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

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)

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[1][2] . 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 [3][4] 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)

Tony, do you mean the discussion, or yourself? --71.36.251.182 23:54, 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 [5], 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)

Absolutely. I'm recused from the case because I know MONGO from the early days when we were in opposition and grew to respect one another, and I was involved in proposing MONGO for admin, I regard him as an asset to Wikipedia and I think our friendship, despite radical political differences, is a fundamental expression of the Wikipedia ethic. I could not claim to be an uninterested party in any case involving him and so I am recused. Even so I am very circumspect in my actions in his defence. Frankly he doesn't need any help, he's a great Wikipedian, and I hope he knows I think that. That's why I am recused. --Tony Sidaway 21:44, 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)

Quite. See in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. I and some other parties (but mostly I) got into all kinds of ridiculous behavior before and during that case. I'm thoroughly ashamed of my part while reserving the right to be appalled at the part of others--but that's normal for arbitration; if people were acting reasonably there would be no need. The Committee acted coolly and without prejudice and arrived at a decision that, it seems to me, was satisfactory to all.

As a result, I, uniquely among all serving administrators, am under specific limitations to my powers. But those limitations have served me very well indeed. Many times I have run against those limitations and become aware that my powers have been curtailed, and for good reason. Wikipedia is a better place because of this. The encyclopedia is more important than you or me. --Tony Sidaway 21:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very thoughtful and introspective comment, Tony. Not at all like you. You feeling okay? :) Newyorkbrad 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very naughty thing to say. Newyorkbrad's very civil action noted with great thanks. Those facts are well known and my satisfaction with the ruling is well known. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The ruling was known to me (though perhaps not to others commenting in this thread), but your expressed satisfaction with it I wasn't aware of. But I meant to reduce tensions with a bit of humor rather than to raise them, and I certainly don't want to be naughty, so my last comment is stricken. Newyorkbrad 22:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't go into detail (the evidence page does that) but this is a great Wikipedia success story. I was an English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee clerk at the time of the case. An editor objected to a specific action of mine and, because of the Arbitration Committee's investigation of my past actions, I was given an order to cool it and every Wikipedia administrator has the power to enforce that order by block. So this idea that there is some kind of Wikipedia elite that guards its own is quite wrong. We're all on the same page and we're all expected to conform to the same basic rules of civil behavior. --Tony Sidaway 22:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's absolutely silly to insist that a clerk -- or Arbitrator -- withdraw entirely from disputes in which e finds emself solely on the basis of those roles. This merely encourages people to attack clerks and Arbitrators, since enforcing such a rule would leave such people basically defenseless. Would you expect me to stand down from any dispute in which I found myself embroiled merely because I am a Arbitrator emeritus? That is a position from which I cannot resign, but that status does admittedly lend weight to my positions, at least in some people's eyes.

Suggesting that Tony should resign his adminship while acting as a clerk is equally silly. The positions are not incompatible. The community gives far too much weight to the purported authority of the clerks. Clerks are not "junior Arbitrators", and about the only thing they have the right to do that ordinary users do not is to maintain certain Arbitration-related pages that previously were maintained only by Arbitrators. In short, they have the "privilege" of doing scutwork. Some privilege.

I see this campaign as harassment targeted at Tony and find it very hard to assume that the arguments for gagging him are being offered in good faith. Those of you arguing for it should probably desist lest it be used against you in the ongoing proceedings. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has asked me to resign my sysop bit. Well at least, not to my knowledge. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Richard, up above, suggested that you should do so in order to avoid a conflict of interest. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Well obviously I think that's a somewhat fatuous suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin's comment above: "Those of you arguing for it should probably desist lest it be used against you in the ongoing proceedings" says it all realy doesn't it? Giano | talk 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it obviously doesn't say it loudly enough. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment was directed not with M. Sidaway the administrator, but with M. Sidaway acting in whatever "official" capacity he/she/they have as a "Clerk". More specifically and to the point in the capacity that those clerks who are recused from cases for whatever reason should offer no comment or suggestion unless they are called directly into the case as a named party to the case. I feel the issue of recused parties making further comment on arbitration cases in any Wikipedia space is of such importance that there should be a ruling on it. As such it will be my pleasure to draft some kind of proposal to that end, and certainly any other interested parties are welcome to formulate any other such proposals as they see fit. Hamster Sandwich 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's just complete bollocks. Clerkdom doesn't come with a gag. Nice wings, and all the bananas you can eat, yes. But no gag. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Process is Important

• 23:00, 12 September 2006 Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Process is Important" (Process is only important in the sense that it is an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia.)

I feel action on deleting this internally and externally well referenced essay without consensus was not good judgement. Deleting that article was blatant information suppression. Electrawn 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion it gives a blatantly incorrect and actively deleterious false impression of what Wikipedia is about. It's an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an encyclopedia, no-one disagrees with that. Is there any particular phrase or paragraph in that essay you dislike? Haukur 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the Speedy Deletion of this project page, as its deletion does not appear to fall within the Speedy Deletion Criteria. This reversion is of course without any prejudice for this being listed at WP:MFD. — User talk:Xaosflux 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine of course. Could you explain why you think this quite inflammatory essay is acceptable? --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused... It appears that there was no MfD debate (at least none is referenced on the deletion page). So what happened? Was it speedied into oblivion? Who proposed that it be speedied and who did the actual deletion?

What was the page claiming to be? A proposed guideline, an essay?

--Richard 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, you can still view the history and logs of the essay in question, because the history has been undeleted by an admin contesting the speedy deletion. It appears that Tony Sidaway performed the speedy without someone nominating it, as is normal when an admin discovers a speediable page. User:Xaosflux's restoration and the ensuing discussion is all part of the healthy functioning of Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, x2, x3, x4, x5) This is a highly referenced essay, simply as shown by What Links Here. Some of these references may be reasons for why Process is NOT important, but nonetheless it is at least "popular" (not implying a reflection of consensus) and I feel would benefit from being deleting via consensus on MFD. --Xaosflux 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As you are currently blocked, I will try to watch here for other responses, but feel free to email me if I miss a reply (please reply on-wiki though). — --Xaosflux 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not blocked to my knowledge. I guess I could have been blocked and unblocked. This can happen sometimes. --Tony Sidaway 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Pilotguy unblocked you. JoshuaZ 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You were clearly informed, BELOW, and offwiki that you were blocked, and that you were unblocked, why pretened here? — Xaosflux 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop playing silly buggers. If I was blocked I was obviously unblocked. --Tony Sidaway

If "Process is Important", can some admin unprotect the page long enough to MFD it so that the proposal to delete it can go through the regular MFD process?

You could re-protect it again after setting up the MFD but I seriously doubt that anyone would re-delete it now that we've had a clear indication that some people don't think it should be speedied.

Thanx.

--Richard 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete the page? --Tony Sidaway 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confused over WP:NOT and taking "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" literally, which is not what that statement is meant to convey. From Bureaucracy, "This office organization is characterized by standardized procedure, formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships." From this, we can infer that Wikipedia that informal procedure, loose division of responsibility and hierarchy, and personal relationships are preferred on wikipedia. That said, with the size and scope of the project, a bureaucracy exists and must exist. Attempts to destroy it are anarchist. The spirit of "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy" is to not become impersonal (and inhuman) and enforce policies and guidelines as stone. "You violated Article 2 of Section 3 of Policies 4 5 and 6. Goto WikiJail. Do not pass go." Without process and precedent, wikipedia would fall apart in seconds. Therefore we need to revisit BAD processes, policies and guidelines and refine them to GOOD ones, not DELETE. Electrawn

Also, from recent admin actions and commentary, I think you might be due for a "wikibreak". Electrawn 09:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Block Notice

Hi,

You have violated the terms of your arbitration ruling by engaging in wheel warring with multiple sysops over Wikipedia:Process is Important. You will be blocked for one hour, pursuant to that ruling. Please leave the matter of the essay to others. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Could be wrong but I don't think I did. No problems. --Tony Sidaway 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The log on the page shows Tony deleting the page at 23:00, 12 September 2006 with the summary "Process is only important in the sense that it is an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia." Haukurth then restored it at 23:05 with the unhelpful description "When I want to read a page it's inconvenient for me if you've just deleted it" Tony then deleted it three minutes later with the summary "Seems to have been recreated out of process." It is possible that Tony did not look at the log page and so did not realize that it had been undeleted not recreated. JoshuaZ 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To continue the analysis of the log, Xaosflux then restored it again at 23:24. At 23:25 Tony then blanked the page and protected it as a deleted page with the summary "{{deletedpage}} the toxicity probably merits at least this." While inadvisable and possibly unnecessarily inflammatory this last admin action is not clearly wheel warring. JoshuaZ 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have said "undeleting page deleted out of process" or something like that and normally I would have but I thought that since this was Tony I'd have a better chance of getting through with a simple personal statement of why I would like the page not to be deleted - there was something there I wanted to check and it's cumbersome to work with deleted pages. As it turned out this didn't have an effect and he deleted it again so my edit summary failed and I regret that. Haukur 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it was a bit naughty. I shouldn't have done that. Knowing that a few people were annoyed I should have stopped, stepped back and talked to those people, who are Wikipedians and should not be treated in the horrible way I treated them today. My error. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You must have realized how horribly inappropriate this was. You are involved in a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Snowball clause concerning parallels to WP:PI and so you, without a shred of discussion, delete the one you are arguing against and salt the earth? You honestly thought that would fly? This is beyond inflammatory, as there is no way you thought this would stay deleted. Even knowing your usual behavior, I am amazed at the audacity here. —Nate Scheffey 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will fly. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Email

FYI I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously you're saying that some unidentified people are upset that I don't do something they want me to do and, moreover, they wouldn't be nearly as upset as they are if I did whatever it is you say they want me to do. Well I have to reply that I in my turn could possibly be persuaded to be slightly, but not very much, upset that they (whoever they are) might think that, and it's conceivable that I might be convinced to feel a little bit happier if they didn't do whatever it is that they do, provided you could convince me that they're doing it and they, whoever they are, are harming Wikipedia by whatever it is whoever they are are supposedly doing. But it's okay for them to do what they do. Which they don't say, whoever they are. By the way, who are they? And why should I care? --Tony Sidaway

Process is Important has been unprotected

To clarify my request above to have it unprotected, I think this is the wrong place to discuss whether the article should stay or should be deleted. If, after all the above discussion, Tony still thinks it should be deleted, I would urge him to put it up for MfD. The right place to hold the debate is on the article's MfD entry. We can then better determine whether the consensus opinion is to Keep or Delete. (I would advertise the MfD in a few choice locations such as Village pump (policy) to help get the opinions of people interested in this king of thing.) --Richard 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in this. I deleted it and some people decided it shouldn't be deleted. That's okay. --Tony Sidaway

So you are not interested in an actual discussion of whether it should be deleted? Why did you delete it then? —Nate Scheffey 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is incorrect. Obviously the existence of this essay gives many editors a very wrong impression of the nature of Wikipedia. That is a good reason to delete it. Others seem to disagree. I find that surprising and appalling but I can live with it. --Tony Sidaway 01:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

Um, did you mean to blank this? Your edit summary doesn't seem to make sense in that context. JoshuaZ 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like rolling a hand grenade into a kindergarten. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If it will make the kids shut up and quit fighting... ok, tortured analogies aside it seems clear at this point that this is a) contentious b) has established editors on both sides (although most of the established editors and admins seem to be on the side of WP:DENY being a guideline) c) is not going to get resolved by more edit warring and shouting on the talk page. JoshuaZ 02:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In such situations, a straw poll only makes things worse. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re [6]

Speedy deletions are ordinarily performed on pages which meet some CSD. Wikipedia:Process is Important does not meet any CSD; hence, its speedy deletion did not conform to the ordinary deletion process, which would have been an MFD nomination. Perhaps this situation demonstrates that process is important :) John254 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you would draw such a conclusion from the sequence of events. --Tony Sidaway 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Whatever"

Please try to work on that dismissiveness thing. Responses of "whatever" could be viewed by some as dismissive. Let's not actively seek drama, agreed? —Nate Scheffey 04:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say "whatever". :) But seriously if you're trying to persuade people to tread on eggshells you've started with the wrong guy. Meaningless, picky, pointless and personal argumentation tends not to prevail on Wikipedia. It gets "dismissed". --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I would like to claim that I decided go on an editor-by-editor crusade to maintain civil discussion and randomly started with you, that ain't the case. But, enjoy your continued dismissiveness and thank you for your appraisal of my "argumentation." I will consider it deeply. —Nate Scheffey 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're becoming quite tiresome in your trollishness. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Passion of the Alienus

Alienus, it seems, has once again risen from the dead; this time, he is editing the Category "Books by Ayn Rand" using anon sockpuppets, per his usual style. LaszloWalrus 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Just pop a report on WP:ANI and I'm sure it'll be dealt with. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't in the spirit of wikipedia

I find your edit summary for protecting karmafist's page very alarming. Banned users should be forgiven in time, and protecting his page with the edit summary "Protected User talk:Karmafist: This guy is banned. No reason to provide him with a temptation to come back" is not within the good natured spirit of wikipedia. --Onthost 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

People who aren't here to improve the encyclopedia and have trodden on our good nature once too often absolutely aren't welcome. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why voting is evil

This edit goes a long way to explaining that... [7] >Radiant< 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think at this rate, someone will just put the Policy and Guideline templates 'themselves' up for MFD. Would that be Wikianarchy? --InkSplotch 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Hi! I made a few further edits to WP:SNOW. I don't think that "corollary of" fits in the text, but I wasn't sure what you meant by "Janet and John reader". If you have any objections to what I changed, feel free to revert parts and/or bring it up at my talk page. :) —AySz88 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The existing text prior to my edit was new, and was a circumlocution apparently introduced as a misguided attempt to "simplify" the word "corollary". A "Janet and John reader" is a book written in extremely simple English and used to teach young children how to read. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think in the US, they're known as Dick and Jane, when they're known at all, which is less and less each year. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Per Yes, Minister, the "Janet and John" is the summary of a policy paper prepared by civil servants for cabinet ministers. :) Newyorkbrad 00:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shamefully, we have no article on Janet and John nor on Peter and Jane from the Ladybird Books Key Words Reading Scheme.[8][9] -- ALoan (Talk) 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Look! I have written Peter and Jane for you. Perhaps you would like to help us write this encyclopedia by contributing something on Janet and John? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not planning to contribute such an article at present. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pity. It is an important part of social and educational history, with which you are clearly familiar. It deserves an article. I understand that Terry Wogan is a fan. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he will agree to write about it, if asked nicely enough. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should try User talk:Terry Wogan. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a question

--63.207.239.82 07:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)I have a friend who tells me that he is grandson to Queen Beatrix from her first marriage/relationship.. His name is Wilhelm Johan Delano Van Vollenhoven. Could you please tell me if he is telling me the truth Thank you for your time.. E-mail is simaprincess1@yahoo.com

Sorry but I'm not an oracle. --Tony Sidaway 08:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an admin

We are looking for an admin here:[[10]]. Having already dealt with this user in the past, maybe you could oblige. I apologise in advance for the ridiculously long discussion... Thanks, Yandman 09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to the crat board.

Tony, cut it out please. Your recent comments easily pass the line of WP:CIVIL and possibly WP:NPA and aren't helping matters. Your recent predilection to refactor or remove comments from a multitude of users is also unacceptable. JoshuaZ 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the comments were ott, but the refactoring was probably a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking Giano

I'm unblocking Giano if not already done. No reason to think that a block will help. FloNight 21:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would have been for the best. We'll see how it pans out. --Tony Sidaway 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Community block of Tony Sidaways is hereby proposed

Not just Newyorkbrad's, Tony, but never mind. Who cares if you respond or not. You made your outright defiance of criticism well known by now. So, you can just not post anything as well as saying that something is "unworthy" of your response.

But seriously, what do we do with Tony. I propose the community block. But do as you please. I am off to write an article. --Irpen 22:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Preposterous. What, like 40,000 edits and you want to propose a community block? I find this to be an effort to "out" another Wikipedian pretty disgusting.--MONGO 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony has, in my opinion, exhausted the community's patience. However, I feel that blocking him would do more harm than good. Would someone that Tony actually listens to (if such exists) please pull him aside and explain to him that his increasingly bizarre behavior is disruptive? Friday (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think he has exuasted the patience of many. Blocking seems a bit harsh though. I wouldn't mind putting him up for possible recall as an admin though. I would urge him to voluntarilly stand for a resysoping. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict):As not a supporter of blocks in general, I can't agree with this idea. I do agree that his recent behavior needs to be addressed, and would readily participate in any formal action. —Nate Scheffey 22:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given Tony a community block. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite the above discussion, this block feels at best premature, and at worst unnecessary. I do not feel that the block serves to resolve the dispute in any way. Isopropyl 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You've lost me. If the Lego block was premature then when would you apply a Lego block? :) Haukur 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to click the link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit, I wasn't sure what was going to be on the other end of the link either. Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that I've been made a fool of. Isopropyl 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal seems to consist solely of a slice of some dissipated conversation, without presenting any reason why a community block would be appropriate, it is a pretty ridiculous move on the part of the nominator. —Centrx→talk • 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my 22:34 comments above here, which after edit conflict, wound up in the previous section. Newyorkbrad 22:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it would be a bad idea to go around blocking admins just for giving someone a cool-off block and putting it up for review. :)

But it's an intriguing idea. --Tony Sidaway 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony and I have had quite a few disagreements, but I strongly oppose any such actions. Follow proper procedures and take it to RfC and RfAr if you don't like the way things are happening. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, broke my pledge and interrupted the work on the article for a second. First of all, I am restoring this thread after deletion that stated "This is noticeboard not a discussion forum". This is exactly an appropriate place for the discussion of community blocks. Much lesser part of community watches Tony's page. --Irpen

(edit conflict)I already did. Now a response to Zoe. Fine, if you insist. I will try to put aside some time to take it to ArbCom if Tony doesn't cool down. RfC is utterly useless. Everyone has commented on that already more than once: Tony himself, those appauled by his activity and his few supporters. I hope ArbCom can be avoided and Tony will take a wiki-vacation and comes back cool as a cucumber. --Irpen 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't run it through RfC first, the Arbcom will reject it out of hand. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I seriusly disagree with the comments of both of those commentators, obviously I can't accept the reasoning for the proposed self-imposed vacation. --Tony Sidaway 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shrug. You're replying to nothing, my comment isn't here any more. Drini removed it (can't think why). Bishonen | talk 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

The conversation's been refactored all over the place (not due to Tony in any way, I hasten to add). I had to post my latest comment (before this one) four times to get it to stick once. It wasn't that great even the first time. :) Newyorkbrad 23:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Most of it's absurd stuff in any case. I blocked a problem editor for three hours, I didn't steal the crown jewels. --Tony Sidaway 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to endorse this proposed block solely so my post will be removed by a member of the Cabal and I can have bragging rights at UnEncycloTruthia AntiWikiReviewica or whatever it is people are wittering on about instead of writing articles. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's surreal, and also a flame magnet, so I'll probably remove it soon. Nothing of any import has been achieved. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to achieve something, anyway. Yesterday I got sick of the debate over recused arbitrators at RfAr Talk, but my thinking about the issues led me to begin on a complete rewrite and expansion of recusal in mainspace, which when I'm done with it, may be a pretty decent article. So at least some good came out of all the sniping. Now I have to figure out what article topic today's events should point me to drafting. (I realize I'm giving you the opportunity for a snappy comeback here. :) ) Newyorkbrad 00:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well remove my warning too, but for the sake of wikipedia, please, next time you decided to block an established editor connected to the argument about Carnildo promotion please do not do it yourself. Instead ask any of more than one thousand active administrators to do it for you. Sometimes an additional pair of eyes might be helpful. Your blocks caused enough disruption already. abakharev 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you can remove this as well but please read that first. Your misuse of the block button causes a significant community outrage all too often. The best thing you can do after the Wikivacation, if you just can't accept the temporary break, is to simply not to use the block against any well-established editor simply because, as the community's (or like you call it "mob's") reaction to such your actions shows that they appear often unwarranted and harmful. Uncalled for blocks hurt some users. Go block trolls and socks all right. But as far as well-established and reputable users are conserned, there are over 1000 other admins. Post a message to WP:ANI and see what they do. I bet a bottle of the beverage of your choice that in similar circumstances no one but yourself would gave blocked Ghirla and Giano. Anyway, I hope (still, maybe mistakenly) that you will draw some lessons from this. Now you can delete it if this is how you feel. --Irpen 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You may find it hard to understand, but I haven't misused my block button in this case. I have performed two blocks that, on discussion, some other administrators disagreed with. I submitted both of them to review. The first one was a response to a complaint by Cowman109 on Ghirlandajo's disruptive activities. The second one was a response to observation of extremely paranoid and unacceptable accusations about the arbitration committee, Angela (former Foundation officer) and others. I acted as an administrator should. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew that you just won't get it ever!. OK, never mind. The community respect to your actions (including blocks) is such that they don't mean much in block log anyway. And this is only getting reinforced if falling is the best contribution you made to the main namespace. Have a good one! Go continue in your self-righteoussness! Since you refuse to stop you will be stopped (IMO sooner rather than later) because "Wikipedia is cleverer than you are". --Irpen 02:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think I've got enough community respect, thank you very much. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Impertinent question and comment

Tony -

First, an impertinent question: I was wondering which article you were most proud of, in terms of your contributions. Your RFA, for example, mentions falling (which is pretty much the same as you left it in March 2005). What are your favourites from the last 18 months?

Second, an impertinent comment: I also noticed that your RFA has lots of praise in its 48 supports:

• "incredibly hard-working and has displayed an almost uncompromisingly open-minded and positive attitude"
• "He has always tried to keep an open mind in edit discussion"
• "He is courteous"
• "reasonable, moderate, cool-headed"
• "On the whole I think he does good work and acts in good faith, and makes an effort to address concerns"

But then there are some negatives in the 12 opposes:

• "tendency to get involved in disputes, uncompromising and negative attitude"
• "Posts to wikien-l suggest he would take a heavy hand as an admin... Other posts to wikien-l indicate an arrogant and condescending attitude"
• "If a user was doing this on purpose you'd call him a troll"
• "close to disrupting wikipedia to prove a point"
• "His tone is at times aggressive in a way that I don't think appropriate for an admin"

The first set of comments (open minded, courteous, moderate, cool-headed, etc) are very complimentary, but the second set of comments concern me a little, particular given the events over the past few days. I should hope that we would all aspire to receiving the positive comments, but I am worried that some people do not detect them in their everyday interactions with you. Perhaps they are getting the wrong impression, but I should hope that you would be equally concerned if others were getting the wrong impression too. Just an observation - feel free to ignore me. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that, despite my shortcomings, I've been able to contribute to Wikipedia as an administrator. Falling is still my favorite Wikipedia article of all time. Even if I wrote it myself. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am happy if you are happy.

Thank you. I was precisely interested in an article that you wrote yourself. Would you mind me asking why it is your favourite article of all time? -- ALoan (Talk) 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's succinct and informative. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Loaded words

Hi Tony, Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the following less often?

• fatuous
• paranoid
• baseless

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have used the word "fatuous" to describe a fatuous and clearly false suggestion.
• I have used the word "paranoid" to describe a clearly false and baseless accusation of malicious manipulation that was, however, made sincerely.
• I have used the word "baseless" to describe a baseless accusation.

Don't mistake this for loaded language. Wild, absolutely incredible accusations are being made. We must describe them for what they are. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you meant to sidestep the question or not, but I'm curious as to your answer. Do you think you might get a better response from some people if you used the words like the above (and others) less often? --Kbdank71 03:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Obviously the correct word has to be used for the situation. When people have, as it were, strayed from the facts, sometimes you need to tell them clearly that they're completely wrong. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing I've learned in this life is that some targets are very hard to hit exactly. Arriving on time for things, for one. Sending a message to someone is another. If you aim for exactly what you want, sometimes you overshoot, sometimes you undershoot. If you want to be on time reliably, you have to aim at being early.

In this instance, the cost of overshooting greatly exceeds the cost of undershooting. If you undershoot when trying to explain something, no real damage is done, the other person can ask a question and you can try again. But if you overshoot, if you overstate how low your opinion of someone is, it's really hard to recover. (Unless the other person is prepared to cut you some slack, as you and I are to each other.) But if the other person isn't feeling patient, perhaps because they have a history with you, or are having a bad day, or just because they are the sort of person who is inclined to overstate things, then you can get into a vicious circle where everything that gets said makes things worse.

Now, maybe you _are_ using these words acurately. But your counterparts in this converstation don't agree, or they wouldn't have made the wildy fatuous, paranoid and baseless statements in the first place. So if you want to influence them, you need to take a different tactic. Just telling them they're wrong won't help them understand why, it just turns them hostile. We can only call things as we see them, but it helps if we use language that can be heard.[11]

You are more interested in being understood, than in scoring points, aren't you? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, how about I phrase it this way, then: It's pretty clear that where you've gone lately, conflict has followed. Your words and a good deal of your actions rub many people the wrong way. Do you even care to get a better response from people? --Kbdank71 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The places I go? It's not surprising I pick up a bit of flack. --Tony Sidaway 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So that'd be a no, then. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Another of my favourite pages is http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DefendEachOther Regards, Ben Aveling 03:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to overshoot. If you're honest and you undershoot, there would be some who thought your were being dishonest and hiding behind polite words. If you overshot, people would think you're being undiplomatic. Figure it out for yourself. I haven't stated my opinion of anyone. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say dishonest and hiding. I'd say you were trying to be polite. And I wouldn't say undiplomatic. Other words, but not that. Either way, though, I've got my answer. Thanks for the explanation. --Kbdank71 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Put it this way: supposed somebody has already become so confused that he has accused you of a breathtakingly ridiculous falsehood. If you try to be polite and say "oh I think you're wrong you know" and try to weedle about it, you're not going to convince the fellow, he's too far gone. But if you don't respond in a forthright manner there's always the chance that some of the publicly stated falsehoods will be believed by some reasonable people simply because they appear to have gone undenied or denied in an insufficiently forthright manner. In the circumstances, it's much better to be thought a little rude that to be thought dishonest. Utterly false, extremely defamatory, paranoid, baseless and frankly stupid allegations have been made about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats. Let's not mince words, let's call them that. --Tony Sidaway 03:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say "false and defamatory"? Why add "paranoid and stupid"? What good does that do? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See the precise explanations in my responses above. Giano clearly sincerely believes the outrageous falsehoods that he has published. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wonder what you both thought, by the way, of the appropriateness of permitting Wikipedians to make such baseless and false slurs against some of the most trusted Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 04:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Couriously, I was just trying to work out what he said that's so annoyed you. Was it this: "The arbcom, (all of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here) calculated and estimated the response from the "fickle and ill-informed populace." [12] . (note: no one has censored Kelly Martin for such a stupid error) How far dare they go? They have now taken a vow of silence, so must be judged or damned together. They will survive because as I have said they divide and rule, poor old Sidaway though they use him as their barometer. Even I am never that cruel - but he is getting away with blue murder - so they assess and calculate. Sinister isn't it? Doubtless the next comment will be Giano is paranoid! Well I am not, I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" [13] ? I have to admit, it's wierd. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed in the least, so don't worry about that. However such paranoid ravings have no place on Wikipedia. I still think it would have been best to give him a few hours of downtime. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I don't know. I agree, rants like that are unhelpful. But blocking him for saying what he thinks won't change his mind or improve his behaviour - far from it. What would Miss Manners do? The only reputation he was damaging was his own. I'd say that one of the standard warnings is appropriate for a first offence, followed by a short block if he repeats. But the focus should be on the fact that what he was saying was unacceptable, not on our assessment of his mental stability.

Do me a favour? The next time you want to describe someone's comments as paranoid, including a link so that I can see for myself? Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the first thing to do in a case of such serious attacks is to stop them. He had been at it for days and warnings had no effect. I don't take the view that his ravings were without effect. Your mileage may vary. I cited samples of his accusations in the block report on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume I read everything you write at WP:AN. I agree, his behaviour is a problem. But your response to it, that too has caused problems. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I misjudged the sheer amount of fuss a brief block would cause. This is one of the hazards of adminship. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could tell you "do this next time, and the result will be better". Ben Aveling 05:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, when a case gets this bad, there is no "better" And that's normally where you'll find me, at the pointy end. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You've reminded me of one of my favourite posts on rec.bridge. In essence, the question was "How can I play $X cards to get out of situtation $Y" and the answer was "I wouldn't get into situation $Y." It wasn't a very comforting reply, but the second bridge player had a point. The first bridge player's bidding had dug him into such a deep hole that skillful play of the available cards could not extract him. Some situations are easier to avoid than to repair. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah but that would assume that we cause the situations we try, and sometimes fail, to defuse. --Tony Sidaway 06:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Rather, in trying to defuse situation $N, we cause situation $N+1. Ben Aveling 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

And coming back aroudn to the orginal topic, using loaded words - even when they're accurate - is being part of the cause and, by their nature, a failure to diffuse. You need not call someones comments "baseless" to prove them so. -- Isogolem 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is gained from not calling baseless and damaging allegations "baseless". Except perhaps the impression, among at least some people of good will, that one is being cagey and evasive. I do not wish to give that impression. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Tony - 19:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Ah, here's an example of two different ways I could respond to this:

1. Tony your response above is paranoid and baseless. Your claim that "nothing is gained" from making an effort to be polite is willfully ignorant of reality. Your response implies both that cagey and evasive are equivalent (which they obviously are not), and that making any effort to be polite is equivalent to being dishonest (which it also is not). Your comments may avoid giving the impression evasion, but including such defamatory language is instead guaranteed to give the impression of denegrating other users under a false banner of "honesty".
2. Tony, I don't agree with you that "nothing is gained". Significant portions of wikipedia policy and guideline are devoted to asking poeople to be polite, including WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and of course WP:CIVIL. Using words like "baseless" (let alone paranoid), skirts the edge of civility and absolutely breaks AGF. That kind of language is more likely to draw people to the accused's defense (and on to flame wars), whereas a calm neutral tone response (even if brief) is not. In a straw poll, I think most users would say they'd rather deal with comments that are cagey or level-headed, than with comments that break the spirit of WP:CIVIL. I actually find loaded words more indicative of evasion than less loaded ones - IME, it is easier to hide logical fallacies in loaded word comments. By using loaded words (especially without cites), you actually make it harder for me to distiguish your quite valid comments from those of the trolls and vandals.

So, which of these two comments is better?

Neither is much use. Both are based on the false premise that it is uncivil to identify a baseless and false accusation as baseless and false. Both falsely suggest that we should pussyfoot about clearly baseless, false and damaging accusations, treating them with a weight equal to serious, well founded suggestions. Taken seriously, both would damage Wikipedia very badly. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess that clears that up.  :) Thanks, it's been fun! -- Isogolem 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel bad

I've noticed that you get a lot of grief on your talk page, and I know if I had the same on mine, I would dread clicking the new messages bar. Here's a flower. Hope it makes you pleased to have clicked the bar. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 03:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, are other talk pages so different? I love seeing that telltale asterisk next to "My talk". Thanks for the flower. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom vote count

Tony: A question for you with your ArbCom Clerk hat on. An interesting debate can we had on whether an abstention is equivalent to a recusal or not; based on RL analogies, a case can be made either way, but I'll trust to your expertise on committee procedure. But in any event, IIRL there are 14 sitting arbs; 3 were inactive in Intangible, leaving 11; one abstention leaves 10. Wouldn't a majority still be 6? (Frankly, that's not the basis on which the case should be discussed now, the focus should be on the merits, but I'm wondering if I'm missing something.). Regards, Newyorkbrad 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You might like to put this to the arbitrators, who are the final authorities in these things. I only do what they tell me.

You're right that treating the abstention as a literal recusal-for-the-vote would still result in a majority of six, where by doing so the number of active arbitrators was reduced from eleven to ten. --Tony Sidaway 05:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Something to consider

Hi, Tony. You must be aware of the rather large amount of grief and drama stirred up by your recent block of Giano. I suppose there's no point rehashing that, and I'm not here to tell you things you've already heard- I'm just here to make a suggestion. There are two possibilities here: either you didn't know you were making an inappropriate block, or you did know. In the first case, it means your judgment is very poor when it comes to making blocks. In the second case, it means you knew it would be overturned and cause some drama, and you did it anyway to make some kind of point. Either case is unacceptable. Which, brings me to my suggestion: I'd like to ask that you refrain from blocking other editors in the future. This is, of course, not something we can make you do, but I hope that you'd do it voluntarily, for the good of the project. I suspect that recent events have made it more likely that any further obviously wrong blocks on your part will be seen as disruption, so please, consider this suggestion carefully. Friday (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please examine the actual circumstances, Friday, before you come up with facile and blatantly incorrect "advice". To summarise, the Giano block was in response to extreme, baseless and clearly false allegations of malicious wrongdoing by at least one named party, it was brief and intended to enable to gather his marbles and stop spreading the rubbish all over thr wiki, as he had been doing for days despite warnings, it was immediately subjected to review by my putting it on WP:AN. There was a lot of pointless fuss, but I'm not responsible for that. --Tony Sidaway 18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone said he suspected I did something malicious, would it be acceptable for me to block him or her? I believe it would be best for me to respond to the person's accusation, or else ignore it. Your attitude above comes across as dismissive and arrogant. This may be common among newbies, but it is not good for Wikipedia when someone in a position of trust acts in this way. I support Friday's suggestion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone said, without grounds, that he strongly believed that somebody else did something malicious and damaging to Wikipedia, I'd consider that grounds for blocking. This was the situation I acted upon. The whole of the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats and Angela were being accused of a ridiculous conspiracy. That is never, ever acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. It will always be blockable, subject to review. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Why did you block me from the West Bank page. I had helped create it, and I frequently contribute valuable information to the page.David Betesh

You're not blocked and your username has never been blocked, but you could still see a block message with my name if for some reason you use the same ISP as someone who has been blocked and there is a shared proxy that both you and the other user use. Please email me if this recurs, giving a full copy of the block message, and I'll fix it. --Tony Sidaway 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

2R Thing

Copied from User_talk:Isogolem regarding this edit:

Please don't do that. It gives me the impression that you're counting your reverts. --Tony Sidaway 23:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not doing it to make you uncomfortable. Still, it's not just an impression. I'm counting my reverts and being honest about it. There are any number of cases of User-A counting User-B's reverts and nailing User-B when they go over. It helps keep me from getting off balance, keeps me aware of when I'm reverting and how much, and avoids ever getting close to WP:3RR. My intent was to never even hit 3R - after 2R, if we're not on to dicussion instead of edits, they've lost balance not me. I'm okay waiting a day, or asking someone else to step up to the plate. Best of intentions.

What's wrong with it? Appearance of wikilawyering? -- Isogolem 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Isogolem. I have a similar policy. I try to limit myself to 1 revert and sometimes I get to 2 reverts but I really try to catch myself after that 2nd revert. I can count on one hand the number of times that I've been at WP:3RR and I don't think I've ever gone beyond that. Ideally, I'd honor WP:0RR but I'm not a saint.

--Richard 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't count reverts. Really. Don't. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why, Tony? If it's has been written already, give a link. If not... I'd like to understand your reasoning. -- Isogolem 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When new editors see more experienced editors counting, it encourages a false sense of entitlement. Even if the experienced editor is making a very exceptional second revert, this won't be evident to the new guy, who will assume it's what people do. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Entitlement? Ah, you refer to meant to cite intent of 3RR. Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with your reasoning. I _am_ a relatively new editor and I think that people reverting like wild in so many places is a much stronger encourager. ... But I see your point, perhaps better perhaps to follow 1RR and not count. Or perhaps to add something the WP:ROWN about this. -- Isogolem 22:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you unblock me please?

I'm doing a Wikification using AOL..proxy...blah blah... thanks Tvccs 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Tony Sidaway for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "AntiochCollege". The reason given for AntiochCollege's block is: "Prank account". Your IP address is 64.12.116.138. Tvccs 18:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll unblock that account and see how it goes. We'll have to find another way of dealing with the vandal. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

CWoI and Kosovo

How is Croatian War of Independence related to Kosovo? Don't get me wrong, I support any decission which would help stop ultranationalist edit warring on Croatian War of Independence article, but I just fail to see the connection between this article and the Kosovo one, so I'm just plain curious... --Dijxtra 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's one of the articles unprotected by User:Dmcdevit. He asked me to put the notice on all of those. If you think there has been an error, please consult him. --Tony Sidaway 18:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, nice. --Dijxtra 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Tony,

I think your actions here, here, here, and other similar places on this page, were out of line. It looks a lot like you were removing criticism of yourself. Could you please tell me if you think these actions were the right thing to do, and why? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggested cleaning up the noticeboard, and was encouraged to do so. I did it once and then it was reverted with the suggestion that the material should instead be archived, so I did that. I'm not a bureaucrat so obviously that is the wrong place to put criticism of me. Indeed most of the stuff I removed had absiolutely no place on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You "cleaned up" the noticeboard by archiving sections that were critical of you, even though many of the comments were less than 24 hours old and the discussion was clearly ongoing. That really seems inappropriate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Much of the whole discussion was innappropriate and I already removed a chuck that attacked the bcrats a day ago. If Tony has junk posted there, then it can go to. But this discussion does need to be trimmed down regardless, as it keeps quickly going in an unproductive direction .Voice-of-All 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed most of the removed material was just John Reid trying to harass bureaucrats. This was unfit for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not a bureaucrat. People who want to complain about me should do so elsewhere so that the bureaucrats don't have to wade through it to get to the important stuff. --Tony Sidaway 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hm. 1)What was all that crap doing on the BN? We seem to have Tony-related comments everywhere these days - perhaps we need a special 'wikiproject Sidaway' to keep them all together. 2)If we're being pedantic, perhaps Tony shouldn't have moved comments related to himself - but they sure needed moving. If he'd poked me, I'd have done it. The point is, they're gone now - good - move on....unless ... of course.... *sly grin* ... one is looking for another stick with which to beat Tony... in which case.......*evil laugh* --Doc 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "beating" Tony, and I don't think I'm being pedantic to suggest that this is a problem. It appears that Tony is selectively "archiving" only discussion he doesn't like, while leaving older, less active, discussion. I don't think it's acceptable behavior. This is another example. I'd like to ask that you, Tony, refrain from doing this. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. --Quadell 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being unreasonable. I think the example you give shows just how unreasonable you're being. I think this ridiculous, false and corrosive nonsense about archiving stuff simply because I don't like it is the problem. Clutter is a problem and it should be addressed and those who address it shouldn't be subject to nonsensical allegations. --Tony Sidaway 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd tried to intervene and stop John harassing the bureaucrats, so inevitably there were some comments critical of me. I did ask others to refactor, but was asked to do it myself. "You're a clerk." --Tony Sidaway 20:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why only archive some discussion, based on that person's viewpoint, but leave older and less active discussion? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On review, you answered that: because you though of John's questions as "harrassment". I disagree, but I understand your reasoning. --Quadell 20:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John's unproductive, hostile and unwikipedian badgering was painful and this was the subject of many comments. I'm convinced that I did the right thing, and only saddened that it was left to me to do it. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If people on wiki are dissatisfied and have a grouse, it's best to give them the space to do so and keep it in-house. And talk to them like reasonable human beings. Otherwise it just looks as though any dissent is going to be stamped on, which creates a stifled and fearful atmosphere, makes people frustrated that they cannot be heard, drives them to other notice boards off wiki, and gives more fuel to those who are critical of wiki. If what is being said is not true, then it can be pointed out and exposed. If it is true, then it should be listened to. There is nothing to fear in the truth. A healthy community should be strong enough to take such things in its stride. Tyrenius 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let them find a place to engage in their complaints. But let them not be permitted to drag Wikipedia into the slime with ridiculous and harmful complaints, expressed in a manner far beyond what any person would accept as reasonable. If I received an email from Giano, Ghirlandajo or any other of these editors expressed in the mannner that they have been inflicting upon Wikipedia for many months and years, I would ignore it. If he continued I might pop his email address into my idiot bin.

There is legitimate dissent, and it is alive on these pages and elsewhere. But gross trolling, silliness and paranoia are destructive to such legitimate dissent. We can discuss the real issues without trolling newbies with crap about the arbitration committee, Angela, and the bureaucrats all being involved in some weird fantastic conspiracy. Such mindless and stupid noise does not belong anywhere, and certainly not on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Well, the ArbCom will decide exactly how disruptive Ghirlandajo is - perhaps it might have been more effective if you had tried some sort of dispute resolution with him, or with Giano, before you blocked either of them.
2. In any case, where are these "ridiculous and harmful complaints" that have been "inflicted on Wikipedia" for months? I would be interested to see you provide some examples from Giano. And who are the the nameless other editors?
3. I have seen hardly a single voice in favour of your block of Giano. Surely you accept that you should not block someone in a matter in which you yourself were clearly involved?
4. You claim to have the interests of the encyclopedia at heart. You have driven off a contributor who has written many featured articles, not to mention diverted the attentions of the many editors replying here from more productive tasks: does that advance the encyclopedia? It seems to me that your recent actions are being disruptive. Please stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Can I archive this thread for you - seems to be a waste of time? --Doc 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

(If Tony is prepared to reply, then I would like to also, so hang fire for the moment, please.)

If some people are expressing such views vocally, then many more will also share them unspoken. That is a problem. It happens when people feel that things are happening which they do not understand and are powerless to do anything about. Trolling and paranoia are by definition not the same action. Trolling is done by someone who has power and exercises it over others to undermine them. Paranoia is someone who feels helpless and disempowered. Trolling, like all bullying, needs a stern and uncompromising response to show someone they're not welcome. Paranoia demands understanding and sympathy to show someone they are accepted. To treat paranoia like trolling exacerbates the problem and confirms the person that they are right — that there are in fact implacable forces opposed to them. Our participation in any situation is not neutral, but becomes a potent factor. It can make the difference between turning someone into a friend or an enemy.

You come across as a robust individual, so it may be hard to empathise with a very different temperament. The "no nonsense" approach can be very effective in many cases. When it's right, it clears up things instantly. However, when it's wrong, it leaves a resentful sense of injustice, not just in the person directly affected, but in bystanders too, and poisons a community. This is also something to be aware of as a presentation to newbies (and oldies for that matter too), and is also a problem that needs to be addressed. Stamping on dissent, however seemingly inappropriate, can create consequences which are worse than allowing it to work through to a natural conclusion.

A stable, secure environment can only be created when justice is not only done, but seen to be done and proved to be done to the satisfaction of reasonable people. This can be a torturous process in the short term, but desirable in the long term. These are not comments targeted at your actions in the present circumstances, as I have not studied them sufficiently to make a pronouncement. I only offer such thoughts as something which might be worth considering and taking on board as a resource which can lead to a better outcome in certain cases.

Tyrenius 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. However we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members. If we don't have trustworthy bureaucrats and arbitrators, as Giano claimed, then either we act as one and overthrow them all or we move elsewhere. Obviously I think the very idea is beyond fatuous so if you want to try either option you're welcome. But here we saw Wikipedia's consensus based system in action. I saw an editor whose actions in my opinions harmed the encyclopedia so badly and imminently that I blocked him for three hours and submitted the block for review on WP:AN. Other administrators disagreed with me and I know of not one single admin who agreed with me, and that's fine. I did the right thing and I was told that my judgement was wrong. That's fine, that's how it's supposed to work. --Tony Sidaway 04:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That's how it's supposed to work, when it doesn't work as well as it could. Your fellow admins don't want to be in the position where they unanimously disagree with you. You're a principled person and work hard for the project. This is something people recognise and respect you for. It's obvious they care for you and are trying really hard to communicate. They don't want to have a go at you, feel awkward about doing so, and yet feel they have to speak out, because of their conscience.

Principled people like yourself achieve change, but have a habit of pushing to increasing extremes, until they force a reaction to bring about their own demise, after which humanity returns to muddling through with compromise again. The nature of principles is black and white, either/or, right or wrong. On this basis "we cannot continue to build a stable community when members feel free to make wild accusations of malice about other members."

The interpretation creates the reality that has to be dealt with, and begs the question by assuming that, even if the statement is accusatory, wild and malicious, the inevitable consequence of its presence is going to be damaging to the project. The damage to the project can depend very much on the way it's handled. The project is pretty robust and can accommodate some wild accusations sometimes (depending on who made them for one thing), and furthermore be able to talk through some of those accusations in a civilised way, to find out if there is something to be learnt on both sides. Maybe there's something that 'crats and arbitrators can amend. That's a more realistic possibility than unwavering support or complete overthrow. If there are two options, take the third.

It may take the mediating type, which you've said you're not, but there's a team here and that type is in it, so they can be called on in situations where it's appropriate. It's worth trying, particularly with users who are both valuable contributors and apparent transgressors.

The job of taking on the labours of Hercules creates a lot of stress, which can build up insidiously, so take care of yourself.

Tyrenius 06:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo arbitration

Please remove my name from that list. I have not edited the Kosovo article for many weeks.--Noah30 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk and I don't make calls like that. Please ask User:Dmcdevit who is an arbitrator. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary injunction notice

With all due respect, it seems you made a mistake and added this injuction articles not related to the Kosovo case.

[14] [15] [16] Laughing Man 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please bring this to the attention of the arbitrators or other clerks. While I could have made a mistake, I don't think I did. See the unprotection log of Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the additional list of articles on the evidence page of the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I will bring it the attention on the workshop page, but I can not find a list of articles on the evidence page, it just states "Kosovo related articles" which are not any of the above. I'm not sure where you came up with which articles to add the notice to and the block log of Dmcdevit seems to only be tests? I'm a little confused now. Laughing Man 18:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Giano

Hello. I'm writing to you over my puzzlement in discovering you blocked Giano yesterday. Common sense dictates that in a highly volatile dispute involving established editors whereby one side (you) originally take a strong position against another side (Giano), any blocking related to that dispute —certainly one involving mention of yourself as a voal opponent— is inappropriate. A reminder of the two positions (originally):

1. This is Wikipedia's most disgraceful day. There can be no going back now, every future RFA is condemned to be a meaningless charade dependent on how chummy the candidate is with the 'crats. No one will ever trust the 'crats or the process again. Wikipedia has soiled its bed now it must sleep in it. Giano | talk 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. This was a very encouraging initiative by the bureaucrats. Nothing makes me more ashamed of Wikipedia than the disgusting rabble that RFA has become. Bureaucrats should take the initiative and award the bit on merit. Whether an editor can pass a "beauty contest" is of little use in deciding whether he'll wield the bit well. --Tony Sidaway 11:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (italics are my emphasis)

These are obviously mutually-exclusive points of view. As for the comment on Taxman's talk page (the reason for the block, right? I'm trying to follow the timeline), you are of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false (I, for one, consider them rather wildly conspiratorial, though they may touch on a more organic tendency), and if you feel it was expressed in an incivil way (or that, regardless of civility, it is inherently subversive/disruptive), that's fine, raise it on ANI or elsewhere. What concerns me, and I hinted on it more gently on the NA RfAr, is this heavy-handedness over sensitive matters. So please try to resolve the dispute with Giano with those considerations in mind. El_C 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I utterly, absolutely and without apology or defense refute the ridiculous suggestion that an editor cannot do what he must do to prevent damage to Wikipedia performed by actual egregious attacks of a person who happens to have expressed an opinion distinct from that of his own.

The suggestion that I am of course entitled to think that the machiavellian claims asserted by Giano are false is misplaced. I assert shamelessly and without apology and in the face of the light of truth that those claims are damaging, and utterly false. Such attacks have absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for such attacks. --Tony Sidaway 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually concerned with the "light of truth," I am refering to an attempt to resolve a volatile dispute rather than making it worse. El_C 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that several different people thought your block in this case was inappropriate? Why are you so resistant to the idea that you might have been wrong? You're wrong here, Tony- don't make this kind of block ever again. Friday (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they were wrong. I am permitted to disagree with you, you know. --Tony Sidaway 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

FFS, this is a wiki. He blocked someone for a short time, someone else reverted it. BIG DEAL. It isn't as if Tony reinstated it. People seem to be diving off the deep end because it was an 'eastablished user', so what? Established users ought to understand that this is how wikipedia works - I'd bemore concerned with biting newbies. Let this rest. --Doc 00:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you're right that a quickly reverted block isn't a very big deal. If this were an insolated incident, I wouldn't think that Tony's approach here is a big deal either. But it's not an isolated incident, it's part of a pattern of disruptive behavior- thus, several editors are asking Tony to cut it out. Friday (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this driving off the deep end is a double edge sword, sorry, SWORD! ;) Anyway, I don't think I'm out of line in pointing that you are oversimplyfying, Doc. Please give us a chance to discuss things through. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Friday, El_C, others, myself, whoever, we are wasting time here.

• No one but Tony doubts he's wrong
• Tony thinks he is right and nothing will change it as it never did
• Tony does not care what others think
• Tony will not change his attitude and will do worse, like block even more and remove criticism from his talk and public pages
• Whatever he does, Giano is gone. Nothing Tony, you or I can do will compensate an editor who could produce 3 FA a month. Certainly not Tony if his best article is Falling and he hasn't written anything for any article for months
• As long as Tony is not restrained by others, nothing will change.

As such, just undo his damage next time and save yourself time from trying to convince Tony, or if you feel like it, take him to ArbCom, or a community block, as I suggested yesterday. The rest is a pure time waste. Tony's damage to Wikipedia is significant enough without valuable editors wasting their time trying to convince him of things. --Irpen 00:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains, Tony, that several administrators and editors have voiced concern about your actions over the last few days, which appear to have led, in whole or in part, to the departure of an excellent editor and regular featured-article writer. As one of your firm beliefs is that we must put product over process, I hope you'll agree that the loss of such a good editor is a serious one. The block is a cause for concern (several admins and one arbitrator were lining up to undo it) as is the constant moving and removing of other people's posts. Others have asked you to stop this, and I add my voice to theirs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Giano failed the final test of being able to treat the encyclopedia, and his fellow editors, with respect. I blocked him for three hours to cool down, and put it up for review, and it was reversed in minutes. In view of his vehement, unrepentant and frankly quite paranoid attacks on trusted Wikipedians, it's not really surprising that he's decided to take a rest. If he comes back he should stop attacking other Wikipedians. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better to bring these concerns to review first, since you were so prominently named as a hostile party by Giano. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would rather agree with Friday, Irpen and SV. I personally think that you made an initial mistake, and a rather minor one in fact. No one blames you for it, at least not directly. However, in my (not so) humble opinion, you enclosed youself in a vicious circle of overreactions that led to highly controversial blocks and a departure of an excellent contributor. This loss is not replaceable and certainly is out of proportion compared to rather minor problems this user caused. And want it or not, you're at least partly responsible for it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't want my judgement in the Giano block to be subject to review, I would not have asked for it to be reviewed. It's silly to say things like "nobody but Tony cares what other think" when clearly I do. That I disagree strongly with other people does not mean that I ignore their viewpoints.

Now I put the block up for review, and accepted the result of the review without reservation, However, the fact that I do not agree with the opinions of some of those who gave an opinion seems to be regarded as an issue. Well, it isn't. I'm permitted to disagree with people who have different opinions from my own. Indeed if I were not, that would be silly. It would mean that we would all have to not only agree that consensus rules Wikipedia, but that expression of a point of view differing from the majority view, however reasonable and well founded, could not be tolerated.

And that isn't how Wikipedia works. -Tony Sidaway 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, hearing what you've heard, knowing how many objections there were, would you have done the same? - A Man In Black 01:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would I again block an editor who repeatedly and in the face of clear warnings continues to accuse his fellow editors, falsely and clearly without basis, of maliciously harming Wikipedia? Absolutely. Every single time. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Who decides what's "without basis"? - A Man In Black 01:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, the issue is that you were decidedly on one side of the debate (and indeed named prominently as such by Giano in that comment). What is further striking to me is that you failed to communicate to Giano how damaging you felt his comment was. The same earlier this week, with your filing of an RfAr without any attempt at dialogue with the people whom it was filed against. If you are unable to draw any lessons from these two recent examples, I expect we shall see other preventable crises borne of this approach. El_C 01:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to A Man In Black, the absence of a reasonable chain of inference and a factual basis in any of Giano's edits on this subject or those of any other editor, persuades me, very convincingly, that Giano was making it up as he goes along. And the fatuousness of his claims also helped me to make up my mind on this.

In response to El C, of course I was on the side of people who find Giano's wild accusations incredible. How could it be otherwise? And Giano would not have made his false and damaging claims if he had not indeed intended to claim that the arbitration committee, the bureaucrats, and (improbably) Angela, were involved in some weird conspiracy. I cannot imagine that anybody could make such specific false and clearly damaging accusations by accident. Your mileage may vary, but for all our sakes I hope it doesn't. We need to keep our discussions based in reason and fact. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget good ol' Essjay! But no, I did not mean that "debate" (?), but what this would be conspiracy was said to facilitate, wherein he saw you as a hostile party. I'm not sure who is claiming accident. One can attempt to correct misperceptions through dialogue, however. El_C 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm barely aware of Essjay's existence, so I don't think it can have any bearing on this matter. I think Giano's wild accusations were well beyond dialog. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about your own recent accusations against Jayjg & others, were these also beyond dialogue? El_C 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rovoam again

He keeps reverting the Artsakh page...do you think semi-protection is a good option at this time? I've used up my three reverts for today. --Khoikhoi 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can. Meanwhile don't worry about it. Revert warring will only encourage him and the article can wait until it's fixed.

If you would prefer, go to WP:RFPP an ask for the page to be semiprotected if that would help. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)