User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

My activity on the wiki, and responses to requests, may be intermittent or non-existent for the next few months. Thanks for your patience. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Wikipedia discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of the alternatives in this list, which you are encouraged to extend.

This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Arb-Com Workshops

Tony, I have briefly looked at a couple of recent ArbCom cases, and in particular in the case of FourthAve it seems to me that the workshop, particularly the proposed remedies, is a cut-and-paste job, which is probably fine. However I think this predisposes the ArbCom to consider a limited set of remedies - in particular in this case there is no option to ban for periods other than 1 year. In your clerking role is this something that could be improved, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Rich Farmbrough 22:26 10 May 2006 (UTC).

In my experience the arbitration committee doesn't just consider the workshop proposals, but makes most of the running itself. The best way anybody with your concerns can address them is to edit workshop pages and, if you think the proposed decision is going all wrong, make a comment on the talk page or in email. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Changes

Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturner 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I really want you to see my side

I have been called a troll and a vandal by user:grandmaster and maybe I am uncivil, but I do know that he is being false in both his edits and behaviour.

I already added this to your page, but look at this once more;

This is what I just pasted on the discussion page of the project; please read as follows;

This is about freedom of speech. You can not decide on who join or not because if you do that then what is to stop you from letting others with opposing views join. I am here to make sure that the Azari articles excel and are factual and I continue to struggle to do so. User Baku, you leave messages unsigned, user:Grandmaster you use pages to verify things that re not even mentioned on the page like the one for Music of Azerbaijan.

I am allowed to place that user box there and editors can pick is they want to use it. There are other user boxes that are only used by one person. I do not seem to recall in consensus in making them. You are being hypocrites because you created one of the user boxes calling for a ‘Liberated Azarbaijan’ which I see not one of you has removed to strengthen your arguments. You are nurturing a culture of bias and misinformation.

If you want to see who is in the write please go to the Music of Azerbaijan article and read the history and what was being asserted by myself and by user:Grandmaster. Also then read the source he used for his claims. Then please look at the talk:Music of Azerbaijan.

I am being demonized, but at least you will see why I am upset with what these users are doing. This is not fair. You can openly see that this user is being devious just if you look at his editing methodology. I even tried to compromise with him in various articles, but he deleted my arguments on the actual talk pages.

And when it comes to edits he has the numerical numbers through his allies over me who ususallly don't know about the subject and I get blocked for making legitmate edits via the 3RR.

Also please look via the history the editing he made using the source he himself validated. --72.57.230.179

Additionally here is more proof that I was being civil [[1]] and that user:Grandmaster is making false statements. I also want to say someting else it is ironic that he went out of hs way and would dlete my work even if little things were not verified, but his own claims and edits have not been verified for a long time and are in need of citations for ages now on the same article, Azari. 72.57.230.179

Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 14:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

SOrry I just noticed something

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it. 72.57.230.179

Additionally Baku never tried to help me or tlk to me as he claims. This is totally false 72.57.230.179

Once again for the music here is all the proof collected [[2]] in case you find it hard to follow from the talk page. 72.57.230.179

Thanks for putting all these messages here. I'm not sure I can help if your point is simply that he is wrong and you are right. I am not an adjudicator, and it would be wrong for me to use my administrator powers to side with anyone on a question of fact. In wikipedia we work by discussion and consensus, within some requirements such as verifiability, neutral point of view and so on. If you can work within that framework to convince other editors that your content is valuable and well referenced, then you shouldn't have any problems contributing to articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak

Actually, it might be interesting to see what Linuxbeak can do. I don't have a strong opinion, but it might be interesting to discuss the matter sometime soon, I suppose. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs)

Oops, sorry, that was me. Do you have time on irc sometime soon? Kim Bruning 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To let you know

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 --User:Chcknwnm 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:So-and-so Wikipedians

Though not a userbox, it would seem to me that such categories as [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] perform exactly the same non-encyclopedic purpose. Any ideas on this?Timothy Usher 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

You may be on 1RR, but there are a LOT of stale protections up there, I'd likely back you up if anyone wanted to accuse you of wheel warring, or mention the "tony sideway pro/unpro ratio".Voice-of-All^Talk 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Zeq, I've removed about half a dozen sections from this page because you're overloading me. Writing lots of material on my talk page is a good way of ensuring that I'll throw up my hands and say "enough." That's about the stage I'm at now. Now on Homey's edits, if he's doing something wrong then the thing to do is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It is because somebody else did that in your case that you are now on probation. I suggest that you work on this together with SlimVirgin, who knows much more about this subject than I do. If Homey is causing problems (and at first sight it does seem to me that he may be) then you should be able to use that process to make sure that he stops or, if he won't, gets stopped.

The bans on Zeq have been announced in eight places:

• WP:AN
• WP:AE
• User talk:Zeq
• the talk pages of each individual article (four in all)
• On IRC, on the administrators' IRC channel

They have been logged on the arbitration page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq.

They may be discussed on any of the discussion pages and, in the case of the arbitration page, on the related talk page.

My problem here is that one editor is persistently flooding me with vast amounts of impenetrable counter-arguments. I have therefore cleared them from my page. Some of the removed material was from Homey, others from Isarig, Ramallite or SlimVirgin. They are all accessible in the history of this page. This ban should probably be discussed now on WP:AN if you're really sure that it was inappropriate.

Accusations that I have abused my administrator status will not be met sympathetically. These bans are in order under the probation applied to Zeq by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad user

Alright? I was hoping you could have a looks at this user - User:Feline1. He really is a nasty piece of work (look at some of the stuff on the Revolver (album) talk page and directed at User:Brian G. Wilson. I realise some of my comments towards him could be construed as personal attacks. I couldn't help myself, he's very antagonistic (though I have been trying quite hard not to loose it with people - please judge me with that in mind). He has reams of evidence of poor behaviour and needs something doing about his general bad attitude. In fact, it's not even his personal attacks which I find most distasteful. It's his sumgness, the way he reacts to well-intentioned users by insulting them, branding them "morons" for simple mistakes. He seems to feel this is accepotable behaviour. Knock him down a peg would you please?--Crestville 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're all doing good work, and sometimes I know a bit of badinage is okay. Just remember that there is a human on the other end. I think you're both in danger of forgetting that (he may be as offended by your insults as you are by his). If you have to work together, I suggest that you bring specific problems to me before they degenerate to insults, and I'll do what I can to ensure that you can reach an amicable agreement. If someone is persistently engaging in newbie biting or general incivility, please make a report on WP:ANI. or WP:PAIN. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but this lad is a constant offender. I'm asking you to keep an eye on him because he is a constant offender, his attacks go beyond mere banter - it's a certain horrible level of condecending self rightious aloofness and he never seems to get collared for it. That other one you warned me about is some Jakson nut who has, under various guises, vandelised both my user page and the Jackson page. I've tried using ANI on him but no admins have taken any sort of action. Again. I appreciate the sentiment though. Cheers as always.--Crestville 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Any feedback? I find it odd that the person who blocked me twice for my so-called "appaling behaviour" would be so dismissive of another user who is clearly much more acidic and difficult to work with. No offence, like.--Crestville 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I work on a lot of different issues and it's possible that I dropped the ball on this one. Why not make a report about the fellow's behavior on WP:ANI and perhaps some other less busy administrator will take it up. --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK

I will not bother you again. Do your work as you see fit. Zeq 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review admins comments

at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Zeq_article_bans Tnx, Zeq 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, Out of emanse respect I have given you time to review, refelct on your action and read what others have said.

I would like to draw your attention to the WP:Probation policy:

• In order to enforce probation it is necessary to attract the attention of a administrator with enough interst and energy to investigate the matter and assume the risk of acting.

Patience is counseled.

• Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged.

I am aksing have you not lost your interst and energy to investigate this issue ?

Probation at Wikipedia is a formal, procedural warning against a Wikipedia editor, generally regarding specific conduct on a group of articles. It generally follows an Arbitration Committee finding that a particular user has edited one or more articles in a disruptive or objectionable way (e.g., by Wikipedia:edit warring).

A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is permitted to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation. If they edit an article in those subject areas in a disruptive or objectionable way, however, any administrator who is not involved in the conflict may ban them from editing the article. The banned user may continue to edit the talk page, making suggestions as to content and discussing content. A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access.

I am asking if you have convinced my self that I was disruptive and did you documented why you think my editing (unlike others who edited in same article) has been a reason for a ban. I strongly suugest again that you consider that all other admins who commented on the case did not think as you and many simply reafused to take the request action by Homey. Zeq 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You promised me and other:

I see your point. I'll examine the situation and may review the ban in that particular case. --Tony Sidaway 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That you will re-examine. Tnx. Zeq 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-examined. There is absolutely no dissent among admins that you have been placed on probation, and that since then your editing has shown some improvement but has been generally well below that expected of a Wikipedian. I announced the bans in eight places and have taken comments from all of them. I am not currently continuing with the review of the bans. They remain. Please stop badgering me about them. You will not persuade me that I was wrong; indeed your activities of the past few days only cement a feeling in my mind that you going to be a long term problem editor. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time of rexamining the issue. Your characterzation of me as "below that expected of a Wikipedian" and "long term problem editor" shows you have extrapolated more from this issue that is warrnted. The result is that you have banned me from several articles at once, included one in which I have been a major poitive contributor to get it to be NPOV. You have banned me from this article on the ground of 1 (one) single edit - which according to all reviwers was a jutified edit (and they have told you so). If you are still unable to change your mind I can only guess it has something to do with a political issue since all the articles you banned me from (starting with nakba day) were on one subject. Zeq 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Tony, the person that seems to be on a "self distruct" course here is not me. Getting to so many fights with people over user box (I can also think of your false accuastion to me about one such user box that I did not even placed) and signatures show beyong any doubt that you look for "form realted" over substance and calm. I don't want to know about you non-wiki life but such behaviour in general is not healthy to anyone, especially the people who preform these types of prefernces in their life. Zeq 09:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

PS 2 I have just been sent this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway#Tony_Sidaway_on_administrative_1RR with the suggestion that since several admin have been made aware of the same complaint against me[3], User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Zeq.27s_probation_violation while they refused to act on it your action in that issue may be a violation of the ArbCom case. I am looking into this. Zeq 09:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

Hello Tony :). While you obviously did not mean to, it seems that you may have accidentily let a personal attack slip out. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. (I am referring to this comment in which you called a fellow editor "antisocial"). Where 17:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I could be convinced that referring to people with large and intrusive signatures as antisocial is a personal attack. For now, I'll let it stand. Could you explain? --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for mixing in here, but I think I may be able to explain: If you say the act is antisocial, that is about the act. If you say that the person is antisocial, that can easily be seen as a personal attack. It may not seem like a big deal, but aiming at the act rather than at the person is a rather essential part of conflict handling. -- Olve 17:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I twigged. See this edit in which I change the wording to focus on the antisocial nature of the acts rather than attaching the epithet to the people who repeatedly indulge in it. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! :) Where 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know how Tony feels about this, but I personally feel that {{npa}} or {{civil}} templates should not be used for established editors. They're useful for new users (or IPs) who may not know the rules, but they're not meant to be given out as punishment for naughtiness. When someone has been here for a while and can be assumed to know the policy, sending him a temple which informs him that "continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption" is a bit of an insult. Wouldn't it have been better just to have said that you didn't think he should have called other editors "antisocial"? AnnH ♫ 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, but in general I think warning templates are little use for anything outside the basic test1, 2, 3, etc. I seldom use even those any more. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I got three {{civil}} templates from Alienus two days ago for calling this vandalism. :-) AnnH ♫ 18:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AnnH has a pretty good point. Sorry about that, Tony! Where ^(talk) 02:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 and Linuxbeak

Thank you for responding and moving my comment to the appropriate place. Blainetologist 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

decolonization and POV

Please see Decolonization. I believe another editor insists on repeatly adding POV material to this article. What do you think? Can you do anything? This editor does not respond to what I write. Thanks Hmains 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, what please?

What? You call me a troll because I vocally criticise a Wikipedia policy that I very deeply consider flawed and harmful to the project? I feel very much insulted right now. I don't do this to get attention or whatever the current definition of a troll is. This very policy that I am talking about has been invoked again and again and again in the most ridiculous cases against - in my opinion - completely legitimate and worthy edits. And I must say - while a lot of negative things could be said about the individuals that invoked the policy in those cases, ultimately they are right: The policy formulation does not leave room for any interpretation. In many ways. Ahem.

Therefore, (also, for being of a smartass) I must reject your request and ask you to stay away from my user talk page for a bit. You won't change my opinion about the policy, or my decision to lobby to have it removed. I don't like to have cluttered up talk pages either - it'd be so much easier if people just listened to me instead of arguing all the time. But that's just not happening, sadly. Dabljuh 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe you're going about it the wrong way? Just a thought. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm open for all suggestions. Should I bribe Jimbo or something? Dabljuh 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Worth a try! --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will bribe him with the most valuable commodity on the internet: Loads of horse porn! He will be delighted. Dabljuh 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Defacing compliant sigs

[tripe (repeatedly inserted) deleted]

(removed template). No it is not vandalism, a POINT violation at worst. Block for that if you want to, but please at least do not call it "vandalism".Voice-of-All 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a violation of WP:POINT. There is no good reason to block. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, "disruption" is better word for it (at worst).Voice-of-All 03:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My sig

Hmmm...you removed my sig, so I just made it a bit shorter now. If that is not good enough, then it will get hard for me to take you seriously, since sigs that mall are hardly a distraction. Voice of All 03:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just made it shorter, so it only links to talk (which is the only place people usually go anyway).Voice of All 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Why does it have to be so obscenely large in the first place? --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because HTML markup is retartedly long, it takes <span style='color: ColorName'> just to get in one color, and then you have to close it. But remember it is a signature, not a name, do you sign real life things like "Tony Sideway" in perfect TNR font?Voice of All 03:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what "TNR" might be. Yes, of course I write my name as clearly as possible, if that's what you mean. --Tony Sidaway 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruption of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. RadioKirk 03:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• 03:57, 10 June 2006 Improv unblocked Tony Sidaway (contribs) (Remove unwarranted block)

Kirk, do please stop playing silly buggers. --Tony Sidaway 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Another demonstration of your inability or unwillingness .... RadioKirk 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do stop being a silly sausage, Kirk. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I expected. If it ain't your opinion, it must've come from a "silly sausage". Tell me, mate, if an Rfc involvong 100 equally respected users ended with 51% of the people supporting you and 49% not, what's your reaction to the 49%? RadioKirk 05:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk, I'd be interested to hear how you arrived at your statistics, as the impression I get from the RfC is nearly 2:1 support for Sidaway. In any case, shouldn't you be posting it there?Timothy Usher 05:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"if"="hypothetical question" RadioKirk 06:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: "235" chars used merely to say if. El_C 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, there was ="hypothetical question," but I misread it as part of the sig chars in the diff — see how confusing it becomes? El_C 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if you only read diffs ;) RadioKirk 06:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try and be civil :)

Hello again Tony. I noticed that your edit summary here. Could be construed as uncivil. Although it should be a big deal, human nature (sadly) is such that people can get very upset when people are uncivil to them (with some people more so then others). As such, as you have saw with the recent block, people tend to react strongly to comments that they percieve to be uncivil. Obviously, you did not do it purposefully or maliciously, but I think that things could probably go more smoothly in the future if you attempt to be a more civil in the future. Where 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony,

If I'd my way, in addition to abolishing all non-encylopedic userboxes and creative signatures, I'd also prohibit removal of messages from user talk pages, except those messages (e.g. vandalism) we'd be equally justified in removing from article talk pages. The common denominator is clear: users don't own their space.

While I fully support what you're doing, and can only imagine what it'd be like to take the amount of flak you deal with on a daily basis, I will say that the editors who remove legitimate comments are, in nearly all cases, those whom I respect the least. You're an exception here, but you really shouldn't be. Removing legitimate comments looks defensive, lending criticisms an aura of suppressed truth they might not otherwise have earned, and is incivil. If a comment doesn't deserve a response, just let it stand without one. If your page gets too long, archive it. This should be policy for all users. But for now, it's just my advice.Timothy Usher 04:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have to differ on that one. Once I've read a very silly comment on my talk page, and remove it, nobody should try to put it back. In the case of steamingly stupid comments, such as Radiokirk's suggestion, the same applies. Tony Sidaway 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, true, there does come a point. However - and maybe this is unforgivably vicious of me - but I find it the best revenge to allow someone's totally stupid comment to sit there unanswered, as evidence of its signer's stupidity - as it's said, you know a man by his enemies. But I won't press this any further at this point; you've enough bullshit to deal with without dealing with mine.Timothy Usher 05:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. "Delicious revenge". But why should I? I'm not interested in revenge, only in removing stupid crap. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

But publically calling it "crap" in the edit summary makes people upset (as detailed above) and probably violates WP:CIVIL, no? Where 05:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If some editors persist in pushing bizarre and stupid arguments, it is not a bad idea to describe their arguments as "crap". It would be bad for the encyclopedia to entertain rubbish on the same footing as commonsense. --Tony Sidaway 07:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Enough of this signature nonsense.

Tony, you can fix this entire situation and discuss with me exactly what you don't like about my signature and I'll consider changing it. You can be communicative and open for a change or I will revert every single change to my signature that I see you make. No discussion. Either be open to talk, I continue reverting your inconsiderate "refactoring" (of a signature that does not violate WP:SIG in any way, shape or form) or block me for disruption right now before I get to doing that. (Talking, for the less-informed of us, is that thing where you start typing words to someone else)

Tell me what you don't like about it, or leave it alone. "Refactor" it all you want on your own talk page, but the line gets drawn there. I don't mind being blocked if it means getting the message through to you. WP:POINT it may be, but you're no better.

If you think my signature is long, talk about it. Tell me why it's long. Tell me how I can change it. Be open, willing to talk, communicative. Otherwise, you have no say. Quite honestly (and someone has to say this), stop being a dick.

If you didn't have so many admins behind you because you're the ArbCom clerk (some of them are probably afraid of you, but I'm not), you'd have been blocked by now for WP:POINT ("refactoring" signatures is entirely disrupting Wikipedia to make your point). Consider that. --nathanrdotcom 05:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't require you to do anything. I have no problem with you or your signature, except insofar as I occasionally remove some of the unnecessary clutter in the course of normal talk page editing. --Tony Sidaway

Sig (again)

I may be grasping at straws at this point because you've been less than receptive to a calm discussion about my signature. If I remove the superscript, will you leave it (and me) alone? Please comment on my talk and be clear on what you don't like. I'm sick of this back-and-forth nonsense. Exactly what don't you like about my signature. Stop beating around the bush and let's hear it. Since this is all about what you don't like, you have the power to end this. Thank you. --nathanrdotcom 06:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See above. I confess myself truly baffled. What is it you want of me? I'm perfectly happy. --Tony Sidaway 07:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to working with you

These two diffs ([4] [5]) by Georgewilliamherbert are really on point, I think. You removed them, in the only display of removal of thoughtful, well-meaning advice I've ever seen by a non-vandal. Vandals and you, that's who's in that club.

I really look forward to working with you Tony, when you come on board with the whole collaborative nature of this project - the part where people recognize that other people are really important, and go out of their way to be excellent to each other. It'll be good.

If I had a long and obnoxious signature, the primary reason I'd be keeping it by now would be that you've set up a dynamic where the only way I can change it is by losing a battle of wills to you, and I fully understand why someone wouldn't want to do that. If you were smart about it, you would ask people to change their signatures in a way that they felt like they were being really cool by doing it, not really brow-beaten. These are skills you can work on, and improve.

Seriously, read at MeatballWiki, try to find some things out about how to motivate people to work with you rather than against you. "People skills" matter. This is Wikipedia, this is the future. Get sophisticated about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I hope you seriously consider everything GTBacchus has wisely said here. It doesn't matter if a lot of people agree with your point: the way you make it and go about things sriously rubs people the wrong way. I don't give a whit about signatures. If anything, I'm in your camp, and I think the ones you've been refactoring are rather absurd. I don't think it's worth ruffling feathers about. Sure, it's the wiki way to do something like changing it yourself when you don't like it, but once it begins to irritate others, it's not worth the payoff; it makes things worse for a minor grievance. What is more irritating than signatures is calling people silly sausages and telling them they're playing silly buggers, and staying stubbornly still, when a simple bit of patience would make this go away. Perhaps if I ws the kind to get worked up about these things (which is hard for me to imagine) I'd think these people were silly sausages, but I sure wouldn't say it and pollute the community over it, and I wouldn't continue to provoke them, even if it were on a silly point. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop calling people silly sausages and telling them to stop playing silly buggers. I absolutely don't mean to ruffle feathers. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And, yet, this is what I've tried to communicate from the beginning; I do not mean to imply that GTBacchus and/or Dmcdevit has in some manner achieved an "importance" of any kind that I or any other user has not, but how is the appeal from these two worth noting while mine was "tripe"? This is a serious question; among other things, it may help other users learn how to communicate with you in a manner that actually fosters communication. Given the response I have received from you even as I am hardly young, green, or "new", what can be done to foster a greater sense of community when you are approached in whatever fashion by those who are young, green and "new"? RadioKirk 03:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read your comments. You seemed to be trying to get into some odd proceduralism you appear to have made up out of whole cloth, to the effect that we mustn't refactor "compliant" signatures, whatever those might be. If "tripe" was an inappropriate word, I'll have to find a new one. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rfa brought and dropped already? Wow, I guess I should stop letting RL interfere with Wiki (grin). Seriously, I have noted the reasons for my actions, from start to finish. It was only well into the process that you presented a rationale that moved me to place a disclaimer at the top of AN and AN/I. Since we allow users to customize sigs, please recognize that it does "ruffle feathers" for these users to see them changed—it's not about whether we can refactor, it's whether doing so and then ignoring and/or removing legitimate objections, and then doing it again with little or no comment, violates WP:POINT (obviously, I believe the block of a non-admin who did the same thing would have been hailed). A disclaimer on the top of any page bearing your name is, I think, a wise idea; if, however, a user objects anywhere outside your user space, and their sig otherwise complies with policy (I notice the character limit is now gone), it should stand unluss discussed first. Finally, let me reiterate that I believe your block to have been the correct action, required of me per my "job" as a janitor. While some of your actions have struck me (correctly or otherwise) as "me first, community second", I do not know you as a person and I do not make any judgment in that capacity. This went long, so, apologies and thanks for reading. RadioKirk talk to me 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I just realized I haven't taken the opportunity during this signature affair to tell you how much I think you're seeing the Wiki in just the right way. Refactoring the way you're doing is entirely consistent with how I understand this medium working. Nevertheless, that understanding isn't quite universal here. People have a lot of preconceptions about what should and shouldn't happen, some of which are inappropriate, but they're still prevalent. At this point, it becomes a question of what to do about that. One strategy is just to start doing something specific to make things better. If someone objects, they're the one in the wrong, not you. It's not a legitimate objection, because it's based on a fundamental misconception of how the Wiki works. Eventually, they'll figure it out; meanwhile, they're just making noise, which can be safely ignored.

That strategy, in the way it handles (or declines to handle) conflict, is very weak, and prone to generating too much heat, at least in the current context. Nevertheless, I agree with your goals (cleaning up talk pages, reinforcing proper wiki-culture), and think it's important to identify better ways to achieve them. I think you may have not expected the amount of vocal opposition you would attract by refactoring signatures? If you saw conflicts like this ahead of time, maybe you could avoid them more easily? Please let me know whether you think I'm making sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making sense, but of course it's completely impossible for me to predict when and where a conflict will occur. However I think it's very easy to exaggerate the magnitude of a conflict, and this one was really very small as these things go. I think there has been a general revision of thought among those who originally opposed the idea, and this will become more and more evident in due course. People learn. The outcome is good for the wiki and the community. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say completely impossible, but that's a small nit to pick. Nevertheless, I agree that learning is happening all around, and that's good. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for resolving the sig problem

Hello again Tony.

I understand your concern that large sigs can get annoying in the edit box. However, simply changing the sigs causes problems, I would like to propose an alternate solution. I have written a script for monobook.js that contracts the signatures of people who have enabled their signatures to be contracted to a barebones version when viewing them in the edit box and saves them normally when done. Nathan said that he was willing to alter his sig so that it could be contracted with this script. I hope this will satisfy you. --Where 08:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're going about this in completely the wrong way. We should all simply trim our signatures to a reasonable length, and feel free to refactor discussions that contain an unnecessarily large amount of rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. However, given Nathan's large amount of support on the RFC, it is clear that there is a lack of consensus to make everyone trim their signatures. It is also clear at this point that people will not trim their signatures volentarily. In addition, this issue is taking up too much time from writing an encyclopedia (and I get the impression that the situation might even be escalated :( ). The script above will make it seem, however, that anyone who adds the requisite comments has the type of signature you desire in the edit box; thus, I was hoping it could solve this problem before it mushrooms into something larger. However, if you think a different approach should be taken, I'd happily consider helping; I just want this all to end, if you know what I mean. Where 16:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider the belief that Nathan has a "large amount of support". There is certainly no requirement for "making everyone trim their signatures"; that's simply a straw man.

Your script is not a solution to anything; the muddle will still be present in the edit box, which is where tha massive volume of some signatures causes a problem.

There is massive suport for the current de facto policy, by which anyone may refactor a discussion page to reduce clutter. If Nathan wants to drop his misconceived, failed RfC and stop his campaign, then he will find that he has more time to edit articles. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me as to what the script does. Please see this image of a screenshot of a test page and this image of a screenshot of editing that same test page.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your argument; it was not my intent to make a straw man argument. While there is massive support for what you are doing, there is far from a consensus in favor for what you are doing. Where 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty, but it does nothing to remove the clutter from the page. There is a massive consensus that Wikipedia is a wiki and that clutter can be removed. The recent doomed attempt to change policy to disallow this has failed abysmally. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Sweetiepetie

Hi. I see you've blocked User:Sweetiepetie as a sockpuppet of User:JamieAdams. I've looked at JamieAdams' talk history and the behaviour seems very out of character for Sweetiepetitie. I've never seen the latter be so provocative. I don't have the technical knowledge to explain the IP address, but I do notice that he/she has had problems with AOL proxies recently.

Anyhow, as far as I know, Sweetiepetie has done nothing to warrant being permablocked -- I've had the user's Userpage on my watchlist for a while now too, and follow the project he's mainly involved in. I'm going to unblock the user, awaiting your response with more information. The JPS 13:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to User:Mackensen, who performed the sock checks and told me that this editor was a sock of User:JamieAdams. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Scent of a personal attack against you

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Trigger Happy for what has the scent of a personal attack directed against you by User:THE KING. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's not a big deal. I think I had some hassle from THE_KING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a known problem editor, earlier this week and he's sore about the fact that I didn't waste a lot of time on him.. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You have been listed as an involved party at a request for arbitration. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Tony_Sidaway to make a statement. Thanks, Chcknwnm (Chuck) 05:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Responded. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My sig code

Hi Tony,

I noticed you were refactoring sig files on Talk:Ejaculation which made me think perhaps mine could do with a change (I hadn't changed it in since my early "immature" wiki days. Thus I I have done so with an emphasis on brevity. Esperanza request a green "e" and that's really the only thing that adds length - otherwise its essentially my name and a link to my user & talk pages. It's code previously read:

- '''''[[User:Stollery|Gl]][[User:Stollery/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Stollery|<font color="red">n</font>]]''''' ''<small>^{[[User_talk:Stollery|T]]}_{[[Special:Contributions/Stollery|C]]} [[User:Stollery|(Stollery)]]</small>''

Now reads as follows:

- [[User:Stollery|Glen]] [[User_talk:Stollery|Stoll<font color="green">e</font>ry]]

What are your thoughts (honesty is appreciated over tactfulness in this regard). Thanks in advance, - Glen Stollery 10:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It's much better, but what's with the green e? Some kind of "secret handshake"? --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Does feel a bit like the Freemasons! See Wikipedia:Esperanza/So_you've_joined_Esperanza... - originally mine linked thru to User:Stollery/e but decided to drop the link (and in saying that even the e is close to the chopping block as well). Appreciate the feedback. :) - Glen Stollery 14:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, if someone is interested in your Esperanza membership they'll find out about it on the Esperanza page or on your user page. The recommendation to use a signifying mark in the signature seems to me like an attempt to advertise Esperanza as an end in itself, and I don't think that is right. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Admins

Hi Tony. I was just sounding of against admins as a bunch, and certainly not you. Someone made a connection with you, and said that I should go to arbcom about you, and I made a joke about you being on arbcom, which most would get. There is always one or two that don't even know what a joke is... Personally, I cannot see why you keep getting mentioned all the time, as you are just, well, normal, and like a bit of banter. On serious topics, you always give a very good and concise answer. I also think you do a good job as the clerk. Bottom line is that some folks (often males aged around 15-17) take themselves way too seriously. Wallie 12:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's important that people avoid saying stuff like "clerks hand down decisions". We don't, we just do the paperwork. A newcomer reading your comments might get a completely false impression about me. --Tony Sidaway 12:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Carthage

This is nothing much?

Once I have finished with work i'll be converting this page completly and then shielding it from the anti-carthaginian baised that has devolped here. First I have already gotten a pro response from the AD's about my idea. In other words iam going to settle this by converting this article into a short tid bits of Carthaginian info much like the quick run through article about Rome. In other words kids Myth's and legends such as sacrafice will have seperate articles all to themselves ^^. I already set up a triad of my student body of at least 17 members with reg accounts to support this move when such oppostion from biased members such as veny peep there little heads out this article will be ready for it. I already have most of the page written all I have to do is complete it and make a few corrections then ill replace the article. This will end the senseless yammering here and put an end to most of the arguments. but then I could see how members who have an axe to grind could contend other wise.Kara Umi 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would urge you to read the talk page archives as well. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is misguided, perhaps (use of meat puppets) but certainly not grounds for protecting an article that, when all is said and done, isn't the subject of major edit warring or vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've seen (I presume, if you read the archive) the last edit war this individual perpetrated, and his current rhetoric. If that isn't enough, I'll wait a couple of days until after the edit war is in full swing and reiterate the request then. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do here is watch for policy violations (incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and so on) and report them on WP:ANI. Action will be taken if he disrupts Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Signature

I have recently joined Esperanza, and they tell me I have to put a green e somewhere in my signature. I also understand that you want the Users to stick with their original signature. So what do you suggest I do? Is it OK if I have a green e in Wallie? Thank you. Wallie 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly no requirement to do so, and I have never even considered doing so. The key to Esperanza is to carefully choose which of their projects you have an interest in, and ignore the rest, just like any Wikipedia project you may join. NoSeptember 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss it with other Esperanzians and reach a decision. There is no intrinsic reason why you shouldn't have a green "e", and I'm not the "master of the signature" on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

O good. Thanks, both. Wallie 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

{{award2|image=WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|size=100px|topic=The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar|text=For being a great member, dealing with vandals, and just being a great admin!!! <tt>'''[[User:Sunholm|Sunholm]][[User talk:Sunholm|(talk)]]''' </tt> 16:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC) }}

That's a very nice thought, but I'm not a member of the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But you are a great admin and member! Will you be able to help me get some articles to featured status - if so, post on my talk page!! --Sunholm(talk) 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I've adjusted it to reflect that. In answer to your query, I am implacably opposed to the Featured Articles system. I strongly recommend making small incremental changes to many articles as the best way to improve the overall quality of material on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've copied the award to my award page, where it will occupy pride of place until my Nobel Peace Prize comes through. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of university professors of social science, history, law, and theology who partake of Wikipedia, and surely some who are sufficiently irreverent as to be willing to nominate for an NPP whoever ultimately resolves the userbox issue (although, to be sure, it's unlikely that one individual will resolve the issue or that a singular and universally-applicable solution will come to pass), inasmuch as he/she will have returned the project (assuming arguendo that it's elsewhere now) to its encyclopedic roots; we take as axiomatic, of course, that the project is necessarily beneficial to mankind. Your style is perhaps too bellicose for the Committee's tastes (but cf., for example, Henry Kissinger, the 1973 Peace Prize laureate), but I'll be sure to mention you in my acceptance speech. Joe 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Blockage

Thank you for dealing with User:Minun Rules the world. HighwayCello 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for you

If you want I could create a regex for you to use in WP:AWB to replace all the signatures you commonly come accross in your talk pages. Yes, you can manually add page names to the que in AWB. Interested? --Mboverload 03:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• I was working on a similar set of regular expressions: Replace <span [^>]*> with nothing, </span> with nothing, <font [^>]*> with nothing, and </font> with nothing. The only thing it doesn't fix is embedded links to other subpages or user pages, so that'd probably have to be done manually. --Elkman 04:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't use scripts on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

At all? why not? You're missing out, they make rote things a lot easier... If there's a reason not to other than personal preference, I'd like to know about it before they get banned or something! Lar 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point. I seldom do anything by rote on Wikipedia, and for those that I do I use transclusion. --Tony Sidaway 18:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your comment

Thank you for the comments at [6] Terryeo 12:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Remember to contact me if this happens again. --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Iloveminun's RFArb

As I was involved in the Iloveminun case, should I make a statement on the RFArb (now or at evidence stage, assuming it is accepted)? The policy seems rather vague about this. Smurrayinchester 15:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I too? User:HighwayCello 15:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone involved may make a statement at this stage, and I think statements from those involved in the case would be most welcome. Keep it simple and brief. If it's accepted, anyone may file formal evidence, whether he has made a prior statement or not. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bot

I've got a bot running on my own personal wiki that gives warnings, blocks users with the following edit summaries:

• (username)
• (impostor/too similar to existing user...)
• (spam-only user)

Would this be useful??? --Sunholm(talk) 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: It blocks pagemove vandals too! --Sunholm(talk) 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't do bots. I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Myrtone86

I got an email from this user asking me to review the situation. I basically support the blocks etc, but as I pointed out on User talk:Myrtone86 you could have been more civil in your block summary. In general I find myself agreeing with a lot (though by no means all, but that's not the point) your actions, but think it might help if you'd be just that little more civil about going about them. Petros471 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My summary didn't strike me as uncivil at the time. Pithy, perhaps. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RickK

{{award2|image=Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|size=100px|topic=The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar|text=I, [[User:John Gibson|John Gibson]], hereby award you the Vandal-fighter Barnstar for your tireless work to keep Wikipedia clean and correct.}}

Thank you. Moving it to my awards page. --Tony Sidaway 20:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodbye - rm clutter

Ok -- what gives? -- Jason Palpatine 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the clutter. The animated gif was disruptive and the huge amount of extraneous formatting was unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it appeared to be in keeping with the discussion. I suppose your removal was too. --!70.218.7.80 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony: Thank you for the head's up. I appreciate it. I'll keep it simple from now on. -- Jason Palpatine 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just bear in mind that the discussion pages are generally pretty focussed and shouldn't be treated as a place for embellishment of the kind that might be allowable on your user page. On the animated gif, you may not realise that it soaks up a lot of processor power and should only be used where strictly necessary, such as in a relevant article (and preferably, in my opinion, as a linked image rather than inline). --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox debates

I've come up with a solution to end the userbox wrangling that currently exists: I (and anyone else that wants to help me) will write a 'how-to' guide on creating userboxes, and userbox policy.

This might help, hopefully. --Sunholm(talk) 10:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please write about your proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. Someone else may have the same idea, and perhaps have made a start, and it would probably help if you all get together and collaborate on it. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed my signature to something simpler

Here's the code:

[[User:Ikiroid|The ikiroid]] ([[User talk:Ikiroid|talk]]·[[User:Ikiroid/Desk|desk]]·[[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Advise me]])

A little longer, yet a bit more helpful than my last one:

[[User:Ikiroid|<tt><b><font style="background:green" color="white"> The ikiroid </font></b></tt>]]

Tell me what you think.--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I appreciate your decision to make the effort. --Tony Sidaway 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a good day!--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I just feeding trolls?

I see that practically everyone else has disappeared from Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability in the face of Sbharris and Light Current. Am I just feeding trolls? Should I stop? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Recently a guy who trolled the policy pages was blocked. If sbharris is that kind of editor, the same may happen. If not, we'll either set up a ramped series of blocks to stop him, or we'll suddenly go "Wow, you're right! Wikipedia policy is a heap of poo!" And then block him. :) --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished that nobody slapped a WP:POINT warning on him when he tagged the policy as unverified. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Thanks, I wasn't aware that's how it was done on that particular page. I thought it was like the Workshop page and was just responding to a petty comment about me. I'll write up my own rebuttal. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, feel free to point out if if miff anything again ;). And again thanks for recusing yourself as a clerk in this matter. I know you have strong feelings, for SPUIs position if I'm not mistaken, however your honesty in recusing yourself has not gone unnoticed and is very much appreciated, especially considering it is in this ugly mess of a dispute. JohnnyBGood 22:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in the end we're all on the same side, something I try hard to remember. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I should add that, although you're correct that on this issue I feel I may tend to side with SPUI, I've also been involved in controversial administrator decisions with respect to SPUI. For instance I delete his user page. Both considerations played a part in my decision to recuse. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You?

Is this really you? Chuck^(contrib) 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that really is Tony. He is a handsome fellow, and particularly popular with dominant males. --Distal Orthograph 07:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I should be so lucky! --Tony Sidaway 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and ArbCom evidence disputes

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence First off, check out that history. Second, User:Leyasu1 and User:86.132.135.23 seem to be sockuppets of User:Leyasu, who's under a long ban for escalating arbcom ruling violations. Better to see it all. Also check out User talk:Deathrocker and User talk:Kevin Breitenstein for a discussion I got into with Deathrocker about modifying evidence for arbcom made by others in their little sections. Kevin_b_er 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And User:86.132.134.145. Thought those were the same IP at first, they're not. Kevin_b_er 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A request

Hello Tony Sidaway,

I have a request. Could you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed

The question is whether "Jewish Encyclopedia" could be cited in wikipedia (Pecher argues that it is outdated). Your input is appreciated.

Thanks,--Aminz 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We have entire articles based on the 1911 Britannica, so it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant. --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll copy/paste your comment to the talk page of Dhimmi. --Aminz 10:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, Tickle me is making personal attacks and assumes bad faith. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dhimmi#Some_evidences_that_the_article_is_still_disputed_II

Thanks. --Aminz 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway, I really can not continue discussion with Tickle me, unless he writes more politely. --Aminz 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dhimmi

Tony, without taking any stance on the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I've not the expertise to evaluate, your protection of Dhimmi on the basis of User:Islami's tag is unwarranted. User:Islami has not once, to my knowledge, appeared on the talk page. His involvement reflects only User:Ibrahimfaisal's solicitation of religiously-motivated meatpuppetry[7].Timothy Usher 10:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We protect articles when there is an edit war. The version on which they're protected doesn't matter. It's just an opportunity for you to discuss the matter and reach consensus on how to proceed. If in three days or so I pop my head in and discover no discussions then I'll know that it's time to unprotected because protection did not work. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

As for the broader issues, please don't arrive at speedy judgements. It's not my nature to impugn people at random. If you'd have frequented the space that I have, I've little doubt you'd have had it and then some by now.Timothy Usher 10:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I was just commenting on what you and Pechor got up to on WP:ANI. It's not a good first impression. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And based on this "not good first impression", you've decided to smear any arguments that we make whatever their merits? Pecher ^Talk 11:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If I am insinuating, please give an alternative explanation of your usage of the word "perverse" to characterize my arguments. Pecher ^Talk 11:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't addressed any of your arguments (unless you think that my off-the-cuff opinion on the citation of old encyclopedias was a "smear"). Your combative approach here isn't helping to mend the poor impression I formed from your dismissal of IbrahimFaisal's complaint a "whining about being on the losing side of a content dispute".

I'm sorry if my comment, "it seems simply perverse to exclude references to the Jewish Encyclopedia where relevant" was harsh. It follows from our routine use of material from encyclopedias of the period. Your argument that the material is outdated is another matter. It may well be outdated but I have not been presented with, or considered, evidence to that effect, nor shall I because I'm not going to get involved in the debate.

I'm not about to become an involved administrator in that article or any related article. However I do think that there may be conduct issues related to the article. --Tony Sidaway 11:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"It's not a good first impression."

I understand that, and I think I understand why. The key is to understand that this is not some arbitrary prejudice, but a reaction to an ongoing pattern of insufferable behavior. Allowing userpage soapboxing sends the wrong message, which same take to heart - to wit, that wikipedia is a place where we all come to represent our "POVs" against competing "POVs" - that is, that wikipedia is a battleground. My notion - and correct me if I'm wrong - but my notion is that Wikipedia is a place for serious scholarship. I'm here because I'm pro-life/Muslim/transsexual/vegetarian/Christian/Socialist etc. etc. is the wrong way to look at this. That's why I'm against userboxes, not any technical point about templates vs. "userfication", and similarly with the signature debate. Serious scholars don't bother with such nonsense, and if we're to become a citable encylopedia, neither will we. Editors which see Wikipedia as a forum for personal expression should be strongly encouraged to take a hike. And it's become very difficult to see, on the one hand, serious scholars like Pecher working their tails off to create densely and reliably-sourced informative material, and on the other, religiously-motivated, spam-solicited POV swarms coming around to arbitrarily attack it. Wikipedia should encourage the former, and discourage the latter. Mindlessly dubbing all conflict "edit-warring" based on revert-counts alone is, in a very real sense, an abdication of responsibility re the rightful point of this project, which is not, in fact, building an interfaith community - this is, at best, a mere means to an end - but building a respectable, scholarly encyclopedia. If I'm wrong here, please let me know as soon as possible.Timothy Usher 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think this editor's behavior has been "insufferable" and you can demonstrate the failure of good faith attempts to resolve the problem, raise a user conduct RfC. --Tony Sidaway 14:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Leyasu

I am offering to mentor this user after their 3-month block. It's a chance to try a new skill (mediation), so I'm offering myself for it. --Sunholm 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. The best advice I can give is that you get involved in the Deathrocker arbitration:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

It's quite probable that Leyasu will be subject to sanctions as a result of that case. You should know what you're letting yourself in for! Please also contact an arbitrator involved in the case (Fred Bauder is quite active) and let him know that you're offering your services. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll mentor Deathrocker instead. See User:Sunholm/Deathrocker mentorship for details. --Sunholm(talk) 19:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dabljuh

Hi. I'm quite positive you're well informed of this editor's behavior and his actions about wikipedia. As per the section on WP:AN/I, its been established his deratory comments have been a consitent problem since the time of his account's creation. Since then, he's taken to the evasion of blocks by (presumely) rotating IP addresses. This in itself isn't a problem, since this has been dealt with previously in the past; a brief note to Brian would settle this.

The problem is the behavor and the outspoken comments by new editors who don't proceed to take this seriously. Depending on the comments made on this user's talk, I'm going to proceed with an community ban purposal on the incident noticeboard. This is quite likely to fail by merit of the defense of said editors. However its curcial we attempt dispute resolution and additonal measures at this point before we contact Brian and construct a file to the Arbitration Committee, which currently seems very likely. -Zero^Talk 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have my support in this. I will however be too busy to pursue this myself; I may soon find myself too busy off-wiki to do much. Please approach some other reliable administrator and ask them if they are able to spare the time needed. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I gave you notification in case you wished to recluse yourself as a clerk and add a comment. This is my first arbitration file and I would like to verify its done correctly. -Zero^Talk 08:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Harmil

I don't know what the policy is on a person adding themselves to a case after the arb committee has agreed to hear it [8]. Harmil was involved but lightly, for example he was never part of the mediation Anyway you decide what you want to do. jbolden1517 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay to do that. If it's inappropriate the Arbitration Committee will ignore it. Anybody, whether a party to a case or not, can edit the evidence page and workshop page of an arbitration case. The discussion pages associated with those pages and of the proposed decision page can also be edited freely by anyone.

Sometimes the Committee will add someone else to the involved parties, against his will. This is controversial and always upsets the person involved, but it's quite legitimate. The Arbitration Committee's job is to resolve disputes conclusively, not play with procedure. --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Anything the ArbCom chooses to do is okay by definition. They have added folks to cases before, even when their involvement in the case was tangential. My advice? Do your best to stay out of the way of the ArbCom. --Paleoglot 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't quite true. For instance the remedy initially specified for Stevertigo was loudly rejected by the community. --Tony Sidaway 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dschor mentorship

Tony, would you be willing to follow through on your offer to mentor User:Dschor? I think he would benefit from a slightly lighter touch. --Paleoglot 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just keeping him blocked is a much better idea. --Cyde↔Weys 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? --Igneoglot 05:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find his response to my offer encouraging so I dropped the idea. A mentorship can't really work unless both parties trust one another's good faith. --Tony Sidaway 14:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You might want to suggest that someone else mentor him, then. He seemed interested in the idea. --70.218.44.122 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

i need help

I wanna add TCW Fantasy Wrestling but it is set for speedy deletion. I wanna add all my sites, i have 3 which i want on this site.

Doesn't seem to be suitable for Wikipedia. We're not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative POV??

Hi Tony, I wonder if you were going to go through WikiPedia and remove all references to "LGBT" and "Sexual Orientation" on the grounds of POV and people leaving their partisanship at the door? Ros Power 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is an LGBT campaigning noticeboard, I'll remove it. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:LGBT notice board a campaigning noticeboard? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Agf0. I personally wrote each of those invitations; it was cross-posting not spam. See Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming. --Facto 17:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If was spam. Don't do it ever again or I'll block you. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Civil1 --Facto 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to brazen it out. "Don't attempt to sway consensus by encouraging participation in a discussion by people that you already know have a certain point of view". You spammed. Don't do it again. --Tony Sidaway 19:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt to sway consensus. I individually invited editors that showed interest in conservative issues to a project page where we can share articles of interest. Admin User:Samuel Wantman did the same thing when he started the WP:LGBT . See [9]--Facto 19:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Ros has been asked to educate herself about our policies, guidelines and procedures on Wikipedia many times, but persists in refusing to do so (or refusing to comply with them in her editing). Just for your information. Exploding Boy 15:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For your swift and decisive action on this matter. I have to ask though, what sort of procedure does the mailing list initiate? He posted a much longer rant on this and it is one that I can readily challenge, but its deceptions have garnered a perception of impropriety on the part of at least one person who replied to him. I'm not signed up to the mailing list, and I don't wish to receive mail. I simply don't want his lies unchallenged and he get unblocked simply because of sympathy by any potentially mislead administrator. What can be done? --TJive 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

He won't be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you're right. He's been a pain for far too long. --TJive 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, any decision to unblock at this stage would almost certainly involve discussion by administrators on the wiki. The reason the complainants are asked to take it to wikien-l is that, being blocked, they don't have access to the wiki. I'm adamant that we should never permit a blocked editor to call the shots. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk actions

This is probably superfluous, but Essjay created the template {{Clerk-Note}}, which makes one of these  Clerk note: for his experiment in having clerks help out WP:RFCU. It's in the main template space if you wanted to use it to deliniate Arbcom clerk actions. Thatcher131 17:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It may come in useful. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

aha

I believe that WP:AGF has been redirected to Wikipedia: Ignore Bad Acts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Rogue Admin Cabal - Saint Tony

With apologies to KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). --Colita 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lovely! --Tony Sidaway 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Rouge from a Rogue. --70.218.57.64 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Deleted!!!

Hello, I am the founder of a Wikiproject that you just deleted. Could you perhaps give me an explanation for deleting it? Thetruthbelow 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, could you please explain your reason behind deletion of the new WikiProject set up only minutes ago. This was no April Fools joke neither trolling. Please explain. Moe Epsilon 23:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what on earth possessed you to produce this utterly unwikipedian trash. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I have taken it to Deletion Review. Next time you decide to make a comment, please try to remain as civil as you can. Thank you! — Moe Epsilon 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My friend, I know that you deleted the Wikiproject with only the best intentions in mind, but we created the project with those same intentions. The project wasn't just about user pages, it was about helping both new and old editors with the technical side of wikipedia that they could use later on for articles, templates, etc. Mr. Sidaway, I greatly respect you and the many positive things you have done for Wikipedia, and I beg of you from the bottom of my heart to reconsider the deletion. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain why you created this poisonous nonsense? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was poisonous nonsense and I deeply apologize if it offended you. Thetruthbelow 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See What Wikipedia Is Not. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing timestamps?

Hello again Tony. I saw that in this diff you changed a timestamp of a user's comment. While it looks like it was a complete accident, I would appreciate it if you could try to avoid this in the future. Happy editing! -- Where is Where? 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like I really messed up in that edit. I also noticed that Splash inadvertently removed one of my votes in another edit. I suspect this is a side effect of all the edit conflicts we're having. I'll try to restore anything that has been trashed, in a few hours when that discussion becomes less busy. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu sock (?)

Hi, I know you blocked Leyasu's previous sock puppet Leyasu1 (talk · contribs), but it seems he/she has created other MetalsMainLady (talk · contribs) as you can see, the user signed up only today and their only edits so far are on 3 articles that Leyasu was indefinetly banned from editing, reverting back to preious versions by Leyasu. [10]

Earlier in the day, he had tried the same thing using anonymous IP's 86.136.231.107 (talk · contribs) & 81.157.83.1 (talk · contribs) with the exact same reverts, on the exact same article (Gothic metal, Speed metal, List of heavy metal genres), could you sort it out please?... thanks - Deathrocker 01:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there are two IPs that qualify as potential socks for Leyasu. These are the IPs: 217.218.173.227 and 81.157.83.1. My suspicions are based on activities including reverting and editing banned items. Thank you for dealing with this matter. --Andy Blak 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

npa "infantile troll"

As a friend of snotty, and having heard of the others, and knowing that timewise they wouldnt be on, hope I hadnt over-reacted, some of snottys friends think its a great joke! Thanks anyway, will be interesting to see when it tries to emerge again. Keep up the good work! SatuSuro 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)