Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tony Sidaway

Sidaway civility sanction: actionrequired

Tony Sidaway (RegenerateThis (talk · contribs)) is under a civility sanction, as see here. I believe this constitutes a gross personal attack on Alecmconroy and he shoudl be blco0ked. I asked him to refactor, pointingout the sanction but his response was "If you really believe it's a blockable offence to say that we should ban the Wikipedia Review trolls, block me. --Jenny 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)" [1]. Since I am hardly uninvolved gven that that is a case I am a party to, can someone else please take a look. Viridae^Talk 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's merely expressing his opinion, and in my opinion it's Tony who is frequently being personally attacked (not by you V, just in general.) I'm a contributor to WR and have never had much to do with Tony so I've got no reason to back him up, except that I think people are being nasty to him, and some of the comments have been a form of discrimination. Sticky Parkin 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Block for review

I've blocked Tony Sidaway for 23 hours for the comment "If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses. --Jenny 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)" a clear violation of his editing restrictions. - brenneman 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It lasted all of 2 minuutes. Phil sandifer needs to respond here as to why he thinks you aren't an appropriate person. Viridae^Talk 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron has been heavily involved with the arb case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's already been lifted. Anyway, he has no editing restrictions against him so there was no need for this block, espeically without warning. It's not incivil as he's not aiming the comment at any particular person - I think it's more of his thoughts on peoople who participate in attack sites rather than a personal attack. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was under a civility sanction, per Viridae's link? Anyway, it was probably technically an acceptable block, but can't we just ignore Tony rather than goading him? He holds an unreasonable set of views, but I don't think it's helpful to press him on those views until he explodes - better to ignore them and have faith that he's not convincing anybody, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an acceptable block. And yes that is with the sanction considered. It's blocks like this over "uncivil" comments like that, that lead to the driving away of editors from this site. Beam 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who was called a "piece of shit" by his comments, I feel that they were uncivil. I'm quite happy to turn the other cheek, given the source, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that that's a civil descriptor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of dogs at WR, and plenty here too. That doesn't make us all flea-infested. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan please review the link Viridae provided at the top. He is under a restriction that he voluntarily (sort of) aggreed to in order not to have a formal one from the recent irc arbcom case. I would also like to appolgize if any of my comments to tony pushed him towards making the ill advised statements. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not an acceptable civility sanction for requesting blocks - it's a self imposed sanction, it has no weight within WP:BLOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Ryan that self imposed sanction is the only reason he didn't get one imposed by arbcom. Viridae^Talk 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He didn't make any uncivil comments! Beam

ummm, he said that everyone involved with the troll site wikipedia review should be blocked like the piece of shit they are. sounds a lot like uncivil comments about editors in good standing to me. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the comment from "jenny" he is referring to the trolls from that troll site. I happen to agree that trolls are pieces of shit. Beam 01:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I have no strong opinions about the block. Tony has been around long enough that he knows very well what he's doing with incivility like that, and I'm perfectly willing to let him be a big boy and face the consequences. I'd just like to see a block of a long-time contributor and former admin go through totally above the board. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been edit conflicted 5 freaking times now and am getting pissed. There was no need to block even with a sanction in place. It's a sign of personal issues with the boy if you think that's uncivil Vir. Unblock him now, do not reblock him for those comments. Beam 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC) My first edit conflict, I was trying to ask Viri if maybe she linked the wrong thing. Then I was going to seriously ask for him to be unblocked by Aaron. Then I tried to tell Viri that Phil wouldn't have to explain anything considering it wasn't uncivil in the slightest. And now I post, without edit conflict I hope, to agree with Sarcastic. Beam 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious from Tony's comments on the case's evidence page and discussion page that he has named at least one editor who he is applying those words to (me). Nevertheless, I don't support the block. I think it is best to ignore him. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to state one more time: There was not ONE uncivil comment by Tony linked to in this section.' Not one uncivil comment whatsoever. Beam 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling people a piece of shit does nto come under your classifcation of uncivil????????? Viridae^Talk 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you not read the comment? He said anyone that admits using a troll site is a piece of shit. That's his opinion. That isn't uncivil. Beam 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, and can you add another question mark?????????????????????? Beam 00:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block, as the unblock reason has mostly been "someone else should do it". Well, as clerk of the case, I am appalled by that type of comment, as it makes the case a battleground. I have also notified FloNight of this thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. (Moved comment lest anyone think I'm in any way agreeing with Aaron's nonsense below.) Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Beam, I'm sorry that you feel calling someone "a piece of shit" is civil debate. Tony was reminded of the pseudo-voluntary civility sanctions against him. He choose to continue to behave inaapropiately. I've not been involved in the quasi-debate on the talk pages for some time, and my history with Tony is just that: History.

I'm unclear on Phil's reasoning that A) I'm too involved to block him, but B) He's just fine to unblock, without discussing it or taking part in the debate here.

This was a clear attack by Sidaway, and an even more transparent mis-use of adminstrator privledges by Snowspinner. Thank you for re-instating Jayvdb.

brenneman 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your history of bitter involvement with Tony is history, but the fact that I've had pleasant interactions with him makes my lifting of your block a "transparent mis-use of administrator privileges"? You're a funny guy, Aaron. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually disgusting when admins abuse "civility" policy to remove people they don't like, read below for more of my feelings on this abuse. Beam 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to flip any more kittens over this, but stating that people who admit to using a troll site are pieces of shit isn't uncivil, and the commonplace blocking of comments that are not uncivil, but may offend someone who apparently gets offended when it rains out ruins this project. Maybe I'm reading this comment wrong, I admit i'm not perfect (yet) but I know for a fact that "civility" is used way too often by admins to remove people they personally do not like from Wikipedia. I also know that nothing is more devastating than having an admin block you incorrectly, especially when it's obvious that admin doesn't like you. It actually sucks. Beam 00:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You stated before that calling someone a piece of shit is not uncivil because it is their opinion. I therefore think you are a f*%king wanker (not really) - just because it is an opinion does not make it either un-uncivil, or not a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV Viridae^Talk 00:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? Beam 01:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's ban Alison, Majorly, Giggy, Viridae, Sarcasticidealist, LaraLove, et al. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron: you should not have been the one to issue the block. I was shocked to see that you did. Yet, anyone who posts to a website Tony deems trollish in nature will automatically take offense to: first, being called a troll and second, a piece of shit. This is in fact a civility issue Beam. Synergy 01:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really buddy. Beam 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you spent more time reading things like WP:CIV you would admit when your wrong. Synergy 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More poor assumptions based on poor faith on your part. This is the 3rd time you've acted without good faith towards me. I have tried to look past your prior actions of arrogance against me and even reached out to try to let you know that I had moved past your prior faithless mannerisms. Again, I urge you to try to be friendly. I do not have a personal problem with you and do not know why you do towards me. No matter, I will still treat you with respect and good will regardless of you doing the same. Although it would be nice for a change. Beam 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't spot this thread bit and commented above, before I'd heard the 'piece of sh*t' comment. Yes, that's definitely out of line. Sticky Parkin 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suprised that we've taken "uninvolved" to this level. Tony has been steadily turning up the heat on the Arbitration pages for several days. he's been asked in no uncertain terms over an extended period of time to moderate his style of debate. He was warned by another admin immediatly prior to his offending post. Let us be utterly transparent here: Because Tony and I have argued in the past, literally years ago the meat of it, I'm not allowed to block him? Ever? Is that the consensus? - brenneman 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, yes. Beam 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, no. I would say that, for this specific block, in this specific context, and for that specific statement, you shouldn't. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let us unpack that, and have the discussion that we should have had before Tony was unblocked:

• Your claim above is that I was "heavily involved" in this case. I made one edit in the last 500 to the workshop. That was a fortnight ago. If there is any support for this position beyond Phil, I'm open to hearing it.
• You claim I should not have blocked "for that specific statement." Please explain how this statement is not a violation of Tony's editing sanctions.

brenneman 01:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your metric for involvement. And I think the statement is marginal. Incivility is a tricky "I know it when I see it" business. Yes, the comment was harshly worded. Then again, it was WR - a site that engaged in a game of "let's see if we can get Phil in trouble with the police" for no reason other than to cause me harm. And that isn't even a uniquely bad day for them. Given that, I find the comment troubling, but I'm also more hesitant about the degree to which it is actually damaging than you. As I said before the block was reinstated, I am not opposed to blocking for the comment. It is, to me, in a grey area. My objection is to you being the one to step into that grey area. This is a particularly big deal for blocking - had I seen the comment before I saw your block, I wouldn't have blocked for it. I'm sure many other admins also wouldn't have. But it only takes one admin who would to overrule all of the decisions not to. Given that, the standards for making the block need to be higher. In my opinion, you didn't meet those standards in this specific instance. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree that a comment has to be directed at an individual to be considered incivil. It doesn't matter if it's directed at a group, it's still incivil. So yes, I think this comment was indeed incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if WR isn't a troll site, he is saying that the TROLLS from that site (troll site or not) are pieces of shit. Trolls ARE pieces of shit. Beam 01:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch. - Mark 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony's wording seemed to imply an issue with anyone admitting to contributing there. Which is alot of editors and admins. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, subsequent discussion on his talk page suggests that he did not intend it that way. It may have been an infelicity in phrasing. But I think that, assuming good faith, one ought probably declare the comment OK if one is granting the premise that it's OK to call trolls pieces of shit. I am not sure that the community would back granting that premise, but given the treatment of some of the community (myself included) by said trolls, I have to say, I have a hard time being that upset about it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Then , if it isn't what he meant to say, let him withdraw the remark. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If he withdraws the comment, I'd be happy to endorse an unblock. seicer | talk | contribs 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Prolly get ECed but what the heck. Here's my theory on who can block and who can unblock...

• Brenny, you're too involved to make a block of Tony. You and he have sparred for years. You're fine to UNblock though.
• Phil, you're too involved to make an unblock of Tony. You and he have been buddies for years. You're fine to BLOCK though.

(see the principle? block your friends, that's not showing favouritism... unblock your enemies, that's not showing favouritism)... As for the comment itself: Beam, you are being completely disingenious when you say it was civil. Clearly Tony was attacking SOMEONE with it. Unless you're going to claim that he does not view anyone at all that posts at WR as a troll. Which beggars belief. The block is sound. Even if it weren't for Tony's sanction, it would be, because he's being disruptive. Jayvdb, thank you for stepping up to the plate and taking the block over. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• And I am also endorsing the block, given that there are numerous editors and administrators that post at WR. Calling the collective "pieces of shit" is uncalled for, and rather uncivil. The sanction is sound and the user was being disruptive. I'm going to close this, given that we are repeating the same comments over and over, and the consensus towards keeping the block (let's not wheel war over that). Nothing more to be said or done. seicer | talk | contribs 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I dispute the notion that Tony and I have been "buddies," or that this is a meaningful term. I have not had hostile interactions with him. I have at times had pleasant interactions with him. We don't hang out socially, talk outside of issues we both find ourselves dealing with on Wikipedia, or anything like that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with this block. This is a long-term contributor who's made substantive contributions to WP, and who was blocked by someone who'd been in conflict with him for a long time; that someone else took over the block doesn't make it any better. Also, we're not in kindergarten where the kiddies aren't allowed to say bad words. There are far worse things going on, including in this thread, than people saying "shit." SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you Slim, there are other, far worse things, going on... ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaning? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• STRONG DISAGREE WITH BLOCK - As SlimVirgin says, this isn't a children's chat forum. Beam 03:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's not a children's chat forum. Nor is it an Andrew Dice Clay concert. It's an encyclopedia. Comments made in the course of this project should be collegial, and should further it. Insulting wide swaths of folk does nothing to further the project, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Nor does heavy-handed nannying encourage honest opinion. WR is a nest of trolls: pointing out the reality of this shouldn't be causing cases of the vapors, nor should the opinion that enabling said trolls is a Bad Thing. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Name names, please? Is NewYorkBrad a troll? Is Alison a "piece of shit"? But more importantly, this BADSITES meme about WR is... well... dated. WR has lots of people that mean the project ill, but it is a source of ideas and suggestions about ways to improve the project. If you're willing to listen, that is. Lots of chaff? sure. Valueless? hardly. Get your head out of the sand. Calling names ain't how you do that.++Lar: t/c 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't compare NewYorkBrad to people who use Wikipedia to further that website's goals. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits

Who would those people be, exactly? Tony condemned every single poster there... I am naming people that Tony presumably meant to include in his sweepingly incivil remark. Depending on how you define the goals of WR, I suspect many of us "further" them. Including you, presumably. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not including me, no, but definitely including you. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the goal I was referring to was identifying problems with Wikipedia (that need correcting), and then working to correct them, I am happy to be included, and saddened that you don't consider yourself included... But perhaps that is the root of the problem here, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Break: checkuser

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Lar, back off. I've had enough of your insults, your misuse of checkuser, and your wild spinning when caught. Just back right off. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a pretty powerful accusation to put out there. Lar "misused" checkuser? Now you've gone and put it out there, and provided nothing to back it up. That's just smearing his reputation. Providing evidence will likely cause issues for innocent users, so what exactly did you hope to achieve in saying what you did here? - Alison ^❤ 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is anyone here who needs to back off, it would be you. You are making allegations that are quite unacceptable, and certainly are not relevant to this matter. Please withdraw them at once. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You and Alison know exactly what I'm talking about, and I will certainly not withdraw anything. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I do all right. The problem is that nobody else does - at least not until you brought it up and in doing so, you do a great disservice to our mutual friend. Please don't do that - Alison ^❤ 05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps other people ought to learn about it. And I wouldn't bank on our mutual friend not being as pissed off about it as I am. Please don't assume anything. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If this doesn't involve a privacy issue, then it should be openly discussed here so the rest of us can evaluate. If it does involve a privacy issue, then Alison I suggest you send a private email to the committee detailing the issue - if some user's privacy is being used as a pawn in this petty dispute, I would consider that to be a serious problem that the committee would want to know about. ATren (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go on, Alison; find out whether our mutual friend will regard these posts as being "used as a pawn." Or alternatively, long overdue. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm already more than aware, as are you. However, as I said, your bringing it up here is doing them a great disservice. You know this too, so please don't do that. To ATren, yes, ArbCom are fully aware of the circumstances (which don't involve me, BTW) and I really don't know what is to be achieved by bringing it up here and stirring drama - Alison ^❤ 06:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you would stop telling me what to do; no one is being done a great disservice here. As for ArbCom, they are aware of some of the circumstances, but perhaps not fully aware, and not formally, because none of us could be bothered making a complaint. I sense we ought to reconsider. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you're not a member of the Checkuser mailing list, nor of the ArbCom one, you're not privy to exactly who-knows-what ... right? If you bring an ArbCom case, especially given the impending date (do I really need to spell this out here??), you will bring much focus and publicity upon that person - something they really don't need right now. Go ask them, and please show a little consideration. This is the last comment I will make regarding this person, so over to you for the last word - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The only thing being "assumed" here, is incredibly bad faith by SlimVirgin, and before that, by Tony. Look. I've worked with SV a few months ago on an issue regarding OTRS, and everything went fine. However, it's extremely well-known that there is a grudge deep enough to fill the Mariana Trench between certain folks who post to Wikipedia Review, and SlimVirgin. That is what's fueling this discussion.

SlimVirgin sees nothing incivil about Tony calling people who post to WR "trolling pieces of shit", because she shares that opinion herself. SV, you need to get rid of your blind spot here. Your battles with people at WR is not more important then the encyclopedia. YOUR point of view does not subsume that of Wikipedia's. Your grudges are NOT Wikipedia's. Step back, Slim. Throwing wild accusations with no basis in fact isn't going to fly here. You are needlessly escalating an issue that cannot end well for you. SirFozzie (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Describing the situation with Wikipedia Review's stalking as a "grudge" between them and certain users will not do. They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included. I will not step back, and I am not making wild accusations. What I notice is that it is always — always — the same small group of people who turn up to these discussions in defence of WR. I could have written out a list of the editors in advance who would post here in that regard, and I don't think I'd have gotten a single one wrong. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"They have done their best to destroy some people's livelihoods, mine included." - and mine, indeed, and Brad's. But we still do our best over there. Yours and Tony's painting of every contributor there as some sort of troll or 'stalker' is disingenuous in the extreme and I feel obliged to respond here - Alison ^❤ 06:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How exactly did Wikipedia Review try to destroy your livelihood, Alison? You are one of their favorite admins. And I'd appreciate if you'd answer here, and not there. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not posting that here, or there. It's a police matter, it's ongoing, and you know it. It involves an ex-member of WP and WR, Daniel Brandt's doings regarding me, and said ex-member subsequently showing up repeatedly at my workplace. Pmail me if you really want to know the rest but I refuse to discuss it publicly in deference to my privacy and that of others. From a livelihood perspective, I'm still dealing with the matter at a corporate level. 'nuff said - Alison ^❤ 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Wikipedia Review. Heaven forfend that I find myself defending them here, but they have done nothing to threaten your livelihood. They have, however, tormented other editors, and you have helped them. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - can we get an "Oh, but that's different!" :) How can it be down to individuals when you want it to be, yet down to the collective when you see fit? That's ludicrous! - Alison ^❤ 06:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has threatened your livelihood. AMorrow harassed you, as he has harassed others. Daniel Brandt posted your name on his site, as he has done to dozens of others. Wikipedia Review, however, criticized Brandt for this; I recall no dissenting voices, because you and Lar are their favourite admins. There was no libel, nothing that would have caused you a problem with an employer, which is not to say that I am defending outing — I definitely don't — but compared to the way some others have been treated, you have been treated rather well, and I really wish you wouldn't imply otherwise, because you are one of the people who has used WR to criticize editors who are frequently attacked there (I'm thinking here of your criticism of MONGO).

Given the context of you and Lar being so popular there, I find it worrying that he used checkuser to check the locations of two admins who are often attacked there, and that you now turn up to defend him. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the above that you're not privy to all the facts. Indeed, you have no idea as to what goes on with my employer, etc. That's pure speculation on your part. Furthermore, you've revealed further privacy-related information and I've already said that I refuse to discuss the matter further. I refuse to discuss the matter further, so go take it up with the Ombudsman Commission - that's their job. Go complain about me, too, for all I care. I've nothing to hide nor fear. Spewing this on ANI works to nobody's benefit - not even yours. BTW - there were plenty of "dissenting voices" - quite a large amount, actually. Go check again and don't have me post diffs and quotes. As for, "compared to the way some others have been treated, you have been treated rather well" - have you any possible idea as to how offensive that statement is? Hey - let's compare harassments! Have you any possible idea as to how crass you sound right now?? - Alison ^❤ 07:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of privacy violations for repeating what you yourself have posted, and don't accuse me of "spewing." These are legitimate concerns that are held by a significant number of regular editors. You are (at the very least) lending legitimacy to a website that has seriously attacked several people in a way I hope will be dealt with by a court some day, so extensive and damaging has it been. You yourself used it to attack MONGO, who is one of the editors who's been treated very unfairly by them. Please imagine what it looks like when WR posts that it has a checkuser in its pocket (but "not the obvious one," they wrote, or words to that effect, which I assume was a reference to you), and shortly afterwards, I find that Lar has checkusered me and one other admin who is frequently attacked there. It doesn't look good, to put it mildly. And then you turn up to defend him, which doesn't exactly restore confidence. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

J'accuse, madam! :) Put it this way, I posted one comment regarding MONGO. I stated that I was annoyed regarding his behaviour, as indeed I was given that he did pretty much what you're doing now; indulging in a smear campaign. MONGO subsequently contacted me in private - go ask him - and asked that I never discuss him there again. I never did since, in deference to him. Go check that, too. Furthermore, WR posted no such thing about the "pocketed checkuser" - a WR member did, and (s)he was largely laughed at by the disbelieving regulars. And, yes, I'm sure you did assume it was me they were referring to ... but it wasn't. I just don't do that and your insinuations above really don't hold much water. Sorry! Regards "restoring confidence", well ... you never did have any confidence in me, so there is no "restore". Nighty-night! - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you posted one critical comment about MONGO or a thousand. For a checkuser to go to a website that has damaged so many Wikpedians, and to join in yet another hatefest about one of them is astonishing, and especially so when, as I recall, the reason you criticized him was because he had wondered out loud why you were given access to checkuser, given your association there. Are people really not allowed to question you without you attacking them on Wikipedia Review?

And if you read what I wrote, I did not assume it was you; as they said, it was "not the obvious one," or words to that effect. You were the "obvious one." And I recall no laughter about the idea of it. One member who is trusted there was able to confirm it, he said. But that is only the context of the checkuser misuse; regardless of that background, it was a fishing expedition, pure and simple, and that is clearly against policy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, may I suggest strikethroughs? Let's rise to our better selves. Durova^Charge! 07:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this, a "my harassment is worse than yours" competition? Well, as long as AMorrow didn't threaten her livelihood. Naerii 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we move on and discuss the block, rather than some unfounded allegations that have no relevance to the topic at hand? seicer | talk | contribs 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is directly relevant. It's about editors and admins who do the bidding of Wikipedia Review, or who act to further their attacks on editors. Lar used the checkuser tool against two admins who are regularly attacked there, including me. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Remind me again of how WR threatened your livelihood. I must have missed that thread. Naerii 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a thread; it's practically the entire website. I can just picture my next job interview:

Interviewer: So you're the duplicitous bitch who's paid by MI5 to edit Wikipedia, and as a sideline colludes with Stormfront to compile lists of Jews to be murdered, while singlehandedly putting innocent men in jail?

SlimVirgin: Erm, yes, that would be me.

Interviewer (loosening his tie and locking the door): And umm ... are you also the one who fantasizes about being raped, and who has sex with prospective employers to get jobs?

But no, they haven't threatened my livelihood at all. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, another WR regular (with 600 posts there) just blanked this thread, but it is directly relevant to the situation at hand. The issue is that this website has almost fallen into the hands of a very small number of regular troublemakers and their enablers, who report what they've achieved on WR, and who are assisted by two admins with checkuser, one of whom I know has misused it. As such, it's quite a serious matter. The question is whether anything can or should be done about it, or whether it's too late. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section because it is an almighty pissing contest that bears absoloutely no relevance to the issue of Tonýs block and contained an almighty number of bad faith accusations and insults from all sides. If someone uninvolved would like to archive the whol thing, that would be just marvelous. Viridae^Talk 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is directly relevant, as I said. Tony is pissed off about the number of trolls and their friends who seem to hang around here, as am I and many other editors; and I believe this was the context in which he made the comment he was blocked for. But what happens is that regular editors are reluctant to speak up, or can't be bothered, and I don't blame anyone for feeling that way. So the small vexatious group gets its own way time and again.

Viridae, you must stop involving yourself in protecting articles, blocking editors, and removing material that relates to Wikipedia Review, or that involves editors regularly attacked there. You've been asked this many times before. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If Viridae has a pro-WR COI as you seem to imply, so do you have an anti-WR COI. If Viridae recuses from such discussions, it would also be wise for you to disengage also. Equally, if you have concerns about possible Checkuser abuse there are appropriate avenues to complain through. AN/I is not one of them, especially when an accusation is made on a very tangential matter given this relates to a block of Mr Sidaway. A lot of this reads as nothing more than a technique I've noticed in a number of areas, especially RfCs; take the original topic, throw numerous other issues into the mix as a diversion meaning people lose track of what the original issue really was leading to unsatisfactory results - for everybody. Minkythecat (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This almighty pissing contest is achieving nothing at all. Removing this section was aimed at neither you or anyone else in paticular, but everyone who is commenting unconstructively. It is my strong belief that nothing at all good will come out of continuing this thread. My removal was neither a pro nor anti WR move (as is pretty obvious). Viridae^Talk 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What in God's name is this thread supposed to accomplish? You're all embarassing yourselves. The amount of ego on display here is sickening. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be worse. There's no Paris Hilton as yet... Minkythecat (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I am so ashamed we are able to go this low I considered removing this thread altogether and do everyone a service. Since I'm pretty sure I would be reverted as a troll in the minute, I'll just archive it. I hope you will have the decency to drop the matter and discuss it privately with the relevant instances (the ombudsman commission) instead of publicly calling each other names. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The particulars of this matter have remained private for some time, and I intend to keep them private to the best of my ability, even in the face of others disclosing them, because that's the right thing to do. Checkusers keep things private all the time. I prefer not to give any more detail about this matter than absolutely necessary, and I'm somewhat surprised Slim is raising it, since doing so may bring additional attention to it. Running a check is not "using the tool against" anyone, it's carrying out the duties of the role. In the matter Slim refers to, I carried out an investigation after something was brought to my attention. Checkusers do that all the time. After I ran the check, I raised the matter with other en:wp CUs to try to understand the results. Checkusers do that all the time. Upon review and consultation, the matter did not warrant further action on my part, and I kept it private. Checkusers do that all the time. That Slim is now raising this matter and revealing details that I and others had been keeping private, (in part to protect HER privacy), is in my view, not prudent on her part, if privacy is important. The matter has already been reviewed in detail, and has already been taken to the ombudsman commission. I welcome further review with the appropriate folk. Just as a note, the item brought to my attention to justify the requested check was shared with one of the ombudsmen as part of the previous investigation, who opined that the check was indeed justified, and that I did not overstep by performing it. The person requesting the check was told nothing of the results. Checkusers do that all the time, as well. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that this is an accurate précis and urge that the discussion cannot be continued in public for what I hope are obvious reasons. Indeed, I'm shocked that it was brought forward in this manner in the first place. Mackensen (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I was reading this extraordinary exchange among admins who I had previously thought were among the sterling leaders of the admin corps, I was reminded of this line from Blazing Saddles: "GET YOUR PIES FOR THE GREAT PIE FIGHT!" What is wrong with everyone? Did they all skip their Valium yesterday? Suddenly Betacommand doesn't seem like such a jerk - it seems like he fits right in. I am mightily depressed. >:( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Random break

NewYorkBrad is posting there right now, as it happens. Spot the inconsistency yet? Tony called him a 'piece of shit' - yes, he did! I think that about sums up the absurdity of the whole situation - Alison ^❤ 04:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Which goals are those, who establishes them, and where can I find a copy? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion: An obviously political block. For days now, people have been attacking Tony willy-nilly primarily for disagreeing with a particular political position. The chilling effect of a block like this is breathtaking. That an arbitration clerk blocks for one utterance while ignoring the constant attacks upon Tony is disappointing and could easily be interpreted as a lack of neutrality. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed concern about John Vandenburg's lack of neutrality in an e-mail correspondence with him when this case began. He seems clearly to have taken a "side" right from the start, which has included threatening to undelete my talk page, which contains some pretty heavy trolling and abuse, and allowing deleted and oversighted edits to be debated. I am worried that this has developed into the block of an established editor who takes an opposing view. I am minded to unblock. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't wheel war over this. He's been unblocked, then reblocked already. It's only a short block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't. Won't help anything. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - nobody is exempt from the rules here and I don't care how long he's been editing here. We don't have two sets of rules here ... do we? Anyone else here calling someone "pieces of shit" would have been blocked on the spot, most likely, and rightly so. Nor is it so much the word "shit" either, but also the entire painting of a very large, diverse group of people with that one brush. I thought we'd abolished that catch-all epithet; "Troll Enabler" - Alison ^❤ 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And you support constant attacks upon someone attempting to make legitimate arguments on an arbitration page? Incivility doesn't consist solely of harsh language. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. But then again, one does not imply the other, nor does the incivility of others grant them right to insult many, myself included. We all put up with trolling and incivility from many here, but not all of us lower ourselves to such invective - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You were quite happy that Piperdown be unblocked, even though he spent much of his life insulting me, and had made very few, if any, worthwhile contributions. Tony has contributed a great deal, so we should cut him some slack. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown's block was on the basis of sock-puppetry, and if memory serves Alison's support of the unblock was based on a belief that he wasn't actually a sockpuppet. I have no idea whether he was or he wasn't, but I don't think your characterization is helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the evidence and given that he was never actually a "WordBomb sock", I absolutely was "quite happy" the block was overturned. A bad block is a bad block, regardless. Furthermore, what's overlooked here (and overlooked by Tony in his "evidence") was that I spent a lot of time actually defending you over there. Care to see the diffs? I've plenty. Indeed, there was one incident where I got quite incensed with Piperdown over what he'd said about us; that was the unblock dealbreaker for me.[2] Remember? Given our .. umm ... past history and the fact that you still blame me for leaking mails from the Cyberstalking list (I never did), I'd say I've been more than fair here - Alison ^❤ 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I never do understand why blocking one party is appropriate, while leaving other users who've engaged in more problematic conduct (that just happens to be less black and white and more sophisticated) manage to get away without even a warning. But it isn't that everyone is unaware - some people see it. If the sysops who have spotted this problem did something about it (like giving a formal warning at least), I think the chilling effect would be less of an issue. *Hint hint nudge nudge* Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I support the block. While it's entirely possible to drift into gray areas of incivility during a heated discussion, calling other editors, easily identified (especially in the context of that conversation) "pieces of shit" is crossing a very bright, easily avoided line. Tony was given a chance to remove the comment and refused. I don't think whatever civility-sanction-like arrangements he was under really matter here: Any editor crossing a bright line like that and not self-correcting it needs an enforced vacation. It can be difficult enough trying to keep minds open and flexible in some of our discussions; it'll be impossible if we allow editors to sink into this kind of verbal abuse. The long-term contributor who's made substantive contributions element shouldn't be an ameliorating factor but an aggravating one. Noroton (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this is not solely about calling people "trolls" and "piece of shit". Tony suggested that we treat' [people] like the piece of shit. That is not the Wikipedia way. We look for the good in every edit. We calmly accept vandalism, and try to prevent it. We try to reform problem users. We do not encourage admins shouting obscenities on the talk pages of those vandals. We do not encourage retribution. We do not support people using Wikipedia as a forum to abuse the Wikipedia Review website. If there is a problem, we discuss the specifics. Wild hand waving and very broad brushes are not the Wikipedia way. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But you do support trolls and reviewers using Wikipedia to attack regular editors with smear campaigns. Your clerking of that case has helped turn it into a free-for-all that no one can make head or tail of. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That (the first sentence, specifically) is a hell of an accusation. Would you mind withdrawing it, in the spirit of WP:AGF? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Show me a diff where I support anyone using Wikipedia to attack regular editors with smear campaigns!

I did not have any part in arbcom accepting this case. On several occasions I have said I was unhappy with how little scope and definition they have given to the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You said several months ago that you would give up clerking the case if any ArbCom member felt you had crossed the line. A member has expressed concern here about your neutrality, so I hope you will consider allowing another clerk to take over. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I had reiterated this pledge to stand down from clerking at an arbs request at 5:12, and followed through with it at 5:22 as soon as I read that the arb requested that I resign as a clerk. My initials are still on the case, but I hope another clerk will replace that as soon as they figure out what to do. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is utterly wrong! --Dragon695 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Slim: I think John's clerking is not the main source of the problems with that case. I rather find it to be quite exemplary. I thought you said you weren't following it closely, though? (which, since a significant part of the case is about yourself, may not be a good approach...) ++Lar: t/c 05:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following it at all. As I said earlier, I took the pages off my watchlist when I saw how it was being clerked. Lar, why is it always you who pops up to attack WR targets or defend people who attack them? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lar pops up no matter what the situation. Death, taxes, Lar in a big thread. Could we please try to tone the paranoid histronics down a bit? --Badger Drink (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Think the block should be lifted. Tony made the mistake of interfering with the echo chamber in the ArbCom case, but he was definitely not the only one responsible for that environment. As noted in Tony's blocklog, apparently lots of people told him to "stfu". I assume there are warnings for the editors who kept doing that. I also disagree that there is any kind of consensus support for the block in this thread, if anything it appears that there might be a consensus to lift it. As such the thread archiving was definitely premature and could be viewed as self serving --esp. as it was archived by someone endorsing the block. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse the block. I don't usually get involved with this sort of thing, but I shave gotten somewhat exasperated by the continuing tolerance given to people who conduct Wikipedia discussions as a series of insults. The longer established they are, the more they should know to refrain. We have standards for politeness, and they apply to all. There can be a genuine dispute over the compatibility of editing at a particular website and editing here, but the one thing most certain to prevent a discussion and solution is the repeating and consistent use of gross impoliteness. It's time the civilized people here took a stand. How can we expect Wikipedia to be taken seriously if we discuss things without some consideration for politeness? DGG (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree with DGG about the hollow excuse of being a "long-time editor." At any rate, the comment was directed toward Cla68 if no one else. In context, he's referring to editors who post there. Uncivil, if anything is. Cool Hand Luke 03:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I've no opinion on whatever underlying issues there appear to be surrounding this "WR" website, except that this thread is rather silly and reflects badly on numerous administrators participating in it, but I definitively agree with DGG above.  Sandstein  10:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More dramaz. seicer | talk | contribs 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)}}

{{discussion top}}

It's problematic that's the thread has been archived by someone endorsing the block, also their closing note seems to (a.) reflect their view or (b.) facilitate it [i.e. (a.) "consensus is towards keeping the block in place," (b.) "nothing more can really be said or done in this thread"]. It would be better to, either let the discussion proceed to some sort of conclusion, or let it to be closed by someone who did not use bold "endorse" for the block (that should have been obvious to Seicer, that archiving threads should not be seen as a device to win debates). El_C 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

whoa nelly, steady on...

Both the debate two section above (and the stream of intersting emails I'm recieving!) are rapidly getting more personal than is helpful. There appears to be wide consensus that despite my feeling like I'd grown beyond the "brenneman VS sidaway" paradigm, there's enough history that I should not have blocked. I'm very happy to take that criticism on board, I appreciate those who have taken the time to express it constructivly.

Can we please re-focus debate on the block, and specifically on Tony's behaviour on the page in question. If others have behaved badly as well, that's fine to discuss after consensus has been reached on this block. But right now the discussion is heading rapidly south...

brenneman 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

So, when is he going to be unblocked? Some admins don't realize what a block does to an innocent user. It total perverts the project. As a trigger happy admin just ruined my reputation here recently, I can tell you how much it sucks. Beam 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry about Tony's reputation. He's a big boy and can take care of himself in that regard. The block itself is trivial. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He shouldn't be, the block is on solid ground. This is a serious project and people need to start acting like it. This may not be a children's chat forum, but it's not usenet either. If you can't be civil while talking to others then you need to take a step back. RxS (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"...it's not usenet either." Very appropriate, regarding both the subject of the topic and the topic at hand. This community is secondary to the function of the encyclopedia. This is not usenet, it is not Us vs. Them. It is not about GNAA, or 4chan, or WR, and battling the evil and defending the good. It is not about harassment or review. It is about the millions of page views a day that come from people just looking up a reference for something, without a clue as to the background. That is the point of Vandenburg's statement about what Tony said being antithesis to the wiki idea. We don't have monsters in the shadows and threads about something and about nothing. We have encyclopedia articles. Keegan^talk 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem here is that he's not an "innocent user", not given the evidence - Alison ^❤ 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And the big boy left the project in a cloud of dust over the minute block. Beam, assuming bad faith and nagging ANI about how unfair the block may be in your opinion is only washing down your viewpoints. We have heard you loud and clear. seicer | talk | contribs 05:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The block is trivial in the sense that it was against a userid that Tony took up and apparently has abandoned already, but it's serious in that it's a sign that what Tony did was not acceptable. The block was on solid ground. "If you can't be civil while talking to others then you need to take a step back. "... Just so, Rx. There is no consensus here to unblock that I can see. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the block to remain, in fact. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not need your agreement to be consensus, SV. SirFozzie (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, did I step into WikiNews by mistake? --Badger Drink (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to continue this block. Tony has apparently abandoned that account anyway, so there's little harm in unblocking. Why don't we take the path of least drama here and unblock. Besides, I think there's an AGF solution to this mess: perhaps Tony really meant that WR users help the project grow. Let's go with that interpretation and move on. ;-) ATren (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking the "path of least drama" just encourages the drama department to start up their antics whenever they want their way. I'm not a fan of the civility brigade, by any stretch, but Tony imposed the restriction himself - if you're going to make your bed, you should probably be prepared to lie in it at some point. --Badger Drink (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to be talking about extending this block, not undoing it. Speaking as someone who has been now been described, along with so many others, as a troll and a piece of shit, I feel 24 hours is pitifully weak as a response to such an appalling, vicious comment. Unless an apology is forthcoming, I would consider a week-long block appropriate under normal circumstances; in Tony's case, however, considering his long history of problematic behavior and absence of productive work, I think it is worth considering an indefinite block. Everyking (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with any block extension, 24 hours is preventative, and not punishment. SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

24 hours will only prevent Tony from making inflammatory comments and vexatious arguments for 24 hours. Moreover, he will probably just start a new account now, and his account-hopping is another thing that needs to stop. I think a much stronger response is needed to get him to stop this kind of behavior. This shouldn't be seen as solely about that one horrible comment—that comment is just the most egregious and recent example of Tony's bad behavior. Everyking (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be warned to pick one account and stick with it, should he come back. But anything more then 24 hours for this incident, as vulgar as he was, is punishment. SirFozzie (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"As vulgar as he was?" Come on, guys, we need to grow up. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm hypersensitive to civility issues, and I don't think I've ever used WP:CIVIL as a cudgel. But I do think that i. Tony called me a piece of shit and said that I should be treated accordingly, and ii. this was a flagrant violation of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Is there some part of that list with which you disagree, given your suggestion that we should grow up? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the manual states that my reply is supposed to be "You first, we'll follow". But let's go outside the manual at this point. Lets say someone referred to say.. Crum, or MONGO as "Trolling pieces of crap". Especially when this person is on a self-put civility parole to avoid an ArbCom one. You'd claim that it was a personal attack, etcetera, correct? I know you agree with him, you're just polite enough to say exactly that in public. SirFozzie (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony is capable of contributing in a positive manner. I support any solution that encourages him do so. He periodically pushes the boundry, and has refined brinksmanship to a level that makes me catch my breath in admiration. A more appropiate response would be leave this block stand, let him re-start whatever account he feels handy (I liked AOANLA, myself) with the understanding that he's expected to behave better. If he's not _aware_ when he's going to far, let us find someone whoooom he'll listen to when told. If he is aware, then simply indicating he's been given enough rope will suffice, hopefully. - brenneman 06:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My view is that he shouldn't be allowed to contribute again until he apologizes for that vicious comment. I read his talk page and saw that he stands behind his words 100%, however, so I think an indefinite block is the only appropriate response. Everyking (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can bring it up with your pals at WR. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Aaron's first two sentences is why I do not support any extension of the block. Hhis third sentence is why I do not support any unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, cannot agree with Everyking. Being blocked stinks, being blocked by someone you've tangled with before stink to high heaven. Probably even more so when you know they were right. Arcing up on your talk page (*snort* verminopedia? </tame>) when you're blocked is almost a contitutional right, and there's no point in paying attention to it. Punishing people who are pissed off and expressing it in the only way they are able is bad mojo. His comments on his talk page should not be used to further batter him - brenneman 06:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support an unblock, Tony is just trolling for attention as per usual. Hopefully if people will just learn to ignore his crap he'll go away. Naerii 06:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but it's a little too late for the "ignore his crap" solution. Leaving the block in place is the next best alternative. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's better to teach one person to behave than to expect a community to learn to live with that person's misbehavior, isn't it? Everyking (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing for me about Tony's comment wasn't a certain word being used. It was more the "treated like" aspect, which reflects an advocated pattern of behaviour. Minkythecat (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

EK, the thing is that the community also includes the people that are supporting Tony at every turn. If we can't force Tony to learn to behave (which is never going to happen as a) he's here to troll and b) he has too many friends that like to support him) then the only other option we have is to put up with it and ignore it. It's really not that hard. Just scrollll on by. Naerii 06:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC

One way or another, I don't care whether this particular block sticks. What's a few hours? Please don't wheel war about it: we have better things to do then embark upon another arbitration case. For weeks now I've been on the verge of opening threads at this board about Tony Sidaway, principally because of his conduct at the ArbCom RFC--not for his opinions (which he's welcome to hold and share) but for persistent brinksmanship: ride the hard edge of a policy one post short of a block, apologize, back off for a day, ride the hard edge of another, etc. Tony has been around long enough to know how it's done. He's also been around long enough to know better than to throw a pizza party for trolls, and by even the most generous assessment that's what he's done today. So let's stop buying bread sticks and rounds of beer for said trolls (whoever they may be) and handle this by the staid and sensible dispute resolution method known as user conduct RFC. It's overdue. Durova^Charge! 06:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note: Someone moved this thread to a sub-page. There is little consensus as to when - or if - threads should be moved to subpages (see, for example, the archives of WT:AN). I do not think that moving this thread to a sub-page would is beneficial, and so have undid the archiving. --Iamunknown 07:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Support leaving this here, so that we don't just get the same ppl commenting over and over... - brenneman 07:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

However, I'm not clear what purpose this thread is now serving. I'm feeling well rebuked, the block appears to be holding, other issues either should be or have already been escalated to the appropiate level. What are we discussing now? - brenneman 07:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think mostly Alison and SlimVirgin are having a bit of a spat with each other upthread, but apart from that no discussion is going on. Naerii 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

She can spat away to herself - it's heading for 1am here and I was in work until 5am this morning :) I suspect the followup in the morning will resume at RFAr ... - Alison ^❤ 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. To briefly comment what I've said elsewhere-- The basic question of the block is this: Does WP:CIVIL apply to Tony or not? In the middle of a dispute with other Wikipedians, he said "If anybody admits to involvement with [WR], treat him like the piece of shit that he is." He called other Wikipedians pieces of shit, end of story.

Do we want to have a project where that's acceptable or do we want to have a project where that's unacceptable. If people can do that without consequence, we might as well delete WP:CIVIL right now. It's really just a question of basic fairness.

This is a straightforward case of incivility. In my estimation, the only reason anyone would even think twice about whether Tony was engaging in personal attacks is because many people share his opinion about the WR folks (though thankfully, most don't share his incivility). --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The one word is meaningless. When reading such a comment, it's up to the reader to make a subjective evaluation of the credibility of the person making a claim. For me, the more offensive part is the "treat him like" clause, which appears to urge action to be taken. Indeed, that sinister element is slightly more McCarthy-esque. Minkythecat (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A comment on civility policy and the present case

The aim of a civility policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this:

• When people speak rudely, others tend to get defensive, feel attacked, and often over-react. Others get dragged in to the incipient drama to "defend" rather than to "resolve". It encourages "heat" and not "light" to do so. That's human nature.
• Most users here wish to contribute content. They see disputes as undesirable and an obstruction to that. When a dispute arises, it can poison the atmosphere or discourage or de-motivate other users as a result.
• People are realistic, they know there will be disagreement, often strongly. But seeing people behave like children and speaking in a rude offensive manner, may be demotivating. Especially, being spoken to that way can be.
• Politeness - as an affirmative choice - tends to hold the emotional temperature down. It helps disputes to be resolved calmer if people are not uptight and heated. It may not stop users misbehaving (eg civil edit warring) but a general policy of disallowing disrespectful speech will almost always have some positive effect.

Because speech is capable of shades and nuances, it is not possible to draw a line on what is going to have these effects. Sometimes the harm is explicit (a person gets visibly upset or provoked). Sometimes it is implicit or minor (someone gets stressed or discouraged or upset and we don't know about it). What we can all agree on is that avoiding these ways of speaking will have the best chance of avoiding their results. As a pragmatic measure, we have a communal agreement on this that in 7 years has not changed. If anyone feels we should not have a civility policy, and that consensus will support that view, then argue it there. Until then, civility as a policy stands.

We also have a dispute resolution process. These are basics for the project right now, so this should be familiar ground. Dispute resolution means we try a number of ways to resolve problems. If as a community we can't, and the problem is intractable, it may eventually be submitted by any user for Arbitration. The arbitration process is exactly what it says, and exactly what enforceable arbitration means in the "real world". Experienced users hear all sides and all evidence, and form a view on what is best or most appropriate going forward, and that decision by agreement is then binding on all those involved in the dispute.

Lastly, we do not operate an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST at dispute level, any more than at content level. The fact that some other user does or does not do something, never excuses a user doing so. At most it may raise an issue of fairness, that the other should have had their actions considered as well, or that provocation should be considered. But that can easily lead to "well he did this/no he did that" spirals. What is better is the simple rule, that each person is responsible for their own conduct. If they feel they have a cause for upset, they should be able to rely upon policies (including Wikipedia:Civility) and the community to help and if needed defend them, and not have to suffer barbs with no effective recourse, or see no deterrence to such behavior being enacted effectively by others.

That is basic.

Tony, for better or worse, has had his conduct considered at arbitration. The decision in the case was that he has a history of speaking rudely, uncivilly, or the like, which had to end, because of the explicit and implicit harm such styles of speech can do within the project. Therefore he was told any such speech would result in blocking.

I don't much care if Tony was talking about a specific person, or his comments might be construed as such. The aim of civility policy - and it is a policy - is to give editors recourse and protection against those whose manner of speech polarizes, negatively impacts, or poisons, the atmosphere. Whether OTHERSTUFFEXISTED or not, calling or labelling other people - whether specific or general - as "shits", or groups of people that some here will identify with, as "pieces of shit", is going to breach everything that civility policy is intended to achieve.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I take this as an endorse of the block. FT2, if that's not what was intended by your remarks, please correct me. ++Lar: t/c 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an un-endorsement of the conduct that Wikipedia:Civility is intended to cover, and a recap of the basics why we have such a policy, why it's a norm, what its intended function for the community is, and the like. Frankly the amount of time that goes into bickering and "were they/weren't they okay", when we might simply say "that was/wasn't okay but let's deal with it briefly and then get on with content development", is a waste and a tragedy. It's a complete distraction from the aims of this project. Every dispute that is about how an editor acts, rather than what an article should best look like, is wasted time, goodwill and energy. (We can't avoid them because 'anyone can edit', but we can each consider how best to minimize their disruption and impact, and avoid doing actions likely to incite them ourselves.) Every such dispute has the same top level decision - that's not what we're here for and anything/anyone fuelling the development of a difference over content into one of personality or conduct, is actively not helping the project. All such behaviors are best resolved by not doing them, or by requesting then to end, and if they persist, that is what administrators have their tools for, to enforce (fairly and after due warning) that they end. Users here are not in the everyday world of drama and bickering; they are expected to actively seek ways to work with others. Those other ways might be great off wiki; they might be good to get "status" elsewhere if that's what one cares about. They aren't how we do it here, even if provoked, even if it's what we'd do off-wiki, even if we bitterly disagree or find someone or something loathesome or grossly wrong. You don't do them here, whether it's Tony, a newcomer, an established user, an arbitrator, me, you, or anyone. That is what Wikipedia:Civility is saying. In 7 years not one edit to the contrary has made it into that policy by consensus to say "but sometimes it's okay to insult people we don't like or disagree with".

Endorsement? My endorsement is for people (and I don't care newest noob or most entrenched admin/arb) who choose to edit here, to hold themselves to conduct where they actively refrain from introducing unnecessary friction, of any kind, by any means, or enabling the escalation of any content matter or difference of opinion into energy-sapping conduct issues. That is what Wikipedia:Civility is about, not 20 users/admins arguing "was word X to person Y technically offensive".

Each editor (admin, arb, anyone)'s aim should be to see a project free of such, so they (and we all) can get on with adding content in a collaborative and productive manner that aids the project to develop, not get mired in distraction, or stall over idiotic internicine feuds, nor be willing to see them escalated to waste more users' goodwill, time, and energy in doing so. That is what dispute resolution means - to resolve disputes. And the best way to do so is that each editor here does their utmost to avoid them moving that way in the first (and second) place, no matter what, and always speak in a way that tries to foster these values. That is why some kinds of speech are not okay, because they can overtly or covertly impact on the community, its editors, their energy and motivation, and our content. It might not be how everyone acts in the wider world, but here between editors, according to a policy that has never been revoked, mitigated or overturned, it's expected.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a project of this size will always produce a side effect of emotion. And emotion is always most damaging when that person who is acting out believes they ARE RIGHT and that they are HELPING the project. You ask for some sort of world where people don't get emotional, you might need to start building robots or something. And with this as fact we should not consider someone saying something slightly harshly, or using cuss words, or adhering to WP:SPADE, or getting a smidge cynical, or the like as uncivil. That will ruin the project faster than any "incivility" could. Honestly. Beam 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tempting logic, but no. However big the project is, only one person controls your (my, Tony's anyones) words. Whether Wikipedia was a thousand users, or ten million, your choice of words would be unaffected by knowing how many other editors existed. Size doesn't come into it. Put bluntly, whether Wikipedia is small, or huge, Tony does not have the right to demand of other users, that they be okay with being called (labelled as, implied to be) "pieces of shit" on the wiki, and no user can reasonably imagine this will help the project. I cannot conceive a single way in which someone might ask "do you really think this will resolve the dispute, de-escalate the tensions, calm problems, or otherwise help the project" where anyone here would say "Yes! Let's call (label, imply) them pieces of shit!" is a feasible answer.

The purpose of the policy is not to outlaw words, but to outlaw known unhelpful manners of interaction. Whilst some leeway is given, this was an editor who has been formally told as an arbitrated decision "you're stepping over the line too easily, and that has to end, now", and was unable or unwilling in this instance to do so. The precise purpose of sanctions, blocking tools, warnings, and the like, and why they exist, is because indeed a degree of self-management is needed to edit. The same way as we expect neutrality and act if that is repeatedly not given, even though that too is not easy/normal for everyone. As said above, it might not be how everyone acts in the wider world, but here between editors, according to a policy that has never been revoked, mitigated or overturned, it's expected.

In the "real world" people may have bias, here they are expected to leave it at the door. Same thing. We do have expectations on personal and editorial conduct, it isn't an "anything goes" environment, and "I (you, me, him, Tony, whoever) seems incapable of meeting them" isn't an excuse after a while. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How does calling trolls pieces of shit hurt the project? It's true. I mean seriously, WP:SPADE may be the BEST guideline we have. Beam 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're making the same error that many have. This isn't about what A calls B. It's about the principles behind how editors interact. "How does it hurt the project" is four bullets at the very top of this sub-section, the very first thing.

"If it's true then I should be able to call them it" is a poisonous doctrine here. "If it's productive (helps the project, seeking to calm and help resolve the dispute, may help get us back to editing, clearly identifying specific editorial issues or policy breaching conduct they need to change, etc) is far the better guideline. What is seen as true, varies hugely. Arguing it in the terms you think of, will indeed have guaranteed effects over time, but not useful ones: Polarization. Divisiveness. Entrenchment. Defensiveness. Articles whose edits get decided because of alliances not content. Good users who see this as effort-draining idiocy and "not what they came here for", leaving.

You (me, him, anyone) don't have the "right" to poison the atmosphere, or to call people an insulting name because you believe it is "true", any more than you have the "right" to insert your own personal opinions or POV into an article or edit war or block others in a content dispute because you think it's "true". (And nor do they, it should be noted.) These are human nature, but not okay here, and that's the bottom line. If you (me, anyone) do, you should expect others to remonstrate, correct, explain - and ultimately warn, seek dispute resolution, use tools, or seek Arbitrated sanctions, to stop you. The aim of civility policy - and it is a policy, and has never been overturned or diminished - is precisely to give editors recourse and protection against those whose manner of speech polarizes, negatively impacts, or poisons, the atmosphere.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someon archive this whole thing?

Uninvolved preferably. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic now (I think a need a few more "a"s so you all get the scale of offtopicness). Viridae^Talk 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not archive it. Whenever anyone has tried, it has been undone. Allow the discussion to continue or peter out. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blanked your accusations against Lar. He is a named person, not a pseudonym. You cannot come here and make accusations without evidence. This is threatening his livelihood. I trust you, of all people, would be sensitive to such concerns, SV. This noticeboard is not for dispute resolution. If you have concerns about Lar's use of checkuser, please raise them in the appropriate forum, and provide suitable evidence. I would suggest emailing ArbCom directly. Jehochman ^Talk 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• A line needs to be drawn under this whole dispute. In the past, WR has engaged in egregious privacy violations, attacks, harassment, co-ordination of abuse of the project, proxy editing for banned users and sundry other undesirable acts. WR regulars, some of whom (e.g. Lar and Alison) are unquestionably good Wikipedians, have the view that it is a valid venue for holding Wikipedia to account. I say we test this. If the WR members who are also Wikipedians can influence the culture there such that banned users are restricted to simply grandstanding, rather than having Wikipedia admins take privileged actions on their behalf, and privacy violations and harassment (such as the fatuous SV meme) are made unwelcome, then there will be no problem. If they are unable to influence the rest of the WR community sufficiently to stop WR being a source of abuse, as it has in the past, rather than a challenger of abuse, as it claims to want to be, then they should leave. I would say three months should be sufficient to decide. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what you're basically saying is people who are WP/WR members, like say Alison, SirFozzie et al should what, control the small minority of WR members who step over the line or what exactly, Guy? leave WP? Leave WR? It's a ridiculous point to make. Individuals are responsible for their own behaviour, can't hold everyone accountable as a consequence unles you endorse collective punishment? Equally, yet again, this is deflecting from the point - Tony Sidaway's continued and persistent invility to others, regardless of which "gang" they belong to. Minkythecat (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that if they genuinely believe WR is a place that can improve Wikipedia, they need to work within the WR community to get it to self-regulate out the abuses which have happened in the past. If the rest of the WR community is unwilling to stop the abuses, then they should be left to their own devices and written off as a failed attempt, like Wikback. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as you'd agree the same general comments and principles apply to members of the WP community, that would certainly seem reasonable. Of course, a cynic would say that your proposal has zero chance of ever really working. People have minds, people are individuals; attempting to control their external activities is a silly request to make. Equating Wikback to WR is patently absurd. Minkythecat (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd not really consider Wikipedia needs to prove itself not to have evil intent in the way WR does. And yes, people have minds, and they need to use them. If you hang around with people who are engaging in unacceptable behaviour, and you do their bidding for them when they are banned, then you undermine your own credibility. It has been repeatedly asserted that WR can be a source for legitimate critique, which I am prepared to believe but thus far the only things I've seen there have been furthering vendettas and personalising of disputes; even those threads which have been suggested as documenting a problem are dominated by personal attacks rather than objective analysis. But let them show they mean it. If they genuinely want to be taken seriously as a place where Wikipedia can be held to account, rather than simply a grudge forum for people banned for good cause, then they need to work at it. Let them have a go. Alison and Lar and Fozzie are OK in my book, I accept their good faith, so let's see if they and others who claim to want WR to be of some objective value, can fix the culture there, or at least tot he extent where banned users don't get their content proxied and their admin requests handled. I don't hold out much hope of ever understanding the quite mad determination to link SlimVirgin to the CIA, but it seems fair to me to give those who claim that WR could be of benefit a chance to prove it, or at least demonstrate tangible progress towards that goal. And yes I am aware that this is of the character of a prayer offered to St. Rita of Cascia. Guy (Help!) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WP doesn't have evil intent. Guess what? Nor does WR. Individuals do - just like Tony, you've generalised. For every evil WR person, some pretty not nice WP people exist. Some admins, some Arbcoms. It happens. To cite the culture at WR is again somewhat of a false argument because there can exist a pretty caustic atmosphere in WP too. The actions and accusations thrown around over Mantanmoreland, for example. If you're generalising to a us/them style view, there were some pretty nasty things happening on both sides - can't recall too many apologies from either side. It's just a horrendously bad idea you're postulating. Going back to Mantanmoreland, if you truly believe " If you hang around with people who are engaging in unacceptable behaviour, and you do their bidding for them when they are banned, then you undermine your own credibility." then that's something that can easily be applied to people within WP.

It boils back to individuals. You're damning the whole of WR - people who read, contribute with the same brush whilst ignoring the fact that such a simple stereotyping applies to WP too. Plenty of people on WR object to a number of things that happen; plenty of people object to things on WP yet get called "WR trolls". There's a degree of double standard to that.

But, getting back to the point, the whole dynamic between WP and WR, which is basically that each tend to mirror each other is fascinating but sadly irrelevant to this issue. Which is Sidaway's continued and persistent incivility. Minkythecat (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Tony's behaviour is a non-issue. I suspect that much of the perception generated by his language is the result of cultural differences. And he's right, there have been some truly disgusting trolls on WR, and hanging out with them doesn't make people look too good. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Outside of the "Editors" forum, there's a different tone entirely. There are several threads in other forums which have highlighted stuff that slipped under the radar: [3][4][5]. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't constantly keep track of what wiki editor posts what at WR...I look at some of the threads sometimes...but I have seen some wiki admins who have help facilitate the ongoing chatter regarding circumspect and generally ridiculous memes that are pervasive at WR. In two examples, I saw two different admins from wiki participate in making snide comments about me...I would not consider Alison's comment regarding me made at WR to have been, in retrospect, anything akin to a real insult. In my case, I really could care what the WR editors say about me...if they want to go offsite to vent about the evil MONGO, that is their choice as well and what they say is a reflection on them. However, not once to my knowledge has anyone at that website commenced some grand effort, as they have with SlimVirgin, to uncover my real life identity. What would be nice is if we could see a lot more of the wiki admins who post at WR take a step back...examine the nonsense often posted there and say, whoa, that is incorrect. Instead, what I usually see is either no response or defense and instead, simply adding to the chorus. Ah...well, I guess if I piss someone off, venting at WR is better than here for them and for me. I ask the wiki admins who do post to WR to try and demonstrate more impartiality about some of the editors who are besieged there...if someone is incorrect or out of line, stand up and say it to them there...if you can do that, then your contributions at WR might help make that website a real "review" and not just a wall to scibble more graffiti.--MONGO 11:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The point still remains the discussion is related to Sidaway's behaviour. The endless wailing, gnashing of teeth about WR isn't germaine to that and acts as nothing more than a diversion from the real issue. Sidaway thinks people on a certain site should be treated like shit. That's the issue; nothing else. Minkythecat (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No. He said trolls from that site are pieces of shit. And who could disagree with him there? WP:SPADE etc. Beam 12:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as basic reading indicates. "If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is.". He thus calls people on WR shits, also urges those people to be treated like shit. I AGF that the nuance was non-too obvious as many people have missed that, not just yourself. Minkythecat (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between saying (for example) "Wikipedians who edit WR lend legitimacy to a site that does not have our best interests in mind, and we should make every effort to persuade them to stop" and "treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses." The spirit of editing collaboratively--and, indeed, of governing collaboratively, which is what this board and arbitration are all about--is not served by arguing that some editors should be treated like the piece(s) of shit (they) are. This is an important distinction. Thatcher 13:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ask for unblocking, I believe Tony was indeed grossly incivil. Firstly, many productive editors feel at times to be frustrated by some aspects of wikipedia policies and practices. They vent out their frustration using incivil language. In that case blocking instead of addressing the underlying issues rarely help (a good example is the thread above the discussion between SV and Alison was barely civil but blocking either of them would not help). Secondly, I believe for a user to be kept blocked we need a rough consensus to block the user rather than the luck of a consensus to unblock. I am not a friend of Tony and in fact for a long time we had quite a number of bitter disputes Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an ANI subpage?

I know a lot of people aren't fans of ANI subpages, but this discussion is far beyond the scope of ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on people, this has gotten way beyond where it's useful. No moar drahmahz! I'm no expert on the blocking policy, but I can tell you right away that there is not consensus for any action, on anything discussed, in all that. If anyone wants to constructively discuss the block some more in the 8 hours before it expires, go ahead and create another section, but please do not create more drama. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please allow the discussion to finish. Also, do not subst: archive templates, please. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)