Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InkSplotch (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 24 February 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Please abide by the following guidelines:

• Sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
  • To start a new topic of discussion, use this link.
  • To continue a pre-existing topic of discussion, edit the relevant section.
  • If you're going to be using talk page comment templates, subst: them and remember to actually sign them. I deserve that much consideration.
• I will respond on my talk page.
• I archive my talk page arbitrarily.

Cuppa tea?

Nice effort anyway on the archiving, and your post-archiving posts were admirable. Nicely handled - I hope I have such aplomb when I fumble something. KillerChihuahua 16:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just glad I didn't do any irrepairable harm. But then, that's what I love about wikipedia...it's hard to break anything forever. InkSplotch 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith and all...

Sorry mate, I didn't mean you. I have no doubt about your good faith, and if I've offended you tell me and I'll apologise again. What I was actually referring to was assuming that good faith (in the form of trying to actualy resolve something) was intended when submitting

24) In the vast majority of the cases cited, Tony's decisions accurately reflected Misplaced Pages's goals and policies.
Has the advantage over several other findings of actually being true. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want a straightforward discussion of the issues, and we're not getting that. We've got over 30,000 words used now, and I'm getting pretty frustrated. All anyone I see progressing this case wants is for Tony to be respectful, listen to other contributors, stop wheel warring, and perhaps even admit that he's wrong once in a while. Can you explain to me why you think that he's pressing so hard for the "Tony banned" and "Tony dead-minned" findings to be put in?
brenneman 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but thanks for coming here to say so. You've put a lot of effort into this case, and I can tell it's important to you. I hope you don't let it overwhelm you.

As to why he probably wants those sections in...I wish I could answer your question, as I suspect it'd go a long way to defuse a lot of similarly stressful situations (User Boxes, Brian Peppers, Kelli Martin/Grue, etc.). My opinion on the two primary viewpoints keeps shifting as I try to understand things, but here's my take on it today.

On one side, we have "Consensus builds the Encylopedia", which I think it's fair to say includes yourself. This is comprised of folks wanting seek peaceful dialog to resolve any situation. On the other side, we have "The Encyclopedia is built mostly by consensus" which acknowledges that fundamental principles supercede consensus. Principles like NPOV, Verifiability, and so on, as well as the Foundation's concerns for keeping the Prohject going. So back to Tony and the proposed solutions of banning or deadmining: Tony, I suspect, understands his actions caused disruption but acted in the interests of those fundamental principles. If he's right, it's like, really, any admin action...some might object, some might complain, but it's done in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

In that second viewpoint, someone who takes bold actions in the name of those principles and does so in bad judgement is no better than a rogue admin going willy-nilly. The end result does more harm than good. I think Tony might accept an admonishment to be more respectful, and maybe to listen to others more...but when it comes to his actions outlined in the case, to breaking rules or causing disruption, I think he'll always put the principles before the rules. And I think he's absolutly serious when he says if he makes those calls and his judgement's not sound when he does, he shouldn't be an admin. I've no doubt he holds any admin to that standard.

It reminds me of the first rule I was ever taught about firearms. "Don't point a gun at anything you're not fully prepared to shoot." As the number of admins seems to grow exponentially, we need to think more carefully about who we entrust with those tools. InkSplotch 01:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comments to Mindspillage; I don't think you modified anything I said from my summary. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You had a comment in the Userboxes limited section that got factored down to David Gerard, Geni, and Septentrionalis discuss how to define "spoken human languages" within the terms of the policy. I just wanted to leave you a notice in case you felt that part of the discussion shouldn't have been reduced to one line. The original, by the way, is still on the Withdrawn page. InkSplotch 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)