Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:38, 24 November 2008

Template:Werdnabot

This editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Real-life workload: 10

• 1 = no work pressure
• 5 = middling
• > 5 = please don't expect much
• 10 = frenzied

Please note that I don't normally (1) copy-edit articles, or (2) review articles that are not candidates for promotion to featured status.

Warning regarding unlinking of dates

As this practice (and the actual manual of style guideline) are currently in dispute, you should probably back off of unlinking dates until the dispute is resolved. Prior ArbCom cases have looked unfavorably on editors who attempt to force through disputed changes on a massive scale as you (and other editors) are doing. Specifically, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli, which I quote:

Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits.

— Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Fait_accompli

Continuing this behavior could be considered disruption. Please stop and instead participate in the ongoing discussions at WT:MOSNUM and elsewhere. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am taking absolutely no notice of this attempt to bully and intimidate me into submission, by someone who is pursuing his own self-indulgent crusade. I will continue to assist editors to comply with WP's style guides. Tony (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with unlinking dates, but this kind of change of style needs to happen gradually rather than forced though en masse. We need to give time for people who did not already participate in the discussion to join in, rather than saying it has already been decided. I haven't been watching you edits so I don't know if this applies to you, just a general comment. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comment. But ... "forced through en masse" is a bit spin-like; I'd say "editors are spared manual compliance with the style guides by supervised automation", and that there's no earthly reason to go slow in this. Does it frighten you? Tony (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the dramaz, but this all is amazingly absurd. Must be delayed effect of the full moon. Gimmetrow 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on previous warning about delinking dates

I invite you to have a look at this edit warring case. Edits like the one you made to the Bernard Jackman, Regina, Crown Princess of Austria, Nick Littlemore, James Morrison (singer), William Paterson (jurist), and University of Zagreb articles violate the previous warning and are inconsistent with the result of the edit warring case. Tennis expert (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your "order" has be "violated"? You must be so upset. Tony (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Wow tony. After delinking the dates tennis expert and his crew is reverting and linking dates and that person says in the edit summary "There is no consensus to delete existing date links". Iam not sure if that person should be taken to ANI or RFC for simply reverting. If i may ask how long do you think we have keep on delinking the same page over and over and over again?. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Better than most of us, Tony knows that the right answer per WP:BRD and WP:3RR is "once, then discuss" after the first revert.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In the "catchy title" department

... can you peek at Misplaced Pages:FCDW/WBFAN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

When you get to it, there's a big jumble of numbers in the intro; maybe you can figure a way to make it less like an accounting article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this got lost in your talk page? I'm still hoping you'll help me with a catchy title at Misplaced Pages:FCDW/November 24, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at . Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who can you recommend as a good layout consultant, especially w.r.t. numerous images?

Tony, I’ve been working on cleaning up the Fighter aircraft article. I’ve identified two major areas that need serious clean-up work – flat lists and images – but I have little experience with the technical in’s-and-out’s of images. Given your experience with FARs, who would you recommend as good folks to ask for advice? Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 04:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I've asked Sandy for advice on this. Good for me to know too. Tony (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We've lost Elcobbola, which is dreadful. Sandy thinks that Masem may have the expertise. Tony (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Elcobbola, but after reading his way with words, I wish I had. Thanks for the lead on Masem. I'll contact him after our Thanksgiving break, and I'll keep you in touch. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced comment?

MOS-issues make my head spin, but this comment seems out of place? I thought that section was about dashes not dates? Shenme (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 10 you were warned for edit warring and you acknowledged that warning here and here (although those acknowledgments weren't too promising). Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Slow edit warring is still edit warring.

Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is just about one of the most absurd blocks that I've ever seen, and I've seen some pretty daft blocks. This is an outrageous abuse of power on Rjd0060's part, and I hope he will reflect on whether he is fit to continue as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way. All three users who felt the need to continue edit warring were blocked. No exception here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Am I expected to congratulate you because your abuse of power was even-handed? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Question: how is this block absurd? – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you mean "Why is this block absurd?" If so, see below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I mean what I say :-) – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
            • In which case I don't know what you mean. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• Was there some reason not to simply topic ban?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, that needs community consensus or an outstanding arbcom sanction, something that I am sure it would not give. This would also need to be more than his first block. I don't think it was an abuse of power, very heavy-handed, but not an abuse of power; it was an edit war and it had been dragging on forever. Personally, I was about to fully protect the page, or asked someone else to, it would have achieved the same goal but without alienating editors. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Protecting the page would have been the rational thing to do. You call dishing out these blocks "heavy-handed". I stick with "an abuse of power", which will inevitably lead to alienating editors and may well cause more damage than it was intended to prevent. A grave mistake, which is why I question Rjd0060's fitness for the role of administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Full protection was applied for a week earlier this month. None of the parties attempted to resolve their conflict during the week of protection and resumed the edit war as soon as protection expired. MBisanz 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • (ec) Exactly what damage was this so-called edit war causing to the encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Ideally, the page should be protected until parties can agree not to edit war over it. If people continue to edit war, violating policy, what can you expect? I don't think Rjd was that heavy handed here. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I am firmly of the opinion that it was an abuse of power on Rjd0060's part which demonstrates that he does not have the judgement necessary to be an administrator. Your mileage may of course vary, don't much care frankly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

            • Malleus, have you lost your way? When did you acquire the notion that judgement was necessary to become an administrator? Wake up and smell the roses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Yep, I got a bit carried away there Sandy. Won't happen again. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)#

              Obviously people who pass adminship with over 100 supports and no opposes whatsoever have very poor judgement. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Well, I certainly do. I'm still trying to figure this one out, though. The tag was changed from disputed to under discussion. Would I dispute that, or would I merely strongly discuss it? --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

              Well I don't think it matters now, hopefully Tony will do the right thing and stop edit warring. The return of the old boring "admins all have poor judgement and are abusive" meme here is simply distracting the issue at hand though. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

            • Hmm, per Bishonen below, I have to agree with you here, sadly. Though I would disagree with calling it abuse, probably a mistake is more accurate. But as you say, our opinions will differ. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
• What the...? Tony has made one further edit to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) after MBisanz' warning. That's a war now?? I've taken this to WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

I've unblocked you, Tony1, and Locke Cole as well, per the growing consensus at ANI. I strongly encourage you to pursue dispute resolution and not to revert each other anymore. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What I strongly encourage you to do I will leave for others to guess. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just come into this. I will pursue action against this blocker for breaching tenets of the admin policy. The action is akin to the worst kind of fascism (random, sudden, arbitrary, unreasonable). Tony (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) PS And unfortunately my RL work does not allow me to take this action for a day or two. I simply have no time. Tony (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW I will be 100% behind you when you do, for exactly the same reason. This kind of admin bullying has got to be nipped in the bud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe it is high time that a centralised noticeboard be created to document and monitor admin abuses of editors. I've been advised that complaining through the "official" channels is a waste of html, because they all band together to support each other. It is also apparent that the removal of adminship requires an act of both houses of parliament. I'm thinking through the design of such a noticeboard, for creation in my userspace. If WP has failed to provide a balanced system of discipline and demotion, it is up to the people (us) to do the best we can to apply pressure through such documentation and monitoring to put an end to bullying and arbitrary, out-of-proportion punishment that is being handed down. Feedback here is welcome; when the plans are more concrete, I will publicise them. Tony (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, just coming into this, and hesitant to dig too deeply into the issue. However, I will say that it is quite surprising to me to see Tony accused of "edit warring." Tony has been bold (as required by Misplaced Pages policy) and civil (as required by Misplaced Pages policy) in every instance in which I've encountered him. He's been pursuing a change that has a lot of support, but is very significant -- affecting nearly every article on the encyclopedia.

I find it hard to imagine how the thoughtful, well-intentioned editor I have come to know could suddenly be guilty of an offense so severe that it require a block. Tony has always been responsive to my comments, and flexible in his approach.

I want to address the noticeboard issue separately. From where I sit, the ongoing discussion about which admin did or didn't abuse his power is one of the more damaging dynamics in an otherwise healthy community. I believe this type of endless chatter generally results when there is no effective way of airing concerns -- when bureaucracy and red tape become more of a factor than simple justice and mission-driven decision making. A central noticeboard seems like a reasonable proposal for how to deal with it; though I have some doubts whether a recently-aggrieved party will be taken seriously as a champion for an idea like that. I am generally supportive of the idea, and I do hope that it goes somewhere.

In summary, to tie these two thoughts together a bit: bold behavior and innovative ideas are often difficult to distinguish from fairly routine problems; efforts to treat policy as something that needs to grow and change often conflict with the equally-important notion that rules ought to be followed. So it's unsurprising that bold editors are often dealt with in ways that seem "random, sudden, arbitrary, or unreasonable."

We need to be able to sort these conflicts out in a way that is respectful of all editors' desire to do good work, and that promotes good encyclopedic work.

(Disclosure: I am an administrator, but I'd rather you didn't call me that to my face. I usually try to avoid fancy buttons; too much content-building to do.) -Pete (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between administrators and non-admnistrators needs to be be symmetrical. An admin makes a bad block; black mark against the editor but not against the blocking admin. Is that fair? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to quit Misplaced Pages? There's so much slapstick. This is far, far better than a rerun of Seinfeld. Ling.Nut 13:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• But wait: there's more to come. This has sparked a new movement to put an end to this extraordinary asymmetry, and the self-perceived freedom by a minority of administrators to abuse editors. The majority of admins—good people who work within the policies and the expectations of the populace—are likely to support a reining in of the bad apples, I suspect. Tony (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some merit to your vision here, Tony. In particular, content editors who are held to a standard of civility when content quality is at stake. It's much easier to block a user for calling another a name than it is for an admin to step in and try to understand the content issue and take a stand. The dispute resolution on content does not appear to be very effective. --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

My only two cents, before bowing out: similar to Moni, for many reasons I suspect that blocking for an isolated edit war is often profoundly counterproductive... though blocking veteran edit warriors (e.g., nationalist POV pushers, etc.) may have virtue. As per Moni, the correct answer is a discussion among ladies and gentlemen. I now disappear. Ling.Nut 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. What I propose is a citizen's forum/noticeboard where we can try to make up for the sham that is the official disciplinary/grievance process—that appears to be a pretend process to fool us editors into thinking that there are procedures for keeping the behaviour of admins in check, and for ensuring that they do not breach the community's policy on admin behaviour. Importantly, we need to gather support for the establishment of an official process that is bona fide. At the moment, it's akin to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, etc, in the Soviet Union. Tony (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm down already. The admin made a mistake, but others protested immediately and you got unblocked before you even noticed the block. I don't see any big conspiracy here. Actually, the only reason this started up a little storm is because you have so many friends here. Anyway, the issue is over. Get on with life. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if that board begins on your talk page, Tony, it would be a valuable service to have, and anything that takes place should have no other purpose than to watch admins. It will inevitably become a bitch session where some editors who have been blocked complain, but with some moderation and understanding of the purpose, hopefully that can be kept in check. My idea was a bit broader, to incorporate a process or some kind of something that encourage admins to respond to content disruptions as swiftly as they do name-calling. Swifter. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will need to be properly coordinated and filtered (I envisage a few volunteers). It will need to be procedurally fair to admins, and will have to be prepared to dismiss or postpone notifications that are deemed to provide insufficient evidence of a breach of admin policy, or that are frivolous. Users who are blocked or otherwise punished tend to be emotional about it; that is going to be difficult to deal with; but the absence of a real procedure forces us into designing and implementing a procedure ourselves, whatever the challenges. My immediate agenda is to:

• encourage admins to abide by the policies that govern their behaviour, use of tools, etc.;
• offer an outlet for users who are abused, and if possible, to make available users who volunteer to act as advocates for them;
• act as a rallying-point for those who want to lobby for systemic change; and
• expose the bad apples for our own protection.

I welcome feedback from (i) civilians and (ii) the majority of the police force who are bone fide in their role. When the design of the page becomes clearer, I'll seek specific comments. Tony (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is idealistic. We do have existing noticeboards where you can air grievances, though I accept they are far from productive or useful in their current form. All this will do is to create another waste of html and turn into a witch hunt against those who, I hope, are only trying to help. I wholly understand how you are unhappy about this, and I understand about your need for retribution, but this is not the way to go. This will only serve to exarcerbate the perceived divide between admins and editors. I don't think there has to be a divide, you can be both an admin and an editor. I think some of the problems come from admins who are solely here to be a "police force" and who have never edited articles, who aren't used to disputes about content. I don't think there is any way of remedying that problem. Regards. Woody (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this is the appropriate way to go about it, there is a problem that needs to be solved. There are a lot of good administrators. There are also a lot of uncivil, hotheaded ones without a firm grasp of policy (not implying that any of the ones who've posted on this thread are in the latter group). There is no effective way to discipline administrators or even to document mistakes. There's a lot of leeway in most administrative tasks (it's easy to restore a wrongly deleted document) but there is much less room for error in blocking. Blocking has the potential to drive off valuable contributors and/or to cause those contributors to be viewed negatively for an inappropriate reason. We need a more simple way to recall administrators. We need a more simple way of showing an administrator that "hey, you've been a bit heavy-handed on the blocking, why don't you go on blocking probation for a few weeks and run all your blocks past someone else" or "hey, you are being uncivil and you might need to stop using your admin tools until you learn to control yourself better." Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's idealistic. You seem to accept the problem, Woody, but to be pessimistic about the prospects of creating a more effective, fairer system. I'm not; nothing could be worse than no alternative at all to the pretend system we have now. Too many editors have grievances about abuse to ignore it for much longer. Widening the gap between police and citizenry? I don't think so. The aim is to help a fairer system evolve that will not see itself as a police force. The goal is to narrow the gap by removing bad behaviour from the equation and encouraging police to focus on the policies that govern their behaviour. I don't want WPians to be cynical about their police force, but they are. You have to start somewhere. Karanacs, I agree with all your points, and we will engineer such changes only by exposing and publicising bad behaviour and policy breaches, and by acting as a forum for lobbying for systemic change. Tony (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not denying that there are some problematic admins, I think most of them belong to the "police force" group described above. There are also problematic editors who hide behind the gold stars on their userpage and their good edits and then use them as a big stick. I can see two trenches being dug and everyone on both sides is digging in. It is not helpful and it is not productive. I don't think setting up a board where people can complain about them is any different from what we have already. It will soon become watched by the same cabal who watch the other pages. There is no way from blocking editors from pages, or indeed from blocking admins from editing a page, there is always a need for recourse. I agree that the block tool is the most dangerous tool that an admin has, it is the one that can cause the most damage. I have always advocated a mandatory recall system, but I don't see it being passed anytime soon, especially by those who already hold the big sticks. I agree that there is a need for some system of recourse, an area where this things can be discussed, I just don't see how it can exist without turning into another witch hunt/drama magnet. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It will be a drama magnet and some people will complain because things get blown out of proportion. However, systems on Misplaced Pages work until they don't. It's time to address the problems between heavy-handed admins and content editors, and there are faults on both sides. The only way things change anywhere is by folks noticing and making a big stink about it. Where you wrote above I don't think there is any way of remedying that problem I disagree. It is impossible that this is impossible. We are, after all, thousands of people whose behavior can change if enough of us can come up with a creative and productive solution. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I notice that there has been discussion for a long time about splitting up the admin notieceboards but that has just become stagnant, ANI is broken and does not in reality, serve its purpose. It is my eternal cynicism shining through in my response above, but if you feel you can change it, good luck to you and I hope you achieve your goal. The majority of people here are resistant to change, stuck in their ways, and that is to be expected. I know that there needs to be a new system for recall, for discussion about admin actions but I worry that it will descend into the bitter sniping that permeates the current areas for recourse. My cynicism is not a reason for abandoning hope though... Even in your reply above you talk of heavy-handed admins and content editors, two sides against each other. I don't think this has to the case. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well, ya know, I keep seeing talk about it, I mean the whole mainspace v. projectspace thing. It seems to be a meme that's building a head. Something or other will end up happening, even if "something" is huge amounts of discussion with no tangible result. Misplaced Pages excels at that, BTW ;-) Ling.Nut 16:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Apoc2400's statement above:

Actually, the only reason this started up a little storm is because you have so many friends here. --Apoc2400 (talk)

Thank you for demonstrating exactly why we need a new process that brings admins and civilians together by providing strong motivation for admins to adhere to WP's policy on their behaviour. If a user has to rely on having lots of friends for support against arbitrary, unreasonable punishments handed down by the police, the system is plainly broken. Woe betide the user who does not have such support. Systemic change is now an urgent priority, and I predict that ArbCom will be addressing the matter over the next six to 12 months. Tony (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• This recent proposal at the Village Pump by User:jc37—him/herself an admin—is a fine attempt to reform the admin system, but was bombed out of existence by ... you guessed it, fellow admins. This is further evidence that the system won't change unless ordinary users take pro-active measures. Tony (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that this block was unjustified. Tony1 has nothing but the best interest of the encyclopedia on his mind, and his track record is superb. A single edit does just justify an edit war. Sometimes, edits are a part of debate -- Misplaced Pages has gone too far down the goody-two-shoes path and away from the bold, down-and-dirty style that got so much accomplished in, say, 2005 and 2006. The question is this: what would the block actually help to resolve? — Deckiller 06:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Justify the damage you've done

All three aspects you've reverted: I'd like to know what makes you think you've solved some grammatical issues. Please justify, because in my professional opinion, you're plain wrong. Tony (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Damage"?

Actually, I restored the text to what it was before you decided to make the text more vague, and in at least one case, grammatically incorrect.

And by the way, per WP:BRD, the onus is actually on you to justify the "new" inclusion/modification. But whatever.

(And your "professional" opinion means almost as much as my "professional" opinion, or for that matter, that of any other Wikipedian. We're all Wikipedians here, after all. )

So please, enlighten me with how you feel "removed only on" is more clear, or is better grammatically than "only removed upon". Or how you felt that removing "as well", didn't create more vagueness? Or even the first edit that I reverted, where you didn't keep in mind sense and quantity. (Not to mention a lack of a sense of cadence in all of the above...)

Damage, indeed... - jc37 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So I "decided to make the text more vague, and in at least one case, grammatically incorrect", did I? Sounds like an accusation of vandalism, if a deliberated decision was behind it all. Are you sure that's what you meant, or was it just that you couldn't find your way around the words. So if you don't have ownership issues about that text, you won't mind if I play the reverse role with every edit that you make, then, will you? Tony (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While you were taking your time to respond, I did some reading of your recent history, and can see that you're probably not in the best frame of mind to discuss. So I'm going to "let be" your combative stance, and your (presumably redirected/misdirected) animosity.

I'll only mention that I have in no way suggested that your (presumably) good faith edit was vandalism. (While I am starting to wonder about WP:POINT...)

Incidentally (and this is wholly off-topic), but based on everything I'm reading above, you may or may not have been interested in this discussion. Though given your seeming current state of mind, I woun't pre-suppose. - jc37 16:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be making much of your hypothesis that I'm in a mentally crippled state. Not so, I'm afraid. The only thing that is crippled is my ability to spend much time on WP until late next week. Your "let be" seems to be a threat per se, so perhaps AGF applies there. When I have a chance, we'll take up the grammatical issues you seem to be concerned about in amongst your attacks on my mental state and accusations of bad faith and combativeness. Ownership of the text does seem to be a problem, but I may be wrong. Tony (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that I've changed my tune on Jc37, having read his recent (failed) proposal for admin reform. Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

nice

I read your proposal, which is coincidentally of great pertinence to the recent fracas, as you pointed out. Well done for trying; it was well designed, and may be included as an option for systemic change in the impending campaign. Tony (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words.

I dunno what you mean by "impending campaign".

But it's ok - I think I'm perhaps better off at this point not knowing/understanding.

I hope you're having a better day. - jc37 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert

User:Tennis expert has apparently retired. Who knows, maybe WP:TENNIS will finally move on and be productive now. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

From a selfish perspective and that of readers and editors of tennis-related articles, that's great news. But it means I've utterly failed to win him over, which is a big minus. I'm also concerned about the effect WP can have on users who are passionate about issues, and he was/is passionately involved in what he cared about; he has done a lot of work for the tennis WikiProject. So I hope on a personal level that he's OK. That probably matters a lot more than wikipolitics. Tony (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipolitics have turned off many a user, including myself. You can't even perform simple copy-edits without some sort of political situation, whether it be editors trying to show up others by making followup copy-edits, or arrogant reverts. — Deckiller 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you failed to convince me to ignore consensus. This was never about whether I liked or disliked date linking. I couldn't care less about that particular issue. It's a pity you never understood that. This was completely about the core principle of consensus on Misplaced Pages, where in my opinion, a handful of editors can never overturn existing consensus as demonstrated by the edits of hundreds, if not thousands, of editors. Consensus is not made just on an obscure (or not) discussion page, and it's high time you understood that. And then this whole thing became about the shocking behavior of some of you who tried to trash my editing, motives, character, and mental stability all over Misplaced Pages (trust me, I saw almost everything) and then used automated and semi-automated means to force their controversial date-unlinking agenda down everyone's throats. You really need to take WP:BRD to heart in the future. The one thing I agree with you now is the problem we're having with administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he would be interested to know that there is a push to bring 2008 Tennis Masters Cup to FA status. If he returns (which would not surprise me), I think that it would be beneficial to all parties if he helped out. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very pleased to see tennis make an appearance at long last in our featured content. It's a glaring omission. But it will have to satisfy the style guides, of course. .... Tony (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

By some accounts he was a valued contributor to the tennis project until he got too possessive about articles. What got me about him is the venom he threw at a number of us, and I couldn't resist having a dig at him back. Maybe User:MickMacNee got it spot on - it would not surprise me either if he made a U-turn and came back out of retirement, but he would first need to overcome the embarrassing amateur dramatics he subjected us to in his farewell statement. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your discomfort with facing the truth, Ohconfucius. Nothing I said about you, on my discussion page is untrue. Nothing. Contrast that with your continuing disinformation campaign about me. Tennis expert (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, I still wish to extend the hand of friendship in the vein of the my first post above; I wish that you, too, would take a more conciliatory line. Thanks for your supportive comment about the admin thing. Tony (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the phrase blind reverting has been bandied about more times than I care to remember, I was reminded of this, one of several reversions of his, despite my pointing out via an earlier edit summary that "Germany" was already linked in the infobox in the {{GER}} template immediately above. This couldn't possibly be the blind reverting of which he speaks, though... - Dudesleeper / Talk 12:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal

The only way that change will ever be effected is if someone is bold and makes the change. It is having someone respected enough by the community to create a new system and then getting that system recognised and respected. You will obviously face opposition from the "cabal" but that is to be expected. Your proposal on my talkpage looks good to me, and in theory no-one should have a problem with it. It is codifying what should already exist. I suspect the problem will come in finding "coordinators" active enough to monitor the page, and respected enough to not evoke sentiments such as "you have no authority, the arbitrary committee, biased" etc. You also have to make sure it doesn't turn into a stalking contest, or witch-hunt. I remember a few days ago, someone following an admin round disputing every A7 deletion that he/she made and putting them at DRV everytime. This process could force admins/editors ("good" and "bad") from the project because they feel they are being harrassed or that they are on the naughty step. So, in principle I agree with the need for some system, and I agree with what you propose, I just see some potentially troubling areas. Regards. Woody (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We certainly don't want that to happen. The aim is to increase respect for admins, actually. Yes, you're right about those challenges. I can't put the time into designing and organising it yet (RL is horribly work-stressed at the moment), but will try next week. Tony (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Caesar

I did not mean to stab you in the back, but to fight fairly. You have, after all, been pointedly obnoxious to me, and reverted my editing, both within the last week. But I do not think more action needed - I did not quote this edit or many others - and you may be right that you had not, in this particular instance, earned a block.

We are a society of equals; you complain of being pushed around, perhaps rightly, yet you wish everywhere to set up Directors and "experts" and "regulars" to push others around. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"fight fairly"—but why fight in the first place? My reversions of your editing to MoS may have been frustrating to you, but I'm one of a number of editors who've been doing so. Tony (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Then how about a separate peace? If you say things like this, I shall call them attacks; resume flattering me, and I will return the compliments. Neither of us, I gather, wishes to emulate this politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The second link is the same as the first. Tony (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

My browser's been doing that recently; es tut mich sehr Leid.This politician. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek, Latin, German ... you beat me at foreign languages, for sure. Link: Interesting use of plural "media" in the headline—unusual nowadays, I think. Tony (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Depressingly so; ABC may have an interest in reminding the audience that it is only one medium.
• One reason I am cautious in adopting Chomskian terminology; much of it seems to have been derived from the consideration of the single problem of word-order in English, and often does not seem to fit more fully inflected languages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is a great figure, but I sometimes quail when I read his claims WRT to language. As I think you're hinting at, there's often an evidentiary problem. Tony (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Watch your back

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Dabomb87 reported by Locke Cole, User:Locke Cole/Arbitration/Date unlinking. You could be next. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I feel greatly honoured to be in such esteemed company. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck cares. I keep on delinking the dates. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Threats, bullying and gratuitous orders flung around like confetti should be flushed down the pan immediately. Tony (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's had a go at me at here at WP:AN?Edit warring and failed. I think our two cases, taken together, amounts to a lack of endorsement for these attacks on us. Ohconfucius/Date delinker (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, picking us off one by one. It's not working. Tony (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea desperate campaign, desperate people. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail regarding some clarifications. Hopefully this will clear up some misconceptions. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

about that RfC ...

hello Tony - that RfC you launched at MOSNUM wasn't listed at WP:RFC/A because it lacked a timestamp. i added one, and now it's listed properly. i thought i should let you know about that, since i'm not sure if you had some reason for omitting the timestamp, or if it got deleted after you posted it or what ... anyway it's listed properly now, which i trust is a good thing. Sssoul (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't see it. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also listed it at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/RFCstyle/manual Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

hm, curiouser and curiouser - after i added the timestamp it showed up at Template:RFCstyle_list, so why isn't it at WP:RFC/A?? ah the wonders of technology ... thanks for listing it manually, Ohconfucius Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ps: doublechecking the listing at Template:RFCstyle_list, the RfC Tony launched is currently the first "automatic" one listed, in addition to Ohconfucius's gallant manual add of it. but the link in the "automatic" listing leads to the MOSNUM talk page, not to the proper section for this RfC - that's not good, since the old birth/death-date RfC is still at the top of that page, so newcomers to the discussion might easily be distracted by that one. can someone archive that old one, and/or relist the new one so that the "section=" entry leads to the right place on the page? it would be a drag if anyone could later claim that this RfC "doesn't count" because it wasn't listed properly ... Sssoul (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for this: I'm a computer klutz, and very short of time for WP until mid-week. I see there that I need to make the wording of the "reason" much more explicit; it's terrible at the moment. Shall do. Tony (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've changed the "reasons" at the RfC on MOSNUM talk to "Three important proposals for changing MOSNUM with respect to (1) the linking of date formats, (2) date autoformatting, and (3) requirements for auto changes". But still the old "three things that are causing intermittent disruption" appears at the RfC style page. No big deal, I suppose, but it would be nice to broadcast the real content to the communicty! Tony (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates can take a while to update. I'll purge the cache and see if that makes a difference. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

the "reason" looks good now, and it's listed at WP:RFC/A as well - hallelujah. i've just amended the "section=" bit to match the real name of the section, and i hope that'll cause it to link directly to the right part of the page, once the bot catches up ... thanks everybody and swing on Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• What would I do without you people? Thanks! Back to my clients in a few minutes. Relentless until mid-week. Tony (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. I thought listing was of prime importance. Thanks for the fine-tuning. BTW, Cole and expert are going around spamming talk pages about me again. Ho hum... Ohconfucius (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Tony for doing all the hard work required to finally get rid of the date linking. Either they will be de-linked, or the developers will finally (after two years of ignoring it) implement a less annoying method of auto-formatting. Either outcome would be largely because of your hard work on the issue. That said, please don't bite those who are used to the old formatting who will continue to show up and complain. Bot editing can be very bad as it disrupts the normal edit-revert-discuss cycle, since bots cannot be reverted effectively without using an other bot. Consensus, even when established, takes a while to spread through this huge project. Forcing it through only causes backlashes. Again, thank you. I always (for years) thought date linking was a bad solution, but I didn't take the effort to really do something about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind to say this. I don't know whether I can fully meet your expectations WRT the bot thing (I can't use a bot, of course, since I have a Mac). Thanks again! Tony (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep an eye on Cole: he's made another attempt at spoiling the RfC if not trying to sabotage it outright. I've just reverted him again. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)