User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

replied

[1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Storeys

Hi, I feel bad about that Torchwood edit. I need to get more versed in British English.. Thank you for reverting it, have a nice day! Also, please reply on my talk page if you want.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciated the response you wrote; I feel you've been doing a great job with Torchwood as well.. Again, have a nice day! Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 02:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User talk:Winona Gone Shopping

You might want to have a look or comment on this. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to WP:AN/I

Regarding this

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Navou ^banter 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. First my apologies are due to you if you felt I was being offensive in any way. Secondly (and please don't misunderstand me, I don't intend to compound any harm I might have done) as far as I'm aware I'm not engaging in personal attacks, incivility, or anything of the sort. If you could clarify the context in which you think that my words could be construed as a personal attack, that would help, and I'll tender a more complete apology if you can help me to see what I'm doing that is offensive. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In the context that I routinely close discussions there.

"...had anything to do with those nasty little lynching mobs that sometimes form on pages like Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard."

Your comment has a broad target as it does not target any one particular editor, instead, it regards the entire page, and its participants. Are you talking about some participants, or all of them. Are you including me, or not. I don't know, but calling participants "nasty little lynching mobs" is offensive. Sometimes we do not realize every context a statement applies to, especially when applying it to an editor. I just wanted to politly point this out to you. Regards, Navou ^banter 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much talking about the participants (who each have their own opinions) but the effect of having such a page and running it as a forum for, effectively, lynch mobs. If the page were run more soberly, for instance, and bare "endorses" deprecated and perhaps ignored, then it might serve as a record of discussions. I full understand why it's better to have such discussions in a place other than the former venue, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. However discussions on that venue tended to be meaningful and not these silly voting sessions, which I think in the context of a perpetual ban sends a very, very wrong message about how we make decisions on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lynchmobs are sometimes an outcome of a desire for justice, Tony. I wish you and Dave Gerard would not indulge yourself so often in dismissing community sentiment in such strong terms, simply because it doesn't accord with your own views. Often people are expressing that "something should be done" in the only way they feel empowered to. Try to take that into account. Grace Note 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen too many "bare endorses" on WP:CSN. For the most part, the discussions seem to be appropriately run. I'm not sure which specific discussions you're referring to, but I haven't seen a "lynch mob mentality" there. I'd be interested to see some examples of what concerns you about this. Crotalus horridus 05:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dmcdevit put it well in the pitchfork affair that resulted from the Klinkerhofen ban:

This is not a vote. Please don't bold your opinions, or, indeed, use binary buzzwords like "endorse." This is a discussion: discuss. Give a rationale for your opinion. If you are just piling-on, really, there is no need. We have an admin that used his discretion as he should, and is asking if anyone objects. If no one objects, then we have no problem, and we have no reason to could how many people agree with him. If there is an objection, then the job of those that do agree is to respond to the reasons given in the objection. Still not a numbers game. Ideally, if the objections can be addressed to the community's satisfaction, then the admin's action is fine, if not, it isn't. Dmcdevit·t 09:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem we've had with community ban discussions ever since, in the middle of the relatively sedate discussion on WP:AN, someone said somehting like "ZOMG! We need to involve The Community!" as if "admins" and "community" were Eloi and Morlocks living separate lives on Wikipedia. The new forum seems to have attracted the wrong kind of discussion, possibly the wrong kind of Wikipedian, and sadly for very unwikipedian reasons. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding CSN

Greetings again. I am sorry to bother you again, but I have restored this. I have left comments on the talk page of CSN. Please feel free to comment there if you like. Warm regards, Navou 02:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand yet what community ban means. It means that nobody will unblock. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not my point. Extended rationale of my point is on the talk page. Regards, Navou 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't make sense of your comment. Please feel free to unblock the editor if you think he should be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I am not being clear. It is sometimes difficult in the text based arena. I offer no opinion on whether or not this editor should or should not be blocked. Also, I do not have the ability to block or unblock directly. I have left a comment on that discussion at CN and the talk of CN. It might be clearer upon review of those areas. Navou 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear at all. Either this fellow is indefinitely blocked or he isn't. If he's unblocked he won't be banned. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I understand the ban policy states that, and in the following sentence it states

"Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and should submit the block for review at a relevant noticeboard."

Is this what the blocking administrator was doing by listing at CSN? Navou 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, he seems to be sorting this nonsense out at written policy level. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Khachkar destruction

Hi Tony. With regard to those two articles, we had 2 RfCs on Khachkar destruction, and both resulted with keep. See: [2] [3] The admins warned not to move or delete or renominate the article until June. [4] The article Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan was created after the 2 RfCs ended as a fork to suppress information about destruction of khachkars in Armenia. So it should have been redirected the other way around. Please reconsider the move with account to the request of admins not to move or redirect Khachkar destruction article and 2 RfCs. Regards. Grandmaster 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is information in the one article that isn't in the other, add that information to the other. --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan was created on purpose to make impossible adding any information about destruction elswhere. The consensus of the community was to keep the article at Khachkar destruction, and it was voted twice. I think that the results of RfCs cannot be ignored. Grandmaster 04:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Change it around if you like. Redirect Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan to Khachkar destruction. However keeping the article forked is not an option. --Tony Sidaway 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to do it myself, as it would be instantly reverted, plus I'm on revert parole like most of Azerbaijani and Armenian editors due to arbcom decision. I would prefer if someone else did it. Just note again that Khachkar destruction cannot be made a redirect because of the 2 RfCs. Grandmaster 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "Khachkar destruction cannot be made a redirect because of the 2 RfCs. " Could you explain this? --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I mean this: [5] Richard Cavell, who was closing admin for the RFCs, said inter alia: I resolve that this article should be kept in its current form. Editors may continue to edit, but please do not delete it, redirect it, or edit it such that it changes character from its present form. I appreciate that this decision is not going to please anybody, but any decision that I make has to take every view into account and will not please everybody. As an administrator I feel a need to provide some finality to this, and I've tried my best to collate the opinions of editors and administrators. I'm removing this page's protection. Please don't redirect the article or nominate it for deletion until 1 June 2007. I think that his opinion cannot be ignored. Looks like Marchall succeeded in deleting this article by creating a POV fork for it, but that’s not the way it should be. Grandmaster 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as he purported to order that the article should not be redirected, boldly edited, or deleted in the future Richard grossly exceeded his brief as the closing administrator of a deletion discussion. --Tony Sidaway 05:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no authority to challenge his decision. Plus, I don't think we can delete the article after 2 RfCs, so he kind of has a good point. Also, Khachkar destruction in Nakhichevan was clearly created as a fork, and I don't think that people who created it would agree to its deletion. Someone should make a final decision here. Grandmaster 05:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that we have another identical article here: Julfa,_Azerbaijan_(city) I don’t know what the point in creation of so many article on the same topic is, but I think it should be limited to 1 article to avoid repetition. Grandmaster 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)