Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 17 October 2005 (→Sadness). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Maoririder

In looking over a lot of stuff, the whole thing about Maoririder all looks like a lot of wasted server time. Where did we come up with the idea that he is mentally retarded or just a kid? There are two possibilities as I see it: A) Maoririder is playing a game of good edit/bad edit on purpose, or B) Maoriride is just a new Wikipedian who is still learning and perhaps isn't trying to be very specific with his stub creations because he doesn't grasp the situation yet. I think that I have to agree with your argument that he is just new, but don't agree with any arguement that he is retarded or autuistic, at least not yet.--MONGO 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• From the Evidence page: "The evidence presented against Maoririder thus seeks to misrepresent Maoririder's removal of his admitted personal attack as a craven, cowardly act of concealment. Who is violating community norms here?". I noted that he removed the attack, and then denied ever making one. I don't recall using the words "craven" or "cowardly". I don't think he's either. If you want to slander me, than open up an RfC or RfAr against me. --Scimitar 14:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just stop blatantly misrepresenting the evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't use the words "craven" or "cowardly". Who's misrepresenting what?--Scimitar 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm simply asking where the notion that Maoririder is retarded came from. I see evidence of problematic use and of personal attacks but also see that he is relatively new. He has similar editing style to Gabrielsimon. I'm taking a stand here, just was curious if all the evidence supports the diagnosis...an Rfc is NOT something I have any intention of recording. Without using Tony's talk page for a filibuster, also curious where you got the idea I was claiming that you used the words "craven" or "cowardly" as I haven't called anyone that to my knowledge.--MONGO 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk pg. --Scimitar 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar, the presentation of evidence against Maoririder, upon which I was commenting, falsely claimed that he was trying to cover up an attack he had made. It was a de facto accusation of craven, cowardly, despicable behavior, and completely unfounded. Withdraw that false accusation. --Tony Sidaway 23:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• If you check the page, you'll notice that I editted my contribution well before you asked me to withdraw it. I have my faults, but I hope blind stubbornness isn't one of them.--Scimitar 14:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

stub cleanup

If you're wanting to help Maoririder clean up his stubs, he's got a new batch here: Special:Contributions/Bluejays2006. Best of luck getting a repeat edit from him on them. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, count me out. I'm through with this whole affair. Why I've become the bad guy in all this is beyond me. I didn't file the complaint. I only supported it in hopes the guy would straighten up and fly right. I'm taking a break since, quite frankly, I've become sick of Maoririder trashing me when all I tried to do was to help. I'll probably change my mind once I've cooled off, but for now, I'm taking myself off the project for a bit. I wish you the best in trying to help this user. We did it with SuperDude115; I thought we could do it with Maoririder. Maybe we still can. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Apology

I did lose some sleep last night about this whole thing, i've become something of a Wiki-Addict, and I have never been particularly adept dealing with intrapersonal rivalries, especially those which arose through a misunderstanding. I believed that we might have had different goals regarding Maoririder, but i'm glad it seems that we only have differing opinions on how to reach that goal. Who knows? Eventually I may try to establish a Wikiproject for Disabled Wikipedians out of this effort. Anywho, since it looks like you haven't gotten a Barnstar lately, and your apology is worth one in my book, so I stuck a picture of what it looked like on that milk carton on the side. I'll sure somebody'll find it eventually;-) Karmafist 04:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit war

I suppose you know by now that after about a week of calm, User:Theathenae has returned with a vengance. He has edit warred many articles (including Arvanites). When I asked him to co-operate on his talk page, he just deleted my message here. If that is not bad faith, I don't know what it is. What should I do? I know that you're probably tired of this dispute by now, but please consider intervening. REX 10:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I was busy with other cases for a bit, but I may have more time now. I'll take a look. But meanwhile, remember that it takes two to edit war. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to pester you again (If you don't want to hear from me again, I'll understand, just tell me). Theathenae calls my GOOD FAITH and COOPERATION message wiki-stalking and deletes it without answering. Look! What should I do? Edit-war? I have already made another concession (it is an original research one, but necessary since Theathenae won't accept what the sources say). He just won't listen!!! REX 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

Tony, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't unprotect pages I've protected. If you feel something's been locked for too long, by all means leave a note on my talk page, and I'll see to it. For example, the Open gaming dispute has been going on since January at least, possibly before, between two editors, and they seem to be the only two who edit it. Six days to sort it out is therefore not too long, and I was waiting for one of them to respond to the latest point before unprotecting; I'm also in touch with both by e-mail. I won't re-protect, because I think they're about ready to start editing again, but in future I would really appreciate being allowed to unprotect pages I have protected, unless there's a request for unprotection from someone not involved in the dispute, and I'm not around. I know you don't like protected pages, but it's sometimes better than blocking for 3RR and having people attack each other on talk pages. SlimVirgin 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings, but a personality clash isn't really a good justification for keeping an article protected from all edits. I don't see 3RR as an alternative to page protection--just get the editors to agree not to edit war. --Tony Sidaway 02:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

That had already been tried, to no avail, and it was becoming increasingly bitter, with both parties requesting help: there had already been a RfM, an article RfC, and a rejected RfAr. I therefore checked to see whether anyone else was editing it, and after establishing that no one was, I protected it, put up another article RfC, asked for help on the mailing list from anyone knowledgeable in the area, and engaged in e-mail correspondence with both parties, as well as explaining our policies to the new-ish one. It has gone quite well, and an agreement is close by the looks of it. My point is that often the protecting admin knows the dispute and is better placed to decide when to unprotect. Also, in general I feel that admins shouldn't undo each other's work by unprotecting or unblocking, unless a clear error has been made and/or the original admin isn't available — although that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise issues with other admins when we disagree with them. SlimVirgin 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Catholics

I am unclear as to why you locked the "Traditionalist Catholic" page again. I made the "wholesale edit" (which I didn't know was some breach of etiquette), was told not to, so then just posted the definition agreed upon in the talk pages. But that, too, was reverted and the page locked. I don't understand. Used2BAnonymous 05:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Also, the structure used was the one recommended by Pathoschild (the moderator), and worked out among us all. Used2BAnonymous 05:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for the screw-up. I unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 05:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Sidaway.. S'all good : ) Used2BAnonymous 06:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat

Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/mentorship#More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat. — Davenbelle 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Albert M. Wolters Talk page

Just curious: why wasn't Talk:Albert M. Wolters undeleted in addition to undeleting the article? Is the discussion there now irrelevant? --Tabor 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I'd no idea that it had been deleted. I don't think it's normal practice to delete talk pages, except for mischievous pages. I'll undelete it and merge in my comment. --Tony Sidaway 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's my fault, I deleted the talk page when I deleted the article per AfD. In hindsight it was a mistake - indeed deleting the article was probably a mistake since the AfD consensus was illogical. Tony, I do think we need a mechanism to review bad AfD decisions (like this one) and not just the process. But, for the record, I'm a little uncomfortable with you unilaterally restoring this - are you now the last court of appeal in any process! Doc (?) 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I know it's uncomfortable, but IAR is like that. A corollary of IAR is that I'm putting my reputation on the line. If this article is deleted I personally will not undelete again, but I rely on others who think the article is a worthwhile one to undelete it. I am pretty sure we can ensure that way that there is a clear lack of consensus to delete. Deletion policy has this: if in doubt, don't delete. Honestly we should not be deleting good stuff, because it's a stupid thing to do. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't. - brenneman 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it does. I've restored the material that, without discussion, you removed from the deletion policy. Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I trained as a lawyer - so maybe I'm a little over-fond of process - and unsure about arbitrary IAR (although I have used it myself). I think you could at least have waited to see if the VfU process would have come to the right result. Your unilateral action looks highhanded and anti-consensus - if everyone behaved like that we'd be in real trouble. On the other hand, what I don't get is the VfU 'this is about process not content' argument - so will they restore articles that are junk because they were deleted out of process - and refuse to reprieve articles that are good because proces was followed? (That process is in itself deeply flawed). If I was a stronger believer in IAR, I might be tempted to pull an Ed Poor on VfU right now! --Doc (?) 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

We've got a bureaucracy and as part of that bureaucracy you did something that you would not have done as an individual. Well maybe you don't view that kind of behavior as "high handed". I differ. At some point somebody with a bit of commonsense ought to be able to say "You know what? That decision was totally wack." I take it upon myself to do that, and every time I do it I'm risking my whole reputation. I'll do that only when I think it's worth doing so and I think there's a serious problem with the usual processes. --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's better to fix the process, than rely on (inevitably arbitrary) royal pardons? --Doc (?) 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't fix the process until I build a substantial head of complaint that, fuck it, good stuff keeps getting deleted and it shouldn't be. --Tony Sidaway

Hey

I have seen your name a lot lately... so have this Barnstar of Diligence for being so active on Misplaced Pages.

Take care. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but those weird merkin star things really spook me. I've replaced that nasty barn pin thing with a nicer picture. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I like that...could you give me one of those. : ). File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I take that as a 'no'. Take care anyway. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe! You didn't give me a chance to respond! I don't hand out Hero of the Soviet Union awards lightly, you know. I'll have to consult the Revolutionary Committee, but in principle I see no reason not to award you. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion

I have no opinion on the subject of the article. I do not plan on voting on the second AfD. I do believe in process. This was a unanimous vote for deletion, and you decided to just go ahead and undelete it without even waiting to see what the VfU vote was going to be. You have no concern for other admins nor for process, only for whatever you think should be done, and everybody else, and all of Misplaced Pages with them, can go hang. User:Zoe| 01:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

My objection to the VFU vote is in my email on wikien-l: to wit, that falsehoods are repeatedly raised as excuses to keep deleted. Summary undeletion is the only way to enforce the principle that content matters more than process. That this is an encyclopedia first, and a community second. Read the article, and stop making patently false claims about my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Albert_M._Wolters_(second_nomination)

It's vanity and cruft. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's people like you that make me frustrated with Misplaced Pages by circumventing the vfd (which was unamious,) and the ineffective dispute resolution methods. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer the question. Have you in fact read the article? --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Independent school (UK) protection

Thanks for taking care of this. To be (somewhat) fair to the protecting admin, there wasn't a template placed because AFAIK there isn't one for move-only protection -- until recently, there wasn't really an explicit policy, either. Hopefully this will "bed down" more in time. Alai 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sadness

I have decided to post this comment to you, as well as to the debate on Wolters.

Mr. Sidaway, would I be right, in the spirit of WP:IAR, to vandalize your user page because I think you are disruptive, and wished to show you how painful disruption can be? Anarchy is a vicious cycle. If we really ignored all rules, this project would fail. I haven't been here that long, but when I first arrived, I found you to be a good admin of sound judgment, and I liked you. Your recent attacks have been depressing. Make your points (which are often good ones) with logic, not with with disrespect for others. I do hope WP does not become a land of George W. Bush-esque unilateralism. I am sad.

I'll add to you here that I agree the article should be kept, and so voted. I also voted to Keep Deleted at VfU because I knew SteveBish, or myself, could easily expand the article, and achieve reposting quickly through process. Your actions just made things more complicated, made me lose a little faith in you, and did make me very sad. Xoloz 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The VFU vote was a travesty because there is a clique there that denies that deletion policy mandates VFU to look at content, and goes to the lengths of removing from the VFU page actual quotes from the deletion policy that show their claims to be false. I have to say I'm depressed myself at your false claim that I closed the second AfD. I did nothing of the sort. I created the second AfD.

The suggestion you make above would fall afoul of WP:POINT. All I did was ignore all rules to achieve the end that would have been achieved, if VFU were not broken to the point where it ignores and misrepresents the undeletion policy. We must never delete good articles, and where AfD does so VFU is supposed to correct the error. When both fail, it's left to people like me to correct the error. --Tony Sidaway 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Sidaway, it would fall afoul of WP:POINT if I vandalized you, but if I used IAR as a justification, does WP:POINT matter. As to my apparent incorrect reading of edit history, it matters little; creating the second AfD before VfU was done, in a self-admitted attempt to circumvent it, is just as much a depressing lack of respect for process. I will also add that I find your mentioning of WP:POINT in the context of my rhetorical question to be either odd or disingenious. You must have (or reasonably should have) realized that WP:IAR, as you contrue it in your actions, becomes a dangerous license to do all kinds of mischief.

Lastly, VfU had not failed. The article would probably have been undeleted, and the process worked. All you did by circumventing it was to cause disruption. Further, your observation, it is left to people like me to correct the error strikes me as plainly megalomaniacal. I am saddened further. Xoloz 15:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Call me Tony. Everybody else does.

Yes, WP:POINT would matter because you would have caused a fuss to demonstrate a point rather than to achieve a policy objective. That's the opposite of the way IAR works. If you don't understand the difference, and yet I tell you that there is a very real difference, maybe that explains why, on the few occasions I have ever use IAR, I have achieved the objective with little damage to my overall credibility, if any. In short, Xoloz, I recommend that you yourself avoid making use of IAR until and unless you can understand the difference.

Now that I correct you on one fact, you move to misstating another. As I said, I didn't close the new AfD, so now you falsely claim that I started the second AfD in order to circumvent VFU. Wrong, I undeleted the article in an act of circumvention of a corrupt and counter-policy process, that pertaining at present on VFU, which regularly stands and wrings it hands and incorrectly claims it cannot do anything to undelete perfectly good articles, if the process of deletion was formally correct. Actually I only completed the second nomination of the article because someone else had added the tag but failed to complete it. I don't like messy, dangling ends. Do you see a pattern here? You don't understand what's going on so you repeatedly misinterpret and misstate the facts.

You don't understand why I mentioned WP:POINT in relation to your suggestion. I do so simply because your suggestion would unequivocally fall under WP:POINT.

You falsely claim that VFU would probably have undeleted the article. No it wouldn't. VFU has been traduced and regularly denies the undeletion policy. Attempts to appeal to the content of a deleted article are falsely described as inadmissible arguments. Even you admit that you voted Keep deleted for some utterly nonsensical reason. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)