User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

Sidaway's law of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is cleverer than you are.

---

Please avoid unusual formatting. This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Disclosure of political bias: I took the political compass questionnaire on 15 July 2006 and the result was economic left/right: minus 8.13, social libertarian/authoritarian: minus 8.26 Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Tony Sidaway is officially permitted to disagree with you

Cows

Do you like cows? --Naelphin 03:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I couldn't eat a whole one. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the sollogs

Hi. As you had a clear opinion on its predecessor, I thought you might also have one on this. (Though of course you're away right now....) -- Hoary 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive user

In the course of a challenging edit war around the Waldorf education article, one new Wikipedia user (User:Pete K) is employing rather offensive personal attacks on the talk page. There seem to be no neutral participants who can suggest an appropriate tone for the discussion; more precisely, one has, and has been ignored. Can you help? See Talk:Waldorf education.

The user also has a tendency to editorialize in the article; the distinction between describing his personal opinions or experiences, on the one hand, and verifiable information, on the other, seems to be unclear to him. The article needs clean-up, and some useful results are coming out of the discussion, but I for one am often uncomfortable with the tone and style.

Hoping you can help in some way! Hgilbert 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This award is for your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place. Martial Law

This award is also for the Arbitration Committee as well. This is one Wikipedian who is thanking you for doing a often thankless, often resented job. Martial Law 01:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiya!

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

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

User:Juro

All the staff were done in the past. Annoying POV pusher [1], clearly with a hate/angster against hungarians (see the few previous links, i put in). He even had block(s) for this. How/where can I ask for a third view comment? Or ask for banning him from editing articles related to Hungary and Hungarians? The wikipedia's arbitration pages are better then tha maze was in Crete. :S Can't find anything. --VinceB 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Try making an edit on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, or else ask for mediation. You should in early stages be trying to see if you can persuade the user to stop pushing points of view into articles.

If there are at least two editors who have tried, and failed, to resolve the dispute with this user, then try going to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.

If all other avenues fail, or seem very likely to fail, come back to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and read the instructions on how to apply for arbitration.

If the user is engaged in persistent edit warring, and the problem is rather urgent, make an edit on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI for short) and an administrator will take a look and take action if necessary. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it lasts since he regged in. All you mentioned above were all done, since 2003, a ots of times by a lot of users. Guess, the time for an arbitration is here for more than 2 yrs now. Will you help me? I don't know how to do this.--VinceB 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll reformat your application. --Tony Sidaway 12:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. As an editor active in the same area as Juro, I feel that I can (and should) provide some evidence against VinceB's claims. Since you filed the RfA for him/her, could you advise me please where I should write my comment to this case? Thanks in advance. Tankred 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to make a new section on that application called something like "Statement by User:Tankred" and add your own signed comments. Keep it brief and to the point; arbitrators don't like to read long submissions. --Tony Sidaway 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt VinceB used other means how to resolve his personal dispute with Juro (and btw, I failed to find any particular talk page, where the alleged dispute occurred). As far as I know, Juro has never been mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Unfortunately, I was not able to find the archived cases of Wikipedia:Third Opinion, but I do not remember anyone officially asking for the third opinion in this case. I believe that VinceB's request is unnecessary and it would be nice if he provided any evidence that (1) he/she has a dispute with Juro and (2) he/she used other means of dispute resolution before filing his/her request. Tankred 15:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it seems unlikely to be accepted (though I don't make such decisions). If it's rejected, likely the arbitrators will recommend a course of action such as mediation or RfC. --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just realized, you put this on the arbitration page again. I asked for a third opinion, not arbitration (and some help :). See above. --VinceB 16:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll remove it. Please do ask if you think you still need help from me. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I simply lost in burocracy :) OMG, just the Pope doesn't have to be asked before arbitration... :D On the other hand, right now the "Mediation" step is next, but I thought I don't have to go through again on these, because others did it, as you can see also, if you give the time for a short preview. I want to stop his actions against hungarians, he's very agressive and POV pusher. --VinceB 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Chaldeans

Hi, you might wanna look at this Chaldean's. They try to get by it, but this is the real page; Chaldean. Chaldean 04:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cool it

Disagreement / Disrespect

Tony, I respectfully ask you to cool it off. Your self-righteous, dismissive and defiant attitude to people who disagree with your actions harms not only your opponents. It harms you as well, and, most importantly, it harms an entire Wikipedia because you are one of the most visible admins here doing much of the dirty work. You and 10 other admins do about 90% of admin work overall and we are all indebted to you for that. People who do more tend to make more mistakes as the only way not to make any is to do nothing, clearly not the case for you.

Disagreement with your actions does not mean a personal attack, as you tend to perceive it. Neither such disagreements question your integrity while your reactions suggest you see it as such.

What worked for me best was when I saw something that angered me a lot, I gave it a little time before reacting rather than responding at once. This is an old advise but an easy to forget one.

In no way it is my intention to tell you what to do. Largely thanks to your regning on trolls Wikipedia is the place where people can actually write article together, which is our main job. Please just take my suggestion under advisement as no response, defiant or not, is necessary. OTOH, if you feel like this warrants a discussion, fine with me either way. I will be around, while not 24/7.

Regards, --Irpen 23:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm really sorry if my comments sound dismissive, That's absolutely not the impression I want to give. I certainly don't regard disagreement as a personal attack. Personal attack I regard as a personal attack, and that alone.

I notice that you mention things that anger you on Wikipedia. I'm sorry if there are things here that anger you. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on.. Tony, if you honestly don't intend to come off sounding the way you sound, there are some things you could do to help change it. The best option is to change the way you think. But, forget that- you could also just change the way you talk and nobody but you would know the difference anyway, so one's about as good as the other. By changing the way you talk, what I mean specifically is things like: stop saying "ridiculous" about any opinions that are different from yours. Stop insisting that your way is the only way things could possibly work. Don't call the reasoned opinons of people different from you "the howling of the mob". It's the little things like this that cause people to find you self-righteous and dismissive. Friday (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't say "ridiculous" about opinions that aren't the same as mine. Only ones that appear clearly ridiculous, for instance here, here and here. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it would not be possible to surgically extract from me my contempt for the howling of the mob. This doesn't mean that I mean ill will to any person who engages in these periodic witch-hunts that I often find myself having to fire-fight, but it does mean I have to confront people with the ugliness of the things they're combining together, as a group, to do.

You couldn't seriously accuse my of being dismissive; I've spent an enormous amount of time and effort explaining my point of view. --Tony Sidaway 00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, would you say that you spend more time explaining your point of view than trying to understand the POV of others? Regards, Ben Aveling 04:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I read far, far more than I write. This isn't surprising because there is only one of me and there are many people who are not me. And, I think it has to be said, most people are far more prolix then I am. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking about number of words, but about time. Do you spend more time thinking about what the other person is trying to say, or more time thinking about how to help them understand. Over to you. Ben Aveling 04:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends. I can express myself well in few words. Others seem to struggle with this and of course it can take a while to wade through a long discussion. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's true. And yet, there are some good people who come away from a conversation with you, thinking you don't respect them. Ben Aveling 05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you have some very, very serious problems of perception, Irpen. In particular, the allegation that I'm "trying to make " anyone's "life as much troublesome as possible" is appalling and I really do urge you to rethink your contributions to this discussion. --Tony Sidaway 05:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that I don't think much of the opinion they have expressed. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does that cause a problem? Ben Aveling 05:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If I don't agree with their opinion, perhaps they think it's because I don't like them. I've noticed that people whose opinions I agree with seldom complain that I disrespect them, so possibly the two things are linked in some minds. --Tony Sidaway 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because how you express your opinions to those who disagree with you, how you never accept being possibly wrong (even in the retrospect). The whole thing returns to the very issues raised from the beginning: defiant and dismissive self-righteousness as an overall attitude when interacting with others. --Irpen 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's right, and I think people are justified in that belief. My sense of what's happening is that you've had your copper's hat on so long, you've become very ready to assume that anyone who isn't a copper is a villian. Ben Aveling 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it? The people you clash with, they aren't they mostly idiots? Ben Aveling 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Valuing Tony's opinion

"thinking you don't respect them" isn't really a problem. Other editors care about that no more than Tony cares for their respect. The problem is Tony's turning the Wikipedia into a battleground between himself and editors who, unlike Tony, actually write content but happen to occasionally disagree with him in non-Main space, where Tony spends all of his edits. Tony tries to make their life as much troublesome as possible uses an utter defiance and intimidation, as well as a real treat of blocks, in order to "prevail" so to speak in the issues of disagreement and in the end, makes his own life here troublesome toowikiexperience a nervewrecking ordeal. He gets an overwhelming support from everyone when he deals with those who come here to troll. He gets none of it from his treating anyone who disagrees with him like those trolls. It may be a natural consequence of him spending more than anyone else I know with fending of trolls. After the nerve wrecking experience of doing that Tony starts to perceive everyone who disagree with him like a troll. And understandable reaction but a harmful one. That's why I suggested that Tony return to main space editing for a little. --Irpen 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, hi. Tony and I disagree, often stridently, but he's never treated me as a troll. I just thought I'd point out that your generalization about his behavior is inaccurate, it turns out. Tony is a very good communicator, sometimes, even with people with whom he disagrees. It can be difficult to tease that good communicator out, but he's in there. If you know how to talk to him, he's quite reasonable and easy to work with. Otherwise... maybe not so much, 'cause he's not the type to necessarily meet you halfway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize since that was an overgeneralization. While Tony is prominent enough so that I have heard of him before, I never actually interacted with him so I could not have known and my overgeneralization is unjustified. Actually, while he called me things lately, he never used the term "troll" too. From seeing him applying this term clearly to non-trolls but editors who simply disagreed with him, in the last three days of my interacting with Tony I made this unfair generalization from several occurances that I saw. --Irpen 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irpen. Are you sure you don't care about Tony's opinion of you? Regards, Ben Aveling 05:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Particularly of Tony's? Not much really. Only in one day Tony accused several editors who wrote much content (which is our main job here) and resolved disagreements in hunderds of articles in good faith in a friendly and collegiate way and gained much respect from the community (but not from Tony) recogized through attained adminships, many wikiawards, respect they get in the article's discussions, etc. in trolling, slurring and stupidity due to their disagreements with what he said and what he did. Just minutes earlier he even used an edit summary to allege that I have "problems with perception" while, as per WP:NPA "Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." So, no. I apreciate Tony's committment and hard work here but I am not trying to be on his favored side in view of the mentioned above. Nor I am trying to extract any kind of apology from him which, I must say to his credit he occasionally offered with sincerety for his past mistakes which are not directly related to this matter. He did not harm me personally in any way other than the overall, and I am sure unintentional, harm to this project from his lately hardened attitudes. --Irpen 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anger Management

Tony, I am sorry to see that your reply was such, especially the second part. "I'm sorry if there are things here that anger you." I am also sorry that things get you angry here. I am even more sorry that Wikipedia in its current form cannot accomodate many good editors and a whole bunch of prolific authors of dozens of FAs left already (hopefully they are replaced by the newcomers): 172, Latinus, Wiglaf and many more who left either because of trolls or because of the disrespecting attitudes they received from Wikipedia's authoritative figures to which you undoubtedly belong. Personally, I can take such attitudes. While I am not putting myself in the same league as those valuable authors, I am not as brittle as them either (perhaps because I am not in the same league).

You say you don't want to leave an impression that your response to constructive criticism is dismissive. Well, I tell you that it is and I am not alone at it[2][3] . When I already clicked "save page" to leave my last message, I noticed the thread above (#Your blocks) which basically repeated my thoughts very closely. Your response was dismissive there and your very response above is dismissive. You bluntly dismissed my complaints about your attitudes stating that this is not your intention to leave this impression. Your intention matters little. You do leave this impression in most all your actions in the last two days (that's all the time I was watching as I did not interact with you in the past and only knew your name as that of one of the most active and committed admins, which I still think is the case).

I will not repeat any of the things I said lately on this as they are available here. I added emphasis there for convenience if you would be so kind to reread this thread and the responses you got from various people there, all established contributors, all known to be non-trolls, most known to write content and all but a few, questioning both your action and your treatment of criticism. Someone was so kind as citing me verbatim at the new ArbCom which while likely to be dismissed, I have no objection to since it may help us all by the ArbCom shedding the light of its judgement to the real problem that endangers Wikipedia now. It used to be trolls being allowed to harm us all unchecked for months due to the admins indecisiveness. This is fixed now. Now it is WP:AN#Hasty blocking by a minority of self-righteous administrators, who do us all a lot of good by 90+% of their blocks being on target but with the loss of the remaining 10% outweighing the benefits not because the number of users that fall under 10% but the quality of those users. I don't know whether you read that post in full but judging by your, again defiant, response to a very related issue you either not read the whole thing or refused to give it a thought. Anyway, I will add my statement to the developing ArbCom case to share my thoughts on it with the community and the ArbCom members. But now I need some WP:TEA --Irpen 00:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I sent you a brief note over an email. Nothing big but you will understand why I chose a private method to communicate this small thing

I don't get angry here. My judgement may differ from yours, but I'm pretty much making levelheaded, cool judgements that tend to work and seem to make sense on reflection days and weeks after. I'm sorry if you think otherwise. If by "dismissive" you mean that, when talking to someone else, I sometimes express a different opinion than that expressed by that person, you're right. If I didn't do this we wouldn't be able to distinguish my opinion from yours, would we? --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect -- and in general I support what you do -- you don't suffer fools gladly, and you're damn sure about what you know is right; problem is, that can come across as "I'm right so your blather isn't worth listening to." Which, most of the time, it isn't. But I ran into that "dismissiveness" a couple weeks ago, when I squeaked up about that Karl Meier thing. I'm pretty much immune to it -- since I also know I'm right and I also don't suffer fools gladly. But you've decided to take a leadership role in this community, so your tone is more important than you might think it is. I'm not concerned about the reactions of the twits and fools; the quicker they get the point and find a new playground, the better. But the people who are, at worst, slightly misguided, are worth cultivating -- and those are the people who are most likely to be affected by being brushed off by people with more community standing. Feel free to ignore all this and go on exactly as you have been, of course; you're doing great work here, and I certainly appreciate your efforts on Wikipedia's behalf. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I could have been more conciliatory on the Karl Meier thing. I took it right to the arbitration committee for clarification. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that all worked out well -- I'm just describing my reaction to one of your comments early in the discussion ("gosh, that was dismissive", essentially.) I'm not in any way criticizing your actions, just suggesting that your tone is sometimes perhaps not in Wikipedia's best interests. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Battlefields

Regarding this edit I would not revert it, but I guess you have not got the point - of course you are entitled to have an opinion different from Irpen's or mine and use somehow strong words to express it, but Ghirlandajo has the same rights on these matter (actually more, since the admins are suppose to have higher standards of behavior). That is all abakharev 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What Ghirlandajo doesn't have is the right to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, AFAIK he doesn't treat it as such - he just creates content and expresses his opinions (sometimes in stronger word that is necessarily). abakharev 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree on that. He openly depicts Wikipedia as being in a state of warfare "between wikilawyering admins and writing editors of WP". He says "[Bureaucrats] know too well that, if their aberrant behaviour is not exposed in ArbCom, all their mistakes will be buried in the archives of this page, as have been in the past. The question is whether the community is willing to trust these [bureaucrats] any more" and refers to the bureaucrats who chose to promote Carnildo as "Carnildo's buds". This is open, naked, belligerence of the worst kind. --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interject, but I have to disagree on that. Expressing his opinion on the state of Wikipedia in a civil tone without resorting to personal attacks is completely acceptable. Questioning the behavior of beauracrats in pushing through a contentious RfA is also well within the bounds of valid discourse. You are more than welcome to disagree with him, argue with him, or ignore him. But honestly, with no disrespect intended, how could you have thought a 3 hour block would improve the situation in any way? You seem like an intelligent and clear thinking person, how could you appraise the situation, see that he has issues with block-prone administrators, and determine that the best way to defuse his comments was a short and arbitrary block? I apologize for jumping in, I just had to respond. Thank you.—Nate Scheffey 19:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying a bureaucrat or admin or editor got it wrong is fine. Accusing any of them of malfeasance, without good evidence, and especially doing so habitually and in a bellicose manner, as Ghirlando does, is not. --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary has malfeasanace as "wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official". So yes, Ghirlandajo suggested miscoduct on the part of the beauracrats for pushing through a contentious RfA. So did a lot of editors. That is not incivility, it is not a personal attack, and it should never result in a block. As for the habitual or bellicose nature of Ghirlandajo's comments, in several of the ones cited in his block he advises other editors to "cool off", "ignore it" , and to "stop bickering and start writing articles". This doesn't sound like a person so hell-bent on the total destruction of all admins that the only possible preventative measure is an emergency 3 hour block before they destroy the entire encyclopedia. Nor do I think it is beneficial or constructive to scan the comments in a contentious but winding down RfA, select a bunch by one editor, and post the diffs on his talk page with the advice to "tone it down". Taking that action, especially knowing the nature of his complaints, how did you think he would react? And when he did react as expected, blocked. That should solve that problem.—Nate Scheffey 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather agree with Nscheffey. How exactly you thought people would react to a decision, which is at best unprecedented and at worst quite controversial. Would Ghirla been alone to react in such a way, your own reaction would be quite understandable and justified, but it was far from being the case.

And incidentally, advising editors to "cool off", "ignore it", and to "stop bickering and start writing articles" is a straightforward lack of tact, bordering on impoliteness. Wikipedia is a community, not a totalitarian state in which people get up to work every day and just have to approve the Party's Hard Line. Therefore, their opinion is very important and should be considered, especially in the case of well-established contributors with tens of thousands of edits. Telling him (and I mean especially him, selected from like 30 users who expressed more or less the same feeling) to "cool down" equals to throw oil into the fire, rather than extinguish it. -- Grafikm_fr 00:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no more to say. Nothing you say justifies Ghirlandajo's ongoing problematic behavior. As an administrator I found his behavior grossly inappropriate. He is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but not to use it as a battleground. Nor, for that matter, are any of you. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'll make a couple observations and get out of your hair. Your remark "You couldn't seriously accuse my of being dismissive; I've spent an enormous amount of time and effort explaining my point of view" was fairly illuminating. Not being dismissive involves listening to other editors even more than it involves explaining your point of view. This is the point you seem to not be getting. Also, you've been dismissive from the very start of this conversation about you being dismissive (see the edit summary here), yet you still say you're not doing it on purpose. I'm still struggling to wrap my brain around that one. Friday (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go again, you see. First I'm dismissive, and then when I remark that I make a huge effort to explain myself to people you say I don't listen. If I didn't listen I obviously wouldn't be able to respond. If you're struggling to make yourself understood it's because you're making statements that are not congruent with the existence of this dialog. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's try again. We seem to be agreed on the following:

• You perceive my responses to you as dismissive.
• When you elaborate, it appears that this manifests itself in a feeling that I don't agree with you even after you have made an effort to explain your reasoning.
• We know that that feeling is valid. People frequently disagree with one another and you and I are no exception.

So okay. We've established that you and I don't see eye to eye on several issues, including whether or not I listen to you. Having reread this discussion several times now I am convinced that I listened and completely understood your meaning at all times, but I do not agree with your reasoning and I've pointed out several apparent logical inconsistencies in it. If I'm mistaken you could explain in turn how my reasoning is faulty or my perceptions are in error. This would enable the discussion to continue. --Tony Sidaway 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Attitude

Tony, your continued intolerable attitude you keep demonstrating here as well as just within last hour by two attacks on people whose only fault is disagreeing with you [4][5] prompted me to add more to the above.

It is worrying that you fail to answer the concerns brought to you by many users, not trolls but content editors, admins and not, with the same rights and duties like you, with anything but denial. Everyone is tired of pointing out to this attitude of yours because the only thing everyone gets in response is your self-righteousness and more of the same attitude. I have concerns that both certain things you do and the way you do them harm Wikipedia unnecessarily. Other editors agree, see eg.this "Tony's Attitude" dialog.

You refuse to listen (while you claim you do, several people pointed to you that you don't) and simply dismiss the points brought to you by several users many times. Only within last day and only at your talk page several people from different places, all respected Wikipedians in good standing, told you all the same thing. Here is a non-inclusive set of examples (there is more above):1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Ok, if you disrespect me that would reduce by 1 the number of respected ones within a day per your talk page but there are still plenty and you should take it as some food for thought. Now, I am not counting here basically the same things said to you elsewhere (ArbCom statements, WP:AN, WP talk:RfAdm, etc) during this very same day by many more people who you cannot discount because they are all established editors here, content creators and admins.

Your response to each of the users complaining about your being dismissive and defiant was equally self-righteous, dismissive and defiant. To those concerns cited above your responses were: 1, 2,3, 4, 5, respectively (again, I am talking only those five at your talk page, there are more at this very page and elsewhere).

In two other cases within the same time period and on the very same page of yours you even used an offensive language towards two other admins that gave you an absolutely valid criticism accusing one of them in slurring and another one in trolling. I was also surprised to find out that in the latter case your "response" consisted of censoring your own talk from what you would have said yourself (as you did) had that be you talking to another user and not the other way around like it was this time. When the other user's attitude to your message was equally defiant, you simply blocked him ironically citing "Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down". Nevertheless, you obviously do the exact same things for which you block others. I am not requesting you to block yourself for that. And I also think requesting your block would be a poor idea for the very same reason why your block of Ghirla that caused so much stir accompanied by your defiance was an extremely bad move you failed to admit, less apologize.

I just want to reemphasize that several unquestionably reputable wikieditors (not just me regardless of where you put me) are alarmed by the recent developments of your attitude and see it harmful for the climate here. It weighs with heavy costs on the entire project and there are no benefits that somehow justify these costs. I am basically saying this almost merely for the record because I almost have no hope to receive anything from you other than another set of self-righteous statements. If, however, I am wrong, and you take time to analyze the problem with your attitude that several people are trying to convince you to address, you may actually come up with something different and, perhaps, consider changing the way you interact with the community.

As a suggestion, if I may, prompted by your bemusing mention of wikilawyering I notice that in the last two weeks you made less than 50 edits in the mainspace. While each and every of them is a useful small thing for some article (fixing redirs, links, protection, etc.) there are no content creating edits among them. I am not looking any further back (I assume you wrote much at some point) and I don't discount the mopping as a very useful activity. I am saying trying to write for a change may actually ease things up a little as well as cool you off and allow others to work in a better climate. You will also find out that others will step in as effectively to replace you in blocking real trolls who harm us all, a job you do superbly. But concentrating on this job, like you do, tends to harden people up so that they start to perceive everyone around them as such, particularly those who disagree, however in good faith. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, cool it!

In no way this problems take away the enormous good you brought to Wikipedia by your devotion and hard work. People are not infallible, yourself included. I am begging you to please give it a thought rather than responding at once with would would response be if you do.

Sincerely, --Irpen 02:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're continuing to mistake listening and disagreeing for not listening. Friday does exactly the same. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Friday and others. Now you convinced me. How about other things? Well, never mind. You said it all so superbly! --Irpen 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Succinctness is essential, particularly on a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 04:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I find that a good way to let people know that I'm listening is to paraphrase their argument back to them, and then - without yet replying to it - ask them if I did it correctly. That way, I'll either get a clarification, or a grateful acknowledgement that they really do feel understood. Then I can reply to their argument, secure that we're on the same page going into my reply. Not having studied the current situation, I'm not making any claim about how you may have handled it; please understand my comment here as completely general. In general, though, people respond very well to being affirmed by having their own thoughts correctly articulated by another. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we've gone around this particular mulberry bush enough times. We all know where we stand. You and I have been here before when I've had to deal with other problem editors. A little splashback is inevitable. --Tony Sidaway 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I just said was not a mulberry bush we've gone around before, and I'm quite explicitly not criticizing you here. I'm just trying to share a very specific strategy for placating upset people. You can take it or leave it, ok? I would take issue with "inevitable", because I've seen people who are quite adept at avoiding it. If my suggestion bothers you, please ignore it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you don't agree with my strategy. As I say, we've been around this one before. --Tony Sidaway 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Our memories must differ. We've never had an interaction about how to let people know that you're listening to them before. Since you appear unreceptive to any kind of suggestions, I'll just fuck off now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sure that we went through this whole thing during the Alienus affair. I seem to manage to make myself understood and I'm not overly concerned with those who believe that I in turn don't understand them. Understanding what someone is trying to say and agreeing with it are two completely different things. Your mileage may vary. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the topic of showing someone that you're listening never came up then, and it's the only topic I was trying to address here. We disagreed on numerous points over Alienus, but that wasn't one of them. To take this very exchange as an example, you haven't indicated in any way with your words that you know what I said to you in my initial post here. Your sentence "Understanding what someone is trying to say and agreeing with it are two completely different things" seems to imply that you think I was equating those somehow. I wasn't. If you feel it's necessary to recite truisms like that to me, it leads me to strongly believe that you have no idea where I'm coming from. If you can't see the value in finding out where someone else is coming from, in a communication situation, I guess I can't explain it to you. Best of luck to you, Tony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure it did but never mind. What you're asking is that I shouldn't just read, understand and respond to what people say to me, but that I should engage in detailed conversation. "So, X." "Ah, you mean X?" "Yes, X." "Oh, yes, X, but then again Y." "Really? I never thought of that."

A wiki is probably the least suitable medium for that kind of discussion. To take an example, Irpen's latest contribution is an entire essay and goes off on several uninteresting tangents on which I don't feel like bothering to correct him. It would take hours. While it might do his ego a lot of good I don't think it would advance the project.

I get the message that a small and disparate sampling of editors find my interactions problematic. I think this is inevitable given the kind of things I deal with and the role I play in the project, and I do appreciate that you don't agree with me on that.

To go back to the start, I have this "self-righteous, dismissive and defiant attitude to people who disagree with my actions" and when I examine this it seems to boil down to the fact that I don't agree with people who don't agree with me. Well I already knew that. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, my ego has nothing to do with it. I know you don't care about my ego and I care even less about your not caring. I get enough appreciation in life and in Wikipedia and your contempt matters little, especially since I find out that this is all you have to those who disagree with you. I care about the problems that are caused by your actions. It used to be that their overall effect was overly positive. Lately, the net sum is negative. You don't need me to change my opinion on that and I know you can't care less. I simply watched what was going on. What matters is that those who agree with me happen to be many and those are not trolls that you so superbly blocked all the time (no sarcasm and thank you for that) but those, who unlike you (at least lately) write for Wikipedia, which is the goal of this project. --Irpen 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for your detailed reply. I feel a lot better about this interaction, and that matters to me, because I need to know that I'm working with people with whom I can communicate, when it becomes necessary. If that weren't true, I'd have to quit. Maybe that means I'm psychically weak in some way, if so, I thank you for your patient indulgence. (no sarcasm - seriously I appreciate your patience in giving me more attention than you feel should be necessary.) It's true that it's the question of inevitability on which we disagree: You accept a certain amount of static as unavoidable, while I continue to suggest that you could avoid significantly more than you do. It's true that it would take more effort, and at some point there's diminishing returns. I guess our beef is really over where that point is.

Your last paragraph there is odd. I don't agree with people who don't agree with me either, but I seem to manage to convince them that I've heard and understood their issues, which seems to leave them in a much better mood, and I get basically zero complaints. Maybe it's not your disagreeing with them that upsets them, so much as your unwillingness to do the little things that would dignify them, since what they're really looking for, half the time, is just an affirmation of their individual dignity in what can be a very impersonal and intimidating environment. On the other hand, I'm certain I do less dirty work around here than you do, so maybe it's that. Maybe it's that I'm too lenient with people who show a reluctance to "get it". I will certainly continue to examine my own actions, with an eye to improvement, and I'll reflect on what I can learn from this conversation.

My intent posting here wasn't to get on your case, or to have any of this discussion, really. I thought I was dropping off a fairly benign suggestion, that could be applied to quickly defuse a situation in which someone is accusing you of not listening to them. I think you might be able to incorporate that trick, without significantly changing your "strategy" - it's just a tool. I think you could probably use it very effectively, if you tried.

I wish you peace, Tony. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm absolutely sure we all have different thresholds at which we feel our communication is being acknowledged adequately. On a wiki it's probably a very good idea to considerably lower one's expectations of interaction. Someone who cannot do that may encounter severe problems. The project isn't about you and me. Really it isn't. The fewer bits wasted stroking egos the better. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that what I consider perfectly normal conversation, you consider ego stroking. Sometimes, I manage to help sort out disagreements, and get previously intransigent people to talk with each other productively, so I'm going to keep doing what I do. I'll see you around, I'm sure. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one of life's mediators. It takes different ingredients to bake a cake. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

While some ingredients may actually turn less edible (climate) and less nutritious (content). --Irpen 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for cake. Should you ever desire the assistance of one of life's mediators, please don't hesitate to let me know; I'd be delighted to help. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

Look chaps, I think we've all had a good go and said all we can say on this subject. A few people continue to get steamed up and make all kinds of preposterous allegations that I'm absolutely sure they'll think better of in the morning. So I'll leave it there. No hard feelings, but I think some people in this discussion are simply not going to be mollified no matter how calmly and nicely I continue to deal with their concerns. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ready to be archived. --Tony Sidaway 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Point

Hi, I think you are driving here to the point I made a bit bellow there: Ghirla vs Community. Disagree? Renata 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. In my opinion he's treating this project like trench warfare. I think your summation of evidence is very good. --Tony Sidaway 03:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So maybe you should modify (again :]) your statement to that extent? Renata 11:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No need. You put it well and the arbitrators are very experienced and know the score, so they either agree with us that there is a problem to be arbitrated or they don't. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Policy on signatures

What's the policy on complex signatures again? This is in reference to this signature, covering 4 lines in diffs. --Ragib 07:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

We have a guideline at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (WP:SIG for short). Like most guidelines it's a matter of commonsense. Sometimes politely asking an editor to find a way to reduce the size is met with a positive response. If you decide to make such a request, do explain why having a large signature can cause problems for other editors who may find it hard to locate text in a discussion page. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Need Help

Tony Sidaway, may you please look At This Thread and forward it to ArbCom members? Despite the ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba), Andries is making questionable edits and pushing forward adding links to his and others Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba websites. When there is a perceived violation of an ArbCom ruling, how does one file a complaint? Thank you. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter to be handled by administrators. I'll deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him. Please report back to me if there are further problems. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, there is some confusion whether or not the ArbCom ruling pertains to user pages. For example the re-insertion of a critical and potentially libelous site against Sathya Sai Baba on Andries user page: Reference. I see this as a potential loophole where the critial links against Sathya Sai Baba can be moved from the article page to a user page. May you kindly provide clarification about this? Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with Andries saying he's affiliated with a group and giving its web page on his own user page. Users have some discretion over the contents of their user pages. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

Tony, are we going to remove the links critical of George W. Bush from the article Michael Moore article because it may violate Biographies of living people? Clearly not, because people can defame anyone they want in their own article. The article Robert Priddy deals with exactly the same issue. I filed a request for mediation regarding this issue. Both Moore and Priddy have been reported by reputable source i.e. Keven Shepherd in latter case. The dispute about the external link in the article Robert Priddy preceded the arbcom case. I filed a request for mediation regarding this matter.Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy Andries 21:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means pursue your dispute to the fullest extent available, as long as you actively don't violate the arbitration ruling. --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But it will be clear that I think that in the case of the external links in the Robert Priddy, (or Basava Premanand) article removing critical links maintained by the subject in question is a ridiculously strict interpretation of the arbcom ruling. Andries 21:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be worth going to Requests for arbitration and starting a request for clarification on this. The arbitrators may be able to tell you what they meant more precisely. --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this should be done, because as far as I understood and still understand it, it is fine to use copies of webpages of reputable sources hosted on saiguru.net or exbaba.com as references. Please note that the website created by SSS108 for Wikipedia [6] contains copies of articles taken from exbaba.com so if exbaba.com com is unreliable then necessarily SSS108's website is so too. Andries 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a request for clarification Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Sorry for causing you clerks extra work Andries 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but that's not a problem. I'd rather you use the dispute resolution process in this way, asking for clarification and causing a little clerical work for one or two of us, than just try to struggle with the ambiguity, which would probably end up causing a lot more work for quite a few of us. It shows a commitment to comply with the rulings and, I'm sure, improves the atmosphere by increasing the regard in which you are held by those who disagree with you, as a fair-minded and cooperative individual. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries agreed to the Geocities site under mediation with BostonMA: Ref. The articles on the Geocities site are not articles originally published on Anti-Sai sites. They are newspaper articles whose publication is independent from Anti-Sai sites. Tony, thank you for your help and guidance. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 04:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My response on Request For Clarification: Reference. Includes recent questionable edits by Andries on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page where he made a highly questionable edit by moving media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) from the Sathya Sai Baba Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda. SSS108 ^talk-email

All the links that I moved from the main article to the talk page were published in the media i.e. reputable sources and my edit was certainly an improvement. I followed user:Pjacobi in removing the media article whose edits were reverted by user:Francis Schonken because they violated WP:RS (not quoting non-English sources. Andries 17:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to complain about the behavior by SSS108 who removed on-topic non-libellous comments that were no personal attacks on other editors from the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. See here [7] I think that this removal by SSS108 was misguided and inappropriate. Andries 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Without going into detail, it appears to me that SSS108 is interpreting one of the remedies in the arbitration case by removing poorly sourced information from a talk page. Please add a query about this to your request for clarification, so that the arbitrators can tell you both whether or not this was what they intended. While it appears to me on the surface to be a correct interpretation, I haven't really followed the case and I'm not an arbitrator so I cannot tell you definitively what they intended. --Tony Sidaway 00:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The stated reason why SSS108 removed information from the talk page was not because he considered the information poorly sourced, but because he thought I was spamming the talk page with links critical of SSB. I can understand his suspicion, though it was unfounded. (The links did not contain any link to anti-SSB websites.) I thought and still think that I had good reason to make the comments on the talk page. If this is a one-time removal then I have little problem with it and I will not formally report it. In contrast, if SSS108 repeatedly removes information with flimsy motivations from the talk page then I will make a formal complaint about it. Andries 08:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to remove information from the talk page that reflects Andries "flimsy" and duplicitous reasoning. So you better request clarification about this, Andries. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, there are only three good reasons to remove comments from the article talk page 1. it is libellous of the living person that is the subject of the article or a link to a libellous webpage 2. Personal attacks against other users 3. (long) off-topic messages.

If you remove messages for other reasons then this the stated three then the reasons are wrong or flimsy. Tony, please confirm or disconfirm what I wrote about removal from talk pages, because SSS108 tends to be highly skeptical of everything that I write. Andries 19:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that this removal is probably covered by the arbitration ruling. Please ask for clarification from the Committee, and wait. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108 which of the links that I inserted on the talk page that you removed [8] do you consider in violation of WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling? I think there were none. It was only a copy of the links that you inserted on the main article. Andries 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

SSS108, you could and should have removed only the links that violated WP:BLP or the arbcom ruling, not all of them. I maintain that there were none that violated WP:BLP or the arbcome ruling. Andries 19:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please stop whining here. Ask for clarification from ArbCom. I will not accept your self-justificatory comments. I will, however, accept ArbCom's comments. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Thank you for shortening it. I will make a smaller one since I will be participating on AN/I more often and I do not want it to bother you. --Zer0faults 01:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being proactive on this. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: What?

Sorry, but what percisely do I have to do? --HolyRomanEmperor 10:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're responding to my arbitration clerk note about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. If you don't want to contribute further to that case, you don't need to do anything more (I just read your original statement). If you do have more to contribute, particularly references to relevant edits or discussions, you're welcome to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence and start a section for your own evidence. Then add diffs to those edits which you think are relevant to the case. There are further instructions at the top of the page, explaining how to add evidence. --Tony Sidaway 10:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

new anti-Semitism ArbCom case

Greetings Tony Sidaway, just wanted to drop you a note of thanks for taking the initiative to request arbitration relative to this article. Hopefully the case will be adopted by the arbitration committee and remedies for all parties will be determined. Thanks again. Netscott 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that arbitration is necessary, but I have seen enough high profile fuss and enough worrying mutterings to suspect that we have encountered a fault line in community cohesion and it's worth seeing if something needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 11:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I've seen about four or five editors throw around the "ownership" label relative to this (and I highly suspect there are many more). My thinking is the more folks are saying "ownership" the more a case is warranted. That said I do appreciate your hesitations. Netscott 11:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if arbitration is the right way forward for this article, but there are some concerns I have and some points I would like to make that otherwise I did not know how to raise. So I will participate in this, and thank you very much for organising it. Itsmejudith 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so, I recommend that you make a statement on the application. The case has not yet been accepted and any evidence you can bring, in a brief statement, would be useful in helping the arbitrators to make up their minds. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

IAR

Hi, I was asking about IAR and you were explaining it and I think my last question got lost as the thread went in a different direction. Here is my unanswered question. I thank you for your help: So everything that has a policy page is a policy. Then the "rules" are...? Essay pages? Then there's WP:3RR that says it's both policy and a rule????? Wikipedia has "policies" and "guidelines." Maybe guidelines are the rules. Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines and included in them are WP:POINT, WP:BITE, and WP:UP -- all of these are treated as policy. So WP:IAR means WP:POINT, WP:BITE, and WP:UP can be ignored if it's to make the encyclopedia better? There are also processes, which I do see the IAR applied to with WP:SNOW. ----Anomo 11:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the above. --Tony Sidaway 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So which things are the rules? You said 3RR does not count as a rule, but Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules gives an example of ignoring it with WP:IAR. Anomo 13:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I say that 3RR doesn't count as a rule? If I ever did, I was wrong. I always ignore that rule. You can ignore a rule without breaking Wikipedia policy, you know. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR is listed as policy. Which things are the ignorable rules (if it is to help wikipedia) and which things are the unignorable ones? Anomo 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In cases of such confusion I find that there are no problems if I Ignore all rules. It takes a bit of getting used to, and honestly when I try to explain it I think I must sound like Yoda or Obi Wan, or that guy out of Kung Fu (TV series). But it really is nothing more than just using your common sense. It's particularly good for resolving things that don't matter (like quibbles about whether something is a rule or a policy). Wikipedia written policies are supposed to represent distilled commonsense, codified as written rules. If you follow your commonsense then you'll usally find that you're following policy. If you find you're not, but the encyclopedia is still improving, it usually means that the rules are wrong. So we change the rules from time to time to keep up. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the best way I've ever heard anyone explain IAR. --Kbdank71 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that is a good explanation. It expands on what I previously understood about IAR: It's that in making up rules it's like programming a computer and it's lots of rules that are inflexible and don't understand anything. Then there's how the USA Legal system hows so many laws even lawyers don't know them all (like how you have to be a specialized lawyer in some branches to know the law) and people win in court depending on how well people who know all the obscure, unknown laws can twist them around and yet USA always goes, "ignorance is no excuse for not obeying the law." Going by common sense is easier in a small group if they're all decent people, but when it gets big like a nation's government it's hard to do. Anomo 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

I appreciate and accept your apology. Incidentally, I've been giving serious thought to quitting the project. This will make it a bit less sour if that's what I decide. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. I hope you'll feel comfortable about staying, too, if you decide to do that. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo problem

Sorry about my english. Before 3-6 months I have started to bring somme document for the Kosovo but I dont have time to lose with goverments propagander. This is the point. I dont know even you or burokrats can do samthing agains thate. The target is to block every information about the Kosovo subject not only the Kosovo article. Thaks for calling but I dont have time to work agains a goverment.

Sorry about my english my statment is here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, I holpe is not in wrong pleace.

Tung from Prishtina--Hipi Zhdripi 03:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Your English is good enough for me to understand what you mean: that you feel that English Wikipedia's coverage of the subject of Kosovo is full of government propaganda (I assume you mean on behalf of the government of Serbia).

Your statement is in the right place and will be read and understood by the arbitrators. Thanks again. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks!! I am at last free. :) Cheers, —Khoikhoi 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A rare occasion when I've been the bearer of good news to a subject of arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha... Indeed, you have a very stressful job. And then of course you probably get a lot of crap for just "being the messenger". ;-) —Khoikhoi 04:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Cent

Hello, I see you've recently edited {{cent}}. This is quite all right and I encourage you to help keep it current. But please don't forget to log your changes at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Template log. This will help us stay all on the same page -- no pun intended. Thank you. John Reid 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep. Changes are logged in the template history. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That point's been raised but consensus is solidly behind logging [9]. Changes to this template are too numerous, frequent, complicated, and potentially contentious to be made without some sort of explicit tracking. Also, when the log is archived, it's time to record Conclusions. That last page is the real payout of a centralized discussion process. Page history just isn't enough. Please log your changes. Thank you. John Reid 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to log changes. It sounds like a ridiculous waste of time to me. It's just a page for links to discussions, you know. --Tony Sidaway 13:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would really like to bring you on board here. Cent has been edited by a great many people since it became a general clearinghouse or billboard for all kinds of centralized discussions, not only those held on subpages of Centralized discussion. Not everyone has agreed with all the changes made but mostly it's been extremely civil. I'm sure we'd all like to keep it this way. I'm willing to go the extra mile with you to explain the need for the log.

There are, as yet, no formal restrictions on what can and cannot be put on Cent. You and I probably agree that such formal restrictions are true instruction creep. But we obviously cannot just put up every policy/proposal/poll that comes down the pike. There are far too many and the utility of Cent is in inverse proportion to its size. On the other hand, a slot on Cent is a way to get air for an idea -- it's valuable real estate. Dead proposals need to be hustled off as quickly as possible but of course the disappointed proponent's first idea is to revert the removal. Logging acts as a brake on speedy reverts and encourages thought instead of reaction.

Cent is a process template; items -- pages -- pass in and out. If all the template did was to give air to proposals it would be of limited value. But there is more value in archiving stuff as it comes out. Cent/Conclusions may prove a good resource for those researching past discussions. The centralized nature of an item that has passed through Cent tends to legitimize its conclusion, as opposed to a page that may not have had many eyeballs. In theory, every item that comes off Cent -- if it had any determinable outcome -- should earn an edit to Cent/Conclusions. But what has worked very well up to now has been the practice of logging removals (and moves from active to old, etc.) and explaining why or what happened in slightly greater detail than is common in an edit sum. So far this log has been archived once; I expect to do it more frequently -- whatever is needed to keep the active page of moderate length.

The orientation of an edit summary is to tell what edit was made and perhaps why. The purpose of the log is to tell what was done to Cent but also to record, very briefly, the status of an item as it enters, moves, or leaves.

Thus the log has 3 distinct purposes: to moderate contention over a prominent resource; to record outcomes of the items that this process handles; and to serve as grist for the mill when archiving the log and updating Cent/Conclusions. So far, it's worked very well in all 3 roles. I'm strongly against unnecessary process and if the log didn't work, I'd be the first to toss it. But it's proven itself, indeed outperforming expectations.

You may find these arguments unconvincing and that's okay. But the group of editors that work with Cent on a regular basis -- and those that edit only occasionally -- have consistently endorsed logging. Actions speak loudly; nearly every change made to Cent in the last 5 months has been logged. I'm sure that, whatever your personal opinions about this process may be, you'll be happy to work with us in the way we've found most useful. Thank you. John Reid 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve's ban timer

Two months ago, Dbachmann, after receiving a message from FourthAve under the IP 67.1.121.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), rolled back FourthAve's ban timer back to its original time, after interpreting that the "enforcement" clause calls for 1 year after 5 blocks. However, I don't believe this interpretation is correct - I think that any attempt to evade a ban from the entire Wikipedia environment results in an automatic reset (see WP:BAN#Restart of ban duration when evasion is attempted). Under that interpretation, his ban timer would have to be reset to July 11, 2007 (that's when the above IP edited). Who's more correct here? (Note: I do not intend to get involved in this issue, I just want some clarification and, if necessary, action). Scobell302 21:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's customary to reset an arbitration committee fixed-term ban to restart from the last point at which the subject made an attempt to evade it. The enforcement clause has nothing to do with it; he's banned for a year from the last time he attempted to evade the ban. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben's "big three issues" with NAS article

Going forward, I suggest a focus on dealing with these three issues with the NAS article. If we can effectively tackle these at least my concerns over the article will be addressed. My "big three issues" with the NAS articles are as follows:

• Neutering critics
• Confusing evidence with NAS's interpretation
• Article is about modern NAS theory, not term

What do you think? --Ben Houston 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I'm just acting on a feeling that something nasty might be happening and, whether or not it actually is, it needs to be defused. Sorry I can't help on detail. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

I noticed you removed a comment of mine as a "personal attack." I did not intend it as such. Would it be acceptable if I changed it to: "Tony, saying things like "Of course I'm right," is what caused these objections."? —Nate Scheffey 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No it would not. Please don't pull this crap on pages that are devoted to discussing policies. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where should I pull such crap? Pointing out that others have requested you tone down your rhetoric, and noting a recent occurance of such, is completely unnacceptable? —Nate Scheffey 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with a user should be taken up on that users talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here we are. Is my concern invalid? —Nate Scheffey 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point appears to be that I sometimes persist in disagreeing with people who hold opinions radically different from my own. Don't worry about it; it's normal. It doesn't mean that either of us is necessarily a bad person. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that neither of us are bad people. I persist in disagreeing with people who hold opinions radically different from my own as well. However, I try to avoid phrases such as "Of course I'm right." Better to argue the point than merely assert your correctness. Just a stylistic difference I guess. Regards, —Nate Scheffey 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Thanks, Ben. --Tony Sidaway 02:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a pleasure. Maybe it's that anniversery or the phase of the moon, or maybe I'm only just noticing it, but things seem to be less civil than they used to be. It's not nice. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter

I regard these comments as primarily personal in nature (and therefore not belonging on the original talk page), and basically ridiculous (and therefore probably not belonging anywhere on Wikipedia).

BEGIN --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What Tony said

Tony has said three things (among many others but let's focus on these three)

1) RFA is not a vote

2) I don't know what RFA is and I don't much care

3) The views of 100 ill-informed RFA junkies should not count for much (a paraphrase)

Let's start with #2. Tony may not care what an RFA is but many people do and want to know. Tony doesn't care because he trusts the crats. Others aren't as willing to commit to that level of trust.

Many people think the RFA process IS a vote. With #1, Tony is attempting to disabuse them of that conception but by asserting simply that it ISNT't a vote without telling them what it IS. #3 is a good example of why the job of a crat in closing an RFA is not a simple vote-counting exercise.

Now, I have proposed a way of communicating the essence of what the RFA process is by proposing the model of a public hearing in which opinions are expressed, heard and taken into consideration without numerical tallies being the decisive factor in the final decision.

Tony does not seem to value this approach as being helpful. For my part, I think it is helpful at least in giving me a model to move towards if I am to move away from the consensus model. Wikipedia loves to tout the consensus model but it seems to me that, at least in RFA, it is the wrong model and we murder the English language by trying to fit it to the RFA process (cf. Carnildo's RFA).

--Richard 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stop this utterly ridiculous attempt to recast my statements as something other than what they are? It's getting downright embarrassing and certainly does not further the discussion.

I think there's a general agreement on the fact that, as a matter of fact, RFA isn't a vote. If it were a vote then we'd always be able to predict the result from counting the votes. I don't think anybody is yet sure what RFA actually is and as long as it does a reasonable job of selecting dividing competent, trustworthy arbitrators I don't really much care how it works. I gave an example showing that it isn't, and shouldn't be, a vote. That's it. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The part of my initial posting in this message before "Now, I have proposed..." is my interpretation of what you have said and why. I believe that all of it is supported in your postings here and elsewhere (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Can you indicate where I have "recast your statements as something other than what they are"?

If there were general agreement that RFA is not a vote, then there wouldn't have been an edit-war over "tallies" vs. "vote tallies" and there would not have been objection to your recent edit asserting that "RFA is not a vote".

In the context of discussion on your Talk Page, it is not the case that, when a bunch of well-respected Wikipedians agree with you, there is therefore "general agreement". You may even be right in your assertion that RFA is not a vote. Heck, I even more or less agree with you on that. What I disagree with you on is whether there is a "general agreement" that RFA is not a vote. If there were, there wouldn't have been a large outcry over the Carnildo RFA and you would not have felt it necessary to assert it in a revision of this page.

In the context of discussions on your Talk Page, words like "ridiculous attempt" are generally considered dismissive. Some would even consider it incivility. If you think that I have incorrectly or inappropriately recast your comments, it is possible to say so without the added extra editorial comment.

--Richard 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, did someone above use that word again? The one that starts with dissm... I guess this all does not count] as they are all fools while you know the right thing. --Irpen 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

END --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship were unproductive

I thought I was making progress and I still think I am. I happen to like the "public hearing" model quite a bit and I think it goes a long way to explain how decisions are often made in an undemocratic way in modern Western democracies. However, since you disagree, I will stop engaging you in the discussion. Ironically, I thought I was helping you make your case. Perhaps I do not understand your position well enough to do that. --Richard 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind people making up their own models, but ascribing them to third parties is not really a good idea--especially when they make it plain that they want no part of it and resent the association. --Tony Sidaway 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with you there, that would be inappropriate. On the other hand, if people are not able to accurately re-express what you mean, then it suggests that they didn't understand what you meant and your attempt to communicate has failed at least with respect to them.

I was trying to build an argument on top of what you had written in an effort to make it more understandable and less arbitrary. The fact that you do not care to describe the RFA process more clearly does not mean that other people do not wish it.

 :: I also think there may be some misunderstanding particularly around the wording of one sentence where I wrote "I think Tony's reasoning runs along these lines." I meant that sentence to refer to the text above that sentence. I realized afterward that if the sentence were read to refer to the text that follows then it would appear that I was putting the public hearing model in your mouth rather than in mine. To the extent that this has contributed to your annoyance, I apologize profusely. I still think that what I wrote above that sentence does accurately represent what you said and why you said it.

Nah, strike that last paragraph. The offending sentence wasn't placed where I thought it was and the actual placement is bad in that it does make the implication that my model is Tony's model. I have stricken the sentence in question from my comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter. Even more profuse apologies than before. --Richard 21:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also still believe that, if you give it some thought, you will find the public hearing model is completely compatible with your thinking (at least as far as I can understand your reasoning based on what you have written). Public hearings are meant to provide some transparency into the decision-making process of governmental agencies without necessarily turning it into a democratic vote. Doesn't that sound like the RFA process?

--Richard 21:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the model. Thanks for your acknowledgement, and thanks for your effort to explain.

I've had some thoughts about public hearings myself. I don't think it really matches what happens in RFA. I think there is really not very much transparency.and that such transparency would be problematic while we still don't really know how to hold a public debate on what the consensus of Wikipedia means. Some people are, I understand, working on this.

And thanks again for your efforts. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblock that I just received

Hi, Tony! Long time, no see. I just heard from blocked user User:Wiki brah who was able to contact me via a sockpuppet he created for the purpose, namely User:Le Wiki Brah. He's politely requested unblocking. I know he was kind of a difficult user, but I think he meant well. I hope he's taken his time off to study the site a bit more. Didn't want to override your block and I thought I'd check with you first. If he can be unblocked, can he return under some sort of strict probationary proviso? Thanks, man. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. - Lucky 6.9 04:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please raise this on WP:AN. He was subject to a community ban and I'd like to see how people feel about him coming back. See here. As a matter of personal opinion, I would strenuously oppose his return under any restrictions. I just don't know that he ever helped the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Recusals

It would be appropriate that in any future arbitration hearings either pending or active from which you are recused, you refrain in toto from any further comment on such cases in any WP space. Comments like the one made here [10], remove all pretence of the concept of "recusal". I would hope that you could utilize your "off" WP contact with other Wikipedians to vent your spleen, so to speak. Hamster Sandwich 19:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto and I would also hope that you do not utilize any off-WP contant either. The whole concept of recusal originates in the possible conflict of interest. If you really want to become a party of the case, like you are doing, you should not just recuse, but resign from any position within ArbCom. Of course that's just my thoughts. If you think differently you probably don't care what others think anyway. But I just thought I leave you this thoughts if only for the record. --Irpen 19:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a completely unacceptable suggestion. Frankly it's so silly I hope you both feel thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. How dare you. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, your services as Clerk to ArbCom are valuable ones and I don't endorse the suggestion that you resign your connection with the committee. However, it's undeniable that you find yourself actively participating as a disputant in ArbCom cases far more often than the average bear, something I found surprising when I first became aware of it given your longtime role as the Clerk. As you've acknowledged yourself on occasion, sometimes it can be somewhat unclear which hat you are wearing. In that light, while I don't endorse the suggestion made above, neither do I find it to be so outlandish and ad hominem as to warrant the tone of your response. Newyorkbrad 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...in the arbcom case I am involved in, I can only find one comment he made at all and that was an affirmation that he agreed that editors needed to stand with solidarity when users are under attack. His name popped up a couple of times when I made a statement and elsewhere, and he reclused from clerking or contributing otherwise based on this. If he isn't going to clerk the case, then he certainly has a right to comment. I have three or four folks comment on my proceeding and I've never heard of them before.--MONGO 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say, to be somehow involved with ArbCom and be a party of the case at the same time is not something that I see proper. I would have stepped down if I felt I need to involve myself. But perhaps you have different ethics standards. Oh, and just in case, please do not try to turn the table and accuse your opponents of PA, incivillity or show your contempt in one of other forms as also advised above by Newyorkbrad. I realize that things I am saying are unpleasant to hear but I am forced to bring them up because I see that if there is a conflict of interest it undermines the trust of the community in the fairness of the process. I bring up my honest opinion about the ethicality of your behavior in entirely civilized and civil form. I lay it out clearly and calmly rather than in some kind of attacking mode. Just think of it for a second, rather then replying at once with an utter defiance. When and if you care to explain, if possible please do that in a civilized and civil form. Thanks, --Irpen 20:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tony that a goal of recusal is to be able to speak without influencing the decision. The problem is that, as a disputant, Tony's role as Clerk still speaks even while he is recused. Even if he resigned as Clerk, his position as former Clerk would still speak more loudly than other disputants who have no former position on or relationship with the members of ArbCom.

The reason that the original suggestion by Hamster Sandwich appeared to be "ad hominem" is because it was directed at Tony personally. It MAY be the case that Tony is a disputant in more arbitration cases than other ArbCom members or it may not. That notwithstanding, there are other approaches to heading off these kinds of issues. One problem is that Tony acts both as an admin and as Clerk of ArbCom. This is like a policeman also being Clerk of the Court and the problem could potentially occur if any ArbCom member acted as an admin and an ArbCom member. Recusal is one approach. Voluntarily giving up admin privileges for the term that one serves as an ArbCom member (or Clerk) is another approach.

That kind of proposal would be less "ad hominem" and more based on general principles. I would suggest that further discussion on this topic be oriented towards policy-making rather than specific recommendations to specific individuals which may be taken as personal attacks.

--Richard 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be useful would be if people could regognise that the ArbCom can decide of its own accord who to listen to and whose opinion carries most weight. We aren't in thrall to Tony any more than to any other editor. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)