Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 16 February 2006 (→Multiposting?: A compromise?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletions

T1 applies to template space, not userspace. Please restore the subpages you deleted from User:Userboxes. I'm attempting to formulate a sensible compromise here. I'm frankly getting fucking sick of this entire process where good faith attempts to compromise are immediately slapped down by warriors who seem to have nothing better to do than fight over these issues all day. Incidentally, didn't you promise a week or two ago (to head off a RFC) that you would refrain from speedy deleting more userboxes? I'm about this close to simply leaving Misplaced Pages altogether - I do not want to work in an environment this poisonous. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I suggest that you consider Netoholic's history in this matter. Netoholic doesn't care about userboxes, he cares about harassing anyone who dares to oppose him on WP:AUM. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is giving the templates a different name and saying that the rules of Misplaced Pages don't apply to them. Sorry, that won't wash. If a template is made available for transclusion on multiple pages, what matters is not which namespace it's in but what the content is. What you're doing in recreating abusive templates is an abuse of Misplaced Pages. Please stop now. --Tony Sidaway 10:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying that the rules which apply are those of userspace, not template space. They could still be nominated for WP:MFD, but not speedy deleted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have you read Tony's fix to WP:CSD? He has decided (unilaterally of course - that's how Tony operates best) that a template is defined as any page designed to be transcluded.

And Tony, don't you have something important to do, like edit an encyclopedia? If you're gonna run around and pretend to defend it, you'll accomplish more and recieve greater appreciation at Special:Recentchanges than you will at Special:Deletepage. So why not stop disrupting the project with unilateral deletion sprees and, you know, edit wikipedia? --Blu Aardvark | 11:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just being bold. You'll notice that Kim Bruning and Morven have no problem with the clarification; most of my bold moves tend to find consensus, otherwise I'd stop doing them. --Tony Sidaway 11:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, most of your "bold" moves get agreement from some long-time admins and cause strife and trouble in the wider community. Believe it or not, agreement among a handful of people who have been here since 1996 doesn't constitute "consensus". Anyway, WP:BOLD says be bold in "updating pages", not in creating policy or deleting things. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If I only got agreement from a few oldies, then my changes would not stick. Now you can remove the text from WP:CSD, but I'm afraid there's rather more to changing Misplaced Pages policy than that. Misplaced Pages policy is what Misplaced Pages does, not what you personally choose to write about it. If you can't persuade administrators to stop deleting unsuitable templates (which frankly seems somewhat unlikely), then Misplaced Pages policy will remain as it is. --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since you have violated your previous promise to stop deleting templates , I have opened an arbitration case. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

With pleasure, though I think it's a bit much accusing me of violating a promise. I said I'd lay off deleting templates and whatnot, and I did. Then over a week later, Jimbo having given us a clear signal that attack templates could be deleted, and the community having discussed the matter on WT:CSD, a number of us started clearing out the worst of the attack templates. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Words, words, words

1. The Arbitration case does not exactly involve me. I involved myself in it. Thank you for opening the case. Robert McClenon 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2. I agree about POV. POV stands for Point of View. Everyone has a Point of View. You are correct that it is better to argue that an article is slanted, biased, or one-sided. The banned user EffK always insisted that he did not have a POV. Str1977 pointed out that not having a POV is epistemologically impossible. An article can have a neutral point of view or a non-neutral point of view, but NNPOV is clumsy. Your point is well taken. Robert McClenon 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again

First of all, some of my statements last night probably crossed the line of civility, and for this I apologize. Whether or not you believe me, I honestly did not want things to end up like this. I am far happier working on articles like this, this, and this, or working on images like this, than I am arguing with other editors over trivia. I understand that you think that deleting POV userboxes contributes to the project. I'm not disputing your good faith in that particular matter (though I am bothered by your response to the last RFC, which, with your mailing list post, I do think has undertones of bad faith). I ask you to reconsider, and to ask yourself - honestly - whether these deletions are having the effect you desire. Also, if you have time, I would ask that you read my essay, User:Crotalus horridus/Abolishing userboxes considered harmful. This explains in detail why I am opposed to this recent spate of deletions, especially out-of-process deletions. I'm not aware of any actual harm to the project from userboxes themselves, but I have seen a great deal of harm engendered by the strife caused in the Misplaced Pages community from the repeated attempts to delete them. In general, I prefer to attempt a compromise whenever possible. I am not an unreasonable person. My userfication of boxes was not intended as a circumvention of policy, but as an attempt to come up with a result that everyone could live with. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have worked. As I stated elsewhere, I'm seriously reconsidering whether I want to remain with this project, since it simply isn't fun any more. It's not like anyone is paying me to do this. I enjoy working on articles in my areas of interest. I do not enjoy fighting with other users, but nor can I in good conscience just stand back while good-faith contributors are steamrolled. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do recognise that you did not act in bad faith. Your actions, however, were damaging to the encyclopedia and could not be permitted to go unchecked, lest we end up with a proliferation of cloned userboxes in user subpages. I do have to consider these things and act in the best interests of the encyclopedia at all times; you have the luxury of being able to blunder along, ignoring all warnings, and hope for the best, while claiming that those who perform actions of which you personally disapprove are ignoring Misplaced Pages policy and disregarding Misplaced Pages consensus (neither is true).

In the past couple of days many of the most contentious and inflammatory userboxes have been deleted. Most of them died without a murmur. There has been a bit of a kerfuffle and one or two people have attempted to resurrect a few of them in userspace. You claim that the deletions are somehow "out of process" and therefore wrong, but this seems to rest on your personal rejection of the speedy deletion criterion, which has been met with quite a lot of support and has the endorsement of Jimbo speaking ex cathedra.

I'm not sure which mailing list post you think was in bad faith, or why my good faith and well received response to the RfC is worrying to you. If you can point to a particular thing and I've said something out of place, I'll gladly apologise and try to do better.

I think we can do more working together than against one another, and I ask you to try that. If I oppose something that you propose, it doesn't mean I'm not considering it. But it may mean, and I do explain myself so if you take the trouble to listen you'll see precisely why, that I see an insurmountable problem that you do not.

The rock bottom of it all is that I absolutely do not have a problem with people expressing their opinions, within reason, on their userpages. The viral dissemination of prefabricated expressions of opinion, particularly through a mechanism that permits owners of the boxes to locate, communicate with one anotehr and organise, poses the most severe danger to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Tony, I would like to apologize for my extreme lack of civility last night. I was unnecessarily upset at what, in retrospect, was a common sense decision. I still disagree with the criterion, but the fact is, it was endorsed by Jimbo - and your interpretation of it applying to userspace is a clear common sense interpretation. I do stand by my assertion that the deletion spree of these templates against consensus and out of process is disruptive, but I apologize for my actions in relation to it. --Blu Aardvark | 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I don't doubt that your actions were in good faith, as were mine. The civility issue is one that we both need to work on. --Tony Sidaway 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Now that you've finished smashing User:Boxes' userbox listings, do you think we could have our regional politics page back? —Andux 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, no problem. Just explain what you want me to do. Has he been a naughty boy and userfied some projectspace? --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I figured it out eventually. My fault. Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just thought you should have a chance to fix it before somebody else saw it and got the wrong idea. —Andux 03:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Return of a vandal

He's returned yet again: Wikiterroist3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Wikiterroist4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Zero 06:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Curiosity

Howdy,

I see there will now very likely be an ArbCom case in which you are a principal. Do you feel that this pending case will prevent you from exercising the functions of a clerk? This isn't meant as a leading question; I honestly have no opinion on the matter.

Separately, may I ask why you chose to eliminate your userpage via redirection? Your picture-by-reflection was quite clever. Best wishes, Xoloz 07:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am recused from the current case. The picture is probably around somewhere on a sub-page. Oh yes, for fuddyduddies. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The old userpage appears to suffer from some spacing problems, likely caused by your new header. The picture does not appear to load, perhaps as a result of these problems. I assumed you were recused from your own case; I was wondering whether your participation in other cases would now temporarily cease: you know, compromise of the integrity of the office, conflict-of-interest, etc.? Best wishes, Xoloz 16:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think parts of the site are still a little broken from this mornings outage. It renders okay at the moment in the skin that I use, Cologneblue, but I looked before I logged in and it was, indeed, horrible. The image problems are causing the spacing errors, not vice versa.

If somebody comes up with a plausible conflict of interest in any other case, I'll recuse. Otherwise I'll probably carry on, though not without first checking with the Committee. If they don't want me clerking for the duration they can say so. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Question above seems to be goading, maybe even badgering the "witness", if I might say so. Arbitration now because you attempt to ensure Misplaced Pages presents and upholds a NPOV...how perverse.--MONGO 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't get too flustered about it. Tony is human, and he is doing what he thinks is correct. Also note that he is enforcing Jimbo's lastest prerequisite for the situation. This will all pass over sooner or later. Let's just remain hopeful in the meantime and continue constructing an great encyclopedia.-Zero 22:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am in agreement with Tony...the arbitration seems friviolous.--MONGO 22:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Antiatheism userbox

Any reason why you deleted the antiatheism userbox? Look here.

What did you mean by "T1" in your deletion summary? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shultz (talk • contribs) 22:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

T1 refers to divisive and inflammatory templates. An admin had already deleted the template as Template:User_antiatheism, and this was a recreation in userspace. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Message Box

Tony, regarding message box you removed, could you please also remove them from Talk:Jonathan_Sarfatiand Talk:Ken_Ham. Thank you agapetos_angel 10:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus arbitration

I have opened a separate arbitration request which involves Crotalus - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Crotalus horridus. Since the result impacts two active cases, I felt this was best. It also allows me to present evidence outside of the userbox controversy, which may have been attacked as off-topic in your Arb case. The result of this case will shed light on the other ones. -- Netoholic @ 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Suits me. If they do accept and evidence proves strong enough, they may decide to merge the cases. In my case, if Crotalus, Levelcheck and Firebug were the same person it would be strong evidence that the userbox agitation is part of a massive troll. Meanwhile, when presented with your allegation on his talk page, Crotalus flatly denied that he is Firebug. I continue to assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

Hi Tony. A few days ago you deleted SPUI's satirical userpage and proceeded to protect it from recreation. This pissed SPUI off, enough so that he announced an indefinite departure from Misplaced Pages. (It's not a very nice reflection on Misplaced Pages if an admin can just wonder around Misplaced Pages and delete whatever userpage he sees fit, without even bothering to ask that person or the community.) Since we're about building an encyclopedia, and SPUI was a valuable contributer, it would have been best to give it up after you seen what happened. Anyway, like last time, SPUI may have eventually realized how boring a Wikipedialess life is and decided to return (and he still might). Then he placed the template on his talk page.. and you removed it and protected the page. As far as I can see, this could only serve to further aggravate SPUI, who had already decided to leave, thus dimishing his chance of returning. This does not help the encyclopedia, it harms it. A userbox on a talk page doesn't.

In fact, the only disruption a userbox can cause is.. err, exactly what you did.

I know everybody makes mistakes, but you don't seem to think this was in error, and I think it deserves some retrospection. // paroxysm (n) 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI's contributions in article space are some of the best I have seen in a field that is not well covered by Misplaced Pages. Unfortunately, SPUIs trolls, as exemplified by the userpage you think so well of, are becoming far too common on Misplaced Pages, and they must die. He will be welcomed back in a few days when his ban ends, but he will be under probation. He will undoubtedly learn ways to turn this to his advantage, but Misplaced Pages will learn from this, too, and meanwhile he will, I hope, find time enough to write more good articles. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's Welcome Message

Looks like he's on major binge, with or without using a template, to recruit new users to his cause and his worldview, adding a welcome messages which include "Also, if you could, please sign my petition" and "...here's an insight into the unwritten rules of this place". See here and here -- or for that matter, most of his contributions for the last few hours. --Calton | Talk 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

question regarding RfC

Hi I hope you don't mind my asking you for a little advice. From looking at the Misplaced Pages:RfC page, I can tell that the RfC process isn't appropriate for what I'm thinking about. Is there anything similar to RfC that requests comments not for dispute resolution, but just for general feedback/editing of an article? I am asking because I am considering both a major rewrite of an existing article and putting a new article together. I'm just squeamish because I don't want to overstep my bounds, and I'm also unclear about some conventions in terms of style, citations, footnoting, etc. Is there anyway I can do a general request for comments that doesn't involve a dispute with another user? Thanks for your time. Freddie deBoer 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I've never tried it myself, I think probably what you're thinking of doing could be provided by the Misplaced Pages:Peer review process. Go take a look, and see what you think. --Tony Sidaway 20:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Multiposting?

What's wrong with centralizing discussion? -GTBacchus 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot--the more you centralize discussion the less chance you have of getting a feel for Misplaced Pages consensus. --Tony Sidaway 05:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who centralized the discussion. I'm sorry I didn't give you more warning. I originally wrote the multiposting guideline and I think decentralizing discussion just creates redundant effort and promotes your own viewpoint by eliminating an exchange of ideas. Please don't take it personally, I consolidate these things whenever I see them. Deco 06:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good point about promoting my own viewpoint. However centralizing like this also deters others from responding with their own ideas because they go and see a discussion that has already wandered off in one direction (in this case, Aaron Brenneman's ideas took over a discussion in once place and I'd have liked to see how discussion would have developed if he hadn't done what he did. --Tony Sidaway 06:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. You might consider a conversation resetting device instead, by gently urging everyone to get back on track and drawing attention to some other aspect of Jimbo's quote.

By the way, I think your avoid-jargon campaign is a great idea - we have so many existing words for "POV", it's a wonder we felt compelled to invent our own. If you really want to see a jargon-fest, take a look at the proposed deletion toolserver. (I asked them to avoid jargon, but such is the AfD subculture) Deco 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I reposted your comments (Aaron Brenneman had rv'd again), in conjunction with the village pump link. Personally, I'm on the fence about centralizing discussion. However, I don't think it makes your post to the CSD talk page any less relevant and one line saying "there's a discussion here..." really says nothing about what sort of discussion it is. So, I just wanted you to know that when I say, "be wary of Misplaced Pages:Multiposting" it's not aimed at you, it's a nod to the guideline others wished to have referenced. A compromise, if you will. InkSplotch 15:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You suggested discarding this template/userbox

Actually I'm in the situation of not re-creating it, as the page is deleted and protected and I don't see any point in creating it with the new name and having it deleted by an admin.

But I do strongly disagree with such biased deletion. My opinion is: an admin deleted an 'anti-userbox', while the 'pro-userbox' is left. His reasoning is, that my template is divisive and inflammatory (as probably all of the boxes that have smth to do with pol beliefs are). I on the other hand point to the fact that the very ideology which was disapproved by my box, is in its nature itself both divisive and imflammatory (there's a great variety of communist userboxes to be found, almost every communist sect has its own).

What my oppponent did is the same as removing the anti-fascist template, while keeping all the (pro-)fascist templates (in case these existed). That's exactly what has been done with regards to anti-marxist box. Do you understand my reasoning? I'm afraid, I should turn to the arbitration with this issue. Constanz - Talk 14:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages clerks