| Revision as of 16:49, 12 February 2008 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits Show/hide trick with the civility sanction← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:37, 12 February 2008 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Hide/show: tweakNext edit → | ||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| Happy Editing! — '''{{User|72.75.72.63}}''' <sub>15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</sub> | Happy Editing! — '''{{User|72.75.72.63}}''' <sub>15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)</sub> | ||
| : Nice idea, but I think it's a bit overkill, really. Prod is intentionally a lightweight process. It could be useful on articles (like the one I encountered it on) where there was a declined prod in the past and someone may miss it in the history. --] 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | : Nice idea, but I think it's a bit overkill, really. Prod is intentionally a lightweight process. It could be useful on articles (like the one I encountered it on) where there was a declined prod in the past and someone may miss it in the history. --] 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Hide/show == | |||
| Tony, would you reconsider ? I was thinking that you might consider leaving the sanction visible for a little bit longer, or showing the important bit (ie. hide your intro, but not the rest of it)? It feels like you are annotating and playing around with the layout of your sanction. If it is really to be a direct analogue of the other civility sanction in this case, I would suggest that it is left alone and not tweaked and hidden and whatnot. I'll wait for you to respond, but I will note that FloNight placed the sanction with . She doesn't seem to have said how it should be displayed, but equally she doesn't seem to have agreed that you should be able to provide context and hide it behind a hide/show tab. Maybe this could be compared to the debate over the blanking of the IRC Arbitration case pages, or maybe not. ] (]) 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I've raised it immediately at ], as it seemed relevant over there. Apologies for not waiting for you to reply. ] (]) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't intend to respond to attempts to make a fuss over this voluntary sanction. --] 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Tony. I'm not ''attempting'' to make a fuss. I ''am'' making a fuss. Would you respond better to FloNight? If she says you can display it how you like, then I'll drop this. As probably the first of its kind, you have set a precedent with this (are there other examples?), so you will have to expect a certain amount of "what do we do here" sort of thing. I know we had a little argument the other day, but I'm seriously trying to figure out how this sort of thing works, and would appreciate a more forthcoming response from you, if you feel able to do that. ] (]) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:37, 12 February 2008
Civility sanction I said on the second day of the workshop of the IRC case that I thought the Committee would have to be "very creative in seeking an appropriate and equitable set of remedies." Hardly an audacious prediction in the circumstances. It has proven a difficult case, and there have been moments when some of us had to "get out and push", as it were, by making concessions. I think the case has come together well over the past few days and now the end is in sight. I believe cooperation is essential for the health of the community. To help paper over the cracks I've accepted FloNight's suggestion that she draw up an enforceable remedy concerning me as an alternative to one that looks likely to fail in this case. That's both creative and sensible. The proximate cause of the arbitration case was an edit war that would not have started without my thoughtless choice of words. Part of this case has concerned widespread perceptions that some parties are privileged in some way. Those perceptions, which I believe to be false, can only be defused by painstaking work in the months going forwards, but this case makes a good start. --Tony Sidaway 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated instances of incivility, personal attacks, and general lack of decorum befitting a Misplaced Pages editor. Previous warnings have not resolved the problem. Therefore, Tony Sidaway is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should Tony Sidaway make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tony Sidaway may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at User:Tony Sidaway/Civility sanction#Log of blocks. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll treat that as enforceable. Other arbitrators may add endorsements if they want. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WarGames
It is very disappointing that you are disregarding my complaint completely with this edit. Am I supposed to put up a 'fight' so that my complaint is taken seriously? I told you that the mass trimming of the plot summary like that is problematic. I have even cited you featured fictional works such as Hamlet's synopsis section which is longer than the one on WarGames. Featured works are generaly the metric for good articles. More-so than guidelines. Since Jack Merridew is involved (Coincidence? I don't think so. Stalking? Probably.) with the article I have almost completely lost interest. -- Cat 14:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought you said you wanted the plot summary twice the length, so (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm a bit hazy about exactly what I did on this article a couple of weeks ago) I made an effort to extend it--please do add more if you want. Who is Jack Merridew? --Tony Sidaway 15:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
{{Oldprodfull}}
Hello, Tony Sidaway ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO and other flag templates?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nice idea, but I think it's a bit overkill, really. Prod is intentionally a lightweight process. It could be useful on articles (like the one I encountered it on) where there was a declined prod in the past and someone may miss it in the history. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hide/show
Tony, would you reconsider this? I was thinking that you might consider leaving the sanction visible for a little bit longer, or showing the important bit (ie. hide your intro, but not the rest of it)? It feels like you are annotating and playing around with the layout of your sanction. If it is really to be a direct analogue of the other civility sanction in this case, I would suggest that it is left alone and not tweaked and hidden and whatnot. I'll wait for you to respond, but I will note that FloNight placed the sanction with this edit. She doesn't seem to have said how it should be displayed, but equally she doesn't seem to have agreed that you should be able to provide context and hide it behind a hide/show tab. Maybe this could be compared to the debate over the blanking of the IRC Arbitration case pages, or maybe not. Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I've raised it immediately at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Using hide/show on civility sanctions, as it seemed relevant over there. Apologies for not waiting for you to reply. Carcharoth (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't intend to respond to attempts to make a fuss over this voluntary sanction. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tony. I'm not attempting to make a fuss. I am making a fuss. Would you respond better to FloNight? If she says you can display it how you like, then I'll drop this. As probably the first of its kind, you have set a precedent with this (are there other examples?), so you will have to expect a certain amount of "what do we do here" sort of thing. I know we had a little argument the other day, but I'm seriously trying to figure out how this sort of thing works, and would appreciate a more forthcoming response from you, if you feel able to do that. Carcharoth (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't intend to respond to attempts to make a fuss over this voluntary sanction. --Tony Sidaway 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)