User talk:Tony Sidaway

purge edit icons

Transclusions in userspace cause widespread liveware compatibility problems; massive noise issue. Recommend disabling entirely.

-A bug report I considered filing on Mediawiki's Bugzilla

Help me to reduce the disfiguring effect of jargon on Wikipedia discourse. Whenever you are tempted to use POV as a word, consider using one of these alternatives: biased, slanted, subjective, tendentious, opinionated, one-sided, non-neutral, partisan, unfair, poorly framed, unbalanced, partial, ill-conceived, promotional, polemical, distorted, advocating, prejudicial, skewed, unrepresentative, imbalanced, apologetic, inequitable, weighted (please add to this list)

This is both my user page and my talk page. To find out more about me and what I do, click on the icons in the amazingly cool navigation bar above. Click here to leave a new message. Please contact me by email if you are blocked from editing: minorityreport@bluebottle.com

Basij again

ArmanJan deleted well sourced info on human rights issues at Basij twice [1], [2] and vandalized the talk page. You told him to stop on Talk:Basij and on his talk page, which he deleted, as he did with other complaints.

Now he removed a photo claiming it to be a "well known" forgery, giving no evidence or source - the photo's authenticity has been falsely denied before [3], [4]. As the article is on attack by others too (e.g Databot) I checked ArmanJan contrib's: He put wrong PD related tags to several imgs [5], [6], [7]. He vandalized Talk:Military_of_Iran (a reasonable post by an anon) and Talk:Islamic_Revolutionary_Guards_Corps. As far as I can tell, his img uploads mostly have misleading licensing infos. Some others noted this on his talk page too. All in all he should get a stern warning. It's tedious to watch after that article. --tickle me 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Above again, More Egg

Oops: I apparently didn't save the edit to the Category page... Here's the current note just posted:

I apparently never saved out on the edit I was recommending. It should have looked like This example or when polished for presentation and organization, the current: Category:History of Canada . Apparently too many open browser windows, or the like. Apologies (again) FrankB 21:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

east sea

hi, would you mind taking a look at East Sea? thanks. Appleby 01:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion please.

If you have a moment, could you take a peek here? My instinct is to revert it as unfounded opinion (NOR?), but I want to seek a more experienced opinion before acting. Thanks. --InkSplotch^(talk) 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you copy those words to the talk page and query them. There may be a source for this--Pratchett or Gaiman may at some point have acknowledged drawing directly on The Omen. I don't see it myself but it's about fifteen years since I read the book--which is not one of my favorites. If nothing is forthcoming by the end of the Easter weekend, remove the words from the article until someone can source the statement. The copy on the talk page will still be available for editors to work on. --Tony Sidaway 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the above, I'm familiar with Practchett, and it seems likely owning about half his works— pretty good at comedy though. I'd advise searching some of the web forums specific to sci-fi community, or perhaps start in B&N and Amazon reviews of books (this will likely turn up immediately if reviewed there). I think he's in Baen's Bar, or would hope other discussions in online communities would lead you to right place. OTHO, ~~why not just use {{fact}} and {{disputed}} and post a note on both the (users) talks that the statement needs supported.~~ Ahhhh Two edits total, I see now!

(This co-posted to user talk:InkSplotch before closing this edit) FrankB

Thanks for the advice, from both parties. It appears someone beat me to it anyhow, but I think I'd have gone for Tony's suggestion. Using {{fact}} and {{disputed}} seems a bit cold before I've made any attempts at direct communication. I'd rather drop a note on the article talk page, or that user's talk page, first.

For my own research, I find lspace.org a good resource, and of course the author interviews linked from there or neilgaiman.com. Terry Pratchett doesn't contribute to Baen's Bar, only because (so far as I know) he's never been published through Baen. I'm not as certain about Gaiman. I think the confusion lies in a few homages to The Omen found in their book, but then it's full of homages to many sources, books, movies, and more.

Anyhoo, enough babbling here. I wanted to post to say thank you (and because this is where I started the conversation, I tend to keep editing in the same spot - tho I appreciate the cross-posting).

--InkSplotch^(talk) 22:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I can trouble you for a little feedback

You are cordially invited to pick on Frank:
(Beats handling problems!<G>)
re: Request some 'peer review' (Talkpage sections detailing concerns)] on new article: Arsenal of Democracy This post is being made Friday 14 April 2006 to a double handful (spam?) of admins & editors for some reactions, and advice (Peer Review) on this article, and it's remaining development, as I'd like to put it to bed ASAP. (Drop in's welcome too!) Your advice would be valuable and appreciated. Replies on talk link (above) indicated. Thanks! FrankB 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC against Messhermit

Hello there! Due to College, I'm being a little bit busy with some other topics besides Wikipedia. My question is: I have a RFC against my person, and I want to know if there is some sort of time limit to present my other side of the story. Thanks! and I'm really waiting for the answer. Messhermit 14:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Messhermit? No, it's okay. I suggest that you leave a message on the talk page of one of the more active arbitrators, say User talk:Dmcdevit, explaining that you'll be too busy to contribute properly. They can, and would probably be willing to, shelve the case until your return. If you're not going to be editing Wikipedia for a while, then there is no urgency, and there are other cases they can get on with in the meantime. If you don't get a positive response, come back here and I'll see if I can help. --Tony Sidaway 18:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony. I find Messhermit's request very strange. Please consider the following points:

This Arbitration concerns Messhermit's behavior toward me, as you can read on the Request for Arbitration page and the Evidence page.
The Arbitration Committee considered the evidence and opened the case on April 7.
From April 7 to April 17, Messhermit has been very active on Wikipedia, as you can see on his public User contributions page.
During all these days, Messhermit has been particularly active in the article about the Cenepa War. Please see the History Page, where he proceeded to add a {{NPOV}} tag (and be rude to others who wanted to remove it) [8], [9], [10], [11], to remove entire sections of it (including links to references) [12], [13], sometimes replacing it with new data [14], sometimes not. [15]. Some of Messhermit's comments toward me and other in the Talk Page have been very rude and uncalled for [16], [17]. Interestingly, this article (which was mostly written by me) was quite stable until I requested the Arbitration.
All of a sudden, Messhermit says he is busy.
Messhermit has had enough time to put into question the validity of this Arbitration (a "political trial" based on conveniently presented evidence, as he calls it), and to ask for support from third parties [18], [19].
I have my daytime job, so I am busy too. Still, I found the time to present my evidence in detail. That is because I sincerely believe that Wikipedia has rules and procedures to deal with these problems.
It looks like I have had to undergo all this without responding in kind, and then see how Messhermit asks for a postponement of the Arbitration (whatever the results are).

Like I said, I find all this very strange. In view of the evidence presented here, I would like to ask you to please let this Arbitration to continue as normal. I think this issue between Messhemit and myself cannot go on indefinitely. Best Regards -- Andrés 03:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have valid reasons to doubt that Messhermit is being sincere on this request. As you can see, he is quite active on Wikipedia: [20]. I don't know what's going on here. Andrés 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bgully

well, Adam88 (talk · contribs) is the only sock I can think of right now; of course he'll create others. I didn't want to block him myself, since 'legally' he more or less sat out his year's ban, and would be an editor in good standing if he actually did edit articles; as it is, he's reduced to bitching about me and my "clique" in irregular intervals, so yes, I think you can block him on grounds of that; he is not as great a nuisance as other trolls I could mention, but there seems to be no reason why he should stick around just to add to the noise ratio around here. regards, dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lying to protect wikipedia

You realise that I don't see anything wrong with doing this? In some ways I would be rather dissapointed if people didn't at least lie by omission (much better to say we have a load of effective anti vandalism measures in place rather than outlineing the ways around these). In fact that is pretty much the intention behind WP:BEANS. The probablem is aside from any issues of people steping outside their powers or whatever we have an inconsistancy. WP:OFFICE powers are not needed to block vandles. Admins have delibertately blocked the whole of AOL before now so it isn't needed for range blocks etheir. That is why I was considering the posibilty that the vandalism was to a degree at least a cover story.Geni 19:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Merkey at it again

Removing sockpuppet banners from proven sockpuppet accounts. [[21]]

And he's removing comments informing him he shouldn't be removing sockpuppet tags from his own page, claiming harrasing dialogue. And yes, I left the comment, but other than that, haven't touched his pages --Jerry (Talk) 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny and Eloquence

You say that I adopted a dictatorial tone towards Danny, which is quite true. To my mind that reflects the seriousness of what is going on here. Erik followed Wikipedia policy. For doing that he got banned and desysoped. There are few more serious things that can be done within a community like this. The creation of the Dannyisme account is a positive step towards making sure this does not happen again, but it is not enough so far as I am concerned. I see no reason why Danny's ordinary account should have access to any powers of those above a normal user after this incident. If anyone else had done something like this they would have been permanently banned but we do need Danny in his Foundation capacity.

I see from previous parts of Danny's talk page that similar concerns have been raised in the past so this is not exactly unprecedented in subject area. What is unprecedented is the incredible abuse of power that has taken place. David Newton 20:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny

Nor is this the treatment we, and particularly Eloquence, deserve. Danny is more than welcome to quit if he can't handle the stress of people wondering why he is randomly protecting pages on gimped versions without citing the Office Action policy. Or maybe he could simply say it's an Office Action, and remove all doubt and concern. --Golbez 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aucaman RfAR

Here's a little request to you as the Arbcom clerk. There's been a flurry of editing at the Aucaman arbcom case recently. One involved editor, Zmmz (talk · contribs), has a habit of making his contributions in very many small steps and of going back to them for minor corrections and additions very frequently. I find this clutters up the page history and makes it rather difficult to react, especially when he changes his contributions after others have already commented on them. Could you perhaps ask him to use some sandbox space or offline editing for preparing his contributions? Also, if he wants to retract or modify things he said after they have been commented upon by others, wouldn't it be more appropriate for him to strike them out instead of just deleting them? Thanks for your attention. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a complaint against User:LukasPietsch's conduct on Aucaman arbcom case's evidence page. It appearers that the user, in conjunction with User:Aucaman, are gaming the system. User:LukasPietsch submitted a set of evidence two days ago [22], containing false and perjured statements, which were commented on [23], and formally replied to [24] in a new section on the evidence page under user LukasPietsch's own section. Now today, user Aucaman has resubmitted user LukasPietsch's evidence all over again [25] at the bottom of the evidence page, under his own name, with minor cosmetic revisions, and with a new disclaimer that "The following were prepared in close cooperation with User:LukasPietsch, but User:Aucaman is responsible for the accuracy of the evidence" and then user LukasPietsch simply removes that whole section of his evidence [26], for the accuracy of which he is responsible, and had already been submitted two days earlier and commented upon by others. This looks like a blatant attempt at denial of responsibility, recycling and repetition of the same " evidence", as well as confusing and misleading ArbCom members. --ManiF 12:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just done in order to save page space. You can hold me responsible for what I wrote in whatever way you like. It's never been a secret that Aucaman and I co-operated on the evidence (see User talk:Dmcdevit#Evidence for the RfAR, plus E-Mail communication to Tony). Aucaman's revisions aren't cosmetic, they are added evidence. Khokhoi's comments on my parts quotes exactly what I was saying, so there's no danger of misunderstandings. Tony, if you think it more appropriate, I have no objections to re-instating that section. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zmmz is entitled to edit his evidence on that page in whatever increments he sees fit, and to modify it in the light of comments and other evidence. User:LukasPietsch and User:Aucaman are also entitled to cooperate and redact their evidence in the way described. This is normal in an arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:TwoVryl

Blocked this person as a sockpuppet of Vryl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked a day or two ago indef. Just thought I'd ping you in case you felt that this was a violation of AGF on my part. Syrthiss 16:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well. looks like he admits to being the same guy, and the tone is decidedly unwikipedian. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you have indef blocked TWO accounts for reverting a banned user, Jeff Merkey[[27]]? You might want to take another look at this Tony. Vigilant 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a bonus, from this link [[28]], you can see that Merkey was banned BEFORE you instituted your indef blocks. Vigilant 23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete on a new article, confusion

Hi. I created a new article about the band Holy Fuck (I know I know, terrible name, I did not name them) and it was speedied almost as soon as I put it up for being nn. I think the band is notable and said so on the article's talk page as well as the |speedy deletion page. If the article needs to go through an AFD process, that seems fair, but speedying for notability seems excessive. I realize this all may have to do with the band's name, but I put a fair amount of work into it and didn't want to go to sleep and wake up and have it mistakenly speedily deleted. If you have insight on what my next move should be, I'd appreciate it. If you're the wrong person to talk to this about, my apologies. Thanks. Jessamyn (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else took care of this. Jessamyn (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article. I'm glad it was restored. --Tony Sidaway 12:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some advice / help if you're available....

Hi Tony - I've noticed your interactions with various folk for ages, and thought you might be the person to come to for a little help. I've attempted to create this Template - Template:Infobox_MP to standardise information about UK Members of Pariament (was quite surprised that there wasn't one). The guinea pig (ex) MP i chose at random was Oona_King (god knows why?!) - and you'll see from that page that I can't get it working. I've waded through the available documentation, and can't find whichever silly mistake I've made, hence the request for help. Don't worry if you're busy, and have a great day anyway.... Petesmiles 04:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thought I'd let you know that the Wiki being the warm wonderful place that it is, someone else has already noticed the creation of this Infobox, found that it worked all along, and discovered an open link in Oona's information causing the problem, which is now fixed, hurrah! Have a great weekend, cheers, Petesmiles 09:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was off-wiki until just now. Great news that someone was able to help. I hope you have a great weekend too. --Tony Sidaway 11:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat

Will you be around IRC later tonight, say around 8:00? I'd like to talk to you in your capacity as Cool Cat's mentor about the #wikipedia-en-vandalism issue before I file an arbitration case. Thanks, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 20:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently about 2100 UTC, 2200 local time, and I'm around, but I am going soon. I will be back later. I've no idea which timezone your "8pm" is intended to be in. But I'm often around quite late at night into the early hours, so give me a go. --Tony Sidaway 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was running out the door when I typed that, and didn't even think of the difference in UTC and EST. Didn't end up mattering, as I was suprised with dinner and a night out, so I didn't get a chance to get on. I'll try to find you today. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking

I did not know that there was a rule against informing other users on their talk pages of a deletion nomination, and expected opposing voters to do the same. I viewed it as basically the same as when a politician airs commercials on TV about an upcoming election and asks viewers to vote for him, and while I only nominated users who had previously voted with me, I did not neglect to mention the nomination on the article's talk page and on the "articles nominated for deletion" page. If there is a rule against this, I apologise for breaking it and will avoid doing so in the future. Please also note, however, that I was not the only one to do so. - Conrad Devonshire 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article ban

Thanks for taking action. But I'd expect sysops to be taking appropriate action for each of the cases, that would actually steer all parties towards reaching an eventual resolution. Imposing a ban wouldn't be helpful, I'm afraid.

For the list of bridges, my edits were to restore the article as according to what it was like prior to undiscussed, POV and controversial edits by user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat. For the Hong Kong national football team and District Council of Hong Kong articles, it's related to how the official full name of Hong Kong should be linked. I've requested user:Alanmak to discuss, but all efforts were in vain. Guangzhou, Community of Portuguese Language Countries and East Asian Tigers, are related to user:Alanmak imposition of the the infobox-style he prefers, to replace the inline-style suggested by Wikipedia's official manual of style. The Macao, China article is related to whether there's any official policy to avoid redirects. I've requested user:SchmuckyTheCat, who argues Macao should be spelt with a -u, at his talk page for official policy/ies, but he's not responding. For the i'm lovin' it article, I'm following McDonald's official website, but user:Alanmak keeps arguing that's merely my POV. I'd love to hear from you why I have to be banned for each of the above cases. If possible, please help bring all parties to real discussion, or else the trouble is not like getting to be solved. Thanks again, and thanks in advance for your necessary interventional actions, Tony. — Insta ntnood 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that a lot of your edits have been reverting Alanmak's edits. If you think he's being too aggressive and pushing a point of view against consensus (and while I myself cannot say, there does appear to be circumstantial evidence that may support this) I'd like to see you try the conventional methods of dispute resolution. Maybe AlanMak will respond to discussion on his talk page, especially if others chime in. If he doesn't and you still think his behavior is problematic, discuss the problem with your colleagues with a view to starting a RfC. If you have been through those steps and there are people who agree with you that Alanmak's behavior is unacceptable, then bring it to arbitration. The Committee has had problems with you in the past, but that is because you have not been patient enough to follow this route. If you do, I promise you that you will have more success in dealing with bias on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I were not patient the trouble wouldn't have carried on for more than a year. And if you don't already know, user:Alanmak actually disregarded user:Jiang's and my messages at his talk page, deleting them with edit summary saying "disregard bullshit", "vandalism" or no summary at all. At the moment administrators' action is urgently needed for all articles you've mentioned above. — Insta ntnood 15:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic user conduct dispute. I highly recommend that you get together with Jiang put together an RfC outlining those attempts to resolve the issue and his inappropriate response. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please also look into each of the articles that you've named above, and see what else we can actually do? Meanwhile, the ban on me is in effect keeping user:Alanmak and user:SchmuckyTheCat edits for two weeks. Please kindly review, as an administrator, whether their edits have to be reverted. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 16:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a content issue, something that an administrator cannot really resolve any better than any other editor. If you think that an article is unbalanced, use an article RfC to see if you can attract other editors to examine the issue. The thing to realise is that you are not the only editor, and if you can obtain consensus then you'll have no shortage of people willing to correct inbalance. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zoso.png

===>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]

cheesecruft?

well that 's a new one--^mmm cheesey goodness 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but we need to keep the administrator pages clear for Wikipedia business. If there is an on-wiki problem that needs administrator attention, please raise it in language, and with references, that will make the problem apparent. --Tony Sidaway 23:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening cases

Please don't use subst to open the /Workshop and /Proposed decision pages until it is fixed so that the correct template results. I'm tired of fixing it by hand. Please copy the actual templates Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision until it is fixed.

Wiki-Sidaway

Hi. I've placed myself up for review on WP:ER. I'd like it if you could comment. -Zero^Talk 19:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fadix

Since you have tried to resolve the dispute, I feel you may be interested in the disupte. The Rfc was filed primarily with concerns about personal attacks and the lack of civility. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think you should advice Coolcat to step out of debates which he has no clue about. I have no problem that he engage in discussing about the issues I was discussing with Grandmaster, but not to pursue his personal vandetta. It has cooled with Grandmaster and I find Coolcat pulling oil unconstructive. Also, the discussing between me and Grandmaster has already gotten the attention needed and one of the problems has been resolved I really don't see the point of CoolCats RfC at this point. Fad (ix) 03:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truncated statement of evidence?

Tony, your statement of evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence seems oddly truncated - perhaps you could take a look at it? -- ChrisO 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:AbortionIsMurder-01

Hi there - whatever happened to freedom of expression? What I am saying is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. How can anyone defend the vile practice of terminating unborn children WHO ARE ALREADY SOPHISTICATED BEINGS AND PERSONS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT? Also, if I'm not allowed to say that, then why can I and hundreds of other Wikipedians are allowed to say that "This user does not understand the 'American English' language, nor does he bloody well want to"? --RichardHarrold 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go and read WP:NPOV and in particular WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I've deleted your replacement image, too. -- ChrisO 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cantus

Hi Tony. I wanted to tell you that Kiw (talk · contribs) looks an awful lot like your friend Cantus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a history of socketpuppeting (don't wou love making up words?). Just letting you know. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an old and acknowledged sock of Cantus, now indefinitely blocked. --Tony Sidaway 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

would you mind keeping an eye on Developed country, possible additional sockpuppets performing the same deletes. thanks. Appleby 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron

As an involved party in the matter, you probably shouldn't have been the one to block Aaron. Phil Sandifer 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a clerk, it's not like I have much choice in being involved. I'm not taking any crap from people who want to make clerking harder than it already is. --Tony Sidaway

Oh, I agree with you. It just... makes us look tackier if you, who have a past of dustups with Aaron, block him for something you were involved in. Especially when there are uninvolved clerks with a past of dustups with Aaron to do it. Phil Sandifer 06:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tacky is a good word. I think your explanation of not wanting to "take any crap" pretty much says it all. This looks to me like a temper block. If that's how it's going to be, I'd rather see you put your time in somewhere other than clerking. Friday (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Phil was the right person to do a block either given HIS past history. You two and Aaron need to stay away from each other, period. He should have known WAY better than to change one of your headings (even if he was perhaps right about the heading... The text you wrote was in my view very accurate and helpful but was it "official"? ) and you should have known better than to escalate to a block over a heading change without at least trying to talk about it or ask for help. IMHO anyway. I would ask you to let it go at this point and not escalate any further.

As Aaron promised when he stood, he's starting an RfC on himself and his time as Admin so far at the 3 month mark (coming up soon) so perhaps you might want to consider if you can say something constructive /thoughtful/well reasoned there. I feel your initial comments on Aaron's RfA were pretty amazing, they must have been hard to write for you. Even if you subsequently ended up changing your mind, my hat was off to you for that, sir. I'll reiterate, if there's anything I can do to help, you have but to ask and I will try. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be good PR, but do you honestly think that it won't make his recent misbehavior absolutely transparent? That good ole history link, you know, shows that he planned his campaign in advance, and clearly intended to abuse WP:RFAR for the purpose of his tawdry political ambition. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to think, Tony. I may be a bad judge of people but I see he and you both as good people, bereft of tawdry political ambition, and wanting to do what is best for the encyclopedia. If you have particular links that you think I should see I would appreciate being made aware of them. ++Lar: t/c 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawdry political ambition

This is clearly a personal attack. I'm not actually offended, but it is an attack, just not a very good one: Could you expand this attack with some diffs and a bit of exposition so I can understand what exactly it is that I'm meant to have done? Reply here, I'll put this page back on my watchlist for a while.
As to the wider issue, you still don't seem to understand the actual problem:

The block was bad form, but I really could give a rat's arse about that. Annoying, irritating, autoblocker makes me pull my hair out, etc. But no harm done to me, water under the bridge, etc. I'm only concerned about what the block says about your mindset.
Clerk's don't have any authority. Full stop. Your continued insistance that the block was not only justified but required (e.g. "it's not like I have much choice") is troubling, but still not the central issue.
The real issue is that you've apparently got no idea what it is you're conceptually meant to be doing as a clerk. You simply can not be making recomendations or observations, personal observations, and putting them under the clerk banner. The fact that I agree with those views is immaterial.

brenneman^{L} 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've picked up on this from the Clerks page an AN/I, so forgive me for poking my nose in. I'd like to comment on your third point. I've just been over the Clerks page for the fourth time today, and I still see nothing prohibiting Clerks from expressing opinions, suggestions or analysis. In fact, there's language to suggest they're allowed, just like everyone else. I agree that Clerks have no authority, but I've looked up on things there, and over at RFAr, and I'm not seeing anywhere Tony has used the Clerk's office to justify the block...only his presence in commenting as a Clerk on that page.

But your third point...with respect, Aaron, until we're appointed to the ArbCom, neither of us have any say on what Tony should be doing as a clerk. The Arbitrators created the position, they appointened the clerks, and they decide how they'll evaluate their input. If you felt he misrepreseted you or someone else's views, that's one thing...you could have stated so. But you changed his comments in, frankly, a pointless fashion. --InkSplotch^(talk) 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk

I am pleased that Aaron hasn't been "coming after" you as much as some had discussed while he was running for adminship. But It should be obvious that he seems to try and goad you, provoke you and be a bit of an pest. If he has a beef with your summaries, etc., he should have found another way to handle it. I think (and don't get me wrong 'cause I like Aaron a lot and I think he does good work) had I been you, I would have done the block that you did. After edit conflict, I see the above so maybe my perception is off again.--MONGO 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with him but I get weary of his semingly endless penchant for silly bloody stunts like this. --Tony Sidaway 07:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to make it hard for me to continue not savaging you for your wild-eyed block if you insist on making personal attacks without providing a skerrick of evidence. You may have noticed that I'm trying to be as nice as possible while adressing the actual issue of what a clerk should and shouldn't do. I've not asked you to justify the block, not asked for you to comment on this occasion at all. You, on the other hand, have had a few good kicks at me. It would probably look better for you if you limited yourself to facts: Silly bloody stunts like [diff1 this] and [diff2 this] and [diff3 this]. Stop making it personal. - brenneman^{L} 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're both fine editors and contributors to the project. "Mistakes were made". Please forgive each other and move on. -Will Beback 08:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re my email

Thanks for fixing things per my email (removing item from history). Next time I'll combine WP:AGF with WP:AWPC (Assume Wikipedia Policy Cluelessness). Martinp 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nussle, again....

I just happened to glance at the Jim Nussle article, and I found that the article had recently been vadalized again. The changes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) were all made by the anonymous user 207.32.33.5.

I was wondering since Nussle seems to be more and more of a target about the possibility of having his article protected to keep new and anonymous users from changing the article.
JesseG 02:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tony Sidaway 03:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sneaking suspicion that our old friend FourthAve is back. The El Reyko 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nussle is of course a target. You Republicans think it's OK to vandalize Wiki by removing or adding damaging info about a candidate (as with Jim's adultery), i.e, you target evil Jim as the best thing since Tammy Faye Bakker. But not currently by me, boychiks. That request for Arb was way outta line, and was simply ignored. The updated version will be similarly ignored. You guys are out of the loop. Rant and rave all you like: I snoop into your mail and your edits.

As for the comments about the Julien Dubuque Bridge, someone seems to be having visual and auditory hallucinations.--FourthAve 08:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're going to have to do something about that trollery of yours. Are you sure wikipedia is the place for you...? That is not the way we carry ourselves at this site. -Zero^Talk 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Policy

Refer to:

Request for Arbitration, Administrative divisions, Tobias Conradi

Pardon me, I'm still learning the resolution process. My understanding was that once RfCs had been processed, and Mediation had been refused, the only recourse is Arbitration. Moreover, that Arbitration is the only binding dispute resolution for which enforcement can be requested.

Are you saying that I've merely mislabelled the request?
Or are you saying that under the current process, as long as a sufficiently large gang of miscreants is cooperating and not misbehaving too badly, any content is permitted, no matter how badly the material deviates from standard practices in the rest of the world?

--William Allen Simpson 02:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no serious grasp of the merits of your claim, but as a clerk I feel it's necessary to suggest that the difference of opinion may be best explored using normal discussion. I could be wrong, and I'm aware of that, so I've expressed my assessment in very tentative terms. --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I expect the merits to be decided in a request. In legal terms, I'm asking about the standards of review, ripeness, and standing.

Only inter-personal RfCs and Mediation appeals?
Abuse of process appeals?

Certainly, I can reframe as covering any inter-personal misbehaviour. But a lack of process and policy review would explain why many experts are unwilling to participate in Wikipedia, and the continuing references to cabals and gangs.

--William Allen Simpson 02:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be two problems here. Firstly, the interpersonal dispute, secondly the content problems. Normally the Arbitration Committee tries to steer clear of content issues, leaving them to the community to decide if at all possible. I do understand the reticence of experts to participate--unfortunately Wikiedia has a strong anti-elitist community and this often makes it hard to make progress. --Tony Sidaway 03:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have recast as an inter-personal issue. Of course, the disruption of proper content is my primary concern, but there are plenty of ancillary issues. I've just discovered that Conradi has been banned at de. Had my RfC been taken more seriously 4 months ago, this whole problem could have been nipped in the bud.

--William Allen Simpson 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The section is very large. Would it be possible to trim it back to essentials of the case? If the case is accepted, you will have plenty of time and opportunity to present all pertinent evidence. Arbitrators are much, much more likely to take the time to read a section under 500 words. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just an inbred 'merican

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you remember me. --Bhadani 10:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. --Tony Sidaway 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

First off i restored a section deleted in violation of an AFD, which is against policy, mainly because it was removed in violation of WP:NPOV and in violation of WP:AFD. My reasoning was made clear. Then i stuck to my 1RR as my first edit wasnt a revert, it was a restoration.

Second, User:Deathrocker already admitted to using Anons before to vandalise mine and Admin Sceptres user pages, as well as to impersonate me.

Third off, i also requested advice on how to deal with the Children of Bodom article. A serial vandal (A check user has shown 5 different anons and 3 user names to be the same person) keeps removing the Melodic Black from the info box, regardless of being warned by a WP:RFC and the admin warning on the article by admin User:Snowflake. So if you would care to assist in this matter, that would be appreciated, as they have openly stated that they can simply change the article as many times as they want because of my 1RR.

Ive only used an Anon once, and i admitted to that and requested a 1 week block for it after using it to make a few comments on things, so that somethings were clear regarding some plans for working a series of articles, and so i could assert my view. In that time, the history for that anon can be checked, i edited no articles on it, only talk pages, to honour my ban. Im not unreasonable if people are not unreasonable with me. Ley Shade 19:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a complaint about Spearhead after he used the 1RR thing against me, as i tried time and time again to tell him i agree with the deletion of the part, but not when an AFD said it was to be kept. I offered to open an RFC but he refused, so, there wasnt much i could do. I didnt realise doing a restoration was going to get me banned though.

However the Children of Bodom article is getting a hell of a lot of vandalism, and i cant revert it either. Is there any chance you can revert it and put a protection on it. That way the user might actually engage in using the talk page like i already asked them to do. I even refernced them to the RFC and explained WP:CITE and WP:NPOV to them, and they still refused to care, there whole attitdue was Wikipedia sucks, yew suck, and i can do whatever i want. I know im 'skating on thin ice', so thats why im actually asking for yew to do something about it, and enforce a little bit of anti-vandalism here. Ley Shade 20:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this later. Please be patient in the meantime. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is back on the Children of Bodom article [29]. This page really needs reverting back to the unvandalised version and protecting, it so frustrates me i cannot do anything to stop this vandalistic mess, i dont even know the wiki for the board to alert against vandals =(. Ley Shade 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That looks to me like the kind of editing that I'd describe as a content dispute. It appears to me that this fellow has a minor quibble about the precise wording of the description of the subgenre of heavy metal to which the band's music belongs. How do you feel about this characterization? Do I have it wrong? --Tony Sidaway 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC already went through with the user before, and it was decided that in according to WP:CITE and WP:NOR, that the majority of sources claimed the band to be those three, so the RFC decided they should be listed. Then i brainstormed the Genre Controversy section to account for the other minor sources which the RFC didnt even ask me to do, and was copyedited for better neutrality.

However, since my 1RR, the user has claimed themselfs Above Policy, and has sworn to use as many anons and sockpuppets as he needs to to violate WP:NPOV until only his view remains based on his comment I dislike black metal and refuse to accept cob as being black metal. This isnt very Wikipedia like, as i also dislike Black Metal and Death Metal, but they are still there because thats what sources say.

All attempts at working with the user have been ignored, as have countless admin warnings. Due to this, im at a loss at what to do, as initially i autothered the first RFC to deal with the content dispute, but now the user is clearly vandalising the page in an attempt to disregard sourced information and the neautriulity of POV.

The RFC and all efforts made at on the Children of Bodom talk page, for you to look at if you need to. Ley Shade 01:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry if I appear a little slow on this but heavy metal isn't my subject. I seem to recall listening to Paranoid in 1970 and deciding it wasn't for me. I'm still investigating. At first sight I'd say that it doesn't look like much of a consensus emerged from the RfC if you often find yourself fighting a lone battle on this issue. But there could be other factors. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the consensus was basically that the information with most sources goes on the infobox, and the not so sourced information goes on the Genre Contoversy. The irony of this is that the part the anon keeps violating policy and admin warnings by removing, is the one that has the most sources in support of it =\ Ley Shade 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user just blanked my talk page [30], which has thankfully been reverted by some Kungfu person [31]. I think this somewhat proves the ill faith of the user. Ley Shade 04:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More edits to the Children of Bodom and Melodic Death Metal articles (Which is also admin warned by Snowflake), blanking the Death Metal references in favour of Black Metal, with a revert war seemingly starting that is nothing to do with me. This is what i keep getting caught up in, and which is why the page needs protecting. Sorry to keep asking for help, but the WP:HMM has put a lot of work into that article it saddens me deeply to see revert wars slowly detoriate the quality of the work of so many good wikipedians. Ley Shade 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user space layout

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]

A comment, I don't mean to bother you

Hello Tony Sideways, I appriciate the good work you did to present my arbitration in a clean, easy to understand manner. There is one point, however, I would beg your attention about. My understanding of NPOV, it states; "Editors understand the stated word differently contains elements of the sympathetic point of view approach which has been considered and rejected by Wikipedia policy makers." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision#Terryeo.27s_interpretation_of_NPOV. And that is true, my statement does contain elements of that point. But I'm not trying to communicate an advocacy, I'm trying to present that the information which comprises these subjects, while not easily presented, can be presented. I am trying to say that it is not an advocacy to present a subject in a manner that an average reader might understand the subject. But it would be a counter-advocacy to mis-present the subject so an average reader could not understand it. I appreciate that you have cleanly presented almost all of the issue as I meant it and appriciate that I am no part of the process going on. In particular your inclusion of Xenu.net has already resulted in cleaner statements at WP:RS which will mean better use of secondary sources of information. But there are advocacy editors whom brought the request, whom advocate against the subjects being actually presented. The subjects are difficult enough to understand, but when every other sentence must include a counter-advocacy, the information which comprises the subject simply can't be presented for the reader to understand. Examples are, in their first paragraphs, Thetan presents its information while Dianetics does not. I hope I'm not offending or misconstruing what the arbitration committee understands they are voting on. I simply don't know where else to turn toward clear introductions of these subjects. I'll understand if no action is taken. You all have been pretty tolerant of the upsets my editing has caused.Terryeo 07:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have forwarded this to all of the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Terryeo 06:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My case.

I am frankly afraid of you. I've seen the edit-revert-block war you have with at least one other admin. Your integrity as an admin has been called into question. I'm afraid you've already decided to ban me for a year. I think you will so block when you read this far. It would be into your interest to recuse yourself from this case. Sean Black, Dbachmann are fine by me, or one chosen by the two of them is fine.

It's only in the last 7-10 days that I've discovered there is zero privacy on wikipedia, i.e., I've learned how to snoop into anyone's edit list or mail.

An adequate response means an immense amount of copy-paste.

The present case was a cabal, two friends or sockpuppets thereof who worked in tandem to avoid the 3R rule. No one here gives a damn about Jim Nussle, but I insisted on mentioning the lurid details of his divorce and the politically-charged details of the homewrecker's employment history. Jesus Christ, or whatever his username is, insisted on removing it, and leaving mail elsewhere thanking the other for support.

I would have been happy to have neutrally spoken of the topic, but the cabal objected. The 3R bit came to a head, and I objected, mainly in mail, to this abuse. Then Jesus Christ asked for this obscure procedure.

I got blocked, and once unblocked (by you, I think), I then got offensive emails from everyone and sent them to hell; I did not want to see this s--- at the top of my pages. No, I do not understand highWikipedia procedure.

Enough. It's going to take me at least a week (I can write; give me a month to anihilate Jesus Christ and his cabal) to assemble the evidence. I personally don't think Jesus Christ is guilty of sockpuppetry, but it's in my interest to investigate him for it, and this will take some time.

As for sockpuppets, no. The only case where you get an IP address is where wikipedia has timed me out and I didn't notice.

I still find the Julien Dubuque Bridge bits hallucinatory. I framed a debate. See Black Hawk Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthAve (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be afraid of me. I don't block unless the person in question needs to be blocked. I blocked you three times in early and mid-March when you were vandalizing Jim Nussle and attacking lots of people. If you don't do that there is no need to block you. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mail

I sent you one; if you have recieved and replied already, could you send again..? I may have deleted it when I was clearing out messages from the wiki mailing list. If not, disregard the latter. -Zero^Talk 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just went and had a look and there it is. I'll reply as soon as I can. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry about that, I was simply worried I missed a potential reply from you last night while clearing out the wiki notice crap. I had over 145 messages piled up and wasn't really paying attention to detail as I was mass deleting. -Zero^Talk 19:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Muhamed

Hi, I notice that three arbitrators have considered your application and voted to reject, because Muhamed hasn't edited English Wikipedia for over a month. Would you mind if I closed this request without prejudice? If he ever returns to English Wikipedia and his behavior continues to present a problem, you will be able to re-open the request at any time. --Tony Sidaway 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats possible but I was really hoping for some sort of general ruling that discourages such behaviour.

I know it is common sense, so I do not believe it is too hard to make it a policy. But if you feel that isn't possible feel free to close it.

--Cat out 23:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested, I'll close it for now and if he comes back you can open it again. --Tony Sidaway 00:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker

Concerning Deathrocker's arbcom case. The user is now claiming that Myself/Idont and Admin Sceptre are assuming bad faith in our statements on the ArbCom case.

On the talk page, he is also Wikilawyering claiming the whole Case is against policy, and claiming Sceptre is abusing his admin powers by filing the case, a claim that during his one month block he extended to five other admins that refused to unblock him, and several more on the ANI board.

He his also making claims that im making inflamatory claims and lying in my arbcom statement, but in the numerous times ive asked him to provide diffs he has refused. He's also persisting in making uncivil comments about my Parole, and telling me that i have to assume good faith or i will be banned, something which he seems to be gloating on.

In honesty it feels a lot like he is trying to bait me into making a personal attack or being incivil, as he seems to have a firm belief that i myself should not be allowed to comment on the Arbcom case at all.

Mainly i just dont know how to react or what to do, as ive tried apologising if i came across uncivil [32] and asked him to not make personal attacks [33], and both times he has ignored this and persisted in making inflamtory remarks. I am at a point of wanting to tell him to go F**k Himself, but i already told him that i have no like of him, but i will try to treat all my fellow Wikipedian's with respect [34].

Do you have any suggestions on how to deal with this, because he is really trying my patience. Ley Shade 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid responding. The arbitrators aren't fools and will realise that you are being baited. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on my Statement about what you have said in relation to my discontinuation of contact with Deathrocker and moved his comments from my Statement to his own. Since then he put those parts back, defaced my statement through removing sections i had to then restore, and then sat making personal attacks in my statment calling me 'Childish', 'Pathetic', 'Grasping At Straws'. Christ i have a whole list and then some i just added to my Statement. The user is going out of his way now to push me, and im determined not to respond, but he has vandalised my user page and Sceptres before, and with his defacing of my Statement, the user is causing me untold Wikistress. I plea for assistance in having this user removed from editing my Statement and Userpage. Ley Shade 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll investigate his behavior and may make comments on it. --Tony Sidaway 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre warned Deathrocker for incivility [35], but Deathrocker ignored this and defaced my statement again claiming it as 'a service to Wikipedia'. He also has made a series of person attacks, as copied from my Statement, being: [36], [37], [38]

"This whole episode with you is becoming very childish. (Deathrocker made this comment even though myself and three admins have put in statements against Deathrocker).

"'you don't see how that is utterly ridiculous?? ". (Deathrocker has made claim about the arbirittion case being null several times, this one denoting the case as ridiculous)

"Just to clarify for anybody still keeping up with this sham of a case, that is still in violation of Wikipedia policies". (Here Deathrocker openly branches his personal attacks out to include the arbirrition committe)

"As already stated the bulk of what Leyasu was trying to "attack" me". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states that my Statement is a Personal Attack in violation of my Parole)

"A "grasp at straws" attempt to get something against me". (Deathrocker here claims my statement is a 'Grasp At Straws' to find things to blame him for, even though all diffs have been provided)

"the BS comment was in relation to all o this that has happened from me trying to HELP Wikipedia". (Here Deathrocker claims that my Statement is 'Bullshit' and that by making personal attacks at me and trying to have me banned he is 'helping' Wikipedia)

"An apology which after the latest onslaught by Leyasu". (Here Deathrocker claims by statement is an Onslaught, possibly another selective choice of words to infer a personal attack)

"I suggest whoever is looking at the case actually read the full conversation". (Here Deathrocker openly attacks the Abrittion Committe again, infering that there is a cabal against him)

"Regarding Leyasu's false claim that I was once "up for permanent ban". (Deathrocker again claims this isnt true even though both myself and Sceptre have provided diffs for this in our statements)

"Most of this is irrelevent to the case, and seems to be an attempt at a few cheap stabs". (Here Deathrocker claims that my statement is 'irrelevant' and is nothing but 'a few cheap stabs')

"Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Here Deathrocker explicitly states i am a child and my statement is an 'attempt' to cause trouble)

"Lie #6: This an admittance by Leyasu that he was indeed the sockpuppet that I reported". (Here Deathrocker claims i am a liar, and that i am a sockpuppet even though he has refused to do a RFCU)

"Leyasu attempted to Vandalise this article, removing information I had wrote in an attempt to cover up the refutal of his lies". (This is because i removed his comments from my statement based on Tonys advice as an admin. Deahtrocker chose then to deface my statement leading to his warning by Sceptre)

"Leyasu then childishly (yes childishly, right a novel about it, I don't care, you're acting like a child)". (Here Deathrocker explicity makes a personal attack calling me a child, and then makes further uncivil remarks despite being warner by Sceptre).

"The word "truth" is an entirely foreign concept to Leyasu". (Deathrocker deliberatly makes the personal attack that i do not know the meaning of the word Truth)

"Until Leyasu starts acting civily and stops Personally attacking me, they are in violation of their parole'". (Here Deathrocker explicitly claims that by making a statement i am violating my parole)

"Although this case is ridiculous and indeed against wikipedia policy". (Deathrocker attacking the arbirrition case and Wikilawyering again)

"Leyasu is just attepting to maliciously cause trouble with things like this now". (Deathrocker again claiming my statement is a personal attack)

"Grow up, stop trying to cause trouble". (Deathrocker telling me to 'grow up' and remove my statement from the Abirittion Case)

"its been made pretty obvious Leyasu's intentions (to stir trouble, the assumption of bad faith)" (Deathrocker again calling my statement a personal attack, despite having been warned by Sceptre for uncivlity and personal attacks)

He goes on also to say that he is going to have me barred for violating my Parole by posting a statement, and that my statement will be voided because of it. This is very distressing as he continues to deface my statement. He also explicittly stated that because you didnt make a statement its acceptable vandalism. Ley Shade 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Software resoponse to deleted articles.

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]