Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Wikipedia discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of these alternatives: biased, slanted, subjective, tendentious, opinionated, one-sided, non-neutral, partisan, unfair, poorly framed, unbalanced, partial, ill-conceived, promotional, polemical, distorted, advocating, prejudicial, skewed, unrepresentative, imbalanced, apologetic, inequitable, weighted, hagiographic, selective, narrow minded, opinionated, pejorative, bent, preference, leaning, prejudice, evaluative (please add to this list),
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.
ArmanJan deleted well sourced info on human rights issues at Basij twice [1], [2] and vandalized the talk page. You told him to stop on Talk:Basij and on his talk page, which he deleted, as he did with other complaints.
Now he removed a photo claiming it to be a "well known" forgery, giving no evidence or source - the photo's authenticity has been falsely denied before [3], [4]. As the article is on attack by others too (e.g Databot) I checked ArmanJan contrib's: He put wrong PD related tags to several imgs [5], [6], [7]. He vandalized Talk:Military_of_Iran (a reasonable post by an anon) and Talk:Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps. As far as I can tell, his img uploads mostly have misleading licensing infos. Some others noted this on his talk page too. All in all he should get a stern warning. It's tedious to watch after that article. --tickleme06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:
I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies (again) FrankB21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are cordially invited to pick on Frank: (Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy
This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, Adam88 (talk·contribs) is the only sock I can think of right now; of course he'll create others. I didn't want to block him myself, since 'legally' he more or less sat out his year's ban, and would be an editor in good standing if he actually did edit articles; as it is, he's reduced to bitching about me and my "clique" in irregular intervals, so yes, I think you can block him on grounds of that; he is not as great a nuisance as other trolls I could mention, but there seems to be no reason why he should stick around just to add to the noise ratio around here. regards, dab(ᛏ)08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that I don't see anything wrong with doing this? In some ways I would be rather dissapointed if people didn't at least lie by omission (much better to say we have a load of effective anti vandalism measures in place rather than outlineing the ways around these). In fact that is pretty much the intention behind WP:BEANS. The probablem is aside from any issues of people steping outside their powers or whatever we have an inconsistancy. WP:OFFICE powers are not needed to block vandles. Admins have delibertately blocked the whole of AOL before now so it isn't needed for range blocks etheir. That is why I was considering the posibilty that the vandalism was to a degree at least a cover story.Geni19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing sockpuppet banners from proven sockpuppet accounts.
[[8]]
And he's removing comments informing him he shouldn't be removing sockpuppet tags from his own page, claiming harrasing dialogue. And yes, I left the comment, but other than that, haven't touched his pages --Jerry (Talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say that I adopted a dictatorial tone towards Danny, which is quite true. To my mind that reflects the seriousness of what is going on here. Erik followed Wikipedia policy. For doing that he got banned and desysoped. There are few more serious things that can be done within a community like this. The creation of the Dannyisme account is a positive step towards making sure this does not happen again, but it is not enough so far as I am concerned. I see no reason why Danny's ordinary account should have access to any powers of those above a normal user after this incident. If anyone else had done something like this they would have been permanently banned but we do need Danny in his Foundation capacity.
I see from previous parts of Danny's talk page that similar concerns have been raised in the past so this is not exactly unprecedented in subject area. What is unprecedented is the incredible abuse of power that has taken place. David Newton20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is this the treatment we, and particularly Eloquence, deserve. Danny is more than welcome to quit if he can't handle the stress of people wondering why he is randomly protecting pages on gimped versions without citing the Office Action policy. Or maybe he could simply say it's an Office Action, and remove all doubt and concern. --Golbez22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination, and expected opposing voters to do the same. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him, and while I only nominated users who had previously voted with me, I did not neglect to mention the nomination on the article's talk page and on the "articles nominated for deletion" page. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking action. But I'd expect sysops to be taking appropriate action for each of the cases, that would actually steer all parties towards reaching an eventual resolution. Imposing a ban wouldn't be helpful, I'm afraid.
For the list of bridges, my edits were to restore the article as according to what it was like prior to undiscussed, POV and controversial edits by user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat. For the Hong Kong national football team and District Council of Hong Kong articles, it's related to how the official full name of Hong Kong should be linked. I've requested user:Alanmak to discuss, but all efforts were in vain. Guangzhou, Community of Portuguese Language Countries and East Asian Tigers, are related to user:Alanmak imposition of the the infobox-style he prefers, to replace the inline-style suggested by Wikipedia's official manual of style. The Macao, China article is related to whether there's any official policy to avoid redirects. I've requested user:SchmuckyTheCat, who argues Macao should be spelt with a -u, at his talk page for official policy/ies, but he's not responding. For the i'm lovin' it article, I'm following McDonald's official website, but user:Alanmak keeps arguing that's merely my POV. I'd love to hear from you why I have to be banned for each of the above cases. If possible, please help bring all parties to real discussion, or else the trouble is not like getting to be solved. Thanks again, and thanks in advance for your necessary interventional actions, Tony. — Instantnood14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that a lot of your edits have been reverting Alanmak's edits. If you think he's being too aggressive and pushing a point of view against consensus (and while I myself cannot say, there does appear to be circumstantial evidence that may support this) I'd like to see you try the conventional methods of dispute resolution. Maybe AlanMak will respond to discussion on his talk page, especially if others chime in. If he doesn't and you still think his behavior is problematic, discuss the problem with your colleagues with a view to starting a RfC. If you have been through those steps and there are people who agree with you that Alanmak's behavior is unacceptable, then bring it to arbitration. The Committee has had problems with you in the past, but that is because you have not been patient enough to follow this route. If you do, I promise you that you will have more success in dealing with bias on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If I were not patient the trouble wouldn't have carried on for more than a year. And if you don't already know, user:Alanmak actually disregarded user:Jiang's and my messages at his talk page, deleting them with edit summary saying "disregard bullshit", "vandalism" or no summary at all. At the moment administrators' action is urgently needed for all articles you've mentioned above. — Instantnood15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic user conduct dispute. I highly recommend that you get together with Jiang put together an RfC outlining those attempts to resolve the issue and his inappropriate response. --Tony Sidaway15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please also look into each of the articles that you've named above, and see what else we can actually do? Meanwhile, the ban on me is in effect keeping user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat edits for two weeks. Please kindly review, as an administrator, whether their edits have to be reverted. Thanks. — Instantnood16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a content issue, something that an administrator cannot really resolve any better than any other editor. If you think that an article is unbalanced, use an article RfC to see if you can attract other editors to examine the issue. The thing to realise is that you are not the only editor, and if you can obtain consensus then you'll have no shortage of people willing to correct inbalance. --Tony Sidaway16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought many discussion to listing on RfC, but very very few people actually join the discussion from there. — Instantnood20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
===>I dunno After viewing the pages you suggested, I don't really have any insight into the matter. My guess would be that it's completely fair to use, as much as if I had an album title made up of "3Ə¥ŋ" (in case you don't have Uncode, that's four random characters...) -Justin (koavf), talk17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm quite sure that the name is uncopyrightable, whatever writing system is used. It's the copyright on the image that concerns me. --Tony Sidaway17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in (Koavf's talk page is still on my watch list from the wax lips question last night) but I just wanted to point out that the "runes" in that image aren't any language at all. Each one (including the "zoso") was created to represent a different member of Led Zeppelin. So they're not public domain; they're original works of art made to look like ancient symbols. That being said, since it's album cover art (and, actually, it was only on the spine - Led Zep's 4th album is technically untitled), it seems to me it should be fair use. If entire album covers can be depicted under fair use, surely a tiny part of the cover can be, too, no? Kafziel18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the design of the symbols (which are all derived from other sources), or the choice of runes, but the specific depiction produced by artists working on behalf of Atlantic Records or Led Zeppelin in 1971, or in similar contexts for Swansong Records or Led Zeppelin. Or anybody else, for that matter. As it happens, today User:freakofnurture has produced his own artist's impression of those symbols, and release the image into the public domain. This is free content and we can use it forever, and moreover it is recognisably the sequence of symbols chosen by the members of Led Zeppelin to represent their fourth album. --Tony Sidaway23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒SWATJesterReadyAimFire!19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you one; if you have recieved and replied already, could you send again..? I may have deleted it when I was clearing out messages from the wiki mailing list. If not, disregard the latter. -ZeroTalk12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Sorry about that, I was simply worried I missed a potential reply from you last night while clearing out the wiki notice crap. I had over 145 messages piled up and wasn't really paying attention to detail as I was mass deleting. -ZeroTalk19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you're not going to send it...? I've checked, and I haven't seen it. Perhaps I overlooked it..? -ZeroTalk18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Software resoponse to deleted articles.
I have noticed that once an article is deleted, all references to any edits to that article will also be deleted in a user's contributions. This was indeed the case with me vis-a-vis the 1911 EB project (I made innumerable annotations to the 20-some pages involved, and for a while, you'd get nothing but screenload after screenload of edit notices of in my user comments).
I know an admin can 'undelete' an article, which seems to mean they can look at it. I wonder if one can look at anything deleted from user contribs via deletion of an article.
Specifically, there is one set of exchanges between Jaysuschris and myself that I cannot find; as I recall it was on a talk page where he thanked another user for his support against me (perhaps his or another's sock puppet). There was another exchange where, looking at this user's edit history, I made a comment that Jaysus had forgotten to change accounts. This would have probably been in February, perhaps earlier, maybe into early March. This is why I believed JC was one of Nussle's trolls, following the example of Capitol Hill staffers in vandalizing articles.
If there is a quick and easy way of determining this, it will save me many laborious hours of viewing all of his edits. Has JC asked that anything be deleted? How can one tell? Reviewing myself, I behaved abominably, but there was provocation.
I would also add there is someone lurking behind this who posted some vile anti-semitic material in my mail -- Sean Black resolved this. I'm told it was an aol account. I don't think this was JC, in that the edits were mostly in the sandbox; a kid probably.
I also add that an admin's ability to eliminate any trace of any previous posting -- including ones in their own mail -- adds to my current paranoia. --FourthAve00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall be careful
You on my talk page in response to my request: in response to my request for comments: I suppose that if I have a concern it's with your mass-spamming of user talk pages. It's probably better to place such requests in a single location--on your own talk page or user page is best--where those who are familiar enough with your work to watchlist them will see it.
My reply: Thank you Tony - yes Tony, as you had asked me to call you Tony and not Mr. Tony when I had a talk with you a year before. I shall be more careful, and shall avoid "mass-spamming". I will also not do "select-spamming" (?). No, sometimes, I will have to do "select-spamming". I was just kidding! Now, I am leaving you in peace for few weeks. About a year back on 22nd April 2005, You gave me an exceptional new comer barnstar, and I thank you you every year for the same. In case, you find that I have done some exceptional work during last 12 months or next 12 months, please do not forget to give me another barnstar! --Bhadani15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today an administrator by the name Tony Sidaway deleted the article in reference, saying that "the result of the debate was delete as misinformation". As any person who checks the deletion debate can ascertain, this is simply not true. The majority of Wikipedia users that intervened in the debate (7, to my count), voted to keep and/or move or clean. Only two, including one of the people who vandalized the article, voted for deletion.
If there is no respect whatsoever for the results of the debate, as in this case, what is the sense of having one? I respectfully request the reinstatement of the article. An explanation by Tony Sidaway would also be appropriate. >(talk) [[9]]
Just a quick note to say hello and send warm greetings from sunny Florida from a former inhabitatant of usenet's a.a. (re, for ex., the woll. fellow). After much thought (and quite a long time ago!) I concluded that that your take on the entire matter in that port 119 world was the most humane one to take and the best for all concerned, and also bailed. Drop me a line if you're ever in the Southwest environs of the "Sunshine state" so that I might buy you a nice cold brew (the way it was surely intended to be imbibed), or, alternatively, your favorite non-alcoholic imibibeable. We do have some great iced Tea and gulf seafood 'ya know. With warm regards, I am, hgoldste at that mpcs.com place aka Flawiki01:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the recollection is not all bad. I lost interest once things started getting all (borrowing an expression, probably incorrectly since we don't use it this side of the pond) "pear shaped" over in that other place, and don't bother with it anymore. It is far more collegial and enlightening, not to mention, more humane (mostly), over here. Accordingly, it's more satisfying too, as I suspect you've noticed... At any rate I just wanted to say howdy and hope things are going well with you. I'm pleased to have seen you here as we mightn't have crossed paths had I not noticed your username pop up on a talk page that was sitting on my watchlist for a reason completely unrelated to my saying howdy. Best, --Flawiki03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very pleasant recollections. You were among a very few people who seemed able to keep a sense of proportion about the affair. --Tony Sidaway15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's there. The page currently contains the following text:
In Royal Navy slang, midshipmen are sometimes referred to as "snotties", and a somewhat dubious urban legend states that the three buttons formerly on the jacket cuffs of the midshipman were placed there to prevent him wiping his nose on his sleeve [10]. --Tony Sidaway18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! (I'd turn this Firefox option back on to "begin finding when you begin typing" but this computer is soooooo slow.) Thanks! Ewlyahoocom20:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attempting to deal with the content dispute, but I'm afraid my right to defend my position was not protected. For this reason, I would like to apply for lifting the block and the bans, in order to put up my arguments at WP:AE. I promise I won't conduct any edit that involves any sort of revert to any of the articles you've listed on my user talk page, before my arguments are heard, and the bans and the block are reconsidered. Thank you. — Instantnood18:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect the block. You may put a {{unblock}} template on your talk page and request a review of the block. I'll also note this on WP:AN in the interests of transparency. --Tony Sidaway18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I cannot agree. I was not notified about user:SchmuckyTheCat's request at WP:AE. I was not given any opportunity to defend my position before the block was imposed, and the block was imposed with only one-sided comment. I'm not criticising your or anybody's decision, but I just can't believe it's the way Wikipedia mechanism deals with these matters, if neutrality, justice, consensus, balances are really meant to be treasured.
" I have banned him under his probation from several articles on which he had edited disruptively. ", " Because he doesn't appear to be learning to moderate his behavior but instead simply goes to edit war on another article, I also blocked Instantnood for 48 hours for disruption. " [11] - I'd wonder if the same conclusion would have come up if my arguments were considered. — Instantnood19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please kindly explain the arguments, reasoning and rationale behind the block and each of the page bans. Thank you. — Instantnood20:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Devons
My theory is that in porn as soon as somoene has had relative success with a name, a bunch of counterfeits set out to steal their market. mgekelly14:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a couple problems with a certain user, Earwig. I linked to his talk page as his user page contains a somewhat abrasive image, which is a slight part of my problem. I am well aware of wikipedia's non-censorship standing and its free use image policies, but I feel this user may be going too far simply to prove a point, or to cause trouble. It would make sense for one to expect such an image on a related article, but in the interest of communication between editors, it would seem to me that userpages and talk pages would be best kept within a normal socially acceptable level. Also, this editor has spent quite a few of his edits, if not the majority, adding so called "objectionable" material to articles. In some cases this makes perfect sense as the picture is relevant to the article or section it is placed in. Other times he seems to cross a line to irrelevancy and it would appear he is doing so just to be funny, or create some kind of shock-factor that wikipedia really does not need. I have brought this concern with him regarding a specific article on his talk page, but I dont want to proceed to far with this untill I am clear with what actions of his (and potential actions on the part of me or other editors) are appropriate and what is not. Thanks in advance.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, could you put the University of Dubuque article in semi-protected status as well? I happened upon the article this evening and an anonymous editor at [12] put in a paragraph [13] regarding a legal dispute between a professor and the school. JesseG02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, I checked Instantnood's edits on Macao, China from Dec2005 till his/her ban from that article. I couldn't see a reason for the ban on that article. I make no comment on his/her other behviour of which, currently, I have little knowledge. I'd appreciate your reasons. Thanks. Mccready15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked this user's edits on List of bridges and it appears there is a legitimate reason for his/her edits. An edit summary of this user pointed to the difference between a country and a sovereign state. Hong Kong is listed as the former but not the later. Mccready16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, I've now checked his/her behaviour on Hong_Kong_national_football_team. He/she used the discussion page appropriately, organised a poll and edited accordingly. He/she suffered incivility from other users. I can't see why he/she is banned from the page. I have not looked at his/her editing on other pages and will await your comments. Thanks again. Mccready16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've launched a request for review of the bans against Instantnood [14], in response to a direct request from Instantnood. Please make your comments there so that other administrators can review them. I think my bans are in line with the probation, but I will not object to any modifications made by another administrator.
Thanks Tony, I've copied the comments as requested and checked the links. As you were the blocker is there any reason why you can't unblock, assuming you agree with my analysis? I'm a bit concerned that justice delayed is justice denied. Mccready11:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't currently blocked. I don't agree that the bans are inappropriate, but I don't object to review and modification by other administrators. --Tony Sidaway11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again tony, I appreciate the time you have taken. Are you saying my comments about the 3 page histories I examined are wrong? I'd be happy to know if I am mistaken? Mccready12:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He edit warred on some of those articles, so he was temporarily banned from them, then he continued edit warring on other articles and so he is now banned from editing any of them during his one year probation. --Tony Sidaway12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Office of International Treasury Control
Hi Tony,
Following your (IMO quite correct) decision to delete OITC fraud and the subsequent discussion on WP:DRV, I've created Office of International Treasury Control as a (hopefully) NPOV version of the article. Comments welcomed.
Could you also please keep an eye on the article - put it in your watchlist etc. - as I fully expect that it'll be vandalised by the people involved with the OITC. -- ChrisO16:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please state your grounds for appeal to me or any other arbitrator or clerk. The arbitrators will consider whether the remedies or findings of fact are unreasonable. You may also appeal directly to User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway18:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been decided by many in the undeletion debate and by a TfD discussion that these by no stretch of the imagination fall under CSD#T1. And have you read the rewording of the userbox: "This user has multiple Wikipedia accounts." That is perfectly acceptable under WP:SOCK. Restore the template immediately, as your unilateral action here is quite unacceptable for an admin and is a highly counterproductive effort to make a point. Have you read WP:SOCK? These userboxes are policy. How on earth could they be "divisive and inflammatory"? I might also add that I find your behavior on the undeletion debates--your early closures of discussions, your closing highly controversial debates in which you have participated, and your uncivil and rude remarks--extremely immature and inappropriate. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, matters that are this controversial likely should be TfDed rather than speedied, per WP:CSD and just because it would save you a lot of headaches. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say that any userbox, particularly one like this, is "policy" is simply preposterous. Of course they're not. See my response to David Levy on this. In short, the userboxes misrepresent policy quite comprehensively by giving the impression of official support for alternative accounts. --Tony Sidaway21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple accounts have legitimate uses" (WP:SOCK). There is official support for alternative accounts, when they are used legitimately like mine are. I return to my original opinion that you wish to see the policy change to reflect your belief that there is no legitimate use for alternate accounts, although there is--this is not the way to go about making that change. There's nothing "preposterous" about this userbox; on the contrary, having a method, such as this userbox, to alert others that I do use legitimate alternate accounts, is absolutely vital. In any case, there is absolutely no way on Earth that this userbox falls under WP:CSD#T1. Nominate it for TfD if you disagree with it; don't abuse your administrative priveledges, go against the policies set forth by the community, and ignore the previous TfD and the current discussion to get rid of it. That's called WP:POINT (you might want to try clicking the link and reading the policy, so you're familiar with why your actions are counterproductive and destructive). AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. My intention was not to attack you; I'm simply quite flustered and dismayed by your actions, and despite your attacks on me (such as "You've got to be joking, bonny lad"), it was entirely off-color to imply that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. Nonetheless, I would like to have a rational discussion to reach some agreement on this userbox, and I would like to ask you once again to undelete it and seek consensus to delete it before doing so. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox; rather, I feel it necessary to the community, but we seem to have different interpretations of WP:SOCK. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AmiDaniel is quite correct in stating that these tags are actually recommended at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You broke a transclusion when you deleted the templates.
You claim that I've misinterpreted the policy. With all due respect, I'm still waiting for you to cite the passage(s) in which it's indicated that all uses of multiple accounts are prohibited. As I mentioned, I only see the exact opposite. —David Levy22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still awaiting a response to the arguments posed by myself and David Levy. I'd also like to add that I just did a quick tally of the undeletion debate: of 36 votes, 16 (44%) voted to keep them deleted, whilst 20 (56%) voted to undelete / restore / redirect / rewrite. I hate tallying votes, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that, regardless of whether you believe the template is divisive and inflammatory, the community has of yet reached no consensus (meaning it defaults to undelete), and actually more support undeleting the templates than keeping them. Isn't it better in these situations to side with the will of the community, rather than your personal beliefs? I feel that if the debate has currently gained more support to undelete the templates than to keep them deleted, it seems rather clear that WP:CSD#T1 was not applicable here. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I voted to keep the original templates deleted, because I believed (and continue to believe) that they were divisive and inflammatory. The new wording, however, is not even borderline. This deletion obviously was out-of-process (based upon an entirely false rationale), and Tony has stated on many occasions that such an action may be unilaterally reversed by any administrator (and I agree). I don't intend to wheel war, however, so I'm posting here as a courtesy. It would be nice if Tony could return the favor by at least responding. —David Levy02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have deleted something either out of process or against policy. --Tony Sidaway17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony I know it is difficult to keep up with policy these days but WP:SOCK still allowes for alt accounts (although for some reason you have to call them alt accounts rather than sockpupets). Since you appear not to want to discuss the issue I have gone ahead and undeleted the templates.Geni18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative accounts have always been "allowed" by policy. They are deprecated, however. Having these inappropriate templates gives the wrong impression. I note, however,that they're not in widespread use and so there is no serious problem. --Tony Sidaway20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?
You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, AucamanTalk05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.
Well this is not making a whole lot of sense. You're basically telling me I'm not supposed to be editing any articles. Is this going to be permanent or is it temporary? If it's permanent, then I'd much rather face a much harsher punishment (as if it could get any harsher) for some finite time. Something like Xebat's one-year block would do for me. But I don't like being told which articles I can or cannot edit - especially when it's going to be permanent. Any ideas? AucamanTalk03:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are over one million articles on Wikipedia, and probably only a few hundred of them are related to Persians or Iran. So you are allowed to edit any of about a million articles. The ban is permanent but if you show good behavior it may be possible to apply to have the ban lifted. --Tony Sidaway03:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question
You recently deleted one of my templates for a user box, and I was wondering for the reason for doing so. I just started to learn how to make them, so I guess I don't know the exact process of establishing them. Do I just leave it on my page and not have a page to link it to? If this page is deleted then do I have to remove the box from the Wikipedia:Userboxes page in the movies section? --Nehrams202017:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This motion already has more than enough votes to pass for the past week or two, yet has been "sitting there" without anyone formally implementing it. Is it now time to formally implement it? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.7.84 (talk • contribs) 20:32 UTC, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the arbitrators will close that motion. I obviously can't because it's obvious what I think of StrangerInParadise's behavior. --Tony Sidaway20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. I saw your comment on Metb82's talk page. I was wondering, can he just ask an admin to ban me from a page, without them actually checking to see if it is actually disruption? Thanks. —Khoikhoi01:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't worry. You could only be banned by an administrator "in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause." An administrator who took Metb82's word for it wouldn't be exercising much judgement! If you are ever unreasonably banned, you can ask for the ban to be reviewed. The probation does mean that you need to be a little more careful than you used to be, but it shouldn't be a problem if you avoid any editing that might appear disruptive to a reasonable person. --Tony Sidaway01:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an edit war if I am removing personal attacks without violating 3RR. I have already told the user I disagree with that if they continue I will simply notify the personal attack intervention board. In addition, please do not remove my comments to the user. Paul Cyr03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to do so. I was merely restoring a comment of my own that was deleted by another editor. Perhaps you can caution that editor not to meddle with the comments of others. -- Gnetwerker03:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you need to relax a little. I warn you both not to edit war, and in particular I ask Paul Cyr not to mess with the statements of other editors on WP:RFAR. Please do complain to me if you think that inappropriate language of any kind is being used on that page. I can't promise I'll agree with every complaint but I will give you a fair hearing and try to be even-handed. --Tony Sidaway03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony - I'm not sure if banning Zeq was the best thing to do. While he may be hard to reason with, I'm not sure that his intentions were malicious. Maybe you could reconsider or at least give him/her a chance to iron the dispute out over another day or two. Thanks. Ramallite(talk)03:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that according to policy: "Striking out at users on probation is strongly discouraged" this apply to Ian specifically as he tried to take advantage of the fact I am on probation and inserted unrelated information (which is already in the article palestinian exodus) into Nakba day so that i will remove it. Any attempts to reason with him failed.
This editor has been following me around in the last 2 weeks. Every edit (or almost any) I made, ant where in any article got a revert or change from him (most often a revert). This is a simple issue that can be prooved. I have also asked him several times to stop stalking me. I expect that you will not take a side in this harrasment and help resolve the content dispute in Nakba day reminding ian on harrasment policy as well on his own being cautioned against creating an edit war. Zeq04:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree, the best way for Coolcat to stay out of trouble is to edit other articles, I think he made a valid point when he nominated this particular category for deletion. And now people are voting keep based on his involvement rather than the merits or demerits of the category itself (bad, bad!). The thing is the category is vague. Should London be considered a Kurdish inhabited region? And what kind of precedent will it set? American inhabited region, German inhabited region, French inhabited region?
I think Coolcat was right to nominate such a vague category and I don't think banning him for it is the right thing to do. If someone else had nominated it, this whole thing wouldn't have happened. Please reconsider the week-long ban you suggested (and leave a note on my talk page if you respond). - Mgm|(talk)10:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that someone else wouldn't have been blocked, but most people haven't been through ArbCom about kurd edits. I think we had three people at AN/I averring that the nomination was disruptive. If you think the block was unnecessary, then discuss it with the users involved. I don't feel qualified to judge whether Coolcat's nomination was disruptive, rather I'm only willing to interpret what the users involved feel, so try to convince them. Not me. I think this discussion would be better suited to WP:AN/I than Tony's talk page. -lethetalk+10:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, I thought I should contact you directly on this rather than using WP:AE because I'd like an opinion on this specifically from you since you're familiar with the Leyasu (talk·contribs) case. He's still claiming that what the anon editor(s) on Children of Bodom are doing is vandalism since they're removing the sources he put on the page. He also violated 1RR today on the page [16][17]. I'm not sure if that's accidental or not, but what sort of enforcement would you recommend for that? The genre description he's been providing looks like it's a well-sourced, valid edit; but at the same time he's revert warring with the anons (who are being incivil back to him; I recently warned one of them with Template:Edit summary personal), and it doesn't look like the talk page is seeing much activity. I requested protection for that page recently but was denied it. (I didn't protect it myself in case there were any conflicts of interest.)
Also, just a general question about CheckUser. I know that very few people here are allowed CheckUser rights, but is it ok for other editors to look up anons using Whois and similar sites? I'd like to get a general idea of how many real editors there are behind the pile of anons that are reverting Leyasu (Leyasu is asserting that all of them are a "sock farm"), but CheckUser requests take a while to be processed. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm two things, without trying to sound hostile.
A) I havent done anything other than made valid edits. I have stuck to my 1RR which is why ive been hounding Idont for help, the only thing ive done today is get hassle from an anon who is violating WP:CITE and has openly stated they will vandalise, and cleared up some POV on some articles (Gothic Metal and some other one about a record label).
B) Im asserting that the 220 anons are the same person. There is a fair few anons that have contributed helpfull information has it is attained. However the 220 anons have all been reverting information that IS cited in accordance to WP:CITE and was put through a RFC. I also noticed that the 220 anons were the same ones who proclaimed to be the same person in the RFC. As such openly warring on the page because they 'dislike' a form of music, and openly distrupting Wikiepdia (WP:NOT), is vandalism as i understand from WP:VANDAL. Because this was originally a content dispute i did the original RFC, since then the same 220 anons have had warnings from several WP:HMM members and admins, and have still refused to follow policy. As such, removing cited information simply to disrupt Wikipedia IS vandalism. If it isnt, then [[WP:VANDAL}] needs to be changed. Ley Shade14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leyasu should avoid reverting, even if he thinks there's some disruptive editing going on. The problems should be reported on the appropriate forums.
Other than Ramallite have you received another review ?
I expect that until you get another opinion you will undo this edit : [18] Clearly it is a biased edit which tries to interject issues that are covered (and debated) elsewhere. You should have taken the time to look at the whole issue before jumping in with a ban. Zeq18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't received any other opinions yet. I'm not going to revert any edits to that article on grounds of content; the edit in question seems to be about the historical context of Nabka day so it isn't out of place in any obvious way. --Tony Sidaway18:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have received a 2nd opinion. You have not received a 3rd. It is clear what you should do. Zeq19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered my question. Who is being attacked ? If you do not answer and since I don't see it as an attack I will restore it. Are you offended by that user box ? if so explain and I will remove it. If you think Cyde is offended ? He was the one who sent it to me .
Look Tony, with all due respect you can not decide on my expression of animosity. If I want to express animosity I know how to do it. This user box is not an expression of animosity toward anyone.
On the otherhand your accusation of me that I placed a PA on my user page ios something that deeply insulted me. Please revert your edit and appologize. Zeq19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyde made the userbox, not Zeq. Zeq is just passing it along. Cyde added that flippant little user box to the talk page of everyone who supported or opposed his adminship (March 9 if you're wondering). Anontalk 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a personal attack against Cyde, no, but I hope you are not dismissing your concerns about the userbox being an expression of animosity. Two users who opposed Cyde's adminship felt it inappropriate and insulting enough to confront him about it on his talk page, and more still replied in kind to his "joke" on their talk pages. Even supporters recognized his "joke" was inappropriate. So, now that you know that it turns out here that other people were offended by Cyde's jab, not the other way round, I hope you extend your concern towards them and pursue censure against Cyde with all the vigilance you censured Zeq. I would suggest you ask Cyde to create a written apology to those he purposefully slighted. An administrator behaving this way is unacceptable, and it is especially troubling that this rookie administrator believed he was in a position where he could make a personal attack as his first act, and that he could do so, and did so, with impunity. This has demanded and still demands action from established administrators like yourself. Censure would send a clear message to Cyde (and all rookie administrators) that this kind of joking around and partisan sarcasm is clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I am sure those he slighted would appreciate, and be reassured by, a clear apology from him. Anontalk 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
appology accepted. Thanks. This is an exmaple that if one looks deeper one will see that things are not as they seem at first. btw, I deleted all the user boxex from my user page cause I think this whole thing (of user boxes) is silly. Zeq05:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extremely wide interpretation of "divisive," and one that I don't think is supported by consensus - correct me if I'm wrong. Are you planning on speedy deleting all of Wikipedia's political boxes? TheJabberwʘck 20:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the template looked like in its last revision:
Snipped because it's ugly and it's now on WP:DRVU -Tony
Hope that helps. For the record, I think Tony would have been justified in deleting it simply based on the trolling reference to Wikipedia is Communism. Nandesuka20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I agree that the trolling reference shouldn't be there, but the link could simply have been removed. I'm going to ask for that to be done (and for the template to be listed on TfD) at deletion review. TheJabberwʘck 21:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In recent weeks T1 speedies for the following political and belief-based user templates have been endorsed at DRVU:
The "against" ones are obviously different. But as to the supporter boxes: If the vote is to keep this one deleted, then I'll stop protesting your use of T1 and subst: all my boxes. TheJabberwʘck 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better solution might be to remove the boxes altogether and use prose (or you could just not say this stuff about you altogether). It looks more professional, anyway. --Cyde Weys01:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DRV/U
Stating that I am votestacking is not assuming good faith, period. I've recreated the DRV/U in progress notes to the Discussion pages of the affected templates as a regular message instead of being inline on the template. I still think that bringing the same box through the deletion process over and over again is a big waste of time, but something that affects the moral of many editors (perhaps having the boxes is affecting other editors to, it is quite a sticky situation). I support our policies, but the community has overwhelming cried out that CSD:T1 is not specific enough. There has got to be some way to get a community consensus on a userbox policy, any ideas how? — xaosfluxTalk03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bringing the same box through DRVU many times is pointless. I'd prefer to see far, fewer of these routine T1 speedy deletions queried.
There isn't really a lot of doubt or ambiguity about what T1 is about. I don't hear the community crying out, or even squeaking plaintively, about it.
We had the makings of a more comprehensive userbox policy but it was deliberately sabotaged by someone who gathered together a rabble. It'll be a month or two at least, in my view, before a new policy stands a chance of reasonable discussion. Personally I would prefer holding off on userbox policy formation at least until the fall. --Tony Sidaway
Thanks for the replies, I speedy things all the time from CAT:CSD and they rarely end up on DRV, same with most sysop deletions; I'm pretty sure I've even deleted some boxen(!) My annoyance with some of the ones on DRVU now are that they have gone back and forth ad nausem. If we could point people to a clear, community endorsed, policy on userboxes when speedy deleting them processing tfd would have less backlog, and drvu could go back to being about the process.
Personally though, if I speedy something, and someone complains, I usually restore it and bring it to xfd, most times it comes back delete, but if it stays as keep, them it's no big deal to me either. Even with this I've never been involved in a page that I deleted, went to DRV, got kicked to xfd; passed xfd that I thaught should get deleted again, doesn't all of the process exist to gather the consensus of at least anyone who wans to volunteer to debate it. (On many issues the consensus of the entire community is more likely abstain, and they simply don't comment at all. — xaosfluxTalk04:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The usual consensus-gathering methods fail for userboxes. Community consensus ends up being swamped by the minority of people who care enough about userboxes to collect them. --Tony Sidaway04:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this notification. If what you say is true, then it's a sock puppet and should be blocked. I did try to get a checkuser on this today but nobody was available. Please put a request on WP:RCU, providing whatever evidence you can, and referencing the Aucaman arbitration. --Tony Sidaway17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking. Also it helped me take a break from this article which is something I needed.
I intend to stay away from it and explore mediation.
I was not insulted by the ban so there is no need to appologize. My argument was that things are not as they seen and you may have acted hastly. Since you now fixed by looking at the issues more indeapth - no harm is done.
He will push anti-Iranian POV and cause harm to the community worst than ever in these articles related to Iranian peoples. He is already wiggling for manuvering room. 72.57.230.17921:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I have briefly looked at a couple of recent ArbCom cases, and in particular in the case of FourthAve it seems to me that the workshop, particularly the proposed remedies, is a cut-and-paste job, which is probably fine. However I think this predisposes the ArbCom to consider a limited set of remedies - in particular in this case there is no option to ban for periods other than 1 year. In your clerking role is this something that could be improved, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Rich Farmbrough 22:26 10 May2006 (UTC).
In my experience the arbitration committee doesn't just consider the workshop proposals, but makes most of the running itself. The best way anybody with your concerns can address them is to edit workshop pages and, if you think the proposed decision is going all wrong, make a commment on the talk page or in email. --Tony Sidaway22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Early Closure of Triceratops Userbox Debate
I noticed that you closed the Triceratops userbox debate after it had been open for only thirty minutes. The discussion was opened by User:Pmanderson, a well-established user, and I personally feel there's no reason not to assume good faith on his behalf. It only seems appropriate and civil to just leave the debate open for at least a day; I don't understand what good it's doing to immediately close anything, even when it has absolutely no chance of surviving (though I do agree with you on this one). On the other hand, it seems like a crude slap in the face to just completely disregard his request for a deletion review, so I have restored it. I usually try to contact users before reverting their changes, but this time I accidentally did not. I apologize if doing so offended you, and please contact me (or reply here) if you disagree with my restoring the discussion. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the discussion continuing, though it seemed obvious to me that it hadn't a ghostly chance of avoiding "keep deleted" so I closed it. No problems. --Tony Sidaway01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They were deleted because they were found by the community to be divisive and inflammatory. Template space should really only be used for templates (userboxes) that are relevant to the project, such as "this user has studied law." Userboxes that profess political ideologies often times give the wrong impression that it's okay to use Wikipedia to preach a point of view, and they often divide the community and encourage "ballot stuffing." In instances such as the recent controversy over the Cuba article, a userbox and usercategory indicating that someone is a communist could be used as a tool to bring all communist supporters to the article, to overwhelm consensus for a certain change to the article, which really shouldn't be done. Anyway, I hope this help clear things up, and if you have any more questions or problems, feel free to ask. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [21] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [22] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.
During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) and 70.231.130.128(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [23], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [24] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [25] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [26]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[27], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.
The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [28] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [29] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:
Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."
I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.
There certainly is a problem here.
At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [30], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [31], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.
I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've assumed good faith in light of the obvious trolling and I'm fed up now. This situation needs to be looked into. -ZeroTalk06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're extremely biased on the issue, I urge you to not close DR/U debates, especially before their expiration date. There are plenty of admins who could close these discussions without bias. You are only making the situation worse. Grue 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only closing the debates with an absolutely massive number of endorsements for deletion. If someone didn't close them, DRVU would now be cluttered with debates whose result was a foregone conclusion. --Tony Sidaway12:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it was listed, like, yesterday. Also, no one so far has replied to my ironclad reason to undelete this template. kd.T1 votes don't address the fact that Jimbo himself has spoke against the mass deletions of userboxes. Grue 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked the Gadolam account indefinitely and Aucaman for one week under remedy 1 of his arbitration case. See User talk:Aucaman for more details. I'll investigate the other case if I get time. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other case. Zereshk posted from this IP, and signed his comments in text as "--anon observer"[32] I merely pointed out that this was the same user as Zereshk. His claim after being caught that he'd merely forgotten to log in[33] is inconsistent with his wilful intext signature "--anon observer."
I have no problem with him exposing sockpuppetry, but ask that he do so under his regular username, and refrain from baseless threats on my user talk page[34].Timothy Usher08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Usher, I think your edits were reasonable and well intentioned. But bear in mind that an editor has the right to privacy. It was not unreasonable for Zereshq to present his evidence in a semi-anonymous way. Conversely, the manner in which he did so, although he did not create an account, had the character of sock puppetry. It's a gray area but here it appears to me that Zereshq's clear good intention of enforcing the ban on Aucaman should be borne in mind.
Neither of you has come close to harassing, but I'm concerned that you may have started to harbor a grudge against one another, and that's bad news. Please both make an effort to view one another's activities as being well intentioned, if not always perfect (for none of us is perfect). Please both do come to me if you think that your interactions are getting out of control, and I'll try to help you both in an even-handed and fair fashion in the interests of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome
The appriciation is mutual for the same reasons. It takes a great person to review and change his own decisions. Zeq03:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion Bot has listed some Iranian-related articles to Acuman
I disagree with what th ebot has generically suggested Acuman may be allowed to edit. They are Iranian related and he has a vandata. 72.57.230.17906:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion bot is just a simple computer program. It looks at things someone has edited before, not the quality of the edits, and it doesn't have any knowledge of arbitration bans and whatnot.
On the other hand, the bot has listed some articles that aren't related to his ban areas, so I hope he'll find it useful in deciding how he can contribute to Wikipedia without conflicting with his ban. --Tony Sidaway11:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PP
Now that my bot keeps WP:PP actually up to date, there is a lot to check on. I miss having Splash around...though I understand that he has some very non-wiki important things to do now.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... sure.... just explain to me how it really isn't a vote, and how my use of symbols might inadvertently emphasize the false impression that it is, and I'll be happy to consider it. :) TheMadBaron23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your note about the icons on AfDs. I'm not actively putting the symbols into there. These symbols are being generated by the java script tool for AfDs. Apparently Nathanrdotcom asked Jnothman to change the script to include these icons sometime today. I've left a note with their discussion on there asking if we could disable it. User_talk:Jnothman#AFD_Helper_script. Metros23223:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think it would be a good idea. The use of images in text areas of the wiki is fast growing to epidemic proportions. Images break up the text, which is a good thing in continuous text such as an article, but is a real pain in lists of comments. --Tony Sidaway00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, while AfD is not a vote, it is a request for community consensus regarding the deletion of an article. The symbols I use in AfD ({{Sdelete}}/{{Skeep}}/{{Smerge}}) differ from those I use for votes ({{Ssupport}}/{{Sneutral}}/{{Soppose}}), and should not give anyone the impression that I'm voting. Mousing over the images clearly shows they link to Symbol_delete_vote.svg and Symbol_keep_vote.svg, whereas the other ones point to Symbol_support_vote.svg, Symbol_neutral_vote.svg and Symbol_oppose_vote.svg. I'd like to keep using these because of the added convenience, it is obvious if I'm supporting the deletion of not of an article. Sorry if I'm not making any sense, I just woke up. +Hexagon1 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did say I just woke up. And a three-year old could accuse anyone of being stupid. Give me reasons why that is mind-boggingly dumb, please. Additionaly, your deletion of the templates was very premature, as symbols are a sensitive topic it should have been brought to TfD, and I should have been informed, instead of you acting blindly with a bias. I'll be making furthter inquires into this, (can't be bothered, using a javascript for voting now +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)) you did definitely not follow the prodedure, as these templates do not fit into the speedy deletion criteria. PS: You missed Template:Squestion in your vendetta. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Missing templates
I didn't create the originals, but I did create the later versions with just the bold text, as place fillers for the people who had already invoked the templates in AfD's. By removing the templates and replacing them with deletedpage, there are now a huge number of AfD entries that show as comments but the actual vote is missing. See, for example, the first response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial niten ichy ryu. Did you really want to do that? Fan196702:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IRC Sidaway
It was lovely speaking with you on irc yesterday. Are the conversations there always so....ambiguous...? And so vague..? -ZeroTalk07:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you caught me in a particularly lucid mood yesterday. Things on IRC are usually much more double-edged when I'm involved. It was lovely meeting you, please come more often. --Tony Sidaway20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Although I must admit the only reason I participated was to be able to talk to wikipedians I am already familiar with. I was lost among the hula-baloo and whatnot everyone was engaging in. Overall, everyone seems to be very nice though. -ZeroTalk20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it wasn't a really bad case but the principle of using a template to put a message on lots of talk pages is a bad one. --Tony Sidaway12:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like getting "New messages" and then finding out that I didn't actually get any. Let's say I understand the reasons why you deleted it, but was is really so bad that you had to revert it instead of, for example, substing first, so that I didn't have to search through Anonymous' contribs to find out/guess what could he mean? Misza13TC14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you edited the "Involved Users" section of the RFA, changing "User" links to the "admin" template for Phil Sandifer, and the "vandal" template for all other parties.
Did you do this in your capacity as a Clerk? Was this done to assert the parties other than Sandifer are, in fact, vandals?
It seems prejudicial to label some parties as vandals, and as another as an admin. Even if these labels don't compromise the impartiality of the Committee, it gives the impression that an officer of the Committee has reached a conclusion before the case has been tried.
It was a clerk thing. The templates are more useful than just "User:" links. "Vandal" is the template favored by the Arbitration Committee--for historical reasons, mainly. Anyone on the list who is an admin (not just Phil) should instead have the "admin" template because his administrator actions may be of interest to the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use templates often (yicky sticky tricky things). How hard would it be to link or rename that? The current name *is* somewhat undiplomatic ;-) Kim Bruning20:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used to use the "User" template, which was a redirect, but then the two diverged and so I kept with the "Vandal" template. If ever the thing settles down to the point where a template other than "Vandal" can be relied upon to deliver a reasonably comprehensive subset of all available information about a username, I'll use that. --Tony Sidaway21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with using 'admin' and 'vandal' templates is that an admin's own block log is not as readily available as the users', and in this case that's relevant. -- User:RyanFreisling@21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. Since the standard "vandal" template used for actual vandals, Arbitrators who aren't familiar with the editor may just see the "CheckUser" and "block user" links (is the second even necessary directly from the RFAr page) and assume the editor is vandal. And wouldn't the link to check for blocks be useful for admins too, or are admins never blocked?
A quick look at several pending cases shows that, you're correct, in many the "vandal" template is used, but in as many other cases the plain "user" link is used. Maybe that's just because you format cases you Clerk one way, and other Clerks another, but it still gives the impression that different users are labelled differently.
Since you didn't mean to call the involved parties vandals, maybe you could be proactive and put together an "Involved Parties" template that could be applied consistently to all parties?
Hm. I think you jumped the gun a little bit and then stopped short. I'd have given him one warning, pro forma (as I did just as you were blocking him). Then I'd have blocked him for 2 months, at least, since the last one of one month didn't make an impression. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of judgement. Maybe he'll get a clue, in which case a two month break is too long. If not, then it doesn't harm to give him a chance every month or so. If he's still being a bad boy by the end of summer, I'll happily suggest that we invoke the general probation. --Tony Sidaway04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His behaviour's getting erratic, I'd say... I would not object to invoking a ban. NSLE(T+C) at 12:22 UTC (2006-05-16)
Thanks for the note; I've responded there. My first thought was similar to JPG's, but my sinking suspicion is this really is only a matter of how many precautionary preliminaries to end up with the same likely result. Alai15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba
Hi Tony, I'm writing to you because I noticed you've blocked KDRGibby. That editors behaviour apart, there's been some very strange, counterproductive and unnecessary behaviour involving many users (including experienced editors) on that page for some time. I came into it by chance, was shocked by the standard of the page and the "tactics" of certain users. Some users are using it as an ideological crusade, insisting that edits that have been taken almost straight from Encarta and other encyclopaedias are POV and part of some "left wing conspiracy". Recently it's got to the stage where material such as "Cuba..is prone to devastating hurricanes" has been removed as "POV" and entered an edit war. There are many layers here which may explain the behaviour of certain editors and I wouldn't like to speculate as to how they interconnect, but there is something afoot as far as I'm concerned. As an experienced editor, I wonder if you have any advice on how to improve a page that I believe is damaging to wikipedia at the present time. Firstly due to the publicity given to this page (see international articles), and secondly due to a litany of behaviour which is actively discouraging genuine scholars in the subject. The latter I can confirm if need be.--Zleitzen04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a bit of a look at it. There does seem to be rather more acrimonious editing on that article than would seem at first glance to be justified by a small island nation in the Caribbean. --Tony Sidaway04:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I really think your block of User:nathanrdotcom was a little early in coming. I think it would be fair if you would consider apologizing to him. As an aside, I have changed my sig in response to the criticism. Many thanks. -- Samirधर्म06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be silly to apologise to someone whom I have not wronged, and who continues to make a point of flaunting his ill grace. --Tony Sidaway07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Histrionics aside, I see Nathan as someone who could contribute very positively. Looking at the big picture, I think an apology from you would really help him, as he feels very wronged right now. Please reconsider. Thanks -- Samirधर्म07:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, of course you didn't wrong me. You just blocked me for a "stupidly long signature" where "stupidly long" is 3 very small images. This again proves the admin mentality of "We are always right and you're not". Had you mastered that wonderful concept called communication and explained to me on my talk about how images are discouraged, all this could've been avoided. Of course you wronged me. You can't block for a policy that doesn't exist. Whether or not you realise it, "No images in signatures" is not policy. You can't block people for violating a policy that doesn't exist and your block was excessive - bottom line. You made a mistake. Are you going to admit it or sit behind your admin status and maintain the illusion that you're perfect and can do no wrong?
Let me get this straight: Cyde and Kelly Martin ganging up on me and bullying me into changing my signature, using attacks and incivility is perfectly fine, but when I tell them they're making a mistake, it's disruption? Riiiight. The admins are always right - again. As an admin, Tony, you've lost your way. Admins shouldn't be acting like this. I wonder what the ArbCom would think about all this... ::Consider, Mr. Sidaway, that a politely worded request to change my signature - not an order - with a please and thank you, would have accomplished a lot. Instead, you, Cyde and Ms. Martin resorted to bullying tactics. I don't take orders from anyone. Admins included. Nathan04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? You blocked him! Because of a policy that doesn't exist! And you feel that admitting you did wrong is "grossly inappropriate? Please, I urge you to reconsider; you're only digging yourself a deeper grave. And while I appreciate your courage to stand up to others, you have to pick your fights, as you'll lose this one. MopperSpeak!07:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that the blocking policy does not authorise blocking for persistent disruption is touching. The block was justified and completely covered by Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not. He wasn't disrupting anything; he was questioning why two administrators were pretty much ordering him to do what they wanted. And doing so only on his talk page, too. So I fail to see your reasoning when you say he was disruptive. MopperSpeak!08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mopper: Blocks are occaisionally used to draw peoples attention to situations. I once successfully defended such an application before the arbitration committee. I agree that you have to take care when applying such a block. In the case of that unreadable signature, I think the short block was probably a good idea. Kim Bruning08:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. So a block is like a slight slap on the wrist? You know, a little something to hint to someone they're doing something wrong? I don't get it. This whole issue arose because Nathan was being pressured into doing what others wanted; now you're contesting his decision to politely debate by saying he needs a block to shake him into sense? Hmm... one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong... MopperSpeak!08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I issued a twelve-hour block. After the block, Tawker showed me an encouraging response on Nathan's talk page and asked to unblock. I agreed. The purpose of the block had been achieved and it was lifted almost immediately. Yes, Nathan was indeed being pressured into producing a reasonable signature. This has, in part, been achieved. --Tony Sidaway08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Politeness, again, is a point of view; may I point out that the first warning is pretty much an order. Not a suggestion of a compromise; no, more a "do this now" approach. Compromise = acknowledging that it is his signature, and that he can do what he wants with it as long as he conforms to policy, but asking that maybe he should consider changing it. Order = saying "do this" and inserting a please in there somewhere. MopperSpeak!08:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the arbitration committee link I cited above. If an editor is doing something disruptive, we don't compromise at all. We ask him to stop and if he won't then we make him stop. --Tony Sidaway09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that is acceptable. But you didn't even make an attempt at warning Nathan; sure, he was talked to before, but you blocked without giving any information beforehand that you would do it. On WP:AIV, for example, admins don't block vandals who haven't gotten all their warnings. And please don't say Nathan didn't have warning; nobody explicitly said they would block him if he did not comply. I don't think many people are blocked spontaneously for talking with others on their talk page, so please don't try to say "he should've figured it out". MopperSpeak!15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better that an uninvolved administrator performs the block. Nathan was warned twice. He wasn't explicitly told that he would be blocked, but that is never a requirement for a block. As Nandesuka, no friend of mine, put it, Nathan's reaction to polite requests to change his enormous and unsightly signature was to behave in a disruptive manner. "Blocked spontaneously for talking with others on [his] talk page" is simply incorrect. --Tony Sidaway19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe a block was the right thing. After two warnings, you brought down the hammer? Hmm... there are 4 {{test}} templates... it comes out looking more like blocking for personal reasons than trying to settle the issue smoothly. MopperSpeak!21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it comes out more like the power-tripping of the few that have it on Wikipedia. Almost seems to me like you were trying to make a point. Chuck(척뉴넘)22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The disruption was particularly egregious, cluttering up ever discussion to which he contributed. It really doesn't do to accuse people of "power-tripping" and whatnot, when they're simply trying to keep the wiki reasonably clear. And please do read WP:POINT and try to understand what it's about. I am growing weary of people who have not read it or have not understood it citing it at me as if it meant something entirely different. --Tony Sidaway01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT basically says don't cause a disruption in Wikipedia to prove a point. In this case, you weren't justified in blocking an editor and did so only because you felt it had "gone on long enough" and that the editor had a "stupidly large and garish signature". These are of course personal opinions, and administrators don't block on personal opinion; you're supposed to block on policy. So that is what WP:POINT means. And its not only me saying this, others believe it too. MopperSpeak!01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with the above. I'll address each in turn.
Firstly you say I had no policy backing for my block. This has been refuted several times both by myself and by numerous other administrators some of them hardly members of the Tony Sidaway Fan Club, who cite disruption.
Secondly, WP:POINT is fully and adequately described in the document at that link, and certainly would not apply here, even if there were no policy reason for the block. Here I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but that you cite a document wrongly believing that it illustrates the circumstances where clearly it does not. WP:POINT has nothing to do with blocking simply because of one's personal opinion. Sadly you're right to say that others believe that WP:POINT is as you describe it. Despite the document's lucid clarity, it is probably the most quoted, least read, and least understood document on the wiki. People persist in citing it to cover situations to which it clearly does not apply.
By the way, an administrator is supposed to use his brain in deciding whether to block. His opinion emphatically must enter into the judgement. --Tony Sidaway01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion that should conform to policy. Firstly, Nathan was hardly being disruptive, and even if he was, aren't there better courses of action than blocking? Blocking is usually a punitive measure, not something to shake sense into people. Humans have intelligent speech and this differentiates us from apes; they beat each other over the head until one wins, while we can try to settle the matter without too much fuss. So a warning or something would've probably been more appropriate. And WP:POINT does apply here; you disrupted Wikipedia to perform an action you thought was necessary, instead of calmly talking to the editor. I think we should end this discussion though, as it doesn't seem like you'll be apologising any time soon and frankly I'm not anxious to spend the next week boxing with my shadow. MopperSpeak!01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should end here. We're starting to go round in circles.
I'll end by summarising WP:POINT so that you may, perhaps, see that it means something more subtle than you believe. The potted summary (taken from the document itself is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally." This is elaborated with the words: "an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work."
Your interpretation seems to be something entirely different, indeed almost the opposite: that an individual who disagrees with a written rule or policy shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia by disregarding it. This is true, up to a point, but it isn't what WP:POINT is about. --Tony Sidaway01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask a question (hopefully not sounding like a jerk): Did you not think that your blocking of this user would come under scrutiny by other users? That is, didn't you know that you would be questioned about this? Chuck(척뉴넘)01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intended my block of this user to come under the scrutiny of other users. This is why I posted a notice about it on WP:AN. I am very happy with the results; the consensus of other administrators seems to be firmly behind me. --Tony Sidaway01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're happy because others like what you've done? That isn't really the attitude you should have as an administrator. "I'm very happy with the results", and the results are a big fuss over nothing when a simple "please" would've been better. Wait... do you happen to be related to George W. Bush? And the consensus of the administrators leans slightly your way, but a majority of people believe the block was in bad faith. MopperSpeak!01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I resent the comment that Mopper made about Mr. Bush (as I'm a supporter), I do agree with him completely. My follow up to you saying that you intended your block to come under scrutiny is this: You have just admitted to making a point by this block by saying that. If you knew the block would be under scrutiny, then you should have warned the user that in fact he would be blocked had he persisted in keeping a signature (notice I don't say disrupt Wikipedia, because he did no such thing. Just as you tell us that we are using the document WP:POINT out of context, I say that you are using the policy of disrupting Wikipedia out of context. Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing. If you weren't than you would have warned Nathan that you would block him had he kept it.) This is not about other people suggesting or ordering him to change it. You knew that your actions would come under scrutiny for just these reasons, yet you proceeded to go ahead. Just because the upity-ups that you talk to agree with you, does not mean that other's agree, as Mopper said. If you don't apologise to the user, I would suggest an RFC be brought up, because I do not want admins around, whose soul purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia by flaunting their powers. Chuck(척뉴넘)02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... well, I don't know. The conflict has alienated Nathan, and I don't suppose you'd apologise; I don't want to seek a RFC as firstly, that would be overkill, and secondly, enough people have made clear what they think. I leave the rest to yourself. Thanks for civilly discussing the matter, by the way. MopperSpeak!02:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what Wikilawyering is, but anyway, don't worry I'm not gonna file and RFC. As Mopper said, thank's for the civil discussion, even though you didn't apologise. Have a good day/evening, Chuck(척뉴넘)05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony. I think you deleted this userbox and I am kinda hurt by this action as I see that other religious user box templates still exist e.g. Template:User muslim . Was there any specific reason why it was deleted and not others? Thanks, -- - K a s h Talk | email10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a button on my sysadmin console to reliably identify and simultaneously delete all deletable templates, so I do them one at a time. --Tony Sidaway11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and I support your actions Tony but my question was that a one off deletation or will the other boxes be deleted, etc? I am guessing they are and this was not a matter of religious discrimination of any sort, yes? -- - K a s h Talk | email13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other boxes will be deleted, but a mass deletion of all of them is not envisioned.
As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like "I am interested in Zoroastrianism". This would enable those with expertise or interests in the subject to advertise it in a relatively neutral manner. --Tony Sidaway13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not vandalisedestroy the userboxes, Tony &mdash whether they be about Zoroastrism, Sikhism, or whatever your next target will be. (Sorry, but I fail to see any grounds to assume good faith in these cases.) If you think the userboxes in question should be re-phrased, feel free to help out. If you undelete the two religion userboxes you recently deleted, there will be a chance of working on them (with or without your help) to find a way to make them less “offensive”. Not that there really was anything offensive about them in the first place... -- Olve17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are using an incorrect definition of the word "vandalism" and at the same time are calling long-standing respected members of the community "vandals". For your own good, please desist. --Cyde Weys19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK — I hear your threat and choose to retract my phrasing. I am at a loss for ways to describe what is currently going on here... Speedy, un-substituted removal of perfectly unoffensive userboxes meant for user pages only while it is quite clear that there is no consensus to go to such drastic measures (I apologise in advance if anyone should find the phrasing “drastic measures” to be objectionable). I realise that Tony Sidaway has been with this project for a long time. But exactly because of that fact, I would also have expected an ability to act with more restraint in a matter of such lack of community consensus. -- Olve19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From my careful soundings, I believe that we have a strong Wikipedia consensus for the removal of userboxes that serve little or no purpose than to cause contention and exacerbate the unimportant differences between Wikipedians. We all subscribe to the Neutral point of view policy, we all attempt to leave out personal views behind when we come to Wikipedia. While it's sometimes good to put a note of one's biases on one's userpage, celebrating those differences in the manner that many userboxes do is never compatible with the Wikipedia project to create a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for entering the dialogue. :) I do agree with part of what you are saying. for instance, “I hate communists/capitalists/porridge eaters/Martians” is not a constructive message. But banning messages of the type “I am a Sikh/Zoroastrian/rabbit rescuer/vegetarian/meat eater” does not necessarily have such flame-war-reducibg effects that it justifies that limitation of fact-builder networking it creates... Personally, I actually find these boxes useful for actively pulling in people of different perspectives. My interest in Wikipedia is to build open, multi-perspective and strictly fact-based encyclopaedias. I know from my work on the Nynorsk Wikipedia as well as the Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia that an openly multi-perspective encyclopaedia model works and earns its respect. What I and many others am/are seeing here, is a process to make this aspect “invisible”. The various points of view and biasses are still going to be there, but in a less transparent way, and therefore also much more difficult to balance out. -- Olve20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Olve, religion has caused more and bloodier wars than pretty much anything else in the history of mankind. Religious userboxes, of all the userboxes, represent to my mind the most deep-seated and pernicious form of bias on Wikipedia. And I speak as a practicing member of a religion. There is a difference between professing a faith and proclaiming it, and Wikipedia is not the place for proclamation. Just my € 0.0156. Just zis Guy you know?12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to have this added to admin buttons...a delete offensive userbox tab....what a great idea...just think how much more professional we'll look when we identify ourselves solely as Wikipedians...that would eliminate many concerns about us being biased. Wikipedia is better off if we eliminate the barriers that divide us...at least while working on the project.--MONGO17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This comment by Tony Sidaway is the key to resolving this dispute, and to avoiding hundreds of potential future disputes: "As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like 'I am interested in Zoroastrianism'." Why not, instead of continuing to generate ill-will and arguments like the above with continuous deletions, instead convey the message very clearly regarding what is or isn't appropriate, by moving and rewording the templates to make them appropriate: rather than simply deleting {{user muslim}} and potentially angering hundreds of valued Muslim contributors to Wikipedia, why not move it to {{user islam}} and reword it to "This user is interested in Islam." (possibly after substing its current form to the pages of the users using it, if you think that it would be a bad idea to assume that belief is probably indicative of an "interest")? This will solve three problems, and do so in a relatively simple and efficient way: (1) it will eliminate POV-expressing userboxes, in accordance with T2; (2) it will eliminate most of them in a relatively subtle, graceful, inoffensive way, rather than the violently abrupt change of a mass-deletion (or, even worse, the arbitrary and offensive bit-by-bit deletions currently generating such conflict); (3) it will prevent endless DRVs over the POVed userboxes, such actual deletions won't be involved for any of the moved templates. Obviously this can't work for every POV-expressing userbox: many, like "This user is religious." (which already has an "interest" counterpart at {{user religion interest}}), will simply have to go, if T2 stays as-is, though judicious use of template redirects and substs can still help minimize a conflict. But for a large number of POV-expressing templates, a move to interest/expertise-expressing ones is not only much more beneficial for Wikipedia in the long run than simply annihilating everything, but also will be infinitely less controversial and divisive than explicitly deleting the templates. In other words, it's the most practical way to go about implementing T2, both in terms of editing the encyclopedia (it'll convert relatively useless boxes denoting "This user happens to believe in alchemy" to much more useful boxes denoting "This user is knowledgeable or interested in alchemy-related articles", and do it all in a consistent and simple manner that will be much less time-consuming and damaging than deletion-and-recreation) and in terms of keeping the community from going nuts and starting another all-out war over these silly little boxes. Thus, it diffuses the problem in an elegant and relatively inobtrusive way, turning what is currently a hindrance into what could be an advantage with time. What do you thinke? -Silence07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought a lot about this, and I think it's best to make a clean start rather than doctor templates in-situ. For a start, the people who transclude the current template would probably rather simply have the contents of that template included by a "subst" than have the content and the meaning changed to make a completely different statement. Secondly, as you seem to recognise above, there are often many templates involved.
There will be cases, perhaps, where all those transcluding a template can agree to a neutral version, but this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. I see no reason not to just get rid of the offending templates while development of different, more neutral, templates proceeds in parallel. --Tony Sidaway12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, but I disagree, and I think that attempting to "make a clean start" is actually the opposite of what we should be aiming for. Also, in case you didn't notice, my newest proposal is not that we simply "move-and-rewrite" all these templates (based on the assumption that Muslims, for example, will be "interested in Islam"), but that we "subst-and-move-and-rewrite" them: the substing will give all the people using the old version what they want, and the moving and rewriting will give the template a more appropriate name and text for future users, thus killing two birds with one stone. So I think that takes care of your concern that some might not appreciate having the rename forced onto their user pages: by mass-substing them first, then moving them, we circumvent the deletion and deletion-review nonsense while simultaneously eliminating T2-violating userboxes and creating suitable replacements for users who really want to express their Islam-interest with a userpage template. Win-win-win. Additionally, I think that the "make a clean start" strategy (a.k.a. a "great purge" of almost all userboxes :)), even if it seems appealing now, will ultimately turn out to be a lose-lose situation. The following problems arise with trying to simply purge the userboxes, rather than attempting compromises and less dramatic ways to eliminate the problems. The following negative consequences, among others, will ensue from a mass-deletion:
Lots and lots of time-consuming and divisive warring and fighting and lasting bitterness over the deletions. The above and past complaints are just the tip of the iceberg.
We'll have cluttered up the template namespace with deleted pages and protected-deleted pages, rather than the much cleaner and more accessible tact of cluttering it with redirects. :)
Dozens of talk pages and hundreds of significant edit histories will be lost, even when a page-move to a non-POV-expressing version would have been extremely trivial and easy to do and would have preserved both the history and the talk page, while eliminating all unacceptable aspects of the box.
Starting over from scratch, as I've noted, will be immensely time-consuming in the long run, forcing interested users to waste hours recreating userboxes when they could instead be working on Wikipedia articles. Even if a mass-delete is appealing right now because it seems simpler, in reality, it'll just cause much more complication and bureaucratic haggling than the quicker and easier task of converting inappropriate templates into appropriate ones where possible. A little finesse and template-rearrangement smooths the acceptance of policy changes like T2 infinitely more than harsh and aggressive actions like deletions do. So, the subst-and-move will be much more useful for Wikipedia, in my view, than the subst-and-delete, both because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless arguing, Deletion Reviews, hostilities, and conflicts, and because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless redesigning and recrafting of userboxes which we already have plenty of. For example, why force users to design a whole new "This user is interested in Islam." template when we can save their time and energy for more encyclopedic concerns by simply using the raw materials available to us (the unacceptable POV-accepting userboxes) to quickly and easily craft such a template? It's easiest on all sides.
Obviously, this subst-and-move isn't possible for all of the religion userboxes: for example, I see no problem with just substing and deleting {{user relirespect}}, {{user Liturgy of the Hours}}, {{user hell atheist}}, {{user Lapsed Catholic}}, and several other religion-related templates, where a conversion into a more acceptable format isn't feasible. I'm fully willing to create a list of which templates should probably be deleted and which should probably be moved (and where), if there's interest; I'd even be willing to simply do it myself, if there's any interest in such a move, and if I could get someone or a bot's help with the task of mass-substing these templates (the task of moving and rewriting the templates, on the other hand, I can do on my own quite easily indeed, and would actually have done a while ago if I'd been able to get clear support for doing such). But I feel strongly that a subtle conversion from POV-expressing to interest-expressing will be much more effective at minimizing controversy and conflict, and smoothing the T2-derived userbox transition (by empasizing much more clearly and consistently than a mere mass-deletion would that relevant encyclopedic interests, not POVs and ideologies and bumper stickers, are what templates are for), than crude deletions would be for most cases. -Silence23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony. Do I need to do anything addtional wrt this ArbCom hearing? I wasn't originally listed but I added a comment as I have edited the article and have run into the editors that Phil was having difficulty with. --Tbeatty05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not obliged to do anything more, but like any other user you can add evidence and participate in the workshop if you like. --Tony Sidaway10:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What it means
It means that I will be loyal to them not there actions, so if they are doing something wrong I will support them (i.e. I will still be there friends and I will try to make there day better) but I not support what they did wrong. ILovePlankton(T—C—U—L)17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I should explain that what concerns me here is the possibility of the following scenario: suppose a friend of yours gets into a bit of an argument on the wiki about some issue, and he's banned. Suppose he comes to you and asks if he can use your login to make edits. The loyalty document--which I'm sure is intended to foster fellowship, and not wrongdoing--in its current wording would seem to suggest that it would be okay to breach Wikipedia policy, risking a ban, by giving him your password.
I feel that it would be a good idea to think a bit more about this with a view to avoiding the possibility of encouraging Wikipedians to do something that is bad for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Tony. I'd like your opinion on something. It seems to me that Gmaxwell is being obstinate or trying to maintain plausible deniability against the accusation that his edits to Template:User Christian were intended to make a point about the unsuitability of userboxes in template space, and thus a violation of WP:POINT. (I've been trying to engage him on his talk page, to no avail. [39]) He's still maintaining that he was motivated by a genuine concern for NPOV, and refuses to address the fallout which anyone who's even glimpsed the userbox debates would be aware of. Is this a big enough problem that an RfC should be filed, or would it be better just to let it go? On the one hand, I really think it's important for community harmony that tactics like this not be encouraged, and I fear that right now it's looking like Gmaxwell is being let off the hook with no consequences. On the other hand, I don't want to organize a witch hunt, and I fear that the userbox supporters would see an RfC as an excuse to vent.
(If you're wondering why I'm fixating on Gmaxwell instead of Cyde, it's because Cyde has acknowledged that his actions were disruptive and has apologized, which is all I think Gmaxwell needs to do, really.)
Am I letting myself get worked up needlessly, or is this something that should be addressed further? I guess I'm asking for a little perspective. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really discussed this with Greg or Cyde, yet, although I've let it be known that I was dismayed by their edit warring over a massively transcluded template. My concern initially was to try to restore calm, which I tried to do by unprotecting the template, restoring a sane version, and sitting on my hands for a few days.
I don't think this was so much "disruption to make a point" as borderline vandalism. I'll have a bit more of a think about this, because I still find Cyde's and Greg's motivations that day difficult to fathom. Maybe I'll talk to Greg online. I do share your concerns, and I find it difficult to believe that either of them had a genuine concern about a neutral point of view on this particular case. And I do agree that, as a bad example, this case has potential to encourage guerilla vandalism. I'm still not sure how best to act, but I don't think it's a bad idea to try to discuss this with Greg. --Tony Sidaway19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Greg seems to think that any further communication from me would constitute harrassment [40], so I don't think that he's likely to listen to me right now. I'll think about it a bit more as well, and maybe see if I can get some other opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling over signatures
What you wrongly call trolling I call a move of solidarity. You were in the wrong, accept it and move on. The user and myself are under no obligation to remove any images from signatures that are not disruptive. JohnnyBGoodtc19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should you persist, I think you'll find that your perception of the situation is somewhat awry. I'll assume for the moment that you're too bright to push the envelope. --Tony Sidaway21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't condecending. And for the record, you cannot object to the image in my signature as there is no solid basis for it in policy or guidelines beyond that you don't like it, which last time I checked isn't a valid reason to remove it. Have a nice day. JohnnyBGoodtc21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's rubbish. If your signature or the way in which you use it should become disruptive, nobody needs to be able to point to a specific line that says "JohnnyBGood isn't allowed to have a stupid signature" to ask you to knock it off and, should you continue trolling, block you. --Tony Sidaway21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True if a signature is used in a deliberately disruptive way, such as if I had a picture of you with a O\ then you obviously could argue it was trolling. Or if it were overly large or was racist etc... you could argue it was disruptive. However just having an image isn't a "disruption" as it harms no one and isn't against any existing policy or guideline. JohnnyBGoodtc21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, doing something "for solidarity", is obviously deliberate, and doing so in this context is trolling. If it becomes disruptive then you may find yourself in trouble. Do you want to do that over something as trivial as a signature? I don't think so. Have fun but be careful. --Tony Sidaway22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it's trolling, however seeing as you're the opposite party in this dispute I'm not shocked. Anyway peace out. JohnnyBGoodtc00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of signatures...
If you get a chance, could you please take a look at this? Is the whole "external links in a signature are a bad thing" position correct, or am I way off here? Kirill Lokshin20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I think it depends on the links, but in general I think they should be fairly strongly deprecated--in other words, someone who has an external link in his signature should have to prove that it's necessary to his communications, which I should think would be a rather hard thing to do! --Tony Sidaway21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm guessing that obvious advertising for an external site presumably wouldn't qualify as "necessary". Thanks for the feedback! Kirill Lokshin22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The onus would be on the editor to prove that he wasn't simply link spamming. I suspect that this is a case for "block first, ask questions later." --Tony Sidaway22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction
In view of histrionics that have gone on since, I humbly retract my request for an apology as above. Thanks. -- Samirधर्म06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I and all Wikipedians recognise that your request, although I may have considered it inappropriate, was made with the best interests of Wikipedia at the top of your mind. --Tony Sidaway13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instantnood
How can we use these two weeks to craft a real workable solution to steer his edits to be constructive rather than disruptive? Only an arbitrator can propose new remedies, but there isn't anything to stop me from proposing it to an arbitrator to propose is there? I do like Alai's proposition that we ask 'nood if he would voluntarily refrain or otherwise have input into an effective restraint, but given his demands to enter mediation, and his lawyering about "the injustice" of opening the last arb case to anyone who would listen I don't have good faith he would volunteer. SchmuckyTheCat19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing possible remedies with an arbitrator now. They're fully aware of the situation and may make a revision to the remedies in due course. Feel free to email an arbitrator (see WP:AC for the names and email addresses) or contact then on-wiki via their talk page. You can also sometimes find arbitrators on IRC. I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss the case with you. --Tony Sidaway19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty rare that I have time to deal with IRC. :) Dmcdevit recused himself from the last case for voting, but he particularly might be open to proposing something new and letting others vote on it.
I also wonder about this: if we proposed to him to agree to 0RR for the next two weeks and he agreed, do you think it would be appropriate to unblock him and see what happens? SchmuckyTheCat19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be reluctant to lift the ban now, because it has been discussed and imposed. The revert limitation idea is sound, though. I'd like to see if he could live with a maximum of one revert per article per week. --Tony Sidaway20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Page Changes
Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturner23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Your comment
I'm a bit upset at what you said here. I don't think it's quite appropriate to attack RadioKirk's signature and then tell him to leave wikipedia. He's been quite active as an administrator, and it's not worth deflating his spirits about the project over how to handle a rogue anon.--Theikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve)01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things most people don't like to have to tell other people. We don't like to have to tell grown men to wipe themselves when they're done going to the bathroom. We don't like having to tell workers to not act unprofessionally in the workplace. Similarly, I don't like having to tell experienced editors like Tony Sidaway to keep a civil tongue. But apparently, sometimes one must do that. Tony, you're being incivil. Knock it off, please. Thanks. Nandesuka02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's possible that you seriously believe that expressing reasonable doubt on someone fitness to be an administrator is "uncivil". In which case I apologise for giving offence.
However, I don't think it's an extraordinary thing to say, when an editor demands that another extend good faith towards a self-admitted vandal, that the editor isn't really thinking about the encyclopedia, but about something else entirely, and would be better off looking for another project, devoted to something fluffy and wonderful, but not perhaps as useful. When it emerges that the editor is himself an administrator, a certain amount of consternation is appropriate. A quite ample amount. --Tony Sidaway02:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your sardonicism towards his opinion is a bit disheartening. I may side with your reasoning in the arguement, but that doesn't mean I'm giving you the incentive to mock him. RadioKirk's system of reasoning reached the conclusion that it would be best to acknowledge and forgive the editor. Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue, but don't attack something completely different. So far as an administrator he's done a decent amount of work with blocking and reverting vandalism, so to question that status is a bit out of line too.--Theikiroid (talk)(Help Me Improve)03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being in the least sardonic about this. I am genuinely dismayed that a person can make it to administrator and still be arguing that an admitted, self-congratulatory vandal is worthy of good faith. There's something seriously wrong with our RFA process if that kind of thing can slip through. --Tony Sidaway03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I dislike is the ascription to RK of less-than-encyclopedic motives. It's eminently possible that two editors, even two administrators, might differently appreciate how best to act in order that the encyclopedia should be improved. Ikiroid, supra, properly adjudges the situation: Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue but not over whether his desire to improve the encyclopedia is deeply- and sincerely-held. I'm altogether confident, for example, that each of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton believed an implementation of his views to be best for the country in 1996; even as I think Clinton's ideas better to advance my goals apropos of America, I understand that Dole is a sincere actor genuinely motivated to improve the country. Here, it's likely best that, where two editors share a goal but believe in very different strategies toward the achievement of that goal, they talk reasonably and civilly about their differences, with salutary results devolving on the project; vituperation certainly doesn't advance encyclopedic goals. Joe03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about his motives, but I do question his fitness to be an administrator. We do not extend good faith to vandals. --Tony Sidaway04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of blatant vandalism, no such warnings are given. The sequence of warnings is given in order to avoid newbie biting in cases where an editor is just using Wikipedia as a sandbox. Even then, only the first and possibly the second extend good faith. The case here is of someone who openly admitted deliberate vandalism. No good faith can be extended. --Tony Sidaway04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then most admins are letting way too much vandalism get through. If vandalism is ongoing, block first to protect the encyclopedia. If it's stopped for awhile then you can leave various warning messages. --Cyde Weys04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, your failure to see that your comment was out of line is distressing. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion on the matter at hand, telling him to move on and picking on his sig is very unhelpful. Most reasonable folks are able to see that reasonable, well-meaning people can sometimes disagree- you would benefit from gaining that ability yourself. Friday(talk)15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with telling him that he's on the wrong project if he thinks good faith can be extended to self-admitted vandals. This isn't that kind of website.
His signature, now you mention it, this is what it looks like in edit mode:
His signature's length can be easily fixed. He can replace the whole <span style="font-family: courier new;> with <tt>, and all of the rest under span style (except for the color) are uneeded. Also, he could put all of the text under one span. So now we get:
I'd certainly apologise if I'd wronged him. I make no apology for saying that if he means it about requiring more history than a nakes and self-congratulatory admission of vandalism to drop good faith, he should go and find another project on which to practise his vandal-friendly approach. It can only do more damage here. I'm only appalled that he is an administrator--which at first I did not appreciate. --Tony Sidaway18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The templates were utterly useless, of no value to the project, and not worth wasting time over debating. "I'm an aeroplane"? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While true, then they could have been deleted through process, not blatantly out of it. I did recommend a relisting. --Rory09604:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means consensus says that it shouldn't be deleted, so what's the problem? (Though I do think that those templates would have been deleted, from what there was of the TfD so far.) --Rory09605:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they're crap, they should be deleted, and the quicker the better. Wasting time over debating this just so we can say we've done it "through process" is exactly what I meant when I said "fatuous". --Tony Sidaway05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's an arbitrary thing. What some say doesn't serve the project, others might think is helpful. Why shouldn't there be consensus before deleting something? --Rory09605:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tony, I know I wasn't on your side during the whole thing, but I had a quick question about the actual page. I see that it's been userfied. The edit counter doesn't show any of my edits to that page and the discussion page, and the edits are gone from my contributions. It doens't seem right that people that spent the time commenting on a subject, even if the RfC got deleted, have their contributions taken away. Just wondering what you think and/or if anything can be done. Just wondering what even happened to the RfC, as I can't find any existence of it. Thanks, and sorry for the heated debate that ensued above on your talk page and in the RfC.
Added after striking: I found that my contibs changed to appear that I edited you user subpage, rather than the RfC. So all thos Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia talk namespace edits I made are gone? (I know I shouldn't worry about the edit count so much, but it seems rather important these days during adminship, which I will go for eventually.)
Also: One more quick question I've been meaning to ask an admin. How did "minor edit" become a link on the editing page where you check the box for "This is a minor edit"? I used to hit the words to check the box, and now I keep going to the link instead on accident. Do you know if there is a discussion on this somewhere. Regards, Chuck(척뉴넘)06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make to the encyclopedia if a very small number of your edits are counted as userspace edits instead of project space edits? Is this some kind of wind-up? --Tony Sidaway12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The boilerplate such as "This is a minor edit" is I believe configurable as a wiki page in mediawiki space, so it should be easy enough to get it fixed if there is a problem with it. I suggest that you ask about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Tony Sidaway14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied article rescue
Hi Tony. Is there currently any organized effort to double-check speedies and restore accidentally-deleted good stuff? (I've looked at the speedy process again for the first time in a while, and I was a bit disheartened to see that the de facto process is rather looser than the criteria the community has set out. I've seen pages nominated for not meeting WP:CORP; one was actually deleted, even though it had recently had a consensus to keep on AfD.) -- SCZenz15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I'm not active in that area and nobody else I know is. One thing I plan to do with my tool server account is to produce a review tool for speedies. The conditions are certainly much better for this kind of thing because it's harder to redelete an article undeleted on reasonable policy grounds. --Tony Sidaway15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until your tool is available, is there any approach better than just wading through the deletion logs? -- SCZenz15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well you can compile lists of admins (particularly newly created ones) who may be prone to bad speedy calls. If you find them making poor calls, this gives you the opportunity to start a dialog which may be productive in improving their hit rate. --Tony Sidaway15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might be one of the folk SCZenz is referring to as I did delete an article for not meeting WP:CORP, which was a bad call (I don't think it had been previously AfDed.. That particular article has since been restored and the author counseled on what is needed for it to pass muster. . it was Ten Ren Tea which had a speedy at the time, but I see now has a PROD. Please feel free to let me know if I mess up! ++Lar: t/c15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, thanks for responding to me a moment ago re SlimVirgin in the discussion about whether another admin was getting special treatment after he abused a user and 3RR'd. I thought I'd bring the discussion here because it didn't belong at length where it was. You may recall I was "banned" by Jayjg and FeloniousMong from editing pages SlimVirgin was editing. The ban was for alleged wikistalking, although the definition was a new one not involving harassment. The changed wikipedia philosophy disturbed me. ie wikistalking minus the element of harassment. The mantra “go edit elsewhere in the million articles” is being increasingly used in power plays.
The problem for me is which version of the Jayjg/FM "ban" I follow - "newly edited", "recently edited" but not new, the "last five or six" SlimVirgin has edited - or FeloniousMonk's interdiction - the ten she's editing at any given time (each of these four are from the words of J and FM). And for how long is the ban? I'm wondering when I will be able to make good faith edits on such pages (another admin who initially offered to mediate is now too busy)? J and FM have both threatened to block me on sight if I happen to edit an article in any of the above circumstances. This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you articulated a moment ago, that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Mccready17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfA Thank You!
Thanks Tony,
I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Your support was undoubtedly the most surprising (and, in one sense, the most touching) of my RfA. I'm not about to become maudlin or anything, and I'm sure we'll still disagree from time to time, but your words did mean something to me. I'm sorry, once again, for having been sometimes too harsh in chastising you in the past.
Tony, if I'm allowed to jump in on a comment that has nothing to do with me, I'd like to say that I have often noticed that you're willing to support people with whom you've had disagreements, and it impresses me very much. We've never really edited the same articles at the same time, but I have a feeling that if we did, we'd be on opposite sides! So it's nice to know that we could disagree without pettiness and grudges. Cheers. AnnH♫23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: protect page
"protected because being used as an attack page by a blocked user."
Are you going to block me now Tony. I hope not. I am no longer blocked. I was unblocked an hour ago. I mentioned no names in my comparison, and stated only facts of what happened, other than in my conclusion. I am interested why you didn't respond to my email. Did you read it?
Unfortunatly, I cannot block other users or protect other's pages, which puts me at a definate disadvantage.
I asked for your help because I thought that you were fair and even, even though I disagreed with your view on copyright. The message was never responded too. I have repeatedly stuck up for you as a fair and even admin, despite some other wikipedians saying some nasty things about you.
I've deleted it. Nathan felt that I might be keeping it just to have a bit of a giggle over, and I didn't want him to feel that. --Tony Sidaway01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting on CSD talk
I think it is less than helpful to revert edits on the talk page. A reply would have been sufficient to reduce their stated view that they are constantly reverted on the page, and then attempt to have them contribute to the policy in a more mature manner. AnsellReview my progress!01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - that was an obvious troll comment and should've been removed on sight, not justified with a response. --Cyde Weys01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my naiveness is that even trolls can turn into sensible editors if you encourage rather than inflame. However, naiveness may be forced to leave in the future. AnsellReview my progress!02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen trolls convert in my limited time here. 1 in a thousand is what it seems like. If it was 1 in 10 I'd say it clearly was worth the effort to be encouraging... not sure about it at the ratio we are at now. ++Lar: t/c
I respect your efforts. I don't claim to be right, but my actions are based on over a decade of Internet experience. This could mean that I've learned some bad habits. I just think that 1 in 1000 is pretty low. More important, perhaps, is the risk of driving good people away. I tend to the view that driving trolls away makes for an environment that most editors can live with. --Tony Sidaway02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, while not commenting on this case, even users accused of being trolls may not be and may make good edits. Speaking of which, you may have missed my post above. You may recall I was "banned" by Jayjg and FeloniousMong from editing pages SlimVirgin was editing. The ban was for alleged wikistalking, although the definition of wikistalking was new (ie not involving harassment). The changed wikipedia philosophy disturbed me (ie wikistalking minus the element of harassment). The mantra “go edit elsewhere in the million articles” is being increasingly used in power plays.
The problem for me is which version of the Jayjg/FM "ban" I follow - "newly edited", "recently edited" but not new, the "last five or six" SlimVirgin has edited - or FeloniousMonk's interdiction - the ten she's editing at any given time (each of these four are from the words of J and FM). This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you've articulated that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Your comments would be appreciated on when I should be able to make good faith edits on pages Slim edits. Thanks. Mccready08:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting talk page edits is a bad idea in general. Even if you think the comments are 'trolling', others may find them useful, or even intelligent. Please don't try to impose your limited worldview on the entire encyclopedia. Talk pages are for talking - let people talk. --70.218.62.24002:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for Admin involvment. No one seems to be responding. He tampers with talk page material. He threatens me. I add a userbox to the Project page to which I am a memeber of and he delltes it. I make it perfectly clear to him how it is legit but he pretends he hears nothing even though he responds. You can also see by his discourse thay he is being insincere. A new reason every time. I want administrative involvment. He is also cultivating a culture of intimidation and monopolizing articles through this edit wars or by sheer numbers. This is not fiar and harmful to the community. 72.57.230.179
I don't know whether Grandmaster is out of order in threatening you (or even if he is doing so). However in inserting a partisan userbox into a neutral WikiProject you are certainly acting in a highly provocative manner. Please stop doing that. --Tony Sidaway12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please have a look at his talk page. This person is known for his disruptive behavior and has been blocked many times for edit warring and trolling. Most recently a couple of minutes ago. I warned him that he cannot add to the wikiproject page userboxes that are not endorsed by other members, but he would not listen. As for liberated Azerbaijan template, it was created by some Azeri users as a response to the template in support of independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. This anonymous user understood it as a reference to Iran, which it was not. I don’t mind deletion of that template, but we have many similar templates, including the one it was created as a response to. I think we need to decide what to do with them all. I personally never supported such userboxes and never placed them on my user page. Grandmaster13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony, please next time make at least a announcement before deleting any templates from WikiProject Azeri. Baku8718:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]
That template is a reponse to the indepence supporting Nagorno-Karabakh template, they are allowed to have such a template then other should be allowed to have a liberation template, it has nothing to do with Iran, so please dont remove it again and if you can correct the previous liberation templates, I cannot get those working. Baku8718:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]
Well people are permitted to express their opinions, to a degree, on user pages. It's the templates that are the problem. --Tony Sidaway19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it’s still a divisive stuff. Anyway, thanks for your interference, I hope we want be having problems with this anonymous user anymore. His behavior was very disruptive, and his block log speaks for itself. Regards, Grandmaster19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userbox
I appreciate your concern. To be honest, I doubt anyone will be provoked by it, as people who are familar with the debates of the past few months will know the meaning behind it.(Especially the "Classic T1" part). If it was still in template form, I'd be more concerned though. If I do encounter any problems, rest assured, it will be removed. Regards, --D-Day(Wouldn'tyouliketobea peppertoo?) 20:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely because we know the history of the past debates that it is so provocative. It's a gross display of incivility. I want you to understand this and what that implies. --Tony Sidaway00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent userpage deletions
Now, I am quite perplexed about this one. Looking through your deletion log, you just deleted 4-5 userpages saying vandalism edit only. Am I correct? DGX21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously he's a silly troll, because he trolls! But he also performs useful edits so I've reduced his block to something more sensible. --Tony Sidaway00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened my sig. Also, you don't have to worry about delisteing full/semi/move protection. My bot does that automatically. I unprotected a rash of pages hit by the anti-Alikavar vandal two weeks back, and it took care of all of the WP:PP work [41].Voice-of-AllTalk22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
![[4]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Basijis.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[5]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Iran-guard-pasdaran_21.gif&action=history){kind=link}
![[6]](/w/index.php?title=Image:Fajr-3.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[7]](/w/index.php?title=Image:BasijMembers.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
