User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

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

---

(coup d'etat in progress)

---

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)

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

Re [1]

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)

Looking for an admin

We are looking for an admin here:[[2]]. 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)

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)

Take a break

This was offensive, over the top, and generally unhelpful. Take a break from editing and cool down. reconsider your approach to the project. Friday (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Being above an admin does not make Tony above the law. This is the final straw in a long series of disruptive comments and personal attacks. I have therefore blocked Tony for 24 hours. JoshuaZ 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not upset and I don't need to cool down (but I think some others may do.) I have nothing to add to my observation that I have lanced the boil [3]. A slight smell is inevitable and it'll dissipate in time. I'll sit out the block that JoshuaZ has made. It wouldn't be in the interests of Wikipedia to add further to this silliness. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Having discussed this matter at length I think Wikipedia will benefit from an absence by me for seven days. I am quite unrepentant. I believe that I did a good thing. I leave the matter in the hands of the arbitration committee and would happily resign from all editing on Wikipedia should this improve the encyclopedia. . --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I can understand, to some extent, why you thought what you did a few days ago was a good thing. But what about what you wrote today? Do you think that particular post served any useful purpose at all, stirring the embers back into flames? Was that, too, a good thing?

If you want (or have been urged) to spend a week on Wikibreak, that is probably a good idea. But I think an even better idea is that you spend a week, or a month, on a complete leave from your administrative duties (blocking, warning, clerking, ...) and ... edit some articles. Remind yourself where the fun of this project is supposed to lie. Even falling has sections waiting to be finished. That, to me, would show more of a commitment by you than any words on this page to the project you've been trying to serve. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I'd also like to repeat what I have attempted to explain before- these sorts of remarks don't help matters at all. They don't accomplish anything and often make people more angry. They often cause far more damage than what small help they give. JoshuaZ 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is right. Tony, your behavior has been particularly polemical and divisive. If you were a userbox, you'd get speedy deleted for this. Friday (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It is nice to see a strong a firm admin reaction to a user who apparently considers himself above the law (and whose interests are apparently everything but writing an encyclopedia as I can see from the facts). Joshua and Friday, please accept my thanks and encouragements! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be unblocked at all until you gain some understanding of how to not say things so insensitive as to make good contributers want to pound their keyboards into dust in a shouting rage. Maybe we should have a policy to that effect. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an idea... Wikipedia:Contributors are above all or something? :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We kind of have it already - Don't be a dick - although being on meta has allowed it to avoid the "policy" tag, and retain some of its simplicity and importance. As for the block, I support JoshuaZ's 24 hours - but would be wary of imposing anything further now. Unfortunately I get the feeling that Tony is going to continue this behaviour when the block expires. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong. the wub "?!" 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Protoss Archon 01:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've meditated over this for a number of days. I didn't contest the block because I felt at the time that it would divide the community if I did so, and I recognised that the misreading of my unfortunately worded comment was reasonable and the outrage it caused was also reasonable. I can only apologise for making a very poor choice of words in a very delicate situation. To describe any respected Wikipedian as a "boil" is unthinkable. Those who believed that I intended to say that were quite right to block me. Out of respect for their justifiable outrage, I did not quibble. --Tony Sidaway 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hagiographer and Squeakbox

Based on Mackensen's comments at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hagiographer, do you think there is enough evidence to support blocking Hagiographer for violating the personal attack parole that was extended to him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas#Log of blocks and bans? (Also note that 2 weeks ago, Hagiographer prodded the same article, but he got away with it because I was the only one watching WP:AE at the time. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive2#User:Hagiographer and the Squeakbox section below it.) Thanks.

Never mind. Jayjg found that Hagiographer was someone's sock and indef blocked it. Thatcher131 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

I enjoyed this greatly: [4]. -- SCZenz 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please stop your serbs in your project--Hipi Zhdripi 06:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

hey tony

Saw you had some references to some permissions areticles on meta. I'm trying to protect pages and allow access to them to a new group but I don't seem to be making it work. I've followed the instructions at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Protect and everything as far as that seems to be i order. i used the group 'bank' and have added the following to my LocalSettings

$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['move']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['read']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['edit']            = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['createpage']      = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['createtalk']      = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['upload']          = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['reupload']        = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['reupload-shared'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank' ]['minoredit']       = true;
$wgRestrictionLevels[] = 'bank';
$wgGroupPermissions['bank']['protect']         = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bank']['editinterface']   = true;

but members of the'bank' group don't seem to be able to edit the page when it is protected and delegated to the 'bank' group please send me an e-mail at mrgenixus@gmail.com if you can help me. \ Thanks, Ben West

An appeal

At the heart of the current crisis is disunity. Wikipedia is one community but editors have begun to treat it as a battleground where they fight for their own interests, forgetting that it's only a means for producing a high quality free encyclopedia. Attacking the ultimate mechanism of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee, weakens us all. I appeal to all editors to stop warring. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A comment by Newyorkbrad

Warring is never helpful, regardless of the cause or the provocation, real or imagined. That goes for absolutely everyone. There are issues to be addressed, to be sure, and I've been thinking about trying to inject a comment addressing some of them, but I don't imagine that at this point I or anyone else would be heard above the general commotion.

As for you, Tony, you seem incapable of taking a full and complete Wikibreak. I can empathize; unlike you, I've been active for less than three months, yet I know I'd miss this place if I were gone for a week myself. I will repeat a suggestion that I made above (in the middle of threaded discussion, so you may have missed it): Why not step over to mainspace and edit an article or two? All the fun of editing, yet quite a lot less of the stress and controversy. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I find suggestions like this unhelpful. I have edited thousands of articles. I notice that you refer to "stress". If I found editing Wikipedia stressful, I would not do it. --Tony Sidaway 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[Written in response to now-redeleted material].Once again, I find myself sighing. My comment was meant to be supportive of Tony's call for everyone to stop warring, and as a suggestion for him to ease himself back from Wikibreak. It wasn't meant as an attack of any nature and I'm sorry about how he took it and how the thread has turned. It appears that at this point, there is absolutely nothing that I or anyone can say without offending someone and/or starting a contentious and hurtful argument. I give up. Newyorkbrad 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't offend me, but I don't think it was a particularly helpful suggestion. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive campaiging

He's still at it ([5]). I'm not sure what to make of this. Radiant! 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are one of the most admired editors on Wikipedia (I know you won't let that go to your head; we all have our faults and you're aware of this) precisely because you have a very good brain and can come up with workable solutions to serious problems. Work your magic. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not so admired or respected but I am also not part of any cabal relating to this matter. Nevertheless, I object to both the edit war (which I believe was occurring on both sides of the issue), to the protection and to the current version of the page. [Here] are my comments.--Blue Tie 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your kind remarks on my rfa. I'm just writing to correct a typo (I dare not change remarks on my own RfA). I think you meant for one of those 2003's to be a 2006 or something. Thanks again! :) —Pengo 10:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No the remark is written as intended. Prior to mid-2005, RFAs typically did not attract much attention. Since then, it has become quite common for RFA to attract huge numbers of RFA groupies who all support one another. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom: Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell for Dbiv and replaced with probation

In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.

The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk · contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

For the Arbitration Committee FloNight 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neat stuff. Congratulations, David. Thanks Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway

My accidental rollbacks and the subsequent reversions of the rollback

Hi Tony,

I don't know if you watch pages that you edit so I'm not sure if you saw the response that I left to the note you left on my Talk Page. I've been having this problem on a bunch of pages that I try to read and I just figured out what was going on. I finally figured out what was causing those accidental rollbacks. It's not all "sloppy mousing" on my part. The slowness of my browser in processing Javascript is also partly to blame. If you care to read the details, they're explained more fully on my Talk Page. Now that I understand what's going on, it will be easier to avoid repeating this mistake. Once again, my apologies. --Richard 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Thanks for responding. --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for Drag-Qeen Tony to ban Leather-queen Mark. TS is a whore who needs to send money to Jimbo's daugher.