete. :S Can't find anything. --VinceB 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Try making an edit on Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, or else ask for mediation. You should in early stages be trying to see if you can persuade the user to stop pushing points of view into articles.
- If there are at least two editors who have tried, and failed, to resolve the dispute with this user, then try going to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct.
- If all other avenues fail, or seem very likely to fail, come back to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration and read the instructions on how to apply for arbitration.
- If the user is engaged in persistent edit warring, and the problem is rather urgent, make an edit on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI for short) and an administrator will take a look and take action if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but it lasts since he regged in. All you mentioned above were all done, since 2003, a ots of times by a lot of users. Guess, the time for an arbitration is here for more than 2 yrs now. Will you help me? I don't know how to do this.--VinceB 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll reformat your application. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi. As an editor active in the same area as Juro, I feel that I can (and should) provide some evidence against VinceB's claims. Since you filed the RfA for him/her, could you advise me please where I should write my comment to this case? Thanks in advance. Tankred 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, you're welcome to make a new section on that application called something like "Statement by User:Tankred" and add your own signed comments. Keep it brief and to the point; arbitrators don't like to read long submissions. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt VinceB used other means how to resolve his personal dispute with Juro (and btw, I failed to find any particular talk page, where the alleged dispute occurred). As far as I know, Juro has never been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Unfortunately, I was not able to find the archived cases of Misplaced Pages:Third Opinion, but I do not remember anyone officially asking for the third opinion in this case. I believe that VinceB's request is unnecessary and it would be nice if he provided any evidence that (1) he/she has a dispute with Juro and (2) he/she used other means of dispute resolution before filing his/her request. Tankred 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that it seems unlikely to be accepted (though I don't make such decisions). If it's rejected, likely the arbitrators will recommend a course of action such as mediation or RfC. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Removal of complaint from Jimbo's talk page
as I stated on my talk page - who are you to be removing content from people's talk pages? Furthermore resolving the normal way doesn't function with one of the users being an administrator abusing their power and the other a mindless zealot Lordkazan 13:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll get very far on Misplaced Pages with that attitude. --Tony Sidaway 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Tony,
I think you may have misplaced this, of course, I could be wrong. Best, Yanksox 15:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you still want this?
As in, this? I'm just doing a bit of cleanup over there and thought this was a bit strange (or at least strange to have as a template) :). --SB_Johnny | 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It's linked from my userspace. Feel free to move the template to a user subpage; when I wrote it there were good technical reasons to place transcluded pages in template space, but those reasons are long gone. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, will do. We've got a billion templates left over from the now-no-longer-on-wikibooks video game guides, so I'm going on a bit of a deletion spree. --SB_Johnny||books 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Your blocks
Hi, I decided to write this after I saw your block of User:Ghirlandajo. You may remember me as one of the editors who protested your illogical and eventually overturned page block of User:Karl Meier. At that time I was concerned with your reaction to my protests (i.e. that I was being "overly legalistic",) but since the block was overturned after ArbCom explained to you what Probation is, I decided to let it go. But now you have executed an unwarranted and egregious block of a prolific contributor. What's more, in your attempt to justify the block you severly twisted the language of Misplaced Pages. To characterize Ghirlandajo's comments as "grossly incivil" is to render those terms meaningless. In a horrifically ironic twist, the comments you were referring to were complaints about the block-prone nature of some admins. To block an editor for that is Orwellian in the truest sense of the word.
You may say that your block was in response to his reaction to your "polite" "cool it down" request. Again, this is a complete misrepresentation of the events. Falsely accusing someone of gross incivility is the opposite of polite. You have said his response was defiant, which it most certainly was. If an admin had "warned" me to stop critizing other admins I would have also reacted with defiance. But the response was certainly not inflammatory, and without a doubt not blockworthy. On the other hand, a 3 hour block is nothing but inflammatory. Since blocks are meant to be preventative I wonder what you were attempting to prevent. If your goal was to get Ghiraldando to stop complaining about eager-to-block admins, do you think this was a good solution?
I am telling you all of this because I feel I must, as your actions have crossed a line. I'm sure nothing will come of this minor dispute, but I want you to know that I will be watching who you block very carefully, and I will not hesitate to call you on blocks I feel are unwarranted. You have stated that you didnt think this block would be harmful. In the future, try to think whether a block will be helpful. Thank you, and feel free to contact me on my talk page for further discussion if you wish. --Nscheffey 01:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't block Karl Meier. This fellow Ghirlandajo doesn't get a free pass for being grossly uncivil to other editors, compounding it by repeating the incivility to someone with whom he has a disagreement, and making numerous false accusations.
- A three-hour block gave Ghirlandajo the opportunity to recognise that he had gone far beyond what is acceptable discourse on Misplaced Pages. He did not take it. --Tony Sidaway 01:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- OK, it wasn't an illogical block, it was an illogical ban, sorry for the incorrect terminology. As for the rest of your comment, your continued use of incorrect characterizations ("grossly uncivil", "numerous false accusations", "far beyond what is acceptable discourse") demonstrates that you have not considered any of my arguments. This inability to admit fallibility is yet another concern.--Nscheffey 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- For more on the ban, see comments by different arbitrators on WP:RFAR. On the subject of fallibility, see my own comments and responses on that same thread, started by me.
- I stand by my characterizations of Ghirlandajo's unacceptable conduct and believe that, if User:Cowman109's application for arbitration is accepted, they will be confirmed by the arbitration committee and he will be prevented from continuing to damage the atmosphere of Misplaced Pages further by such conduct. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Upon rereading of my own comments I realized they may appear overly confrontational. Please don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against you as a person and I'm sure you are an invaluable asset to the encyclopedia. It's just that I have seen a lot of what I consider unjustifiable blocks lately, and not a lot of opposition, and I felt I needed to say something. Although I continue to strongly disagree with you about the nature of Ghirla's comments and the ensuing block, I appreciate your reply. --Nscheffey 02:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I stand by my characterizations of Ghirlandajo's unacceptable conduct and believe that, if User:Cowman109's application for arbitration is accepted, they will be confirmed by the arbitration committee and he will be prevented from continuing to damage the atmosphere of Misplaced Pages further by such conduct. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Road trip
Hello Tony :-) Letting you know that I will be out of town through Sunday. Tried to help clear some cases before I left. Will be on the road all Wednesday so not likely to check in. After that I will check in at least once daily and will close or open cases if needed. Have you seen any problems with my clerking? If so, please let me know. Take care, FloNight 02:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're doing a great job. Have a safe trip. --Tony Sidaway 02:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Chaldeans
Hi, you might wanna look at this Chaldean's. They try to get by it, but this is the real page; Chaldean. Chaldean 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"Chat room buddies"
Replying here as I didn't see that it was relevant to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship. Not sure why anyone would find this offensive or ugly or whatever. Chat rooms are everywhere. People talk to their buddies in them quite frequently. I see nothing offensive about this. I think you're overly sensitive to things being "ugly". Friday (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the chatroom? When does Carnildo visit it? These are simple enough questions. If there isn't such a chatroom (and I'm not aware of one) then what you were doing sounds like a very, very ugly thing indeed. Maybe there's an innocent explanation. What is the chatroom called? --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just being silly. I don't see that the project is helped by us sniping at each other, so I see no useful purpose to continuing along these lines. Friday (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was about to ask you to please remove the baseless slur. --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Now you're just being silly. I don't see that the project is helped by us sniping at each other, so I see no useful purpose to continuing along these lines. Friday (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Cool Cat/Ex-CVU
I do not think lightly of this. There was no personal attacks involved. You lost what you had left of my trust in you, if that matters at all to you (obviously it doesnt with this case and entier Moby Dick thing among other things) --Cat out 18:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Category: