Revision as of 12:01, 18 July 2006 editNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits →ED and Mongo?← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:05, 18 July 2006 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →ED and Mongo?: commentNext edit → | ||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
Thanks, Tony, I don't care to have any mention of that website on my talk page. Karwynn obviously knew I removed it and I definitely consider him restoring part of the comments I removed as harassment.--] 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | Thanks, Tony, I don't care to have any mention of that website on my talk page. Karwynn obviously knew I removed it and I definitely consider him restoring part of the comments I removed as harassment.--] 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
:What about putting the ED article up for deletion? A site perpetrating personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors doesn't really seem like something Misplaced Pages should be linking to. Besides they likely don't pass ]. ] 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | :What about putting the ED article up for deletion? A site perpetrating personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors doesn't really seem like something Misplaced Pages should be linking to. Besides they likely don't pass ]. ] 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
::I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--] 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Tower Colliery== | ==Tower Colliery== |
Revision as of 12:05, 18 July 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) |
decolonization and POV
Please see Decolonization. I believe another editor insists on repeatly adding POV material to this article. What do you think? Can you do anything? This editor does not respond to what I write. Thanks Hmains 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
i need help
I wanna add TCW Fantasy Wrestling but it is set for speedy deletion. I wanna add all my sites, i have 3 which i want on this site.
- Doesn't seem to be suitable for Misplaced Pages. We're not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
RFArb
Thanks for letting me know — I'll add evidence as appropriate. Nandesuka 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For having such a great user page I had to copy it. South Philly 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
bad cop
Regarding your block of Anirudh777 (talk · contribs), I am beginning to appreciate your no-nonsense approach, Tony. That is, as long as no wheel warring comes out of it, maybe it would be appropriate to post such cases on AN/I for peer-review. Anyhow, users WIN (talk · contribs) and ARYAN818 (talk · contribs) are similar cases, in my book, but I am too involved to play bad cop there. dab (ᛏ) 13:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to post those cases on WP:ANI. --Tony Sidaway 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Spam
Please stop spamming my talk page. Thank you. Karmafist 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fundamentalist Sockpuppet
Please take a look at this and this talk page for proof of abuse. These sockpuppets are used in revert wars in Babri Mosque, Hindu Rashtra, Manu Smriti, 2002 Gujarat violence, Shiv Sena. , , Hope this is sufficient. Anwar 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Abusive Patrol
A presumptive patrol goes around removing citation tags and reverting to vandals' versions in Babri_Mosque and Hindu Rashtra. He seems convinced that I am the vandal while I was removing fundamentalist POV from those articles. . I don't think he grasps the controversial nature of those articles. He has posted a warning on my talk page not to vandalise and edit-war! What action to be taken? Anwar 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please use normal dispute resolution techniques here. If the community cannot handle this, try Requests for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you start a wiki about Townsville Pri Sch?
I am a staff in that school and was surprised to discover a wiki about it. Did you start it or do you know the person who did the article... Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) of 10.07.06
- Someone else started an article but it was deleted nearly a year ago. I then did a bit of research and came up with what is essentially the current version. The information came from government information, newspapers, and so on, all on line. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: User talk:Karmafist
Hm... greater care needed on my end, apparently. Thanks. RadioKirk 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. --Tony Sidaway 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't talk to me, I won't talk to you, and everything will be fine. I'll let you know if anything can change with that. Thanks. Karmafist 13:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A new userbox you might like
Hi Tony,
I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )
Cheers, --Netsnipe 06:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No thanks. I suggest that you delete this userbox as the concept is clearly intended to alienate genuine Misplaced Pages editors of all hues. --Tony Sidaway 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
H.E. Case
Thanks, Tony, for your notice. I'd like to recuse myself from this case. Like you and a few others, I don't hide behind a pseud. This can be pretty crippling when one is dealing with libel. I can't afford the continued publication of the attacks, and I don't want my name appearing on the same page(s) as the sort of toxic waste which H.E. has proven so adept at producing. Please remove me from this case. I've already decided not to appear anywhere in which H.E. is given a platform, so there can be nothing more to arbitrate.Timothy Usher 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know what you mean, although "recuse" isn't the right word. You don't have to submit evidence or participate in the workshop, but if the Arbitration Committee decides that your behavior is a problem they may issue remedies involving you. --Tony Sidaway 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever it is, I'll happily plead nolo contendre, as long it's graceful and discreet. I don't wish to be involved anywhere where personal attacks are tolerated, and would rather be free from slander, and whatever rebukes might be based thereupon, either in sympathy or in appeasement, than continue editting. In such a case, a polite and arranged resignation is better for all parties.Timothy Usher 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Arbitration casts a wide net. The members of the Committee are generally pretty clueful about what's best for Misplaced Pages and will make decisions in that light. Keeping away from the arbitration is okay as long as you also keep away from any possible cause of further trouble. --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's one opinion. The Arbitrators are a law unto themselves and see no compunction about dragging in matters which have not been put in evidence and are not the subject of any case. In my opinion, this is a serious defect. Surely if someone can self-add to a case, they ought to be able to self-remove as well. David | Talk 08:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If editors had the ability to self-remove, how could the Irishpunktom case have proceeded without Irishpunktom? --Tony Sidaway 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming this is not a rhetorical question, I will give you two answers. Firstly, Irishpunktom didn't self-add - he was always a party. Secondly, were he to withdraw, the case itself would collapse - and that would be no bad thing. David | Talk 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- What would you have done if someone else had added you to the Irishpunktom arbitration case? --Tony Sidaway 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't cross-examine another party about hypothetical situations! David | Talk 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well my point is that if I add myself to an arbitration and then remove myself, there's nothing to stop somebody else (including the arbitration committee themselves) adding me again. In the end the arbitration committee will review the case and they will decide who the involved parties are.
- On the rapprochement between the principals in the Irishpunktom case, I'm sure the Committee will take this into account in voting. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I wish I was. David | Talk 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you check your mail please? Bishonen | talk 09:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC).
- I'd like to ask right here and right now: what does Bishonen ask of me in order to be free from personal attacks? Just tell me what you want. What I want is an end to the attacks. All else is negotiable.Timothy Usher 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at WP:ANI and I see you've both been having a bit of a ding-dong there. I'd suggest that one way to avoid such ding-dongs would be to avoid behaving in a manner that might tend to make my own opinion to converge with that of Geogre. Geogre and I have radically different views on almost everything, but we both respect Bishonen greatly and don't hold any brief for accusations that she acts in a partisan manner. --Tony Sidaway 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Think what you wish about Bishonen; I don't know her myself and can hardly offer an opinion. All I care about - and the only reason I'd ever criticized Bishonen's actions - is stopping the attacks from His excellency. What must I do?Timothy Usher 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is an arbitration case open on this dispute. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- But the record on that very page shows that I'm liable to be attacked there as well. My goal isn't to let someone else slip up so as to later say, diff in hand, 'gotcha!', but to stop the personal attacks from occurring to begin with. I don't want anything to be arbitrated where there's no guarantee the attacks won't continue. He and whoever else can have his/their way, in every respect, as long as it doesn't involve further attacks on me. There's nothing more to arbitrate. I surrender. Just tell me what you need from me to avoid being attacked on Misplaced Pages.Timothy Usher 11:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is an arbitration case open on this dispute. --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine. Think what you wish about Bishonen; I don't know her myself and can hardly offer an opinion. All I care about - and the only reason I'd ever criticized Bishonen's actions - is stopping the attacks from His excellency. What must I do?Timothy Usher 11:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Arbitration Committee will stop all attacks. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've just taken a look at WP:ANI and I see you've both been having a bit of a ding-dong there. I'd suggest that one way to avoid such ding-dongs would be to avoid behaving in a manner that might tend to make my own opinion to converge with that of Geogre. Geogre and I have radically different views on almost everything, but we both respect Bishonen greatly and don't hold any brief for accusations that she acts in a partisan manner. --Tony Sidaway 10:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comment on my RFA
I feel that the fact that you have not produced any actual evidence against me weighs sufficiently severely for me to withdraw my nomination. I am happy for you to oppose me if you disagree with anything I have done, but I will not stand being accused of something unspecified, especially not including personal attacks, as in the case of one opposer. I urge you to closely review my contributions and respond on my RFA, or I will withdraw. I regret that this is happening so close to the deadline.
Yours sincerely,
Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't produce evidence, but I'm not happy with this application at this time, therefore I have to oppose. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Spamming
I see now that you're heavily pushing this silly userbox by spamming. Please don't do any more of that. --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was only messaging all the people who were attacked on that Encyclopedia Dramatica page. It's the least I could do paying tribute to their work on Misplaced Pages which leads to such hate from the trolls. Lighten up by the way. Too much counter-vandalism drives us all nuts from time to time. Anyway, there's no one left to notify. Cheers, --Netsnipe 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If as you claim there are people being attacked on an external website, why go out of your way to ask every single one of them to aid in publicising that attack? It doesn't make sense. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess my sense of humour is a bit too Australian/off-beat for you. The silly userbox was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek symbol of defiance and protest. We hold our heads up high upholding Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines and won't sunk to their levels of crudeness while all they can do is call us "Bureaucratic F***s" on a poor parody of Misplaced Pages. It's acknowledging that we hold the high moral ground. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and I apologise if you've felt offended by it. --Netsnipe 15:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since we hold the moral high ground, I see no sense in jumping down and rolling in the mud with the likes of E.D. --Tony Sidaway 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Evidence page needs cleanup
In your capacity as arbitration clerk, I'd like to ask that Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence be cleaned up a bit. There's been some editing by some editors in the sections of others, and it's getting messy. I don't feel that, as a participant, I should do that. Thanks. --John Nagle 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I removed a heap of dialog, and also made a comment on the talk page encouraging use of that page for discussion. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop may need some attention. --John Nagle 17:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I took a look but it doesn't seem too bad. Please do come back if you feel it's becoming unmanageable. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not really that bad. The format chosen is hard to edit while maintaining the right indentation, but that's not a big deal We all have bigger headaches. --John Nagle 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Incivility
Reverting disputed improperly sourced content is also uncivil. --Crossmr 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please read all the facts rather than just default to supporting other administrators this edit shows an admin unlocking the page and telling DS to read WP:OWN, and here User_talk:Samuel_Blanning#Lumber_and_Crossing DS acknowledges his inappropriate behaviour.--Crossmr 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The uncivil behaviour was brought to me by admins closing AfDs 3 days early, and clclaiming a concensus that didn't exist, and locking a page to protect their point of view. That behaviour was apologized for, and I proceeded to clean up the article per WP:V. Over 6 edits, all with summaries explaining the removal and reoginzation I brought the article to a point where it complies with policy, and put forth a good faith comment on the AfD saying I would endorse keep as long as the article remained properly cited. In response another admin reverts the article to the unsourced version, and assumes bad faith on my attempting to bring the article up to standards. I reverted that and explained on the talk page . Then the content was again reverted by a third admin , with no explanation. For the umpteenth time I've addressed the specific citations problems in detail on the talk page Talk:Lumber_Cartel#Specific_citation_problems where no one who is so keen to revert to an improperly sourced version will bother to discuss that actual problem. Instead they make vague threats about having me blocked. And I am the one being uncivil?--Crossmr 18:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, of course you're being uncivil. That's why I've warned you not to be. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've made plenty of good faith efforts to try and get interested parties to discuss the citations. Instead admins show up, revert and try to bully me into leaving the article alone. I'll be expecting your warning on their talk pages anytime now.--Crossmr 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that you're acting in good faith, but you're accusing other people of acting in bad faith because their interpretation of the standards is different from yours. Perhaps it's time to take a step backwards. Why do so many experienced editors disagree with you? Could it be that the consensus on verifiability of Usenet edits isn't quite as you thought? --Tony Sidaway
- Its policy, editor concensus cannot get around that. Its very clear on WP:V. --Crossmr 19:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have found that your interpretation of policy does not match that of several other people. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Would that be like arguing what the definition of "is" is? There is no other way to interpret "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources", I suppose if you assume never to mean "usually" then I suppose you could interpret that another way.--Crossmr 19:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again you're failing to assume good faith. Please be civil. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm listing your early close of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel on DRV. I'm sure that makes me a process wonk, but you're just not always right, Tony. --Sam Blanning 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh in the long run I always am. I just thought I'd save time. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
First image on the Web
I don't understand the decision you made in closing the AfD for First image on the Web; I only see a single keep vote. I wouldn't dispute a no consensus, but... is it within your authority to just declare a keep that doesn't seem to have much support? ~ Booya 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't a vote. This is a far from monumental claim, it's just a bit of trivia from the early days of the web that was documented by Wired who interviewed Genarro. The documentation is adequate and the only question in my mind is whether it should be kept as a separate article or merged to the Cernettes article. I'll leave that up to the editors, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Edits to User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh ?
what was with your edits to User:Betacommand/disscusion/Welsh Betacommand 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The page was transcluded into WP:AN/I for some reason and when I edited it I thought I was editing a large amount of inappropriate material off that important page. However I reverted when I discovered the problem, and replaced the transclusion on WP:AN/I with a link. I still have no idea what it was all about, but at least the page isn't cluttered now. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Mike18xx
Tony Sidaway, it appears that given User:Mike18xx's re-establishment of the inflammatory commentary that both Szvest and you warned him about and his personally attacking commentary relative to my commenting out Fair Use images in his user space he may need a cooling off. --Netscott 00:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Boy, that guy has issues! I gave him forty-eight hours to think about whether Misplaced Pages really is about warping and destroying history. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to post the block on the Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents to bring others up to speed on User:Mike18xx's habits. Take it easy. Netscott 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at my watch-list, Mike18xx's user pages might need cooling off to... but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Netscott 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to post the block on the Adminstrators Noticeboard/Incidents to bring others up to speed on User:Mike18xx's habits. Take it easy. Netscott 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Re:Afd of First image on the Web
Hey Tony, I'm not sure if there was a lack of communication or something, but this article was actually merged and deleted....but I'd rather you change your own sentence from keep to merge, as one must avoid editing other wikipedians' comments. The ikiroid 02:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- My close was a keep. I don't make merge closes. I proposed the merge on the talk page, and I'm glad it was done. Someone seems to have deleted the article in error, but it's useful as a redirect so I restored it. --Tony Sidaway 02:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, just giving you a heads-up in order to avoid any confusion. The ikiroid 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I told Texture and popped it on DRV just in case. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It probably won't be much of an issue. But process always yields content results ;). The ikiroid 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I told Texture and popped it on DRV just in case. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"put a sock in it"
Tony Sidaway: I was trying to explain my reasoning, I find that line seriously uncivil. I think a user is entitled to feel a little miffed when an article they've been participating in gets railroaded first by a vandalising anon-IP and then after by Mr Wales himself. Perhaps be more understanding and helpful, and less rude. Themindset 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I forgot how it looks to you. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 05:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
blocking of User:The Ungovernable Force
RJII and hogeye have been disrupting the articles for over a year. Hogeye just comes on and inserts pov material he knows will get changed or deleted fast but just likes to exercise the totally un-wikipedian, abusive attitude that got him banned in the first place. We have been plagued by sockpuppet hogeye for so long that all the editors can recognise him when he pops up. We are that familiar. Of course there is humanity there but Hogeye has always been abusive, disruptive and a supreme edit war instigator. The vast majority of hogeye's edits especially as sockpuppet . are unmalleable and too pov to be molded into the article. Hogeye knows this. Please lift the ban on TUF. He is just looking after the page like the rest of us. Notice that most of the editors of Anarchism are NOT admins who would probably be using their own sysop powers to protect the page. We can't unless F.Tyrers repeatedly does it. Cheers. --maxrspct in the mud 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, could you please unblock TUF. He was edit warring, but he was reverting a blocked user who has a long record of block evasion. - FrancisTyers · 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
See indefinate blocking of downer as sock puppet: . --max rspct 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked him. If you feel that this is not appropriate, please re-block and leave me a note, or leave me a note asking me to re-block and I will be happy to oblige :) - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, I have no problem with you unblocking him. I found his excuses personally unconvincing, however. I hope you don't go around encouraging this kind of grossly disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that your block was far more disruptive than his helpful behavior. He was reverting the edits of a highly-disruptive sockpuppet of Hogeye. I find The Ungovernable Force to be civil and well-intentioned on more occasions than most Misplaced Pages users. By blocking him, you were preventing him from doing a service to Misplaced Pages, a service that many of us do not have time to do: consistently reverting the disruptive edits of the sockpuppet of a ban-evading puppet master with a myriad of false accounts and a very large POV axe to grind. I understand that you are just as well-intentioned, but you might have been a bit over-zealous in this matter. --AaronS 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You haven't looked at the edits they were warring over, I presume. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I have, and I know that you've made much ado about the triviality of (only some of, mind you) Drowner's edits. Many users have good evidence to suspect Drowner as being the sockpuppet of banned user Hogeye, who has, for months, been attempting to avoid his ban by use of sockpuppets, anonymous IPs, and anonymous proxies. TUF was helping out other editors who were either too busy or too exasperated to deal with the situation. If you'll note, Drowner's edits were eventually reverted by another user, even after you banned TUF. I also point you to WP:3RR, which makes clear exceptions for the reverting of the edits of banned users and sockpuppets. Even if Drowner were simply fixing a comma splice, a revert would have been entirely justified per official Misplaced Pages policy. --AaronS 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, it doesn't matter whom Ungovernable Force was warring with. His edits were disruptive. Just because an edit doesn't count towards the Three revert rule doesn't mean it isn't disruptive. Ungovernable Force absolutely was not helping out Misplaced Pages in any way by edit warring in this way. --Tony Sidaway
- From WP:Ban
- All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.
- Please explain how this is disruptive. The Misplaced Pages policy on disruption is very vague, so I assume that you're operating on your own principles. --AaronS 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's disruptive because twelve pointless reverts on an article are always disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That seems mighty presumptuous to me. First of all -- and you know this -- the reverts were not pointless. Reverting the edits of banned users and sockpuppets is not only uncontroversial, it is in adherence to Misplaced Pages policy. Second, I ask you, disruptive to whom? The perennial editors of the article, perhaps? We've already told you that we think that the block was uncalled for, and that TUF was being helpful, not disruptive. Your block was disruptive, because it kept a helpful editor from doing good work. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm quite surprised that you're being so stubborn about this matter, even in the face of numerous reasoned dissenting voices. --AaronS 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's disruptive because twelve pointless reverts on an article are always disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- From WP:Ban
- I know this. Those reverts were hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless. That's disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if, in the future, you did not use your administrative authority, with regard to this article, to block or otherwise penalize editors who are following Misplaced Pages policy, simply because you find their edits to be "hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless." Perhaps you would do better to listen to and thoughtfully consider the opinions of many other reasonable editors on this matter, instead of stubbornly sticking to your own subjective evaluation as to the merits of an editor's perfectly acceptable actions. Certainly, I hope that you will no longer use your administrative tools to enforce your own vague standards of meritorious editing. One can only hope. The fact remains that you blocked a user who sincerely believed he was upholding Misplaced Pages policy, (and I refer you to WP:Assume good faith with regard to your comments about his "unconvincing excuses") disregarded that user's explanation and objections, and ignored the interjections of other editors, as well, all to satisfy what I can only imagine to be your own peculiar sense of the aesthetic. Please let me know how your struggle against pointlessness progresses, for I have a keen appreciation of irony. I cannot conceive of so trivial a crusade as one against triviality. --AaronS 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know this. Those reverts were hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless. That's disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not crusading, just dealing with disruptive editors. If you don't act disruptively, you'll not be affected by any of my administrative actions. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thus we go back to my original point. TUF explained what he was doing. The other main editors of the article explained to you what he was doing. We all told you that he was being helpful and attempting to stop the disruption of a banned user's sockpuppet. You still insisted on applying your arbitrary definition of disruption to the incident and decided to maintain the block. Anybody who made an effort to disagree with you was met with coy and dismissive replies. With such a display of arrogance, it should be no surprise that other editors are coming to the support of the user you wronged. Judging from your words and tone, I don't expect anything resembling an apology from you to TUF, or any admission of even the slightest error, but I felt the need to voice my objections. --AaronS 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm saddened that you don't see that The Ungovernable Force's reverts were precisely the wrong way to edit. My definition is not arbitrary. I will do it again if and when the occasion arises. This is how we keep the wiki relatively free of disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be saddened. You've yet to explain your definition of disruptiveness. How, exactly, did TUF's reverts disrupt the editing of others? --AaronS 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Straw man. They disrupted the wiki and I've explained how they did that above. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't a straw man, because I had no clue we were talking about the wiki itself. How is the wiki disrupted? If you think that a dozen reverts on an article that a banned user's sock puppet has been editing disrupts the wiki as a whole, I'd be interested to learn how. I don't see how it would justify blocking a user for 24 hours without warning. --AaronS 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any time a couple of editors get into a ridiculous sequence of multiple reverts (aka edit warring) over trivia, it's a disruption. Any use of Misplaced Pages as a field of battle is a disruption. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's just dogma. You have yet to give me anything but platitudes. Your choice of words -- "ridiculous" and "trivia" -- is a testament to the arbitrariness of your doctrine. I also do not understand why you continue to fail to distinguish between users and banned/sockpuppet users. I'm disappointed that you cannot, for even the briefest instant, admit that you might not be categorically correct. --AaronS 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've asked for other people's opinions on the matter at Misplaced Pages:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Tony_Sidaway. I'm sure you'll want to be able to voice you're opinion there. --AaronS 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any time a couple of editors get into a ridiculous sequence of multiple reverts (aka edit warring) over trivia, it's a disruption. Any use of Misplaced Pages as a field of battle is a disruption. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! :) - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Point of fact. No editor or administrator is required to revert the edits of a banned user or sockpuppet. I am familiar with this topic. The bulk of my administative log deals with the sockpuppets of a particular banned user that targets me. The policies all state that the edits of banned users/sockpuppets MAY be reverted or deleted. But no particular Misplaced Pages user is required to do it. If I was required to do this I would never do anything else on Misplaced Pages or real life. : - )
- Often it is best if admin and editors distance themselves from a particular banned user/sockpuppet for awhile. Otherwise it becomes too personal between the two parties. In this case, it seems to me that it was becoming a personal issue and that made it an edit war or disruptive behavior. That was the reason for the block. Take care, FloNight 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (and back to reverting and deleting Amorrow).
Editors may revert sockpuppet edits.. though because they are not required (and some would POVishly want them not to) they should be banned? OH they should be banned because they are familiar with each other unlike Sideaway who has just stepped (disrupted) in without much familiarity with either party..?? RUBBISH! --max rspct 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about this: editors are expected to use commonsense and avoid disrupting Misplaced Pages. -Tony Sidaway 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about this: editors and administrators are expected to avoid being arrogant and violating WP:Civil. I had heard of there being self-righteous, stubborn, "I'm never wrong" administrators on Misplaced Pages, but this is the first time I've had the pleasure of personally encountering one. --AaronS 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand that you're impatient and frustrated, but I can only advise you on something I found early on: often such frustration may be due largely to one's own lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. It takes time to become familiar with it, and even then some of it frankly doesn't make sense. But it's well worth it to Assume good faith with all contributors. Believe me I've gone out of my way to avoid hurting you, but you seem to have decided that the only thing that can resolve your hurt is if I change my opinion to be the same as yours. It isn't arrogance that makes my opinion different from yours, and I'm not going out of my way to hold or defend perverse opinions. It's quite normal for people to hold different opinions and there's nothing to be afraid of. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- My, my. My goodness. Impatient? About what? I'm not trying to get anything done, here. So, your choice of word, in that case, is quite strange, indeed. Frustrated? Maybe a little, but not really. I don't really think that "frustration" describes my disappointment in your words and actions. I assumed good faith with you, and I still believe that you are well-intentioned, but your words and actions belie an unparalleled arrogance and self-righteousness. I've been editing Misplaced Pages for more than three years, if I remember correctly. I'm more familiar with it than you might think. Of course, I'm beginning to realize that you seem to believe that anybody who does not agree with you must suffer from some perverse error or must, in some way, be deficient. My opinion is nothing more than that you should show respect for fellow editors and consider their words as genuine, reasoned, and, God forbid, perhaps even somewhat correct. You see, you've assumed that I am on some extreme, demanding that you recount everything that you've done. Hardly. I'm trying to pull you away from the extreme that you have found, where you are always correct, and where those who disagree are somehow defective. That's wrong. --AaronS 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can understand that you're impatient and frustrated, but I can only advise you on something I found early on: often such frustration may be due largely to one's own lack of understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. It takes time to become familiar with it, and even then some of it frankly doesn't make sense. But it's well worth it to Assume good faith with all contributors. Believe me I've gone out of my way to avoid hurting you, but you seem to have decided that the only thing that can resolve your hurt is if I change my opinion to be the same as yours. It isn't arrogance that makes my opinion different from yours, and I'm not going out of my way to hold or defend perverse opinions. It's quite normal for people to hold different opinions and there's nothing to be afraid of. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well perhaps I misread your mood as frustration. Disappointment it is. I'm sorry to disappoint you further. I'm unable to recognise that I've done something wrong unless I have, in fact, done something wrong. You described my block as "disruptive" and yet it restored peace to the article. You described The Ungovernable Force's edits as "helpful" and yet they constituted series of six mindless reverts in the course of ninety minutes, which were of course immediately reverted by the other fellow. And yet you felt that I'd stopped him performing what you described as a service to Misplaced Pages.
- I'm prepared to be described as wrong, but I'll give my opinion: those opinions that you expressed were unreasonable and at variance with the observable facts. It's only my opinion because, having thought about this and discussed it at length, I happen to think it's correct and you haven't presented any evidence to support a change of mind. This is what I mean when I refer to your frustraton at the fact that I have an opinion different from yours. If I felt strongly enough about you to have a problem with your attitude, it wouldn't be that your opinion is different from mine (this is, as I said, to be expected). It is rather that you still seem to think that there is something wrong with my having an opinion that differs from your own. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I have no problem with your opinion. I expressed my own initial disagreement with your actions, but have since moved on from that. My issue, now, is your attitude and behavior. I'm very open to disagreement. When I edit controversial articles (such as the one originally in question), I expect disagreement, and welcome people to disagree with me. It is my hope to compromise. I find that many people on Misplaced Pages are intelligent and reasonable. You seem to be intelligent, but, so far, I've found you to be a bit on the unreasonable side. And I say this not because I disagree with you, but only because you have disagreed with a display of haughty arrogance and unwillingness for compromise that is unfitting of any editor, especially an administrator. To me, it demonstrates a lack of assuming good faith, teetering on, if not explicitly, incivility. I understand that you care about this project, and that you are a good, well-intentioned editor. Does it not matter to you that so many have expressed the very same sentiments that I am expressing, here? For most people, this would cause at least a slight consideration of behavior adjustment. I'm a pretty bright guy, and I think pretty highly of myself -- I'm not afraid to admit that -- but I also think highly of others and reflect upon their opinions and observances deeply, especially on the subject of social grace. By very definition, common courtesy is defined not from within, but by the reactions of others. --AaronS 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm prepared to be described as wrong, but I'll give my opinion: those opinions that you expressed were unreasonable and at variance with the observable facts. It's only my opinion because, having thought about this and discussed it at length, I happen to think it's correct and you haven't presented any evidence to support a change of mind. This is what I mean when I refer to your frustraton at the fact that I have an opinion different from yours. If I felt strongly enough about you to have a problem with your attitude, it wouldn't be that your opinion is different from mine (this is, as I said, to be expected). It is rather that you still seem to think that there is something wrong with my having an opinion that differs from your own. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we may be making progress below so I'll put any further comments there. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
- If you can stop them from spamming my User page, I would be obliged. Thank you Porky Pig 19:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
User:Porky Pig
Yes, I did actually stop prior to your message. What you are saying is well understood in "my corner". Honestly that account should just be blocked until the user admits to being a sockpuppet of User:SirIsaacBrock. If you haven't seen it already you might like to peruse the original WP:ANI report about this puppetmaster. Thanks. Netscott 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:WritersCramp and User:List of marijuana slang terms are also very likely socks of this individual. Netscott 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I advise you to assume good faith but keep your eyes open. As far as I'm aware the person he's accused of being a sock of isn't currently blocked for any abuse and isn't banned either, so as long as he's behaving himself it's okay. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have a look at this RfC about User:WritersCramp. Forgive me if this question seems ignorant but I don't see where this type of sock puppet usage is covered under "legitimate uses of multiple accounts". The User:Porky Pig account doesn't even qualify under the "over 100 edits" rule-of-thumb. In the interests of transparency shouldn't this new account show this type of an indication? Netscott 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you can show me some specific ongoing behavior that is disruptive, other than the recent mutual edit warring over sock puppet templates, please do show me. For now I don't yet see this fellow doing any harm, but I'm listening. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the refusal to accept that users are not allowed to show fair use images on their user pages. User:MONGO finally had to step in and explain that policy in no uncertain terms. This is what actually drew my attention to the thought that this individual was the same as User:SirIsaacBrock due to editorial summaries that were identical. This user's sockpuppet User:List of marijuana slang terms was created to avoid speedy deletion under the recreation clause for the deleted List of marijuana slang terms. That name was user blocked... but the defacto article is still there on the user page. This comment implying that my opinion has been distorted by "hate" in response to a logical question about including a disclaimer in Category:Anti-Semitic people (as is locked into displaying now). And when one's talking about assuming good faith this comment is surely far from that spirit. Netscott 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I've deleted the Marijuana thing. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cheers for the deletion. Just to illustrate that User:Porky Pig is bad news: As SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) User:NSLE blocked him for disruption on Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as this new sock he shows no sign of having gotten that message as we see here, here, and here. He actually has had to be warned about that not once but twice as this sockpuppet. As User:SirIsaacBrock he successfully had Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked under false pretenses (User:Thebainer had to lift the block) and as User:Porky Pig he seems to be continuing in that spirit.
- This editor is bad news for Misplaced Pages and his sockpuppet should just remain indefinitely blocked. Netscott 21:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well perhaps. But he wasn't banned. If he really is a problem we'll see it in the next few days. --Tony Sidaway 21:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It takes two to battle
A certain page keeps disappearing mysteriously, while a certain other page that mocks us WikiPlebians stays up. Why? Because Carnildo is one of you while Micoolio is one of us. So much for a free encyclopedia.
I'm disappointed, I didn't think you were one of them. --Juppiter 02:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you check you will see that I also removed unsuitable material from the other page. The page I deleted contained nothing but extremely unsuitable material so I deleted it as an attack page. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you following me? I'm quite flattered. And single too! Alright, I think it's time for me to stop playing games. I've had my fun and now it's time to *obey* the rules. At which Carnildo shrine shall I worship? Surely you can direct me. OK no seriously now I'm done lest the hypocrisy should choke me to death. What happened to the days where pages were listed for deletion and deleted after discussion on their worth? That was before we dangerous types started making pages though. OK OK enough enough. I'll be nice.
- We have our methods. I'm not the only person who notices what you're up to. --Tony Sidaway 09:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Hi Tony Sidaway, I Just wanted to let you know that SqueakBox and Zapatancas seem to be at eachother again. I read on the José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero about the "Arbitration" that went on. I am expressing concern over the issue because there comments are all over the Talk page of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. I am not sure if these would be considered Personal attacks, but they sure aren't nice. (Erbres 05:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC))
- I looked, didn't seem like much going on really. I already tried for a checkuser on this putative sock but no luck. ---Tony Sidaway 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Walk away
Hello Tony, walk away from the discussion on AN/I. Nothing good is going to come from it. Everything you say is going to be hyper-analyzed. I agree with you about the block. The discussion about assuming good faith is odd considering you were carrying out your administrative duties which call for making judgments about editors! FloNight 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh to tell the truth I was having fun being pilloried for whatever it was they thought I'd done, but you're right. It's better to walk away. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thought you would find this interesting. Who has the correct answers sheet for those questions? ; -) FloNight 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly how Aaron Brenneman started. There seems to be a common trend towards abandoning all pretence of assuming good faith. "You disagree with me, therefore you hate me. So I will attack you." --Tony Sidaway
- I'm not attacking you in any way. I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position. That's all. I've said, on a number of occasions, that I believe that you are an intelligent, well-intentioned, good editor. I have not said that your actions were wholly wrong -- just that they weren't wholly correct. I have never accused you of hating me. I have never ceased to assume good faith. I find it very strange that you have decided to caricature my reasonable opinions as simple-minded childishness and bad faith. --AaronS 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem here is our rhetorical framing. Where do you get this from, for instance?
"I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position."
I've never claimed to be absolutely right or to have any moral superiority at all.
You see what I mean? By adding a massive dose of rhetoric to a simple disagreement, you've made it out to be some kind of character defect.
I of course recognise that I caricatured you unreasonably above. However, in your questions on RFA you were clearly caricaturing me. So we're both being unfair to one another. Let's stop this. It's silly. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Point taken with regard to the rhetoric. What can I say? I like words. I am happy to admit that as a character defect. ;) Regarding the RFA, I made no reference to you there. I was inspired by our discussion, and I want to get more involved in the process. So, naturally, I applied what I gained here to there. I was not intending to caricature you, just coalescing my own nebulous understanding and standards with regard to how Misplaced Pages should be. --AaronS 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
National Front (France) and blockings
Hello Tony! Thanks for unblocking. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not sure it's the best policy to block two users as soon as an argument starts. This wasn't going on for days: I just happenned to include some text in National Front (France), with a source, which happenned to be to User:Intangible's dislikes. Since he reverted my move, I reverted him, which is quite normal. He did this three times, which is a clear breach of no 3RV (I don't think you can call this gaming, I've met Intangible on others pages and no where have we got such an argument, notwithstanding our different POV). You can see these edits here: , , , . So I don't really understand why I got blocked. I've been involved in much stronger arguments, most notably at Hamas (check the talk page), nowhere the situation has called for a block. Now, to return to the National Front, Intangible is involved there since at least a week, as he says, in an attempt to impede the qualification of "far right" to this party, although this is not disputed by anyone else than themselves (and yet...). If you see the talk page, you will see that he was up alone against everybody else. All in all, this is not a big deal, and you are right to say to people that they should cool down and play outside, some of us on Misplaced Pages might tend to forget this, but please be aware that it is no good for one's reputation to be blocked, and that this is usually reserved to vandalism (or 3RV). I've haven't done none of them, which is why I feel justified to leave you a "complaint message" :). Actually, I hadn't edited in a while, and you're block yesterday impeded me from editing some stuff when I couldn't sleep, in an entirely different articles... Thanks for your attention, I just guess that blocking should be kept an ultimate measure, and that edits links should be provided to see where exactly the infringer did infringe the rules. (I actually let a message at Intangible concerning 3RV not to block him, I have kind of a dislike for Wikilawyering, but to warn him that he was starting to get on everybody's nerves — a Request for Arbitration has been called for by User:Cberlet and others on the Front National talk page... Thanks, please be careful to blocking users, which should be kept as an ultimate solution and which is not normally used as a "collective punition", but as a mean to block some vandal, of which none of us are right now (apart if you take into account Intangible's 3RV, which I would have let go). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- With all due respect, but this edit is about a content dispute; you make a claim there about the FN which does not follow from your source. Intangible 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This 22 edit doesn't erase the 3 others reversion you made, but I'll stop here bothering Tony's page. Tazmaniacs 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem. I know a lot of people don't like the idea that they can be blocked for just messing around. I don't, you don't. Just remember it's an encyclopedia. Blocking is often a wake-up call, and I used it in this sense today. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- All right. But you seem to forget that getting block marks you as an un-cooperative editor, and should therefore be used with caution. Tazmaniacs 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider your approach
Tony, a little while back another admin left you a note about your pathological seeking out of trouble and conflict, which see called "single-mindedly disruptive". She wanted to you stop your, as she put it, "joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy." You of course dismissed the comments as baseless and silly, as you often do of criticism, and pointed out that some "well known and well respected editors" supported your latest behavior. Well, you must be aware by now that many other well known and well respected editors are often much less supportive of your behavior. In fact, many editors have asked you nicely, many times, to stop being rude, and stop seeking out trouble for trouble's sake. I'm not talking about trolls or myspacers either, I mean real editors. As hard as it may be for you to believe that reasonable people often disagree with your approach, please try to accept this. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious to the rest of us. You're making more heat than light, and I suspect this will continue to be the case until you radically rethink your approach to the project. I recommend you take some time off, think about what you're trying to accomplish here, and ask yourself whether you're accomplishing those goals in an effective way. I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll come to see that you're not being very effective in furthering the project. Friday (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. Actually I remember no such incident but I'll take your word for it.
- I don't seek out conflict for its own sake, but if it happens I handle it well and, over time, my view tends to prevail. I am cool with the fact that many reasonable people may disagree with my approach, and I'm sure that you are cool with the same facts with respect to your own behavior, but that's how all mature people are supposed to be, isn't it? I don't think you've given me any good reason to rethink my approach to the project.
- You've been engaging in low-level sniping for some time. Please stop that. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps your view tends to prevail over time only because people get fed up with the fact that, regardless of the situation, your view will not change in even the slightest way. I have been giving you the opportunity to admit that you might not have been 100% correct in dealing with the Anarchism in the United States situation, and you haven't even budged 1/10,000th of a percentage point. Also, your history, the present situation, and the comments of other editors and administrators, sort of go against your assertion that you handle conflict well. This is the last that I have to say to you regarding this matter, since I don't see any real point in discussing it with you further. I guess that means you win, right? There you go, let your view "prevail." --AaronS 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Was that a real quote? Seriously, I hope not. Where did I give you the impression that I thought I was 100% correct? That would be silly. However, I do obviously have an opinion and tend to express it. This is what people are supposed to do. It's how we're wired. You say what you think. I say what I think. We kinda fuzz it around a bit and then we may change our opinion and then it starts again.
I wouldn't be attracting this kind of flack if I were completely correct. However we can only resolve this by discussion, not by one or other of us leaping to the conclusion that the other is some kind of pathological case. Having said that, I do seriously wonder what the problem is here. I blocked some guys, I patiently explained to one of them why he had been blocked, and then I dealt with care and attention to numerous criticisms of my behavior.
What, I wasn't persuaded to agree with the criticism, you say? Well yes, that's correct. I wasn't persuaded. I cannot pretend that I was. I know that I hurt some feelings, but that's inevitable when you block someone who actually believed he was edit warring to save the wiki. But let's not make more of that than what it is. If he had used his brain and actually looked at what he was doing, he wouldn't have edited disruptively. I hope he will learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly see where you are coming from. My main problem was that I felt that you weren't really listening to anybody. I have to admit that I still feel that way. When I say that, I don't mean that my problem is that you weren't persuaded. That's your call to make, of course. I suppose that the issue that I had was that I didn't feel that you were even allowing for such an option. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think so. Anyways, no hard feelings. I respect you and am more than happy to agree to disagree with you. As I have said to some others, I'm a philosophy student, and tend to discuss things, shall we say, a bit much. I really wanted to know what your position was and to examine and evaluate how you and other editors and administrators perceive some of the more vague aspects of Misplaced Pages policy. It's a learning experience. I hope that you don't feel that I've wasted your time. I don't think that these discussions are ever a waste of time, personally, because I think that there is always something to learn from them. Happy editing. :) --AaronS 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Cheers.--Tony Sidaway 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- At the risk of beating a dead horse, the fact that many different admins have told you you're being rude and disruptive and you don't even remember it is a good indicator of the problem. A duck doesn't remember the water that falls of its back, either, because it failed to even notice it at the time. The issue is that you tend to completely ignore legitimate criticism, to such an extent that you don't even remember seeing it. You're doing much to create a poisonous atmosphere here, and it's harmful to the project. My intent is not to snipe, but to get you to treat other editors with respect. I wasn't sure which quotes you meant in asking whether they were real, but the ones I put in my message were directly lifted from the original message and your response to it. Listening to feedback from other editors is essential to being a functional wikipedian, and it's an area where I think you need tremendous improvement. Friday (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is your typical tactic, Tony. When people complain about, for example, your rude attitude and lack of response to criticism, you repond by saying that some edits you made were good. Well, yeah, most of them are. Heck, I probably agree with your edits about 75% of the time. I see nothing wrong with short-circuiting a process when the outcome is already established. Being bold is good, but if many people are aasking you to be less bold, surely there's a reason for it? As your claim that you don't ignore criticism, that's so obviously false as to be laughable. You've had multiple admins telling you to cut out the rudeness, and later you claim to not remember it. Has it ever occurred to you that when you attract at least 10 times as much criticism as other, equally active admins, maybe the problem is you? You've done some good work here, but it's nowhere near worth the cost of the poison and vitriol you seem to enjoy spreading. Why are you so resistant to the idea of finding a way to contribute to the project without all the pointless disruption? Your drama-seeking behavior hurts us all. Friday (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think you've stepped far beyond the level of civility that is appropriate to Misplaced Pages now. "A typical tactic", indeed.
- Yesterday I asked on the Misplaced Pages admins channel for people to review this affair. A number of people did so, one of them Jimbo Wales, another one a very popular arbitrator. They had some constructive suggestions. Overall, no serious problems. They could of course be wrong and you could be right. In such circumstances I have to make an evaluation. I have done so. I disagree with your assessment. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, now you've closed a DRV request early, after being implored to not close things early and out of process. Please reconsider and revert yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was an overwhelming endorsement. Why waste more time on this? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was one day, which is hardly enough time to figure outt he true endorsement of the community for a process that's designed to take more than that, and it was brought up in the same day when you were implored not to close things out of process. It's almost like you actually don't care about what the rest of us have to say in this case. Besides, no one's asking you to take any more time with it - if you don't like the discussion, it's not hurting you to keep it open. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really not stopping you dragging this thing out interminably if you want to. My close was merely a suggestion that, at this point, we might decide to pay attention to more important things than this. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to revert you, as I don't revert major actions by admins on principle, but I prefer it. I'm sure many of us would like to pay more attention to more important things, but it's hard when we can't be assured that we can rely on those in charge to adhere to basic processes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm really not stopping you dragging this thing out interminably if you want to. My close was merely a suggestion that, at this point, we might decide to pay attention to more important things than this. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It was one day, which is hardly enough time to figure outt he true endorsement of the community for a process that's designed to take more than that, and it was brought up in the same day when you were implored not to close things out of process. It's almost like you actually don't care about what the rest of us have to say in this case. Besides, no one's asking you to take any more time with it - if you don't like the discussion, it's not hurting you to keep it open. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Get someone else to do it then. I honestly have no objection if you want to spend more time over this issue. As for the "basic processes", Jeff, it's an encyclopedia If an article is good we don't delete it, and fuck the basic processes, whatever they might be. Only content matters. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you know it can't work that way. The reason we have these processes is so we can have the content dealt with properly in the encyclopedia. I don't understand why you don't get that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appear to "get" it because it simply isn't so. Only content matters. It's an encyclopedia. All the rest can be safely ignored. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever works for you, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appear to "get" it because it simply isn't so. Only content matters. It's an encyclopedia. All the rest can be safely ignored. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you know it can't work that way. The reason we have these processes is so we can have the content dealt with properly in the encyclopedia. I don't understand why you don't get that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony. I noticed that you have at least admitted you were not 100% correct, yet I also noted your extremely careful wording to not at any point admit where you believe you were wrong. Thus as you say, you "say what you think". So please, I think it will benefit a lot of people here to hear you admit where you believe you went wrong. It would show good faith on your part and allow other people here to see that their claims against you are unfounded. While I agree that you do not believe yourself to have been persuaded, I do not believe you have ever "re-assessed" yourself. When you are in a position of power, it is often good to internalise and perform your own QA on yourself, it allows you to catch those times when you were unaware of what you were doing. This is the whole concept behind "power corrupts"... simply because when one has and wields power a failure to self-assess can lead to a loss of awareness. I do it all the time, going back and honestly and genuinely looking at how I handled things. "Did I do that the best way I could?", "If so many people are telling me I am rude, am I actually rude?". It allows us to develop as people and to ensure that we do not reach a point where the power we have is abused through a simple lack of awareness to our actions and how we are going about them. I implore you, please do an honest and genuine assessment of this situation (don't just go "I have and I am still right"). Enigmatical 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know that I did do anything wrong here. If I believed that I had, I'd say so. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is the frustrating part. Of course you don't believe you had done anything wrong, that doesn't mean you didn't... it just means your not aware of it. Given that you have freely admitted you arrogance, one of the detractors to being arrogant is your own self-esteem and self-belief. It means you would be blinded to ever doing wrong ebcause it goes against being arrogant. Thus how would you ever know if you had done wrong if you were not willing to self-assess?
- Think about these things:
- There is a difference between "discussing" something and giving them a formal warning. While a person may beleive they are right and did right during "discussion", they may not continue to act in the same manner after having been giving such a warning. You automatically assumed he would continue after a formal warning. Can you not understand that your view of how he would react is fundamentally flawed?
- Drowner was editing the page of his own volition. Not only this but each of his edits were different each time. If it was a true edit war then it would have involved him trying to put back exactly the same information that was taken out. It can be seen that he had no belief that certain content should go in and was purposely editing the article knowing that TUF would refert it. By blocking this user, TUF would no longer have a need to uphold the rules of wikipedia and the problem would have been resolved.
- Contrary to this, TUF was only reverting Drowner specifically to uphold the rules of wikipedia. Blocking TUF would not have fixed the situation but would have allowed Drowner the freedom to continue to edit the page even though he clearly did not demonstrate a desire to have content in the article (otherwise he would have re-added it instead of adding something different every time). Thus blocking TUF would not have resolved the problem.
- Think about these things:
- I think if you think about these facts, accept the possibility that your judgement about someones future actions wasn't the best approach you could take then perhaps you might start to see the things which you are currently blinded to as a result of your own level of self-worth. I know that personally (and I too can be extremely arrogant at times) would hate to know that I overlooked something or was blind to something which resulted in something being unfair. I know that I would want to correct it because despite being arrogant myself I am not inconsiderate. Hopefully this is true of you too and thus I would hope you would at least "attempt" some form of self-assessment "just in case" you did miss something as a result of your behaviour. Worth a few minutes is it not? Enigmatical 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you see the subsection immediately above, it seems Tony is kind of fond of blocking several editors at the same time. This is questionable, and I would like to leave a message on my talk page explaining why I was blocked, giving links to edits to show the reason. Tazmaniacs 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think blocking pairs of editors who are edit warring is fair. I have no idea why you'd see if as questionable--you were both edit warring and so both were blocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I performed a normal block for disruption. If you think that there is a problem with administrators blocking editors for disruption, please have the blocking policy changed. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't even bother reading what I wrote did you? Or even stop for half a second to consider what I am saying? Fine. If thats how you want to handle it, I give up trying to assume good faith on your behalf and in try to actually do something to help someone which hopefully would have benefitted both yourself and the rest of the wikipedia community in general. I'm done, your welcome to return to your self-proclaimed arrogant behaviour. Good bye Enigmatical 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I read what you said. I disagree with it. Why is this a problem for you? Must everybody always agree with you? All the time? --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Look who's back
Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.
- The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- One sockpuppet (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. Netscott 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Gather your evidence, then if it confirms your suspicions, fire on all tubes. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Support required for self-righteous editor
Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting an article to suit her POV - The Frosties Kid. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge nor cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you help in this matter seeing as I don't know how else to apporach it as she is being very unreasonable. Thank you. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Tony, I have put forward my views and statements relating to the article. So I'm just waiting for any further feedback. But that's what started all this trouble in the first place, the fact that every other user was ready to discuss changes and the matter with Wikipediatrix who all of a sudden has now disappeared after the lockdown of the article. Anyway, hopefully this can be resolved without anyone going insane. I'm not going to lose sleep over this though. Thanks again for stepping in though. Piecraft 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Can the lock be removed, things have settled and there is now substantial evidence + citations. thanks --Jum4 09:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Note from mboverload I support doing a TRIAL unlocking of the article, and I can alert another administrator to relock it. Say to put it on article parole or something, I can monitor it and if another admin sees your comment they can quickly protect it again. --mboverload@ 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
So, is this a better way to handle it?
Ewan G Keenowe (talk · contribs) is not listening to a warning I placed on their talk page. They keep labelling Westboro Baptist Church a hate group without discussing it on the talk page as requested (where it was recently discussed). . I've already reverted twice today and I don't want to revert it any more than that right now. Could you do it and watch the page. I'm also putting a 3RR warning on the user's talk page in a few minutes. I don't want to report to 3RR yet since they haven't been warned for that. --The Ungovernable Force 19:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is much better. But you shouldn't have been edit warring with him like this. In future, get someone else to take a look early and then you may be able to convince the fellow that he's not doing the right thing. In any case as he's pretty new I'm asking him whether he would consider reverting it himself so we can discuss it on the talk page. If not, I'll revert it myself, but only once. If he continues to edit war I'll treat it as blockable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was the third person (now fourth, another admin already did) to revert his edits. Can you explain how I was edit warring? I purposefully didn't revert a 3rd time even though it's allowable just to stop this perception. I'm not trying to be defensive, I would really like to know. Oh, and I almost left a message here when I first left a warning on his page, but I decided to see if the warning was enough. At first I thought it worked, since they didn't edit the page again for over an hour. I didn't see the point in getting an admin involved if the warning was enough. The Ungovernable Force 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I may have miscounted, but it looks to me like you made three reverts in a fairly short period of time , although one of those reverts related to another editor. If you revert a non-vandal more than once, you're edit warring. What worries me about your behavior at present is that your last three edits to this article were reverts. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot about that from last night. That was unrelated, although that does still count as a revert on the page. Thanks for reminding me about that. Now I'm really glad I didn't revert the person a third time, then I would have violated 3RR. --The Ungovernable Force 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"1RR" is better. It encourages you to find other ways of dealing with disputes, and after a bit you realise you don't ever need to make more than one revert. Thanks for coming to me, though. That's the first step. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Politics
Not too surprised by the result - while your "rouge" actions may feel authoritarian, I had you pegged as an anarchist with power ;) Guettarda 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Um, I'm pretty surprised. That's basically my score. Econ=-8.25 and social=-8.00.--The Ungovernable Force 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:SNOW
Tony, one of your edit summaries - - interests me. Could you explain your thinking? If there is controversy, then by definition, the minority viewpoint does stand a snowball's chance and the debate should be allowed to continue. WP:SNOW, IMO, is for discussions where everyone is just piling on, {{prod}} should have been used, and there's just no point in continuing. If there are 10 deletes and only a keep from the original author, by all means, get rid of the thing and don't waste everyone's time. I don't particularly disagree with your removal of it because it doesn't really add anything ... I was just curious about your reasoning your gave in your edit summary.
I have made a few minor changes to the essay, as well as adding back in a weaker form of the statement about premature closure causing hard feelings. I understand the WP:BEANS concern, but looking at DRV, I think there are frequently times where barely controversial AFDs cause heated DRVs soley because of early closure. There doesn't need to be anything in there encouraging people to stretch out reviews of their crufty articles, but it couldn't hurt to have some admonition that stopping the process can cause hard feelings. BigDT 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is my impression (and it's just an impression so don't ask me to substantiate it yet, but I'd be interested in any research anyone could do on this) historically, that the Snowball clause has been used most successfully to defuse silly conflicts over faites-accomplies. Nitpicking, pointless discussions are often initiated, and those discussions can cause much acrimonious and divisive controversy without altering the end effect (imagine the effect of someone putting "No Personal Attacks" to the vote once a month). This tends to happen most often with respect to deletion, and the disruptive effects of deletion debates, and particularly reviews of deletions, are quite severe and very bad for the body politic of Misplaced Pages. This is why the Snowball clause is so popular and so useful.
- On early closure, obviously you're right, but this is why this essay is so important. Early closure is correct in most cases where it has been performed, so dragging the thing out is a very unwikipedian thing to do. To suggest that one should take account of the possibility that someone may decide to fight the thing to the death is appropriate, so I think you were right to bring it back. However, perhaps some refinement might be necessary. It obviously isn't right to avoid attempting to cut short a foregone conclusion, just because someone may abuse the processes to create acrimony over the fact of the closure. Perhaps some advice on how to deal with the accusations that typically follow, with reference to Misplaced Pages's policies. . --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok ... I see what you mean by controversy. You are talking about silly arguments, ie, a 50-person message board where a bunch of meat puppets show up to whine about deletion. You won't get any argument from me there. I was not really considering those to be controversial when I read your changes. The ones I consider controversial are where there is a non-trivial opposing view that has legitimate reasons for their viewpoint. Even if they stand little chance of prevailing, cutting off the discussion is only going to cause resentment and virtually assure a divisive DRV discussion. For example, consider the recent cross-namespace redirect discussions. In some cases, a calm RFD discussion allowed to run its course could have averted angry DRVs. BigDT 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
DRV
I am sorry for my strong comments at DRV. I just wanted to quickly clarify something with you - if you believe that the consensus at an AfD is redirect, do you list the result as "keep", delete" or "redirect", because I think that this may be causing some misunderstanding. --David Mestel 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If I think that a redirect consensus exists, I usually close as keep, and may perform the redirect myself. This is because redirection is an edit (which can be performed or reverted by anyone), not an action of deletion (which requires administrator powers to perform or revert), --Tony Sidaway 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that this has caused some misunderstanding, as many people (including myself) thought that a redirect was more akin to a deletion, in that the article no longer exists of itself, though I can see your point too. Maybe it would be better if in future you closed with Keep and redirect, or similar, just to make things absolutely clear. --David Mestel 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. It wouldn't be right to mislead. A redirect is an edit and we must not obfuscate that. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Closing with a Keep and redirect isn't misleading and it would help avoid confusion. Dionyseus 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It might mislead because if somebody read "redirect" in the close they might think that was a result of the deletion debate rather than an edit. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't at all misleading - if redirect is the consensus of the AfD, the edit is made as a result of that AfD. And even if it were slightly misleading then I would say that it was the least worst option, as keep really does look to an outside viewer as if you plan to keep the article and do nothing to it. --David Mestel 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
As closer, that is often all I do plan to do. The purpose of AfD is to decide on deletions. If an editing consensus emerges then anyone can act on it--that's how editing (as opposed to deletion) works on Misplaced Pages--so it is not incumbent on the closer to perform edits. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe "keep, with consensus to redirect". I just feel that saying only "keep"is misleading, as redirects essentially mean that the article ceases to exist as an article in itself. --David Mestel 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not really true. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Make a page on Misplaced Pages, say User:David.Mestel/Redirect test. Type in some content and save. Then edit it by blanking and replacing the content by "#redirect User:David.Mestel. At that point it's a redirect. Now go to the new redirect page and look at the history. You will see that the original content is still there. Click on the original version and you'll see it. Now edit that and save it. The redirect has now been replaced by the original content. It never ceased to exist, it was simply occluded by the redirect. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see your point, but I think mine still stands - to readers of the encyclopedia, it doese not exist as a seperate page with seperate content. And besides, what harm does it really do to say "keep and redirect"? --David Mestel 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does no harm, and I'm not against saying it. But I sometimes don't. And I think that's okay too. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OrphanBot policy
User:Micoolio101/Supporters in the death of OrphanBot was submitted to deletion review. FYI because you were involved in this deletion, 217.251.173.136 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Question
May you comment on this, or forward it to someone who can? Regarding Continuing Edits Despite RFA. Sincerely, SSS108 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- PJacobi has correctly answered the question. If you think that someone is causing ongoing damage you should propose a temporary injunction (on the workshop page) and if the arbitrators agree they will adopt it. Once it is passed, then the parties named in the injunction are subject to immediate sanction (blocking, usually) should they disobey it. In practice this kind of action is reserved for very serious and obvious damage. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Email Encoder
Hi. I noticed that you posted your email address in whole on your talk page, which generally is a bad idea because Misplaced Pages is a Google magnet, plus spammers run bots to harvest email addresses. I took the liberty of "encoding" it with character references so that your address still looks the same but will be harder too pick up. Alternatively, I would also suggest putting something like emailsomething.org to avoid the bots and the spam. Hbdragon88 05:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop mangling other people's email addresses. It is not good practice to obfuscate email addresses, which is why I always disply mine in full. So that people who need to use it can do so easily. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Geez...look, okay, I only did it to one address - yours - and it was done only via the underlying code. The actual address itself is still just as visible as it was before, so anybody who wanted to copy your email address oculd still do so as easily. Nobody likes to obfuscate email addresses, I agree, but nobodfy likes spam, either. Hbdragon88 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't receive spam. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Small favor to ask
Tony Sidaway, would you kindly refrain from refactoring my signatures in the manner you did here? That is not appreciated. I respect your talk page and don't leave such a signature here please respect me and do not repeat such behavior outside of pages specifically tagged as permitting such (as WP:ANI and WP:AN). Thanks. Netscott 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least one copy of your full signature is already present on that page. I regularly trim unnecessarily large signatures so as to keep discussions uncluttered and easy to edit. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I am aware of that and I'm am politely requesting that in asmuch as I respect you and your talk page you respect me in a similar fashion. To me your refactoring of my signatures is very disrespectful. This is particularly evident to me when I peruse your talk page and see a number of examples of others' signatures you've not altered. My request is not too much to ask. Netscott 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not editing a private space that belongs to you. Misplaced Pages is public. If you want a private homepage that will not be edited by others, there are many free providers on the net. I respect your right to have a signature and append it to your edits. You don't have a right of prior veto over reasonable edits by other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 16 July 2006
- When you make such statement you are talking in a way that is sooner in accord with "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". As well you're condescending me by telling me something that I already know. Your statement of your inclination to alter my signature goes against etiquette and is borderline uncivil. Such statements incline other editors (like myself) to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point by actually going around and altering your own signatures. Which is just ridiculous, we're here to work on a project together not be inclined to fight eachother over something ridiculous as signatures. My signature is subtle (I made it that way purposely with the whole refactoring sigs discussion in mind). My signature is not disruptive when used in talk page discussions.
Again, kindly respect me and refrain from altering my signaturesm as I now type out manually in respect of you my signature here. Netscott 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not disrupting Misplaced Pages, and I'm certainly not attempting to make any point. If you already know that you don't own discussion pages, that's good. If you think you can improve Misplaced Pages discussions by editing my signature, have at it with my blessing. If you aren't inclined to fight with me, I'm happy.
- My current practice with signature clutter is to remove it where I encounter it, except when an editor has said he doesn't like that or has edited my opt out list I make an effort to leave at least one copy of the signature unaltered, with all links etc, on the discussion page. This fulfils the editor's wish to apply a pretty decoration to the discussion page, without cluttering the discussion with excessive redundancy. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my original message I said "manner". What that was particularly referring to was refactoring of a signature on a user's talk page. To a certain extent I do concede that on project/article talk pages I can understand your logic of refactoring signatures but not at all on user talk pages. If the user that I'm addressing has a problem with "clutter" as you call it they'll likely inform me or otherwise specify their dislike of such signatures on their user or talk page as you've done yourself. Hopefully with this explanation you will better understand why I have brought this to your attention. Thank you for taking the time to explain your logic. Netscott 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable request. I'll see if I can remember not to refactor on user talk pages, unless there is an especially large amount of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Persistent vandal
I know this is not the place to report vandalism, but no admin seems to be paying attention to the Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. I just selected a random admin's talk page. This persistent vandal keeps reintroducing the same material onto Roy Masters. I have reverted his vandalism multiple times, but he keeps switching IPs. I'd like to get a semi-protect on the article. Thanks. --Super-Magician 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like Redvers beat me to it. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. Thanks though. Only thing is, I am almost certain that this vandal will come back and continue doing the same thing. If you check the history, you'll see he's been up and at it for 2 months! --Super-Magician 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- In cases like this it's normal to try unprotection at regular intervals until it's clear that the vandal has given up. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- All right, that makes sense. --Super-Magician 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- In cases like this it's normal to try unprotection at regular intervals until it's clear that the vandal has given up. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yup. Thanks though. Only thing is, I am almost certain that this vandal will come back and continue doing the same thing. If you check the history, you'll see he's been up and at it for 2 months! --Super-Magician 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Re:Perreiro
Thanks for blocking him. I was pretty sure it was GT's sock but he did not reach test4, so he was not yet reported :) --Grafikm_fr 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I spoke too fast he's back --Grafikm_fr 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Semiprotected. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
regarding curse
(→Unprotecting - This article has been protected for ages and ages, and there has been no discussion for weeks and weeks.)
The discussion has not been abandoned. Simply no further replies. Ste4k 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- If an edit war resumes, I'll take further action. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Ste4k 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Falun Gong and signing off
It was meant humorously, actually. I know from seeing your name on my watchlist that you are pretty involved on a daily, or at least near-daily, basis. (Oy, you and Alienus!!) That's what made the comment irresistable. ;-) CovenantD 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Sign your posts on talk pages
Tony -
Please ease up on the repitition that you're contributing to this ongoing discussion. Clearly your feelings on this are extermely strong, but it might be nice if others could comment without being badgered. Of the last two thousand odd words on the page, over half have been yours. To put this into context, you seem terribly distressed by "clutter" on wikipedia. Multiple statements of pure opinon are also "clutter and redundancy." Extend to others the same level of courtesy that you expect with regard to concise editing, and stop repeating yourself at length. Let other people talk.
Aaron Brenneman 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry if I've been repeating myself. I'll try not to. Having said that, I don't think I'm engaging in any significant redundancy on that page. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Over-protective
Thanks for un-protecting Democracy Now!. I need to find a better mechanism to keep up with those so I don't forget about them. Tom Harrison 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- No worries. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Editing other users' comments in WP:AE
Excuse me, Tony, I believe I've not edited any other user comments in the WP:AE, you can tell me where I've done that if I'm wrong. I believe you haven't realized it's SqueakBox who changes the title of the subsection (User:SqueakBox) to (User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas). It makes no sense to change the title of a section I've entered to complain about squeakBox adding the name of other user. Hagiographer 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, I would like to know if you, the administrators, are going to do something about SqueakBox's insults and about his sock puppet User:Skanking or I'll have to bear forever his abuse. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Another question. How do you expect people to know SqueakBox is under personal attacks parole if it's not posted in his user page? Hagiographer 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- He seems to have settled down for now. I have to admit that I, and perhaps other editors, were somewhat blindsided by his sock accusations, and didn't really address behavior issues. If he makes further attacks do please report them to me, and avoid responding directly, and I promise to take appropriate action. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. I promise that I will avoid any unnecessary problem with SqueakBox. Hagiographer 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Tea and crumpets
An rfc has been initiated concerning spoiler tags. See Misplaced Pages:Spoiler warning/RfC if you feel inclined to comment on the issue. -Randall Brackett 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Michael Jackson
Nice work cleaning up this disgraceful page! Tyrenius 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
ED and Mongo?
How interested in getting knee deep in this crap are you? I feel an affinity for MONGO, thought we've butted heads before. I expect the reason he changed a section header on his talk page is because he'd prefer people not go to that site that we're talking about. Another editor, who I have also previously butted heads with, is multiply reverting back the name of the site onto his talk page. I'm happy to go seek other help, and I don't know how busy you are, but I feel bad for MONGO, and I certainly don't think the name of that cite should be on his talk page. Looking for either advice or assistance here - your call. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- He changed the heading by calling the editor who showed it to him a troll. I reverted the personal attack. This previous "butting of heads" is when Hipocrite left me a bad faith "WP:NOT a politics chatboard" because I voted in a straw poll he didn't approve ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Karwynn&diff=59442571&oldid=59314750]. He is now ignoring my comments and continuing to leave warning messages, rather than discuss the matter as I tried to do in his talk page. See? THe "Reverts" in question were his blanking of talk page content; even if he feels MONGO doesn't want it there, it's considered vandalism
- Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism.
- So what am I asking? nothing really. I'm not asking for intervention at this point, but I thought you might like the full context. Thanks, Psycho Master (Karwynn) 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken the action I thought was necessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- MONGO's talkpage is an "article Talk page"? How... unique. Your one-hour block was very lenient, Tony. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
- A bat across the nose for being naughty. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- MONGO's talkpage is an "article Talk page"? How... unique. Your one-hour block was very lenient, Tony. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC).
Thanks, Tony, I don't care to have any mention of that website on my talk page. Karwynn obviously knew I removed it and I definitely consider him restoring part of the comments I removed as harassment.--MONGO 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- What about putting the ED article up for deletion? A site perpetrating personal attacks against Misplaced Pages editors doesn't really seem like something Misplaced Pages should be linking to. Besides they likely don't pass Misplaced Pages:Notability (web). Netscott 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Tower Colliery
Mr Steadman has taken it upon himself to mentor me and it seems to be working out smashingly. I make an edit and he helps me by reverting it or amending it, always with a nice little comment. However, we are slightly at odds over the Tower Colliery article http://en.wikipedia.org/Tower_Colliery. I'm not sure about Mr Steadman's point about the link. For all I know he has a valid point and I don't want to jeapordize our new relationship. I'm not asking for any intervention or telling tales, I just need somebody to tell me why the link might be 'unwiki'. Cheers.Neuropean 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- The reason is simple this does not link to anything about Tower Colliery but to an advert for Free Net Names - which you added then re-added when it was removed - such spam has no place on Misplaced Pages- as I have already explained. Perhaps Tony could mentor you to stop your copyright violations, spam links, editing of other people's talk comments and talk pages and, of course, your celebration of warnings you have recieved. For Tony's info - I have already put this up for an RFI. Robertsteadman 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, seriously, Rob, when I click on the link, it takes me to the official website. I'm not joking.Neuropean 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don;t call me Rob. It opens to an advert for Free Net Names - it is spam. Please do not add spam to wikipedia. Robertsteadman 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rob, I have pasted what I see on the article's talk page. I don't understand why you cannot see itNeuropean 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect you have a version of the page in your cahe somehow - the website seems to have gone and that is why I get the advert instead. Clear your cache and see if you stil get the same. Robertsteadman 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rob, I have pasted what I see on the article's talk page. I don't understand why you cannot see itNeuropean 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don;t call me Rob. It opens to an advert for Free Net Names - it is spam. Please do not add spam to wikipedia. Robertsteadman 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, seriously, Rob, when I click on the link, it takes me to the official website. I'm not joking.Neuropean 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi guys, I looked at it and I'm sorry to say that it does just go to an ad when I try it. This could be a technical problem of some kind, and I suggest that you contact the site owner to see if they have configured it wrong. There is clearly a link for site owners and admins to click and log in, so I think they probably just haven't quite got it working properly yet. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There we go then, all sorted and no need for all this fuss and another paragraph added to one of my regualr RFIs. Thank you Tony.Neuropean 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Joseph Patrick Moore
Just curious, how was the concensus to keep when over 75% of votes were to delete this article? I am placing this article under deletion review. OSU80 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- AfD isn't a vote. This chap's article only needs a bit of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so the concensus was delete. Isn't it blantantly obvious that this is soapboxing? Why would the company's executive producer be begging for the article to stay? It is pure promotion, you being such an avid contributor surely should be able to see this? OSU80 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No the consensus was not to delete. The consensus was that this is vanity but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article. Please read WP:VANITY. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've read it before. I'm refering to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. OSU80 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest that you read that one, too. Carefully, this time. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
btw
Thanks for pointing out the political compass... I am stealing your exact wording from your page. Hope you don't mind. If so, let me know and I will cite you as a reference. :) Ste4k 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: Edit warring on Jesus
I haven't broken WP:3RR nor violated any policy. However, as I stated on Talk:Jesus, I do not with to engage in an edit-war. I simply wish that he and others would respect the long-standing layout for the article UNTIL something new can be agreed on. He and others wish to force their opinion and then discuss it, which is not operating under any fragment of good faith. By the way, you forgot to sign your comment. —Aiden 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think we've found a compromise that should solve the dispute. —Aiden 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)