Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 22:09, 19 September 2006 ((coup d'etat in progress)). 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 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)

Hiya!

Hey, I just noticed your name on a tweak of that PZ Myers page. So this is where you've gotten to, deep in the bowels of Misplaced Pages.

Like a tapeworm. :) --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously you're saying that some unidentified people are upset that I don't do something they want me to do and, moreover, they wouldn't be nearly as upset as they are if I did whatever it is you say they want me to do. Well I have to reply that I in my turn could possibly be persuaded to be slightly, but not very much, upset that they (whoever they are) might think that, and it's conceivable that I might be convinced to feel a little bit happier if they didn't do whatever it is that they do, provided you could convince me that they're doing it and they, whoever they are, are harming Misplaced Pages by whatever it is whoever they are are supposedly doing. But it's okay for them to do what they do. Which they don't say, whoever they are. By the way, who are they? And why should I care? --Tony Sidaway

Re

Speedy deletions are ordinarily performed on pages which meet some CSD. Misplaced Pages:Process is Important does not meet any CSD; hence, its speedy deletion did not conform to the ordinary deletion process, which would have been an MFD nomination. Perhaps this situation demonstrates that process is important :) John254 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you would draw such a conclusion from the sequence of events. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an admin

We are looking for an admin here:]. Having already dealt with this user in the past, maybe you could oblige. I apologise in advance for the ridiculously long discussion... Thanks, Yandman 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Community block of Tony Sidaways is hereby proposed

Not just Newyorkbrad's, Tony, but never mind. Who cares if you respond or not. You made your outright defiance of criticism well known by now. So, you can just not post anything as well as saying that something is "unworthy" of your response.

But seriously, what do we do with Tony. I propose the community block. But do as you please. I am off to write an article. --Irpen 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous. What, like 40,000 edits and you want to propose a community block? I find this to be an effort to "out" another Wikipedian pretty disgusting.--MONGO 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony has, in my opinion, exhausted the community's patience. However, I feel that blocking him would do more harm than good. Would someone that Tony actually listens to (if such exists) please pull him aside and explain to him that his increasingly bizarre behavior is disruptive? Friday (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he has exuasted the patience of many. Blocking seems a bit harsh though. I wouldn't mind putting him up for possible recall as an admin though. I would urge him to voluntarilly stand for a resysoping. Ungovernable Force 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict):As not a supporter of blocks in general, I can't agree with this idea. I do agree that his recent behavior needs to be addressed, and would readily participate in any formal action. —Nate Scheffey 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given Tony a community block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the above discussion, this block feels at best premature, and at worst unnecessary. I do not feel that the block serves to resolve the dispute in any way. Isopropyl 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me. If the Lego block was premature then when would you apply a Lego block? :) Haukur 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to click the link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit, I wasn't sure what was going to be on the other end of the link either. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I've been made a fool of. Isopropyl 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal seems to consist solely of a slice of some dissipated conversation, without presenting any reason why a community block would be appropriate, it is a pretty ridiculous move on the part of the nominator. —Centrx→talk • 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my 22:34 comments above here, which after edit conflict, wound up in the previous section. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it would be a bad idea to go around blocking admins just for giving someone a cool-off block and putting it up for review. :)

But it's an intriguing idea. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony and I have had quite a few disagreements, but I strongly oppose any such actions. Follow proper procedures and take it to RfC and RfAr if you don't like the way things are happening. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, broke my pledge and interrupted the work on the article for a second. First of all, I am restoring this thread after deletion that stated "This is noticeboard not a discussion forum". This is exactly an appropriate place for the discussion of community blocks. Much lesser part of community watches Tony's page. --Irpen

(edit conflict)I already did. Now a response to Zoe. Fine, if you insist. I will try to put aside some time to take it to ArbCom if Tony doesn't cool down. RfC is utterly useless. Everyone has commented on that already more than once: Tony himself, those appauled by his activity and his few supporters. I hope ArbCom can be avoided and Tony will take a wiki-vacation and comes back cool as a cucumber. --Irpen 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't run it through RfC first, the Arbcom will reject it out of hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I seriusly disagree with the comments of both of those commentators, obviously I can't accept the reasoning for the proposed self-imposed vacation. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. You're replying to nothing, my comment isn't here any more. Drini removed it (can't think why). Bishonen | talk 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

The conversation's been refactored all over the place (not due to Tony in any way, I hasten to add). I had to post my latest comment (before this one) four times to get it to stick once. It wasn't that great even the first time. :) Newyorkbrad 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Most of it's absurd stuff in any case. I blocked a problem editor for three hours, I didn't steal the crown jewels. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to endorse this proposed block solely so my post will be removed by a member of the Cabal and I can have bragging rights at UnEncycloTruthia AntiWikiReviewica or whatever it is people are wittering on about instead of writing articles. --Sam Blanning 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surreal, and also a flame magnet, so I'll probably remove it soon. Nothing of any import has been achieved. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to achieve something, anyway. Yesterday I got sick of the debate over recused arbitrators at RfAr Talk, but my thinking about the issues led me to begin on a complete rewrite and expansion of recusal in mainspace, which when I'm done with it, may be a pretty decent article. So at least some good came out of all the sniping. Now I have to figure out what article topic today's events should point me to drafting. (I realize I'm giving you the opportunity for a snappy comeback here. :) ) Newyorkbrad 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well remove my warning too, but for the sake of wikipedia, please, next time you decided to block an established editor connected to the argument about Carnildo promotion please do not do it yourself. Instead ask any of more than one thousand active administrators to do it for you. Sometimes an additional pair of eyes might be helpful. Your blocks caused enough disruption already. abakharev 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you can remove this as well but please read that first. Your misuse of the block button causes a significant community outrage all too often. The best thing you can do after the Wikivacation, if you just can't accept the temporary break, is to simply not to use the block against any well-established editor simply because, as the community's (or like you call it "mob's") reaction to such your actions shows that they appear often unwarranted and harmful. Uncalled for blocks hurt some users. Go block trolls and socks all right. But as far as well-established and reputable users are conserned, there are over 1000 other admins. Post a message to WP:ANI and see what they do. I bet a bottle of the beverage of your choice that in similar circumstances no one but yourself would gave blocked Ghirla and Giano. Anyway, I hope (still, maybe mistakenly) that you will draw some lessons from this. Now you can delete it if this is how you feel. --Irpen 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You may find it hard to understand, but I haven't misused my block button in this case. I have performed two blocks that, on discussion, some other administrators disagreed with. I submitted both of them to review. The first one was a response to a complaint by Cowman109 on Ghirlandajo's disruptive activities. The second one was a response to observation of extremely paranoid and unacceptable accusations about the arbitration committee, Angela (former Foundation officer) and others. I acted as an administrator should. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew that you just won't get it ever!. OK, never mind. The community respect to your actions (including blocks) is such that they don't mean much in block log anyway. And this is only getting reinforced if falling is the best contribution you made to the main namespace. Have a good one! Go continue in your self-righteoussness! Since you refuse to stop you will be stopped (IMO sooner rather than later) because "Misplaced Pages is cleverer than you are". --Irpen 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think I've got enough community respect, thank you very much. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Arg this is a bad idea. Man you don't block an editor for sysop actions absent an emergency, the proper remedy would be to request de-sysopping. That at least would be consistent. If an editor is being disruptive as an editor (e.g. vandalism or whatever) then blocking would be the remedy. Herostratus 06:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Loaded words

Hi Tony, Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the following less often?

• fatuous
• paranoid
• baseless

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have used the word "fatuous" to describe a fatuous and clearly false suggestion.
• I have used the word "paranoid" to describe a clearly false and baseless accusation of malicious manipulation that was, however, made sincerely.
• I have used the word "baseless" to describe a baseless accusation.

Don't mistake this for loaded language. Wild, absolutely incredible accusations are being made. We must describe them for what they are. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you meant to sidestep the question or not, but I'm curious as to your answer. Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the above (and others) less often? --Kbdank71 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Obviously the correct word has to be used for the situation. When people have, as it were, strayed from the facts, sometimes you need to tell them clearly that they're completely wrong. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in this life is that some targets are very hard to hit exactly. Arriving on time for things, for one. Sending a message to someone is another. If you aim for exactly what you want, sometimes you overshoot, sometimes you undershoot. If you want to be on time reliably, you have to aim at being early.

In this instance, the cost of overshooting greatly exceeds the cost of undershooting. If you undershoot when trying to explain something, no real damage is done, the other person can ask a question and you can try again. But if you overshoot, if you overstate how low your opinion of someone is, it's really hard to recover. (Unless the other person is prepared to cut you some slack, as you and I are to each other.) But if the other person isn't feeling patient, perhaps because they have a history with you, or are having a bad day, or just because they are the sort of person who is inclined to overstate things, then you can get into a vicious circle where everything that gets said makes things worse.

Now, maybe you _are_ using these words acurately. But your counterparts in this converstation don't agree, or they wouldn't have made the wildy fatuous, paranoid and baseless statements in the first place. So if you want to influence them, you need to take a different tactic. Just telling them they're wrong won't help them understand why, it just turns them hostile. We can only call things as we see them, but it helps if we use language that can be heard.

You are more interested in being understood, than in scoring points, aren't you? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, how about I phrase it this way, then: It's pretty clear that where you've gone lately, conflict has followed. Your words and a good deal of your actions rub many people the wrong way. Do you even care to get a better response from people? --Kbdank71 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The places I go? It's not surprising I pick up a bit of flack. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So that'd be a no, then. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Another of my favourite pages is http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther Regards, Ben Aveling 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to overshoot. If you're honest and you undershoot, there would be some who thought your were being dishonest and hiding behind polite words. If you overshot, people would think you're being undiplomatic. Figure it out for yourself. I haven't stated my opinion of anyone. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say dishonest and hiding. I'd say you were trying to be polite. And I wouldn't say undiplomatic. Other words, but not that. Either way, though, I've got my answer. Thanks for the explanation. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: supposed somebody has already become so confused that he has accused you of a breathtakingly ridiculous falsehood. If you try to be polite and say "oh I think you're wrong you know" and try to weedle about it, you're not going to convince the fellow, he's too far gone. But if you don't respond in a forthright manner there's always the chance that some of the publicly stated falsehoods will be believed by some reasonable people simply because they appear to have gone undenied or denied in an insufficiently forthright manner. In the circumstances, it's much better to be thought a little rude that to be thought dishonest. Utterly false, extremely defamatory, paranoid, baseless and frankly stupid allegations have been made about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats. Let's not mince words, let's call them that. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say "false and defamatory"? Why add "paranoid and stupid"? What good does that do? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the precise explanations in my responses above. Giano clearly sincerely believes the outrageous falsehoods that he has published. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder what you both thought, by the way, of the appropriateness of permitting Wikipedians to make such baseless and false slurs against some of the most trusted Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Couriously, I was just trying to work out what he said that's so annoyed you. Was it this: "The arbcom, (all of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here) calculated and estimated the response from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." . (note: no one has censored Kelly Martin for such a stupid error) How far dare they go? They have now taken a vow of silence, so must be judged or damned together. They will survive because as I have said they divide and rule, poor old Sidaway though they use him as their barometer. Even I am never that cruel - but he is getting away with blue murder - so they assess and calculate. Sinister isn't it? Doubtless the next comment will be Giano is paranoid! Well I am not, I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit"  ? I have to admit, it's wierd. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed in the least, so don't worry about that. However such paranoid ravings have no place on Misplaced Pages. I still think it would have been best to give him a few hours of downtime. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I don't know. I agree, rants like that are unhelpful. But blocking him for saying what he thinks won't change his mind or improve his behaviour - far from it. What would Miss Manners do? The only reputation he was damaging was his own. I'd say that one of the standard warnings is appropriate for a first offence, followed by a short block if he repeats. But the focus should be on the fact that what he was saying was unacceptable, not on our assessment of his mental stability.

Do me a favour? The next time you want to describe someone's comments as paranoid, including a link so that I can see for myself? Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do in a case of such serious attacks is to stop them. He had been at it for days and warnings had no effect. I don't take the view that his ravings were without effect. Your mileage may vary. I cited samples of his accusations in the block report on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume I read everything you write at WP:AN. I agree, his behaviour is a problem. But your response to it, that too has caused problems. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I misjudged the sheer amount of fuss a brief block would cause. This is one of the hazards of adminship. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could tell you "do this next time, and the result will be better". Ben Aveling 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, when a case gets this bad, there is no "better" And that's normally where you'll find me, at the pointy end. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You've reminded me of one of my favourite posts on rec.bridge. In essence, the question was "How can I play $X cards to get out of situtation $Y" and the answer was "I wouldn't get into situation $Y." It wasn't a very comforting reply, but the second bridge player had a point. The first bridge player's bidding had dug him into such a deep hole that skillful play of the available cards could not extract him. Some situations are easier to avoid than to repair. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah but that would assume that we cause the situations we try, and sometimes fail, to defuse. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Rather, in trying to defuse situation $N, we cause situation $N+1. Ben Aveling 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And coming back aroudn to the orginal topic, using loaded words - even when they're accurate - is being part of the cause and, by their nature, a failure to diffuse. You need not call someones comments "baseless" to prove them so. -- Isogolem 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is gained from not calling baseless and damaging allegations "baseless". Except perhaps the impression, among at least some people of good will, that one is being cagey and evasive. I do not wish to give that impression. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony - 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Ah, here's an example of two different ways I could respond to this:

1. Tony your response above is paranoid and baseless. Your claim that "nothing is gained" from making an effort to be polite is willfully ignorant of reality. Your response implies both that cagey and evasive are equivalent (which they obviously are not), and that making any effort to be polite is equivalent to being dishonest (which it also is not). Your comments may avoid giving the impression evasion, but including such defamatory language is instead guaranteed to give the impression of denegrating other users under a false banner of "honesty".
2. Tony, I don't agree with you that "nothing is gained". Significant portions of wikipedia policy and guideline are devoted to asking poeople to be polite, including WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and of course WP:CIVIL. Using words like "baseless" (let alone paranoid), skirts the edge of civility and absolutely breaks AGF. That kind of language is more likely to draw people to the accused's defense (and on to flame wars), whereas a calm neutral tone response (even if brief) is not. In a straw poll, I think most users would say they'd rather deal with comments that are cagey or level-headed, than with comments that break the spirit of WP:CIVIL. I actually find loaded words more indicative of evasion than less loaded ones - IME, it is easier to hide logical fallacies in loaded word comments. By using loaded words (especially without cites), you actually make it harder for me to distiguish your quite valid comments from those of the trolls and vandals.

So, which of these two comments is better?

Neither is much use. Both are based on the false premise that it is uncivil to identify a baseless and false accusation as baseless and false. Both falsely suggest that we should pussyfoot about clearly baseless, false and damaging accusations, treating them with a weight equal to serious, well founded suggestions. Taken seriously, both would damage Misplaced Pages very badly. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, do you think that you've addressed the point Isogolem was trying to make? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up.  :) Thanks, it's been fun! -- Isogolem 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider

Hi, Tony. You must be aware of the rather large amount of grief and drama stirred up by your recent block of Giano. I suppose there's no point rehashing that, and I'm not here to tell you things you've already heard- I'm just here to make a suggestion. There are two possibilities here: either you didn't know you were making an inappropriate block, or you did know. In the first case, it means your judgment is very poor when it comes to making blocks. In the second case, it means you knew it would be overturned and cause some drama, and you did it anyway to make some kind of point. Either case is unacceptable. Which, brings me to my suggestion: I'd like to ask that you refrain from blocking other editors in the future. This is, of course, not something we can make you do, but I hope that you'd do it voluntarily, for the good of the project. I suspect that recent events have made it more likely that any further obviously wrong blocks on your part will be seen as disruption, so please, consider this suggestion carefully. Friday (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please examine the actual circumstances, Friday, before you come up with facile and blatantly incorrect "advice". To summarise, the Giano block was in response to extreme, baseless and clearly false allegations of malicious wrongdoing by at least one named party, it was brief and intended to enable to gather his marbles and stop spreading the rubbish all over thr wiki, as he had been doing for days despite warnings, it was immediately subjected to review by my putting it on WP:AN. There was a lot of pointless fuss, but I'm not responsible for that. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone said he suspected I did something malicious, would it be acceptable for me to block him or her? I believe it would be best for me to respond to the person's accusation, or else ignore it. Your attitude above comes across as dismissive and arrogant. This may be common among newbies, but it is not good for Misplaced Pages when someone in a position of trust acts in this way. I support Friday's suggestion. – Quadell 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone said, without grounds, that he strongly believed that somebody else did something malicious and damaging to Misplaced Pages, I'd consider that grounds for blocking. This was the situation I acted upon. The whole of the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats and Angela were being accused of a ridiculous conspiracy. That is never, ever acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages. It will always be blockable, subject to review. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Why did you block me from the West Bank page. I had helped create it, and I frequently contribute valuable information to the page.David Betesh

You're not blocked and your username has never been blocked, but you could still see a block message with my name if for some reason you use the same ISP as someone who has been blocked and there is a shared proxy that both you and the other user use. Please email me if this recurs, giving a full copy of the block message, and I'll fix it. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

2R Thing

Copied from User_talk:Isogolem regarding this edit:

Please don't do that. It gives me the impression that you're counting your reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not doing it to make you uncomfortable. Still, it's not just an impression. I'm counting my reverts and being honest about it. There are any number of cases of User-A counting User-B's reverts and nailing User-B when they go over. It helps keep me from getting off balance, keeps me aware of when I'm reverting and how much, and avoids ever getting close to WP:3RR. My intent was to never even hit 3R - after 2R, if we're not on to dicussion instead of edits, they've lost balance not me. I'm okay waiting a day, or asking someone else to step up to the plate. Best of intentions.

What's wrong with it? Appearance of wikilawyering? -- Isogolem 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isogolem. I have a similar policy. I try to limit myself to 1 revert and sometimes I get to 2 reverts but I really try to catch myself after that 2nd revert. I can count on one hand the number of times that I've been at WP:3RR and I don't think I've ever gone beyond that. Ideally, I'd honor WP:0RR but I'm not a saint.

--Richard 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't count reverts. Really. Don't. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why, Tony? If it's has been written already, give a link. If not... I'd like to understand your reasoning. -- Isogolem 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When new editors see more experienced editors counting, it encourages a false sense of entitlement. Even if the experienced editor is making a very exceptional second revert, this won't be evident to the new guy, who will assume it's what people do. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Entitlement? Ah, you refer to meant to cite intent of 3RR. Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning. I _am_ a relatively new editor and I think that people reverting like wild in so many places is a much stronger encourager. ... But I see your point, perhaps better perhaps to follow 1RR and not count. Or perhaps to add something the WP:ROWN about this. -- Isogolem 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you unblock me please?

I'm doing a Wikification using AOL..proxy...blah blah... thanks Tvccs 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Tony Sidaway for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "AntiochCollege". The reason given for AntiochCollege's block is: "Prank account". Your IP address is 64.12.116.138. Tvccs 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll unblock that account and see how it goes. We'll have to find another way of dealing with the vandal. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

CWoI and Kosovo

How is Croatian War of Independence related to Kosovo? Don't get me wrong, I support any decission which would help stop ultranationalist edit warring on Croatian War of Independence article, but I just fail to see the connection between this article and the Kosovo one, so I'm just plain curious... --Dijxtra 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the articles unprotected by User:Dmcdevit. He asked me to put the notice on all of those. If you think there has been an error, please consult him. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, nice. --Dijxtra 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It was an error, we are still waiting for a correction though. (See ) Laughing Man 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Tony,

I think your actions here, here, here, and other similar places on this page, were out of line. It looks a lot like you were removing criticism of yourself. Could you please tell me if you think these actions were the right thing to do, and why? Thanks, – Quadell 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested cleaning up the noticeboard, and was encouraged to do so. I did it once and then it was reverted with the suggestion that the material should instead be archived, so I did that. I'm not a bureaucrat so obviously that is the wrong place to put criticism of me. Indeed most of the stuff I removed had absiolutely no place on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You "cleaned up" the noticeboard by archiving sections that were critical of you, even though many of the comments were less than 24 hours old and the discussion was clearly ongoing. That really seems inappropriate. – Quadell 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the whole discussion was innappropriate and I already removed a chuck that attacked the bcrats a day ago. If Tony has junk posted there, then it can go to. But this discussion does need to be trimmed down regardless, as it keeps quickly going in an unproductive direction .Voice-of-All 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed most of the removed material was just John Reid trying to harass bureaucrats. This was unfit for Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not a bureaucrat. People who want to complain about me should do so elsewhere so that the bureaucrats don't have to wade through it to get to the important stuff. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. 1)What was all that crap doing on the BN? We seem to have Tony-related comments everywhere these days - perhaps we need a special 'wikiproject Sidaway' to keep them all together. 2)If we're being pedantic, perhaps Tony shouldn't have moved comments related to himself - but they sure needed moving. If he'd poked me, I'd have done it. The point is, they're gone now - good - move on....unless ... of course.... *sly grin* ... one is looking for another stick with which to beat Tony... in which case.......*evil laugh* --Doc 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "beating" Tony, and I don't think I'm being pedantic to suggest that this is a problem. It appears that Tony is selectively "archiving" only discussion he doesn't like, while leaving older, less active, discussion. I don't think it's acceptable behavior. This is another example. I'd like to ask that you, Tony, refrain from doing this. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. --Quadell 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unreasonable. I think the example you give shows just how unreasonable you're being. I think this ridiculous, false and corrosive nonsense about archiving stuff simply because I don't like it is the problem. Clutter is a problem and it should be addressed and those who address it shouldn't be subject to nonsensical allegations. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd tried to intervene and stop John harassing the bureaucrats, so inevitably there were some comments critical of me. I did ask others to refactor, but was asked to do it myself. "You're a clerk." --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why only archive some discussion, based on that person's viewpoint, but leave older and less active discussion? – Quadell 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On review, you answered that: because you though of John's questions as "harrassment". I disagree, but I understand your reasoning. --Quadell 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John's unproductive, hostile and unwikipedian badgering was painful and this was the subject of many comments. I'm convinced that I did the right thing, and only saddened that it was left to me to do it. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If people on wiki are dissatisfied and have a grouse, it's best to give them the space to do so and keep it in-house. And talk to them like reasonable human beings. Otherwise it just looks as though any dissent is going to be stamped on, which creates a stifled and fearful atmosphere, makes people frustrated that they cannot be heard, drives them to other notice boards off wiki, and gives more fuel to those who are critical of wiki. If what is being said is not true, then it can be pointed out and exposed. If it is true, then it should be listened to. There is nothing to fear in the truth. A healthy community should be strong enough to take such things in its stride. Tyrenius 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let them find a place to engage in their complaints. But let them not be permitted to drag Misplaced Pages into the slime with ridiculous and harmful complaints, expressed in a manner far beyond what any person would accept as reasonable. If I received an email from Giano, Ghirlandajo or any other of these editors expressed in the mannner that they have been inflicting upon Misplaced Pages for many months and years, I would ignore it. If he continued I might pop his email address into my idiot bin.

There is legitimate dissent, and it is alive on these pages and elsewhere. But gross trolling, silliness and paranoia are destructive to such legitimate dissent. We can discuss the real issues without trolling newbies with crap about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats all being involved in some weird fantastic conspiracy. Such mindless and stupid noise does not belong anywhere, and certainly not on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, the ArbCom will decide exactly how disruptive Ghirlandajo is - perhaps it might have been more effective if you had tried some sort of dispute resolution with him, or with Giano, before you blocked either of them.
2. In any case, where are these "ridiculous and harmful complaints" that have been "inflicted on Misplaced Pages" for months? I would be interested to see you provide some examples from Giano. And who are the the nameless other editors?
3. I have seen hardly a single voice in favour of your block of Giano. Surely you accept that you should not block someone in a matter in which you yourself were clearly involved?
4. You claim to have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. You have driven off a contributor who has written many featured articles, not to mention diverted the attentions of the many editors replying here from more productive tasks: does that advance the encyclopedia? It seems to me that your recent actions are being disruptive. Please stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No reply, I see. I take from your failure to respond that your references to "ridiculous and harmful complaints" that have been "inflicted on Misplaced Pages" by Giano for months are just hot air. That fact that you see no problem in blocking editors with whom you are in conflict displays a stunning lack of propriety. And you are clearly unable to recognise that you are having an harmful infuence on the encyclopedia. It also seems to be a complete waste of time talking to you, because you take absolutely no notice of what other people say, rarely responding more that to dismiss their concerns with an disrespectful adjective (such as "silly"). I have absolutely no confidence in you as an administrator. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can I archive this thread for you - seems to be a waste of time? --Doc 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a little surprised and shocked at the tone of ALoan's follow-up. This is a very large discussion and it would be quite surprising if I had succeeded in noticing and replying to every single edit by every single participant. Now that I do see ALoan's request, however, I do not feel motivated to add a further elaboration. The observation that Ghirlandajo has been inflicting disruptive behavior on Wikipedians for well over a year is well documented elsewhere (and I suspect that ALoan is aware of this because he refers to the application for arbitration). The observation that Giano's accusations were absurd and extremely damaging is almost a truism and I've cited those accusations enough to establish the point for those who are capable of agreement with it.

The idea that I was somehow involved in a dispute of some kind with either Ghirlandajo or Giano is something that they have both pushed very hard, so I'm not surprised that there are people who believe this to be the case. It is, however, untrue. I was only involved to the extent that any good administrator attempts to maintain order on the wiki and prevent other editors from disrupting it for their own ends--in this case, an apparent vendetta and shrieking campaign against other editors.

I take no satisfaction in Giano's announcement of his departure, but nor am I responsible for it. He had clearly made up his mind that some of its day-to-day running was in the hands of people of almost indescribably gross moral turpitude, and he did not shrink from stating this opinion at length. In the circumstances, his departure was inevitable. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(If Tony is prepared to reply, then I would like to also, so hang fire for the moment, please.)

If some people are expressing such views vocally, then many more will also share them unspoken. That is a problem. It happens when people feel that things are happening which they do not understand and are powerless to do anything about. Trolling and paranoia are by definition not the same action. Trolling is done by someone who has power and exercises it over others to undermine them. Paranoia is someone who feels helpless and disempowered. Trolling, like all bullying, needs a stern and uncompromising response to show someone they're not welcome. Paranoia demands understanding and sympathy to show someone they are accepted. To treat paranoia like trolling exacerbates the problem and confirms the person that they are right — that there are in fact implacable forces opposed to them. Our participation in any situation is not neutral, but becomes a potent factor. It can make the difference between turning someone into a friend or an enemy.

You come across as a robust individual, so it may be hard to empathise with a very different temperament. The "no nonsense" approach can be very effective in many cases. When it's right, it clears up things instantly. However, when it's wrong, it leaves a resentful sense of injustice, not just in the person directly affected, but in bystanders too, and poisons a community. This is also something to be aware of as a presentation to newbies (and oldies for that matter too), and is also a problem that needs to be addressed. Stamping on dissent, however seemingly inappropriate, can create consequences which are worse than allowing it to work through to a natural conclusion.

A stable, secure environment can only be created when justice is not only done, but seen to be done and proved to be done to the satisfaction of reasonable people. This can be a torturous process in the short term, but desirable in the long term. These are not comments targeted at your actions in the present circumstances, as I have not studied them sufficiently to make a pronouncement. I only offer such thoughts as something which might be worth considering and taking on board as a resource which can lead to a better outcome in certain cases.

Tyrenius 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. However we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members. If we don't have trustworthy bureaucrats and arbitrators, as Giano claimed, then either we act as one and overthrow them all or we move elsewhere. Obviously I think the very idea is beyond fatuous so if you want to try either option you're welcome. But here we saw Misplaced Pages's consensus based system in action. I saw an editor whose actions in my opinions harmed the encyclopedia so badly and imminently that I blocked him for three hours and submitted the block for review on WP:AN. Other administrators disagreed with me and I know of not one single admin who agreed with me, and that's fine. I did the right thing and I was told that my judgement was wrong. That's fine, that's how it's supposed to work. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to work, when it doesn't work as well as it could. Your fellow admins don't want to be in the position where they unanimously disagree with you. You're a principled person and work hard for the project. This is something people recognise and respect you for. It's obvious they care for you and are trying really hard to communicate. They don't want to have a go at you, feel awkward about doing so, and yet feel they have to speak out, because of their conscience.

Principled people like yourself achieve change, but have a habit of pushing to increasing extremes, until they force a reaction to bring about their own demise, after which humanity returns to muddling through with compromise again. The nature of principles is black and white, either/or, right or wrong. On this basis "we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members."

The interpretation creates the reality that has to be dealt with, and begs the question by assuming that, even if the statement is accusatory, wild and malicious, the inevitable consequence of its presence is going to be damaging to the project. The damage to the project can depend very much on the way it's handled. The project is pretty robust and can accommodate some wild accusations sometimes (depending on who made them for one thing), and furthermore be able to talk through some of those accusations in a civilised way, to find out if there is something to be learnt on both sides. Maybe there's something that 'crats and arbitrators can amend. That's a more realistic possibility than unwavering support or complete overthrow. If there are two options, take the third.

It may take the mediating type, which you've said you're not, but there's a team here and that type is in it, so they can be called on in situations where it's appropriate. It's worth trying, particularly with users who are both valuable contributors and apparent transgressors.

The job of taking on the labours of Hercules creates a lot of stress, which can build up insidiously, so take care of yourself.

Tyrenius 06:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo arbitration

Please remove my name from that list. I have not edited the Kosovo article for many weeks.--Noah30 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk and I don't make calls like that. Please ask User:Dmcdevit who is an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction notice

With all due respect, it seems you made a mistake and added this injuction articles not related to the Kosovo case.

Laughing Man 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please bring this to the attention of the arbitrators or other clerks. While I could have made a mistake, I don't think I did. See the unprotection log of Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and the additional list of articles on the evidence page of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I will bring it the attention on the workshop page, but I can not find a list of articles on the evidence page, it just states "Kosovo related articles" which are not any of the above. I'm not sure where you came up with which articles to add the notice to and the block log of Dmcdevit seems to only be tests? I'm a little confused now. Laughing Man 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, here's an excerpt from Dmcdevit's protection log showing the articles he unprotected on 14th:

• 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Croatian War of Independence (unprotect: parties placed on Probation)
• 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Markale massacres (unprotect: parties placed on Probation)
• 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Srebrenica massacre (unportect: parties placed on Probation)
• 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Priština (unportect: parties placed on Probation)
• 16:29, 14 September 2006 Dmcdevit unprotected Kosovo (unportect: parties placed on Probation)

--Tony Sidaway 18:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, so most likely Dmcdevit has made a mistake if you are following his direction. I will wait for his response on the workshop page. Thanks. Laughing Man 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Giano

Hello. I'm writing to you over my puzzlement in discovering you blocked Giano yesterday. Common sense dictates that in a highly volatile dispute involving established editors whereby one side (you) originally take a strong position against another side (Giano), any blocking related to that dispute —certainly one involving mention of yourself as a voal opponent— is inappropriate. A reminder of the two positions (originally):

1. This is Misplaced Pages's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Misplaced Pages has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Misplaced Pages than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become. Bureaucrats should take the initiative and award the bit on merit. Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (italics are my emphasis)

These are obviously mutually-exclusive points of view. As for the comment on Taxman's talk page (the reason for the block, right? I'm trying to follow the timeline), you are of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false (I, for one, consider them rather wildly conspiratorial, though they may touch on a more organic tendency), and if you feel it was expressed in an incivil way (or that, regardless of civility, it is inherently subversive/disruptive), that's fine, raise it on ANI or elsewhere. What concerns me, and I hinted on it more gently on the NA RfAr, is this heavy-handedness over sensitive matters. So please try to resolve the dispute with Giano with those considerations in mind. El_C 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I utterly, absolutely and without apology or defense refute the ridiculous suggestion that an editor cannot do what he must do to prevent damage to Misplaced Pages performed by actual egregious attacks of a person who happens to have expressed an opinion distinct from that of his own.

The suggestion that I am of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false is misplaced. I assert shamelessly and without apology and in the face of the light of truth that those claims are damaging, and utterly false. Such attacks have absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for such attacks. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually concerned with the "light of truth," I am refering to an attempt to resolve a volatile dispute rather than making it worse. El_C 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that several different people thought your block in this case was inappropriate? Why are you so resistant to the idea that you might have been wrong? You're wrong here, Tony- don't make this kind of block ever again. Friday (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they were wrong. I am permitted to disagree with you, you know. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FFS, this is a wiki. He blocked someone for a short time, someone else reverted it. BIG DEAL. It isn't as if Tony reinstated it. People seem to be diving off the deep end because it was an 'eastablished user', so what? Established users ought to understand that this is how wikipedia works - I'd bemore concerned with biting newbies. Let this rest. --Doc 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you're right that a quickly reverted block isn't a very big deal. If this were an insolated incident, I wouldn't think that Tony's approach here is a big deal either. But it's not an isolated incident, it's part of a pattern of disruptive behavior- thus, several editors are asking Tony to cut it out. Friday (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this driving off the deep end is a double edge sword, sorry, SWORD! ;) Anyway, I don't think I'm out of line in pointing that you are oversimplyfying, Doc. Please give us a chance to discuss things through. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, El_C, others, myself, whoever, we are wasting time here.

• No one but Tony doubts he's wrong
• Tony thinks he is right and nothing will change it as it never did
• Tony does not care what others think
• Tony will not change his attitude and will do worse, like block even more and remove criticism from his talk and public pages
• Whatever he does, Giano is gone. Nothing Tony, you or I can do will compensate an editor who could produce 3 FA a month. Certainly not Tony if his best article is Falling and he hasn't written anything for any article for months
• As long as Tony is not restrained by others, nothing will change.

As such, just undo his damage next time and save yourself time from trying to convince Tony, or if you feel like it, take him to ArbCom, or a community block, as I suggested yesterday. The rest is a pure time waste. Tony's damage to Misplaced Pages is significant enough without valuable editors wasting their time trying to convince him of things. --Irpen 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains, Tony, that several administrators and editors have voiced concern about your actions over the last few days, which appear to have led, in whole or in part, to the departure of an excellent editor and regular featured-article writer. As one of your firm beliefs is that we must put product over process, I hope you'll agree that the loss of such a good editor is a serious one. The block is a cause for concern (several admins and one arbitrator were lining up to undo it) as is the constant moving and removing of other people's posts. Others have asked you to stop this, and I add my voice to theirs. SlimVirgin 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Giano failed the final test of being able to treat the encyclopedia, and his fellow editors, with respect. I blocked him for three hours to cool down, and put it up for review, and it was reversed in minutes. In view of his vehement, unrepentant and frankly quite paranoid attacks on trusted Wikipedians, it's not really surprising that he's decided to take a rest. If he comes back he should stop attacking other Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to bring these concerns to review first, since you were so prominently named as a hostile party by Giano. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather agree with Friday, Irpen and SV. I personally think that you made an initial mistake, and a rather minor one in fact. No one blames you for it, at least not directly. However, in my (not so) humble opinion, you enclosed youself in a vicious circle of overreactions that led to highly controversial blocks and a departure of an excellent contributor. This loss is not replaceable and certainly is out of proportion compared to rather minor problems this user caused. And want it or not, you're at least partly responsible for it. -- Grafikm 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't want my judgement in the Giano block to be subject to review, I would not have asked for it to be reviewed. It's silly to say things like "nobody but Tony cares what other think" when clearly I do. That I disagree strongly with other people does not mean that I ignore their viewpoints.

Now I put the block up for review, and accepted the result of the review without reservation, However, the fact that I do not agree with the opinions of some of those who gave an opinion seems to be regarded as an issue. Well, it isn't. I'm permitted to disagree with people who have different opinions from my own. Indeed if I were not, that would be silly. It would mean that we would all have to not only agree that consensus rules Misplaced Pages, but that expression of a point of view differing from the majority view, however reasonable and well founded, could not be tolerated.

And that isn't how Misplaced Pages works. -Tony Sidaway 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, hearing what you've heard, knowing how many objections there were, would you have done the same? - A Man In Black 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would I again block an editor who repeatedly and in the face of clear warnings continues to accuse his fellow editors, falsely and clearly without basis, of maliciously harming Misplaced Pages? Absolutely. Every single time. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what's "without basis"? - A Man In Black 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the issue is that you were decidedly on one side of the debate (and indeed named prominently as such by Giano in that comment). What is further striking to me is that you failed to communicate to Giano how damaging you felt his comment was. The same earlier this week, with your filing of an RfAr without any attempt at dialogue with the people whom it was filed against. If you are unable to draw any lessons from these two recent examples, I expect we shall see other preventable crises borne of this approach. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to A Man In Black, the absence of a reasonable chain of inference and a factual basis in any of Giano's edits on this subject or those of any other editor, persuades me, very convincingly, that Giano was making it up as he goes along. And the fatuousness of his claims also helped me to make up my mind on this.

In response to El C, of course I was on the side of people who find Giano's wild accusations incredible. How could it be otherwise? And Giano would not have made his false and damaging claims if he had not indeed intended to claim that the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and (improbably) Angela, were involved in some weird conspiracy. I cannot imagine that anybody could make such specific false and clearly damaging accusations by accident. Your mileage may vary, but for all our sakes I hope it doesn't. We need to keep our discussions based in reason and fact. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget good ol' Essjay! But no, I did not mean that "debate" (?), but what this would be conspiracy was said to facilitate, wherein he saw you as a hostile party. I'm not sure who is claiming accident. One can attempt to correct misperceptions through dialogue, however. El_C 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm barely aware of Essjay's existence, so I don't think it can have any bearing on this matter. I think Giano's wild accusations were well beyond dialog. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about your own recent accusations against Jayjg & others, were these also beyond dialogue? El_C 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are taking too much liberty in deciding what is beyond discussion. Your lack of communication is having a harmful effect. El_C 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at this talk page again, and tell me about "lack of communication." --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked. You can write volumes of text, so long as you fail addressing the concenrs raised, it amounts to exactly that. El_C 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done my best to respond to all reasonable concerns. I'm satisfied that I have communicated my opinion completely and competently. --Tony Sidaway 19:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it incomplete and unsatisfactory. You have not addressed the concerns raised substantively. El_C 19:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rovoam again

He keeps reverting the Artsakh page...do you think semi-protection is a good option at this time? I've used up my three reverts for today. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can. Meanwhile don't worry about it. Revert warring will only encourage him and the article can wait until it's fixed.

If you would prefer, go to WP:RFPP an ask for the page to be semiprotected if that would help. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom appeal

I have launched a second appeal against the article ban, and have quoted your opinions in the statement of case based on a contribution of yours on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just wanted to alert you in case I was quoting you out of context, or had made unwarranted assumptions. David | Talk 20:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --Tony Sidaway 01:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation in progress

I requested Misplaced Pages to lock the article in order to solve the dispute . Then I asked for Mediation on the page. The other person involved in the article did not bother to contact me besides constanst messages that I left in his talk page. He thens starts bulllying me using my personal e-mail. I followed all the proper procedures to avoid this dispute. Why I am getting banned? Messhermit 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You're banned because you edit warred on the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That is why I am asking. What do you mean with Edit Warring? The other using was attempting to sell T-shirts using the article as a support! He was modifying the articles of Dictator, Slobodan Milosevic and created a categoy call "dictators" to support that. I mean, I avoided a flame war with the other user, and I did not engaged in any personal attack! Please, be more detailed, I want to know why I'm getting banned Messhermit 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

By edit warring, I mean these edits: . --Tony Sidaway 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But have you even read my talk page? I wanted to avoid that, but the other user keep editing the article and promoting POV. In my talk page you can even see that I was taking the appropiate steeps to solve this paceafully. The only thing that the user does is using loaded terms to describe this president. Once again, I did not engaged nor did I started a flame war. You can look at my editions on the other user's talk page and . By any mean did I assume it was edit warring to defend the article. I'm guilty of preventing POV? Messhermit 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely not ? (Which still leaves plenty, yes.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring consists not in the nature of a person's edits but in his manner of editing. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I did not insult nor added loaded terms to the article. As a note, on this case , I just reverted a text that was for months on the article that that Bdean1963 simply deleted without discussing it or at least asking for "sources". Surely you are not defending Bdean1963 way's of how he edited that article, because if you state that it was because of the way of how I handle this, then the him is more than guilty. Messhermit 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I agree with your edits or anybody else's. I'm saying that you edit warred and, because of your probation, you're banned from editing the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On this edition , I rv that edition because the issue of when he was born was already stated in a subnote on the article Reference #1. Once again, I did not vandalise the article. Messhermit 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you did not vandalise the article. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Then? What I was suppose to do with the article, leave it and permit some people to abuse it and promote T-shirts by making the article more appealing to the buyer? Messhermit 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody notified me that the probation included all of my editions. I expected that to happen in case something like that happened in the ecuadorian-peruvian articles, which was the main reason for the probation. How can I be punished for something I did not know? Messhermit 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The probation is worded as follows:

Messhermit is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by any administrator. All bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit#Log of blocks and bans.

--Tony Sidaway 00:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So even after I use the appropiate steeps to solve this dispute, I'm going to be banned. Then what is gonna happen with the article? As it is now, is loaded with POV terms. The other user would be happy with this. I mean, the mediation was because of that, and I don't believe that this justify to cancel that. If that is what you already decided, the I will totally abstain from editing this article, but that the content is not netral, that still remains. I ask you to revive the mediation. I simply will not be involve when the time comes to edit the article. At least, I will prove that I was not vandalising the article.Messhermit 00:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You certainly were not vandalising the article, and you may continue with mediation and discussion on the talk page. You are only banned from editing the article itself. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then how come that the mediation is being closed down? Messhermit 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask the mediator. I did not ask him to close it. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

implementattion at Kinsella ArbComm

Hi Tony. Something is amiss with your implementation notes. Did you mix up the notes from another case? Best --Bucketsofg 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that your implementation notes go with Zer0faults --Bucketsofg 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well caught. I updated both cases. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

We've already discussed your removal of posts, and I've asked you to stop doing it, or at least cut down how often you do it, and others have requested the same. Sometimes it's necessary and justified, but not when a sizable number of admins have commented constructively on a thread on the admins' noticeboard. SlimVirgin 05:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the fact that we have this huge amount of clutter on WP:ANI is an argument for its removal, not against. Certainly we all have to continue to use our judgement when deciding what to remove, but this is an obvious one. It has absolutely nothing to do with adminship and it doesn't require admin action. --Tony Sidaway 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been amazed at the large amount of non-urgent debate that has been posted to WP:ANI and WP:BN. I only just started watching these pages in the last couple of weeks so I have no idea of whether this is Situation Normal or not. I would urge that most of this debate be held on pages which are not used for "operational" purposes. It is reasonable, IMO, to suggest forcefully that these discussions be moved elsewhere. Moreover, much of it should be archived (not removed!) to clear the clutter. This is not intended to denigrate the value of the discussions in any way, just to suggest that forums such as WP:ANI and WP:BN should be kept clear of non-essential clutter so as to allow important notices to be identified quickly and acted upon forthwith. --Richard 05:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case I removed it to Phil's user talk page, per our policy for off-topic stuff that turns up on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

question about ArbComm & Arthur Ellis

Hi Tony. I see that the ArbComm on Warren Kinsella is effectively over now that the vote to pass has been closed. The main point is that Arthur Ellis, who is currently under a one-week block for using socks to evade 3RR, is to be banned from certain articles and not use IPs. He's attacked me with with this message through an IP, which I've blocked. The question: should this be reported on the ArbComm enforcement page even though the ArbComm has not been formally closed? Bucketsofg 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't do any harm to report the incident on the talk page of the arbitration case, Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella, if only because it keeps records related to this editor together. The log of blocks and bans is specifically for enforcement of the remedies in the case, so blocks made before the case is formally closed probably don't belong there. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a break

This notice is being given to you by another administrator (Friday) in lieu of a block. Friday believes that a block is justified but, as a courtesy, is refraining from enacting one. In return, you are asked to discontinue any controversial edits at once until this issue is discussed and resolved.

This was offensive, over the top, and generally unhelpful. Take a break from editing and cool down. reconsider your approach to the project. Friday (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Being above an admin does not make Tony above the law. This is the final straw in a long series of disruptive comments and personal attacks. I have therefore blocked Tony for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset and I don't need to cool down (but I think some others may do.) I have nothing to add to my observation that I have lanced the boil . A slight smell is inevitable and it'll dissipate in time. I'll sit out the block that JoshuaZ has made. It wouldn't be in the interests of Misplaced Pages to add further to this silliness. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Having discussed this matter at length I think Misplaced Pages will benefit from an absence by me for seven days. I am quite unrepentant. I believe that I did a good thing. I leave the matter in the hands of the arbitration committee and would happily resign from all editing on Misplaced Pages should this improve the encyclopedia. . --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I can understand, to some extent, why you thought what you did a few days ago was a good thing. But what about what you wrote today? Do you think that particular post served any useful purpose at all, stirring the embers back into flames? Was that, too, a good thing?

If you want (or have been urged) to spend a week on Wikibreak, that is probably a good idea. But I think an even better idea is that you spend a week, or a month, on a complete leave from your administrative duties (blocking, warning, clerking, ...) and ... edit some articles. Remind yourself where the fun of this project is supposed to lie. Even falling has sections waiting to be finished. That, to me, would show more of a commitment by you than any words on this page to the project you've been trying to serve. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'd also like to repeat what I have attempted to explain before- these sorts of remarks don't help matters at all. They don't accomplish anything and often make people more angry. They often cause far more damage than what small help they give. JoshuaZ 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is right. Tony, your behavior has been particularly polemical and divisive. If you were a userbox, you'd get speedy deleted for this. Friday (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to see a strong a firm admin reaction to a user who apparently considers himself above the law (and whose interests are apparently everything but writing an encyclopedia as I can see from the facts). Joshua and Friday, please accept my thanks and encouragements! -- Grafikm 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be unblocked at all until you gain some understanding of how to not say things so insensitive as to make good contributers want to pound their keyboards into dust in a shouting rage. Maybe we should have a policy to that effect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an idea... Misplaced Pages:Contributors are above all or something? :) -- Grafikm 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We kind of have it already - Don't be a dick - although being on meta has allowed it to avoid the "policy" tag, and retain some of its simplicity and importance. As for the block, I support JoshuaZ's 24 hours - but would be wary of imposing anything further now. Unfortunately I get the feeling that Tony is going to continue this behaviour when the block expires. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong. the wub "?!" 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Protoss Archon 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer and Squeakbox

Based on Mackensen's comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hagiographer, do you think there is enough evidence to support blocking Hagiographer for violating the personal attack parole that was extended to him at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans? (Also note that 2 weeks ago, Hagiographer prodded the same article, but he got away with it because I was the only one watching WP:AE at the time. (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2#User:Hagiographer and the Squeakbox section below it.) Thanks.

Thanks for the laugh

I enjoyed this greatly: . -- SCZenz 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please stop your serbs in your project--Hipi Zhdripi 06:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages clerks