User talk:Tony Sidaway

---

Question

Tony, am I correct in assuming you hatted/collapsed this discussion while it was ongoing? Basket of Puppies 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it was clear that the discussion was off topic and should not have been on the page in the first place. If you disagree, just undo my edit. You don't need permission to do that. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just curious to know if I was reading the diff correctly. That's all. Basket of Puppies 17:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a fairly well established practice for stopping runaway and off-topic discussions. Ideally it prompts editors to reconsider what they're doing and, perhaps, channel their energy into something more productive. The governing principle, which is one of Wikipedia's foundational policies, is that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I very much disagree with any move that silences ongoing discussion of an issue. It simply generates more drama, like this has. Basket of Puppies 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of experience, really. Experience shows that hatting or archiving is preferable to permitting unproductive or off-topic discussions--themselves a source of drama--to dominate forums dedicated to improving the encyclopedia. In that manner we express the important difference between Wikipedia and a discussion forum. This is a workplace, even if the work is voluntary, and a professional approach is expected. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What happens when your "experience" goes against consensus? Basket of Puppies 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've already remarked, reverting an edit on Wikipedia does not require prior permission. Tasty monster (=TS ) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement

If as you say you are just seeking clarification perhaps you`d have a word with the two who want to block me for two fucking weeks? mark (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Or comment here [1] whic his were you should have posted to begin with really mark (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked only for clarification, but I am not an uninvolved administrator. It is their job to decide how to enforce your topic ban. Note that not all admins in the discussion agree that there is an actionable problem, and the result will arise from discussion. Tasty monster (=TS ) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued involvement

In a comment at the clarification request, you wrote:[2]

• TenofAllTrades, me and the others you mention were invited here by the filing party, Tony Sidaway.

I do acknowledge that you were notified of the request, as the guidance of the arbitrators on the topic affects expectations of your future conduct and, should you ever choose to return to the topic, the kind of error you need to avoid. I did not intend that you should break your topic ban, as you did in making an edit there attacking other topic-banned editors:[3]

• It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Wikipedia's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions.

You also made comments at the Marknutley enforcement request, to which you cannot claim to have been "invited", and again you used the opportunity to exacerbate interpersonal disputes related to climate change. [4] [5] [6].

In recent days you have also continued to edit your essay Wikipedia:Activist [7] [8] [9] which is worrying because it appears to me at least to be closely related to the tenor of your editing in the climate change topic, and your description of activist psychology seems to be a sly dig at William Connolley. But perhaps others less involved in the climate change topic would judge that essay more kindly.

I'm asking you not to respond to this. I'm asking you please, because the topic ban is there for a purpose and I know you value Wikipedia as highly as I do, to take the Arbitration Committee's directions to heart and go and find something else to do. --TS 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I resent your bad faith efforts to try to draw me back into the CC dispute so you can use it to criticize me. It's very transparent what you're doing, and it reflects very poorly on you. No one has caused more unnecessary drama since the CC case closed than you. I really hope that you'll go try and expand an article and at least get one passed by Good Article, which I don't believe you've ever done, and leave the CC article policing to administrators. If you need any copyediting help or any other assistance with a non-CC article, feel free to ask me. I'll crosspost this to your user talk page to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)