User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

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

Tony Sidaway is officially permitted to disagree with you

decolonization and POV

Please see Decolonization. I believe another editor insists on repeatly adding POV material to this article. What do you think? Can you do anything? This editor does not respond to what I write. Thanks Hmains 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

i need help

I wanna add TCW Fantasy Wrestling but it is set for speedy deletion. I wanna add all my sites, i have 3 which i want on this site.

Doesn't seem to be suitable for Wikipedia. We're not a link farm. --Tony Sidaway 07:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

RFArb

Thanks for letting me know — I'll add evidence as appropriate. Nandesuka 22:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For having such a great user page I had to copy it. South Philly 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Please stop spamming my talk page. Thank you. Karmafist ^p 14:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Sockpuppet

Please take a look at this and this talk page for proof of abuse. These sockpuppets are used in revert wars in Babri Mosque, Hindu Rashtra, Manu Smriti, 2002 Gujarat violence, Shiv Sena. [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] Hope this is sufficient. Anwar 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you start a wiki about Townsville Pri Sch?

I am a staff in that school and was surprised to discover a wiki about it. Did you start it or do you know the person who did the article... Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) of 10.07.06

Someone else started an article but it was deleted nearly a year ago. I then did a bit of research and came up with what is essentially the current version. The information came from government information, newspapers, and so on, all on line. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

blocking of User:The Ungovernable Force

RJII and hogeye have been disrupting the articles for over a year. Hogeye just comes on and inserts pov material he knows will get changed or deleted fast but just likes to exercise the totally un-wikipedian, abusive attitude that got him banned in the first place. We have been plagued by sockpuppet hogeye for so long that all the editors can recognise him when he pops up. We are that familiar. Of course there is humanity there but Hogeye has always been abusive, disruptive and a supreme edit war instigator. The vast majority of hogeye's edits especially as sockpuppet . are unmalleable and too pov to be molded into the article. Hogeye knows this. Please lift the ban on TUF. He is just looking after the page like the rest of us. Notice that most of the editors of Anarchism are NOT admins who would probably be using their own sysop powers to protect the page. We can't unless F.Tyrers repeatedly does it. Cheers. --maxrspct in the mud 10:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you please unblock TUF. He was edit warring, but he was reverting a blocked user who has a long record of block evasion. - FrancisTyers · 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See indefinate blocking of downer as sock puppet: [6]. --max rspct 10:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. If you feel that this is not appropriate, please re-block and leave me a note, or leave me a note asking me to re-block and I will be happy to oblige :) - FrancisTyers · 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I have no problem with you unblocking him. I found his excuses personally unconvincing, however. I hope you don't go around encouraging this kind of grossly disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 13:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that your block was far more disruptive than his helpful behavior. He was reverting the edits of a highly-disruptive sockpuppet of Hogeye. I find The Ungovernable Force to be civil and well-intentioned on more occasions than most Wikipedia users. By blocking him, you were preventing him from doing a service to Wikipedia, a service that many of us do not have time to do: consistently reverting the disruptive edits of the sockpuppet of a ban-evading puppet master with a myriad of false accounts and a very large POV axe to grind. I understand that you are just as well-intentioned, but you might have been a bit over-zealous in this matter. --AaronS 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't looked at the edits they were warring over, I presume. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have, and I know that you've made much ado about the triviality of (only some of, mind you) Drowner's edits. Many users have good evidence to suspect Drowner as being the sockpuppet of banned user Hogeye, who has, for months, been attempting to avoid his ban by use of sockpuppets, anonymous IPs, and anonymous proxies. TUF was helping out other editors who were either too busy or too exasperated to deal with the situation. If you'll note, Drowner's edits were eventually reverted by another user, even after you banned TUF. I also point you to WP:3RR, which makes clear exceptions for the reverting of the edits of banned users and sockpuppets. Even if Drowner were simply fixing a comma splice, a revert would have been entirely justified per official Wikipedia policy. --AaronS 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it doesn't matter whom Ungovernable Force was warring with. His edits were disruptive. Just because an edit doesn't count towards the Three revert rule doesn't mean it isn't disruptive. Ungovernable Force absolutely was not helping out Wikipedia in any way by edit warring in this way. --Tony Sidaway

From WP:Ban

All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

Please explain how this is disruptive. The Wikipedia policy on disruption is very vague, so I assume that you're operating on your own principles. --AaronS 17:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's disruptive because twelve pointless reverts on an article are always disruptive. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems mighty presumptuous to me. First of all -- and you know this -- the reverts were not pointless. Reverting the edits of banned users and sockpuppets is not only uncontroversial, it is in adherence to Wikipedia policy. Second, I ask you, disruptive to whom? The perennial editors of the article, perhaps? We've already told you that we think that the block was uncalled for, and that TUF was being helpful, not disruptive. Your block was disruptive, because it kept a helpful editor from doing good work. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm quite surprised that you're being so stubborn about this matter, even in the face of numerous reasoned dissenting voices. --AaronS 17:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this. Those reverts were hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless. That's disruption. --Tony Sidaway 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you did not use your administrative authority, with regard to this article, to block or otherwise penalize editors who are following Wikipedia policy, simply because you find their edits to be "hopelessly, mind-numbingly, tooth-grindingly pointless." Perhaps you would do better to listen to and thoughtfully consider the opinions of many other reasonable editors on this matter, instead of stubbornly sticking to your own subjective evaluation as to the merits of an editor's perfectly acceptable actions. Certainly, I hope that you will no longer use your administrative tools to enforce your own vague standards of meritorious editing. One can only hope. The fact remains that you blocked a user who sincerely believed he was upholding Wikipedia policy, (and I refer you to WP:Assume good faith with regard to your comments about his "unconvincing excuses") disregarded that user's explanation and objections, and ignored the interjections of other editors, as well, all to satisfy what I can only imagine to be your own peculiar sense of the aesthetic. Please let me know how your struggle against pointlessness progresses, for I have a keen appreciation of irony. I cannot conceive of so trivial a crusade as one against triviality. --AaronS 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not crusading, just dealing with disruptive editors. If you don't act disruptively, you'll not be affected by any of my administrative actions. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus we go back to my original point. TUF explained what he was doing. The other main editors of the article explained to you what he was doing. We all told you that he was being helpful and attempting to stop the disruption of a banned user's sockpuppet. You still insisted on applying your arbitrary definition of disruption to the incident and decided to maintain the block. Anybody who made an effort to disagree with you was met with coy and dismissive replies. With such a display of arrogance, it should be no surprise that other editors are coming to the support of the user you wronged. Judging from your words and tone, I don't expect anything resembling an apology from you to TUF, or any admission of even the slightest error, but I felt the need to voice my objections. --AaronS 19:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm saddened that you don't see that The Ungovernable Force's reverts were precisely the wrong way to edit. My definition is not arbitrary. I will do it again if and when the occasion arises. This is how we keep the wiki relatively free of disruptive behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be saddened. You've yet to explain your definition of disruptiveness. How, exactly, did TUF's reverts disrupt the editing of others? --AaronS 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw man. They disrupted the wiki and I've explained how they did that above. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a straw man, because I had no clue we were talking about the wiki itself. How is the wiki disrupted? If you think that a dozen reverts on an article that a banned user's sock puppet has been editing disrupts the wiki as a whole, I'd be interested to learn how. I don't see how it would justify blocking a user for 24 hours without warning. --AaronS 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Any time a couple of editors get into a ridiculous sequence of multiple reverts (aka edit warring) over trivia, it's a disruption. Any use of Wikipedia as a field of battle is a disruption. --Tony Sidaway 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just dogma. You have yet to give me anything but platitudes. Your choice of words -- "ridiculous" and "trivia" -- is a testament to the arbitrariness of your doctrine. I also do not understand why you continue to fail to distinguish between users and banned/sockpuppet users. I'm disappointed that you cannot, for even the briefest instant, admit that you might not be categorically correct. --AaronS 23:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for other people's opinions on the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:Tony_Sidaway. I'm sure you'll want to be able to voice you're opinion there. --AaronS 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) - FrancisTyers · 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact. No editor or administrator is required to revert the edits of a banned user or sockpuppet. I am familiar with this topic. The bulk of my administative log deals with the sockpuppets of a particular banned user that targets me. The policies all state that the edits of banned users/sockpuppets MAY be reverted or deleted. But no particular Wikipedia user is required to do it. If I was required to do this I would never do anything else on Wikipedia or real life. : - )

Often it is best if admin and editors distance themselves from a particular banned user/sockpuppet for awhile. Otherwise it becomes too personal between the two parties. In this case, it seems to me that it was becoming a personal issue and that made it an edit war or disruptive behavior. That was the reason for the block. Take care, FloNight ^talk 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (and back to reverting and deleting Amorrow).

Editors may revert sockpuppet edits.. though because they are not required (and some would POVishly want them not to) they should be banned? OH they should be banned because they are familiar with each other unlike Sideaway who has just stepped (disrupted) in without much familiarity with either party..?? RUBBISH! --max rspct 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this: editors are expected to use commonsense and avoid disrupting Wikipedia. -Tony Sidaway 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this: editors and administrators are expected to avoid being arrogant and violating WP:Civil. I had heard of there being self-righteous, stubborn, "I'm never wrong" administrators on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've had the pleasure of personally encountering one. --AaronS 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you're impatient and frustrated, but I can only advise you on something I found early on: often such frustration may be due largely to one's own lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. It takes time to become familiar with it, and even then some of it frankly doesn't make sense. But it's well worth it to Assume good faith with all contributors. Believe me I've gone out of my way to avoid hurting you, but you seem to have decided that the only thing that can resolve your hurt is if I change my opinion to be the same as yours. It isn't arrogance that makes my opinion different from yours, and I'm not going out of my way to hold or defend perverse opinions. It's quite normal for people to hold different opinions and there's nothing to be afraid of. --Tony Sidaway 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My, my. My goodness. Impatient? About what? I'm not trying to get anything done, here. So, your choice of word, in that case, is quite strange, indeed. Frustrated? Maybe a little, but not really. I don't really think that "frustration" describes my disappointment in your words and actions. I assumed good faith with you, and I still believe that you are well-intentioned, but your words and actions belie an unparalleled arrogance and self-righteousness. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than three years, if I remember correctly. I'm more familiar with it than you might think. Of course, I'm beginning to realize that you seem to believe that anybody who does not agree with you must suffer from some perverse error or must, in some way, be deficient. My opinion is nothing more than that you should show respect for fellow editors and consider their words as genuine, reasoned, and, God forbid, perhaps even somewhat correct. You see, you've assumed that I am on some extreme, demanding that you recount everything that you've done. Hardly. I'm trying to pull you away from the extreme that you have found, where you are always correct, and where those who disagree are somehow defective. That's wrong. --AaronS 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well perhaps I misread your mood as frustration. Disappointment it is. I'm sorry to disappoint you further. I'm unable to recognise that I've done something wrong unless I have, in fact, done something wrong. You described my block as "disruptive" and yet it restored peace to the article. You described The Ungovernable Force's edits as "helpful" and yet they constituted series of six mindless reverts in the course of ninety minutes, which were of course immediately reverted by the other fellow. And yet you felt that I'd stopped him performing what you described as a service to Wikipedia.

I'm prepared to be described as wrong, but I'll give my opinion: those opinions that you expressed were unreasonable and at variance with the observable facts. It's only my opinion because, having thought about this and discussed it at length, I happen to think it's correct and you haven't presented any evidence to support a change of mind. This is what I mean when I refer to your frustraton at the fact that I have an opinion different from yours. If I felt strongly enough about you to have a problem with your attitude, it wouldn't be that your opinion is different from mine (this is, as I said, to be expected). It is rather that you still seem to think that there is something wrong with my having an opinion that differs from your own. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I have no problem with your opinion. I expressed my own initial disagreement with your actions, but have since moved on from that. My issue, now, is your attitude and behavior. I'm very open to disagreement. When I edit controversial articles (such as the one originally in question), I expect disagreement, and welcome people to disagree with me. It is my hope to compromise. I find that many people on Wikipedia are intelligent and reasonable. You seem to be intelligent, but, so far, I've found you to be a bit on the unreasonable side. And I say this not because I disagree with you, but only because you have disagreed with a display of haughty arrogance and unwillingness for compromise that is unfitting of any editor, especially an administrator. To me, it demonstrates a lack of assuming good faith, teetering on, if not explicitly, incivility. I understand that you care about this project, and that you are a good, well-intentioned editor. Does it not matter to you that so many have expressed the very same sentiments that I am expressing, here? For most people, this would cause at least a slight consideration of behavior adjustment. I'm a pretty bright guy, and I think pretty highly of myself -- I'm not afraid to admit that -- but I also think highly of others and reflect upon their opinions and observances deeply, especially on the subject of social grace. By very definition, common courtesy is defined not from within, but by the reactions of others. --AaronS 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we may be making progress below so I'll put any further comments there. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

If you can stop them from spamming my User page, I would be obliged. Thank you Porky Pig 19:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Walk away

Hello Tony, walk away from the discussion on AN/I. Nothing good is going to come from it. Everything you say is going to be hyper-analyzed. I agree with you about the block. The discussion about assuming good faith is odd considering you were carrying out your administrative duties which call for making judgments about editors! FloNight 07:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh to tell the truth I was having fun being pilloried for whatever it was they thought I'd done, but you're right. It's better to walk away. --Tony Sidaway 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought you would find this interesting. [7] Who has the correct answers sheet for those questions? ; -) FloNight 16:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly how Aaron Brenneman started. There seems to be a common trend towards abandoning all pretence of assuming good faith. "You disagree with me, therefore you hate me. So I will attack you." --Tony Sidaway

I'm not attacking you in any way. I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position. That's all. I've said, on a number of occasions, that I believe that you are an intelligent, well-intentioned, good editor. I have not said that your actions were wholly wrong -- just that they weren't wholly correct. I have never accused you of hating me. I have never ceased to assume good faith. I find it very strange that you have decided to caricature my reasonable opinions as simple-minded childishness and bad faith. --AaronS 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is our rhetorical framing. Where do you get this from, for instance?

"I'm asking you to reconsider the supreme moral superiority and absolute rightness of your position."

I've never claimed to be absolutely right or to have any moral superiority at all.

You see what I mean? By adding a massive dose of rhetoric to a simple disagreement, you've made it out to be some kind of character defect.

I of course recognise that I caricatured you unreasonably above. However, in your questions on RFA you were clearly caricaturing me. So we're both being unfair to one another. Let's stop this. It's silly. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Point taken with regard to the rhetoric. What can I say? I like words. I am happy to admit that as a character defect. ;) Regarding the RFA, I made no reference to you there. I was inspired by our discussion, and I want to get more involved in the process. So, naturally, I applied what I gained here to there. I was not intending to caricature you, just coalescing my own nebulous understanding and standards with regard to how Wikipedia should be. --AaronS 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

National Front (France) and blockings

Hello Tony! Thanks for unblocking. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not sure it's the best policy to block two users as soon as an argument starts. This wasn't going on for days: I just happenned to include some text in National Front (France), with a source, which happenned to be to User:Intangible's dislikes. Since he reverted my move, I reverted him, which is quite normal. He did this three times, which is a clear breach of no 3RV (I don't think you can call this gaming, I've met Intangible on others pages and no where have we got such an argument, notwithstanding our different POV). You can see these edits here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. So I don't really understand why I got blocked. I've been involved in much stronger arguments, most notably at Hamas (check the talk page), nowhere the situation has called for a block. Now, to return to the National Front, Intangible is involved there since at least a week, as he says, in an attempt to impede the qualification of "far right" to this party, although this is not disputed by anyone else than themselves (and yet...). If you see the talk page, you will see that he was up alone against everybody else. All in all, this is not a big deal, and you are right to say to people that they should cool down and play outside, some of us on Wikipedia might tend to forget this, but please be aware that it is no good for one's reputation to be blocked, and that this is usually reserved to vandalism (or 3RV). I've haven't done none of them, which is why I feel justified to leave you a "complaint message" :). Actually, I hadn't edited in a while, and you're block yesterday impeded me from editing some stuff when I couldn't sleep, in an entirely different articles... Thanks for your attention, I just guess that blocking should be kept an ultimate measure, and that edits links should be provided to see where exactly the infringer did infringe the rules. (I actually let a message at Intangible concerning 3RV not to block him, I have kind of a dislike for Wikilawyering, but to warn him that he was starting to get on everybody's nerves — a Request for Arbitration has been called for by User:Cberlet and others on the Front National talk page... Thanks, please be careful to blocking users, which should be kept as an ultimate solution and which is not normally used as a "collective punition", but as a mean to block some vandal, of which none of us are right now (apart if you take into account Intangible's 3RV, which I would have let go). Cheers! Tazmaniacs 14:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, but this [12] edit is about a content dispute; you make a claim there about the FN which does not follow from your source. Intangible 15:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This 22 edit doesn't erase the 3 others reversion you made, but I'll stop here bothering Tony's page. Tazmaniacs 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I know a lot of people don't like the idea that they can be blocked for just messing around. I don't, you don't. Just remember it's an encyclopedia. Blocking is often a wake-up call, and I used it in this sense today. --Tony Sidaway 16:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. But you seem to forget that getting block marks you as an un-cooperative editor, and should therefore be used with caution. Tazmaniacs 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your approach

Tony, a little while back another admin left you a note about your pathological seeking out of trouble and conflict, which see called "single-mindedly disruptive". She wanted to you stop your, as she put it, "joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy." You of course dismissed the comments as baseless and silly, as you often do of criticism, and pointed out that some "well known and well respected editors" supported your latest behavior. Well, you must be aware by now that many other well known and well respected editors are often much less supportive of your behavior. In fact, many editors have asked you nicely, many times, to stop being rude, and stop seeking out trouble for trouble's sake. I'm not talking about trolls or myspacers either, I mean real editors. As hard as it may be for you to believe that reasonable people often disagree with your approach, please try to accept this. It's becoming more and more painfully obvious to the rest of us. You're making more heat than light, and I suspect this will continue to be the case until you radically rethink your approach to the project. I recommend you take some time off, think about what you're trying to accomplish here, and ask yourself whether you're accomplishing those goals in an effective way. I think if you're honest with yourself, you'll come to see that you're not being very effective in furthering the project. Friday (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Actually I remember no such incident but I'll take your word for it.

I don't seek out conflict for its own sake, but if it happens I handle it well and, over time, my view tends to prevail. I am cool with the fact that many reasonable people may disagree with my approach, and I'm sure that you are cool with the same facts with respect to your own behavior, but that's how all mature people are supposed to be, isn't it? I don't think you've given me any good reason to rethink my approach to the project.

You've been engaging in low-level sniping for some time. Please stop that. --Tony Sidaway 16:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your view tends to prevail over time only because people get fed up with the fact that, regardless of the situation, your view will not change in even the slightest way. I have been giving you the opportunity to admit that you might not have been 100% correct in dealing with the Anarchism in the United States situation, and you haven't even budged 1/10,000th of a percentage point. Also, your history, the present situation, and the comments of other editors and administrators, sort of go against your assertion that you handle conflict well. This is the last that I have to say to you regarding this matter, since I don't see any real point in discussing it with you further. I guess that means you win, right? There you go, let your view "prevail." --AaronS 17:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Was that a real quote? Seriously, I hope not. Where did I give you the impression that I thought I was 100% correct? That would be silly. However, I do obviously have an opinion and tend to express it. This is what people are supposed to do. It's how we're wired. You say what you think. I say what I think. We kinda fuzz it around a bit and then we may change our opinion and then it starts again.

I wouldn't be attracting this kind of flack if I were completely correct. However we can only resolve this by discussion, not by one or other of us leaping to the conclusion that the other is some kind of pathological case. Having said that, I do seriously wonder what the problem is here. I blocked some guys, I patiently explained to one of them why he had been blocked, and then I dealt with care and attention to numerous criticisms of my behavior.

What, I wasn't persuaded to agree with the criticism, you say? Well yes, that's correct. I wasn't persuaded. I cannot pretend that I was. I know that I hurt some feelings, but that's inevitable when you block someone who actually believed he was edit warring to save the wiki. But let's not make more of that than what it is. If he had used his brain and actually looked at what he was doing, he wouldn't have edited disruptively. I hope he will learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see where you are coming from. My main problem was that I felt that you weren't really listening to anybody. I have to admit that I still feel that way. When I say that, I don't mean that my problem is that you weren't persuaded. That's your call to make, of course. I suppose that the issue that I had was that I didn't feel that you were even allowing for such an option. Perhaps I was wrong, but I don't think so. Anyways, no hard feelings. I respect you and am more than happy to agree to disagree with you. As I have said to some others, I'm a philosophy student, and tend to discuss things, shall we say, a bit much. I really wanted to know what your position was and to examine and evaluate how you and other editors and administrators perceive some of the more vague aspects of Wikipedia policy. It's a learning experience. I hope that you don't feel that I've wasted your time. I don't think that these discussions are ever a waste of time, personally, because I think that there is always something to learn from them. Happy editing. :) --AaronS 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.--Tony Sidaway 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the fact that many different admins have told you you're being rude and disruptive and you don't even remember it is a good indicator of the problem. A duck doesn't remember the water that falls of its back, either, because it failed to even notice it at the time. The issue is that you tend to completely ignore legitimate criticism, to such an extent that you don't even remember seeing it. You're doing much to create a poisonous atmosphere here, and it's harmful to the project. My intent is not to snipe, but to get you to treat other editors with respect. I wasn't sure which quotes you meant in asking whether they were real, but the ones I put in my message were directly lifted from the original message and your response to it. Listening to feedback from other editors is essential to being a functional wikipedian, and it's an area where I think you need tremendous improvement. Friday (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your typical tactic, Tony. When people complain about, for example, your rude attitude and lack of response to criticism, you repond by saying that some edits you made were good. Well, yeah, most of them are. Heck, I probably agree with your edits about 75% of the time. I see nothing wrong with short-circuiting a process when the outcome is already established. Being bold is good, but if many people are aasking you to be less bold, surely there's a reason for it? As your claim that you don't ignore criticism, that's so obviously false as to be laughable. You've had multiple admins telling you to cut out the rudeness, and later you claim to not remember it. Has it ever occurred to you that when you attract at least 10 times as much criticism as other, equally active admins, maybe the problem is you? You've done some good work here, but it's nowhere near worth the cost of the poison and vitriol you seem to enjoy spreading. Why are you so resistant to the idea of finding a way to contribute to the project without all the pointless disruption? Your drama-seeking behavior hurts us all. Friday (talk) 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you've stepped far beyond the level of civility that is appropriate to Wikipedia now. "A typical tactic", indeed.

Yesterday I asked on the Wikipedia admins channel for people to review this affair. A number of people did so, one of them Jimbo Wales, another one a very popular arbitrator. They had some constructive suggestions. Overall, no serious problems. They could of course be wrong and you could be right. In such circumstances I have to make an evaluation. I have done so. I disagree with your assessment. --Tony Sidaway 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, now you've closed a DRV request early, after being implored to not close things early and out of process. Please reconsider and revert yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was an overwhelming endorsement. Why waste more time on this? --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It was one day, which is hardly enough time to figure outt he true endorsement of the community for a process that's designed to take more than that, and it was brought up in the same day when you were implored not to close things out of process. It's almost like you actually don't care about what the rest of us have to say in this case. Besides, no one's asking you to take any more time with it - if you don't like the discussion, it's not hurting you to keep it open. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not stopping you dragging this thing out interminably if you want to. My close was merely a suggestion that, at this point, we might decide to pay attention to more important things than this. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, as I don't revert major actions by admins on principle, but I prefer it. I'm sure many of us would like to pay more attention to more important things, but it's hard when we can't be assured that we can rely on those in charge to adhere to basic processes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Get someone else to do it then. I honestly have no objection if you want to spend more time over this issue. As for the "basic processes", Jeff, it's an encyclopedia If an article is good we don't delete it, and fuck the basic processes, whatever they might be. Only content matters. --Tony Sidaway 19:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you know it can't work that way. The reason we have these processes is so we can have the content dealt with properly in the encyclopedia. I don't understand why you don't get that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't appear to "get" it because it simply isn't so. Only content matters. It's an encyclopedia. All the rest can be safely ignored. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever works for you, dude. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I noticed that you have at least admitted you were not 100% correct, yet I also noted your extremely careful wording to not at any point admit where you believe you were wrong. Thus as you say, you "say what you think". So please, I think it will benefit a lot of people here to hear you admit where you believe you went wrong. It would show good faith on your part and allow other people here to see that their claims against you are unfounded. While I agree that you do not believe yourself to have been persuaded, I do not believe you have ever "re-assessed" yourself. When you are in a position of power, it is often good to internalise and perform your own QA on yourself, it allows you to catch those times when you were unaware of what you were doing. This is the whole concept behind "power corrupts"... simply because when one has and wields power a failure to self-assess can lead to a loss of awareness. I do it all the time, going back and honestly and genuinely looking at how I handled things. "Did I do that the best way I could?", "If so many people are telling me I am rude, am I actually rude?". It allows us to develop as people and to ensure that we do not reach a point where the power we have is abused through a simple lack of awareness to our actions and how we are going about them. I implore you, please do an honest and genuine assessment of this situation (don't just go "I have and I am still right"). Enigmatical 22:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I did do anything wrong here. If I believed that I had, I'd say so. --Tony Sidaway 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the frustrating part. Of course you don't believe you had done anything wrong, that doesn't mean you didn't... it just means your not aware of it. Given that you have freely admitted you arrogance, one of the detractors to being arrogant is your own self-esteem and self-belief. It means you would be blinded to ever doing wrong ebcause it goes against being arrogant. Thus how would you ever know if you had done wrong if you were not willing to self-assess?

Think about these things:

• There is a difference between "discussing" something and giving them a formal warning. While a person may beleive they are right and did right during "discussion", they may not continue to act in the same manner after having been giving such a warning. You automatically assumed he would continue after a formal warning. Can you not understand that your view of how he would react is fundamentally flawed?
• Drowner was editing the page of his own volition. Not only this but each of his edits were different each time. If it was a true edit war then it would have involved him trying to put back exactly the same information that was taken out. It can be seen that he had no belief that certain content should go in and was purposely editing the article knowing that TUF would refert it. By blocking this user, TUF would no longer have a need to uphold the rules of wikipedia and the problem would have been resolved.
• Contrary to this, TUF was only reverting Drowner specifically to uphold the rules of wikipedia. Blocking TUF would not have fixed the situation but would have allowed Drowner the freedom to continue to edit the page even though he clearly did not demonstrate a desire to have content in the article (otherwise he would have re-added it instead of adding something different every time). Thus blocking TUF would not have resolved the problem.

I think if you think about these facts, accept the possibility that your judgement about someones future actions wasn't the best approach you could take then perhaps you might start to see the things which you are currently blinded to as a result of your own level of self-worth. I know that personally (and I too can be extremely arrogant at times) would hate to know that I overlooked something or was blind to something which resulted in something being unfair. I know that I would want to correct it because despite being arrogant myself I am not inconsiderate. Hopefully this is true of you too and thus I would hope you would at least "attempt" some form of self-assessment "just in case" you did miss something as a result of your behaviour. Worth a few minutes is it not? Enigmatical 04:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you see the subsection immediately above, it seems Tony is kind of fond of blocking several editors at the same time. This is questionable, and I would like to leave a message on my talk page explaining why I was blocked, giving links to edits to show the reason. Tazmaniacs 14:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think blocking pairs of editors who are edit warring is fair. I have no idea why you'd see if as questionable--you were both edit warring and so both were blocked. --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I performed a normal block for disruption. If you think that there is a problem with administrators blocking editors for disruption, please have the blocking policy changed. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't even bother reading what I wrote did you? Or even stop for half a second to consider what I am saying? Fine. If thats how you want to handle it, I give up trying to assume good faith on your behalf and in try to actually do something to help someone which hopefully would have benefitted both yourself and the rest of the wikipedia community in general. I'm done, your welcome to return to your self-proclaimed arrogant behaviour. Good bye Enigmatical 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I read what you said. I disagree with it. Why is this a problem for you? Must everybody always agree with you? All the time? --Tony Sidaway 04:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Look who's back

Surprise, surprise. Look who's back: SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Now do we want to continue to assume good faith and say that User:Porky Pig/User:SirIsaacBrock wasn't outright lying when he denied the sockpuppet nature of User:Porky Pig? And what does he do now that he's back? Starts taunting yours truly about the "fact" that I'm an "anti-Semite". Tony Sidaway, given the apparent long term disruptive nature and block evasion of this individual shouldn't he be re-blocked for an extended period of time (preferrably indefinitely)? Thanks Netscott 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a very complex issue and I hope you will seek out advice from people other than me. What follows is my personal opinion, but I won't get involved in enforcement on the basis of my own sketchy knowledge.

The return of this editor is a cause for concern. Ensure that he really is a sock of Porky Pig, and if so, and he's been as abusive as you have given me cause to believe, then you'll have no problem obtaining a community ban. In the unlikely event that the ban should fail muster, just take him to the Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, given the further trollish commentary that he's posted to User:Tom harrison I think your view is 100% correct. Would you kindly make commentary corresponding to your view on the latest ANI post about his block evasion? Thanks. Netscott 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please copy verbatim and in full with my permission. --Tony Sidaway 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One sockpuppet (and corresponding lie) confirmed, three more to come. Netscott 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Gather your evidence, then if it confirms your suspicions, fire on all tubes. --Tony Sidaway 18:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Support required for self-righteous editor

Hi, I have as of late noticed that Wikipediatrix has been constantly changing and adapting an article to suit her POV - The Frosties Kid. After several attempts to reason with her by other users and myself in Talk:The_Frosties_Kid she has blatantly disregarded anyone's input and the fact that this article is based on a true subject. On top of this she turns the argument around by making everyone else appear guilty of being in the wrong. It is eveident that she has no knowedge nor cares to learn about the subject that the article relates. Please could you help in this matter seeing as I don't know how else to apporach it as she is being very unreasonable. Thank you. Piecraft 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Please discuss changes on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, I have put forward my views and statements relating to the article. So I'm just waiting for any further feedback. But that's what started all this trouble in the first place, the fact that every other user was ready to discuss changes and the matter with Wikipediatrix who all of a sudden has now disappeared after the lockdown of the article. Anyway, hopefully this can be resolved without anyone going insane. I'm not going to lose sleep over this though. Thanks again for stepping in though. Piecraft 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Can the lock be removed, things have settled and there is now substantial evidence + citations. thanks --Jum4 09:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note from mboverload I support doing a TRIAL unlocking of the article, and I can alert another administrator to relock it. Say to put it on article parole or something, I can monitor it and if another admin sees your comment they can quickly protect it again. --mboverload@ 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support said unblocking until users Jum4 and Piecraft can be made to understand the concept of Original Research, and to not make personal attacks to me such as "Wikinazi", "loon swinging a handbag", "get your head out of your ass" and "if you are too slow". Such uncivility is unacceptable. The discussion page indicates that they think personally emailing a cereal company is a valid source for a Wikipedia article, and Jum4 brushed off my WP:OR concerns with, and I quote, "Let's be honest most articles on Wikipedia are over embellished and long winded." wikipediatrix 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for your advice, from now on I will be civil. wikipediatrix I really meant no malice in my comments and I really am surprised you reacted the way you did. I'm just frustrated as this is the first article I have started and it going nowhere. All the claims have now been referenced so I really just want this sorted. Boy have I learned a thing or new, my next article will be so much easier!! --Jum4 19:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So, is this a better way to handle it?

Ewan G Keenowe (talk · contribs) is not listening to a warning I placed on their talk page. They keep labelling Westboro Baptist Church a hate group without discussing it on the talk page as requested (where it was recently discussed). [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. I've already reverted twice today and I don't want to revert it any more than that right now. Could you do it and watch the page. I'm also putting a 3RR warning on the user's talk page in a few minutes. I don't want to report to 3RR yet since they haven't been warned for that. --The Ungovernable Force 19:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That is much better. But you shouldn't have been edit warring with him like this. In future, get someone else to take a look early and then you may be able to convince the fellow that he's not doing the right thing. In any case as he's pretty new I'm asking him whether he would consider reverting it himself so we can discuss it on the talk page. If not, I'll revert it myself, but only once. If he continues to edit war I'll treat it as blockable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the third person (now fourth, another admin already did) to revert his edits. Can you explain how I was edit warring? I purposefully didn't revert a 3rd time even though it's allowable just to stop this perception. I'm not trying to be defensive, I would really like to know. Oh, and I almost left a message here when I first left a warning on his page, but I decided to see if the warning was enough. At first I thought it worked, since they didn't edit the page again for over an hour. I didn't see the point in getting an admin involved if the warning was enough. The Ungovernable Force 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have miscounted, but it looks to me like you made three reverts in a fairly short period of time [18] [19] [20], although one of those reverts related to another editor. If you revert a non-vandal more than once, you're edit warring. What worries me about your behavior at present is that your last three edits to this article were reverts. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that from last night. That was unrelated, although that does still count as a revert on the page. Thanks for reminding me about that. Now I'm really glad I didn't revert the person a third time, then I would have violated 3RR. --The Ungovernable Force 20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"1RR" is better. It encourages you to find other ways of dealing with disputes, and after a bit you realise you don't ever need to make more than one revert. Thanks for coming to me, though. That's the first step. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Not too surprised by the result - while your "rouge" actions may feel authoritarian, I had you pegged as an anarchist with power ;) Guettarda 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm pretty surprised. That's basically my score. Econ=-8.25 and social=-8.00.--The Ungovernable Force 01:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Tony, one of your edit summaries - [21] - interests me. Could you explain your thinking? If there is controversy, then by definition, the minority viewpoint does stand a snowball's chance and the debate should be allowed to continue. WP:SNOW, IMO, is for discussions where everyone is just piling on, {{prod}} should have been used, and there's just no point in continuing. If there are 10 deletes and only a keep from the original author, by all means, get rid of the thing and don't waste everyone's time. I don't particularly disagree with your removal of it because it doesn't really add anything ... I was just curious about your reasoning your gave in your edit summary.

I have made a few minor changes to the essay, as well as adding back in a weaker form of the statement about premature closure causing hard feelings. I understand the WP:BEANS concern, but looking at DRV, I think there are frequently times where barely controversial AFDs cause heated DRVs soley because of early closure. There doesn't need to be anything in there encouraging people to stretch out reviews of their crufty articles, but it couldn't hurt to have some admonition that stopping the process can cause hard feelings. BigDT 00:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression (and it's just an impression so don't ask me to substantiate it yet, but I'd be interested in any research anyone could do on this) historically, that the Snowball clause has been used most successfully to defuse silly conflicts over faites-accomplies. Nitpicking, pointless discussions are often initiated, and those discussions can cause much acrimonious and divisive controversy without altering the end effect (imagine the effect of someone putting "No Personal Attacks" to the vote once a month). This tends to happen most often with respect to deletion, and the disruptive effects of deletion debates, and particularly reviews of deletions, are quite severe and very bad for the body politic of Wikipedia. This is why the Snowball clause is so popular and so useful.

On early closure, obviously you're right, but this is why this essay is so important. Early closure is correct in most cases where it has been performed, so dragging the thing out is a very unwikipedian thing to do. To suggest that one should take account of the possibility that someone may decide to fight the thing to the death is appropriate, so I think you were right to bring it back. However, perhaps some refinement might be necessary. It obviously isn't right to avoid attempting to cut short a foregone conclusion, just because someone may abuse the processes to create acrimony over the fact of the closure. Perhaps some advice on how to deal with the accusations that typically follow, with reference to Wikipedia's policies. . --Tony Sidaway 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok ... I see what you mean by controversy. You are talking about silly arguments, ie, a 50-person message board where a bunch of meat puppets show up to whine about deletion. You won't get any argument from me there. I was not really considering those to be controversial when I read your changes. The ones I consider controversial are where there is a non-trivial opposing view that has legitimate reasons for their viewpoint. Even if they stand little chance of prevailing, cutting off the discussion is only going to cause resentment and virtually assure a divisive DRV discussion. For example, consider the recent cross-namespace redirect discussions. In some cases, a calm RFD discussion allowed to run its course could have averted angry DRVs. BigDT 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV

I am sorry for my strong comments at DRV. I just wanted to quickly clarify something with you - if you believe that the consensus at an AfD is redirect, do you list the result as "keep", delete" or "redirect", because I think that this may be causing some misunderstanding. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If I think that a redirect consensus exists, I usually close as keep, and may perform the redirect myself. This is because redirection is an edit (which can be performed or reverted by anyone), not an action of deletion (which requires administrator powers to perform or revert), --Tony Sidaway 08:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this has caused some misunderstanding, as many people (including myself) thought that a redirect was more akin to a deletion, in that the article no longer exists of itself, though I can see your point too. Maybe it would be better if in future you closed with Keep and redirect, or similar, just to make things absolutely clear. --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't be right to mislead. A redirect is an edit and we must not obfuscate that. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Closing with a Keep and redirect isn't misleading and it would help avoid confusion. Dionyseus 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It might mislead because if somebody read "redirect" in the close they might think that was a result of the deletion debate rather than an edit. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't at all misleading - if redirect is the consensus of the AfD, the edit is made as a result of that AfD. And even if it were slightly misleading then I would say that it was the least worst option, as keep really does look to an outside viewer as if you plan to keep the article and do nothing to it. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As closer, that is often all I do plan to do. The purpose of AfD is to decide on deletions. If an editing consensus emerges then anyone can act on it--that's how editing (as opposed to deletion) works on Wikipedia--so it is not incumbent on the closer to perform edits. --Tony Sidaway 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe "keep, with consensus to redirect". I just feel that saying only "keep"is misleading, as redirects essentially mean that the article ceases to exist as an article in itself. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not really true. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How? --David Mestel^(Talk) 14:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Make a page on Wikipedia, say User:David.Mestel/Redirect test. Type in some content and save. Then edit it by blanking and replacing the content by "#redirect User:David.Mestel. At that point it's a redirect. Now go to the new redirect page and look at the history. You will see that the original content is still there. Click on the original version and you'll see it. Now edit that and save it. The redirect has now been replaced by the original content. It never ceased to exist, it was simply occluded by the redirect. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think mine still stands - to readers of the encyclopedia, it doese not exist as a seperate page with seperate content. And besides, what harm does it really do to say "keep and redirect"? --David Mestel^(Talk) 19:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does no harm, and I'm not against saying it. But I sometimes don't. And I think that's okay too. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot policy

User:Micoolio101/Supporters in the death of OrphanBot was submitted to deletion review. FYI because you were involved in this deletion, 217.251.173.136 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

May you comment on this, or forward it to someone who can? Regarding Continuing Edits Despite RFA. Sincerely, SSS108 ^talk-email 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PJacobi has correctly answered the question. If you think that someone is causing ongoing damage you should propose a temporary injunction (on the workshop page) and if the arbitrators agree they will adopt it. Once it is passed, then the parties named in the injunction are subject to immediate sanction (blocking, usually) should they disobey it. In practice this kind of action is reserved for very serious and obvious damage. --Tony Sidaway 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Email Encoder

Hi. I noticed that you posted your email address in whole on your talk page, which generally is a bad idea because Wikipedia is a Google magnet, plus spammers run bots to harvest email addresses. I took the liberty of "encoding" it [22] with character references so that your address still looks the same but will be harder too pick up. Alternatively, I would also suggest putting something like email[at]something.org to avoid the bots and the spam. Hbdragon88 05:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop mangling other people's email addresses. It is not good practice to obfuscate email addresses, which is why I always disply mine in full. So that people who need to use it can do so easily. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez...look, okay, I only did it to one address - yours - and it was done only via the underlying code. The actual address itself is still just as visible as it was before, so anybody who wanted to copy your email address oculd still do so as easily. Nobody likes to obfuscate email addresses, I agree, but nobodfy likes spam, either. Hbdragon88 19:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't receive spam. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Small favor to ask

Tony Sidaway, would you kindly refrain from refactoring my signatures in the manner you did here? That is not appreciated. I respect your talk page and don't leave such a signature here please respect me and do not repeat such behavior outside of pages specifically tagged as permitting such (as WP:ANI and WP:AN). Thanks. Netscott 19:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

At least one copy of your full signature is already present on that page. I regularly trim unnecessarily large signatures so as to keep discussions uncluttered and easy to edit. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that and I'm am politely requesting that in asmuch as I respect you and your talk page you respect me in a similar fashion. To me your refactoring of my signatures is very disrespectful. This is particularly evident to me when I peruse your talk page and see a number of examples of others' signatures you've not altered. My request is not too much to ask. Netscott 19:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not editing a private space that belongs to you. Wikipedia is public. If you want a private homepage that will not be edited by others, there are many free providers on the net. I respect your right to have a signature and append it to your edits. You don't have a right of prior veto over reasonable edits by other editors. --Tony Sidaway 19:41, 16 July 2006

When you make such statement you are talking in a way that is sooner in accord with "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". As well you're condescending me by telling me something that I already know. Your statement of your inclination to alter my signature goes against etiquette and is borderline uncivil. Such statements incline other editors (like myself) to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by actually going around and altering your own signatures. Which is just ridiculous, we're here to work on a project together not be inclined to fight eachother over something ridiculous as signatures. My signature is subtle (I made it that way purposely with the whole refactoring sigs discussion in mind). My signature is not disruptive when used in talk page discussions.

Again, kindly respect me and refrain from altering my signaturesm as I now type out manually in respect of you my signature here. Netscott 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting Wikipedia, and I'm certainly not attempting to make any point. If you already know that you don't own discussion pages, that's good. If you think you can improve Wikipedia discussions by editing my signature, have at it with my blessing. If you aren't inclined to fight with me, I'm happy.

My current practice with signature clutter is to remove it where I encounter it, except when an editor has said he doesn't like that or has edited my opt out list I make an effort to leave at least one copy of the signature unaltered, with all links etc, on the discussion page. This fulfils the editor's wish to apply a pretty decoration to the discussion page, without cluttering the discussion with excessive redundancy. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In my original message I said "manner". What that was particularly referring to was refactoring of a signature on a user's talk page. To a certain extent I do concede that on project/article talk pages I can understand your logic of refactoring signatures but not at all on user talk pages. If the user that I'm addressing has a problem with "clutter" as you call it they'll likely inform me or otherwise specify their dislike of such signatures on their user or talk page as you've done yourself. Hopefully with this explanation you will better understand why I have brought this to your attention. Thank you for taking the time to explain your logic. Netscott 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. I'll see if I can remember not to refactor on user talk pages, unless there is an especially large amount of clutter. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

I know this is not the place to report vandalism, but no admin seems to be paying attention to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page. I just selected a random admin's talk page. This persistent vandal keeps reintroducing the same material onto Roy Masters. I have reverted his vandalism multiple times, but he keeps switching IPs. I'd like to get a semi-protect on the article. Thanks. --Super-Magician 19:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Redvers beat me to it. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks though. Only thing is, I am almost certain that this vandal will come back and continue doing the same thing. If you check the history, you'll see he's been up and at it for 2 months! --Super-Magician 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In cases like this it's normal to try unprotection at regular intervals until it's clear that the vandal has given up. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. --Super-Magician 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Perreiro‎

Thanks for blocking him. I was pretty sure it was GT's sock but he did not reach test4, so he was not yet reported :) --Grafikm_fr 19:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too fast he's back [23] --Grafikm_fr 19:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

regarding curse

(→Unprotecting - This article has been protected for ages and ages, and there has been no discussion for weeks and weeks.)

The discussion has not been abandoned. Simply no further replies. Ste4k 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If an edit war resumes, I'll take further action. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ste4k 01:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Falun Gong and signing off

It was meant humorously, actually. I know from seeing your name on my watchlist that you are pretty involved on a daily, or at least near-daily, basis. (Oy, you and Alienus!!) That's what made the comment irresistable. ;-) CovenantD 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Sign your posts on talk pages

Tony -
Please ease up on the repitition that you're contributing to this ongoing discussion. Clearly your feelings on this are extermely strong, but it might be nice if others could comment without being badgered. Of the last two thousand odd words on the page, over half have been yours. To put this into context, you seem terribly distressed by "clutter" on wikipedia. Multiple statements of pure opinon are also "clutter and redundancy." Extend to others the same level of courtesy that you expect with regard to concise editing, and stop repeating yourself at length. Let other people talk.
Aaron Brenneman 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been repeating myself. I'll try not to. Having said that, I don't think I'm engaging in any significant redundancy on that page. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Over-protective

Thanks for un-protecting Democracy Now!. I need to find a better mechanism to keep up with those so I don't forget about them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing other users' comments in WP:AE

Excuse me, Tony, I believe I've not edited any other user comments in the WP:AE, you can tell me where I've done that if I'm wrong. I believe you haven't realized it's SqueakBox who changes the title of the subsection (User:SqueakBox) to (User:SqueakBox and User:Zapatancas). It makes no sense to change the title of a section I've entered to complain about squeakBox adding the name of other user. Hagiographer 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I would like to know if you, the administrators, are going to do something about SqueakBox's insults and about his sock puppet User:Skanking or I'll have to bear forever his abuse. Thank you. Hagiographer 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question. How do you expect people to know SqueakBox is under personal attacks parole if it's not posted in his user page? Hagiographer 07:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have settled down for now. I have to admit that I, and perhaps other editors, were somewhat blindsided by his sock accusations, and didn't really address behavior issues. If he makes further attacks do please report them to me, and avoid responding directly, and I promise to take appropriate action. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. I promise that I will avoid any unnecessary problem with SqueakBox. Hagiographer 07:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How is that? With edits like this? All I want is to be left alone in peace to get on with making wikipedia a better place and these users (Hagiographer and Zapatancas) seem determined to not allow me to do so. If Hagiographer actually leaves me alone there will be no problem but calling me an outright liar isnt the way to go about it nor is to say he will ignore my opinions. If this user isnt Zapatancas how come he hates me so much. Nobody else does. All I want is to be left in [peacee. I know you have the interest of wikipedia at heart so please can you support me in justy being a normal editor witrhout being harrassed, SqueakBox 00:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tea and crumpets

An rfc has been initiated concerning spoiler tags. See Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/RfC if you feel inclined to comment on the issue. -Randall Brackett 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Jackson

Nice work cleaning up this disgraceful page! Tyrenius 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ED and Mongo?

How interested in getting knee deep in this crap are you? I feel an affinity for MONGO, thought we've butted heads before. I expect the reason he changed a section header on his talk page is because he'd prefer people not go to that site that we're talking about. Another editor, who I have also previously butted heads with, is multiply reverting back the name of the site onto his talk page. I'm happy to go seek other help, and I don't know how busy you are, but I feel bad for MONGO, and I certainly don't think the name of that cite should be on his talk page. Looking for either advice or assistance here - your call. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

He changed the heading by calling the editor who showed it to him a troll. I reverted the personal attack. This previous "butting of heads" is when Hipocrite left me a bad faith "WP:NOT a politics chatboard" because I voted in a straw poll he didn't approve ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Karwynn&diff=59442571&oldid=59314750]. He is now ignoring my comments and continuing to leave warning messages,[24] rather than discuss the matter as I tried to do in his talk page. See? THe "Reverts" in question were his blanking of talk page content; even if he feels MONGO doesn't want it there, it's considered vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism.

So what am I asking? nothing really. I'm not asking for intervention at this point, but I thought you might like the full context. Thanks, Psycho Master (Karwynn) 18:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the action I thought was necessary. --Tony Sidaway 18:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO's talkpage is an "article Talk page"? How... unique. Your one-hour block was very lenient, Tony. Bishonen | talk 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC).

A bat across the nose for being naughty. --Tony Sidaway 19:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony, I don't care to have any mention of that website on my talk page. Karwynn obviously knew I removed it and I definitely consider him restoring part of the comments I removed as harassment.--MONGO 19:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What about putting the ED article up for deletion? A site perpetrating personal attacks against Wikipedia editors doesn't really seem like something Wikipedia should be linking to. Besides they likely don't pass Wikipedia:Notability (web). Netscott 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree...problem it, it has been through two or three attempts to delete it. I may redirect it later on, or make it so insignificant, it won't be a troll magnet as it is now. I'll wait until they remove their nonsense from the mainpage and we then lift the protection. Then the article will be fixed once and for all. They think they will win, but policy is on the side of wikipedia.--MONGO 12:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tower Colliery

Mr Steadman has taken it upon himself to mentor me and it seems to be working out smashingly. I make an edit and he helps me by reverting it or amending it, always with a nice little comment. However, we are slightly at odds over the Tower Colliery article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_Colliery. I'm not sure about Mr Steadman's point about the link. For all I know he has a valid point and I don't want to jeapordize our new relationship. I'm not asking for any intervention or telling tales, I just need somebody to tell me why the link might be 'unwiki'. Cheers.Neuropean 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason is simple this does not link to anything about Tower Colliery but to an advert for Free Net Names - which you added then re-added when it was removed - such spam has no place on Wikipedia- as I have already explained. Perhaps Tony could mentor you to stop your copyright violations, spam links, editing of other people's talk comments and talk pages and, of course, your celebration of warnings you have recieved. For Tony's info - I have already put this up for an RFI. Robertsteadman 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, Rob, when I click on the link, it takes me to the official website. I'm not joking.Neuropean 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don;t call me Rob. It opens to an advert for Free Net Names - it is spam. Please do not add spam to wikipedia. Robertsteadman 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I have pasted what I see on the article's talk page. I don't understand why you cannot see itNeuropean 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you have a version of the page in your cahe somehow - the website seems to have gone and that is why I get the advert instead. Clear your cache and see if you stil get the same. Robertsteadman 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I looked at it and I'm sorry to say that it does just go to an ad when I try it. This could be a technical problem of some kind, and I suggest that you contact the site owner to see if they have configured it wrong. There is clearly a link for site owners and admins to click and log in, so I think they probably just haven't quite got it working properly yet. --Tony Sidaway 22:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There we go then, all sorted and no need for all this fuss and another paragraph added to one of my regualr RFIs. Thank you Tony.Neuropean 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The new link added is totally diffeent one. Thanks for getting rid of the spam. I'll await the apology..... Robertsteadman 16:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be rude. You obviously both saw different things and came to me to resolve the issue. Neither of you was particularly civil, but Neuropean accepted my adjudication with good grace. I suggest that you both work on trying to be nicer to one another. --Tony Sidaway 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to be nice to someone who is stalking you and has been a very unproductive editor out to make a point, push POVs, etc. but, hey..... Robertsteadman 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Patrick Moore

Just curious, how was the concensus to keep when over 75% of votes were to delete this article? I am placing this article under deletion review. OSU80 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD isn't a vote. This chap's article only needs a bit of cleanup. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the concensus was delete. Isn't it blantantly obvious that this is soapboxing? Why would the company's executive producer be begging for the article to stay? It is pure promotion, you being such an avid contributor surely should be able to see this? OSU80 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No the consensus was not to delete. The consensus was that this is vanity but that alone isn't a reason to delete an article. Please read WP:VANITY. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read it before. I'm refering to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. OSU80 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you read that one, too. Carefully, this time. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

btw

Thanks for pointing out the political compass... I am stealing your exact wording from your page. Hope you don't mind. If so, let me know and I will cite you as a reference. :) Ste4k 01:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. About the time FourthAve started accusing me of being in the pay of Karl Rove, I thought it might be a good idea to disclose my political bias, but I only just got around to it. --Tony Sidaway 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit warring on Jesus

I haven't broken WP:3RR nor violated any policy. However, as I stated on Talk:Jesus, I do not with to engage in an edit-war. I simply wish that he and others would respect the long-standing layout for the article UNTIL something new can be agreed on. He and others wish to force their opinion and then discuss it, which is not operating under any fragment of good faith. By the way, you forgot to sign your comment. —Aiden 04:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we've found a compromise that should solve the dispute. —Aiden 05:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment

I have replied to your warning on my page, please check it out because I'm still in the dark about my WP:NPA violation and would like to see my error. Thanks, Karwynn (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, thank you for unprotecting the ED article. Karwynn (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Chiang Kai-shek

Hi Tony Sidaway, regarding User:Chiang Kai-shek, I am not willing to participate in the case against him. — Nrtm81 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC) trimmed: Tony Sidaway 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not listed as a participant in the case. --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The filing of the arbitration against Chiang Kai-shek stemmed from my actions. Ideogram got involved as a mediator then dragged into the portal dispute mess. As a result of that, he has now filed the arbitration against Chiang Kai-shek. Both are currently accusing each other of pushing a political POV. The only serious violation was the comment left on Ideogram's user page. — Nrtm81 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright pal, listen up!

I've been spending way too many hours lately wandering around AfD, RFI, ANI, etc, etc, (places my cardiologist tells me to avoid) and I keep seeing your name pop up over and over again, like I have for the last couple years I've been editing, and everywhere you post there seems to be controversy, negativity, and fallout! I just want to say one thing to you, dammit:

Thanks.

I don't know exactly why you attract so much controversy, but the fact that you continue to do SO much work here in spite of it is really remarkable. Personally, I find you often ascerbic and under-wordy, but that really only makes me wonder if you aren't just a sockpuppet of a certain User:Larry_Sanger (and I hope you take that as the compliment its intended to be).

I would say to you one thing, Tony, on a serious note, the same I would have said to Sanger had I been around in those days: from reading your comments, I think you'd spend far less words defending yourself if you spend a few more explaining yourself in the first place. I don't think I've ever disagreed with your reasoning to any serious degree, but often I wonder why you didn't make the point at the time of editing, instead of in defense, later. In any case, and like Larry's writings, your deep appreciation of the subtleties of extant policy is always enjoyable to me. Thanks, again, for all your work. (PS, I have no barnstars or the like for you, I prefer simple text.) Eaglizard 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the above is intended as a mixture of thanks and advice. I wish we could always tell when our behavior is likely to be highly controversial. Many of the bust-ups I'm involved in are over things that seem quite minor to me, whereas I can sometimes take very bold actions and nobody utters a squeak. This doesn't mean that I shouldn't take your advice to heart, however. I think it's excellent advice and I'll make an effort to improve. --Tony Sidaway 16:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with SqueakBox

Tony, the problems with SqueakBox continue. He has posted this very unpleasent comment in the talk page of Zaptero. In my user page he's recovered the sock puppet note despite the result of the check. And he has redirected ([25]) the evidence posted about his relation to the possible sock puppet User:Skanking. I'm getting tired of this user who never talks about content and simply insults all the time. Hagiographer 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

IP war of Ecuadorian-Peruvian War

Hello there! It's being a while since the last time that I contacted you. Unfortunately, there is a rv war in the article regarding the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, which involves one of the parties that was accused in my RfA [26]. I do not know if I am allowed to participate in the talk page of any Ecuadorian-Peruvian article, could you clarify that to me? I would gladly appreciate that. Another thing, you stated a couple of months ago that it was possible for me to request the same ban for the other party involved in my RfA. So far, I have seen that he continues to edit in those articles without check and balances, which might compromise the neutrality of the articles in question. Can you explain me the procedures? Thanks, and I will wait for your answer. Messhermit 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm now being accused (on mere speculation and most likely based on hate agains my person) of sponsoring Vandalism here in Wikipedia [27]... what should I do? Messhermit 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Messhermit. Nobody hates you (or at least I don't). I have only requested an investigation on the matter of the series of vandal attacks on the article from several IP addresses (two of them from Miami). The wording of your first post to Tony, and your request for the article to be blocked due to an "edit war" made me wonder what is really going on, and to think about the possibility that you may be involved. That's all. If my suspicions turn out to be wrong, I promise you will have my apologies. Sorry for the inconvenience. Andrés C. 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Wow that was quick. I wonder, according to this individual every single edition made in Miami is my responsibility... not only that, most likely any single edition that he dislike would be "my fault". Still, even if I'm nowhere editing next to him, apparently I'm constantly checked by this individual. Tony Sidaway, where can I take this problem so this does not bother you anymore? Messhermit 18:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Question re:Blu Aardvark (again)

If you have time could you answer a question about this case. I saw this on AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Blu Aardvark (again) Looking at the sanctions in the arb case, I do not see a provision for extending the ban for this type of continued disruption. Does an automatic extention occur with every ban or does it need to be spelled out in the sanctions of an individual case? FloNight talk 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In principle the one year ban could be reset (as an enforcement matter) from the moment he breaches it. I chose not to do so when he had been abusing his talk page, because it was possible that he didn't realise he wasn't supposed to use it while banned. But now that he has been trying to edit on WP:ANI I'm going to reset so that it runs from today. --Tony Sidaway 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. FloNight talk 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User:62.255.83.8

Thanks Tony. I thought I had blocked with "Block anonymous users only" checked, but clearly didn't. I appreciate you fixing that. Best, Gwernol 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Ontario provincial highways

I actually did take it to the talk page and listed it on RFC. Bridesmill agreed with me and I had a civil debate with him over a minor point. Bridesmill also made a minor change to the article related to it, after which William reverted to his preferred - and incorrect (I can say this definitely, especially after reading the law he cited to support his position) - term. --SPUI (T - C) 15:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It's what you did next that bothers me. Don't edit war. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

When the question is so clear, what else is there to do? Find another editor to certify an RFC and take it through that dog and pony show? --SPUI (T - C) 15:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at this stage. Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring. There are two probations hanging over you on this particular issue. If people agree with you then they should happily revert William Allen Simpson for you. Then you won't be editing disruptively. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way - most people don't care enough about this obscure topic to do the reading and get involved. Those that do often wish to be a "good editor" and not do any reverting. --SPUI (T - C) 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That attitude is precisely why you've got two probations. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering my question. --SPUI (T - C) 15:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I already did. You asked "What else is there to do?" and I responded "Be patient. Don't be drawn out into edit warring." Discuss. The world won't come to an end just because you stop edit warring. --Tony Sidaway 15:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While it's sitting at the incorrect state other people will make good faith changes, making fixing it up afterwards a lot harder. For instance, on [28], I didn't notice until five days after he did it, and there are a bunch of other edits in there. --SPUI (T - C) 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you want the article to be protected? I think that is a reasonable argument for protection. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather it be available for editing by all - and protection on William's version would be much worse than an edit war. --SPUI (T - C) 16:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

threded talk

there is much threaded talk in the evidence. Zeq 16:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've examined it all and see no threaded debate on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Evidence. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim removed it but Homey may put it again. Zeq 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC) - mistake.

If he does that, either you or SlimVirgin can come to me and I'll fix it and have a friendly chat with Homey. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[29] - maybe it is time to have a friendly chat. Zeq 18:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not a threaded comment. However, the comment you added to my section on Peer Review is a threaded comment. [30]. I have removed it. Homey 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey is right. However I'd rather you both came to me rather than risk an edit war on the evidence page. --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence

In your decision to ban me you stated that I was trying to NPOV Homey's POV pushing. (maybe your words were different) and later said that if he was under probation you would ban him as well ebcause of similar behaviour to mine. I think you should add your evidence to the discussion. Best, Zeq 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said that. I'm clerking the case so I'd rather not involve myself adding evidence. If you want to add what I said to evidence, please do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

William H. Kennedy page

Just to let you know I'm diving into the middle of this mess, on the talk page, and gonna try to see if I can bring the two users together to work on the page. I do not really see the second editor as a vandal as such, but he is definitely a major anti-Kennedy POV pusher. If I can get Suture, the anit-Kennedy editor to cooperate on the talk page, do you have a problem with my removing the semi-protection from the page? I'm mostly convinced that it's all one person doing the ani-Kenedy POV pushing, so if I can get him working towards a more constructive end.... - TexasAndroid 19:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather keep semiprotection on for a few days. If you want to try to talk this fellow round, feel free. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of comments

SlimVirgin has just removed comments by me from the Workshop page[31]. No explanation given. Rather than restoring them myself I am bringing the matter to you. Homey 19:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask her why she used her rollback button there. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See Slim's explanation and apology below. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonism

Please protect Macedonism again. The article is currently under MEDCAB's mediation. The other side does not provide any useful sources nor reasons for its edits in the talk page, and it isn't involved in any discussion whatsoever. So could you please either protect the page... the latest edits were not "discussed" at the talk page, so given the fact that no input has been given at the talk page's efforts to come to a compromise version, and entire sourced sections are being deleted, they can also be considered simple vandalism. Regards. --FlavrSavr 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please apply at WP:RFPP if you think it needs to be protected. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure they were discussed, and reason for erased passages were given, unlike your sides removals, which are totally unexplained. The passage of section 6 of support [32] is removed as explained in talk because it is irrelevant to the claim. The other edits which your sides removes are actual improvement to the article and no reason for their deletion is given. --FunkyFly 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the behaviour that got the article protected in the first place has just started up again, and the mediation is in progress I think it better that the article be protected for the duration. At least until both sides can come to an amicable agreement on the talk page as to a compromise version. Further to this I have protected the page. - FrancisTyers · 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, admirable for you to protect it in the same version. Btw mediation has been dormant for more than a week. --FunkyFly 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My revert at the workshop page

Tony, my apologies. It was a mistake on my part, and as soon as I realized I'd done it, I reverted myself. [33] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential Policy Idea

Hello Tony Sidaway, having read your comments in the ED article for deletion discussion it got me to thinking about the idea for an actual policy that in effect would be prohibitive of Wikipedia having articles about organizations and people who are well known for their criticisms of Wikipedia. I imagine that such an idea has been previously proposed and I was thinking that you might be aware of prior discussion of such a nature. Is there anything you might be able to point me to or any kind of advice you might be able to give me in terms of pursuing such a policy proposal? Thanks. Netscott 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would fly. I think that it would be a good idea but it hasn't a chance of becoming policy. It could also have undesirable side effects. If the NY Times publishes an article about Wikipedia, do we delete the article on them? I think it's a reasonable occasional criterion for deletion that we may feel that we can't really write dispassionately about a subject, but that's as far as I'd go. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support something like this. I really don't think that Wikipedia should have any articles on sites, people or publications that are critical of Wikipedia. It just doesn't make sense to have things like that. Netscott, let me know if anything comes of this, I would love to support it. --Bouquet 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Socafan

He claimed that your deletion of his arbitration request "violates policy". Can you clarify to him? 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember it. If he thinks I abused my position he can repost it and I promise not to get involved in it. --Tony Sidaway 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeq and the evidence page

Zeq is editing other people's evidence on the page[34]Homey 11:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Once in a while I get to correct other people's gramer......people do it to me all the time:-) Zeq 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, but just be careful in sticky situations like this, in case somebody gets the wrong idea. Please avoid edits like that on pages pertaining directly to the arbitration, specifically the main arbitration page, the evidence page, the workshop page, the proposed decision page, and any of the talk pages associated with those pages, and any talk page of a clerk or arbitrator, participant or anyone else submitting evidence. This isn't an order or a directive (even if I wanted to give one to you, I don't have the authority) just an attempt to give good advice. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Hello again. I apologize for this in advance because I know I irritate you, but WP:DR requires me to discuss this matter before going any further. You speedy deleted a subpage of mine as an attack page, despite my statement that the branch of subpages was NOT intended to be an attack page of any sort, but merely a review of evidence, including it's quantity and it's relevance (found here. There was already a delete discussion going on, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Karwynn/Compiling_Evidence/data_dump_to_be_sorted, which discussed the matter of it being a possble attack page. By deleting the page outright, I fell like you completely bypassed the ongoing discussion and acted unilaterally, nullifying good faith efforts by Hipocrite, rootology, DJ Clayworth and myself to resolve the matter using the appropriate measures. Would you consider restoring the page, blanking it temporarily as a compromise, and continuing discussion in the MfD section? Thanks for your time, Karwynn (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that, because of the nature of this page, it cannot be restored to Wikipedia because it contained wholly and completely unsuitable material. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)