User talk:Tony Sidaway: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 07:45, 9 March 2006

purge edit icons

Transclusions in userspace cause widespread liveware compatibility problems; massive noise issue. Recommend disabling entirely.

-A bug report I considered filing on Mediawiki's Bugzilla

Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Wikipedia discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of these alternatives: biased, slanted, subjective, tendentious, opinionated, one-sided, non-neutral, partisan, unfair, poorly framed, unbalanced, partial, ill-conceived (please add to this list)

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.' Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration

Since you have violated your previous promise to stop deleting templates [1], I have opened an arbitration case. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Words, words, words

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

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

Let's try this again

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apology

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

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

Um...

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

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

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

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

Return of a vandal

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

Curiosity

Howdy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will remain adament in regards to my outlook on the situation. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. That's...all. -Zero^Talk 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiatheism userbox

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

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

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

Message Box

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

Hello,

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

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

Crotalus arbitration

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

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

SPUI

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

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

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

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

Karmafist's Welcome Message

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

question regarding RfC

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

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

Multiposting?

[2]What's wrong with centralizing discussion? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Jargon? What jargon? WP:WOTTA!

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

Cheers. That was a nice gesture. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested discarding this template/userbox

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

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

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

(Oh dear: fascist template does exist (and according to some wikiguys, the anti-fascist one should be deleted as divisive).) Constanz - Talk 15:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy with that position; I believe that we should have no political templates, for or against, although of course people should be able to describe their opinions (in their own words) on their user pages. But at the moment it's easier to justify deletion of anti- templates because they are more likely to point a finger of disapproval at, and hence offend, other editors. If someone says he's a big-endian and I act abusively towards him solely because of his expressed political beliefs, then that's a faux pas on my part, not his. If I encounter a template on many pages stating opposition to little-endians, then as a little-endian I am made to feel unwelcome on the site. The first statement can be justified as an expression of one's own political bias, the second is more obviously promotion of a political position (or rather, opposition to it). --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You then confirm that in case an admin used everything within his means to delete for once and for all the anti-fascist template while taking no steps against fascists ones he were acting right? Well, clear then.Constanz - Talk 19:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any administrator taking steps to remove an odious and unsuitable template from Wikipedia is doing the right thing. They should all go, It isn't a good argument to say that others equally odious have not yet been deleted. If they offend you, please tag them with {{db-divisive}} and I am sure that an administrator will give them attention. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi, I worked hard on the Paul_Cain Article last night and someone came and removed several factual paragraphs which could have been interpreted negatively

I had something similar happen when working on the John Wimber article a while back.

What can I do? It's very discouraging, and makes me not want to contribute. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriddles (talk • contribs) 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claims removed were unsourced and some of them were potentially defamatory. We don't put unverifiable claims into the encyclopedia, only verifiable facts. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well they had actualy been there for several month before I tried to round them out. And they referred directly to the web site where the bulletins discussing the issue originated. Don't see how that is unsourced?

Actually did you manage to get that link to work? I tried but got a "404 Not Found" error indicating that the documents had been removed from the site or the URL was wrong. Anyhow I know it must be demoralizing to have that happen. --Tony Sidaway 04:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I found the proper links [3] [4] [5] What should I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theriddles (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's where you embark on the great learning process of how to contribute to this wonderful encyclopedia.

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia. I really appreciate your decision to contribute and especially the effort you have put into getting relevant references in the form of links to the MorningStar Ministries website. The first thing you have to do is decide whether the website is an authoritative reference, or at least a reputable source. See Cite sources for more information about this.

Then you should add the information in a form that complies with our Neutral point of view policy.

Then if someone queries this, either by just removing or by complaining on the talk page, you must discuss the problem in a civil manner on the talk page, with a view to obtaining mutual agreement (also known as consensus) on whether to present the information and, if so, how. You have to be flexible, and sometimes you have to think hard and change your mind, and other times you have to put your foot down. But don't worry, I'm willing to help and advise. Give it a go and please ask me for further advice whenever you need it. I'll always try to help. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete userboxes?

Cross-namespace redirect. Should it go? Haukur 14:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but first I'll tell the author why it has to go. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems this was originally created back in December and has a lorryload of incoming links. *sigh* what a mess. Haukur 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter much. There will be no links from article space, so I've deleted and protected under "deletedpage". --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question: What was your reasoning behind deleting this redirect? It is fairly obvious from the discussion that is going on that the majority of people disagree with your "being bold". At this point, we would like to understand why you felt that the deletion was necessary. Please explain on the talk page. Thank you. Clarkefreak ∞ 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should not exist in article space because it's neither an encyclopedia article nor a link to one. Some very small number of article-space redirects do exist, but they are largely of the form WP:RFC, WT:RFC (for talk pages) and so on, and sometimes for this reason "WP" and "WT" described as "pseudo-namespaces"--the software does not recognise them, but people do. The main namespace should normally be kept clear. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Oops, sorry about that -- I was just fixing a redlink. Perodicticus 16:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. Perodicticus 18:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting for advice

Hello Tony, User:Mel Etitis and you spotted me on wikipedia. You also encouraged me by awarding me an exceptional new comer barnstar. Now after about one year of my association with the Project, I have found several nice editors: one of them is deeptrivia and I wish him to nominate or co-nominate for adminship with some other editor/s who are familiar with him and his works. However, Deep (a Sanskrit word meaning “light” or one who gives light) is thinking of a particular dark moment of his life as a wikipedian. I seek your advice and comments on the issue. Is not he fit for the admin responsibility? Is the burden of one block has washed out all his contributions to the project? Kindly give your suggestions on my talk page. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)

People do redeeem themselves from dark moments, with good will and hard work. I wish your friend well and I know that with your help he will do good work for Wikipedia. --19:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I believe people should assume good faith. Humans are learning creatures, and they make mistakes and change. People should not be held accountable for past mistakes. This years vandal could turn into one of wikipedia's best contributors. Just remain optimistic. -Zero^Talk 19:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting signed comments

Please stop deleting other editor's signed comments from you Arbitration case. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a proposal. The comments belonged to the proposal. --Tony Sidaway 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted signed comments from another editor. You've been taken to task for this before on the Webcomics arbitration. If you'd like to move items to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Withdrawn please leave a link indicating that you've done so. - brenneman ^{T}^{L} 01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to perform whatever refactoring you might wish on the deleted item. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput

Ban is indefinite. Once a comment has been made on a proposal you have made on /Workshop, don't remove it. Just make a comment that you have thought better of it. Fred Bauder 13:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricking the WP:3RR

I think this person is trying to trick the system. What do you think? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two other people, Shanel and Francistyers, seem to think that it should at least have a NPOV tag, but you've already made your point through editing and (quite successfully) through arguing, so let others take over now otherwise it'll just become a personal grudge match between you and fadix (which would be a shame).

You're making unreasonable demands on the talk page, although you are also voicing legitimate concerns. FA status, for instance, isn't a good demand to make. If you are willing to take that back, I think you will appear much more reasonable. Being reasonable, and appearing so to others, is just as important as being right--actually it's more important, because in any discussion all sides must act reasonably, and obviously everybody cannot be right 100% of the time.

I'll pop my head in and add the NPOV tag back, explaining why I think it belongs, and suggest that it remain there while your legitimate concerns are addressed.

Please don't try to place the tag back yourself again. If you have more problems please do come to me immediately. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:70.50.53.217

Hi. Could you please block this IP who is constantly vandalising User:CambridgeBayWeather, I left an entry on AIAV an hour ago but he is still vandalising. Cheers TigerShark 15:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide

Tony, I hope you realise that we cannot change the page to suit CoolCat. He is out to give far too much credance to the Turkish government and diminish recognition for the page. Francis' points should be quite easy to deal with, so I need to know that you're not going to insist that the tag stays until CC is happy (because that won't happen until he can re-write it to suit himself). When I first came to the page even then he was making a big fuss about the "Armenian bias", with lots of people expressing their annoyance with his constant complaints. Fadix has done a wonderful job in trying to tidy this up, but CC couldn't care less about this. CC did not contribute to the page for weeks, even months recently - he didn't even take part in the vote. He only reappeared when he heard the tag had been removed. I have a feeling that was because he knew he couldn't win the vote and taking part in it would only show he agreed to a democratic decision. Therefore his motivations must be regarded with scepticism. Cheers John Smith's 16:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying. If you can find a way to resolve the differences and reach a consensus, and there are no reasonable objections remaining, then the tag will be superfluous and you can remove it. But please don't question Cool Cat's good faith like this. As his mentor I know that he genuinely believes that there are problems, and for now it appears that some other reasonable people agree with some of his points, so those points at least should be addressed.

Cool Cat can be blocked if he behaves unreasonably (as can anybody), and if he behaved unreasonably and persisted in doing so in a manner that disrupted the article I would eventually ban him from the article altogether (and I have the power to do that) so please be patient. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is placing the tag for deletion for pictures dating at least of 85 years and taken by Russians before the Soviet Union signed the convention for copyrights be considered as disruptive? Fad (ix) 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If he thinks there is a legitimate question as to their usability on Wikipedia, it can be discussed on WP:IFD and placing a tag there helps to notify interested parties who may want to contribute to the debate. It's a copyright matter and, this being a free encyclopedia whose ethos is very much based on respect for intellectual property, we should take it seriously. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pathoschild's userbox project

Hi Tony. Have you seen User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes? I am not sure this is the right way to "reduce conflict" over userboxes, but I'm curious about what you think. -- SCZenz 17:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it the other day and told him that I thought it was a wonderful idea, and very much in keeping with some of my own thoughts on the problem. See this. I strongly support this project as a way of reducing conflict over userbox deletion. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your thoughts. I am concerned that even substed userboxes will spread and cause problems, but this may be a reasonable compromise. -- SCZenz 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfAr

Hello,

I'm not sure of procedure here, but I wish to notify you that I have posted evidence of your "wheel-warring" past behavior on your case's evidence page. The evidence was given to me by an absent colleague, but I stand prepared to defend it, as necessary. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Would you mind if I went through your evidence and annotated each link with the date and the name of the article I was supposedly "wheel warring" over? --Tony Sidaway 19:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended basic descriptions as requested. You will be pleased to know, perhaps, that I saw fit to remove two cases where the logs were less than clear. Still, I say to you (as I said at the page) that, without comment on your "banananess", this is a clear history of wheel-warring. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well obvously I deny that completely and this will be demonstrated in the rebuttal. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom decision

Hi, regarding the decision on Rajput, is the decision already in force or is there anything remaining by way of promulgation? What strikes me: intimating the banned users on their talk-pages, and putting up some kind of notice on the talk-pages of the the "related articles" to which the prohibition extends. Regards, ImpuMozhi 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I informed all the banned users--please let me know if I've missed some. I've put a notice on Talk:Rajput but this is an exceptional act--normally I think we'd keep such announcements to user talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. ImpuMozhi 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. If there are appearances of any suspected sock puppets on this page, please go to WP:ANI and report them, ask for sock checks and whatnot. Banned users and their socks can be blocked on sight. Anybody else exhibiting the problematic behavior, same thing. Basically we don't want any more nonsense. and so keep a close watch. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blumpkin

The article "Blumpkin" has been listed on Articles for Deletion on the grounds that is a neologism already found in Wiktionary. You are being notified as a contributor to "Blumpkin." BrianGCrawfordMA 20:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blumpkin

Thanks, that's very thoughtful of you. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia "temporary injunction"?

Hello again Tony, long time no talk. Looks like WSI worked out great, last I checked the two users are banned for a year from editing the site. I think if one user doesn't change the way he edits, which I have strongly encouraged on his user page that he do, there will be another arbitration and he will be booted. Thanks for your efforts.

The reason I am writing is there is a user who has deleted over 100 Time photos citing fair use. Another user and I reported him to Vandalism in progress when he started to delete the captions of the deleted photos, when he belegerently refused to stop. Well, two users deleted our vandalism in progress argument, stating this was not vandalism. I disagree, and argued as such.

What are my options? I have encouraged another user to diplomatically comment on his talk page to stop these reversions and am attempting a diplomatic route. If this doesnt work, there is RFC...followed by....followed by...

My question is this:

In the interm, is there anyway to stop this user with a wikipedia "Temporary injunction", barring him from deleting any photos until this is resolved?

I hope diplomacy will work, but I want to know my options if diplomacy fails.

I will "watch" your page so you can answer here.

If you don't know the answer, or dont want to get involved, can you refer me to someone who can help?Travb 03:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guy you're talking about is User:Ta bu shi da yu. He's a good guy, and he consulted with Jimbo Wales before acting. Jimbo has given him his full support. This is a Foundation issue. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the text of this? Is it only for arbs?

He is deleting all photos of TIME magazine, even ones with the subjects on the covers.

Is this new wikipedia policy, if so where can I find it? No one seems to answer this.

Why is this page not deleted?: Category:Fair_use_TIME_magazine_covers Travb 04:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the law. We don't take unnecessary risks. There is a real world outside the wiki, sometimes we use the works of other people (such as Time Magazine) and this is the way we deal with that fact in a way that duly recognises their ownership rights. Those pictures do not belong to us. It isn't up to us to decide to use them, except in certain very, very narrowly constrained circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comments

Thanks for clarifying wikipedia policy Tony. I am deeply troubled by it, but I guess there is not much I can do at this point. Or is there?

I am not surprised by this action, actually, Wikipedia will continue to become more conservative in its actions, all organizations do as they get older.

From what I have seen, wikipedia foundation has built an incredible, wealthy organization and they don't want one law suit to destroy this foundation. In otherwords, err on the side of caution to keep the status quo,. I have disagreed again and again and again about the legal argument. I have also argued that by trying to keep the status quo, the empty statments that founder Jimmy Wales once made, is perverted. Instead of being on the forefront of freeing up information for the entire world, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution.

I won't much get into the larger ramifications because most people don't think that way.

Eventually someone with a decentralized server with a decentralized web page (I don't know if this is technically possible today) will come up with the post-Napster version of the web, launching another front against copyright, were the worries of the status quo are moot.Travb 05:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that, if you think about it, you'll realise that you're not talking about freeing up information at all, but of taking and using the work of other people without permission. This whole website is founded on respect for intellectual property--not leaching on the work of others, but producing out own and sharing it, while retaining full ownership of the work (which doesn't happen normally if your work is published in, say, the New York Times). Taking stuff without permission isn't what this site is about at all. --Tony Sidaway 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii

Thanks for mentioning this to me when we chatted. I agree that we shouldn't mess with good articles like this--and there is a huge keep consensus. --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was going to tell that on IRC but got distracted, and you were gone when I returned. The current problem is people who tried to get the article deleted are now trying to do the same via manual delete (aka removing everything they see fit such as the fashion section). He says he is "prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters" which I find somewhat insultive (although am not loosing sleep over it). Hence, I think there is a problematic situation. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied for page protection. --Tony Sidaway 05:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

It went afk? Why? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I decided it was unnecessary. I've got a whole warren of subpages if people want to know about me (including this clone of my old userpage if you're feeling nostalgic! --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page format You were talking about liking it then later said it was "too complex", well it is really simple :P I can apply it here or maybe a sandbox :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks! Clone this page here and give it a go if you'd like. --Tony Sidaway 05:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Quote

I've placed an new quote proceeding the top of my userspace. Per my rfa, I relized others had an laudible cause for complaint in regards to the previous one. I do hope this one is competent. -Zero^Talk 08:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your first quote is any better.

As it happens I remember that Jimbo said "You should have been blocked for a lot longer than a month, my friend" to someone who was pleading against Karmafist's loss of his sysop bit because, he said, Karmafist had released him from an unjustified block. But you've cited it without any context at all. Moreover, it is probably not an appropriate quote because it's quite meaningless outside its particular context.

The second one is a good statement of principle, and a very good quote. I think that's a very good choice for a quote. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct, but I must ammend your qualms about the foremost quote.

The first quote does need an citation in regards to its source material and refercing. However, I believe the fact Jimbo made the response was to alleged trolling comparable to the user's block period. My citation of the quote is in reference to the fact that such actions are not acceptable. Trolling is indeed not permitted on wikipedia. This is the purpose of the quote, and has nada to do with the user and his thesis to Jimbo.

The second is indeed quite good. It personifies the enforement of NPOV on encyclopediac articles, as well as giving biogarphies the maximum amount of attention to ensure educational quality. -Zero^Talk 17:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On userbox notice

I won't put it back if it is restored again, but I do feel that it does not belong and won't personally restore it, for a couple reasons. First, it feels like we're trying to soften the blow of normal policy, as if we are including an apology at the start of hammurabi's code, or perhaps a "*sigh*" on the face of a bulldozer. We should not be cringing everytime we do things for the good of wikipedia -- when questioned we can explain our reasoning in sympathetic tones, but all this "bend over for the newbie" stuff has gone well beyond its intended purpose and has become a contest towards stupidity. Second, I personally think substing all the userbox templates only fixes half the problem with userboxes -- they won't be usable to rally people to taint poll results if done that way, but they are still obnoxious and divisive, and in the end I think they will have to go, substituted or not. Wikipedia won't ever need to be quite as formal as a workplace (ties and suits and similar), but people will need to come to understand that normal rules of human interaction still apply here, and that being a volunteer does not give one a free pass to express oneself in harmful ways. In sum, I think Pathoschild's project is not a good one, and that we should not be cringing, apologising, offering workarounds, and similar when it comes to the policies we have. --Improv 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolCat conduct

Hi... I am writing to you regarding the conduct of Cool cat on the Talk:Kawaii page since, per a recent RfA concerning him, you were designated as a mentor to him concerning conduct, and you seem to "have his ear" at the moment. As you are no doubt aware, the Kawaii article was the subject of an AfD where the community consensus was keep and rewrite. Cool cat seems to have taken the "keep" vote as validation of all the contents of the article, is unwilling to engage in logical discourse, has taken de facto ownership of it, and now he is openly engaging in escalating statements of non-cooperation (stating he is unwilling to listen, asking other editors to leave, etc). I draw this to your attention in the hopes that you would point out the implications of this behavior and that he would be more amenable to listening to you. I gather he is somewhat excitable, and others have already indirectly insulted his hobby culture, thus good faith is a little difficult to invoke right now. Thanks... The Crow 02:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll get anywhere--any of you--by adopting those antagonistic attitudes towards one another. I'll certainly advise my protege to remain civil, but I expect the same from all others involved. I'll not intervene in an overt manner, but I'll be watching and I do expect you all to tone it down a little. --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have tried reasoning with this individual and none of the participants has transgressed civility to the degree that he has (openly stating that he will not listen to editors he does not agree with, and asking them to leave). Also, please note we have a quorum of editors from both sides of this debate working toward a consensus in a civil manner, but the process is being disrupted solely by Cool cat who is waging a one-man battle for the most unbalanced form of the article (which I now see appears to be a documented pattern with this user). You've already intervened overtly on his behalf (against consensus, it should be noted) by invoking protection for his favored version of the page. I hope you'll reconsider the situation and your role in it. The Crow 15:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have your facts wrong, my friend. My request for protection mentioned no favored version and I played no part in the decision on which version was protected by Woohookitty.

As it happens, I hate protection, and since we've had two days of it and you seem to have a decent number of people who agree on various issues, I think it's time to unprotect. I support your request which is now on WP:RFPP and have endorsed it.

Meanwhile, noting Cool Cat's last response on the talk page, I notice that he appears to have legitimate complaints about extreme incivility and clearly stated bias on the subject admitted by others in the debate. Although he has not expressed it well, this is a worry. Please proceed but if you have further concerns do address them to me and I will do my best to help. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you requested protection of a particular version, only that you did intervene overtly to have it protected. However, I would like to direct your attention to what is happening now. We arrived at consensus of how to proceed with a supermajority of the principals agreeing and none rejecting it. The antagonism ceased. However, Cool cat has now resumed hostile participation. He has completely blanked one of the consensus decisions [6] without consensus, which is a violation of a term of his RfA. He is also asking 3 of the principals in the consensus to be excluded from discussions on the article [7], essentially rejecting good faith and single-handedly threatening to disrupt the fresh consensus that has emerged. The Crow 18:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also beg to differ that the degree of incivility has been "extreme". CoolCat has been quite provocative himself and I feel that people, while responding frankly, have shown significant restraint. As to bias, we all have it, and it is best to be above board about where you're coming from. All the principals have done so, I don't believe CoolCat has or is doing so. The Crow 18:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence you provide (in particular this diff) shows that Cool Cat has breached the arbitration decision by restructuring a talk page (remedy 4, "Coolcat prohibited from restructuring"). He can be blocked if he persists in this. Please go to WP:AN/I and report this incident. If things get out of hand I will ban him from editing the article and its talk page. --Tony Sidaway 18:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done as you advised. [8]. Thanks for your attention. The Crow 19:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you for handling this very touchy situation with courtesy. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfati dispute

Tony, I'm writing to request that you not involve yourself further in the Sarfati dispute. This is an unfortunate series of events, where people have been acting in good faith but have clashed over interpretations of NPOV, NOR, V, and AUTO. It's not a situation where people are revealing personal details out of malice, or in the course of trolling, where blocks would be appropriate. It's particularly unfortunate that the RfC and RfAr have been filed just as the content dispute was being resolved, because the whole thing was about to go away. I don't want to see any good editors leave because of this, and as things stand, that's looking increasingly likely, so I'm asking you please not to do anything to make matters worse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I figured I wasn't helping any so I already stopped. I've never seen editors I respected in such a poisonous fury. --Tony Sidaway 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

Bingo! An very productive edit contributed by an anon. I daresay the temporary deimplementation of SEMI is paying off. I shall continue to be optimistic. -Zero^Talk 13:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it was reverted, it is clear the edit was an attempt to be productive. That's something to look at. -Zero^Talk 13:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you watch you'll see that this does happen quite a lot. Just not very often compared with vandalism and user tests. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. You see now why I have become neutral in this matter...? -Zero^Talk 14:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an okay from time magazine

I did something that administration didn't do:

I asked Time Magazine if it was okay to use the cover photos.

Subject: RE: AskArchivist

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:51:30 -0500

From: Bonnie_Kroll at timeinc.com Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert

To: travb****@yahoo.com

Thanks for submitting your question to Ask the Archivist.

Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.

You may also use a thumbnail of our cover images, as long as you link back to a page on time.com.

Best regards,

Bonnie Kroll

Ask the Archivist

http://www.timearchives.com

Please Tony, contact her yourself. You seem like the most reasonable of the group.

Signed: Travb 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, here is what I wrote on Travb's talk page:

[Thankyou but], I fear you miss the point entirely:

We don't want fair use images if we can avoid it!
"Fair use doctrine allows you to use a reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com." most of those articles doesn't have what I'd call a "reasonable text excerpt with a link back to the entire article at time.com.
IMO, most of the images need to be resized anyway.

Kind regards,

Ta bu shi da yu 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Figured you should know. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of subjective editing to Terry Bogard and Kyo Kusanagi

There seems to be an slight communication problem on these two articles and the tolerence of WP:POV on wikipedia. This anonymous user has blatently reinserted POV statements into these two articles ([9] [10]), and I've reverted. I then proceeded to place warnings on his talkpage regarding this, which upon he moved to another IP in attempt to subvert an possible block. Still willing to discuss the matter, I proceeded to leave comments on those respective talkpages (here and here), which he ethier ignored or has neglected to see. He has recently re-added them despite my entreaties, and this is unacceptable. I'll not doubt he may be editting in good faith, but his constant revisions and IP switching arise an laudible cause for complaint. I am patient, but I do not tolerate nonsense. -Zero^Talk 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first could you stop reverting this fellow for a bit? And for heaven's sake please stop accusing him of vandalism--at least until you and I have chatted a bit about his edits.

Could you please explain to me what is wrong with this paragraph?

In the Capcom/SNK crossover games, Terry is paired as being SNK's equivalent to Capcom's Ken, who is quite similar in attitude and looks. Kyo Kusanagi is the character paired with Ryu, since, even though he's a younger character, Kyo's by far the more popular one. However, in skill level and sheer power, Terry is more an equal to Ryu than Kyo is.

And why did you perform four reverts on the Terry Bogard article in twenty-four hours? You *must* know that something is going wrong if you have to revert more than once.

To me the edit you keep reverting in Kyo Kusanagi is a little more problematic, but it doesn't really justify the energy you have been expending on warring like this. Please respond to me, but before you do so please go to WP:RFPP and say simply "content dispute" on Kyo Kusanagi and Terry Bogard between myself and another editor who does not respond on the talk pages." Someone will look at the situation, assess it, and protect the articles. You can then discuss things on the talk page.

As ever, I have your interests at heart. You must learn how to invoke page protection (even an administrator has to do this--I'm not allowed to protect a page I'm editing so I have to request protection). This ability to freeze editing and start a debate (if the other editor will cooperate at all) is very powerful when used wisely. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When unsourced and biased information is constantly inserted into an article it is equivilant to vandlaism. Per above I already summerized that he most likely is editting in good faith. I've explained in full why I've continued to revert here. We have policies and rules to adhere to keep articles and formatting as proffessional as possible. When its blatently ignored at the whim of one's personal view, it not an good sign. I detist revert wars. But they don't apply to vandalism and unsorced claims. I realize it may be somewhat difficult to see how its probmatic with your lack of knowledge in regards to the source material, but I inquire you take my word for it.-Zero^Talk 06:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement over balance amounts to a content dispute, and is definitely not a matter of vandalism. Unsourced material can be removed but it isn't a justification for edit warring. You must, I repeat this, learn to use the protection mechanism and not edit warring to resolve disputes. You must not edit war over unsourced and biased claims in articles. The three-revert rule applies to every single revert on an article that is not removal of simple vandalism.

I am very disappointed that I shall have to apply for protection of these articls myself. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could have blocked you (and you may still run the risk of being blocked by someone else). However it would not be productive to deter you from bringing cases to my attention. In doing that, you made a step towards resolving the dispute, and that is a good thing, even though your edit warring was bad. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely dissapointed at this editor's lack of participation in discussion. Protection should succeed an attempt an clarification between both parties in this manner, and there has yet to be any such situation. I have explained my viewpoint supported with policy and correct factual claims and observations.

I really dislike protection over matters such as this, but as the policy dictates: Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an "edit war," upon request which seems to fit this situation. I would much prefer an comment by this user over his intent for the addition of these edits. I really have no problem with them; but they are agaist everything this site stands for. We are not an fan site. Nor an blog. Nor an chatroom or an place for posting biased claims lacking references.

If I must be blocked for attemptting to keep the site in an neutral point of view and conformed to an proffessional stadard in line with established policy and good faith, please block me right now. Ban me indefinitely. Obviously my judgement is sound or it is not and that is unlikely to change much over time. I have taked the necessary steps in line with my stand on the matter, and policy is agaist these edits.

Please don't apply for protection, I'll do so myself. -Zero^Talk 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. You have already taken steps in regards for the request. I shall remain on standby and await furthur updates on the mattter. -Zero^Talk 14:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term protection

I know that in the past you've strongly opposed the use of long-term protection, or even semiprotection, on George W. Bush. I've seen you express your views on this on both the article Talk page and on wikien-l (including one post - "Is this still a wiki" - opposing the use of a NOEDITSECTION directive).

Currently, the Harry Reid article has been protected for five days. This was done by User:Danny for reasons that have not been made clear, except that a complaint of some kind was apparently received. WP:OFFICE was invoked as a justification for this. What is your opinion regarding this matter? I have a serious problem with this protection. Although you may not be that familiar with him (being located in the UK), Harry Reid, as the Senate minority leader, is one of the most important political figures in the United States. We aren't talking about some marginal article on a semi-private individual. I'm extremely concerned about setting the precedent that a politician can get their article locked for any length of time by having them or their staff issue a complaint about its content. How long will the wiki editing process last if that is the case? Perhaps you might be able to discuss this issue with Danny and/or Jimbo. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't override a protection made by Danny as an office action. The Foundation owns the servers. You are free to download the article and its entire history, and edit it as you see fit on your own website as long as you comply with the terms of the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a hand?

I nominated this slam-dunk gamecruft article for deletion about four days ago; it's gotten unanimous delete votes (except from the very verbose author who keeps adding to it); I was wondering if you could thwack this thing off the 'pedia. Thanks, JDoorj a m Talk 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to do article deletion closes. If I encountered this in AfD, I'd probably wonder why such an obvious merge candidate had been nominated for deletion, and why so many people were supporting deletion with no other rationale than that they believed it to be "cruft". --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erm....

I don't get it. I thought that this: User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request, was cogent and commendable and, I think, could have been the basis for a larger effort. In fact some days back I was about to work up templates and try to get a bigger audience for that sort of approach... but that obviously would be both impossible and pointless now. I don't understand why you wrote that and then went back to a more force-driven model... what was the big hurry I wonder. Herostratus 03:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A successful strategy must use both methods, and events caught up with my efforts on Jimbo's request. My figures for userbox users showed surprisingly scant takeup of the contentious templates, and this also has implications for strategy. Jimbo himself has moved more towards interventionism and I welcome this because prolonging the interim phase only encourages unrealistic expectations. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal notice of Breach of arbitration remedy

Your edit in this diff shows that you have breached the arbitration decision by restructuring a talk page (remedy 4, "Coolcat prohibited from restructuring"). I've asked the person reporting this to notify the breach on WP:AN/I where action may be taken, including a block. If you persist, you will certainly be blocked, possibly by me. If things get out of hand I will completely ban you from editing the article and its talk page.

Please reconsider your obstructive and hostile approach toward others in the discussion on this page. I am patient, but I won't suffer any nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Mkay... The "hostile approach" is a product of their approach visible on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii. Their idea of article writing is unnaceptable. The even dispute legitness of sources such as this. So far they have only been dicks... I am prepared to work with people who are not prepared for the onslaught of neologist Japancrufters. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read you and understand. If there is a problem here then you went to solve it in the wrong way. Firstly you wrote off the opinions of other people because of the way in which they expressed them. And guess what, they didn't like you expressing negative opinions of them, only you were alone and they had company. Secondly, they may have completely the wrong end of the stick, but they are making reasonable objections (your sources aren't that good). Thirdly someone discovered that you have a record of (1) asserting that your point of view on and issue is the only acceptable one and (2) radically altering talk pages.

As a good friend, I have to tell you that if anybody else in the entire wikipedia had made these edits I would have, subject to review as is my custom, performed a two week block. And if some other administrator should institute such a block in the immediate aftermath of your recent activities on Kawaii and its talk page I shall not recommend to my fellow mentors that we reduce it. However as your mentor I persist in my (amply justified) faith that you are one of the best Wikipedians.

By that I mean that your instincts are good, but you need to learn how to deal with people. You must learn to look beyond the facile, antagonistic statements of these people and talk directly to them. If you can do that, you will be one of the most powerful, and rarest, people on Wikipedia: someone who can hold a reasonable conversation with, and reach agreement with, a person who at first sight seems to be everything he stands against.

You must go out of your way to accept that they have sincere opinions just as I have gone out of my way to accept that you, yourself, have sincere opinions. I do not mentor you because I believe you (far from it; my views on many issues are diametrically opposed to yours). I mentor you because I think you will one day grow beyond your personal opinions and recognise that the encyclopedia is not about ideological battles. Rather, for you it's about learning how to work with people you think are idiots. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paging

You about? --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SQL queries, userbox creation rate

For what it's worth, I improved the SQL query you posted to your RFAR case for the number of userbox creations per month [11]. I think your query didn't count userboxes that were created but then deleted, and mine now takes that into account. Also, mine does the summing in SQL (eg. not in an external script). Then I took it one step further and made a graph out of it. [12] [13] Take a look, it looks like we might be making progress after all. --Interiot 01:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the arbitration committee should have access to the best information available, I and I think you are the one to provide it. --Tony Sidaway 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I created this graph last night, to try to figure out if userboxes are a newbie phenomenon or not. I think it's a pretty solid conclusion that it's not a newbie phenomenon. You're a tactical thinker, so I wanted to get your input on it. Because, while older != wiser, it still gives me pause, and makes me perhaps think that we should rely perhaps a little more on community consensus and perhaps a little less on decisions-by-fiat. A quick statistic from the data: Of the userboxes created, the vast majority (72%) were created by users who created their accounts before September, 2005. --Interiot 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the same data, and what you seem to be telling me is that, of all userboxes that now exist, nearly 30% were created by users who currently have less than six months editing experience. The ramp up in November and December, less than four months ago, seems significant. Very recent newbies seem to account for a vastly disproportionate amount of userbox creation in recent months.

You also say that "Users who started editing in Nov, 2004 were as likely to create userboxes as users who started editing in Nov, 2005", but that omits the consideration that users who started editing in 2004 had twelve more months during which they had the opportunity to create userboxes and didn't, and their total output in userboxes over a much greater period has been somewhat lower.

So while this is interesting data, it doesn't tell me much by itself. I can place different plausible interpretations on the sama data. Moreover date of first edit doesn't tell me much about acculturation. An editor who does ten minutes editing in March, 2004 and comes back in January, 2006 to create 30 userboxes would count as an oldie on your graph. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dmcdevit·t 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix my WP:3RR reference?

I'm in discussion with User:Wales about the Esquire article. I'm trying to progress this on Talk:Esquire and in the meantime to discourage reversions. He and I are both up to 3 of these and obviously I won't be able to do another one. At the same time, I wanted to discourage him from doing another one, so I tagged my last edit with a reference to WP:3RR. But I messed up and wrote WPP:3RR which won't tell him anything. Are you able to edit my reference and put it right? Since it's on the history page I don't see how I can do it. Thanks. Chelseaboy 11:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't edit the edit summaries on a history page. To ask him to stop, try his user talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Thanks. Chelseaboy 11:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

Dear Tony,

I was trying to edit a page but was blocked with my username Colfes, this was because i couldn't be bothered to create an account as I thought it would be a longwinded process, therefore i guessed at the username wikipedia with the same password. However due to the inapproiateness of this name it was stopped, and as it is now shown this name was used on my IP adress i cant post either, Is it possible to rectify this?

Thanks alot Colfes

Yeah, you got hit by the autoblocker. I've now lifted the block. Someone should change the password on that account. Haukur 17:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in and changed the password. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user left the same message on my Talk Page. Didn't this person commit a major no-no by logging in under someone else's name? Also, it looks like this account was created at a school; its only contributions have been the messages to you and me, plus a bit of nonsense left on his own talk page. Might be worth keeping an eye on... 23skidoo 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did nothing wrong. We routinely block and change passwords on open accounts as and when they become known to us, and the information he gave us is valuable. His actions were consistent with good faith editing, and his response to being blocked was proof of that. --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch^(talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote

There is no need for you to protect that page. I am not going to continue reverting it. —Guan aco 17:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User page

I'm biased because I was the one who added it, but I did rather like the userbox paragraph you deleted from Wikipedia:User page. Despite the raging controversy, no one had complained about it in the week+ since I added it. Controversy aside, did you personally disagree with it? Steve Summit (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a good example of why it's best not to tell people not to stick beans up their noses. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given how rampantly widespread the things are, I don't think that's a valid analogy. For every potential bean nasalizer (or, in this case, userbox adopter) we might be saving from premature introduction to the syndrome, there are ten or a hundred users who are using them who we're depriving ourselves of an opportinity to give good guidance to. We're cutting off our own (bean free!) nose to spite our face. Steve Summit (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. From an extensive survey that I conducted last month, it appears that only 10% of active editors have contentious userboxes of any kind. A few others have babel boxes, which are considered far more acceptable. Some userbox owners have become a little noisy, which may give a misleading impression about their prevalence. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you're hardly the least biased person to conduct such a survey. Do you have the SQL you used to conduct same? ... aa:talk 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no SQL. For over a year, I kept my account set to automatically add any page I edited to my watchlist. Recently I purged the watchlist, but first dumped it to a page in my usespace, from which I separatered out a contact list. This was everybody I had been in contact with over a period of twelve months, for whatever reason. About 900 people in all. So far I have gone through the letters A to F, purging anyone who is not recently active from the list, and checking their userpages for political, religious or polemical userboxes as I go. On the first few days I used a different methodology--looking in the Recent Changes list to see who had edited recently, and checking their userpages. So I have a random smattering from that part. Some people (mostly userbox owners) have also added their own entries to the page.

This amounts to around 244 editors so far, with only 25 of them having some kind of qualifying userbox. Even babelboxes (which do not qualify) are pretty rare. This survey was carried out for the most part before the revent T1 speedy deletions.

I have no reason to suppose that usernames starting with the letters A to F are less likely to be chosen by people who like to use userboxes.

You seem to be saying that I may be permitting personal bias to influence my results. If so, I can't see how this could be so. The vast majority of these userpages were on my watchlist long before the userbox affair. --Tony Sidaway 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, don't be coy about this. We both know you've been involved in a lot of the dispute about userboxes. Furthermore, I have no way of verifying that the users you are picking as "active" are users who are active to you, or are active in general. Using SQL would be a far better way. The other contentious point of your "survey" is that you designate "contentious" userboxes. You further define these as "political, religious, or <sp> polemical". However, I'm not sure how you would be objectively defining these characteristics. This has been the subject of some discussion on the DRV subsection regarding userboxes. In order to convey an objective trend, you really need to have metrics. And in order to have metrics, you need something like SQL. You can't present "evidence" which is solely "from what I've seen, the sky is blue." A photo is required. ... aa:talk 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being coy, I'm describing what I've done and telling you directly that I can't see how I could have been influenced by my personal bias. The "active" users are those who have edited since December 1. If you can write an SQL query to do this, please do so. I'll have a bit of a go at it myself and I'll publish the results if I get anywhere.

You compare what I've done to saying "from what I've seen, the sky is blue", but that really isn't true. You can go and verify what I've done, and see the user pages I haven't yet processed, for yourself. And you can go back through the history of the pages in question, and to my original watchlist dump, and see what I have done.

But I really don't think I can possibly be making so gross an error as to see very low takeup of (non-babel) userboxes where there is actually high takeup. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this is really all quite beside the point, isn't it? I assumed your data was going to show that only a small percentage of editors had userboxes of any kind. But now I see your point is that very few users have "contentious" userboxes (by some definition).

Now, if nobody used userboxes (and we didn't want anybody to), then WP:BEANS might be an argument for not talking about them at all on WP:USER. But if lots of people are using them, then giving them some guidance on how to use them non-divisively seems like a good idea, to help reduce the likelihood of another big long war like the one we've been fighting for the past month or two. Or are you arguing that mentioning (and discouraging) controversial userboxes is the wrong thing to do, that per WP:BEANS, people wouldn't otherwise think of using them? —Steve Summit (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have gotten the idea that lots of people are using userboxes. They're not. --Tony Sidaway 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many people are using userboxes, and I'd like to. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would I. To this purpose I have produced some lists above derived from my watchlist. Feel free to dive in and check which ones have edited recently and how many of those have userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that when I start checking, it's going to be with usernames culled from Special:Recentchanges. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable way to go about it. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero: #1 enemy to Wikipedia

Hi. May I inquire if you've seen this...? Perhaps I'll recieve an rfc next. :) -Zero^Talk 18:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't pretend to be able to work out what all that was about. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Momma says hi big boy! :) -Zero^Talk 19:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Commons:Administrators#Cool_Cat

Hi Tony. I was wondering if you might be able to comment on Cool Cat's suitability as an admin on Commons (RfA linked above). I noticed you commented on this as his mentor which was linked to in an oppose vote. This is quite worrying as it is extremely important that Commons respects the wishes of local projects and does not impose its will where it has none (which is, most places, copyright issues aside), and also that we do not alienate local project users and discourage them from using the Commons.

You can comment, if you like, on my talk page (en or commons). I'd appreciate your input. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

I want to appeal my case at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. It appears this is the procedure (based on everkings appeal) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll ask Everyking if he can help with procedure.

See his talk page. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi, I was wondering if you could tell me why I was banned from Rajput article. I didn't do "Sock puppets" I was not the "Only Hindu side" I simply protested against what I thought was a lot of injustice being comitted by an admin and I was banned, and that too being fairly new to this whole wiki thing.

I simply protested the fact that no one from the non-Hindu side was citing references and this was overlooked by the admin.

If you read my profile you'll understand why I am concerned, since the people writing the article now have no clue or depth in the topic. Please do reply

Sincerely, Dr. Sumer V.S. Chauhan Gorkhali 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I only announced the results of the case, as a clerk. If you think you have been wronged, you can put a message on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, or go directly to User:Jimbo Wales, who can modify or overturn Arbitration Committee rulings. If you need any help with this, please just ask me and (as a clerk) I can help you to get the evidence together. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused

I'm confused by how you've presented my trying to ensure that we're following the policies on verification and original research as "dicking around." I'll leave aside the incivility of the edit summary, and simply point to the Section head "Browbeating and intimidation in the deletion process" as causing me further confusion. Could you explain how these diffs, all of which show calm polite discussion, qualify for this heading? Further, what proposed findings are they meant to support?
brenneman ^{T}^{L} 00:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Committee will know what use to make of the evidence. --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

confused by a weird looking AFD

Hi, sorry to bother you, but you were an admin on an AFD on this topic before. The Wikipedia page Jessamyn_Charity_West (yes, that's the same person as me who edits Wikipedia sometimes too) had had a weird AFD put at the top of it that only links to the past AFD. This is by the same user who did the original AFD, the conclusion of which was obvious keeper So, I'm a little confused. I don't want to alter the AFD on this page, and yet it seems like there's something wrong with it. It doesn't go to the right place, it's the second in a row by the same user -- I might argue not in good faith, though I am not totally certain -- and it seems incomplete. I have written a message to both the instigator of the AFD and the major writer of the article, but have not heard back so I figured I'd try you. Any advice? Thanks for your time. Jessamyn 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does look odd. The editor in question, Lysol (talk · contribs), hasn't made a single edit on Wikipedia since October, 2005, when he nominated the same article for deletion.

I'll leave the AfD notice where it is for now, but will query it on Lysol's talk page and see if he responds. If he genuinely thinks we need another deletion discussion I don't see any major problem with that, but I don't think it's likely to be any more successful than the last one was. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence on your RFAr

Tony, in the evidence section on your RFAr you state that I have given testimony in bad faith.

While there is no reason to doubt that the ArbCom will be able to weigh all evidence properly I am not sure if your testimony is given in good faith. To help determine that you should explain why you take a mixtape to mean a "cheap tape put together for promotional purposes" when the accepted meaning of the word is "a compilation of existing work by a DJ". Pilatus 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary distinction is over whether the work is ephemeral and used for promotional purposes, or is commercial in nature and is available for retail sale through normal outlets. There is a secondary distinction here; Daddy V isn't just some random DJ, but a known past collaborator with Snoop Dogg. He and Snoop Dogg have here coproduced a commercial work available for retail. To write it off as a bootleg or mixtape simply because it's not produced as part of a mainstream record contract is misleading and, I feel, is artificially restricting our music coverage. You also misrepresented my attempt to produce a combined article about a number of works, claiming it was a recreation although the works had not at that time been deleted. I believe that this is further strong evidence of deliberate and calculated dishonesty. You have overstepped the line between disagreement and denigration. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Vick was under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy V. It was found that he used to have a website, which doesn't any longer. He is quite possibly a friend of Snoop Dogg and likely an amateur or semi-professional DJ, who sometimes produces tapes of his own work as a DJ, that is mixtapes - like OGTV2. The fact that there are no reviews of that CD and that it is so poorly available tells me that it was a small-scale bootleg. However, Daddy Vick or even the nature of OGTV2 isn't the issue here.

The issue is that you state in your evidence section that I assert that OGTV "was "a mixtape", meaning a cheap tape put together for promotional purposes", when in fact I use mixtape in its everyday meaning, that is a compilation of existing work by a DJ, Daddy Vick in this particular case.

No, I am not happy that you misrepresent my words here.

As far as your claim that Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes was not a re-creation goes, others have described this as "wikilawyering" that "just doesn't cut it". [14] I couldn't agree more. Pilatus 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting Daddy V as "an amateur or semi-professional DJ" when he has produced work with Snoop Dogg on his own label. You persist in describing this work as a "bootleg" when it's commercially available in reputable retail outlets.

The comment that you cite has no relevance to your false recreation allegation at all that I can see, It is a fact that I created a new article by merging information from articles under discussion. It is a fact that this article was wrongly speedied. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping red herrings left and right, aren't we? You should apologize for misrepresenting my statement. Pilatus 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cant even begin to understand what you mean there. However you do seem to be acting like someone who believes this nonsense, so I'll remove the accusation that you're deliberately misrepesenting the facts. You seem to be honestly confused. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain again what I mean. If you want to paraphrase my statement correctly you need to strike the phrase "meaning a cheap tape put together for promotional purpose" from your statement, because a mixtape is a compilation of existing work by a DJ. The article on mixtapes might be helpful here, specifically the fourth paragraph that starts with "A distinction should be drawn between a private mix tape ... and a public mix tape".

If however after this explanation you continue to maintain that I meant to say OGTV2 was a "cheap tape put together for promotional purpose" I must conclude that your testimony was given in bad faith. Pilatus 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now added a statement to your testimony stating that I might be "confused". [15] Could you elaborate in which regard I seem confused or what I might be confused about? Pilatus 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

Please read this. Jdavidb, katefan0, Ral315 and I are mentors on that article. There has been discussion on a workshop page we set up. That page is not to be unprotected until we decide it's to be unprotected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been mediating it for several months...and man...the activity level is at zero. What gives? Even I don't know.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Voice, it is not at 0. Read the post below. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your call Tony. Besides, the workshop page and it's talk page are edited every day. What angers me about this is that this is what it said on WP:PP

"# Neuro-linguistic programming (edit · talk · links · history · watch) It's being protected per decision of the mentors on the article (which would be me, Katefan0, Jdavidb and Ral315. If you want it unprotected, ask one of us and we will discuss it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)"

That's very clear. How hard would it have been for you to just ask one of us about it? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the level is not "zero"...but it would be accurate to say that it nearly is. Maybe I can talk to the parties to see why there is such silence.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind...the workshop talk get a good deal of discussion.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki. Don't be angry. Put yourself in my shoes. Here are people who call themselves "mentors" but refer to no mentorship agreement, who have left an article protected for weeks and weeks so that nobody can edit it.

Now you're right, having read the arbitration decision I see that I have no say in the matter, the Committee has given you a free hand. You know my opinion, even the words that I have not said, but I won't interfere any more. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Tony seemed to just miss the arbcom, and it is easy to miss the history on this huge site, it would be best to forget this and move on. The workshop version really needs work...I'll have to head down there.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic's bible

I just think we need to keep it protected until the Gastrich arbcom case is complete. Otherwise, it's extremely open to abuse. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Gastrich is about to be banned from that article if the arbcom goes through. I just think it's too open for abuse to have it unprotected. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the arbitration case has to do with this. If he fucks about with it, block him. --Tony Sidaway 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to Kf

I'm trying to learn from my wiser if not older fellow Wikipedians. I continue to be impressed by the understatement of your approach in these matters. I'd need to be heavily xanax'd to be so kind and understanding as you are about these egregious thrusts at our newest. I'm thinking back at my first confusing and overwhelming days here am damned glad that I wasn't received that way but this way instead. It's a bell that would have been difficult to unring. I realize that you're being patient here but I can't help to think of the many with whom he isn't being patient. I'll hold off for now and bow to your experience in these matters but his list of bad faith welcomes will need to be addressed. hydnjo talk 03:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see how he responds. In some of his later messages he seemed to indicate that he's considering departure, but I don't think that is likely to happen. I think that he must stop poisoning newcomers like this, and I don't rule out the possibility that he'll stop voluntarily. If not, he may have to be persuaded to stop. --Tony Sidaway 04:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of attitude is exactly why i've been doing what i've been doing, and is far more "poisonous" than me warning newcomers about indescretions and hypocrisy from people such as yourself. Karmafist 11:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, I'm just watching as a learing experience for future interactions. hydnjo talk 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, although I'm also glad to see you taking a try at discussing things with Karmafist, I fear you're likely to hit the same impasse with him that I have. I have no idea what to do if he declines to stop; well, actually I do have some ideas, but it will be ugly and confirm everything he already appears to believe. -- SCZenz 05:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection periods

I'm too angry to comment so I won't. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was uncalled for. Just look here and you'll see that I've done a lot of RFPP. Meanwhile I asked you a question. What harm will come to pass if we unprotect some of those articles? Remember, we can always reprotect if the problem comes back. --Tony Sidaway 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not going to comment. I've left RfPP and WP:PP so it's a moot point. Both are off of my watchlists. So whatever you want to do is fine, Tony. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to all of Tony's requests at WP:RfPP.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message

Yes, I absolutely would consider stopping, although a few things have to happen, most notability that the current climate of fear(I used Joeyramoney as an example there, he must have been scared out of his wits wiki-wise from the maelstrom he got himself caught up into), has to stop and a loosely structured system must be in place to fix all of the things I see in my Wikiphilosophies.

That's the funny thing i've found about perception. You seem to find my thoughts there to be crass and invocative, I find those to be personally honest and reciprocal of the current climate within metapedian issues. We both likely have the same intentions(that this is a good website and we want to help it), but we see that goal from two drastically different views.

I'll be around if you wish to discuss this more. As i've said with Senz about a dozen times now, i'm going to hold off on the welcomings until discussing things with Jimbo, and since I just had a chance to talk with him but didn't since I figured I had to collect my thoughts a bit more, I hope you can see that i'm in no rush. I'm kind of on a pseudo wiki break until then. Karmafist 13:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, One More Thing

Speaking of me mentioning Nineteen Eighty Four to Senz, the top of your page there reminds me of Newspeak, and also makes me think that you don't do much gardening. Karmafist 14:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we (I was José Carlos Mariátegui, remember?) decided you're going to take a few days off, in these stressful times, Karmafist. :( El_C 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers done

... and results placed in the evidence section as a subsection. Nothing anyone didn't expect, I feel. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban request.

The reason Ayn Rand was Protected is that LaszloWalrus edit-warred to remove the LGBT Opposition category. When you unprotected it, you made reference to a ruling that suggests the category belongs, so I went ahead and added it. Laszlow immediately reverted. I reverted his removal, reminding him of this ruling, but he reverted again. I do not want to edit war, but this guy just won't give up. I am asking that you ban him for longest reasonable period allowed. Alienus 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus's comments about me are distorted at best. He is the lone supporter of Ayn Rand's categorization in "LGBT rights opposition" against a consensus of eight or nine. He has issued threats and/or personal attacks against me and against other users he disagrees with, such as Billyjoekoepsel and RL0919, evident on the Ayn Rand article's talk page. I'm not saying that he should be banned necessarily (though frankly, II wouldn't mind), but I do want to correct his portrayal of me. LaszloWalrus 01:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm not going to ban anyone. But I think you should both settle your disagreements. I can't help you to decide whether the LGBT categories should remain, but I would suggest that in deciding this you might examine the question of whether Ayn Rand herself engaged in activities with a pro- or anti- LGBT slant. If she campaigned either way, or made public statements on the subject, then such categories probably do apply. If it's just a matter of private conversation and diary entries, then they almost certainly don't. If there are significant gay characters in her books (which I have not read) then their depiction may be seen as indicating her opinion on a subject, or at least what she thought would make her books saleable, but can hardly be taken as worthy of a category. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She has made public statements against homosexuals and against gay rights, which I've documented more than adequately (see Objectivism and homosexuality. Unfortunately, some people really, really, really like Rand, and they care more about her image than the truth. I'm going to make a formal request for a ban on the 3RR page now. Alienus 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Ayn Rand never made a statement against gay rights or about gay rights at all except to say that laws against homosexuality should be repealed, nor has Alienus documented otherwise. She expressed personal disproval of homosexuality, but not in a legal context. Further, Alienus has informed me that he will reject all of my edits out of hand and has demonstrated a willingness to ignore the strong consensus established opposing Ayn Rand's categorization as an opponent of LGBT rights. LaszloWalrus 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look, now that a ban is threatened, he's pretending to Talk. I have extensive quotes to show that Rand opposed homosexuality both personally and legally. Rand opposed not only gay rights but feminism and the entire sexual liberation movement as a whole. She spoke publicly, she wrote essays, she wrote books. She formed an organization that teaches people to vote for candidates who allow gays to be discriminated against. This is a no-brainer. Alienus 02:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to add insult, now he's edit-warring on Rodeo Drive, ignoring the fact that everyone else thinks his insertion of his pet architect is inappropriate. THIS GUY EDIT WARS AT THE DROP OF A HAT. Alienus 02:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you both to stop now. I want you both to resume discussion and remain civil. I shall block both of you if you continue with the behavior that has disrupted Ayn Rand. Objectivism and homosexuality and Rodeo Drive. Behave, both of you. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a crystal ball. You think I'd use it to make my millions on Wall Street, but instead I reserve it for predicting the outcome of Wikipedia disputes. Anyhow, my crystal ball tells me that under no condition will LaszloWalrus discuss this reasonably, and this will once again turn into an edit war. Prove me wrong. Alienus

It will only turn into an edit war if you and he continue to revert one another's edits. And please don't take my comment on Talk:Ayn Rand as a ruling. It was just an attempt to shed some light on the nature of categories.

Looking at Category:LGBT rights opposition now, I see that Objectivism and homosexuality is a member, and so anyone browsing that category would be drawn to the fact that a controversy exists. So it seems that Wikipedia does, at present, provide a reasonable coverage of this subject, and moreover it does so in a direct way by including a link to the article on the controversy in the appropriate category. The article on the controversy of course links to Ayn Rand. So it may not be a perfect outcome to either you or LaszloWalrus, but it just has to be better than me blocking you for behaving like so-and-sos. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony,

If you look at the talk page, you can see that I've been trying to mediate this. Things were (I thought) going very well—slowly, but well—while the page was protected. Two rather volatile contributors were forced to work with me and each other, on the Talk page; we were grinding out a good article. Now I will have to speak sharply to Al, though I am reluctant to do that. The real problem here, and why I bring this to your attention, is that Wikipedia rules DON'T deal well with edit wars. Your lifting of the ban was just what the current rule has in mind, but all it got us was flames. My suggestion, for a rules change and for this particular spat, is that the rules should allow long-term (a month or more) protection and assigned mediation. Let the editors fight (civilly) on the Talk page; only the mediator can change the article (where consensus has been reached), and (eventually) request unprotection. (I'd be glad to volunteer in this particular case, but it takes an admin, and I'm 'way too junior around here for that. Maybe some day.)

As a newbie, I have already stumbled across and ungodly number of edit wars. They look awful. I keep wondering, "Why didn't somebody do something about this?" I gather that the RfM process is very slow. Perhaps if the request triggered an automatic protect, it would cool things off a bit. This is less un-Wikipedian than it seems; other potential contributors would see the protection, controversy, and mediation flags on the talk page, and could try to contribute on the talk page.

In this particular case, I will start trying to put the pieces back together. I don't give it a snowball's chance, without protection.--TJ 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you were mediating, the Ayn Rand article couldn't be edited. That's fine for a few days, maybe even a week, if the editors in question have no self control. But this was a case where protection ran for over two weeks, and the warring continued in any case on Objectivism and homosexuality, which was also protected, and meanwhile a row broke out on a completely unconnected article Rodeo Drive, on an entirely different subject. It was clear therefore that the problem lay with two editors who seem to believe that they have an intrinsic right to edit war.

Two weeks of protection, and mediation, had not brought them to the point of recognising that they don't. I've unprotected both protected articles, they resumed edit warring, and I blocked them for a short period, three hours each, to remind them that they're not allowed to act so badly on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your area of expertise

Hi. I'm attempting to insert some inforation into the Briton article, and I'm somewhat at an quandry regarding the source subject. I'd like it if you could contibute to the conversation here. -Zero^Talk 11:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to sound so enclosed in my query. Please see my comment and take note. I did not state it was something that's done religiously, simply something I believe that's fairly common practice around the culture. I understand that its not correct to make an accusatory statemtent of the entire culture, but it is somewhat common. I'm positive Tony has engaged in Tea time on many occasion. -Zero^Talk 15:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sie zeigen noch immer seinen Erwartungen und Illusionen. I drink Kaffee ohne Zucker und Sahne, usually as Frühstück. Yo soy hijo de Europa, with thousands of years of history, and I dislike the style of tea-making that is commonly tolerated in Britain, using altogether the wrong kind of tea to produce an indifferent beverage which is often stale and so saturated with tannin as to be more suitable for curing leather than drinking. I sometimes drink Chinese tea, which is relatively refreshing and always palatable sans lait et sucre. --Tony Sidaway 00:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ich bin eine Reploid, so Ich gëfalle energy crstyals essen. Ich trinke motor oil für die morgen und plasma in der nächmittag. I tend to dislike the motor oil and reploid food in Germany where I am at, and so I attempt to eat japanese-served whenever possible. -Zero^Talk 02:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also posted an query on Talk:Crumpet. I intend to contribute to british articles more often in the future, and your masterful expertise in the subject would be appreciated. -Zero^Talk 07:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and personal abuse

Hi, sorry to bring trouble, but -- well, I know that this is pathetic more than anything else, and so I ignored the personal abuse, but maybe you will have something to say on the summary removal of the copyvio notice (held by atleast one admin to be valid) which I had put up on Rathore? It was removed by Shivraj Singh with the assertion that "Website pointed to by Impumozhi was not looked at or borrowed from in creating rathore genealogy". I did register the copyvio here, but the entry was removed, although what I identified was not "raw data" but a formatted family tree table.

I bring this up now because this matter has been causing me to be repeatedly heckled (here and here) by User:Stephanian, a 2-day-old (but very expert) editor and a supposed alumnus of StStephan’s college; can you please take a view on that matter as well?

Also, if you read the evidence (including links) provided by SS as proof of my "lying", then my own efforts in writing the first portion will have found an audience :) Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks rather odd. I'm investigating this. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Lock

I am of course for removing the page lock - there are many I know who would like to contribute there, especially in light of recent suggestions - but I fear that without an agreement from both parties the page will be returning to its 'business as usual' of stall, stamp and revert page appropriation. This is a cycle that has been going on since months now and has been a great waste of time to all: I do not want this to begin again, so if there is no agreement I think this situation needs mediation, and this preferably by parties knowledgable about Paris and its real workings. Thanks for asking. THEPROMENADER 23:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had originally answered you on my own talk page - perahps could we continue this conversation here or there? THEPROMENADER 07:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I've just noticed that it was in fact two days ago you wrote your message - I would have gotten back to you sooner but I am always very busy this time of year. Sorry. Things are much calmer now. THEPROMENADER 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

Hmm, I noticed the above discussion with Cool Cat. With so many subpages, maybe this could be a good userpage, rather than the redirect:

(fake disambiguation removed)

Plus all the others. :) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I just had to trim that. It looks horrible and it freaks me out. --Tony Sidaway 12:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, Tony. Why did it freak you out? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 18:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ugly typography and the bogus visual cues provided by the boilerplate. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S

I didnt revert , I wrote a new aritlce. And pleasenot that El Lobo reverts as well. His reverts tend to remove pertenant informaiton, such as Critism, or the true nature of Acharya S's Credentials.

Removal of informaiton is Vandalism, so why is it that Im calle don reverting it?

I knwo everyone by now has bought the line that I have soem vendetta, I dont. I dotn care abotu Acharya S. I care abotu Wikipeida beign a netural and unbiased source for informaiton. If the aritlce is left ot stand as El Lbo and her other disiples will it, this will result int he end in a Propaganda peice for her, advasncign her books and ideas, with no content abotu her, and no critism abotu her work.

If El Lobo removes informaiton with the "SImple is better" line, what can be done? And is it not Vandlaism?

I didnt revert the aritlce last time, I rewrot it removugn the critims AND all tlak fo her ideas, stikcign to just known facts abotu Acharya S herself. But this will be caleld a Degradign of her and a persoanl attakc ( Een though noen exists) and you will see them replace it with a promotion fo hr two books.

This is not vandlaism?

ZAROVE 17:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now a color war?

Tony, what part of, do not reformat my statements did you not understand. I have my reasons for making a statement of that length, and for unifying it behind a separate color. Personally, I do not care whether you think it is appropriate. That I do and have the right of appearance in this forum suffices. Please revert your changes to my statement, they are disrespectful. StrangerInParadise 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki. In particular, WP:AN/I is a place for administrators to communicate. If your formatting is a mess for me, odds are that it's also a mess for other administrators. Please keep any ideosyncratic formatting to your userpage and post a link from WP:AN/I. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaat-e-Islami

I think Jamaat-e-Islami shoul remain protested. I think there be another edit/revert by many people.

Siddiqui 17:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jahbulon Protection

All sides agreed to have the page protected untill mediation starts and posted the request on the appropriate page. Please replace the protection untill then. It is impossible to reach any compromise on the topic as it stands now. 2 RFC's have been filed yet nobody responded to them so we decided to go the mediation route. One group wants large chunks of information removed from the article and to turn the article back into a {{wi}} others of us are against it since an AFD already showed people feel it deserves an article. No consensus will beable to be reached.

Like I said it was a requested lock (by both sides) please re-add it untill we get a mediator assigned. Our case has already been accepted however there is apparently a huge backlog. Seraphim 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider restoring protection if things get out of hand, but just because you can't agree on the content of the article, doesn't mean we must stop the wiki until you reach agreement. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be re-added. It is impossible to make any constructive edits to the article. Every single edit will result in a revert war. One group has decided the word doesn't deserve an article so they are blanking sections in an attempt to set the page up for deletion. The lock was agreed upon by all editors of the page untill the mediation starts, removing it is just going to create problems since our enforced cease-fire is being taken away. It's not a content issue we cannot agree upon, it is if the article itself should exist at all, the editors who want the page deleted have realized that AFD's on the article fail so they are and have publically announced that they are going to remove any information that make the article more then a dictionary defination. It's not a content issue it's a censorship issue. The page needs to be locked, it's not a question as to if things will get out of hand, it's a matter of hours. Seraphim 18:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the mediation case: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jahbulon. There are only three parties. As long as all three of you are agreed that you won't edit the article until the end of the mediation, I don't see why it needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an enforced cease-fire. What i'm afraid of happening is someone from outside making a single edit and then everyone jumping in. You cannot grasp all the issues on the page since there are so many levels going on, it's not your fault, it's just that the topic is extremely contravercial and the fact that some editors have actually sworn oaths to protect masonic secrets and not discuss them with non-masons, this group now wants the jahbulon page deleted and refuse to adknowledge that the word is notable even though an AFD failed. We have agreed to protection and requested it as a forced cease fire as we are entitled to do please place it back. Seraphim 18:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in capitulation to enforced cease fires. If you have agreed not to edit the article pending mediation, then don't edit it. That's between you and the two other parties to the mediation. Don't try to hold other editors bound by your own agreements. I'll protect if and only if the circumstances warrant protection. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose

everytime it is unprotected the person who protected it in the first place reprotects it, and this seems to be not the way to do things here on wikipedia. there is information contained in the blocked version that has been substantiatedx by articles and referenced repeatedly, but user:Will beback continues to block any and all who try to edit the article in a different manner than that of his opinion. this is disturbing on a number of levels, but mostly because it is a direct abuse of his administrative powers. can you please refer me to a path that will help this article get the appropriate edits and open ended level of wikipedia inclusion? because if it will be a locked article i think it therefore qualifies for deletion from wikipedia, rather than a constant block..216.175.114.239 21:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a post from user:Jonah Ayers, who has been blocked permanently for personal attacks and harassment of editors. He has also made death threats against the subject of the article. -Will Beback 06:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony I need your comment

User_talk:Fadix#What_is_your_problem.3F

Do you need more evidences or do you get what I mean? This time I think he has gone REALLY far, and I know I should also be blamed because I have not reported him before, before he scrapped the Armenian Genocide entry, but I thought that this time around maybe a last chance for him and assume good faith. I will have to request stronger sanctions and I hope you won't oppose me. Fad (ix) 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Morven to investigate. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony PLEASE, this is so obvious, check Karabekir FIRST edits, check the tables he has created, check the expressions he has used proper to Coolcat. What investigation, you mean by IP? Like I told you, this might be good to use against vandals who don't know how to use open proxies, but given that Coolcat has already admited knowing how to creat aliases without being exposed what do you expect from an IP based investigation?

I agree that the editing pattern of Karabekir (talk · contribs) looks suspiciously like Cool Cat's zones of interest, the tone of voice is similar and the fellow is probably better English speaker than he wants us to think. What I'm trying to do is persuade you that the question of whether this fellow is a Cool Cat sock isn't that important except to Cool Cat, who isn't, in any case, banned from editing any article on Wikipedia at present. If this chap's edits are in themselves disruptive then we can deal with them as such and, unless Cool Cat then takes it upon himself to get involved in a disruptive way with the articles, the problem will be solved. If this chap isn't being disruptive, then that's good. Work with him. --Tony Sidaway 05:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix (talk · contribs)

I don't know what his problem is but he is screaming at me for whatever reason.

I am very busy dealing with my bot (I have a few infinite loops in my hands) so I hope you can sort this out. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat, like I said in my talkpage, this is your last chance to come clean, I will ask you to seriously reconsider denying it and check another time your contribution log and see how the times matches, I have accumulated expressions that only you uses, codes shames that only you uses(the tables your alter ego have created). I am ready to drope the cases if you come CLEAN, I swear I will open an arbitration cases if you don't. Fad (ix) 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it is HIM, there can be no doubt about this. Why are you protecting him without even requesting the evidences? Fad (ix) 04:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked him if he is using Karabekir as a sock. He says no. Fred Bauder has checked his edits and says it's very unlikely to be Cool Cat. If you have further evidence, present it. --Tony Sidaway 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, I will. Fad (ix) 16:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nussle

We've got an RFC going on here. I'm not sure if an RFC counts as discussion but FourthAve's behavior is why I requested protection. - Jaysus Chris 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a case for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 14:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been mostly quiet for a few days. If he behaves himself from now on I'm happy to let the issue rest. If anything new happens I might contact you about getting arbitration started. Thanks for your attention to this. - Jaysus Chris 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note at Talk:Neoconservatism

You wrote:

I can appreciate that some parties may want to undergo mediation in order to resolve their differences with one another, but I don't see why this should affect others who may wish to edit the article. I am unprotecting. Those who are interested in mediation know who they are and should probably refrain from potentially provocative edits. --Tony Sidaway 02:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Suppose, though, that a party awaiting mediation does make a potentially provocative edit. Would doing so repeatedly be grounds for arbitration? (Keep in mind that mediation is experiencing a backlog, so this wait may take a while.) I don't expect any party to do this; I just want to be clear. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 04:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently doing so might be grounds for escalating dispute resolution. But I think we should encourage people to treat one another with respect. Circling around an article daring one another to edit it just isn't conducive to respect. The problem addressed by mediation is not the content of the edits but the inability of, or refusal of, editors to work together. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McWhinney

Tony, please don't repeatedly undo my admin actions, particularly when I've specifically asked people to contact me before unprotecting a page. I don't write that for no reason. If you want to know why this page needs to be semi-protected, please e-mail me and I'll give you the details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so rude about this? And why so cryptic? Taking it to WP:RFPP. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was that rude? That strikes me as a rather cryptic accusation. El_C 13:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it is you who is being rude, and not for the first time. Take a look at your post directly above this one: " ... I think we should encourage people to treat one another with respect." It would be very helpful if you would start to practise what you preach. Undoing a blocking or protecting admin's actions without discussion is disrespectful, not to mention counter-productive, because they're likely to know more about the situation than you, and particularly so when they've explicitly left a note on WP:PP asking anyone who wants to unprotect to contact them first. [16]

I asked you above to e-mail me for more information, although I wonder why you can't simply look at the deleted edits yourself. Suffice to say that the article was created and is being used as part of a campaign of harassment against another editor, and semi-protection is therefore justified. As soon as protection has been lifted in the past, it has started up again almost immediately. If you want me to see any more of your comments, please leave them on my talk page or e-mail me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the deleted edits myself. That was one of the first things I did when investigating the article prior to unprotection. Again I ask you: why are you being so rude? This is a routine unprotection. You have to learn to let go. The article was unprotected for seven hours and there had been no vandalism and yet you semiprotected. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "we"? You don't decide how things are done on Wikipedia, Tony. That's an attitude that causes an awful lot of trouble. I see you've at last e-mailed me to request more information, so I'll forward it as soon as I'm able to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is Wikipedia. Read the semiprotection policy and do, please stop lecturing me. Just read it. --Tony Sidaway 15:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, if you feel Tony's actions were inappropriate here, you might want to drop a note at the workshop or evidence pages for Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway. In any event, I urge both of you not to wheel war over this - you have each reversed each other once, and there's really no reason to. Please consider involving other administrators to assist you in working out your dispute. Nandesuka 15:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all that. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be "lectured," Tony, then stop lecturing other people and stop going through the encyclopedia looking for opportunities to undo admins' actions, which is what you seem to spend your time here doing. You've turned into Wikipedia's worst wheel warrior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to ask again: why are you so persistently rude? My mailbox waits the information you promised to send me. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have e-mailed the information to both your e-mail addresses. Well done, by the way. You've now drawn attention to the situation at WP:RfPP and as a result there's an AfD. My idea was to handle it by e-mail and after a couple of weeks, if the nonsense started up again, to discuss it discreetly with the Foundation. You're like a bull in a china shop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening of poll

Tony there was a closure date. You can find it right here Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Poll. It has been there for days. Please revert yourself.--God Ω War 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me the closure date? I do not see it. As I recall, this was an informal poll opened by Doc Glasgow. It should always be left open, unless for instance Jimbo decides to declare it closed. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Khwarizmi

You called the dispute regarding al-Khwarizmi's etnicity relatively trivial, so I would like to challenge you to mediate. Cheers, —Ruud 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's necessary. There is room on this wiki for differences of opinion. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you think that mediation would limit the space available? —Ruud 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be waste of both our times because the difference of opinion is tightly circumscribed and so is our available time. There are many more important things, and I can't imagine a circumstance in which our difference of opinion would disrupt Wikipedia or cause either of us any pain. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence page

I have started my evidence page here and will be filling them in the upcomming days before opening an arbitration cases. User:Fadix/evidencepage

And his upcomming probably refers to his homosexuality.

why

--FourthAve 07:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,019: / Line 1,019: @@
 I have started my evidence page here and will be filling them in the upcomming days before opening an arbitration cases.
 [[User:Fadix/evidencepage]]
+And his upcomming probably refers to his homosexuality.
 ==why==
 --[[User:FourthAve|FourthAve]] 07:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)