User talk:Tony Sidaway: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:37, 4 June 2007

purge edit icons

I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

Divine Brown

Yes, I agree with this redirect. If the circumstances ever change where she receives more than non-trivial coverage, we can always revert and expand from those sources. Burntsauce 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well it's a judgement call. I felt that on balance her film and talk radio appearances in the wake of the arrest were not sufficient to sustain an article at present. I wouldn't object to a straight revert, because I'm not that committed to it. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were to be relisted on AFD I am fairly confident it would have reached the same logical conclusion. Burntsauce 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well instead of that it looks like it'll be improved and kept. Unexpected but welcome. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Tony, didn't you say the article was improved and kept? It looks like you redirected it minutes after the near-unanimous "keep" close anyway. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the event the article was not improved to the point I had hoped. It doesn't indicate that she has done anything significant that would merit a distinct article, rather than a note in Hugh Grant. If you disagree, revert, but please do add sourced information on whatever it is that she has done. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two movies about her (yes, sourced, I added some of the sources). Appearances on half a dozen television programs on several continents over 10 years (showing continuing and widespread interest). I'm sorry it didn't meet your standards, but it did meet those of 15 people at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Brown (sex worker) - in fact, there wasn't a single corroborating "redirect" or "merge" or "delete", it was a unanimous "keep", the most overwhelming in a long time. That could be used as the poster child for what we call consensus around here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that nobody agreed with me. However what little sourced information we had seemed to relate almost wholly to her involvement with Mr Grant. I am permitted to use my brain you know. --Tony Sidaway 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking old tired joke about only one head working at once... Related, but indirectly, and surely not almost wholly. For example, the porn movie with "Huge Grant" - yes, related, but hardly has anything to do with Hugh Grant himself, don't you agree? He wasn't within a mile of the film, and if he could have gone into lunar orbit to get even farther from it, probably would have. :-) There is a line between "people who are only famous in connection to X" and "people who became famous in connection with X". Since documentaries and films have been created primarily about her rather than primarily about Grant, she has crossed that line. A somewhat similar example, Cherie Blair only became famous in connection to her husband; but has been the subject of a number stories primarily about herself. Though not one of those stories about her doesn't spend a significant fraction on her husband, they are still primarily about her. Same for Brown - all the stuff about her mentions Grant, but is still noticeably not about him, but about her. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, related, by hardly has anything to do with Hugh Grant himself" doesn't make sense. The entire film was about the incident with Hugh Grant. Cherie Booth is a very good example of a person famous in her own right. She entered chambers ahead of her husband, she's a leading silk. a notable human rights lawyer, founder of Matrix Chambers, and a recorder at County Court and Crown Court level. All of Brown's career since 1995, such as it is, has been related to one incident. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning related indirectly. There are hosts of examples of people primarily notable due to one incident, (Elián González, Christa McAuliffe) or relationship (the first article I wrote myself, Alice Barnham, almost all presidential or ministerial wives, Dennis Thatcher. Shaha Riza for one that's currently in the news), yet as long as there are sources that cover the people, not just the incident or relationship, we have articles about the people, not just the incident or relationship. Anyway, you said all that at the AfD, and it didn't convince. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it didn't convince. Now there's a very important proviso connected to coverage, and that is that a person connected with a single incident doesn't necessarily merit his or her own article. There is in fact nothing worthy of report about Divine Brown except the incident and possibly related events such as the recent film about the incident. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I actually mostly support this proposal, which I imagine is what you're talking about Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Alternate_wording_for_new_addition but note that she would meet it, given that when she got arrested later for an incident not related to Grant it did make news, and Million Dollar Hooker is clearly about her life, not just the Grant incident. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a minor bust, it didn't raise her above any thresholds. This is very much the kind of situation that the policy deals with. --Tony Sidaway 21:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Warnings policy page

I've changed [1] a sentence you seemed fairly adamant about keeping in, just to make it more concise and less portentous. Just letting you know. Thanks --DrumCarton 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stand aside and see how other people accept it. Actually I'm not sure the academic comparison is worded well enough to stay, yet. --Tony Sidaway 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By academic comparison, you mean this sentence or the reference to Wikipedia higher up? --DrumCarton 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, loose language. I meant the "scholarly sources" thing. There seems to be considerable disagreement on this matter so I'm still discussing it on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree. I thought my version read slightly better but others aren't in agreement - is the sentence necessary as it is, anyway? It's out of tone compared to the rest of the guideline. -- DrumCarton 22:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is an attempt to express a basic truth, which I've illustrated by quoting from recent film reviews in the British national daily newspaper, The Guardian, and its Sunday sister paper, The Observer. These happen to be the sources I go to before I watch a movie. I expect the reviews to explain why the film is worth watching, and to do that they have to tell me about the plot, the performances, the setting, the production, and a whole load of other stuff. This is not a big deal. Have you seen the trailer these days? --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice you changed it back again. Quite apart from anything else, I fail to see how a spoiler warning even has the potential to impact upon NPOV in any way. The guideline makes the other points many times anyway. I'll think about it and see if I can come up with anything better, since including the NPOV seems silly, in a way. DrumCarton 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I thought you were talking about something else. The impact on Neutral point of view (NPOV) is quite obvious. I had to rewrite the lead for Romeo and Juliet myself because until recently it didn't even mention the basic shape of the plot, which is what makes Romeo and Juliet a classic of its type. David Gerard rewrote the lead for The Crying Game to record its sensitive, and at the time revolutionary, treatment of minority sexualities.

I think that's what an encyclopedia does, and the tags were stopping us, which was silly because NPOV motivates us a a core policy. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I think we're talking at cross purposes a bit here - maybe we should make different sections for the two sentences or something. Anyway, relating to the NPOV question, I'd say what you mention above is a question of (old) spoiler warnings policy affecting content and style, rather than affecting NPOV. It's possible, though, that I use a narrow definition of what constitutes a POV... --DrumCarton 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic English

Very cheeky of you to redirect the above article - the Ethnic English are recognised under law.

Don't redirect again - it is a genuine article I have drawn up due to university studies.

It's a very poorly written POV fork, as far as I can tell. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO - study your Law and you will see that Ethnic English are a group under the RR Act 1976. part of my studies.

If you do not understand - do not interfere.

Explain this a bit more, please. Use the deletion listing to explain why this article must be separate from English people. --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity is defined under UK law both in the race relation act and in other documentation. The English have been defined as a Ethnic Group since 1965. They are NOT a nation however - depending on what you define a sa nation. But their ethnicity is English. hence a trial 2007 Census for the UK.

Regardless of what British Law dictates, there is no reason that the information can't be merged into the English people article. Wikipedia is not a state agency. --Juansidious 23:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you've got me curious

What's coming? -- nae'blis 20:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has intimated that he may not yet have finished proposing modifications to Wikipedia policy related to deletion. --Tony Sidaway 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind pointing out where he intimated it? Grace Note 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott and me - my userpage

Please see the above links as cited evidence of user's conduct. I can cite more examples. -- Cat ^chi? 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I could be taking this to arbitration at some point so all evidence is useful. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose that though it feels kinda stupid since this last "dispute" is over a userpage redirect. Would you like me to send you the contents of the deleted page via email or some other method? I am a commons administrator (in case you do not know) so I can do that. -- Cat ^chi? 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At present I'm unclear whether this is a fairly isolated incident on English Wikipedia, or part of a pattern of disputes between you and Ned Scott. Any way you could clarify this? --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I met Ned when working on Air (visual novel) related articles such as List of Air episodes as well as many others. He overwhelmingly opposed my proposed version and revert wared over it big time.

Since then he made occasional appearances a number of times such as ones on ANB/I or commons. On all cases but the last one he had a minor role. He typically made one or two comments and vanished.

Right before the userpage incident (which he repetitively recreated the redirect and contradicted 5 admin deletions), he did revert war over me updating my sigs such as on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cool Cat (04). He was never this "involved" on an issue directly involving me before. He feels he has done nothing wrong. I find his combative mentality disruptive.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat and I got into a dispute over some articles relating to Air (visual novel), as he said before. What he didn't tell you is that there were several other users who were in that same dispute, and for the most part Cat was the only one pushing the issue. He basically wanted to do things his way, regardless of the other editors involved. I've also seen his behavior in other places, and seen many situations where he basically throws a fit to get his way. Whenever Cat sees someone, such as myself, that was from a past dispute, he assumes they are out to stalk or harass him. While it's understandable he has this fear, due to Moby or whatever his name is, it's simply not the case here. Tony, I think you know pretty well that Cat only has himself to blame for how myself or anyone else reacts to him.

If you saw the AN/I discussion about his sig changes (I can dig up the links, if you want), you'll know that I was far from the only person asking him to stop editing talk page archives. I'm sure I can dig up some examples of where I've done the same to other users who've edited talk archives, which the exception of those who've changed names for privacy reasons, etc. His changes triggered at least a dozen or more pages on my watch list, including my own talk page archives. In no way did I seek him out, but nor was I going to ignore what I thought was silly and disruptive. I honestly think that Cat is acting in good faith, but I don't trust his judgement on many things. There's potential for confusion and the fact that it's needless and a waste of time (both on Cat's side and for the servers). Take for example his RFA, where the page would make it seem like he was using two accounts at the time. It's minor, it's silly, and it just shouldn't be done. Many people told him to stop, and I was hardly the only one.

The username redirect is an odd issue. If anything I have taken more offense to the admins who inappropriately closed the MFD far more than the actual username redirect. It was a simple issue, Cat had the redirect deleted, I thought it was needless, confusing, and an inconvenience to over 2,000 incoming links, let alone to people who referred to him as "Cool Cat" within the discussion text itself. It shouldn't be a big deal to make a simple redirect to avoid that confusion. There are only positive effects to having the redirect, and no negative ones. When I saw him tag it for deletion again I removed the tag. The whole point of speedy user pages is that they are almost always non-controversial, and normally no one would care except for the user. It was never a "right" of the user to always have the option to delete these pages. WP:CSD#U1 pointed to WP:USER for details, where it said that if a user page deletion was contested then it should be brought to MFD. Given this, it would appear his user page no longer qualified for a speedy deletion.

Now at this point I'm guessing you want to know why I didn't just let it go. Well, for one it wasn't a big deal to me at the time, and I was pretty sure I was in the right, and saw no problem with recreating the redirect. I simply brushed off Cat's protest as one of his little fits he throws when something doesn't go his way, and didn't think much of it because I knew I wasn't actually doing anything to hurt him or any task he was doing. I thought it was unreasonable to just let things slide simply because Cat overreacts. If we do that then we've just saying that it's ok for him to just throw a fit and get his way, simply because people don't want to hear him complain. I wasn't out to punish him, not at all, but I wasn't going to avoid the situation, because the reality of it was that it was reasonable. I thought it was worth the redirect, even if it meant that Cat would bitch about it for a little while.

So then Cat opens the MFD, which is fine, that's his right. It was no longer a speedy, and if the MFD supported delete then it would be the community that wanted that, and not just Cat being.. Cat. Then Doc closes it early, based on the incorrect assumption of U1. I revert and reopen the MFD, not wanting to take it to pain-in-the-ass-town known as DRV. It was a simple and straight forward issue that didn't require Deletion review, and others even agreed with me on that. I was reverted initially on the re-opening, but I pressed on it again. Even if I was the only one to re-open it, every time I did it generated more discussion and only continued to validate the need for an MFD.

Then it gets closed again, by Newyorkbrad, who was even aware of the first early closure, and that many people felt the speedy close was wrong and the MFD was justified, and was backed by WP:USER. Considering a number of admins and other users were even involved in the discussion, it was pretty clear that it was anything but a speedy deletion criteria. The MFD closure was what was disruptive, and my attempt to revert it was nothing more than trying to stop that disruption. It's ok to think the discussion is silly, but it's not ok to force close the MFD because they simply disagreed with it, and when policy backed up the MFD. And yet I'm the one accused of being disruptive?

WP:USER says in plain english that the user page should be undeleted and then listed on MFD for five days, and I see nothing wrong following that. At this point the MFD page got protected, making DRV the only option. So why push it even now? Because those admins think they're right, and they'll do stuff like this again in the future, and probably others who saw the discussion. It's inappropriate, it sidesteps the consensus process throwing it out the window, and totally ignores the logic why user pages were a speedy candidate. That, far more than the redirect itself, is simply unacceptable.

So there you have it. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can see the warning signs. My advice is the same advice the arbitration committee gave to Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick) a couple of years ago: let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring. He's a nice enough fellow and a valued Wikipedian, but for some personalities he seems to be a tar baby. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking him, nor do I seek him out. But at the same time, I will not ignore his disruptive behavior when it happens in front of me. I know he's not a bad guy, and I've even tried to tell him that it's nothing personal. Each time I see Cool Cat I try to give him a fresh start in my mind and I try my best to not hold a grudge, and remember he does do good things, and does all these things in good faith. I'm sorry if I don't express that in every message I make. Trying to compare me to Davenbelle couldn't be more wrong, but I'm sure Cat will eat it up as something to use against me (as he often does). Despite how worked up I can get, I almost never feel as strongly as I might seem in text. And I've only responded that big chunk of text because you specifically asked me to. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me, I don't think you're acting abusively. But there is something about this situation that makes me uneasy. "Each time I see Cool Cat I try to give him a fresh start in my mind" ought to set a warning bell ringing. You're repeatedly finding yourself in disputes with this fellow, and in the latest instance you took it upon yourself to chase him up about a rather silly but innocuous spree of signature editing, and then sought to stop his old user page being deleted. Oh well, you'll either get the point or you won't. Sayanara. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting his sig change has little to do with it being Cool Cat. Had I never known him before that, I still would have reverted his sig changes to archives. It wasn't done out of anger (not to say I wasn't annoyed) or anything like that, and I've done it before to other people whom I've have no issues with. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this mentality is disruptive. What do you suggest I do with it? I really do not want to file a user RfC since those are not very helpful IMHO. -- Cat ^chi? 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing to do is to stop trying to edit your signature and move on, leaving this fellow floundering in the dust with his obsessions. If he bothers you again, let me know. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been trying to edit my sig for quite some time. That didn't prevent this user from this user from repetitively recreating my former userpage. He is still "bothering" me as per his comment here on your user talk page (right below) and here. I seriously dislike his tone. -- Cat ^chi? 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reviewing last 250 edits of Ned Scott? I think ArbCom is unavoidable now. User will not leave me alone. -- Cat ^chi? 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- Cat ^chi? 06:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit, I responded quickly! Someone call the police! -- Ned Scott 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've all been participants in these same discussions for a few days now. I've already dropped the issue of your userpage, but the sig thing is something else. Continuing a discussion that I was a participant in is something I'm allowed to do. I am not doing this to piss you off, I'm not doing this to harass you, I'm doing it because I'm apart of the discussion. Cat, get over yourself. You're talking about taking this to arbcom? What are you taking to arbcom? "Cat doesn't like what I do" is not a policy violation. And do you honestly not understand the concept of watchlists? -- Ned Scott 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not "dropped" the issue for a second. -- Cat ^chi? 05:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I stated on the DRV that I would be fine if Newyorkbrad simply added a note to the closing statements, and he responded that he'd be open to that. Others are still pushing for relisting, though. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do jack about it, Cat. I've done nothing wrong when I told you what you were already told. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your changing of user signatures

My signature is exactly the way I wish it to read, and your changing it because you don't like it is nothing short of vandalism. Cease doing so at once. RGTraynor 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't vandalism. Please choose a less distracting signature. --Tony Sidaway 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly is; I have zero leeway to change your signature if I don't like the looks of it. Wikipedia gives editors the capability to use colors in their sigs, and thousands have taken advantage. If you don't like them, don't look at them. RGTraynor 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures are for identification, not decoration, and their appearance takes second place to the requirements of keeping discussion pages readable and uncluttered. Please stop making a fool of yourself. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had similar words with Radiant!? Or do you find his admin status more daunting to take on? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe Tony and I ceased to daunt one another several years ago. I don't recall having "words" with him over this because I fail to see why this is such a big deal. -- R 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a number of frequent AfD flyers who use such sigs: Iridescenti, Dennisthe2, Whstchy, JodyB, Radiant!, Arkyan, TenPoundHammer, Clamster5, EliminatorJR ... Their use is popular, Wikipedia both gives users the capability to automatically set such signatures and has no policy enjoining the same, and there is nothing about their use that is either foolish or worthy of provoking insults. (Come to that, you don't use the standard four-tilde sig, unadorned, do you? This isn't a functionality question at all, it's just that others don't happen to share your personal sense of aesthetics. I could think of a worse reason to alter other editors' signatures, but I might have to work at it to do so. RGTraynor 15:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be assured that you're not being singled out. If a talk page is cluttered and difficult to read or edit, I'll refactor it to remove clutter as a matter of course. No, Radiant! doesn't get a free ride--he has even been known to refactor his own signature in deference to my preferences, when editing my talk page. It's incorrect to state that there is no policy on signatures. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear it; would you be so kind as to provide a link to any such policy explicitly allowing you to alter or deface user sigs based on nothing more than your own comfort zone? That being said, there's no way that any alteration or defacement of my own signature (except on user talk pages, where people have more of a reasonable expectation of conformity to their wishes) will go unreverted. RGTraynor 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need a written policy to permit me to improve Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So your assertion that "it's incorrect to state that there is no policy on signatures" was false? And you now assert that defacing signatures "improves" Wikipedia? RGTraynor 20:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything I have said is true. Removing clutter from talk pages certainly makes it easy to read and edit them, so I think I'm on safe ground in stating that I'm improving Wikipedia, in a very quiet and unobtrusive way. --Tony Sidaway 20:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIG says-

(snippage: I know what it says, having drafted much of it mself -Tony)

Think its personal taste but all editors should be aware the a request about ones own thoughts on signatures is better than pure delete and be gone with. Mike33 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you mean here. Never mind, it's not a problem. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my best statement and yes I know your work in defining day to day usage. WP:SIG is not your best drafted piece of work. It is vague. Surely when changing signatures one should at least leave a note on the users page saying why and the reasons it was made; Or certainly a note somewhere on the Afd or talk page that the signature was changed with reasons. Mike33 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very minor edit with only a local effect, restricted to the page edited. No notification is appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm I don't want to go on and on like a nutcase. Wikiquette isn't binding upon anyone, but yet most people follow the rules of amend, edit and discuss. It just seems too bold and brazen to hack away at a signature, especially innocuous ones. Discussion on Wikipedia is what sets us apart from other similar projects and essentially helps build policy and guidlines. Mike33 07:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but you'll always find people who don't believe that pesky notions of consensus and discussion apply to them. I'm scarcely surprised. RGTraynor 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You think we should discuss discussions? That way, madness lies. --Tony Sidaway 12:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be discussed is whether editors are behaving civilly and respectfully and whether unilateral changes are really a good thing for Wikipedia especially when they affect the attitudes and "personal space" (in that signatures are usually considered a form of personal expression to some degree) of other editors on Wikipedia. Is it more important to have your way, or is it more important to be supportive and non-confrontational about your edits in order to avoid making other editors feel disrespected? I'm for the latter, and I tend to believe that it's best to apologize and revert myself if I've given offense especially by editing behaviors that I unilaterally imposed on other folks, especially where no policy directly motivates my behavior. --MalcolmGin 17:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pages are public space, not personal space. They have to be kept uncluttered. Editors have user pages for self-expression. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the DRV, read my edit summary

Hi,

Stop your behavior -- DRV asked for the relisting directly, as the best way to resolve the issue. If you had read the thing, you might have noticed that. If you read the thing and did what you did anyway, you were violating WP:POINT and coming really close to trolling. Best wishes, Xoloz 01:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being disruptive, I'm not trying to make a point, and I'm not trolling. Now you listed an article for deletion without providing a shred of a reason for deletion. Please either remedy that or refrain from wasting everybody's time with pointless deletion listings. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, if I must list every article that comes out of DRV (and needs relisting) with a "delete" rationale instead of an "abstain" to conquer your overly-bureaucratic desire to make every listing a "deletion" debate, I'll do it. Failing WP:V is a perfectly good reason to open an AfD, and it's there now.

The sad thing is, I'm a bit more inclusionist than deletionist, and you certainly are: your attachment to red-tape and bureaucracy will slightly lessen the chance these articles will make it (because I'll be saying "Delete," and not "abstain," each time.) If this is want it takes to stop your rules-lawyering, so be it. This is what I tried to tell you, but you are too stubborn to listen. Ending abstentions will hurt the general chances of any article being kept, but it won't stop renominations when consensus asks for them -- closers will just put Delete in the line now. Happy? Your procedural obsession makes deletion a tad more likely for every controversial DRV'ed article. Maybe you're a closet deletionist or something... I never would have guessed. I don't have time to play "red-tape" games with you, so I can assure you that I'll never be abstaining at AfD again. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you've finally provided a rationale, I've reverted my close. Please do provide rationales for your deletion nominations in future. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are a closet deletionist, or you simply are very bad at seeing the big picture, as it seems my entire point went sailing blithely over your head. I'll try one last time: "abstentions" from DRV were aimed at being "fairer" to the article. DRVs don't always specify one deletion rationale, and consensus to relist may be reached on a variety of different reasons that coincide. To be fairer to the article (when in doubt, don't delete), and more accurate regarding DRV's sometimes multi-faceted reasoning, abstaining makes sense. It still does make more sense, mind you, and I'm sad to have to sacrifice accuracy in each case because you are a "process wonk", but I'm very tired of trying to explain fairness to a brick wall. I'll be keeping statistics to see if the number post-DRV deletions does increase as a result of this. Maybe that will finally cause you to grasp the point I've tried to communicate. I doubt it, but I always have hope. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is all well and good but it presupposes that you, the DRV closer, have a moral obligation to re-nominate the article yourself. You don't. When people indicate that an article should be re-listed they're saying that the original debate was inconclusive/invalid, for any number of reasons, and is vacated. Any one of them is free, at any time, to nominate it for deletion. If no one actually thinks the article should be deleted, then why are we nominating it? Sounds like needless bureaucracy, of which I'm a sworn enemy. For the record, I'm an inclusionist, and I simply cannot fathom how you equate requiring a deletion rationale with deletionism. That makes absolutely no sense. Mackensen (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "moral obligation" -- as I say at your talk, it is about timeliness. The DRV has (presumably) opened up new issues -- address them while they are fresh, and get a conclusive consensus if you can. It's also about finishing the job: if relisters made enough valid points to overturn a closure, it is part of a closer's job to see that those points are addressed -- to see to it that something doesn't "fall through the cracks." It's about thoroughness as well as timeliness -- if a consensus says relist, then they must have (a) reason(s), and that consensus does "deserve" to have its thoughts discussed. The editors at the article, who may feel uncertain about the existence of their work in the face of convincing objections out of DRV also benefit from a timely resolution of the matter. Xoloz 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I read you correctly, Xoloz you're saying that you will go on listing articles for deletion anyway, and that by my actions I've forced you to provide a deletion rationale, which in your opinion increases the likelihood that the article will be deleted. Well that's one way of interpreting it. For myself I agree with Mackensen. No need to relist if you don't want to delete. Let someone else do that, if they want to. It's quite okay for articles to "fall through the cracks". If nobody wants to list an article for deletion, it will not be listed. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, both the DRV consensus and the article's contributors benefit from a timely dispatch of valid concerns raised at a DRV. Yes, I could let a commenter from DRV (or anyone who wants deletion) relist; but they might tarry, and they might also provide (unintentionally) an inaccurate view of what DRV said. Fairness and timeliness both indicate that the presumably impartial closer is in the best position to present the article at AfD. Xoloz 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're begging the question. The importance of a DRV that advocates a relist, as I've noted earlier, is that it vacates the previous deletion debate. We're back to square one. Whatever was said at that DRV is not binding on any subsequent AfD--anyone is allowed to turn up there and make whatever arguments they choose. Mackensen (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the DRV isn't "binding" -- but it is presumed to be sensible. When it makes good points that indicate a relisting is in order, its sensible points merit addressing, and it is most timely and fairest for the DRV closer to facilitate that addressing by relisting with dispatch. I'd rather do that impartially, by abstaining; but if it is insisted a wear a deletionist's hat and act so, I will, because the interest of everybody in dealing with the points in a timely fashion is compelling. Xoloz 03:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody insists that you wear any hat. Indeed, if you don't think the article should be deleted you shouldn't be listing it for deletion, and if you do then you're simply being honest as well as informative by providing a rationale for other wikipedians to consider in the subsequent debate.. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are incapable of seeing two sides to every issue, but I am quite adept at it. If anyone has a sensible reason something should be deleted (even if I disagree with it), I am able to speak as if by proxy for that person in the interest of timeliness, and I will do so. Sometimes, the "keep" and "delete" arguments are both good, and I can't even decide which I believe more, but I could certainly express either of them, for expediency's sake. I could always abstain, but if that is disallowed, then I will wear the deletionist's hat. It is good common sense, from my POV, to address the DRV's points (presumably good ones) ASAP, and nothing so far said has made me doubt good common sense. Xoloz 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably acceptable, but I think you're missing the point: nobody forces you to list an article for deletion, and in taking this line of action you're openly and unashamedly insisting on bureaucracy for its own sake. --Tony Sidaway 03:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "bureaucracy for its own sake" -- I've given you the reasons (timeliness, fairness, definitiveness) many times above. It is a "common sense" listing for those reasons. Xoloz 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have. They're not applicable to the context. Firstly Wikipedia doesn't seek fairness: contents are licensed by GFDL and can be hacked around, mangled and deleted at will. This used to be in bold letters beneath our edit box. Timeliness and definitiveness aren't issues either. That's pure bureaucratic twaddle. Listing for deletion without giving a deletion rationale has nothing to do with common sense and is the end result of an unthinking and robotic clerical act. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Tony, I can't seem to find the e-mail address for the Arbitration Committee's mailing list on-wiki. Do you mind forwarding it to me? Thanks -- Samir 05:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email. I don't think they like it to be widely publicised, because you know what the people they have to deal with would do with it. --Tony Sidaway 05:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, appreciated -- Samir 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech

I am going to ask that the names of the victims should be restored immediately. I gave a larger reasoning at the talk page, but I will summarize here*

The known victims are public figures - once described and named in papers, they are public for life
Removing names is pointless, as the newspapers contain the names anyway

WhisperToMe 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Devlin / BLP concerns

I've seen you made a recent, yet fairly trivial revert in the Michael J. Devlin article and was wondering if you were familiar with the associated articles and their current uncertain states. User:Newyorkbrad has decided to remove the names of the victims in the case due to "BLP concerns". Although these names are very much in the public light, and indeed, did some of the talk show circuit or so I gather, Newyorkbrad and a few others feel that it is not needed in the article as Wikipedia harm their privacy. I disagree wholeheartedly. In the same way that I'd disagree with editors removing all traces of Madeleine McCann if she was miraculously found alive, or that I'd oppose the deletion of Natasha Kampusch.

If you are familiar with the situation in that article, I would like you to make a comment. Even when I disagree with you completely, you usually have some kind of valid point[3]. - hahnch e n 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Arbcom case

I took a glance at the current arbcom case this morning and I had a thought I wanted to share with you. There is an angle that people are missing on this issue which I think could clarify some of the issues. It happens to revolve around one of my pet peeves. The continual misunderstanding and poor use of the terms primary/secondary source on Wikipedia. Please read this short disscussion on the issue. One of the issues being faced in the arbcom is that some of the biographies in question have no references which can be used as a secondary source. There are only sources which describe the notable event at the time that it happened. There are not sources "which present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources." And any such generalization or analysis, which is what is needed in an encyclopedia articles, will be original research. So these biographies end up being either containing original reasearch or being a simple description lacking any true encyclopedic content. Unfortuantely Wikipedia has become rather used to the latter articles, so it may hard for people to see that as a problem.

Now this is not true of every biography being disscussed in that arbcom case, but I think you will understand where this issue comes into play. I hope this insight can spark some ideas to help describe the problem with in a more understandable fashion. I think right now people are misunderstanding each other more often than they are actually disagreeing with one another.--Birgitte 13:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to mull this over and do a bit of reading that I've been putting off for years. I think you have a point, but the terms "primary" and "secondary" with which I'm not familiar because I don't have the scholastic background, are used in a very confusing way on Wikipedia, probably inconsistently owing to the mixture of experienced scholars who know what they're talking about and laypeople like me who obviously don't. What complicates things even more is that we often don't realise we don't understand or we try to understand the meaning from context. I'm very much of the latter persuasion. Why actually read up on the subject when you can get away with blagging it like everybody else? A short-sighted view but a seductive one.

Convincing the community that we've been tackling biographical material the wrong way, and that this results in real harm, is indeed a big part the task we face. The other part of the task, which is more pressing, is convincing proponents of strict proceduralism that the matter is so important that the rules have to be interpreted in a very generous way. The latter is an issue of community trust, however, and not how we go about writing articles, and this can be handled by the arbitrators who do a good job of it. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like to speedy delete things

Could you delete User:N and User_talk:N for me so I can complete the migration of my userspace from User:Nardman1 Thanks :) -N 13:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not my job since I sublimed. Someone will pick up on the tags soon enough. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got awesome? Neato. -N 13:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even more awesome, with a side order of fries. --Tony Sidaway 14:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opnion requested

Hi, Tony. I've seen some of your comments on the issue of biographies of living persons, and, if you'll forgive me for spamming your page, I wonder would you mind taking a look at a concern that I raised at Guy's page here (third post from the bottom of that section, assuming that nobody adds to it, and the remaining posts) and give your opinion. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment, the content of which I don't think will come as a big surprise. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no surprise. I have to plead guilty to the creation of Trupti Patel as well, but I'm more bothered by the Donna Anthony one, because I think in her case, it's possible that the existence of her article on Wikipedia is adding to her notability. I simply didn't think of that at the time. I think Mrs Patel would have remained notable without my help. Anyway, thanks for your comments. ElinorD (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate closure

I've reverted your inappropriate closure of the debate on Tanya Kach. I know the article was deleted and some debates have happened at DRV. That's a bad way to have a debate, and there were good reasons for this, well explained in the debate in my note. I feel you are trying to quash all discussion, which is simply inappropriate. DRV is a bad place for this kind of debate to take place, and I have had some reasonable level of approval for this idea at WP:AN. Please don't do it again: the debate on this article needs to go forward. The question of process should be discussed; we can evaluate the quality of this alternative process afterwards, or even during the debate at the talk page or elsewhere. For better or for worse, we should just have the debate, and I think it's appropriate to have the debate at AfD, because the DRV debates have not been good for the community and aren't on point. Mango juice^talk 20:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice. An AfD debate cannot overturn a deletion, however. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN

well 1) the GFDL cannot and does not attempt to stop fair use and 2) someone who has not yet registered an opinion on this matter.Geni 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Someone else should definitely close, but your suggestion that my closure was in any way incorrect is absolutely unsustainable. --Tony Sidaway

Are you 5 supreme court judges? If note makeing absolute statements about copyright law is a bit dicey (much to my anoyance).Geni 02:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about BJAODN, but it's pretty obvious that it's a stupid, useless, disreputable and unnecessary archive of copyright infringements, derived from people who really do not deserve to be subjected to derision. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt

Tony, you db'd the current version of Christine Wyatt under G4, but the present version is a considerably improved version, with only a little on the person and discussing mostly the legal issues with appropriate references. I think it's a reasonable good faith attempt. I know we disagree on some of these, so I am certainly not going to reverse your tag, but I am asking you to check the article again. I am not quite as impatient a person as some. I put a holdon tag for the moment. DGG 01:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody seems to have deleted. If the case can be written about in an encyclopedic manner without making it into a coatrack-style "bio", I think that would be better. We've had great success lately with such writing. --Tony Sidaway 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got the name wrong, it's Charlotte Wyatt and it's still undeleted. My comments stand. The "right to life" and "quality to life" debate is a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia article, but writing piecemeal in dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles is not the way to do it, because of the difficulty of maintaining neutral point of view over all of these articles. --Tony Sidaway 01:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that broader articles are needed in general. But I am not entirely sure that I agree that such articles would invalidate the need for articles about at least some of the individual subjects and cases. Regarding Wyatt in particular, the very reason why there is substantial traffic in scholarly journals over the issue is that this is the first time the High Court's family division has permitted such a case to be held in open court. It is a facet of the wider right-to-life/quality-of-life debate in the UK, to be certain, but in a very real sense it is the impetus for the current form of that debate. Tony, do you feel that (which the sources attest to, and I hope my article as written implies) is a sufficient assertion of notability to elevate this topic above the level of background news-story noise? Serpent's Choice 15:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic, I am curious as to the intention of redacting the names from parasitic twin. Unfortunately, neither of the "minors" whose names you removed are still alive, so redacting the names is not going to influence where future Google hits point to or the like, and the voluminous media coverage would seem to make family privacy issues a minimal concern, especially as there is no additional information about the families (beyond county) provided. I'm not changing the article at the moment, however. I know we both have put some reason into our arguments here, and I'd rather discuss the issues than just revert over them. Serpent's Choice 15:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected Charlotte Wyatt (expiry time of six hours) to allow for discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On removal of unnecessary references to the names of minors, I'd put it down to taste and decency. A way of distinguishing ourselves from the press. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the merits of any specific article, I would think there is a point at which the actions of or circumstances involving a minor are sufficient that we would name them, even if those actions or circumstances are unfortunate or negative. What criteria do you suggest editors employ to determine when names should or should not be included? Requiring editors to make discretionary decisions based on "taste and decency" is unlikely to result in consistent outcomes (because cultural and ethics mores vary widely among the Wikipedia contributors). We are not the press, but on the other hand, the names of individuals connected to topics, events, and circumstances that rise to the level of encyclopediac contribution are likely to be germane. We are an encyclopedia and a source of information. Serpent's Choice 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question I'd ask is: "is the name of this person relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of the event?" Usually it isn't, really. I don't think cultural mores vary that much, really. We all know that tossing the name of a dead child around is tasteless and likely to be hurtful. The references we provide usually name the individual, so completeness is not compromised. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't all know that. I don't agree that it's tasteless, and I have no indication of it being hurtful in this context. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that a useful principle will be forthcoming on this matter in the arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check

I need a sanity check. I've been working with some editors on the Cow tipping article, I can not get past the fact that it appears mostly OR an unproven theory. Could you take a look at it, for my reassurance that I am approaching this sanely. Thanks in advance, Navou 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow tipping is bollocks, but an article about the hoax might be amusing. The article is labelled as a comedy stub but there should be more about its appearance in the comic context. --Tony Sidaway 17:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 : The question I'd ask is: "is the name of this person relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of the event?"  Usually it isn't, really.  I don't think cultural mores vary that much, really.  We all know that tossing the name of a dead child around is tasteless and likely to be hurtful. The references we provide usually name the individual, so completeness is not compromised. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 ::No, we don't all know that.  I don't agree that it's tasteless, and I have no indication of it being hurtful in this context. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
+::: I expect that a useful principle will be forthcoming on this matter in the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff|arbitration case]]. --[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 == Sanity check ==