User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

"We don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral." -Jimbo Wales

The ArbComm's job is not to enforce the rules. The ArbComm's job is to protect the encyclopedia. That end necessarily and sufficiently justifies the means. In short, if someone is harming the encyclopedia by following the rules, then, yes, we will reprimand people for following the rules. ➥the Epopt

This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the letters in the navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message.' Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: [email protected]

User:Cool Cat

Cool Cat's self-immolating. You're one of his mentors. I'm trying to help him, but it's to no avail. He's spiralling out of Wikipedia. He seems to think there's nothing he's allowed to do here anymore. Help? --Durin 13:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying. It's hard to make contact if he won't listen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Template

Hello, Mr. Sidaway. I recieved a template from Holboin depicting a blatnet lie {[1]). I have since removed said disruptive template from my userspace and I posted a {{Test1}} on his talkpage. I'm utterly baffled however, because I've never encountered this user before, and looking at his contributions, he has accumulated only 12 edits. I thought to bring this to your attention. -Zero^Talk 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Update - and he has placed it yet again. I'll post a {{Test2}} on his talkpage. -Zero^Talk 17:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems action has already been taken ([2]). Never mind. -Zero^Talk 17:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't around for this. One of those pesky "real life" things. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It happened quite quickly. -Zero^Talk 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KJVTRUTH

If mfd is not the appropriate way to handle this user, what is? We're pretty sure he's got a sock in [User:John], the last mediator we had for an issue with KJV was banned, and he never participated in the relevant discussion (see [List of Freemasons]). He is clearly using his user page to push his statement of fact regarding the Masonic membership of certain individuals, "who are denied because they shame the Fraternity". There is no reputable evidence to support any of what he says, and the "evidence" he cites is unreliable, if not proved false by other reputable sources. If you hadn't guessed, KJV is an evangelical Christian, and one of the things they like to target most often is Freemasonry, as they feel it is "un-Christian". In support of this, they find any old thing they think is true, edit it a bit, and claim it as truth.

The people we have actively searching have found no evidence of membership for Thomas Jefferson (half say yes, half say no), Bill Clinton (only went as far as [DeMolay]), and Bush, who was of course in Skull and Bones, which is not a Masonic organization (KJV claims it is). His response to why these men are not listed as Masons is because the Masons are trying to hide it, when the truth is that they were never members.

So, given the soapboxing, inaccurate information, and article POVing, together with the lack of his cooperation with mediation, and the fact that the last time ArbCom was consulted on a Freemasonry article, we had to wait a month for a decision (possibly more, I don't remember), what do you suggest we do to solve the problem, given that the things KJV is doing are indeed covered by mfd, but we can't use it? MSJapan 06:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Try asking him to remove it. If a number of you do so and he refuses, try putting up an RfC and seeing what other people think. Personally I don't see much of a problem with him putting up his opinions as long as they aren't defamatory or attacks (in which case they should be speedily deleted). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We asked him to remove it when he tried to put it on List of Freemasons. Take a look at the history and edit comments. AFAIK, policy states that user pages cannot be article space, which is what KJV's page is. Not only that, it's inaccurate article space, and technically POV, as he has posted the list precisely to defame the Masons; that is his intent. He has not fact-checked at all, and is more interested in making his point than presenting fact. Did you stop to read it? I'd say it should be speedied. MSJapan 06:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly marked as his own opinion. I don't think it oversteps the bounds of what can reasonably done on a userpage, but others may differ on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony, his point is to show "Masons" who "shame the Fraternity" and that "truth is found in the King James Verison of the Bible". If these aren't inflammatory, I don't know what is. Furthermore, KJV clearly states Bill Clinton was in DeMolay and was not a Mason. so why is he on KJV's list? That's factually incorrect. We had someone ask the Secretary at Cheyenne Lodge about Dick Cheney. The reply was that he was not a member (It's on Talk:List of Freemasons). Why is he on KJV's list then? George Bush was in Skull and Bones, which is a Yale fraternity, not a Masonic Order. So why is he on KJV's list? If SnB is Masonic, as he claims, we all know John Kerry was in it too, but he's not on KJV's list. Why? Because according to KJV, he wouldn't be someone who "shamed the Fraternity". I therefore maintain that KJV's page is POV-pushing. He has no one on his page who made positive contributions either, like Washington, or John Glenn, or Ernest Borgnine. His "sources" are outdated - Jefferson is at the very least contested - the extent of his membership is as a guest in a Lodge once, but he's ignoring that. He's tacked the legitimate ones at the end, and we've got no problem with that, but we require Lodge information. As a matter of fact, I'm certain some of those names we already have on the list. Not only that, but KJV infers that we kill those who reveal names of other Masons, as so: "The below listed Men where named by a Mason in a letter to his brother Masons. I am leaving his name of to protect him from his oath, if he still believes in it."

So how far does he need to go to insult and defame before it's a problem? MSJapan 17:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, honestly I've had a good hard look at the userpage and it just doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. It's just one guy explaining his philosophy and beliefs. I encourage you to take your objections to the inconsistencies in his userpage to his talk page--if you do so in a spirit of honest research you may convince him that he's wrong. On the other hand I am just this one guy. You could take this matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review and they may agree to re-open it or even delete it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example, Cheney and Clinton are wrong. We pointed this out, and they are still on his page of "Masons". His edit summaries have never been friendly, even in the face of research shown. The citations that agree with him are right, and those that don't are "hiding the truth", which ignores the fact that Masonic research has been improving, and things that are 25, 50, or more years old just might be wrong when a closer look is taken with a more critical eye. However, to illustrate the situation, I will go to his talk page first. Pending that outcome, I will or will not move on to deletion review. MSJapan 18:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tony - thanks for removing those bold AfD notes. Things look different by the light of day. AvB ÷ talk 09:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No problema. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Deletion under review v. Template:TempUndelete

Hi Tony! Do you think one of the two templates above should redirect to the other, or do you feel they have different purposes? ({{TempUndelete}} traditionally involved blanking the page and protecting with that template, your new template doesn't.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the other template. It's stupidly big. Please feel free to muck about with them, but I just want you to know that I hate huge fucking big enormous "look-at-me-I'm-so-important" templates because they get in the way of the content, which is of course what matters on an encyclopedia.

I don't like the idea of temporarily undeleting a page and then blanking it. That's what history undeletion is for. If we're debating the undeletion of a page that isn't potentially defamatory, isn't an attack, and isn't under a copyright question, we should encourage people to look at the actual content so that they can work out whether it's sensible to delete it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that your new template is less intrusive. I have redirected TempUndelete to your new template. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a note about this on DRV, too, and restored some stuff going back to 25th. Don't want to go too far back, but I think it's reasonable to go back a couple of days so people can see, and add information to, pages that they're talking about. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

User:GreekWarrior

Juding by this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pontian_Greek_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=36535458

I dont think temporary bans are having any effect on him, he is a trouble maker. --A.Garnet 22:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

Regarding your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Movement, where can I find information about how to close AFDs?--Ezeu 22:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual process to follow is:

Wikipedia:Deletion process

There is a general consensus on Wikipedia that an experienced editor who has not been participating in a deletion debate may close it if the result is obvious. This usually applies to keep decisions where, for instance, there is a majority vote to keep and there is no evidence of sock puppetry or other irregularity. Non-admins may also close an obvious delete (say more than five votes and unanimous to delete) in which case they would tag it wit something like this:

{{db|Consensus to delete on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example article]]}}

If you need help, advice or support, please ask me or any other admin who has close deletion debates (not many of us do, it's a specialized field). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ezeu 08:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clitoris (censored)

I was reviewing this Afd because someone is trying to censor the images in Penis. Your comment tickled me so much I can't stop giggling. --FloNight 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Incidentally, what place does the term "left wing" have in this discussion? Either a person can control his web browser or he cannot. His politics have no bearing on the matter. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 03:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I enjoy a bit of a giggle. I was in full rant mode that day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a bunch for the unblock! --Khoikhoi 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

KKK template

First of all, my "fucking morons" statement wasn't made at anyone in particular, it's just a result of seeing so many examples of people trying to make a point, or whatever it is, and watching the user templates being taken to the extreme of plain inanity. Also, I wasn't attacking Kelly. I freely admit I had no sympathy for her crusade against user templates (nor was I enamoured with your role in the fiasco either), but seeing what has happened since then with these templates (and, I imagine, seeing what was there before that I had never noticed) has made me more sympathetic towards her. Perhaps it was a backhanded compliment, but not an attack. Furthermore, if people are going to behave like idiots, I'm going to call them idiots. I'll refrain from naming names as of now, but it's time to call a spade a spade. The situation has gotten ridiculous. Maybe I have too. -R. fiend 07:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Your statement has the appearance of a gratuitous swipe at Kelly, whether you intended it to be or not. But I'm more concerned about the rest of your comment, which is grossly uncivil and can only make the debate more acrimonious. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA vote

Hi Tony, thanks for voting on my RFA. I am sorry that you don't feel I am ready to handle the mop. I've seen you around Wikipedia quite a lot, in AfD, WP:AN, RFCs I've looked over etc, so you'd probably be a good source of advice. What areas of Wikipedia would you recommend I get involved in (or, indeed, avoid) to improve myself as an editor, and potentially as a future administrator? Thanks, Proto t c 11:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well there are several things that suggest that you're not quite rounded out, although you do a lot of work. To pick on one that stands out, a paucity of edits on article talk pages suggests that you're not really doing that much interactive editing, so you may not be ready to face, and overcome, the routine problems that you will encounter once you are given powers that other people do not have. I'd suggest that you pick a few articles that interest you where there are disputes and spend a month or two, not so much editing as discussing and attempting to resolve the disputes. This isn't what an administrator does, of course, but it will give you a feel for how editors interact with one another, and will lend you confidence in your actions when you do have to make decisions about how to deal with a conflict over an article. Knowing when to block, when to protect, when to unprotect, when to revert, and so on, is one of the things that failing admins (I'll give no names here, obviously) tend to have difficulties with, and it's the primary reason why admins end up before arbitration. I'm very concerned at the low quality of admins we've had coming on since summer and I'm being very careful who I pick. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I tend to try and avoid controversial articles for the most part, and probably 90% of my article edits are made to pages where the talk pages will never, ever require archiving. That being said, I have tried to calm things down on and try and help with compromise on both the Terri Schiavo and Abortion pages, as well as on the Birmingham page, which for some reason had a lot of reverting and edit wars associated with it. I wouldn't say I was particularly proactive with that kind of thing, though, so you are right, it is definitely an area I could use more experience in. I'll look into trying to act as a mediator on a few contentious articles a little more (after a bit of research, to - hopefully - avoid blundering into a squabble I don't know enough about). Thanks, Tony. Proto t c 15:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. I do know all three of those pages, and I think you should be commended for getting involved in discussions there. I'm going to have a closer look and so for now I'm moving my vote to neutral.

One thing that counts greatly in your favor is your pro-active attitude in seeking out and responding to criticism in this way. That's how I ran my RFA and I think that's excellent evidence of someone who can handle criticism and respond to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_soapbox

Can I asked why you moved this. I understand there to already be enough discussion over you previous actions. You do appear to be changing the userboxes meaning. (I guess it was kept as TfD). Ian¹³_ID:540053 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if TfD is not closed, please do not move to allow users to clarify what they are voting for, Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted you - as your move could be seen to influence TfD and to imply this template promotes rulebreaking (wikipedia is not a soapbox...), and this was not implied before your edits. Ian¹³_ID:540053 16:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously the template does promote rulebreaking, but that's by-the-by. I liked the name better and I think my wording was more accurate.

There is really no reason not to edit or move a template while its deletion is being discussed. It's really rather a rubbish idea to suggest that once someone suggests deleting stuff we all have to freeze and play statues. This is a wiki! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What does I understand there to already be enough discussion over you previous actions mean? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify, the previous change and move, and its discussion on the talk page. Ian13|talk 09:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Interestingly, this isn't the first time we've had this fight - I believe Template:TempUndelete exists - it was used to create a blanked page, and then the history was restored. There was some controversy, but the template survived. Phil Sandifer 16:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is taking the logical next step. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Clerk application approved

Your application to become a clerk for the Arbitration Committee has been approved. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Administration is for recording organizational work and communication between clerks. Raul654 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Shall I get you a Rolodex? :)--MONGO 18:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Get me nice PDA with a cell connection so I can Wiki on the beach...when summer comes!

Boy, I just got back from Brokeback Mountain. My kids and I went to see it.

In amid all the scrumping and stuff, there was some lovely scenery. I envy you that. Not the scrumping, I never had any problem getting that anywhere.

It's like Scotland times ten.

First Ang Lee film I ever saw. Won't be the last. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet...I've heard it is excellent....and Wyoming is beautiful, but the green of Scotland and the other regions of the British Isles is where I plan on going someday...Wyoming can be very brown in certain sections, even in a period of wet...the state gets less than 10 inches (25 cm) of moisture annually, so aside from the mountainous regions, it lacks the color of green. You also need a coat even in the summer in the mornings and at night as the dryness and high altitude do a poor job keeping daytime heat in. I saw it snow there even in the lowest altitudes every month of the year...well, enough of the geography lesson...BTW, glad to see you have kids...that's the one thing I missed out on.--MONGO 08:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Opps...just saw that the film was filmed in Alberta, so if it looked green, that would explain it...to see films of Wyoming/Montana scenery, try The Horse Whisperer, A River Runs Through It and the now dated American western Shane.

Uncyclopedia:Brokeback Mountain needs just one more good section to be long enough for a front page nomination. Why you aren't on Uncyclopedia ... - David Gerard 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm colorblind so all this brown/green stuff just zooms over my head. There were mountains and lakes and trees, and some fine looking horses. In the film, there are snowstorms in the summertime when the sheep flocks are up on the mountain grazing. Some of the film is set in Texas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh horsies...my ex did a lot of the groundwork on this one...the all time U.S. Western Pleasure Horse Quarter horse point earner...[3]...interestingly, I've been horseback riding twice...maybe that's why she's my ex!--MONGO 08:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of deletion of Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks: City of New York

Thanks, but I think concensus to keep deleted is already evident. I doubt undeleting the article would change anyone's mind. Kaldari 21:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh but I want to change the culture.... ;) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I left a question for you. . .

Greetings Tony. I just got a note from User:Kmac1036. I left a question for you (or anyone else who knows what's going on) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_User:Kmac1036. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said on WP:AN/I, I had already put this block up for review, as I try to remember to do with all blocks, on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re User:Kmac1036

But my point is, what exactly has he done? As far as I can see, his all talk. If he starts being disruptive I will support a block, but until then, a block is unwarranted. -Greg Asche (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't wash. We don't take passengers. Any time spent by editors responding to his stuff is time not spent producing an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, well we definitely have "personal" opinions which clash. So, anything you deemed totally offensive, email or otherwise, I apologize. I am working on the entry for Concrete to see how I do! My goal is not to be banned. Kmac1036 04:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No, you weren't at all offensive. Just puzzled that someone might expect you to, you know, work on the encyclopedia every now and then. ;)

Welcome aboard. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome user.

I have noted some troubles with the user Jpogi and the article Lower tie bar. Another user (and myself later) has placed a {{dictdef}} tag the article, duely noting it, and this user keeps removing it unitalerally. I have left a couple notes on his talk page, reverted his removal of the tag twice, and discussed it on the article talk page. He does not aknowledge any of this and continues to remove the tag. Diff links are as follows: 1,2,3, 4. All for diffs show the same exact thing. A reversion of the tag's placement always within an hour of its placement/replacement. I was wondering if you had any advice on this matter or would perhaps talk to the user about it. Thanks.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He's removing the tag because the article is obviously not a dictionary definition. Please don't put it back. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you say so I'll go with it. Note that I still dont totally agree but I trust your judgement and experience 100% more than my own. It looks like the user must be in the process of building the article from a preplanned point but I just wish he/she had been a little more open to discussion along the topic.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

He's new and I don't think he has made any talk space edits yet. Be considerate and patient and he'll get to talk when he's ready. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I've just been caught newb biting... I'm so ashamed...--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well you won't make the same mistake again. So don't be ashamed. You learned something and became a better Wikipedian. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Salutations, Mr. Sidaway. I vaguely recall this article being exsistent : SNK Boss Syndrome, and I have reason to believe that it was deleted as it was present at my arrival to the wikipedian community. Could I inquire that you see about undeleting it..? Also, I noticed your "requirements" for adminship on the standards board. Do I fit your prerequisites...? -Zero^Talk 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted a couple of weeks ago.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SNK_Boss_Syndrome

If you want to undelete, just go to Wikipedia:Deletion review and list it there, explaining that you missed the deletion discussion and giving any reason you have why it should not have been deleted.

Looking at your edits and behavior on Wikipedia, you seem to have come on quite a lot in the past couple of months. I'm glad that you feel comfortable about expressing you opinion and do so with civility, and your editing and comments are generally of a good standard. I'd be happy to nominate you for the mop and broom. I can do it now, or just name your date. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your offer of nomination, but it wans't the reason for my inquiry. I simply wanted to know your thoughts concerning it as my mentor and my progress. Its seems I'm on the right track and that's good; but adminship is not a concern as of late, and won't be for another month or so. It would be disrespectful to the community and myself to take on the nomination whilst I am still in the process of becoming a mediator. Again, many thanks for your response and mentorship. Finally, seeing as far I have come, I shall henceforth call you Tony from here on out. Cheers,-Zero^Talk 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The return of GreekWarrior

Hi, does this ring a bell - it just happened. Can you please do something about it - if he's going to start trashing talk pages, then IMO that IP should be blocked. Thanks. Latinus 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I blocked that IP for twenty-four hours for now, as I'm unsure of its status. If the same IP is used persistently for this kind of thing, I'll block for a longer period. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

History undeletion

Hey Tony. I see you did a history undeletion of the Louisana Baptist University list of people. What does this mean? I can't seem to find it ... [4]--TonyT5 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh somebody deleted that. They shouldn't have, but there's a rather paranoid air around WP:DRV and they seem to ration good faith. Here is the history. If it gets deleted again, just ask. I always honor good faith requests for undeletion where possible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DC Streets

The purpose of DRV is not to rehash the first vote, but to decide if process was followed properly in that vote. We cannot have to separate, perhaps contradictory, debates ongoing at the same time. Relisting it like that especially without mentioning it at the DRV debate, seems less less than genuine. Also, when the nominator at AFD explains all the reasons why the article should be kept, and none why it should be deleted, that just might steer the votes in a particular direction. DRV has a discussion, and I think it's a good one, which will help those who want to know (like me) if AFD is a vote or not. We're told it isn't all the time, only to have it rigidly treated as such. The second AFD isn't helping anything. -R. fiend 05:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I disagree. The second AfD is clarifying that people really do want to keep the article. Please stop sabotaging this good faith nomination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please desist

Please desist from posting to my talk page. I am no longer able to assume good faith with regards to you, and as such am not interested in hearing your opinon. brenneman^(t)(c) 12:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want that, you must stay out of my way and not engage in any more personal attacks on me. There is not at present a feasible alternative to this. You don't get to opt out. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything that I, or anyone else, could do to help mediate/ameliorate this situation? I like both you guys and hate to see the bad blood. Both of you, I know, sincerely love the encyclopedia and have done many great things. If there is anything I could do, you have but to ask. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I only have a problem with Aaron when he attacks me, which he does infrequently but with extraordinary vehemence. That he feels able to attack anyone on this wiki at any time dismays me; that he chooses me of all people is at least a source of relief, for I have broad shoulders and can bear it. If you could persuade Aaron to respect the policy against personal attacks and recognise that his behavior sets a bad example to others, I think that would be a great service to Wikipedia. Even if I deserved his attacks, Wikipedia is not the right medium with which to deliver them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Alexander

Regarding "I don't get where Sjakkalle is going with this talk of "authority to review"", I got it from Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-Administrators closing discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now Ambi doesn't act without thinking, and I've no idea whether the article would survive AfD so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. If that chap had come to me I would have just slung it back on AfD for a proper discussion of the improved article. It would be better than this utterly painful mucking about on DRV, which is never going to give a borderline article a fair whack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam

Good faith only goes so far, Tony. I caught this I.P making an addition of spam [5] blatently agaist established comments on his talkpage [6] and discussion on the article's talkpage, respectively. He has ignored furthur discussion and re-added the link despite the entreaties. I recomend a 24-hour block for blatent fiddling with wikipedia policy. -Zero^Talk 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just zapped him. All I could see was link spam. That's all he was here for. Not any more. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that. Perhaps I'm still too forgiving per the Selina situation at hand. -Zero^Talk 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't think Selina will ever be able to fit in to Wikipedia. She just doesn't know the written rules, let alone the unwritten ones that guide all our interactions here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect so. -Zero^Talk 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to think that MSK will be able to adapt to wikipedia, if given the opportunity. Unfortunately she is one newbie who has been bitten too many times. Perhaps she is a little too bold at times, but not a lost cause by any means. --Dschor 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at her block log. She was blocked for some very extreme edit warring just days after her first edit. And twice more in the next week or so. She wasn't just a newbie, she was an aggressive one and she failed to learn. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dschor should do his homework. The block was reinstated after discussion on WP:ANI yesterday, and the unanimous feeling was that this was a perfectly justified block provided Tony's edvidence. Please, Dschor, lift your head up and look at the bigger picture. Desist your good-faith defense before making the argument of a clearly disruptive user who made more disruptive outbursts than good contributions and discussion. I don't see what you're trying to prove here. -Zero^Talk 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

He's gone as so far to get a sockpuppet:([7]) Clearly abrasive actions to spam. "She wasn't just a newbie, she was an aggressive one and she failed to learn." indeed! -Zero^Talk 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

What happened?--MONGO 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I merged them! Most of the stuff that was cluttering up the userpage is now in subpages that can be reached by a click or two on the top navigation buttons, which are much smaller and more numerous than the old ones. I even have a single click for each of WP:AN and WP:AN/I. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see that...not such a bad idea, actually.--MONGO 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just got bored of the design myself; removed clutter and got down to the bare essentials. ([8] and [9]) -Zero^Talk 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Tags/Markers

Hi. I am not an administrator, but I would like to know where or if there is a page that contains a list of all of the markers or tags you can put on a person's page to let them and other users know that it needs to be fixed (i.e. Neutrality, Wikify, Cleanup, etc.) Thank you in advance! -- Jared 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages

You're welcome! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured list status

Hey Tony, I dunno if you recall voting in this afd, but following its merge status, I expanded upon it exponentially and its become this. I've since nominated it for featured list status, and I thought you might fancy taking part in the discussion here. -Zero^Talk 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy that you've improved it so much, and it does look good, but I really, really try to avoid ever participating in the featured article/list process. I figure that once an article gets to that point it doesn't need help from me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I humbly respect your opinion. I'm invigorated by your positive words regading the article. Not sure why that fellow is flaunting that first point however. -Zero^Talk 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Polemical userboxes

{ugly box removed)

Just wanted to get your opinion on {{User pacifist3}}. --Cyde Weys 13:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Borderline. I'm inclined to view it as a joke in poor taste. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm tempted to view it as a personal attack, or at the very least, unconstructive. -Zero^Talk 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is an argument for that. It could be seen as mockery. Yes, I do believe that it is mockery of pacifists. Whether one sees that as robust criticism or an attack is a matter for judgement. I'd be unsure of speedying that, even though if in article space it would certainly match our speedy criteria (CSD A6), because I don't think I could make it stick. In any case one could edit the content to say something less hurtful, and you're welcome to try that alternative. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I went to the discussion on TFD and made some comments, and then I edited the template myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination)

Good morning, Tony. I just read the comment you added to this page. While I understand your point, you are proposing a significant change to the process that was approved when the Deletion Review process was created. The discussion at that time was quite clear that subsequent AFDs were allowed but that they should wait until the Deletion Review discussion concluded.

If you really feel that allowing simultaneous discussions is a good idea, please propose it on Wikipedia talk:Deletion review. I am skeptical because I see too much possibility that opening the AFD simultaneously with an on-going DRV discussion will just create confusion and frustration for everyone but I promise to consider your arguments carefully. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that there was agreement not to hold AfDs. If I propose it, I will probably do so on WP:DP. For now I'm carefully considering the matter. My main concern is that DRV could be used to give a good article the bum's rush, even though it may have been somewhat improved since the original deletion and the reaso for deletion no longer exists. The tendency of DRV to emphasize process over content is extremely worrying. Content is all that matters in the end. Process is just a way of getting there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On a compromise, it would be appropriate in your opinion for admins believing the an article has been significantly improved to wait until the end of the DRV, and then nominate on AfD after the process has finished? This may involve undeleting the article which could be deleted as a result of the DRV process. As you're probably aware I have a very, very good record of undeleting articles that were previously deleted and taking them to near-unanimous keep decisions on AfD, usually with just an hour or two of research, so I'm not proposing an abuse, nor would I tolerate such abuse. I'm talking about content that, for whatever reason, has been wrongly deleted and which DRV somehow fails to remedy. That deletion/undeletion is a failing process isn't just my opinion; it has been discussed at board level (see recent mails on Wikien-l). I'm trying to remedy this and I sometimes feel as if I'm the only person actually inside the process trying to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hits per article

I don't believe there is, but I had an inquiry as to if there was a way we can track the number of hits a particular article gets...thought I'd ask you since you have a better knowledge of this place than I ever will.--MONGO 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a list on Wikipedia; I've seen it. I'll have a bit of a rummage and put my results here. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The query was by a contributor of note(User:Peltoms), probably deserves his own article due to his contributions to glacial studies and the article is Glacier retreat, but it was just redirected after concensus from the previous title of Glacial recession. Thanks for the imput.--MONGO 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Twelve month stats generated October 2004

A bit out of date, sorry.

Also try here:

• Wikipedia:Statistics

If you find something more up to date, I'd also like to hear about it. --Tony Sidaway 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...I will pass that on.--MONGO 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on User:Gibraltarian

Hi Tony, thank you for the information. I'm currently off (on holidays), so that I didn't noticed the case was closed. It has been long, but it has been worthy. Many thanks again... --Ecemaml 23:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your holidays! --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Request regarding undeletion for DRV

Hi Tony. I'm not completely thrilled about you doing undeletions for DRV without consensus, but I do think you're doing the right thing. Can I just request that you leave the page contents in the history, and have the current version of the page be just the review notice? -- SCZenz 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the statement that I'm doing undeletions without consensus. If I left the page contents in the history, then they couldn't be edited. This is a wiki, not an archive. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of un-deletion, I find it unconstructive how users continually delete articles and refuse to let editing take place. It doesn't make sense. However, there's always a silver lining, and such is the case with the re-deleted SNK boss syndrome. I just went ahead and merged the relevant information. Another net gain to wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been like this for a long, long time. There are certain areas of Wikipedia which are regarded almost as private fiefdoms by those who frequent them (see recent comments on this matter by Xoloz) and the concept of site-wide consensus, which is often widely at variance with their private version, is very, very alien to them. A bit like the userbox kerfuffle, really, only more entrenched, --Tony Sidaway 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi Tony. I wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RFC against Tony Sidayway. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"evidence"

While I dislike the use of legal terms in reference to community processes on wikipedia, I suspect that the problem those users are having with you is derived from:

(annotating --Tony Sidaway 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)):

• Log for Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)
• Log for Colony5
• Log for Template:User_GWB
• "I'm just not seeing a policy reason to restore here." on WP:DRV on the subject of Template:User_GWB
• "In my opinion, this is a pretty good way to cook." on WP:AN/I on the subject of the userbox mass deletions.
• Summary of some of the results of my draftsmanship in the Webcomics arbitration case.

Some are somewhat unfortunate comments, and others indicate many reverts in sequence. There is usually a question in RFA's that goes something like "what would you say to somebody who reverts four times in 24+N hours?" Hinting at a "letter vs spirit of the law" conundrum. My personal feeling is that you'd fall into that camp. That having been said, none are especially damning in and of themselves, but in combination they do indicate a trend which is... unfortunate. Lastly, the choice quote, "fuck process" doesn't help much. Avriette 06:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. There is a balancing act, and a rather delicate one, between doing the right thing and keeping people happy. I think it's time I paid more attention to the latter. --Tony Sidaway 07:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I feel I should clarify a little. While I'm not particularly thrilled with the way you carry yourself, I don't believe that we've ever crossed sabres. I'm generally not involved in the delete/undelete & block/unblock processes, either. So I am not especially interested in an rfc regarding you. I just wanted to mention the above to you, on account of you seeming to have missed it. Were I in your shoes, I'd be a little concerned that others had this opinion of me. It is generally true that the people with the gripes do complain the loudest. However, it's not the fact that there are gripes, but rather there seems to be a persistent stream of gripes, describing roughly the same sorts of things. Know what I mean? I just don't think it's real healthy to make comments like you have been making, even though you do seem to have the interests of the community in mind. Maybe just cooling down the rhetoric a little would help. I'm reminded of an Eliot Spitzer quote recently from WSJ -- "never put anything in an email." The problem with email is analogous to the wikipedia. If you have a bad hair moment, and say something you may later regret (such as "fuck process"), it's very hard to make it go away. Anyways, that clarification turned into something longer than I expected. But hopefully I've made it clear that I'm not especially involved in this dispute other than being concerned with the things some in the admin community have said and done of late. Toodles. Avriette 07:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with you that the things I've said are untoward. Of what I did see, the most puzzling was your quote of my description of my drafting work for a recent arbitration case. I see nothing wrong with that. It was perfectly civil, honest and accurate. I've responded to Aaron's embryonic RfC and we'll see how it goes. --Tony Sidaway 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot to say: fuck process! --Tony Sidaway 10:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)