purge edit icons

===>I dunno After viewing the pages you suggested, I don't really have any insight into the matter. My guess would be that it's completely fair to use, as much as if I had an album title made up of "3Ə¥ŋ" (in case you don't have Uncode, that's four random characters...) -Justin (koavf), talk 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm quite sure that the name is uncopyrightable, whatever writing system is used. It's the copyright on the image that concerns me. --Tony Sidaway 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in (Koavf's talk page is still on my watch list from the wax lips question last night) but I just wanted to point out that the "runes" in that image aren't any language at all. Each one (including the "zoso") was created to represent a different member of Led Zeppelin. So they're not public domain; they're original works of art made to look like ancient symbols. That being said, since it's album cover art (and, actually, it was only on the spine - Led Zep's 4th album is technically untitled), it seems to me it should be fair use. If entire album covers can be depicted under fair use, surely a tiny part of the cover can be, too, no? Kafziel 18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the design of the symbols (which are all derived from other sources), or the choice of runes, but the specific depiction produced by artists working on behalf of Atlantic Records or Led Zeppelin in 1971, or in similar contexts for Swansong Records or Led Zeppelin. Or anybody else, for that matter. As it happens, today User:freakofnurture has produced his own artist's impression of those symbols, and release the image into the public domain. This is free content and we can use it forever, and moreover it is recognisably the sequence of symbols chosen by the members of Led Zeppelin to represent their fourth album. --Tony Sidaway 23:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inspiring my user space layout. (Although mine is very spartan and uses no images.) Kimchi.sg 03:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

np. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that once an article is deleted, all references to any edits to that article will also be deleted in a user's contributions. This was indeed the case with me vis-a-vis the 1911 EB project (I made innumerable annotations to the 20-some pages involved, and for a while, you'd get nothing but screenload after screenload of edit notices of in my user comments).

I know an admin can 'undelete' an article, which seems to mean they can look at it. I wonder if one can look at anything deleted from user contribs via deletion of an article.

Specifically, there is one set of exchanges between Jaysuschris and myself that I cannot find; as I recall it was on a talk page where he thanked another user for his support against me (perhaps his or another's sock puppet). There was another exchange where, looking at this user's edit history, I made a comment that Jaysus had forgotten to change accounts. This would have probably been in February, perhaps earlier, maybe into early March. This is why I believed JC was one of Nussle's trolls, following the example of Capitol Hill staffers in vandalizing articles.

If there is a quick and easy way of determining this, it will save me many laborious hours of viewing all of his edits. Has JC asked that anything be deleted? How can one tell? Reviewing myself, I behaved abominably, but there was provocation.

I would also add there is someone lurking behind this who posted some vile anti-semitic material in my mail -- Sean Black resolved this. I'm told it was an aol account. I don't think this was JC, in that the edits were mostly in the sandbox; a kid probably.

I also add that an admin's ability to eliminate any trace of any previous posting -- including ones in their own mail -- adds to my current paranoia. --FourthAve 00:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this means. Eliminating emails? --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You on my talk page in response to my request: in response to my request for comments: I suppose that if I have a concern it's with your mass-spamming of user talk pages. It's probably better to place such requests in a single location--on your own talk page or user page is best--where those who are familiar enough with your work to watchlist them will see it.

My reply: Thank you Tony - yes Tony, as you had asked me to call you Tony and not Mr. Tony when I had a talk with you a year before. I shall be more careful, and shall avoid "mass-spamming". I will also not do "select-spamming" (?). No, sometimes, I will have to do "select-spamming". I was just kidding! Now, I am leaving you in peace for few weeks. About a year back on 22nd April 2005, You gave me an exceptional new comer barnstar, and I thank you you every year for the same. In case, you find that I have done some exceptional work during last 12 months or next 12 months, please do not forget to give me another barnstar! --Bhadani 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed. FourthAve is banned from Wikipedia for a year, and is placed on personal attack parole, probation, and general probation. This will be enforced by block. I have carried out the one-year-ban in my capacity as an administrator. For further details, please see the arbitration case. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been decided by many in the undeletion debate and by a TfD discussion that these by no stretch of the imagination fall under CSD#T1. And have you read the rewording of the userbox: "This user has multiple Wikipedia accounts." That is perfectly acceptable under WP:SOCK. Restore the template immediately, as your unilateral action here is quite unacceptable for an admin and is a highly counterproductive effort to make a point. Have you read WP:SOCK? These userboxes are policy. How on earth could they be "divisive and inflammatory"? I might also add that I find your behavior on the undeletion debates--your early closures of discussions, your closing highly controversial debates in which you have participated, and your uncivil and rude remarks--extremely immature and inappropriate. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, matters that are this controversial likely should be TfDed rather than speedied, per WP:CSD and just because it would save you a lot of headaches. AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that any userbox, particularly one like this, is "policy" is simply preposterous. Of course they're not. See my response to David Levy on this. In short, the userboxes misrepresent policy quite comprehensively by giving the impression of official support for alternative accounts. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple accounts have legitimate uses" (WP:SOCK). There is official support for alternative accounts, when they are used legitimately like mine are. I return to my original opinion that you wish to see the policy change to reflect your belief that there is no legitimate use for alternate accounts, although there is--this is not the way to go about making that change. There's nothing "preposterous" about this userbox; on the contrary, having a method, such as this userbox, to alert others that I do use legitimate alternate accounts, is absolutely vital. In any case, there is absolutely no way on Earth that this userbox falls under WP:CSD#T1. Nominate it for TfD if you disagree with it; don't abuse your administrative priveledges, go against the policies set forth by the community, and ignore the previous TfD and the current discussion to get rid of it. That's called WP:POINT (you might want to try clicking the link and reading the policy, so you're familiar with why your actions are counterproductive and destructive). AmiDaniel (Talk) 21:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall warn you once. Cease your personal attacks or you will risk being blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My intention was not to attack you; I'm simply quite flustered and dismayed by your actions, and despite your attacks on me (such as "You've got to be joking, bonny lad"), it was entirely off-color to imply that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. Nonetheless, I would like to have a rational discussion to reach some agreement on this userbox, and I would like to ask you once again to undelete it and seek consensus to delete it before doing so. Frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this userbox; rather, I feel it necessary to the community, but we seem to have different interpretations of WP:SOCK. AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmiDaniel is quite correct in stating that these tags are actually recommended at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You broke a transclusion when you deleted the templates.

You claim that I've misinterpreted the policy. With all due respect, I'm still waiting for you to cite the passage(s) in which it's indicated that all uses of multiple accounts are prohibited. As I mentioned, I only see the exact opposite. —David Levy 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting a response to the arguments posed by myself and David Levy. I'd also like to add that I just did a quick tally of the undeletion debate: of 36 votes, 16 (44%) voted to keep them deleted, whilst 20 (56%) voted to undelete / restore / redirect / rewrite. I hate tallying votes, but I just wanted to illustrate the point that, regardless of whether you believe the template is divisive and inflammatory, the community has of yet reached no consensus (meaning it defaults to undelete), and actually more support undeleting the templates than keeping them. Isn't it better in these situations to side with the will of the community, rather than your personal beliefs? I feel that if the debate has currently gained more support to undelete the templates than to keep them deleted, it seems rather clear that WP:CSD#T1 was not applicable here. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that I voted to keep the original templates deleted, because I believed (and continue to believe) that they were divisive and inflammatory. The new wording, however, is not even borderline. This deletion obviously was out-of-process (based upon an entirely false rationale), and Tony has stated on many occasions that such an action may be unilaterally reversed by any administrator (and I agree). I don't intend to wheel war, however, so I'm posting here as a courtesy. It would be nice if Tony could return the favor by at least responding. —David Levy 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have deleted something either out of process or against policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony I know it is difficult to keep up with policy these days but WP:SOCK still allowes for alt accounts (although for some reason you have to call them alt accounts rather than sockpupets). Since you appear not to want to discuss the issue I have gone ahead and undeleted the templates.Geni 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative accounts have always been "allowed" by policy. They are deprecated, however. Having these inappropriate templates gives the wrong impression. I note, however,that they're not in widespread use and so there is no serious problem. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I didn't create the originals, but I did create the later versions with just the bold text, as place fillers for the people who had already invoked the templates in AfD's. By removing the templates and replacing them with deletedpage, there are now a huge number of AfD entries that show as comments but the actual vote is missing. See, for example, the first response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memorial niten ichy ryu. Did you really want to do that? Fan1967 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for archiving. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It means that I will be loyal to them not there actions, so if they are doing something wrong I will support them (i.e. I will still be there friends and I will try to make there day better) but I not support what they did wrong. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if you still wish for me to reword it I will. (only because you asked nicely). user:ILovePlankton|User_talk:ILovePlankton 17:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I should explain that what concerns me here is the possibility of the following scenario: suppose a friend of yours gets into a bit of an argument on the wiki about some issue, and he's banned. Suppose he comes to you and asks if he can use your login to make edits. The loyalty document--which I'm sure is intended to foster fellowship, and not wrongdoing--in its current wording would seem to suggest that it would be okay to breach Wikipedia policy, risking a ban, by giving him your password.

I feel that it would be a good idea to think a bit more about this with a view to avoiding the possibility of encouraging Wikipedians to do something that is bad for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will change it later, I don't have the time right now. ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better? [1] ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 03:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrongly call trolling I call a move of solidarity. You were in the wrong, accept it and move on. The user and myself are under no obligation to remove any images from signatures that are not disruptive. JohnnyBGood t c 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should you persist, I think you'll find that your perception of the situation is somewhat awry. I'll assume for the moment that you're too bright to push the envelope. --Tony Sidaway 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't condecending. And for the record, you cannot object to the image in my signature as there is no solid basis for it in policy or guidelines beyond that you don't like it, which last time I checked isn't a valid reason to remove it. Have a nice day. JohnnyBGood t c 21:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish. If your signature or the way in which you use it should become disruptive, nobody needs to be able to point to a specific line that says "JohnnyBGood isn't allowed to have a stupid signature" to ask you to knock it off and, should you continue trolling, block you. --Tony Sidaway 21:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True if a signature is used in a deliberately disruptive way, such as if I had a picture of you with a O\ then you obviously could argue it was trolling. Or if it were overly large or was racist etc... you could argue it was disruptive. However just having an image isn't a "disruption" as it harms no one and isn't against any existing policy or guideline. JohnnyBGood t c 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, doing something "for solidarity", is obviously deliberate, and doing so in this context is trolling. If it becomes disruptive then you may find yourself in trouble. Do you want to do that over something as trivial as a signature? I don't think so. Have fun but be careful. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion it's trolling, however seeing as you're the opposite party in this dispute I'm not shocked. Anyway peace out. JohnnyBGood t c 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance, could you please take a look at this? Is the whole "external links in a signature are a bad thing" position correct, or am I way off here? Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think it depends on the links, but in general I think they should be fairly strongly deprecated--in other words, someone who has an external link in his signature should have to prove that it's necessary to his communications, which I should think would be a rather hard thing to do! --Tony Sidaway 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm guessing that obvious advertising for an external site presumably wouldn't qualify as "necessary". Thanks for the feedback! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The onus would be on the editor to prove that he wasn't simply link spamming. I suspect that this is a case for "block first, ask questions later." --Tony Sidaway 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In view of histrionics that have gone on since, I humbly retract my request for an apology as above. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 06:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I and all Wikipedians recognise that your request, although I may have considered it inappropriate, was made with the best interests of Wikipedia at the top of your mind. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we use these two weeks to craft a real workable solution to steer his edits to be constructive rather than disruptive? Only an arbitrator can propose new remedies, but there isn't anything to stop me from proposing it to an arbitrator to propose is there? I do like Alai's proposition that we ask 'nood if he would voluntarily refrain or otherwise have input into an effective restraint, but given his demands to enter mediation, and his lawyering about "the injustice" of opening the last arb case to anyone who would listen I don't have good faith he would volunteer. SchmuckyTheCat 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing possible remedies with an arbitrator now. They're fully aware of the situation and may make a revision to the remedies in due course. Feel free to email an arbitrator (see WP:AC for the names and email addresses) or contact then on-wiki via their talk page. You can also sometimes find arbitrators on IRC. I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss the case with you. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty rare that I have time to deal with IRC. :) Dmcdevit recused himself from the last case for voting, but he particularly might be open to proposing something new and letting others vote on it.

I also wonder about this: if we proposed to him to agree to 0RR for the next two weeks and he agreed, do you think it would be appropriate to unblock him and see what happens? SchmuckyTheCat 19:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be reluctant to lift the ban now, because it has been discussed and imposed. The revert limitation idea is sound, though. I'd like to see if he could live with a maximum of one revert per article per week. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm a bit upset at what you said here. I don't think it's quite appropriate to attack RadioKirk's signature and then tell him to leave wikipedia. He's been quite active as an administrator, and it's not worth deflating his spirits about the project over how to handle a rogue anon.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 01:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's an administrator? Heaven help us! --Tony Sidaway 01:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things most people don't like to have to tell other people. We don't like to have to tell grown men to wipe themselves when they're done going to the bathroom. We don't like having to tell workers to not act unprofessionally in the workplace. Similarly, I don't like having to tell experienced editors like Tony Sidaway to keep a civil tongue. But apparently, sometimes one must do that. Tony, you're being incivil. Knock it off, please. Thanks. Nandesuka 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible that you seriously believe that expressing reasonable doubt on someone fitness to be an administrator is "uncivil". In which case I apologise for giving offence.

However, I don't think it's an extraordinary thing to say, when an editor demands that another extend good faith towards a self-admitted vandal, that the editor isn't really thinking about the encyclopedia, but about something else entirely, and would be better off looking for another project, devoted to something fluffy and wonderful, but not perhaps as useful. When it emerges that the editor is himself an administrator, a certain amount of consternation is appropriate. A quite ample amount. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sardonicism towards his opinion is a bit disheartening. I may side with your reasoning in the arguement, but that doesn't mean I'm giving you the incentive to mock him. RadioKirk's system of reasoning reached the conclusion that it would be best to acknowledge and forgive the editor. Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue, but don't attack something completely different. So far as an administrator he's done a decent amount of work with blocking and reverting vandalism, so to question that status is a bit out of line too.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being in the least sardonic about this. I am genuinely dismayed that a person can make it to administrator and still be arguing that an admitted, self-congratulatory vandal is worthy of good faith. There's something seriously wrong with our RFA process if that kind of thing can slip through. --Tony Sidaway 03:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I dislike is the ascription to RK of less-than-encyclopedic motives. It's eminently possible that two editors, even two administrators, might differently appreciate how best to act in order that the encyclopedia should be improved. Ikiroid, supra, properly adjudges the situation: Argue over his opinion and the way to resolve the issue but not over whether his desire to improve the encyclopedia is deeply- and sincerely-held. I'm altogether confident, for example, that each of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton believed an implementation of his views to be best for the country in 1996; even as I think Clinton's ideas better to advance my goals apropos of America, I understand that Dole is a sincere actor genuinely motivated to improve the country. Here, it's likely best that, where two editors share a goal but believe in very different strategies toward the achievement of that goal, they talk reasonably and civilly about their differences, with salutary results devolving on the project; vituperation certainly doesn't advance encyclopedic goals. Joe 03:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about his motives, but I do question his fitness to be an administrator. We do not extend good faith to vandals. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tony here. We don't extend good faith to proven vandals. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Cyde Weys 04:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, we don't? Then why do we give vandals 4 warnings before they're blocked? --Rory096 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of blatant vandalism, no such warnings are given. The sequence of warnings is given in order to avoid newbie biting in cases where an editor is just using Wikipedia as a sandbox. Even then, only the first and possibly the second extend good faith. The case here is of someone who openly admitted deliberate vandalism. No good faith can be extended. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can assume good faith that they're reforming, as benon and others did? --Rory096 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You give four warnings to vandals before blocking them?! Good grief!! --Cyde Weys 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! {{test}} {{test2}}/{{test2a}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}. Most admins at AIV won't block with anything less than a {{test4}}. --Rory096 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then most admins are letting way too much vandalism get through. If vandalism is ongoing, block first to protect the encyclopedia. If it's stopped for awhile then you can leave various warning messages. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the templates; I've used them myself. But this isn't really germane to the argument. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, your failure to see that your comment was out of line is distressing. Whether you agree or disagree with his opinion on the matter at hand, telling him to move on and picking on his sig is very unhelpful. Most reasonable folks are able to see that reasonable, well-meaning people can sometimes disagree- you would benefit from gaining that ability yourself. Friday (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with telling him that he's on the wrong project if he thinks good faith can be extended to self-admitted vandals. This isn't that kind of website.

His signature, now you mention it, this is what it looks like in edit mode:

[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; color: #161;">Kirk</span>]] [[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="font-family: courier new; font-size: 9px; color: #161;">talk to me</span>]]

That's appalling. Of course I would like him to change it. --Tony Sidaway 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His signature's length can be easily fixed. He can replace the whole <span style="font-family: courier new;> with <tt>, and all of the rest under span style (except for the color) are uneeded. Also, he could put all of the text under one span. So now we get:

<tt>[[User:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Radio</span>]][[Special:Contributions/RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;">Kirk</span>]]</tt> [[User talk:RadioKirk|<span style="color: #161;"><tt><small>talk to me</small></tt></span>]]

which yields

RadioKirk talk to me

Doesn't seem so bad now, eh?--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 17:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious about this? I cannot see the rendering in edit mode. All I can see is over 200 characters of crap.

By the way, did you know that, in edit mode, your own signature looks like this?

<tt>[[User:Ikiroid/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''The'''</font>]]</tt> [[Imaginary unit|<font color="black">'''i'''</font>]][[user:ikiroid|<font color="blue">'''kiro'''</font>]][[Ego, superego, and id|<font color="black">'''id'''</font>]] <small>([[user talk:ikiroid|talk]])</small>^{([[User talk:Ikiroid/Help Me Improve|Help Me Improve]])}

Out of courtesy I assume you are not taking the piss. Please do something about your monstrously stupid signature. --Tony Sidaway 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. I just wanted you to apologize to RadioKirk for telling him to leave. We all apologize at some point about something.--User talk:Ikiroid 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly apologise if I'd wronged him. I make no apology for saying that if he means it about requiring more history than a nakes and self-congratulatory admission of vandalism to drop good faith, he should go and find another project on which to practise his vandal-friendly approach. It can only do more damage here. I'm only appalled that he is an administrator--which at first I did not appreciate. --Tony Sidaway 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is a request to go through process and have a template that was deleted BY THE NOMINATOR, 5 days before it was supposed to be closed "imbecilic, obnoxiously stupid, vacantly silly? That even seems offending. --Rory096 04:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were utterly useless, of no value to the project, and not worth wasting time over debating. "I'm an aeroplane"? Good grief! --Tony Sidaway 04:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While true, then they could have been deleted through process, not blatantly out of it. I did recommend a relisting. --Rory096 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep saying "Take it to TfD", but the reality of the situation is that that does not work. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that means consensus says that it shouldn't be deleted, so what's the problem? (Though I do think that those templates would have been deleted, from what there was of the TfD so far.) --Rory096 05:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're crap, they should be deleted, and the quicker the better. Wasting time over debating this just so we can say we've done it "through process" is exactly what I meant when I said "fatuous". --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is "crap?" Shouldn't the community decide that? --Rory096 05:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go obsessing about process again. Crap is stuff that doesn't serve the project. --Tony Sidaway 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an arbitrary thing. What some say doesn't serve the project, others might think is helpful. Why shouldn't there be consensus before deleting something? --Rory096 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had enough of a consensus to delete crap like that. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so does it really matter if you wait a couple days to do it, just to make sure? --Rory096 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it matters. The less time we spend debating crap like this, the better. --Tony Sidaway 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just throw some WP:SNOWBALLs at you two. Behave! ;-) Kim Bruning 13:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony? Behave? Better grab your trout. --70.218.62.240 02:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I userfied it for you. --Shanel ^§ 04:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Linked from my "Various" page. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tony, I know I wasn't on your side during the whole thing, but I had a quick question about the actual page. I see that it's been userfied. The edit counter doesn't show any of my edits to that page and the discussion page, and the edits are gone from my contributions. It doens't seem right that people that spent the time commenting on a subject, even if the RfC got deleted, have their contributions taken away. Just wondering what you think and/or if anything can be done. Just wondering what even happened to the RfC, as I can't find any existence of it. Thanks, and sorry for the heated debate that ensued above on your talk page and in the RfC. Added after striking: I found that my contibs changed to appear that I edited you user subpage, rather than the RfC. So all thos Wikipedia namespace and Wikipedia talk namespace edits I made are gone? (I know I shouldn't worry about the edit count so much, but it seems rather important these days during adminship, which I will go for eventually.)

Also: One more quick question I've been meaning to ask an admin. How did "minor edit" become a link on the editing page where you check the box for "This is a minor edit"? I used to hit the words to check the box, and now I keep going to the link instead on accident. Do you know if there is a discussion on this somewhere. Regards, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make to the encyclopedia if a very small number of your edits are counted as userspace edits instead of project space edits? Is this some kind of wind-up? --Tony Sidaway 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The boilerplate such as "This is a minor edit" is I believe configurable as a wiki page in mediawiki space, so it should be easy enough to get it fixed if there is a problem with it. I suggest that you ask about this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony. Is there currently any organized effort to double-check speedies and restore accidentally-deleted good stuff? (I've looked at the speedy process again for the first time in a while, and I was a bit disheartened to see that the de facto process is rather looser than the criteria the community has set out. I've seen pages nominated for not meeting WP:CORP; one was actually deleted, even though it had recently had a consensus to keep on AfD.) -- SCZenz 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm not active in that area and nobody else I know is. One thing I plan to do with my tool server account is to produce a review tool for speedies. The conditions are certainly much better for this kind of thing because it's harder to redelete an article undeleted on reasonable policy grounds. --Tony Sidaway 15:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until your tool is available, is there any approach better than just wading through the deletion logs? -- SCZenz 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can compile lists of admins (particularly newly created ones) who may be prone to bad speedy calls. If you find them making poor calls, this gives you the opportunity to start a dialog which may be productive in improving their hit rate. --Tony Sidaway 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might be one of the folk SCZenz is referring to as I did delete an article for not meeting WP:CORP, which was a bad call (I don't think it had been previously AfDed.. That particular article has since been restored and the author counseled on what is needed for it to pass muster. . it was Ten Ren Tea which had a speedy at the time, but I see now has a PROD. Please feel free to let me know if I mess up! ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, thanks for responding to me a moment ago re SlimVirgin in the discussion about whether another admin was getting special treatment after he abused a user and 3RR'd. I thought I'd bring the discussion here because it didn't belong at length where it was. You may recall I was "banned" by Jayjg and FeloniousMong from editing pages SlimVirgin was editing. The ban was for alleged wikistalking, although the definition was a new one not involving harassment. The changed wikipedia philosophy disturbed me. ie wikistalking minus the element of harassment. The mantra “go edit elsewhere in the million articles” is being increasingly used in power plays.

The problem for me is which version of the Jayjg/FM "ban" I follow - "newly edited", "recently edited" but not new, the "last five or six" SlimVirgin has edited - or FeloniousMonk's interdiction - the ten she's editing at any given time (each of these four are from the words of J and FM). And for how long is the ban? I'm wondering when I will be able to make good faith edits on such pages (another admin who initially offered to mediate is now too busy)? J and FM have both threatened to block me on sight if I happen to edit an article in any of the above circumstances. This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you articulated a moment ago, that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Mccready 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Your support was undoubtedly the most surprising (and, in one sense, the most touching) of my RfA. I'm not about to become maudlin or anything, and I'm sure we'll still disagree from time to time, but your words did mean something to me. I'm sorry, once again, for having been sometimes too harsh in chastising you in the past.

No, I know a good chap when I see one. You're one of those. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, if I'm allowed to jump in on a comment that has nothing to do with me, I'd like to say that I have often noticed that you're willing to support people with whom you've had disagreements, and it impresses me very much. We've never really edited the same articles at the same time, but I have a feeling that if we did, we'd be on opposite sides! So it's nice to know that we could disagree without pettiness and grudges. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"protected because being used as an attack page by a blocked user."

Are you going to block me now Tony. I hope not. I am no longer blocked. I was unblocked an hour ago. I mentioned no names in my comparison, and stated only facts of what happened, other than in my conclusion. I am interested why you didn't respond to my email. Did you read it?

Unfortunatly, I cannot block other users or protect other's pages, which puts me at a definate disadvantage.

I asked for your help because I thought that you were fair and even, even though I disagreed with your view on copyright. The message was never responded too. I have repeatedly stuck up for you as a fair and even admin, despite some other wikipedians saying some nasty things about you.

Signed:Travb 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I cannot condone personal attacks. The correct way to deal with what you perceive as abuse of power is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that happens all the time. Not. --70.218.62.240 02:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did RFC #3 wind up getting archived off to? Al 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: found it here. Al 22:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you click on my "Various" link on the pretty topnav, you'll find it in the list. --Tony Sidaway 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it. Nathan felt that I might be keeping it just to have a bit of a giggle over, and I didn't want him to feel that. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is less than helpful to revert edits on the talk page. A reply would have been sufficient to reduce their stated view that they are constantly reverted on the page, and then attempt to have them contribute to the policy in a more mature manner. Ansell Review my progress! 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? No quarter to trolls. This isn't Usenet. Seriously, no quarter. It's either trolls or encyclopedia. No in-between. --Tony Sidaway 01:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - that was an obvious troll comment and should've been removed on sight, not justified with a response. --Cyde Weys 01:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a bit naive about trying to keep editors on wikipedia. Its a good intention of course on my part. Ansell Review my progress! 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to encourage trolls to edit Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my naiveness is that even trolls can turn into sensible editors if you encourage rather than inflame. However, naiveness may be forced to leave in the future. Ansell Review my progress! 02:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen trolls convert in my limited time here. 1 in a thousand is what it seems like. If it was 1 in 10 I'd say it clearly was worth the effort to be encouraging... not sure about it at the ratio we are at now. ++Lar: t/c

I respect your efforts. I don't claim to be right, but my actions are based on over a decade of Internet experience. This could mean that I've learned some bad habits. I just think that 1 in 1000 is pretty low. More important, perhaps, is the risk of driving good people away. I tend to the view that driving trolls away makes for an environment that most editors can live with. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, while not commenting on this case, even users accused of being trolls may not be and may make good edits. Speaking of which, you may have missed my post above. You may recall I was "banned" by Jayjg and FeloniousMong from editing pages SlimVirgin was editing. The ban was for alleged wikistalking, although the definition of wikistalking was new (ie not involving harassment). The changed wikipedia philosophy disturbed me (ie wikistalking minus the element of harassment). The mantra “go edit elsewhere in the million articles” is being increasingly used in power plays.

The problem for me is which version of the Jayjg/FM "ban" I follow - "newly edited", "recently edited" but not new, the "last five or six" SlimVirgin has edited - or FeloniousMonk's interdiction - the ten she's editing at any given time (each of these four are from the words of J and FM). This leaves the door open to indefinite personal fiat and goes against the philosophy you've articulated that the purpose is not punative but to achieve good editing behaviour. Your comments would be appreciated on when I should be able to make good faith edits on pages Slim edits. Thanks. Mccready 08:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting talk page edits is a bad idea in general. Even if you think the comments are 'trolling', others may find them useful, or even intelligent. Please don't try to impose your limited worldview on the entire encyclopedia. Talk pages are for talking - let people talk. --70.218.62.240 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for Admin involvment. No one seems to be responding. He tampers with talk page material. He threatens me. I add a userbox to the Project page to which I am a memeber of and he delltes it. I make it perfectly clear to him how it is legit but he pretends he hears nothing even though he responds. You can also see by his discourse thay he is being insincere. A new reason every time. I want administrative involvment. He is also cultivating a culture of intimidation and monopolizing articles through this edit wars or by sheer numbers. This is not fiar and harmful to the community. 72.57.230.179

I don't know whether Grandmaster is out of order in threatening you (or even if he is doing so). However in inserting a partisan userbox into a neutral WikiProject you are certainly acting in a highly provocative manner. Please stop doing that. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please have a look at his talk page. This person is known for his disruptive behavior and has been blocked many times for edit warring and trolling. Most recently a couple of minutes ago. I warned him that he cannot add to the wikiproject page userboxes that are not endorsed by other members, but he would not listen. As for liberated Azerbaijan template, it was created by some Azeri users as a response to the template in support of independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. This anonymous user understood it as a reference to Iran, which it was not. I don’t mind deletion of that template, but we have many similar templates, including the one it was created as a response to. I think we need to decide what to do with them all. I personally never supported such userboxes and never placed them on my user page. Grandmaster 13:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, please next time make at least a announcement before deleting any templates from WikiProject Azeri. Baku87 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]

If it was you who recreated it. please don't do that again. --Tony Sidaway 18:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That template is a reponse to the indepence supporting Nagorno-Karabakh template, they are allowed to have such a template then other should be allowed to have a liberation template, it has nothing to do with Iran, so please dont remove it again and if you can correct the previous liberation templates, I cannot get those working. Baku87 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]

Where is the Nagorno-Karabakh template? --Tony Sidaway 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s here: Template:User N-K, but it looks like it’s been recently removed. I was not aware of that, but still many users keep using a code of that template. Grandmaster 19:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well people are permitted to express their opinions, to a degree, on user pages. It's the templates that are the problem. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it’s still a divisive stuff. Anyway, thanks for your interference, I hope we want be having problems with this anonymous user anymore. His behavior was very disruptive, and his block log speaks for itself. Regards, Grandmaster 19:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is about freedom of speech. You can not decide on who join or not because if you do that then what is to stop you from letting others with opposing views join. I am here to make sure that the Azari articles excel and are factual and I continue to struggle to do so. User Baku, you leave messages unsigned, user:Grandmaster you use pages to verify things that re not even mentioned on the page like the one for Music of Azerbaijan. I am allowed to place that user box there and editors can pick is they want to use it. There are other user boxes that are only used by one person. I do not seem to recall in consensus in making them. You are being hypocrites because you created one of the user boxes calling for a ‘Liberated Azarbaijan’ which I see not one of you has removed to strengthen your arguments. You are nurturing a culture of bias and misinformation.

If you want to see who is in the write please go to the Music of Azerbaijan article and read the history and what was being asserted by myself and bby user:Grandmaster. Also then read the source he used for his claims. Then please look at the talk:Music of Azerbaijan. I am being demonized, but at least you will see why I am upset with what these users are doing. This is not fair. You can openly see that this user is being devious just if you look at his editing methodology. I even tried to compromise with him in various articles, but he deleted my arguments on the actual talk pages. And when it comes to edits he has the numerical numbers through his allies over me who ususallly don't know about the subject and I get blocked for making legitmate edits via the 3RR. 72.57.230.179

I appreciate your concern. To be honest, I doubt anyone will be provoked by it, as people who are familar with the debates of the past few months will know the meaning behind it.(Especially the "Classic T1" part). If it was still in template form, I'd be more concerned though. If I do encounter any problems, rest assured, it will be removed. Regards, --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because we know the history of the past debates that it is so provocative. It's a gross display of incivility. I want you to understand this and what that implies. --Tony Sidaway 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I am quite perplexed about this one. Looking through your deletion log, you just deleted 4-5 userpages saying vandalism edit only. Am I correct? DGX 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • OK, and why have you blocked The-thing now. He's not a troll. What evidence do you have to support that statement. DGX 22:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! DGX 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously he's a silly troll, because he trolls! But he also performs useful edits so I've reduced his block to something more sensible. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fucked up here and have a apologised to The-thing. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --MONGO 03:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Tony Sidaway 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony! DGX 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened my sig. Also, you don't have to worry about delisteing full/semi/move protection. My bot does that automatically. I unprotected a rash of pages hit by the anti-Alikavar vandal two weeks back, and it took care of all of the WP:PP work [2].Voice-of-All^Talk 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a great bot. --Tony Sidaway 01:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your taking part in the the recently-closed DRV on Template:User Hate here. In closing it, you cited WP:SNOW. In reading WP:SNOW (which I was unaware of before -- thanks for pointing it out), it says:

If an issue raises no controversy, and therefore doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process. /.../ In cases where any doubt is raised, it is always best to settle it through the full process. /.../ One of the major rationales for process is building consensus. Aborting process because someone thinks the conclusion is obvious relies on an assumption on the part of that person; it may be wrong.

My reading of that is that WP:SNOW supports not taking this template back through TfD if & only if the issue raises no controversy. To me, even if "no controversy" is interpreted loosely, the less-public nature of the DRV process & the amount of debate on both sides of other userbox TfD's evidences a controversy of some kind. In the more-travelled TfD, other nearly identical deletions attracted a much more diverse set of positions & comments.

Also, by my reading, WP:SNOW calls for settling (an issue) through the full process whenever any doubt is raised. As some modicum of doubt has been raised, I'm having trouble understanding why this shouldn't go back though the full TfD process. My take on this is that it's more like a veto process than a vote process in that any doubt matters.

None of this is to say that the application of WP:SNOW to this is in any way a wrong thing to do. I am trying to understand this action in light of what I read in WP:SNOW. While I'd like the original TfD to be reopened & allowed to complete over a longer timeframe, I'd specifically like to know how this closure result springs from the guidance provided by WP:SNOW. You've been doing this longer and on a much more deeply involved basis than I have, so I hope you'll take this in the spirit it's intended. Thanks.--Ssbohio 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW means that because it's obvious that the template hasn't a hope of being returned to TfD under deletion review, we can close the review. If ten people say "keep deleted" and only one person says "undelete", we've got the classic Snowball scenario. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your quick response. My feeling is that if the article were TfD'd again, then the same kind of diversity of opinion we've seen on other userbox TfD's may well come into this userbox's TfD. The part of the application of WP:SNOW that I'm getting hung up on is that it is applicable when the issue raises no controversy, and that, when any doubt is raised, the full process should be used. Is it my reading of WP:SNOW that's at fault, or am I missing something in the discussion of this TfD that fits into WP:SNOW as I'm reading it?--Ssbohio 15:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that, irrespective of what happened at TfD, if the template were undeleted, it would be speedied immediately under the T1 criterion. It's pointless just going through the motions if the end result will be a deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 15:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't agree with a T1 of this template as it's (to me) obviously humorous, I do understand where you're comeing from and, you're probably right about what would happen. I'm still worried about covering controversial actions under WP:SNOW, but your reasoning is clear & logical. Thanks for taking the time to walk me through this. May I offer you a limeade? :-) --Ssbohio 15:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a strongly worded warning to Moby Dick about stalking [3]. This is grounded in remedy 2 of your arbitration case (about harassment by Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix). --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I am curious though if it would be posible to take a few precations.

• I'd like to make sure Moby Dick has no "other" sockpuppets lurking around me. If he had like 10 accounts it would be very hard for me to gather any reliable evidence.
• Posibly keeping logs that make a checuser posible longer than a month if Moby Dick decides to stalk from a different alias. These logs can be kept on wikimedia servers away from public reach.

--Cat out 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to drop a request to Mackensen or someone else with the checkuser bit. The suspicion of sock puppetry and the pattern of problematic behavior are sufficient to merit keeping tags on him, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to know how the user just happened to search through the history of userpage completely unprovoked and make such a fuss about it. This accusation is extremely vexing [4]. What do you think..?-Zero^Talk 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request help and advise. Another editor insists on reverting my work. I removed the article 'Irish people' from the Category 'Ethnic groups in the United States' because it does not belong there. See the category purpose and the other articles in the category. The article 'Irish American' is in this category and properly so. He argument is basically that many Irish nationals (not Irish Americans) live in the United States so the 'Irish people' article should be included in this category. Thanks Hmains 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes much difference. A lot of Americans are of Irish heritage and a lot of English speakers, including Irish, choose to live in the USA, so there probably should be something in there. How you do that in the end is a matter for careful and respectful discussion. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally here is more proof that I was being civil [[5]] and that user:Grandmaster is making false statements. I also want to say someting else it is ironic that he went out of hs way and would dlete my work even if little things were not verified, but his own claims and edits have not been verified for a long time and are in need of citations for ages now on the same article, Azari. 72.57.230.179

I am sorry, but PLEASE leave Cyde's ANI entry in its place...I would not have put it there except that I have taken several steps on and off Wikipedia to solve the situation...and none of them have prevailed. Thanks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. WP:ANI is not the place in Wikipedia for dispute resolution. Please turn this into a RfC. --Tony Sidaway 23:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd echo PHDrillSergeant's concern. Please in future refrain from refactoring in this manner. While ani is a high-traffic page and I do support quick removal of clearly off-topic posts, this was not appropiate. A large number of people had commented, discussion was ongoing, and you are close enough to this that you should not have been the one doing the refactoring even if needed doing. There are lots of editors around, and if something actually is crying out to be done, it usually will get done. If it appears that something requires the special love that only someone closely involved can give, it's probably a good idea to let it go.
brenneman^{L} 11:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to see WP:ANI turned into a place for trolls to come to flame administrators,and we've seen of late some exceptionally poorly grounded complaints about administrators. Your own behavior on that forum has only inflamed matters, and I have mentioned this in the past but you seem to be very slow in takin the hint; I feel that you're in danger of turning into another Everyking; please amend your most disgraceful habit of indulging in personal attacks on that page.

You will note that, contrary to your false claim, I did not refactor any complaint about myself. Again you cannot resist indulging in baseless personal attacks. Stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is difficult, but please do attempt to actually read the material you're responding to. "Complaint about [your]self?" You were involved, as stated before. I'm endlessly fascinated by your ability to see any criticism as a "baseless personall attack" while the beam drifts unnoticed in your eye. Don't bother to respond here, I'm removing this page from my watchlist. - brenneman^{L} 13:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not and am not involved in any of Cyde's activities. I'm not going to make edits on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Once again for the music here is all the proof collected [[6]] in case you find it hard to follow from the talk page. 72.57.230.179

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

Please remember to list every page you tag and protect from recreation at WP:SALT. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, instruction creep! ;) --02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to complain regarding the fact that I'm the only person "banned" from editing the Peruvian-Ecuadorian related articles. As stated in the talk page, the other user involved in the dispute clearly made the same mistakes that I did, and he had the advantage (because of my College Final's) of presenting his evidence before me.

I will not challenge Wikipedia's authority to enforce a ban against my person. However, I found that is rather disturbing that the other wikipedian involved in this dispute can see this decision as a "Victory" and state his personal "POV" on those articles, clearly violating Wikipedia's Rule of NPOV.

Thus, I need to know to whom I should speak here in Wikipedia, in order to point out that serious flaw that, at least in my view, has being allowed to persist. Thanks Messhermit 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a clerk to the Arbitration Committee. I'll forward your concern directly to all members of the Committee. You may also want to email Jimbo Wales, whose email address is at User:Jimbo Wales. He can consider appeals and reverse or modify arbitration decisions. --Tony Sidaway 04:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know full well it's merited - he's a vandal and he uses personal attacks (which is already 2 bad things to my one and he didn't get blocked). This is the reason I'm annoyed. I've said it before and it's been ignored - why, when I went to Firefox with these complaints, was I blocked and Onesixone allowed to continue to vandelise the Jackson page? It just seems vindictive.

Anyway, I was unaware that the line on bad language was so strict (even IN context) so yeah, I'll tone it down.

And please don't block me for legitimate critism again, Firefox clearly handled the situation poorly and lacked communication.

All in all, the way you approched the situation was, on the whole, much more helpful.

I thank you for it.

BTW, is it true that I'm not allowed to manage my own talk page as I please? Or that you are allowed to change things on it? Just asking.--Crestville 13:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general you can handle your talk page as you please, but removing warnings from administrators is controversial, and it pisses us off. I know it's annoying to have that there but you can archive it in a week or so and I don't think anybody will mind unless an established pattern of warnings is set up (which I think is highly unlikely in this case if you continue to be as civil as you have been since that last block).

I've not really looked at OneSixOne yet, although I did warn him about his retaliation [7]; I may have a closer look if I have time or if you bring up good reports of what he's up to, but you don't need to rely on me or Firefox.

Please bear in mind that administrators are only human. We do make honest errors, and it isn't considered polite to be nasty about another's honest mistake. It wasn't that you made an honest complaint (which you did) it was that you chided Firefox with "this isn't good enough" or something similar. I felt that letting you back to edit the encyclopedia while in that frame of mind would be inappropriate (if you'd go for an admin who had the power to block you, how would you treat other editors?)

As a rule of thumb, use common sense but always err on the civil side. This isn't like a forum, where you can play tit-for-tat; it's a much more heavily policed environment which we try to keep friendly for all editors, and where we actively discourage the kinds of badinage that make forums so lively. The reason is that we're focussed on producing an encyclopedia. It isn't permissible to attack someone, even in retaliation for a personal attack. Instead the accepted procedure is to go to their talk page and tell them about the No personal attacks policy, and ask them not to do so again. If they keep it up (against you or anyone else) document this in some way and make a report at, for instance, WP:PAIN (Personal attack intervention noticeboard).

Civility and No personal attacks are hard, non-negotiable policies on Wikipedia. We do our best to keep flame wars of all kinds at bay, with some success.

Also look at the pages WP:AIV (vandalism) WP:AN3 (Three-revert rule) and WP:ANI (other serious incidents) as possible places to report serious ongoing problems with a user and get administrator intervention. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, I suspect that Test56 is a sockpuppet of Rovoam, who was permanently banned from Wikipedia. It is apparent from the nature of his vandal edits to Artsakh, and the nationalistic comment he left at the talk page. Also, he had a sockpuppet with a similar name at Russian Wikipedia, and today attacked a number of Azerbaijan related pages there as well. Could you please check the activities of this person? Grandmaster 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a Rovoam sock or work-alike. --Tony Sidaway 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Grandmaster 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Please don't make personal attacks such as this. Doing so violates WP:CIVIL. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. If it looks like a personal attack, that's good enough for me. I'll withdraw and apologise. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have a good rest of the weekend! :-) --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony :) - do you know of any book or have any other suggestions for improving writing skills? (Hopefully encyclopedia-related but general is good as well :)). RN 22:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, which has all the basics. Eschewing pompous verbosity Writing short sentences helps. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RN 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with you on that. We talk about Wikipedia things in real life in order to keep our talk pages short!

By the way, would your comment have anything to do with my comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? I just though some of your past actions were questionable, that's all. The Gerg 23:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I saw that you said that you hated me, and I wondered why because I had never heard from you before. I visited your talk page and commented. As it happens, I was nominated as an administrator by a friend and neighbor, David Gerard, whom I have known for eleven years. This fact played no part in the nomination debate, but if it had I think it could only have helped other editors to make their mind up, just as we tend to trust real life acquaintances more if we are introduced to one another by a mutual friend.

I hope that we can, in time, progress from hate to a kind of understanding of one another. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I responded to your note on The Gerg's talk page. Unfortunately, he then chose to remove my comments, so I'll repeat them here, in case you were interested in a reply. — GT 05:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't speaking generally, only for these two. Here I think their real-life friendship presents a conflict of interest where they're more interested in pumping each other up than doing what's best for the project. Between the repeated RfA nominations of each other and joining organizations like QRVS, it seems like these two are more interested in "gaming" Wikipedia. I'd be more convinced that either one of them was a worthy adminship candidate if someone else were to review their activity and then go through the trouble of nominating, rather than see more of the same between these two where their friendship creates the support, rather than a sincere opinion gathered from their contributions. — GT 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think that assuming good faith is best here. If they're making RFA nominations for one another I don't see the problem. If neither is held in especially high respect then the endorsement is of little value. If one is held in high respect then his regard for the other seems like a reasonable factor to take into account when evaluating an RFA nomination of the other. --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings Tony Sidaway, since you're commenting on the talk page of this article I thought you should be aware of this related discussion and how it relates to WP:NEO. Thanks. Netscott 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think that you could avoid using raw shortcuts on Wikipedia? WP:NEO means nothing to me, but being a native English speaker I can readily understand the phrase "Avoid neologisms". --Tony Sidaway 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding and sure, I will WP:Avoid using raw shortcuts... :-) Thanks. Netscott 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...because, whatever, it had its moment at this point, it WAS closed within 8 hours, but re-opened because closing it early was rather rude. I don't know why process is continually ignored in this case, but whatever, at least it got its hearing. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process is a problem for Wikipedia. Left to itself, it would eat up the encyclopedia and replace it with a big list of rules. --Tony Sidaway 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a balance. Too little process== anarchy, Too much == stagnation. Kim Bruning 01:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I would say that, even if we do not record it, there does come to be a de facto process that grows organically. By recording it and making it official, though, we regain some measure of control over it and can enforce uniformity so as to yield fairness. Once it's out in the open, we can ask ourselves whether this is really what we want; otherwise, it all goes on out of sight and out of control. Al 16:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. In practise if you pin down process too well it becomes a handle for trolls. The three revert rule is a classic example of this. Trolls learn how to manipulate the rule, and so administrators have to be very discriminating about how they apply it. It's probably better to look at the overall behavior and demeanor of an editor than to count reverts. --Tony Sidaway 16:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal it was mentioned that you had made approaches to editors in line with jimbo's request, with good results, so I would like your opinion on another way of tackling the problem from the user angle. The full context is in Wikipedia talk:Mackensen's Proposal#Guideline_to_solve_this_problem_already_exists.3F, but in a nutshell it would put more emphasis on the Wikipedia:User page guideline being followed. First, by having a *large* warning/reminder on top of *all* the Wikipedia:Userboxes pages, as part of the problem, I believe, is that new users are not aware of the guidelines, and by the time they are, they are too attached to "their" userpage. Also on Wikipedia:Userboxes, include subst in all the templates by default, so those that don't understand transclusion (which I think are those most likely to edit war when their page is "changed") automatically gets subst (but those that understand the pros/cons of transclusion can still do so. Finally, if users ignore the guideline, and fill their pages with non-wiki stuff, be that 1000's of shiney boxes, attack statements, or userfied nn-personal bios, then the page can be referred to Mfd, as userpages are a privilege., so if abused, can be taken away. Most of this (e.g. Wikipedia:User page warnings on Wikipedia:Userboxes) could be independently of any userbox/criterion for speedy deletion proposal, and I believe it has the advantage of being covered by existing policies and guidelines as they are now, so might be less contravertisal. Any comments, or do you think that this is unworkable?

As a side issue, is it technically possible to have a "/etc/skel" type effect for new users? E.g. when a new account is created, the standard welcome message is added, and so on? the reason I ask came out of looking at the proposal of Wikipedia:Protected Userpage and I had the idea that if all userpages were semi-protected by default, it might reduce the vandalism, while still allowing established users to fix things, but would also ensure that new editors first focus was editing the enclyopedia, and not their user page, as I'm sure you've seen new users join up, set up their user page so they can start work on wikipedia, but never get around to that vital second step.

Well, this comment ended up a lot longer than I originally meant, feedback on the above appreciated. Oh, I do see the irony/humour of my suggesting mfd'ing userpage for breaching a guideline, when I disagreed with you blocking someone for breaching one! But I hope you understood my reasoning, even if you didn't agree with it :). Regards, MartinRe 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think semiprotecting user pages would solve any extant problems. If user page vandalism were ever to become not only common (which it isn't yet) but overwhelming in volume (which doesn't seem likely), we might consider this.

I didn't so much make approaches as prepare a list of people whom I knew, with a view to asking them to consider Jimbo's proposal. What I found was that, of the 900 or so people whose userpages or talk pages were on my massive watchlist who were actively editing, only around 10% had userboxes that might be considered at all contentious on the "political, polemical or religious" grounds adopted by myself and Jimbo Wales. I consider this to be such a low proportion as to be unworthy of serious consideration. Since then (three months ago) polemical userboxes have become somewhat of a damp squib. Few editors seem to care enough much about them and I think they seem to be slowly disappearing without much of a fight. I don't think any further policy on userboxes is needed at this time. The arbitration committee clarified existing policy and established conditions on the wiki that are extremely hostile to such abuses. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your change. If you can show me consensus that it should be worded then please keep it the other way. I also want ot let you know I"m taking T2 to policy pump tommorow. It is not wikipedia policy as of yet. Thank you. Falphin 01:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning, but I was going to stick to the 3RR rule. But thanks again. Falphin 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the reverts. It's your continued accusations of vandalism. The three-revert rule doesn't give you an automatic right to make three reverts every twenty-four hours. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my record, I've never been blocked and I've almost never hit the 3RR before. The only time I reach the 3RR is when my arguemnts are ignored and just reverted. Which is what was happening. Anwyway, I apologized to Clyde for the accusation of vanalism, I for some reason thought that stubborness as defined by wikipedia constituted vandalism but I was wrong. Falphin 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde is being a bit naughty, too. In my opinion this isn't worth getting into a tizzy about. --Tony Sidaway 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you update this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq

Tnx. Zeq 15:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with a note of apology. Sorry I forgot that. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tnx ! -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeq (talk • contribs)

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please don't take the talk link out of my signature. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I removed a large amount of rubbish from a discussion thread and wasn't particularly discriminating. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just noticed this [9]. I think it's excellent advice. Please keep off my talk page, I'll keep off yours. You know we both trust Doc Glasgow and Mark Gallagher, Kat and Greg, so you're not short of people to complain to, and I'm sure I'll get to hear of it should you ever make a complaint to them about me. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its in the afternoon here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How are you ?

I am trying to understand this edit: [10] (Now understood. it was amove to the right place)

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

Best Regards, Zeq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content of the userbox when deleted was as follows:

<div style="float: left; border:solid #FF99CC 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #FFCCFF;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #FF99CC; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|black}}};" | | style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user believes in libertarianism. |}</div>

An earlier version was as follows:

<div style="float: left; border: solid #6ef7a7 1px; margin: 1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #c5fcdc;" | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #6ef7a7; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" | '''X''' | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a '''[[Libertarianism|Libertarian]]'''. |} </div>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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