User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2006 05 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Link 2 Stop closing DR/U debates 3 Aucaman 4 The suggestion Bot has listed some Iranian-related articles to Acuman 5 What? 6 You are most welcome 7 WP:PP 8 Template: User Pro-Life 9 Heads up 10 re: Votes 11 AfD Icons 12 Votes 13 IRC Sidaway 14 My poll 15 The Sandifer RFA 16 User:KDRGibby 17 Cuba 18 Your block 19 What the Heck? 20 Aucaman block 21 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election 22 Opinion on Gmaxwell

[edit] Link

As compared to the link I sent you have you noticed this...[1]?--MONGO 03:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On May 10, I made a small note of this myself:

I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [2] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [3] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [4], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [5] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [6] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [7]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[8], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.

The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [9] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [10] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:

Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"

Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."

I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.

There certainly is a problem here.

At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [11], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [12], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.

I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 16:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith in light of the obvious trolling and I'm fed up now. This situation needs to be looked into. -Zero^Talk 06:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into this as soon as I have time to spare. --Tony Sidaway 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop closing DR/U debates

Since you're extremely biased on the issue, I urge you to not close DR/U debates, especially before their expiration date. There are plenty of admins who could close these discussions without bias. You are only making the situation worse. Grue 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm only closing the debates with an absolutely massive number of endorsements for deletion. If someone didn't close them, DRVU would now be cluttered with debates whose result was a foregone conclusion. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But it was listed, like, yesterday. Also, no one so far has replied to my ironclad reason to undelete this template. kd.T1 votes don't address the fact that Jimbo himself has spoke against the mass deletions of userboxes. Grue 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your feelings so I'll hold off for a day or two to see if the tend changes. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aucaman

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#User:Gadolam. Aucaman has been confirmed as using a sockpuppet to evade the ban. SouthernComfort 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also please see User talk:129.111.56.195, Talk:Iran, Talk:Persian Jews. User:Timothy Usher has been harassing User:Zereshk over a trivial issue such as having made a few edits with an IP. Thank you. SouthernComfort 21:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I just blocked the Gadolam account indefinitely and Aucaman for one week under remedy 1 of his arbitration case. See User talk:Aucaman for more details. I'll investigate the other case if I get time. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no other case. Zereshk posted from this IP, and signed his comments in text as "--anon observer"[13] I merely pointed out that this was the same user as Zereshk. His claim after being caught that he'd merely forgotten to log in[14] is inconsistent with his wilful intext signature "--anon observer."

I have no problem with him exposing sockpuppetry, but ask that he do so under his regular username, and refrain from baseless threats on my user talk page[15].Timothy Usher 08:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher, I think your edits were reasonable and well intentioned. But bear in mind that an editor has the right to privacy. It was not unreasonable for Zereshq to present his evidence in a semi-anonymous way. Conversely, the manner in which he did so, although he did not create an account, had the character of sock puppetry. It's a gray area but here it appears to me that Zereshq's clear good intention of enforcing the ban on Aucaman should be borne in mind.

Neither of you has come close to harassing, but I'm concerned that you may have started to harbor a grudge against one another, and that's bad news. Please both make an effort to view one another's activities as being well intentioned, if not always perfect (for none of us is perfect). Please both do come to me if you think that your interactions are getting out of control, and I'll try to help you both in an even-handed and fair fashion in the interests of the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The suggestion Bot has listed some Iranian-related articles to Acuman

I disagree with what th ebot has generically suggested Acuman may be allowed to edit. They are Iranian related and he has a vandata. 72.57.230.179 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion bot is just a simple computer program. It looks at things someone has edited before, not the quality of the edits, and it doesn't have any knowledge of arbitration bans and whatnot.

On the other hand, the bot has listed some articles that aren't related to his ban areas, so I hope he'll find it useful in deciding how he can contribute to Wikipedia without conflicting with his ban. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Why did you delete the "Church of Christ" template? Mr Bisciut 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#Templates. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would really like to have it back, though. --Mr Bisciut 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are most welcome

The appriciation is mutual for the same reasons. It takes a great person to review and change his own decisions. Zeq 03:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archive. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PP

Now that my bot keeps WP:PP actually up to date, there is a lot to check on. I miss having Splash around...though I understand that he has some very non-wiki important things to do now.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, thought I'm not sure why you decided to inform me in particular. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template: User Pro-Life

Just a quick question: how come you deleted Template:User Pro-life? Thanks! 24.50.211.226 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

22:36, 7 May 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User Pro-life" (T1. Divisive and inflammatory)

"T1" refers to the criterion for speedy deletion, WP:CSD#Templates. --Tony Sidaway 14:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand why. Thanks! 24.50.211.226 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

I've left a reply for you at WP:AN#Guanaco. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Votes

Um.... sure.... just explain to me how it really isn't a vote, and how my use of symbols might inadvertently emphasize the false impression that it is, and I'll be happy to consider it. :) TheMadBaron 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to hear this explanation too. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Icons

Re: your note about the icons on AfDs. I'm not actively putting the symbols into there. These symbols are being generated by the java script tool for AfDs. Apparently Nathanrdotcom asked Jnothman to change the script to include these icons sometime today. I've left a note with their discussion on there asking if we could disable it. User_talk:Jnothman#AFD_Helper_script. Metros232 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think it would be a good idea. The use of images in text areas of the wiki is fast growing to epidemic proportions. Images break up the text, which is a good thing in continuous text such as an article, but is a real pain in lists of comments. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd get behind this, I think putting these icons is a bad idea. ++Lar: t/c 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

I disagree, while AfD is not a vote, it is a request for community consensus regarding the deletion of an article. The symbols I use in AfD ({{Sdelete}}/{{Skeep}}/{{Smerge}}) differ from those I use for votes ({{Ssupport}}/{{Sneutral}}/{{Soppose}}), and should not give anyone the impression that I'm voting. Mousing over the images clearly shows they link to Symbol_delete_vote.svg and Symbol_keep_vote.svg, whereas the other ones point to Symbol_support_vote.svg, Symbol_neutral_vote.svg and Symbol_oppose_vote.svg. I'd like to keep using these because of the added convenience, it is obvious if I'm supporting the deletion of not of an article. Sorry if I'm not making any sense, I just woke up. +Hexagon1 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's the most mindbogglingly stupid thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that its any of my business but yeah, thats doing WAY more harm than it could possibly do anyone good.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I did say I just woke up. And a three-year old could accuse anyone of being stupid. Give me reasons why that is mind-boggingly dumb, please. Additionaly, your deletion of the templates was very premature, as symbols are a sensitive topic it should have been brought to TfD, and I should have been informed, instead of you acting blindly with a bias. I'll be making furthter inquires into this, (can't be bothered, using a javascript for voting now +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)) you did definitely not follow the prodedure, as these templates do not fit into the speedy deletion criteria. PS: You missed Template:Squestion in your vendetta. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Sidaway

It was lovely speaking with you on irc yesterday. Are the conversations there always so....ambiguous...? And so vague..? -Zero^Talk 07:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you caught me in a particularly lucid mood yesterday. Things on IRC are usually much more double-edged when I'm involved. It was lovely meeting you, please come more often. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will. Although I must admit the only reason I participated was to be able to talk to wikipedians I am already familiar with. I was lost among the hula-baloo and whatnot everyone was engaging in. Overall, everyone seems to be very nice though. -Zero^Talk 20:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My poll

Just curious, do you happen to know who deleted Template:Anonymous anonymous poll its a temporary template and I haven't got the results yet and no it's not spamming. (Reply at my talk page) Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 09:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that you deleted the template and you consider it as spamming. My deepest apologies. (Comment on my talk page) Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 09:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't a really bad case but the principle of using a template to put a message on lots of talk pages is a bad one. --Tony Sidaway 12:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like getting "New messages" and then finding out that I didn't actually get any. Let's say I understand the reasons why you deleted it, but was is really so bad that you had to revert it instead of, for example, substing first, so that I didn't have to search through Anonymous' contribs to find out/guess what could he mean? Misza13 ^{T C} 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I probably wasn't very diplomatic about it. It was, however, spam. --Tony Sidaway 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sandifer RFA

I noticed that you edited the "Involved Users" section of the RFA, changing "User" links to the "admin" template for Phil Sandifer, and the "vandal" template for all other parties.

Did you do this in your capacity as a Clerk? Was this done to assert the parties other than Sandifer are, in fact, vandals?

It seems prejudicial to label some parties as vandals, and as another as an admin. Even if these labels don't compromise the impartiality of the Committee, it gives the impression that an officer of the Committee has reached a conclusion before the case has been tried.

What real benefit is there to using the "admin" and "vandal" templates rather than the "User" link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.242.135 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was a clerk thing. The templates are more useful than just "User:" links. "Vandal" is the template favored by the Arbitration Committee--for historical reasons, mainly. Anyone on the list who is an admin (not just Phil) should instead have the "admin" template because his administrator actions may be of interest to the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of the vandal template isn't intended to signify that the users involved are vandals. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't use templates often (yicky sticky tricky things). How hard would it be to link or rename that? The current name *is* somewhat undiplomatic ;-) Kim Bruning 20:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

when I saw it I blanched for a second, but I knew it wasn't intended to portray us as 'vandals'. It's not good, though. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to use the "User" template, which was a redirect, but then the two diverged and so I kept with the "Vandal" template. If ever the thing settles down to the point where a template other than "Vandal" can be relied upon to deliver a reasonably comprehensive subset of all available information about a username, I'll use that. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with using 'admin' and 'vandal' templates is that an admin's own block log is not as readily available as the users', and in this case that's relevant. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Since the standard "vandal" template used for actual vandals, Arbitrators who aren't familiar with the editor may just see the "CheckUser" and "block user" links (is the second even necessary directly from the RFAr page) and assume the editor is vandal. And wouldn't the link to check for blocks be useful for admins too, or are admins never blocked?

A quick look at several pending cases shows that, you're correct, in many the "vandal" template is used, but in as many other cases the plain "user" link is used. Maybe that's just because you format cases you Clerk one way, and other Clerks another, but it still gives the impression that different users are labelled differently.

Since you didn't mean to call the involved parties vandals, maybe you could be proactive and put together an "Involved Parties" template that could be applied consistently to all parties?

Yes, that's a good idea. --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:KDRGibby

Hm. I think you jumped the gun a little bit and then stopped short. I'd have given him one warning, pro forma (as I did just as you were blocking him). Then I'd have blocked him for 2 months, at least, since the last one of one month didn't make an impression. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a matter of judgement. Maybe he'll get a clue, in which case a two month break is too long. If not, then it doesn't harm to give him a chance every month or so. If he's still being a bad boy by the end of summer, I'll happily suggest that we invoke the general probation. --Tony Sidaway 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His behaviour's getting erratic, I'd say... I would not object to invoking a ban. NSLE _(T+C) at 12:22 UTC (2006-05-16)

I don't see any change in behavior in the past month and a half. I support banning him. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put a notice about this on WP:AN [16]. --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've responded there. My first thought was similar to JPG's, but my sinking suspicion is this really is only a matter of how many precautionary preliminaries to end up with the same likely result. Alai 15:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi Tony, I'm writing to you because I noticed you've blocked KDRGibby. That editors behaviour apart, there's been some very strange, counterproductive and unnecessary behaviour involving many users (including experienced editors) on that page for some time. I came into it by chance, was shocked by the standard of the page and the "tactics" of certain users. Some users are using it as an ideological crusade, insisting that edits that have been taken almost straight from Encarta and other encyclopaedias are POV and part of some "left wing conspiracy". Recently it's got to the stage where material such as "Cuba..is prone to devastating hurricanes" has been removed as "POV" and entered an edit war. There are many layers here which may explain the behaviour of certain editors and I wouldn't like to speculate as to how they interconnect, but there is something afoot as far as I'm concerned. As an experienced editor, I wonder if you have any advice on how to improve a page that I believe is damaging to wikipedia at the present time. Firstly due to the publicity given to this page (see international articles), and secondly due to a litany of behaviour which is actively discouraging genuine scholars in the subject. The latter I can confirm if need be.--Zleitzen 04:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a bit of a look at it. There does seem to be rather more acrimonious editing on that article than would seem at first glance to be justified by a small island nation in the Caribbean. --Tony Sidaway 04:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My feelings entirely!--Zleitzen 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

Hi, I really think your block of User:nathanrdotcom was a little early in coming. I think it would be fair if you would consider apologizing to him. As an aside, I have changed my sig in response to the criticism. Many thanks. -- Samir धर्म 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be silly to apologise to someone whom I have not wronged, and who continues to make a point of flaunting his ill grace. --Tony Sidaway 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Histrionics aside, I see Nathan as someone who could contribute very positively. Looking at the big picture, I think an apology from you would really help him, as he feels very wronged right now. Please reconsider. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 07:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, of course you didn't wrong me. You just blocked me for a "stupidly long signature" where "stupidly long" is 3 very small images. This again proves the admin mentality of "We are always right and you're not". Had you mastered that wonderful concept called communication and explained to me on my talk about how images are discouraged, all this could've been avoided. Of course you wronged me. You can't block for a policy that doesn't exist. Whether or not you realise it, "No images in signatures" is not policy. You can't block people for violating a policy that doesn't exist and your block was excessive - bottom line. You made a mistake. Are you going to admit it or sit behind your admin status and maintain the illusion that you're perfect and can do no wrong?

Let me get this straight: Cyde and Kelly Martin ganging up on me and bullying me into changing my signature, using attacks and incivility is perfectly fine, but when I tell them they're making a mistake, it's disruption? Riiiight. The admins are always right - again. As an admin, Tony, you've lost your way. Admins shouldn't be acting like this. I wonder what the ArbCom would think about all this... ::Consider, Mr. Sidaway, that a politely worded request to change my signature - not an order - with a please and thank you, would have accomplished a lot. Instead, you, Cyde and Ms. Martin resorted to bullying tactics. I don't take orders from anyone. Admins included. Nathan 04:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think that an apology would be grossly inappropriate. --Tony Sidaway 07:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with the same, I appreciate your difference in opinion. Thanks for considering my request -- Samir धर्म 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You blocked him! Because of a policy that doesn't exist! And you feel that admitting you did wrong is "grossly inappropriate? Please, I urge you to reconsider; you're only digging yourself a deeper grave. And while I appreciate your courage to stand up to others, you have to pick your fights, as you'll lose this one. Mopper ^Speak! 07:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your belief that the blocking policy does not authorise blocking for persistent disruption is touching. The block was justified and completely covered by Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 07:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it was not. He wasn't disrupting anything; he was questioning why two administrators were pretty much ordering him to do what they wanted. And doing so only on his talk page, too. So I fail to see your reasoning when you say he was disruptive. Mopper ^Speak! 08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mopper: Blocks are occaisionally used to draw peoples attention to situations. I once successfully defended such an application before the arbitration committee. I agree that you have to take care when applying such a block. In the case of that unreadable signature, I think the short block was probably a good idea. Kim Bruning 08:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So a block is like a slight slap on the wrist? You know, a little something to hint to someone they're doing something wrong? I don't get it. This whole issue arose because Nathan was being pressured into doing what others wanted; now you're contesting his decision to politely debate by saying he needs a block to shake him into sense? Hmm... one of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong... Mopper ^Speak! 08:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I issued a twelve-hour block. After the block, Tawker showed me an encouraging response on Nathan's talk page and asked to unblock. I agreed. The purpose of the block had been achieved and it was lifted almost immediately. Yes, Nathan was indeed being pressured into producing a reasonable signature. This has, in part, been achieved. --Tony Sidaway 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

How come there aren't any warnings on Nathan's page? Unless he deleted them... Chuck^(척뉴넘) 08:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There are at least two politely worded warnings about his sig from administrators on Nathan's talk page [17] [18]. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Politeness, again, is a point of view; may I point out that the first warning is pretty much an order. Not a suggestion of a compromise; no, more a "do this now" approach. Compromise = acknowledging that it is his signature, and that he can do what he wants with it as long as he conforms to policy, but asking that maybe he should consider changing it. Order = saying "do this" and inserting a please in there somewhere. Mopper ^Speak! 08:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's an order, pretty much, albeit a politely worded one. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- for the relevant policy in written form. --Tony Sidaway 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A politely worded order. In other words, saying that you have to do this, only with a please in it. Again, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, and it shouldn't be. Compromises are key. Mopper ^Speak! 08:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the arbitration committee link I cited above. If an editor is doing something disruptive, we don't compromise at all. We ask him to stop and if he won't then we make him stop. --Tony Sidaway 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that is acceptable. But you didn't even make an attempt at warning Nathan; sure, he was talked to before, but you blocked without giving any information beforehand that you would do it. On WP:AIV, for example, admins don't block vandals who haven't gotten all their warnings. And please don't say Nathan didn't have warning; nobody explicitly said they would block him if he did not comply. I don't think many people are blocked spontaneously for talking with others on their talk page, so please don't try to say "he should've figured it out". Mopper ^Speak! 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's better that an uninvolved administrator performs the block. Nathan was warned twice. He wasn't explicitly told that he would be blocked, but that is never a requirement for a block. As Nandesuka, no friend of mine, put it, Nathan's reaction to polite requests to change his enormous and unsightly signature was to behave in a disruptive manner. "Blocked spontaneously for talking with others on [his] talk page" is simply incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 19:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't believe a block was the right thing. After two warnings, you brought down the hammer? Hmm... there are 4 {{test}} templates... it comes out looking more like blocking for personal reasons than trying to settle the issue smoothly. Mopper ^Speak! 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it comes out more like the power-tripping of the few that have it on Wikipedia. Almost seems to me like you were trying to make a point. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The disruption was particularly egregious, cluttering up ever discussion to which he contributed. It really doesn't do to accuse people of "power-tripping" and whatnot, when they're simply trying to keep the wiki reasonably clear. And please do read WP:POINT and try to understand what it's about. I am growing weary of people who have not read it or have not understood it citing it at me as if it meant something entirely different. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT basically says don't cause a disruption in Wikipedia to prove a point. In this case, you weren't justified in blocking an editor and did so only because you felt it had "gone on long enough" and that the editor had a "stupidly large and garish signature". These are of course personal opinions, and administrators don't block on personal opinion; you're supposed to block on policy. So that is what WP:POINT means. And its not only me saying this, others believe it too. Mopper ^Speak! 01:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with the above. I'll address each in turn.

Firstly you say I had no policy backing for my block. This has been refuted several times both by myself and by numerous other administrators some of them hardly members of the Tony Sidaway Fan Club, who cite disruption.

Secondly, WP:POINT is fully and adequately described in the document at that link, and certainly would not apply here, even if there were no policy reason for the block. Here I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, but that you cite a document wrongly believing that it illustrates the circumstances where clearly it does not. WP:POINT has nothing to do with blocking simply because of one's personal opinion. Sadly you're right to say that others believe that WP:POINT is as you describe it. Despite the document's lucid clarity, it is probably the most quoted, least read, and least understood document on the wiki. People persist in citing it to cover situations to which it clearly does not apply.

By the way, an administrator is supposed to use his brain in deciding whether to block. His opinion emphatically must enter into the judgement. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinion that should conform to policy. Firstly, Nathan was hardly being disruptive, and even if he was, aren't there better courses of action than blocking? Blocking is usually a punitive measure, not something to shake sense into people. Humans have intelligent speech and this differentiates us from apes; they beat each other over the head until one wins, while we can try to settle the matter without too much fuss. So a warning or something would've probably been more appropriate. And WP:POINT does apply here; you disrupted Wikipedia to perform an action you thought was necessary, instead of calmly talking to the editor. I think we should end this discussion though, as it doesn't seem like you'll be apologising any time soon and frankly I'm not anxious to spend the next week boxing with my shadow. Mopper ^Speak! 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should end here. We're starting to go round in circles.

I'll end by summarising WP:POINT so that you may, perhaps, see that it means something more subtle than you believe. The potted summary (taken from the document itself is "State your point; don't prove it experimentally." This is elaborated with the words: "an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create in Wikipedia itself proof that the rule does not work."

Your interpretation seems to be something entirely different, indeed almost the opposite: that an individual who disagrees with a written rule or policy shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia by disregarding it. This is true, up to a point, but it isn't what WP:POINT is about. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask a question (hopefully not sounding like a jerk): Did you not think that your blocking of this user would come under scrutiny by other users? That is, didn't you know that you would be questioned about this? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 01:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I intended my block of this user to come under the scrutiny of other users. This is why I posted a notice about it on WP:AN. I am very happy with the results; the consensus of other administrators seems to be firmly behind me. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're happy because others like what you've done? That isn't really the attitude you should have as an administrator. "I'm very happy with the results", and the results are a big fuss over nothing when a simple "please" would've been better. Wait... do you happen to be related to George W. Bush? And the consensus of the administrators leans slightly your way, but a majority of people believe the block was in bad faith. Mopper ^Speak! 01:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

While I resent the comment that Mopper made about Mr. Bush (as I'm a supporter), I do agree with him completely. My follow up to you saying that you intended your block to come under scrutiny is this: You have just admitted to making a point by this block by saying that. If you knew the block would be under scrutiny, then you should have warned the user that in fact he would be blocked had he persisted in keeping a signature (notice I don't say disrupt Wikipedia, because he did no such thing. Just as you tell us that we are using the document WP:POINT out of context, I say that you are using the policy of disrupting Wikipedia out of context. Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing. If you weren't than you would have warned Nathan that you would block him had he kept it.) This is not about other people suggesting or ordering him to change it. You knew that your actions would come under scrutiny for just these reasons, yet you proceeded to go ahead. Just because the upity-ups that you talk to agree with you, does not mean that other's agree, as Mopper said. If you don't apologise to the user, I would suggest an RFC be brought up, because I do not want admins around, whose soul purpose is to disrupt Wikipedia by flaunting their powers. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. I put my blocks up for review as a matter of course. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... well, I don't know. The conflict has alienated Nathan, and I don't suppose you'd apologise; I don't want to seek a RFC as firstly, that would be overkill, and secondly, enough people have made clear what they think. I leave the rest to yourself. Thanks for civilly discussing the matter, by the way. Mopper ^Speak! 02:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what Wikilawyering is, but anyway, don't worry I'm not gonna file and RFC. As Mopper said, thank's for the civil discussion, even though you didn't apologise. Have a good day/evening, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the Heck?

Please restore the Marxist userbox. Raichu 12:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#Templates. --Tony Sidaway 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aucaman block

Hi Tony. Where was Aucaman's sockpuppeting confirmed? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Here confirmed by Essjay on Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser. I'll update the ban notice to point to that diff. --Tony Sidaway 00:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election

Hey Tony. Do I need to do anything addtional wrt this ArbCom hearing? I wasn't originally listed but I added a comment as I have edited the article and have run into the editors that Phil was having difficulty with. --Tbeatty 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not obliged to do anything more, but like any other user you can add evidence and participate in the workshop if you like. --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion on Gmaxwell

Hey, Tony. I'd like your opinion on something. It seems to me that Gmaxwell is being obstinate or trying to maintain plausible deniability against the accusation that his edits to Template:User Christian were intended to make a point about the unsuitability of userboxes in template space, and thus a violation of WP:POINT. (I've been trying to engage him on his talk page, to no avail. [19]) He's still maintaining that he was motivated by a genuine concern for NPOV, and refuses to address the fallout which anyone who's even glimpsed the userbox debates would be aware of. Is this a big enough problem that an RfC should be filed, or would it be better just to let it go? On the one hand, I really think it's important for community harmony that tactics like this not be encouraged, and I fear that right now it's looking like Gmaxwell is being let off the hook with no consequences. On the other hand, I don't want to organize a witch hunt, and I fear that the userbox supporters would see an RfC as an excuse to vent.

(If you're wondering why I'm fixating on Gmaxwell instead of Cyde, it's because Cyde has acknowledged that his actions were disruptive and has apologized, which is all I think Gmaxwell needs to do, really.)

Am I letting myself get worked up needlessly, or is this something that should be addressed further? I guess I'm asking for a little perspective. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really discussed this with Greg or Cyde, yet, although I've let it be known that I was dismayed by their edit warring over a massively transcluded template. My concern initially was to try to restore calm, which I tried to do by unprotecting the template, restoring a sane version, and sitting on my hands for a few days.

I don't think this was so much "disruption to make a point" as borderline vandalism. I'll have a bit more of a think about this, because I still find Cyde's and Greg's motivations that day difficult to fathom. Maybe I'll talk to Greg online. I do share your concerns, and I find it difficult to believe that either of them had a genuine concern about a neutral point of view on this particular case. And I do agree that, as a bad example, this case has potential to encourage guerilla vandalism. I'm still not sure how best to act, but I don't think it's a bad idea to try to discuss this with Greg. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Greg seems to think that any further communication from me would constitute harrassment [20], so I don't think that he's likely to listen to me right now. I'll think about it a bit more as well, and maybe see if I can get some other opinions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)