User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

This page is archived by User:Werdnabot

---

My activity on the wiki, and responses to requests, may be intermittent or non-existent for the next few months. Thanks for your patience. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Wikipedia discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of the alternatives in this list, which you are encouraged to extend.

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. Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

StrangerInParadise motion

This motion already has more than enough votes to pass for the past week or two, yet has been "sitting there" without anyone formally implementing it. Is it now time to formally implement it? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.7.84 (talk • contribs) 20:32 UTC, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the arbitrators will close that motion. I obviously can't because it's obvious what I think of StrangerInParadise's behavior. --Tony Sidaway 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 03:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Arb-Com Workshops

Tony, I have briefly looked at a couple of recent ArbCom cases, and in particular in the case of FourthAve it seems to me that the workshop, particularly the proposed remedies, is a cut-and-paste job, which is probably fine. However I think this predisposes the ArbCom to consider a limited set of remedies - in particular in this case there is no option to ban for periods other than 1 year. In your clerking role is this something that could be improved, or am I barking up the wrong tree? Rich Farmbrough 22:26 10 May 2006 (UTC).

In my experience the arbitration committee doesn't just consider the workshop proposals, but makes most of the running itself. The best way anybody with your concerns can address them is to edit workshop pages and, if you think the proposed decision is going all wrong, make a commment on the talk page or in email. --Tony Sidaway 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Zoroastrian

Dear Tony. I think you deleted this userbox and I am kinda hurt by this action as I see that other religious user box templates still exist e.g. Template:User muslim . Was there any specific reason why it was deleted and not others? Thanks, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a button on my sysadmin console to reliably identify and simultaneously delete all deletable templates, so I do them one at a time. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure and I support your actions Tony but my question was that a one off deletation or will the other boxes be deleted, etc? I am guessing they are and this was not a matter of religious discrimination of any sort, yes? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The other boxes will be deleted, but a mass deletion of all of them is not envisioned.

As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like "I am interested in Zoroastrianism". This would enable those with expertise or interests in the subject to advertise it in a relatively neutral manner. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting so the problem is with the userboxes not looking neutral?! I did not realise that they are offensive. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise destroy the userboxes, Tony &mdash whether they be about Zoroastrism, Sikhism, or whatever your next target will be. (Sorry, but I fail to see any grounds to assume good faith in these cases.) If you think the userboxes in question should be re-phrased, feel free to help out. If you undelete the two religion userboxes you recently deleted, there will be a chance of working on them (with or without your help) to find a way to make them less “offensive”. Not that there really was anything offensive about them in the first place... -- Olve 17:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't use the term "vandalism" to describe deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as the deletion is contested, I have no choice but to stand by my words. -- Olve 19:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC) (see below)

You are using an incorrect definition of the word "vandalism" and at the same time are calling long-standing respected members of the community "vandals". For your own good, please desist. --Cyde Weys 19:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

OK — I hear your threat and choose to retract my phrasing. I am at a loss for ways to describe what is currently going on here... Speedy, un-substituted removal of perfectly unoffensive userboxes meant for user pages only while it is quite clear that there is no consensus to go to such drastic measures (I apologise in advance if anyone should find the phrasing “drastic measures” to be objectionable). I realise that Tony Sidaway has been with this project for a long time. But exactly because of that fact, I would also have expected an ability to act with more restraint in a matter of such lack of community consensus. -- Olve 19:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From my careful soundings, I believe that we have a strong Wikipedia consensus for the removal of userboxes that serve little or no purpose than to cause contention and exacerbate the unimportant differences between Wikipedians. We all subscribe to the Neutral point of view policy, we all attempt to leave out personal views behind when we come to Wikipedia. While it's sometimes good to put a note of one's biases on one's userpage, celebrating those differences in the manner that many userboxes do is never compatible with the Wikipedia project to create a high quality encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 19:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for entering the dialogue. :) I do agree with part of what you are saying. for instance, “I hate communists/capitalists/porridge eaters/Martians” is not a constructive message. But banning messages of the type “I am a Sikh/Zoroastrian/rabbit rescuer/vegetarian/meat eater” does not necessarily have such flame-war-reducibg effects that it justifies that limitation of fact-builder networking it creates... Personally, I actually find these boxes useful for actively pulling in people of different perspectives. My interest in Wikipedia is to build open, multi-perspective and strictly fact-based encyclopaedias. I know from my work on the Nynorsk Wikipedia as well as the Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia that an openly multi-perspective encyclopaedia model works and earns its respect. What I and many others am/are seeing here, is a process to make this aspect “invisible”. The various points of view and biasses are still going to be there, but in a less transparent way, and therefore also much more difficult to balance out. -- Olve 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Olve, religion has caused more and bloodier wars than pretty much anything else in the history of mankind. Religious userboxes, of all the userboxes, represent to my mind the most deep-seated and pernicious form of bias on Wikipedia. And I speak as a practicing member of a religion. There is a difference between professing a faith and proclaiming it, and Wikipedia is not the place for proclamation. Just my € 0.0156. Just zis Guy you know? 12:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote to have this added to admin buttons...a delete offensive userbox tab....what a great idea...just think how much more professional we'll look when we identify ourselves solely as Wikipedians...that would eliminate many concerns about us being biased. Wikipedia is better off if we eliminate the barriers that divide us...at least while working on the project.--MONGO 17:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I still have not been given an answer why this template was deleted and not Template:User muslim? Even after I pointed it out? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to rush us. Template:User muslim will be deleted in due course. --Tony Sidaway 00:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• This comment by Tony Sidaway is the key to resolving this dispute, and to avoiding hundreds of potential future disputes: "As an alternative to expressing a religious belief, you might consider creating a userbox that says something like 'I am interested in Zoroastrianism'." Why not, instead of continuing to generate ill-will and arguments like the above with continuous deletions, instead convey the message very clearly regarding what is or isn't appropriate, by moving and rewording the templates to make them appropriate: rather than simply deleting {{user muslim}} and potentially angering hundreds of valued Muslim contributors to Wikipedia, why not move it to {{user islam}} and reword it to "This user is interested in Islam." (possibly after substing its current form to the pages of the users using it, if you think that it would be a bad idea to assume that belief is probably indicative of an "interest")? This will solve three problems, and do so in a relatively simple and efficient way: (1) it will eliminate POV-expressing userboxes, in accordance with T2; (2) it will eliminate most of them in a relatively subtle, graceful, inoffensive way, rather than the violently abrupt change of a mass-deletion (or, even worse, the arbitrary and offensive bit-by-bit deletions currently generating such conflict); (3) it will prevent endless DRVs over the POVed userboxes, such actual deletions won't be involved for any of the moved templates. Obviously this can't work for every POV-expressing userbox: many, like "This user is religious." (which already has an "interest" counterpart at {{user religion interest}}), will simply have to go, if T2 stays as-is, though judicious use of template redirects and substs can still help minimize a conflict. But for a large number of POV-expressing templates, a move to interest/expertise-expressing ones is not only much more beneficial for Wikipedia in the long run than simply annihilating everything, but also will be infinitely less controversial and divisive than explicitly deleting the templates. In other words, it's the most practical way to go about implementing T2, both in terms of editing the encyclopedia (it'll convert relatively useless boxes denoting "This user happens to believe in alchemy" to much more useful boxes denoting "This user is knowledgeable or interested in alchemy-related articles", and do it all in a consistent and simple manner that will be much less time-consuming and damaging than deletion-and-recreation) and in terms of keeping the community from going nuts and starting another all-out war over these silly little boxes. Thus, it diffuses the problem in an elegant and relatively inobtrusive way, turning what is currently a hindrance into what could be an advantage with time. What do you thinke? -Silence 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've thought a lot about this, and I think it's best to make a clean start rather than doctor templates in-situ. For a start, the people who transclude the current template would probably rather simply have the contents of that template included by a "subst" than have the content and the meaning changed to make a completely different statement. Secondly, as you seem to recognise above, there are often many templates involved.

There will be cases, perhaps, where all those transcluding a template can agree to a neutral version, but this is going to be the exception rather than the rule. I see no reason not to just get rid of the offending templates while development of different, more neutral, templates proceeds in parallel. --Tony Sidaway 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A fair point, but I disagree, and I think that attempting to "make a clean start" is actually the opposite of what we should be aiming for. Also, in case you didn't notice, my newest proposal is not that we simply "move-and-rewrite" all these templates (based on the assumption that Muslims, for example, will be "interested in Islam"), but that we "subst-and-move-and-rewrite" them: the substing will give all the people using the old version what they want, and the moving and rewriting will give the template a more appropriate name and text for future users, thus killing two birds with one stone. So I think that takes care of your concern that some might not appreciate having the rename forced onto their user pages: by mass-substing them first, then moving them, we circumvent the deletion and deletion-review nonsense while simultaneously eliminating T2-violating userboxes and creating suitable replacements for users who really want to express their Islam-interest with a userpage template. Win-win-win. Additionally, I think that the "make a clean start" strategy (a.k.a. a "great purge" of almost all userboxes :)), even if it seems appealing now, will ultimately turn out to be a lose-lose situation. The following problems arise with trying to simply purge the userboxes, rather than attempting compromises and less dramatic ways to eliminate the problems. The following negative consequences, among others, will ensue from a mass-deletion:

1. Lots and lots of time-consuming and divisive warring and fighting and lasting bitterness over the deletions. The above and past complaints are just the tip of the iceberg.
2. We'll have cluttered up the template namespace with deleted pages and protected-deleted pages, rather than the much cleaner and more accessible tact of cluttering it with redirects. :)
3. Dozens of talk pages and hundreds of significant edit histories will be lost, even when a page-move to a non-POV-expressing version would have been extremely trivial and easy to do and would have preserved both the history and the talk page, while eliminating all unacceptable aspects of the box.
4. Starting over from scratch, as I've noted, will be immensely time-consuming in the long run, forcing interested users to waste hours recreating userboxes when they could instead be working on Wikipedia articles. Even if a mass-delete is appealing right now because it seems simpler, in reality, it'll just cause much more complication and bureaucratic haggling than the quicker and easier task of converting inappropriate templates into appropriate ones where possible. A little finesse and template-rearrangement smooths the acceptance of policy changes like T2 infinitely more than harsh and aggressive actions like deletions do. So, the subst-and-move will be much more useful for Wikipedia, in my view, than the subst-and-delete, both because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless arguing, Deletion Reviews, hostilities, and conflicts, and because it will save time that would have been wasted on pointless redesigning and recrafting of userboxes which we already have plenty of. For example, why force users to design a whole new "This user is interested in Islam." template when we can save their time and energy for more encyclopedic concerns by simply using the raw materials available to us (the unacceptable POV-accepting userboxes) to quickly and easily craft such a template? It's easiest on all sides.

Obviously, this subst-and-move isn't possible for all of the religion userboxes: for example, I see no problem with just substing and deleting {{user relirespect}}, {{user Liturgy of the Hours}}, {{user hell atheist}}, {{user Lapsed Catholic}}, and several other religion-related templates, where a conversion into a more acceptable format isn't feasible. I'm fully willing to create a list of which templates should probably be deleted and which should probably be moved (and where), if there's interest; I'd even be willing to simply do it myself, if there's any interest in such a move, and if I could get someone or a bot's help with the task of mass-substing these templates (the task of moving and rewriting the templates, on the other hand, I can do on my own quite easily indeed, and would actually have done a while ago if I'd been able to get clear support for doing such). But I feel strongly that a subtle conversion from POV-expressing to interest-expressing will be much more effective at minimizing controversy and conflict, and smoothing the T2-derived userbox transition (by empasizing much more clearly and consistently than a mere mass-deletion would that relevant encyclopedic interests, not POVs and ideologies and bumper stickers, are what templates are for), than crude deletions would be for most cases. -Silence 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

2353. that's the number of words spent so far on this disucssion of whether this userbox is inflamatory or divisive or violates this or that policy. these words could have been put towards building an encyclopedia! instead, they were spent on dividing and inflaming the community in an argument over what is little more than a harmless bit of digital bric-a-brac. solution: leave the userboxes alone. build and encyclopedia instead. frymaster 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Changes

Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturner 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I really want you to see my side

I have been called a troll and a vandal by user:grandmaster and maybe I am uncivil, but I do know that he is being false in both his edits and behaviour.

I already added this to your page, but look at this once more;

This is what I just pasted on the discussion page of the project; please read as follows;

This is about freedom of speech. You can not decide on who join or not because if you do that then what is to stop you from letting others with opposing views join. I am here to make sure that the Azari articles excel and are factual and I continue to struggle to do so. User Baku, you leave messages unsigned, user:Grandmaster you use pages to verify things that re not even mentioned on the page like the one for Music of Azerbaijan.

I am allowed to place that user box there and editors can pick is they want to use it. There are other user boxes that are only used by one person. I do not seem to recall in consensus in making them. You are being hypocrites because you created one of the user boxes calling for a ‘Liberated Azarbaijan’ which I see not one of you has removed to strengthen your arguments. You are nurturing a culture of bias and misinformation.

If you want to see who is in the write please go to the Music of Azerbaijan article and read the history and what was being asserted by myself and by user:Grandmaster. Also then read the source he used for his claims. Then please look at the talk:Music of Azerbaijan.

I am being demonized, but at least you will see why I am upset with what these users are doing. This is not fair. You can openly see that this user is being devious just if you look at his editing methodology. I even tried to compromise with him in various articles, but he deleted my arguments on the actual talk pages.

And when it comes to edits he has the numerical numbers through his allies over me who ususallly don't know about the subject and I get blocked for making legitmate edits via the 3RR.

Also please look via the history the editing he made using the source he himself validated. --72.57.230.179

Additionally here is more proof that I was being civil [[1]] and that user:Grandmaster is making false statements. I also want to say someting else it is ironic that he went out of hs way and would dlete my work even if little things were not verified, but his own claims and edits have not been verified for a long time and are in need of citations for ages now on the same article, Azari. 72.57.230.179

SOrry I just noticed something

You know what user:Grandmaster was delete my work saying citations were needed but all the sections claiming Azaris are Turks needed citations for a very long period of time now and he never bothered to give verfications is this not double standards? Take a look at the article. This is outrageous I just realized it. 72.57.230.179

Additionally Baku never tried to help me or tlk to me as he claims. This is totally false 72.57.230.179

Once again for the music here is all the proof collected [[2]] in case you find it hard to follow from the talk page. 72.57.230.179

Thanks for putting all these messages here. I'm not sure I can help if your point is simply that he is wrong and you are right. I am not an adjudicator, and it would be wrong for me to use my administrator powers to side with anyone on a question of fact. In wikipedia we work by discussion and consensus, within some requirements such as verifiability, neutral point of view and so on. If you can work within that framework to convince other editors that your content is valuable and well referenced, then you shouldn't have any problems contributing to articles. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:OneSixOne

Just to let you know, he's removed the Michael Jackson image again, without explaination and dispite being asked not to so, surely breaking some 3 revert rule or something. He has also deemed fit to link the word "album" everytime it is used. C'mon, he's clearly a vandal. Will you please say something to him? Or Do something? I've a few choice words for him, but apparenly I'm not allowed.--Crestville 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got a few words for crestville myself, but best kept to myself. I've got some scores to settle. First of all he called me a CUNT. It sounds like it it's O.K. to mount such attacks on 'pedia, cos I got a warning whilst he got nothing what so ever.

Secondly, I removed that image because I don't believe that it serves any purpose on that page. Michael jackson has performed literally hundred's of events, so why that image. What if user A adds another image of MJ performing at wembley, user B adds another image, user C ... adds, and so on and forth. Imagine what the article will look like.

That image wasn't there to start with, he put it there. It is clearly obvious that crestville is nothing more than someone who is there to stop the progress of the article. Dont have to go very far!. Today ... Goes as far as comparing Michael Jackson to Hitler! Talk about launching personal attacks!

It is clear that there are more pressing images that are needed. E.g. Not all images of his albums are present (which is what primarily the article should be about). If it needs to added at all, it belongs to a 'controvesial' article, which have being made for these sort of purposes.

Please remove that image from the page as it dosen't belong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneSixOne (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He's done it again, despite a lengthly and reasoned message explaining why it should stay. That's 6 times now, twice over the 3-revert-rule.--Crestville 18:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

On your wish to have the article protected, I suggest that instead of adding templates as here you go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I have no idea what you are talking about. It was blocked by user:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. He been blocking the article every week for about 4 months now. --OnesixOne 12:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I misread what was happening there. --Tony Sidaway 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

He's now messing about with the lead picture. Apparently threatening to "probably maybe block someone if the do something three or four more times" isn't working. Come on mate, you must be able to do something here.--Crestville 14:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes DRV

Hi,

It appears you've developed an interesting technique for the rapid dismissal of new DRVs in this area. :) I don't mind, but I wonder if anyone else has noticed. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified, wasteful and futile challenges to T1 deletions are common. Such challenges are vehemently opposed. WP:SNOW is not new. Crap dies, who would have known?--Tony Sidaway 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Going against consensus without arguments that settle people down, ie. logic, can only stand so far. Challenges which are only vehemently opposed by a small majority dont fall into the consensus model that wikipedia proclaims. Ansell 22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm seeing a small minority opposed to deletion of rubbish. If you suport rubbish on Wikipedia, please go somewhere else. Wikipedia does not want rubbish. --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Some users (Antaeus Feldspar who's report you used to block Terry) do want rubbish (not me) by reverting anyone who removes unreliable sources. And then they obfuscate (often with sublte person attacks) and argue WP:RS isn't policy. But WP:V directly refers us to WP:RS for definition of reliable sources. Why don't you address this problem which more directly affects the best interest of WIkipedia than userboxes. --Nikitchenko 21:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to userbox rubbish, it's kind of a "define the terms" thing, as I see it. By defining userboxes as rubbish, discussion about their merits, & hence what to do with them, is short-circuited. Instead of the observation that a small minority are opposed to deletion of rubbish, it may be more accurate to describe the disagreement as being about whether they are rubbish. I'd ask that consideration be given to the potential for the first way to be taken as belittling the reasoning of those opposed to these userbox deletions, and, as such, to get in the way of discussion & consensus building.--Ssbohio 12:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

removing a deletion review?!?

WP:SNOW doesn't apply to my deletion review since the issue is controversial. Raphael1 07:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The current slant of the discussion says otherwise. --Cyde↔Weys 07:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Only because the discussions get archived and/or deleted before they have begun. This is rediculous. --70.213.205.226 06:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Please avoid removing parts of other people's signatures. It comes off as control-freakish and could be considered rude. Thanks. --User:D-Day 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just refactoring the discussion to make it easier to edit. It's actually incredibly rude to inflict that monstrosity on shared areas of the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you must remove the sig, then cut it, edit what you want, then paste it back in. But do not remove them. people think that is annoying. --User:D-Day 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

While I by no means agree with everything Tony does, I must admit that he has a point about your signature. Particularly for our editors who are working at lower resolution, your signature does take up an awfully large portion of the edit window. As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest that any signature that is usually larger than your comments is much too large. Respectfully, people also think that extremely large signatures are annoying. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what D-Day means by removing a signature. I didn't mean to completely remove any signatures and I apologise if that is what has happened. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The length of many signatures are a result of added functionality the editor has added as a courtesy, like linking to their contributions or talk pages, or the green 'e' badges of Esperanza. In my case, my signature is also symbolic for me. Please don't edit it. Thanks, and happy editing!--AySz88 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are public space provided for discussion. They may occasionally be refactored for readability. --Tony Sidaway 16:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, please be careful about not cutting off pieces of comments; you fixed it when it happened on this talk page, but not when it happened on the CSD talk page. Thanks. AySz88 20:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But you do see from this I hope, the difficulties. It's very, very difficult to spot comments amid signature in all that gobbledygook. --Tony Sidaway 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop It's Very Rude to alter other people's signed comments. To put it off to "refactoring" is very poor indeed. --User:Aaron Brenneman 23:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh stuff and nonsense! Fiddlesticks, even! If a talk page is messed up with all kinds of silly and unnecessary html formatting, it's a good idea to refactor it. Though of course it's decidedly bad form to change the wording, and I'll apologist if I ever mess up. But really the change to sections that are refactored in this way is so beneficial that I'm hardly likely to stop. It's as if all the signature silliness of the past year had been evaporated. Suddenly the entire section can be read from beginning to end, even in edit mode. Which to be frank, was a very useful benefit that I'd quite forgotten about. --Tony Sidaway 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Than at least have the courtesy to leave an informative edit summary whenever you do so. In fact, please attempt to leave more helpful edit summaries in general. You might refer to Help:Edit summary. Oh, yes, and -> Civility warning 4 To refer to other editor's contributions as "stuff and nonsense" is uncivil. Please do recall that the Arbitration Committee has asked you to be civil.
User:Aaron Brenneman 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You do recall, I hope, that the arbitration committee has asked you to be civil. That probably includes, I suggest, not harping on matters of such piddling silliness.

I apologise for describing your comments on my refactoring of signatures as "Stuff and nonsense" and "fiddlesticks". I continue to regard your suggestion as quite unacceptable.

I disagree with the suggestion that edits to remove disfiguring html, etc, when performed in the course of another edit, must be marked. This would only draw unmerited attention to trivial edits. It can safely be assumed that any conscientious editor will try to perform such good housekeeping as might be necessary on a talk page. --Tony Sidaway 03:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to understand argument for not using clear edit summaries. I'd refer you to Refactoring talk pages where it states, "Make it explicit that you have refactored something" quite plainly. It also states "[b]e aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring" something that is clearly the case here. In the event that you have been made aware that disagreement over some edits may occur, to choose to not label those edits is at best rude and worst duplicitous, per ArbCom past decisions on edit summaries

I also find it difficult to understand how I am meant to accept an apology for the use of the words "Stuff and nonsense" that begins with "piddling silliness." As for me, if ever you perceive me to be uncivil, a neutrally worded comment to that effect is always welcome.

User:Aaron Brenneman 03:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I admit, you find it easy to drag me to the edge of civility by piling on an endless deluge of utterly trivial complaints. Now go forth and try out your newfound technique on others, if you must. But off this wiki and well out of this editor's face. --Tony Sidaway 03:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, surely no one has ever dragged you to any place that you haven't walked — or, in this case, "rushed headlong" — yourself. Nandesuka 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo

Tony Sidaway, in blocking Terryeo, I think you are in conflict of interest of Wikipedia's best interest. His congratulation is not personal attacks just because Antaeus say it is and you simply buy Antaeus report. There is no rule against making comments in admin nominations that I know of, but then again I new t Wikipedia's technicalityes. --Nikitchenko 21:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some bad personal attacks on Wikipedia. These were among the worst. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think they are borderline but not the worst. --Nikitchenko 21:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the blocking administrator's opinion that counts. Thank for your comment. --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions are only opinions, not policy. --Nikitchenko 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? You're aware of Terryeo's personal attack parole, right? --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely, but the folks who specialize in Civility at WP:CCD disagree with you on this. See Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard --Nikitchenko 22:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Opinions are only opinions, not policy means policy is senior to opinions of any administrator. --Nikitchenko 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a valid block. Terryeo is on an ArbCom civility parole for a reason, people. It's not like he's a totally innocent user and Tony Sidaway is the mean rouge admin throwing around blocks left and right. --Cyde↔Weys 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you Cydeweys, its not valid block. --Nikitchenko 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is your opinion that you share with Tony Sideaway. The folks who specialize in Civility at WP:CCD disagree with both you on this. --Nikitchenko 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Concordia"? That's the first I've ever heard of them. What makes them better at determining uncivil comments than Tony or I? Because they put their names on a member list? --Cyde↔Weys 22:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Go there and discuss your opinions with them. You and Tony Sideaway. --Nikitchenko 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass. "Concordia" isn't a part of official policy, it's just a community organization ... which means I can choose to have nothing to do with it. I'm making that choice. --Cyde↔Weys 23:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because the try to present themselves as "civility experts" doesn't mean they are. And they (the ex community justice now concordia) have serious flaws understanding what wikipedia is and how it works, talking about jurisdictions and councils, etc... -- Drini 23:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sideaway, please see my comment up Userboxes DRV. I would like to know whats the priorities are. --Nikitchenko 22:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Civility Noticeboard" is just a page created just yesterday by a fellow called Computerjoe (talk · contribs · logs), who is currently on his third failed Request for adminship. D-Day (talk · contribs · logs), also a non-administrator, has commented on the issue. D-Day doesn't appear to understand the difference between a personal attack parole and Wikipedia:probation. I don't propose to take his comments seriously. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nikitchenko

Following on from above, you might be interested to know that Nikitchenko is currently linking to those colourful characters at Wikipedia Review from his userpage. I think that at the very least it should be removed, but don't feel comfortable doing it myself - Nikitchenko claims he's going to file a complaint against me. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia Review, but a somewhat more toxic site known as Hivemind. I won't ask him to remove it, but I think it's enough to make me want to investigate him very closely. --Tony Sidaway 00:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I clicked the link and despite the domain, it took me to wikipediareview.com. Am I missing something? And anything involved with real-life harrassment of admins should not be linked to from this site anywhere, in my opinion. I admit that my knowledge of Wikipedia Review and other off-wiki stuff is fairly limited, though. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very odd. When I went there earlier this evening it was some kind or hate site called "Hivemind". --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, and will remove it everytime I find it on wikipedia, and block anyone who puts it back up.--MONGO 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for blocking Nikitchenko. From observing the volume and frequency of his personal attacks and off policy editing, I have to agree with you that he is a troll and should be banned indefinitely. --Fahrenheit451 19:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We do find malicious people abusing our encyclopedia every now and then, and they need to be stopped as quickly and painlessly as possible. Letting a troll hang around spreading nastiness around doesn't do any good. --Tony Sidaway 23:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cooling the debate off with user:KAS. You did a great job. --User:Xyrael|^T 19:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 19:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

For Aaron

I just noticed this [3]. I think it's excellent advice. Please keep off my talk page, I'll keep off yours. You know we both trust Doc Glasgow and Mark Gallagher, Kat and Greg, so you're not short of people to complain to, and I'm sure I'll get to hear of it should you ever make a complaint to them about me. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Trusting those folks could get you into trouble, Tony. Be careful. --Ridgard 05:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Peppers

Tony, your deletion of the Peppers talk page was obviously inappropriate. I ask you to go ahead and undo it yourself, or I'm taking it to DRV. Everyking 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to think it was worth having an article on this guy, but over time my opinions have changed. Just let it go. He's non-notable, and unlike many non-notable people, there's nothing he's ever going to do from now on out that is going to increase his notability. Five years from now no one will even remember the name. Let it go. --Cyde↔Weys 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even have anything to do with the issue of the notability of Peppers. This is about the existence of the talk page. Everyking 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is about administrators who think they own the project. --70.213.172.86 05:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's true. Everyking 05:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Spare it, please. --Cyde↔Weys 05:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would be right to undelete that page for a while, but I could well be wrong. Why not take this to WP:DRV? --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the highly unusual nature of such an action, and the general importance we Wikipedians place on talk page discussion, your action was clearly not endorsed by the readers of the talk page, since a vote to shut it down resulted in a definite "no consensus". So how do you justify it? There has to be something more than your own wish, I would hope. I will list of DRV if necessary but I'd rather appeal to you to be sensible first. Everyking 06:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I justify it as a furtherance of Jimbo's intent, to give us all a good long rest from the issue so that we can come back in a year or two's time and decide whether this subject really needs an article. We cannot really do this while some editors insist on agonising about it for months on end on the talk page. ---Tony Sidaway 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you can blank and protect. Destruction of the public record is not acceptable. Personaly I prefer to know where complaining is likely to take place but I understand that not everyone shares this view.Geni 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was not cool. I'm sorry, but destroying public record of what's very evidently a contentious topic is not the way to douse any controversy that's arisen. It's actions to quash comments like that which make rational, rules-respecting people like me wonder why we should dedicate time to this project. --Bobak 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My action seems to enjoy very strong support in the review. We have to balance the potential alienation of people like you (whose work is, I assure you, greatly appreciated) with the alienation of people who, looking at the extremely trivial nature of the subject matter and the intensity of the discussion for months on end over a matter that Jimbo himself has asked us to put aside for one year, decide that the site is not for them. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is the kind of thing that will drive them away then I think theywould not last more than say 30 seconds on our colour articles 20 on the articles of a few elements and the whole what to call various cities in non english speaking coutries thing would probably have a simular effect. Can you even show that such people exist?Geni 17:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Those subjects differ from the Brian Peppers nonsense in a very simple and important way. Colours, elements and foreign cities are of worldwide interest. Brian Peppers is of no interest to anyone, apart from Farkers, SA goons, Newgroundlings and general assorted nerds. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well see the rest of WP:LAME then.Geni 17:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late getting to you about this, but I'm saying this as someone who wants the debate to end with both sides happy. I can assure you (if you read my comments) that I do not support the recreation of this article in any way, shape, or form, but shoving a sock in people's mouths, particularly those of us who were against the talk page deletion AND do good works around here, such as write and source articles, look to improve articles, and revert vandalism, and telling us that we're in a tiny minority of crazy Wikipedians (such as one particular admin (not you) who shall remain anonymous because I believe in WP:NPA) is just insulting. And insults are against policy last time I checked. I agree wholeheartedly with Jimbo's intent that this should be set aside, but forcing Jimbo's doctrine down our throats is not the way to go, and Jimbo himself has said this many a time. People like me, User:Bobak, and User:Everyking (the latter two seem to think it's okay to remake the article; I just think a redirect to Internet phenomenon is all we need) make useful contributions just like those who are for the deletion. It's insulting to us when people think otherwise, which some of the deletionists seem to think. Crazyswordsman 15:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you describe me as a "deletionist", you should be aware that I created the original version of the last incarnation of the Brian Peppers article after the previous incarnation has been deleted after discussion.

I deleted the talk page because I think this is the only way to ensure that we do really have a chance of forgetting the subject and thus come back to it with fresh minds at some point. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea

Tony, why are you deleting Jay Maynard's arguments? I think that's a really bad idea; you should be incorporating his ideas, not giving the appearance of trying to silence him. We're trying to build consensus, not swing hammers around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a free-form pure-wiki style collaboration. If I delete crap, I've no idea whose crap I'm deleting. I delete crap in the hope that we'll end up with a more sensible summary of the issues than we have at present. I'm sorry if my deletion of crap seems to always hit the same guy's arguments. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your lack of willingness to interact with people in this dispute as human beings deserving of respect is making things worse. You are prolonging the userbox controversy by your discourtesy. For the sake of Wikipedia, please find a way to avoid alienating quite so many contributors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, and in reply to your edit summary, "The suggestion that administrators are just acting rogue here is insuppportable," I hope you realize that what I was suggesting by asking for your input is that your addressing this point frankly rather than ignoring it is more helpful to the goal of ending all this bullshit drama. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really that concerned about that. Once a person becomes acculturated to Wikipedia, these things make sense. I don't have to bear the full weight of educating every single new Wikipedia editor, although sometimes I get the impression that some people think that I should. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce

Greetings. You are receiving this boilerplate notice because you have a task on your Cleanup Taskforce desk that has not been updated for over 30 days. If you do not wish to complete this task please assign it to another active Cleanup Taskforce member who has space on their desk. If you do not wish to receive cleanup requests on your desk any more, you may remove yourself from the membership list. If you or someone else has completed the task, you can close it by adding {{cleanup taskforce closed|ARTICLE NAME HERE}} to the article's talk page and removing it from Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce. If you have a status update (e.g. you intend to work on it in the future) or need help, you can update the collaboration page (which is linked from your desk). Also feel free to reply to the person who left you this message. --Randy 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandifer

Tony, why did you close the Sandifer AfD? Is it not supposed to stay up for five days? Also, as someone who voted in it, are you allowed to close it? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I think it was better to close it now and get on with things. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get involved much with AfD and so I don't know what the accepted practises are. Does your decision mean the article should be deleted or not? It seems to have left things hanging, and I couldn't see any reason to close early (though, as I said, I'm not familiar with how AfDs are usually conducted). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My actions means that I think the decision has been made. The article probably shouldn't exist on its own but there is something to this and it probably belongs somewhere. If someone strongly disagrees this may go back to review or just be re-opened. When I do this kind of thing it depends a lot on people accepting my closing argument, and thinking "yeah, that makes a kind of sense" even if they don't personally agree on the precise details of the close. In short, I've tried to take everybody's opinion into account and if I've failed badly then someone else will come in and fix it. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the decision makes some sense, but it's still not clear there was a need to make it before the five days was up. In any event, anyone can add information about what happened to Phil to another article (e.g. Criticism of Wikipedia), so that doesn't require the decision of an admin, which is why I'm confused. SlimVirgin|(talk)23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The community runs best, I've found, when editors feel free to make bold decisions. In my opinion the "five days" thing is a bit unnecessary when practically everybody has a go and comments in the first day or two. --Tony Sidaway 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I rather think you've taken no-ones views into account, and so I've reopened the debate. -Splash^talk 00:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My sig

Tony,

I appreciate your thought and respect in writing your comment. I have gotten a few comments here and there in the past about it, as well. However,

1. Most of that wikicode is a result of coloring, not the images
2. The two images I use are _very_ important to myself and my identity, and I would like to keep them there. I believe that they are small enough to not create a nuisance.

Blessed Be :) --User:Search4Lancer 01:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well they create a huge nuisance for me. Please knock it off. --Tony Sidaway 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you put it that way, I won't even think of it. User:Search4Lancer 04:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User liberty

Since you closed this DRVU as keep deleted. I am not going to tag it g4 again even if I do believe it qualifies, but maybe it needs to be revisted given the current frankenstate of T2. Kotepho 01:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lost me there. T2 is basically T1, and this was a unanimous endorsement. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I may agree with you, but it certainly is being debated (and edit warred over) still. Kotepho 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you show me where the related edit warring is occurring? I only see a G4 recreation that seems to have resulted from a premature, or erroneous, unprotecting of the deletedpage template. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant the edit warring on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion itself over T2, which apparently died down when someone protected the page. Kotepho 02:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, people edit war over written policy all the time. It doesn't stop us doing things. We work according to Wikipedia policy, and in a certain sense we create it, while the written policy struggles to catch up. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that policy is whatever you can do without people making too big of a fuss over it (outside of the immutable policies that are the foundation). Operating without Hammurabi's code does have the problem of people disagreeing over what is policy though; and certainly has scaling problems in a community of this size.

The current state of T2 really does not affect the deletion of this template. It showed up on my watchlist with an N, so I tagged it. When that failed I came here. I'm sorry if I misled you with my comment about the possibily ambiguous state of T2. Kotepho 02:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, reverting all comments on the fact that the DRV was closed early helps minimize dissent. --70.218.3.206 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)!

Deletion

Please do me a favor and delete my userpage and talkpage. I'm departing the project as its obvious this editor is stepping on more toes than doing the productive work I wish to do. -Zero^Talk 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Get some sleep. See you in the morning. --Tony Sidaway 12:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Its in the afternoon here.

As one of my best friends on this site it would be very appreciated if you'd take it seriously. You know I don't joke about things such as this. -Zero^Talk 12:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I do take it seriously. I see that you have been editing continuously, with one or two short breaks, for ten hours, and conclude that you are upset mainly because you need sleep. --Tony Sidaway 13:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh but you don't. I didn't go to work today so I could sleep in. I'm absolutely fine. Please just do as I ask of you. The various editors who don't respect this position are already being very uncooperative. Please reconsider. The project will perfom just fine without me. -Zero^Talk 13:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You probably need a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

An indefinite one. Please do as I ask. Look, if you desire, you have my e-mail. Save the explanations for there. Per the speedy policy and "right to leave" meta entry this is not really a difficult of request. -Zero^Talk 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a list of subpages over at User:MegamanZero/TopNav as well. And please block the account indefinitely. -Zero^Talk 16:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, well, can we offer you the right to return too? :) That and permanent blocks are technically somewhat problematic, as it might prevent others from editing too. Kim Bruning 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak

Actually, it might be interesting to see what Linuxbeak can do. I don't have a strong opinion, but it might be interesting to discuss the matter sometime soon, I suppose. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Bruning (talk • contribs)

Oops, sorry, that was me. Do you have time on irc sometime soon? Kim Bruning 13:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:MUPP

The voting on WP:MUPP ended earlier today. I crossed out your comment based on Xolatron's edit so that your comments were kept. —David618 ^t 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But I hope you don't imagine that policy can be made if proposals are so inadequately polled that the poll isn't properly advertised and only lasts for seven days. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I have problems with how it was done, too. I'm just following what it said. I think that it will need another straw poll that is listed as you said. —David618 ^t 02:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't going to happen. Even this poll gave a pretty inadequate degree of support, and it seems to have been deliberately packed by the userboxers. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Template India/US Relations

Hello, I am User: Bmaganti, and I have created the userpage template that advocated USA and Indian relations. I have noticed that you deleted this template, and frankly, it is very upsetting that it was done. This is even more upsetting by the fact that if you looked at the Regional Politics sections of userbox templates, you would find that there are very similar templates advocating US relations with those countries, namely China, Germany, and Bosnia, notice, that none of these have been deleted. This leads me to the conclusion that this template has been deleted without much thought, and is definitely discriminatory. I would like to kindly ask you to undelete the template, or if it really has been deleted because it went against any of the rules of Wikipedia, at least, have the consideration to delete the other templates that have the same message but of different countries. I have already marked the template for deletion review in the talk page of the template. --Bmaganti 02:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a place to campaign for international relations. I'll get around to deleting the others in my own good time. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Random Userbox question

Hi, just before you closed the UK political party template DRV, I asked you a question. Referring to the diff link you gave from Jimbo. Are userboxes of this nature (political/beliefs) still allowed in the User namespace? Just not the Template one? - Hahnchen 04:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for coming back to me on that one. The content of the user page is covered by Wikipedia:User page. You can create (or copy) a box there saying you're a member of X or Y party, or going into a fair degree of depth about your political opinions. Expression of personal opinions in user space is somewhat deprecated, but tolerated. Remember that the user page isn't a homepage. It's assumed that you're perfectly capable of obtaining a free or paid-for blog elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've only taken a look at the Userbox issue today, and the proposed policy seemed to be a lot more lax then the CSD category. It's not like I'm going to use any userboxes, I just wanted to know what the score was. Cheers. - Hahnchen 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of proposed userbox policies. None of them have a hope, in my opinion, of gaining consensus. The last one that got anywhere near consensus was deliberately sabotaged; the culprit was arbcommed but by then the damage was done. --Tony Sidaway 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the simplest solution at this point might be to transclude boxes directly from userspace. Any thoughts? --70.218.3.206 05:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not ideal. Code copying is better. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The german wiki got a User named de:Benutzer:Vorlage ... where all the the userboxes went. Agathoclea 08:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi! FWIW, I think the consensus on userboxes has moved from your position. I have outlined some risks in my the risks section, as I think userboxes are a huge influence on Wikipedia because of the way they affect new users' expectations. I don't understand how you can have such strong opinions about them and still think that text is just as effective. But either way, I'm glad you have made your opinions felt in this debate, and I hope you are around to influence the consensus when it is determined. Stephen B Streater 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You havee been seriously misled. Nearly every single experienced Wikipedian is strongly against these, and T1 is backed by arbcom and Jimbo. Just look at the May poll. The heavyweights are almost universally against the proposal. Consensus is moving so heavily in my direction that we've already wiped out the worst of the belief-based userboxes and they'll be dead and gone for the most part in a few months time. And good riddance. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

More experienced users may be against, but newer users are more in favour (partly because of expectations raised by seeing legions of user boxes). So consensus has been moving against you. This great battle will decide how far it moves: if POV user boxes are kept, old users will get swamped by ever larger legions of userboxians; if userboxes are tidied up, current users will be brought into line and new users will expect the same without a fight. A lot hangs on this debate. This is why it's important you hang around. Stephen B Streater 18:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Talking about "new users" isn't going to impress me, is it? These editors are not acculturated and they won't be permitted to make changes that effectively negate our fundamental policies. The bad userboxes will be wiped out, it's just a matter of how we do it. T1 deletion has become so much more powerful over the past few months that we're successfully deleting religion-based boxes that were previously thought too difficult to delete. New users in time will come to realise that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How can I help? Where can I sound off and/or vote?

Also, what is your opinion of barnstars? Beyond being basically useless, some of these go beyond "thanks for hard work" to approach belief-based userboxes - e.g. the newly-created "Islamic barnstar". Can't the intent of many deleted userboxes be approximated by a barnstar? E.g., "The Green Energy barnstar?"Timothy Usher 18:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Barstars are just little gifts from one user to another expressing appreciation. Not generally controversial. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, no. I was just pointing out how they might be subverted to mark userpages according to the logic of POV userboxes.

Anyhow, where can I go to get involved in the userbox discussion? I'd delete the vast majority of them if I could - any that don't directly relate to creating a respectable encyclopedia.Timothy Usher 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussions are hard to avoid. You could start here, where I will continue and leave Tony in peace for a while. Stephen B Streater 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

greetingz

prob heard this 9000 times, but I heard you have the deleted content from brian peppers (or at least it's talk page) preserved somewhere? WɔlkUnseen 20:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not distrubuting any material on that subject at present. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

divisive and inflammatory

i oppose your decision to remove {{User anarchist}}. i feel inflamed by this move and a deep sense of division from you over it. frymaster 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What part of which article on the wiki was it part of? How did it help you to write better articles? Have you thought of just writing "I am an anarchist" on your user page? --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tony, that argument of "What part of which article on the wiki was it part of?" seems a little bit silly, unless there was recently a policy to get rid of userboxes all together. You're obviously against userboxes, but I suggest (being that your an admin, and expected to higher standards) that you be sure of specific policies to get rid of certain userboxes before you do that, and not just say it doesn't help write an encyclopedia. Just some advice, --User:Chcknwnm 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, there is a policy to get rid of divisive and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (yes, most of our policies, astonishingly enough, reflect this unavoidable fact!), so unsuitable templates don't belong here and will be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

as it happens, this whole userboxes-are-evil purge fest causes more inflammation and division than just about any given userbox. and, as for the purpose of wikipedia being an encyclopedia, i have to say that i rather resent the amount of time i've had to invest in figuring out where my userboxes have gone. this is time i had earmarked for working Holden Caulfield. frymaster 15:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose the deletion of {{User Anarchist}} There are still userboxes relating to political parties, and to delete a userbox which expresses a similar personal belief is discriminatory, unfair, and frankly, just plain fucked-up. I wish to have such a userbox on my page, and I would appreciate it, if you will not restore the box, if you would give the the code for it. I have no access to the code, since I am not an admin. Canaen 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

(unsightly mess deleted--see history)

---

WP:PP

Sorry to be thorn, but you listed User Aethiest in the wrong section. Note that all you have to do is protect it and put in a good summary. User:VoABot will paste it on WP:PP durings its sweeps. Thanks.Voice-of-All^Talk 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember that. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to again bugger you

But I'd like your reasons for the deletion of template:user cannabis as well as Template:User against fox hunting. While they are POV templates I fail to see how they met the T1 criteria. Please elaborate. CharonX 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

They were both divisive. To describe that as "POV" is to miss the point. "I like oranges" is expressing a point of view. Both templates take positions on hotly debated ethical issues; when presented as templates, they encourage Wikipedia editors to take a position on these issues, which isn't what writing an encyclopedia is about at all. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they were controversial. Still I would not call them divisive. "I prefer using Windows" and "I perfer using Linux" or "I only use IE" and "I only use FireFox" could probably ignite similary strong debates in the right cicles. I understand that our Point of View are too different on this issue to be bridged. Thus I will list them on DRV, and let the community decide. Best wishes CharonX 01:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well that's the idea. I have no problem with reviewing a speedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the T1 criterion states: "divisive and inflammatory." Unless it meets the second requirement it should not qualify. —David618 ^t 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's nonsense. Why would we leave an inflammatory userbox hanging around? "Oh it's inflammatory and everybody is equally repelled by it, so you can't speedy it because it isn't divisive!" Ridiculous argument. Same goes for divisive templates. They're shit, too, so they get deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason that the criterion says and. I do not consider cannabis particularly divisive or inflammatory but I believe that some people would and will not support undeletion. —David618 ^t 01:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So if I have this right you are now saying T1 is not the basis of your actions and you are acting outside detailed policies like T1 because there is an overriding policy - making a great encyclopaedia. Stephen B Streater 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have it completely wrong. Obviously we all work towards making a great encyclopedia. By permitting the deletion of divisive and inflammaotry templates, T1 helps us all in that task. --Tony Sidaway 17:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Obvious but wrong, as they say. My copy of T1 WP:CSD#Templates allows removal of userboxes which are divisive and inflammatory. Not the removal of divisive userboxes and inflammatory userboxes. As it happens, I am happy with removing userboxes which are divisive or inflammatory, but this is not allowed by T1. Stephen B Streater 18:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, historically, doesn't get very far on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out why people are giving you so much flak - you are not implementing T1. It's a pity this issue wasn't nipped in the bud before userboxes became so popular. If it is not agreed soon, the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes. And obviously all decorous sigs too, though these I find can add to the visual appeal of a long debate. Stephen B Streater 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"the only consistent solution is to ban all POV userboxes" ... I used to be on the other side of the debate you know, but at this point I'm starting to think there is no other solution. Ban them all. And stop buggering Tony! (unless Tony LIKES being buggered...) But do feel free to keep bugging him as needed. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I started off in favour of anything goes. But the more I see of this debate, the more I want to keep things focused on the encyclopaedia and not allow irrelevant rubbish, even if it is non-offensive. I might even change my Green Energy vote if someone (perhaps a new ++Admin) feels inclined to include the userbox so I can see it. Stephen B Streater 22:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Was code copied into the discussion... not sure where it went after that, it seems to be gone again. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony

How are you ?

I am trying to understand this edit: [4] (Now understood. it was amove to the right place)

Please also read this : Talk:Israeli_apartheid#Disruptive_editing_.2B_violations_of_WP:Point_.2C_WP:3RR.2C_WP:SP_and_admin_abuse and if you have extar time:-) : User_talk:Sean_Black#May_I_suggest

Best Regards, Zeq

Sorry to bother you again: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIsraeli_apartheid_%28phrase%29&diff=56085333&oldid=56084831 . also you may want to rad before that edit how Homey represent your actions (moving his request to the right place) as endorsment of his rediculus accuastions against me. I urge you to review his actions in light of all his 45 edits to this article and in light of his over all violations of many policies and false accuastions he made against several editors (including other admins: Humus, Jayjg) Zeq 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Tony, intersted in view on this . best, Zeq 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious

Why did you change my sig on this talk page to a generic [[User:---]], as it is considered rude to alter other people's comments on talk pages, regardless of spelling or grammer or formatting problems, etc..? User:Chcknwnm 07:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Refactoring to make the page easier to edit by removing large and unnecessary material. Don't edit Wikipedia if you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly. That applies especially to huge and unsightly signatures! --Tony Sidaway 10:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it is my signature, I am kindly asking you to now stop changing it (even on this talk page). I have a link to my userpage, my talk page, my contributions page, and my esperanza page. Those are the pages that are useful links for people. Also, there is a lot of unnecessary comments that people write on talk pages that, without them would, be easier to edit, but we can't just go factor them out. My signature is barely larger than the example sigs at WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. As a matter of fact, when seen on the page (not the edit page, but the actual one), my sig is the exact same size as User:Chcknwnm. Thank you, Chcknwnm 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a silly sausage. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Signature.

I don't want to seem rude, offensive or incivil (and I don't want us to butt heads again) but I'm asking very nicely: Could you please not tamper with my signature when I'm posting to someone else's talk page? I've changed my signature a few times and it doesn't in any way breach Wikipedia policy. Also, it is my signature and I happen to like it the way it is. To me, it is not anything even remotely approaching "huge and unsightly". (Also, for the record, I prefer my username with a small n)

If you see something wrong with my signature, I would really appreciate it if you would post a comment on my talk page and let me know exactly what you disagree with and why. If phrased acceptably (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, phrased as a request, etc), I will consider changing it.

Thank you for your time. — User:nathanrdotcom ^(talk) 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See my response to User:Chcknwnm. It's probably a good idea to aggressively refactor talk pages to remove unnecessary and intrusive material from the end of comments, as this makes the page much easier for others to edit. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony. I can't believe you are changing people's signatures on decision review pages [5]. When I first joined, the much missed JzG mentioned you, and WP is certainly more interesting as a result of your actions. But please relax a little. Much loved as you are, by talking on so much at once single handed, you risk burning out and/or coming unstuck. There are 1,000,000 users here after all. Stephen B Streater 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I only fix the signature where it's a serious obstacle to editing. This is pretty normal refactoring. I don't prevent the editor using the signature; I only do something to alleviate the worst of the damage caused by large and unnecessary amounts of html/wikitext gibberish in discussion areas. --Tony Sidaway 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, Tony. Some of those signatures are just awful ;-).
User:NoSeptember 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. :) --Tony Sidaway 11:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Louisville, Kentucky dispute

Hi - I need some clarification. Should links to categories that are lists of users be included in the main Article space? ...

I've protected this article. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure protection is really necessary - as I am not planning on reverting anymore. I'm just looking for some clarification - since it seems so obvious to me that the style guide states that self-references are not to be used and Stevietheman (who I assume read the style guide links I provided) disagrees. Thanks for such a quick and decisive response! Trödel 13:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Please apply for unprotection as soon as you think it's ready. --Tony Sidaway 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do - thx! Trödel 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:user liberty

Although it doesn't fall into T1 or T2, the fair use image mandates deletion. However, the image is clearly allowable on my user page (as descriptive) and on that of the Party. Could I have a copy of the template for inclusion (not transclusion)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem with letting you have a copy, but if the image is only a "fair use" one how can it possibly be permissible on a userpage? --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I asked about this on the admin channel and someone explained what you probably meant (it was a new idea to me). He said you should probably read:

• [User:Durin/Removal of fair use images]]

The content of the userbox when deleted was as follows:

(ugly code removed)

An earlier version was as follows:

(ugly code removed)

It had an inclusion of Image:Statue of Liberty icon.png sized to 43 pixels.

NOTE: as far as I can ascertain, that image is freely licensed, not fair use. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought the discussion involved it being a trademark fair use (which is allowable when referring to the entity), rather than it being a copyright fair use (which would only be allowable in article pages where appropriate). Nonetheless, I found a copy through links in the DRV, and copied that copy to my userspace. I'd prefer to convert it to the {{Userbox}} template than the existing HTML, but we can't have everything. (If you're willing to excise this section of your talk page, so am I.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Especially since I duplicated a previous section head. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

user satanist

"Closing this because such a template would obviously bring Wikipedia into disrepute."

I think you need to add the reworded {{user cannabis}} to your home page. That seems the only thing that can account for such an absurd statement. It's hard to imagine any self-identification with Satanism is bringing "Wikipedia into disrepute", except in regard satanic cults. Now, some of the redirects which I've suggested be deleted would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if anyone knew they were there....

(Yes, I'm assuming good faith and lack of judgement.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I could put it better than I have. There isn't going to be a satanist userbox on Wikipedia, no matter how many people vote for it. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather blatant rejection of the validity of religious freedom of a fair number of devout satanists, some of whom may be Wikipedia users. I don't think you are or should be in a position to be deciding whose religions are ok for userboxes, Tony. Georgewilliamherbert 20:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I have ANI'ed this. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tony Sidaway unilaterally cancels satanism userbox restoral discussion. Georgewilliamherbert 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Which redirects, by the way? You can send them to me in email if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway 20:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you opposed to all religion userboxes, or are you opposed to the Satanism one in particular? Andjam 01:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Every single one, including the atheism one. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To let you know

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 --User:Chcknwnm 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:So-and-so Wikipedians

Though not a userbox, it would seem to me that such categories as [[Category:Muslim Wikipedians]] perform exactly the same non-encyclopedic purpose. Any ideas on this?Timothy Usher 07:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Aww, HEC

Your recent behavior at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3 has been very far from what we expect of harmonious editors. Specifically, you reverted more than once [6] [7] on a silly formatting issue, and your civility was lacking in the very same edit with your "disgusting mess" comment. More importantly, I think you're utterly failing to abide by the spirit of the "Request input from the wider community when necessary" HEC guideline- many people have asked you nicely to stop, and you've responded with scorn. I'm bringing this to your attention as per your preference. Please, tone down the combativeness! What you're doing is quite unharmonious. Friday (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'll have to completely disagree with you there. I reverted once and will not revert again. Please stop being so disingenuous, and remember that a considerable doubt hangs over your own head as to your civility. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[8] I believe it is going to far to change my signature on an endorsement. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help if you could just explain why this is a problem. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Point?

Tony, I know you realize that many different editors have asked you to stop with your signature editing. Your continuing to do so sure looks like an act intended to annoy, rather than intended to improve the encyclopedia. This is called harassment and disruption of wikipedia to make a point, and it's not a helpful thing. You're a big boy, you shouldn't have to be told this over and over. Stop it. Friday (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see what the problem is. What I do doesn't harm them in any way, and it vastly improves the editing environment. Moreover if you actually read the document you have cited you will realise that it doesn't say what you think it says. You're not the only person to think that something is automatically disruptive because it annoys some people, and you're not the only person who either hasn't read WP:POINT or has read it and didn't understand it. So no problems there. You'll get over it.

Moreover you've seen that at least a dozen other editors see nothing wrong with this kind of refactoring and think it improves the environment. From my conversations with others not involved in this infantile RfC, I'm convinced that the claims of disruption are completely unmerited. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'd try listening to people outside of your little fan club, you might get a different story. Oh well, I'm done trying to talk sense into you. If you're determined to go the way of Ed Poor, be my guest. Friday (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you've completely flipped on this one. You seem to think I'm out on some kind of crusade. The opposite is the case. Any editor can improve the environment. One doesn't require permission, or a fan club. --Tony Sidaway 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Tony, I believe you have some sort of pathology that requires you to look for trouble. You are not content if things are peaceful. You need to be right all the time, and you need to be the center of attention. This is the only explaination for your behavior that I can come up with. Your actions during this nth RfC have been single-mindedly disruptive. I don't think you are even trying to prove a point, but are trying to continue your joyride of being right there in the middle of controversy. I ask you to take a look at yourself and see if my words are true. --User:Fang Aili 00:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just a puerile complaint uninvited by me and taken to excessive lengths in the face of quite sensible support for my position by some well known and well respected editors. This seems to happen a lot. Perhaps a pathology of Wikipedia itself. I can give you a long list of people who have experienced this kind of silliness at RfC while doing nothing that need bother any reasonable person. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is another possibility- the people trying to get you to cut it out might be reasonable people with a legitimate concern. If you were a tad less convinced of your own infallibility you might be able to recognize that possibility. There are those who agree with you that certain signatures are annoying, but I suspect those who support your handling of this debacle are growing fewer by the hour. Friday (talk)

I suspect that you're trying to whistle up a wind. The RfC has failed because the complaint is transparently fatuous. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Failed"? Your adversarial outlook is showing. RFCs don't succeed or fail, they're used to invite further input on an issue. This one's gotten quite a lot of input so far. Friday (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course they succeed or fail. They succeed when legitimate grievances are aired and a dispute is resolved. The current one has signally failed to convince me (and, I notice, a large number of other editors) that there is any real dispute here. --Tony Sidaway 01:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How many people have had as many RfCs as you have? (Apart from RfCs from people who went on to be banned) Look at it this way: I don't use POV userboxes, or have a fancy signature, but I dislike the way you've handled userboxes and signatures. Doesn't that mean anything? Andjam 00:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. --Tony Sidaway 00:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who talks about "prevailing" at a RfC has the wrong attitude. Andjam 00:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. In fact I've been quite forthright about the RfC's failure. I see that quite a large number of other editors share my opinion about the appropriateness of refactoring, and those who have complained about the practice have not proven able adequately to explain the problem. There has been no meeting of minds; I sincerely doubt that such a meeting is possible. I still think the complaint was without substance. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway said;

I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed...

Then he said;

I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC.

Sorry, but something seems very wrong with the above sentences... User:Master of Puppets 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse him with facts. :-) Nandesuka 02:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the fact is that I haven't said anything about prevailing at RfC. There seems to have been some kind of leap between what I said (that I have prevailed, which is historically quite true) and what someone else claimed I said (that I "prevailed at RfC", whatever that might mean). --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, grammar lesson! First, we have the sentence;

You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed...

Now, lets dissect that sentence.

You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them (the RfCs). There's really not a lot of substance there (in the RFC)--if there were (substance in the RfC), I wouldn't have prevailed... (in the RfC)

See? The english language can be fun!

So it could be a simple misunderstanding on my part, but the way your answer is worded implies that you prevailed on the RfC. User:Master of Puppets 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that you have misread what I said. I could only reiterate what I said above. I think there's a subtlety of meaning that's eluding you, and for some reason you're seeing what is not there. --Tony Sidaway 03:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what there is to misread... care to tell me what this subtlety is? All that I can get out of it (and I don't mean this incivilly) slightly boasting about how you "won" an RfC because they had nothing on you. Which in its own doesn't seem right, for some reason. User:Master of Puppets 03:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of those problems that one sometimes gets into on an electronic forum. There is a quite odd sense of hostility about the early complaints on this page that, eventually, seems to have filtered into the RfC itself. Once it went that way, perhaps in a reaction to the quite strong support I received or possibly because I wasn't exactly diplomatic about what I saw as the failings of the complaint, there developed a kind of antagonism. I would hazard a guess that a pugnacious and antagonistic reading of my words, which mean what they say and no more, has in this case led to a misunderstanding. Perhaps it would help if, whatever the meaning of "prevailed at RfC", you were to cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine. Then perhaps the meaning of my sentence will stand out clearly. --Tony Sidaway 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you did not just Jedi Mind Trick me; cast it out of your mind, for it is not mine... Well, I'm not being hostile, or antagonistic; I'd simply like to know what you mean by you prevailing at RfC. However, you interestingly managed to dodge that artillery shell, so I think I'll give up before this escalates. If you choose to answer my question I'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks, Master of Puppets T 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Try this way around: I do a lot of controversial stuff. This means I'm a little unpopular. But quite effective, just the same. You might like to actually look at all those RfCs some time. All of them. (the RFCs) There's really not a lot of substance there--if there were, I wouldn't have prevailed. (with the controversial stuff)

Or to put it another way, the RFCs reflect that the controversial stuff is unpopular, but don't actually prove it's uneffective.

Also, if this is a "refactored" section, wow. It's such a huge difference editing this and looking for comments up above. Yikes. --InkSplotch 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Master of Puppets still thinks that I said above that I prevailed at RfC. We'll just have to leave it. --Tony Sidaway 09:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi Tony. I have a problem with your constant speedy deletion of userboxes. While I understand that you may not like them, they are useful to many others, and some of us just plain like them.

You deleted {{User Anarchist)) while myself and others were using it. I get the feeling, from scanning your talk page, that you've done this with quite a large number of userboxes. The big problem is that we like them, and we made them. Now, they're gone without a trace, because you didn't give reasons. If you wish to delete such things, I suggest in the interest of fairness, that you open full debates on the matter. This is an unfair conflict, as you are an administrator, while I and others who've portested your actions are not. I don't think that that's what administrators are for. Thank you. Canaen 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you like the political userboxes; however they are not suitable for Wikipedia and tend to be speedy deleted under the T1 criterion. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are perfectly suitable for Wikipedia. What is this "T1 criterion" ? Canaen 02:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read through the criteria for deletion here, and I think they are helpful. Generally speaking, an Anarchist know more about Anarchism than a Fascist, or another Totalitarian. I'm more inclined to be helpful in actually improving anarchism-related articles than most people.

I'm also a Vegan, and because of that, I know a lot more about Veganism than most Omnivorous humans. Therefore the Vegan userbox is useful. Parallel, though not under scrutiny at present. I think that the Anarchism userbox is useful, and Anarchism includes a rather wide range of articles, therefore is fairly notable. Canaen 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is why some userboxes are being changed from "This user is a foobarist" to "This user is interested in foobarism" Will (^E_@) T 11:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to the response

I'll concede to your point that there is a very large difference between the two RfAs that you have presented to me, and that in the edit mode, the one from last year looks much cleaner too. I'm not sure if it's me being relatively new to the game, but I've never found it hard to navigate discussion pages to add my comments in where I found it needed. Using section edits and being able to easily pick out changes in list markup and noticing keywords such as [[User: and timestamps I've found it to be relatively simple to navigate in edit mode. (I'll also give you that my argument here can be viewed as flawed, because it supposes that people treat wiki markup like programming languages and have the ability over time to develop an eye for such patterns).

With reference to the ongoing discussions on analogies, I would like to try my hand and put forth an argument for equating a signature to one's personal appearance. In my experiences with business environments for day to day environments, when we interact with coworkers we wear clothes and our hair in ways we like to be comfortable, while conforming to (imho) rather loose but pratical restrictions and our coworkers are influenced by both our choice in appearance and in our words. In a formal business environment (like shareholders meetings, executive presentations and similar events) we are expected to conform to much tighter guidelines (but still have a choice as to what color tie to wear). (They say purple is the new power color... but that's very much off topic).

I'm thinking that perhaps there could be a compromise in this. What would you think to having a software change to add a new "magic word" that would automatically be substituted with one's username and talk page link, and we made a policy that instead of using the 4 tildes, we would be required to use the new magic word on official operational pages/votes (such as RfA, RfC, etc) but would be free to use their signature in the community (i.e. talk pages). This way you get the benefits of having clean operational environments, and we get the ability to style our personal appearance how we see fit within reason. (And you'll still be allowed to change signatures to how you see fit on your talk page too).

I'd be interested in your feedback on this. Regards User:Charlie Huggard 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

PS... Lisp? I must applaud you sir. From my limited experience with it, that's a rather difficult language. (Try doing foreign function invocation using CLisp. *shudders*) User:Charlie Huggard 02:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a software solution is necessary or practicable. For serious signature problems there are the guidelines. For less serious problems a quick refactor is always a possibility.

Lisp is actually much simpler to use and more expressive than any other language I've used. It just took a lot of getting into. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you that it may not be necessary, but I think it would enable what I think could be an agreeable compromise for all involved parties. Furthermore, a quick hack would only involve the addition of few lines of code to the Parser::pstPass2 function (base code is taken from MW 1.6.5, but I don't think it has changed much since then):

	# Signatures
+	$username = $user->getName();
+	$userpage = $user->getUserPage();
+	$unText = '[[' . $userpage->getPrefixedText() . '|' . wfEscapeWikiText( $username ) . ']]';
	$sigText = $this->getUserSig( $user );
	$text = strtr( $text, array(
+	'~~~~~~~' => $unText,
+	'~~~~~~' => "$unText $d",
	'~~~~~' => $d,
	'~~~~' => "$sigText $d",
	'~~~' => $sigText
	) );

proof of concept. A better solution would be to actually code up a few more hook points and create an extension, but this would be a fix that could probably be implemented within a matter of minutes (+ whatever required change documentation and propagation time). Regards, Charlie 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami

Hi Tony. You unprotected the Jamaat page a while ago:- Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami#Unprotecting. There seems to be another edit war developing again with User:siddiqui blanking referenced content without discussion or even any use of the "Edit summary" box. There has been an RfC about this but it doesn't seem to have made any difference:- Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Siddiqui#Jamaat-e-Islami. Could you keep an eye on the page please? Veej 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Watching. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed U.S. Law - Would it Affect Wikipedia?

There is yet another bill proposed in the U.S. congress that might have an affect on Wikipedia. My highly uneducated guess is no - assuming no amendments. You are better positioned than I to pass this along to whomever might be appropriate to have look into it. Here is a link to a copy of the bill.[9] GRBerry 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Tony will have his opinion, by my opinion is that it will have no effect on Wikipedia, unless Wikipedia is receiving discounted rates for being connected to the Internet. That's what the bill affects. Further, I also don't think that Wikipedia would be considered a commercial Web site. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in a good position to make a judgement on this; I'm British and I never heard of DOPA until fifteen minutes ago. With that caveat, here is my response.

As I understand it, DOPA applies only to schools and libraries and the like that receive US Federal funds. Wikipedia is a private website operated by Wikimedia Foundation, which I believe is a private not-for-profit incorporated in Florida.

As a potential networking site for pedophiles, Wikipedia could possibly be blocked by such institutions under some interpretations of this legislation. But it's quite likely that many schools and other such institutions block Wikipedia already as unsuitable. --Tony Sidaway 22:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Metrocat"

Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware. [10] See ya. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh nothing much. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Terryeo engaging in personal attacks

Terryeo attacked myself and several other editors on the talk page Talk:Suppressive_Person#.22What_consensus.3F.22. "Wikipediatrix, Stollery and Fahrenheit might attempt to bully an editor into accepting a lower standard in a single article,"--Fahrenheit451 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence that this is Terryeo? Anything you have, please, so I can take a look. --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about userboxes

Tony, hi.

What do you think of Wikipedia:The German solution? In particular, do you agree with allowing advocacy userboxes, as long as they're in user space? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've no grave objections to it in principle. In practice I think the English and German wikipedias are different environments and we cannot predict whether applying the German solution here would work. I'd like to see how the proponents intend to treat the problem of use of userboxes for campaigning, vote-stacking and the like. This may not be a problem on German Wikipedia but is a serious one here. --Tony Sidaway 01:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian template

I saw where you reprotected the template.

Do you think that it would be a reasonable idea to bring the issue to arbitration? Enough administrators have made it clear by actions and by statement that it doesn't matter what the DRVU consensus is, the userbox is going to get deleted as soon as it gets recreated. Would it be reasonable to bring the issue to arbitration where one way or another, it would be settled finally? Regardless of what the decision is, at least the wheel warring would stop. BigDT 07:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the term, which I believe is ambiguous, but no admin activity on the template at any time qualifies as "wheel warring" under any definition adopted by the arbitration committee or the community. There was some bad edit warring on the template a few weeks ago, but this was resolved. Arbitration isn't used to determine content matters so I don't see what use it would be here. I'm reasonably happy with the situation at present though I was very concerned at the questionable edits last month. --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say that you are happy with the situation at present, are you referring to the fact that the template is currently deleted and protected or are you referring to the current cycle of deletions, undeletions, and DRVs? BigDT 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither. I mean that I think that the wiki is operating as intended and there is nothing to stop the normal decision-making processes. The final disposition of the template itself isn't a cause for concern. My personal opinion is that it's obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia, but its presence on Wikipedia, per se, doesn't pose a life-or-death threat to the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 08:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I emailed something to you, might want to check your inbox :) --Cat out 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Saw it. I'll take a look. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr

You may also want to look at the top of his Talk page. Al 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I already spotted it and removed it. Now to check his contributions to see if he has spammed it elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway 14:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you were a step ahead of me. I don't think you'll find any spam elsewhere, though. Al 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

More troubling comments from Terryeo

Take a look at Terryeo's recent response to Anteaus Feldspar at Talk:Narconon#.22beam_intention.3F.22. ("Those people whom you refuse to address are observing you, too.") Given his recent history of "keeping an eye on you" threats against Antaeus, this struck me as rather unsettling. BTfromLA 15:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at this but looking at Antaeus' comment I feel that Terryeo was goaded. I will warn him to remain cool but I have also warned Antaeus and I will not take action against Terryeo on this occasion because of the extenuating circumstances [11]. --Tony Sidaway 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thanks for your response. I'm all for more civility on all sides. I do, however, think there is a qualitative distinction between rude or unecessarily harsh remarks (quite common on all sides in the neverending wrangles over the Scientology pages, alas) and this "you are being watched"/"hivemind" stuff which, in my view, crosses the line between simple rudeness and harassment, the latter being a much more severe offense. BTfromLA 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's especially important that Terryeo be careful about his choice of words. I have warned him and he has read and says he understands. I've asked him to come to me if he feels that he's being goaded; this should provide a way of dealing with it, without further raising the temperature. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks again. BTfromLA 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Syzygy

Tony, you and I haven't agreed on much, but it looks like the planets have aligned on the matter of Chooserr's anti-abortion donation ads. When we actually agree on something, I suspect that means something. In any case, I was glad to walk away and let you handle it, as your sysop bit protects you against random threats.

However, you should know that I got a random threat from an uninvolved admin (well, uninvolved with the Chooserr incident anyhow; we have an ugly history together), accusing me of vandalism. Not asking you to do anything about it. Just keeping you in the loop as a matter of courtesy and record. Al 18:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this edit was out of order. Please don't do stuff like that. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I already talked to GTBacchus about it, and you made the whole thing irrelevant, anyhow. As far as I'm concerned, the real issue is that Nandesuka is beating a horse that's not only dead, but fully rendered into glue and dog food. Al 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My User Page

Tony Sideways, I don't usually reply to other peoples comments on my own talk page - check Timothy Usher's talk page for my reply.

As for the content its self all anyone had to do was show me the place where it says that it is in violation of wikipedia policy and I would have taken it down myself. From what I'd been told on my talk page was that it was "unacceptable", which could have been a reference to the person's personal beliefs on the issue rather than wikipedia policy. So please in the future at least talk to me before doing anything to my user page. Chooserr 19:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and please don't "warn" me. I told you above that I hadn't been informed as to how it was in violation, and hadn't in my mind at least been "abusing wikipedia". Chooserr 19:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You've been told now. Happy? The other content of your user page is borderline and I won't do anything about it unless you step over the line again. --Tony Sidaway 19:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

That's very fair and reasonable. Thanks a lot for that. I am very pleased that I don't have to spend more time on that issue. -- Karl Meier 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony, thanks both for this action and for that referenced in the section above. It's nice to see someone restoring some wan semblance of sobriety to user space.Timothy Usher 20:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I really thought the issue was solved, but unfortunately that didn't do it.. -- > [12] -- Karl Meier 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stay away and I'll deal with it. --Tony Sidaway 20:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. I'll do as you recommend and stay away from this issue for now. -- Karl Meier 20:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I used my evil Cabalistic rouge admin mind control powers to get him to revert his edit [13]. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Note that User:Ibrahimfaisal is, like the original poster of the attack and the admin who has been restoring it and threatening Karl Meir not to remove it, a member of the Muslim Guild, where Karl Meier has been singled out for scrutiny[14].Timothy Usher 20:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The individuals involved are accountable individually for their actions. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers, but not the usual

Could you change the link to Jimbo's page to either be Jimbo Wales or Jimbo Wales instead of the current cross-namespace wikilink? Kotepho 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably not the right person to do that. Please ask on WP:AN and I guess it'll get done if it needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be fixed now. Tony, well done for nuking the Talk page. It needed doing. Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Blu's arbcom

Well, I'm not sure if I violated any protocol, but I added Blu's statement with his permission and then I read that only involved parties should edit the page. Oops.--User:Ikiroid 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your addition was perfectly in order. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and there are no unreasonable rules against doing sensible things. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A question

How is the signal to noise ratio of this sig? User:ILovePlankton/IS

It's good for editing, but not without its drawbacks.

1. no timestamp is visible in edit mode
2. See WP:SIG#Transclusion.2Ftemplate

I appreciate your consideration in trying to find a more satisfactory signature. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I just forgot to put 5 tildes to make a timestamp, but I guess it doesn't matter anyways. ILovePlankton 13:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ban

You notified me about the notice you've put up on the administrators' noticeboard, and invited me to respond there. Yet I was banned shortly after your notification on my user talk page, before I actually responded there. Is it legitimate for administrators to ban a user based merely on materials presented by one side of a dispute? I am awaiting explanation and illustration from you. Thank you. — Instantnood 11:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the general probation you can be banned by any three administrators. While your input might have been useful, it wasn't necessary. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet the three administrators must be impartial, neutral and unbiased, and should not have merely relied on evidence submitted. They have the full burden to collect all necessary materials to ensure the decision they make is fair and just. In my case it was apparent the decision was made based only upon submission by user:SchmuckyTheCat, who has a record of mispresenting facts (as I've detailed at WP:AE, like what I did to his every single submission about me). — Instantnood 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 14:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this what victims who're defending their interests should expect from some of the administrators? It would be disappointing if fairness and justice is not considered important on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 14:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been through three arbitration cases. At the third you were placed on general probation. You were recently blocked for two weeks under that general probation because your activities have been disruptive. It was hoped that you would learn from this. Please try to do so. --Tony Sidaway 14:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The first and second cases are actually the same case. Whether the third case was appropriately and properly opened was questioned. It was for that reason I requested for reconsideration of its opening, and also for that reason it was not possible for me to submit anything to the case until the matter was addressed. My recent edits were considered disruptive because only user:SchmuckyTheCat's submission was taken into account. — Instantnood 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand the following:

• Three administrators have examined your edits and found them to be disruptive.
• Schmucky the Cat cannot stop us looking at whatever edits we like. He isn't in the frame here.
• You may appeal the arbitration case to the Arbitration Committee or to Jimbo.

--Tony Sidaway 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no clue if they've examined all necessary materials [15]. The one who cast the third vote (and didn't sign) was user:SchmuckyTheCat's advocate. I requested for reviewing the opening of the case before the case was closed. Obviously they didn't care. — Instantnood 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators wield delegated power under the general probation. If you think we've treated you unfairly, please take this back to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

At this moment I want to know how much evidence they had actually examined when they made the decision. I'd also want to know why you invited me to respond there. It seemed to be a good sign that you're dealing with it seriously and in a unbiased manner, but it turned out to be a bad one. — Instantnood 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

explain

Please explain yourself? --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean this? See this. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick

See here. -Zero^Talk 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My personal taste is for applications with a bare minimum of brief comments. It shouldn't be necessary to add more than is present. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (2)

Thanks for Fixing my comment[16] I made a few more changes in light of you edit [17]--E-Bod 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 22:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Userboxuser

Well, if you're going to block userboxuser, then you might as well block User:Templateuser also. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. --Tony Sidaway 22:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox not in metric

Is there a specific reason why you have speedy deleted this user box. I thought the first time that maybe because the userbox name contained the word sucks. Now I am just puzzled by it. Can you please explain?—MJCdetroit 02:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this to vandalism. This is clearly a POV delete of a userbox that isn't exaclty new that wasn't put through the proper channels. Nova SS 03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. They were deleted because they are divisive and inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly were not. I have seen silimar boxes for British/American English and the Metric folks not wanting to use Imperial measurements.—MJCdetroit 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide links and I'll delete any such divisive and inflammatory userboxes. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am doing it by hand

it isn't automatic, and I had no clue there was a rule against it, so next time please assume good faith. ILovePlankton 04:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm assuming good faith, but your edit summaries tell me that you used a tool called "VandalProof" to perform the edits. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, I am saying WP:AGF the fact that I didn't intentionally abuse it, and that I had no idea I am not supposed to do that. ILovePlankton 04:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you try to avoid using shortcuts as jargon? It's intensely irritating. --Tony Sidaway 04:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can vouch for the manual nature of it - I didn't receive a thankyou for my contribution. Stephen B Streater 18:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

delete userid

Thinking I needed a second userid in order to have two simultaneous sessions of Wikipedia up at once (to read and to edit), I created hmains2. I now know I do not need this. Can you delete hmains2 for me. Thanks Hmains 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In general we do not delete usernames. If you want to stop using the account, that's fine. Perhaps it would be courteous to redirect the user and talk pages to your main account. --Tony Sidaway 12:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Natalie Merchant article

Hello there. I didn't know where to bring this, and decided to search for a long standing member of the community.

There is something very irritating in this article: people keep reverting each other about the fact that she is married and has a daughter, but never as often as to break a 3-revert rule. In just the 50 item history page there are changes on April 27, April 29 (where it is commented that someone has deleted it a half dozen times now), same day, again, and again on 29th, May 1, May 14 (again on 14th), May 16 (again) May 17 (again), May 18 (again), May 20, May 21 (again and again), May 22 (blanking threat?, another revert by bot, again and again).

Currently it is reverted whether to name the husband and child or not, as happened on May 31 (again and again), June 1 (again), June 2 (again and again), June 3 and June 5.

IPs (a few times the same one, then apparently dynamic ones) were first removing the reference to the marriage stating it is personal life information, and now removing the names. In the talk page there is a discussion with a link that back ups claims the information is public as it was given during an interview with her.

Sorry for bothering with all the diffs, but I want to stress how serious this is, and I am not sure where to inform this. What should be done in this case? -- ReyBrujo 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It seemed to me that some recent edits had the nature of vandalism rather than genuine attempts to improve. Definitely there has been a lot of warring so I have semiprotected so that, if we do see further edits, at least we'll see who is making them. --Tony Sidaway 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Logging blocks for people on personal attack parole

Tony, I just saw your message on WP:AN about Xed, and it reminded me of a message from Jnk that I hadn't got round to answering. I blocked Boothy443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on 3 June for this edit, and also for being abusive towards the people who had warned him about it. It was a three day block. I did it without any awareness that he was already on parole, but just after the block, Jnk informed me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443. Should I have reported the block there? Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help if you did. Some enforcement regimes are progressive (the arbitrators decide on this in their final decision in the arbitration) and administrators take the history of past infractions into account in calculating a reasonable block period. --Tony Sidaway 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

you asked us to tell you.

User:MarkGallagher's sig is confusing. I couldn't tell it was him when he voted my RFA. ILovePlankton 22:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's borderline, but I'm not convinced that people shouldn't use easily distinguishable nicknames and the like (I have issues with people who insist on aliasing their username to something common like "Pete" of "Jack", but fuddlemark is fairly unique). --Tony Sidaway 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. By the way, you know I do respect you, but sometimes you can be far too stubborn. ILovePlankton 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's my fourth best trait. After intelligence, charisma and sexual magnetism. --Tony Sidaway 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I mind the initiative...

...but, just so you know, I do usually carry out the closings I make. Pleased to see you on the ball, though! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 00:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

:) --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on this?

Hi Tony,

Wondering if you might offer an opinion on this[18].Timothy Usher 00:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly. Deleted the db template. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It didn't seem silly to me at all. What am I doing wrong? Is there some other procedure I should be following?Timothy Usher 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is complex and, although it may succeed, it doesn't seem to be a good argument for speedy deletion. For instance, if you disagree with the use of the word "Allah" why not use the talk page to discuss the possibility of removing it? If this fails, try tfd. --Tony Sidaway 00:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I've just posted on talk, isn't that it says Allah per se, but that this word is well-understood among Muslims as a marker of sectarian identity. The English hand writes, "This user edits Islam-related pages", while the Arabic hand writes, "This user is a Muslim". That's plainly deceptive and, according to proposed T2, inappropriate.Timothy Usher 01:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, this is a complex argument and unsuitable for speedy deletion. You need to make it on the talk page and have the image removed if your argument prevails, or at tfd if you decide that the template needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I get it now: it's not deletion that's the problem, but speedy deletion. I've only been around for a few months, and am still learning about such processes. Thanks for indulging me.Timothy Usher 01:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

How do you know they were trolls? Metrocat 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good to see that thewolfstar is back. How long does she get to stay this time? --Elkman 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal External Links

I asked Timothy Usher whether or not the link on Nick Gorton's user page is appropriate or not. He asked me to ask you so that is what I'm doing. Chooserr 06:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

We need a fatwa on this. It's not solicitation, but it is an external link with some promotion, both on the user page and on the linked page. Personally, the user page gives me the creeps, for whatever that's worth (probably not much).Timothy Usher 06:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a perfectly normal user page to me. If it gives you the creeps, you should probably get out more. --Tony Sidaway 11:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in.Timothy Usher 19:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Drastic refactoring

You say "a few users seem to be suggesting that signatures should be drastically refactored every time they occur"

Who says this? --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "every time they occur" was too strong, and "drastically" was a poor choice of words. But you're one of the people who wants to refactor signatures because they're too hard to edit. That's why we had the debate in the first place.

--Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "every time they occur" is too strong. And of course this is about refactoring signatures to remove unnecessary formatting where they interfere with editing. --Tony Sidaway 13:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, inexcusably wrong. So, go ahead and apply the well-deserved block for disruption. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Blocks are preventative, not punitive." --Cyde↔Weys 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ed Poor/Evolution poll

Can you chime in on this issue? As I don't see the harm in having this type of information in userspace but there seems to be quite a few editors who do - it seems (to me) more like the revival of old conflicts with Ed - For me, however, the issue is that it sets bad precedent to delete userspace material that is not clearly violating policy - maybe I should make the info into a userbox - LOL -Trödel 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really bothered about this. --Tony Sidaway 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Metrocat

Would you mind swinging by his page and further explaining his block? He has requested an explanation. It won't take but a minute or two. I'm sure you can spare it, and I think I can handle it from there. Thanks, Tony. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Metrocat

I suggest you to apply the Wiki's rules first, you can't block someone if you don't have solid proofs. I want to see the CheckUser report that Metrocat is vandal. Otherwise I sugesst you to apply Wiki's rules. Without any ArbCom you can't block someone. --193.227.206.157 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolls are blocked all the time. No arbcom required. --Tony Sidaway 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely wasting my time

There is a request for you to respond at User talk:Metrocat. Apparently, I made a response to something she wrote, but she wanted your response, not mine. Now, she's pretty angry at me.

On an unrelated note, are my contributions actually valuable here, or am I just wasting my time on Wikipedia? I'm not sure anyone really wanted to hear about historic places or bridges in Minnesota. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about Metrocat. Your work on Wikipedia is appreciated and if I didn't say so earlier that is my omission and my fault. --Tony Sidaway 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

You may be on 1RR, but there are a LOT of stale protections up there, I'd likely back you up if anyone wanted to accuse you of wheel warring, or mention the "tony sideway pro/unpro ratio".Voice-of-All^Talk 04:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Tony, Thank you for the apology. Chooserr 05:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

np. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

naturalhomes

Hi,

How about that then...

Regards, Oliver Naturalhomes 09:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. --Tony Sidaway 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Zeq

Zeq, I've removed about half a dozen sections from this page because you're overloading me. Writing lots of material on my talk page is a good way of ensuring that I'll throw up my hands and say "enough." That's about the stage I'm at now. Now on Homey's edits, if he's doing something wrong then the thing to do is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It is because somebody else did that in your case that you are now on probation. I suggest that you work on this together with SlimVirgin, who knows much more about this subject than I do. If Homey is causing problems (and at first sight it does seem to me that he may be) then you should be able to use that process to make sure that he stops or, if he won't, gets stopped.

The bans on Zeq have been announced in eight places:

• WP:AN
• WP:AE
• User talk:Zeq
• the talk pages of each individual article (four in all)
• On IRC, on the administrators' IRC channel

They have been logged on the arbitration page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq.

They may be discussed on any of the discussion pages and, in the case of the arbitration page, on the related talk page.

My problem here is that one editor is persistently flooding me with vast amounts of impenetrable counter-arguments. I have therefore cleared them from my page. Some of the removed material was from Homey, others from Isarig, Ramallite or SlimVirgin. They are all accessible in the history of this page. This ban should probably be discussed now on WP:AN if you're really sure that it was inappropriate.

Accusations that I have abused my administrator status will not be met sympathetically. These bans are in order under the probation applied to Zeq by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Formal notice

With the amount of nonsense you are dealing with, I thought a Thank You would cheer you up a bit. :) --Cat out 12:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very sweet. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Manchester bombing

I've reverted your edit because there has been much debate in the past as to whether the bombing was a terrorist attack or not. The best compromise was to say it was "seen as" terrorism and to cite a source. Best leave it like that, to not open the debate again :) -- 9cds^(talk) 13:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my discussion of this on the talk page of the article, Talk:1996 Manchester bombing. In particular, "seen by many" is classic weaseling. --Tony Sidaway 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad user

Alright? I was hoping you could have a looks at this user - User:Feline1. He really is a nasty peice of work (look at some of the stuff on the Revolver (album) talk page and directed at User:Brian G. Wilson. I realise some of my comments towards him could be construed as personal attacks. I couldn't help myself, he's very antagonistic (though I have been trying quite hard not to loose it with people - please judge me with that in mind). He has reams of evidence of poor behaviour and needs something doing about his general bad attitude. In fact, it's not even his personal attacks which I find most distasteful. It's his sumgness, the way he reacts to well-intentioned users by insulting them, branding them "morons" for simple mistakes. He seems to feel this is accepotable behaviour. Knock him down a peg would you please?--Crestville 15:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're all doing good work, and sometimes I know a bit of badinage is okay. Just remember that there is a human on the other end. I think you're both in danger of forgetting that (he may be as offended by your insults as you are by his). If you have to work together, I suggest that you bring specific problems to me before they degenerate to insults, and I'll do what I can to ensure that you can reach an amicable agreement. If someone is persistently engaging in newbie biting or general incivility, please make a report on WP:ANI. or WP:PAIN. --Tony Sidaway 17:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK

I will not bother you again. Do your work as you see fit. Zeq 18:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Rouge Admin Cabal

You really should add yourself to Category:Rouge admins :-) User Talk:JzG 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought self noms were not done, that you had to be nomed by someone else. I've been waiting for someone to add me but I guess I haven't been wild enough. User:Lar 17:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I waited for someone to add me... With Tony though, it would probably be gasoline on flames. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys can all adopt me as a patron saint if you like! :) --Tony Sidaway 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

File:TonyPatronSaint.png

As you wish. The face is Saint Dominic; I'm not good enough to pull your face out of a 1/4 profile snapshot. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Lauder-Frost

Tony, regardless of whether individuals said "keep" or "delete" there was a broad consensus among the non sock puppet editors in the AFD that Gregory Lauder-Frost is too long, too laden with filler, puffery, flattery and unencyclopedic details etc. Don't know if a reference to that can be included in your finding (it would make it easier to edit the article properly given the strong resistanced by GLF and his friends). I'm wondering if you could look at the article yourself and see what you can do in cutting it down to a more readable and encyclopedic form. Your doing this would produce less resistance than any of the editors who have thus far been involved. Homey 13:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anybody can go in and edit the article--which I agree probably needs to be trimmed a bit. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User Christian result

Hi,

I have restored the text of my decision regarding that template. Whatever your opinion regarding its quality, the DRV close is part of the record, and should remain. Although DRVs are not normally closed with extensive explanatory text, they are sometimes (See DRV for The Game (game)), especially when the DRV is the second or third in a series of DRVs. While the text certainly expresses my opinion, the opinion expressed is my interpretation of consensus, which I take to be the definition of what a close entails. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, but I think you were going a bit too close to sermonizing. I also think that your suggestion that speedy deletion of abusive templates can be equated with disruption was absolutely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 17:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sermonizing" is not unheard of in closures of lengthy disputes, and is, of course, in the eye of the beholder anyway. The last bit was just a suggestion, and was labelled as such; however, I do honestly believe that speedying that template as T1 at this point would be disruptive, and I would begin a dialogue on AN/I to that effect if it happened. Thankfully, the German solution appears to have rendered that point moot for now. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was rather upset when Improv speedied that template so soon after the previous DRV and TfD, but Improv certainly isn't the kind of guy I'd describe as prone to disruptive behavior. I agree that the German fix is working for now and I look forward to that progressing to its logical conclusion. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While I do disagree with Improv's choice also, my suggestion of what should be considered disruptive was intended to apply only prospectively, not retrospectively. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My sig

Yeah, I already changed it. I thought that it might have been too long, but I left it until Clyde told me. Thank you! (But I want to leave the RPOTD in there.) the_ed17 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied. --Tony Sidaway 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this any better? The only thing left is the picture of the day. the_ed17 20:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Not that bad. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review admins comments

at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Zeq_article_bans Tnx, Zeq 18:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Signature (again).

I don't expect you to listen or consider other people's points of view (and what I'm doing is probably amounting to bashing my head against a brick wall), but kindly leave my signature alone.

What you are doing amounts to imposing your opinion/will on the entire site. (Damn what anyone else thinks about the matter, you'll continue doing what you want, regardless)

My signature does not in any way violate WP:SIG, it's not long, it doesn't contain images, external links etc. I don't care if you don't like it, that doesn't give you the right to change it (on pages other than your talk). What matters here is that it does not violate policy. You have no reason to change it. Leave it alone. — Nathan ^(talk) 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't be such a silly sausage. "Imposing my will" indeed! --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't inflame things any worse than they have to be on AN/I. I was hoping to guide this wholly lame drama back to the RFC where it can't get in the way. - A Man In Black 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, have fun. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, actually, I don't think it was you doing it, and I edit conflicted removing my comment. Someone's fiddling with Chnwnwnwnwnwwhatever's sig there, and I thought it was you, incorrectly. - A Man In Black 01:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC) No, I was wrong the second time, it was you (it was just that Freakofnature was reverting Chckwnwnwwn's reverts). But, hey, you'd say you'd stop, so no issue any more. - A Man In Black 01:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I won't get into an edit war about it. But I'll always do my best to improve the readability and editability of discussion areas of the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not so much the edit war as decreasing the readability and editability of AN by prolonging a useless flame war on it. Unfortunately, everyone else seems to be keeping it alive on their own. :/ - A Man In Black 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

At FreplySpang's suggestion, I moved the whole discussion to the talk page of the RfC, but somebody else moved it back. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for a moment it looked like we might actually be able to contain the discussion to the RFC. FreplySpang 04:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

haha

First off, Then what you do is vandalism too, think about it. Second I stopped caring when I found no one will ever do anything about you, I stopped caring when you don't seem to care that about half of wikipedias editors very much dislike what you are doing and you don't give a crap about them, and I stopped caring when I found out you bully people for fun.ILovePlankton 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."

Your act was the deliberate removal of a comment by another person. My acts are the removal of unnecessary, unsightly and intrusive formatting while retaining the comments, thus improving the editing environment. --Tony Sidaway 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha. --Godwhacker 05:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

{{refactored}}

I created the {{refactored}} template. Feel free to change it. It currently produces this result: Template:Refactored

Yuk! No thanks. Who cares what has been done to a signature? It's the comment that matters. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you don't care for it, but others obviously do care about their sigs. I wonder how they would react to the use of this template, it sort of announces to the world: I had a fancy signature, but someone thought it was too fancy. ;-) NoSeptember 04:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is they'd hate it worse than the little bespoke jobbies I've been knocking up. Thanks for trying. --Tony Sidaway

It's already been adopted by one user :-) NoSeptember 05:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a param for nicknames so now it can be {{refactored|Example User|Example}} if their names should have a nickname. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 05:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents, I prefer this to simple refactoring, and almost don't mind it. Because it does say that that is not my original signature, which is what my original qualm was. Template:Refactored

05:41, 9 June 2006

No timestamp! :( --Tony Sidaway 05:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just add 5 ~'s, but that is only for someone using it as their sig. If refactoring someone else's sig, just be careful not to erase the date already there. NoSeptember 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Eah, I guess it only works after someone signs, and then someone else refactors. Should work though. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image

Hey, regarding the image. I wrote where I got it from but tagged it wrong, it shouldn't be tagged as copyrighted. I'll look to find which tag belongs there and change it. Thanks for the message. Template:Refactored