Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 19:06, 16 July 2006 (→Email Encoder: I don't receive spam.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please avoid unusual formatting. This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Disclosure of political bias: I took the the political compass questionnaire on 15 July 2006 and the result was economic left/right: minus 8.13, social libertarian/authoritarian: minus 8.26 Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Listen to this page (2 parts, 7 minutes) Part 2 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)

Internal spamming

Tony Sidaway, there should be some sort of guidelines for folks not to do mass notifications via user talk pages, no? --Netscott 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Basically they should avoid doing it lest they be blocked for disruption. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well with your removing that section from WP:SPAM what should we as editors cite to illustrate that folks are not to do that? --Netscott 14:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I daresay the various arbitration decisions on this might be a start. I only removed the current section because it appears to condone the practice, while someone who undertakes to perform such actions in many cases risks blocking. Feel free to rewrite. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this?:

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence {{{1}}}. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice", such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines found in Misplaced Pages:Spam. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you.

I've commented in the talk area that it is a bit too agressive and there's too much legalese... but I suppose the wording there could be a good start. --Netscott 15:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've recreated the internal spamming section in accord with the above text. Maybe you might like to edit it? Cheers. --Netscott 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good start. Much better than what was there before. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Shot down. --Netscott 04:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean "reverted by a single editor", not "shot down". I've invited more discussion on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat refuse to disengage

During the ArbCom case I and Davenbelle was adviced to stay away from Cool Cat and his edits and let others (especially his mentors) take the lead in monitoring his behavior. However, during the last months this has been made difficult for me to do, as Cool Cat continue to monitor my edits, and attack me on every possible occation, when I edit articles regarding Turkey and related issues. A few of the lastest examples of this is this post to AN/I where he attack me for being bold and redirecting a rather useless article to the main PKK article: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Karl_Meier_is_blanking_articles and here on the ArbCom case regarding Irishpunktom: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cool_Cat. It has been, and it still is my intention to aviod any contact with Cool Cat, as you and the ArbCom has recommended. However, that is of course only possible if Cool Cat end his monitoring of my edits, and quit making unprovoked attacks against me as an editor. As Cool Cat's mentor I ask you to help resolving this situation. -- Karl Meier 16:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that. He was firmly rebuffed in his claim on WP:ANI, and he is entitled to add evidence to an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess then, that there will be no problem with me on the other hand adding evidence to his ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Eventhough, I would of course have prefered to just end the whole thing and aviod any contact. -- Karl Meier 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV, yet again

WP:SNOW, Tony? Please, stop. Especially with the debate on the template, where there certainly wasn't any "massive endorsement" of the out-of-process actions. Is this really how we want to handle things here? --badlydrawnjeff|17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the review. I have nothing more to add. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. It was around 10-7 with a number of days to go before it was finished. Why close it early? --Badlydrawnjeff 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointless review of an item that isn't going to be deleted. Deletion of this template proposed by a troll who is upset at having had his talk page protected when he repeatedly attempted to repost a pedophilia userbox.

See this.

Note that that editor is under probation as a result of his actions on that occasion, and a recent application to have it lifted has been refused. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tony, see that section a few up where I ask you to stop doing this, and provide quotes from a whole heap of other people where they say it's a bad idea? Is there anything short of Arbitration that's going to convince you to listen to the collective consensus and attempt to conduct yourself with some decorum for goodness' sake. How many people have to say "please stop" before you actually stop? - Aaron Brenneman 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making arbitrary demands, Either make some policy of stop trying to bully me. --Tony Sidaway 09:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tony, but bad decisions make it harder to defend your good ones, and this was a bad one. WP:SNOW is dubious enough when consensus is unanimous, let alone with a discussion that clearly isn't united. --Sam Blanning 10:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you see the possibility of a deletion here? Can you defend this blatantly bad-faith listing by a troll angry because he wasn't allowed to list a pedophilia userbox while banned by the arbitration committee? I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone here thinks that template has the remotest chance of being deleted. Therefore the deletion review should be closed as a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree.--MONGO 10:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see any possibility. That's why I have enough confidence to let the review reach its proper conclusion. Moreover, the motivations of the nominator become irrelevant as soon as someone else agrees with his position, just like we don't speedily close AfDs if the nominator changes his mind if there are still others arguing for deletion. --Sam Blanning 10:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what will happen. It will run for days, with process-wonks turning up to insist that the nomination be allowed to run. Then it will go back to TFD where it will run for days with people insisting that the thing should be kept. This is precisely the reason we use the Snowball clause. To save time on pointless, stupid nominations like this.

If you can find a non-troll who honestly thinks the template should be deleted , you'll surprise me. This is an appalling waste of time, with trolls playing on and getting an excellent response from a misplaced obsession with meaningless process. --Tony Sidaway 10:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I simply don't see why that discussion would be more of a waste of time than any other. With at least 90%, maybe 95% of the AfDs I close, even the controversial ones, if I had come in as soon as the nomination was created, I could probably correctly guess the result before anyone made a single argument. That doesn't make them a waste of time, because the reasons for deletion (or keeping) should be aired in public, so they can be pointed to whenever someone questions the decision.

Arguments against the practice of protecting users' talk pages can be made in good faith. I personally have had editors who are not trolls object to my protecting a user talk page, and I don't see them as trolls. All the arguments are, as we both know, completely wrong, coming almost entirely from non-admins who don't really understand the issue of unblock requests, but they should be addressed nonetheless. The deletion review was not uncontroversial and there was no reason to snowball it. --Sam Blanning 12:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like you're condoning the use of tfd as a place for policy discussion. The controversial nature of the deletion review was precisely why it should be snowballed. It could only make things worse for no good reason. And that is why people like SPUI like to push these issues. They know they can't convince anyone, but they can always rely on the process wonks to insist on dragging out a pointless debate. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussions can't be "dragged out" longer than about a week. Squashing them to save a mere six days just makes the trolls think that they're onto something and the inexperienced think they must have a point or we wouldn't be so insecure about it. Hell, if this is about whether the matter can legitimately be discussed at TfD or not, at least TfD has a defined time limit. Centralised discussions can hang around forever and a day. We've still got all those fine examples of WP:BALLS going by the name of 'Method Engineering' hanging around waiting for the centralised discussion to conclude, when if we'd gone through AfD we could have nuked them from orbit weeks ago. *fD discussions are nice and neat and all the stupid gets packed into a box in the closet marked "We already decided this", where it can be wheeled out when absolutely necessary. --Sam Blanning 14:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't decide to speedy keep the tfd, but since it was started by a troll and closed by some good administrators I think further discussion is pointless. And once again, it isn't going to be deleted. So why are we reviewing the speedy keep? It's just process for its own sake, and that's what gives the trolls the nerve to do what they do. The only way to treat them is to stamp on them, first chance. Once we start arguing about giving them the right to abuse our processes, we're off the track. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 10 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)

Mail

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)

The Arbitration Committee will stop all attacks. --Tony Sidaway 11:20, 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)

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)

"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)

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'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)

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)

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 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.

• Misplaced Pages clerks