| Revision as of 21:50, 12 February 2008 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,579 edits →Hide/show: replies← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:58, 12 February 2008 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →Hide/show: I've had enough of this self-referential wibbling about talk pagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| : 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) | |||
| :::: If you truly do not intend to make a fuss, then stop making a fuss over my act of goodwill, intended to help to heal wounds. --] 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (edit conflict with above) OK. You've tweaked the display, and that ''is'' more visible, I'll admit. But that wasn't really my point. My point is really about where this should be displayed. I'm not sure whether FloNight's decision to put it on your talk page had a deep meaning behind it, and I realise it has overtones of a penitent, but tweaking and changing it doesn't seem quite right to me. My view, now, is that this shouldn't be on your talk page at all, but should be on the main arbitration case page, and then those pages really should be courtesy blanked (as someone with a real life name would be named in a sanction). I am rather surprised that you tweaking the way it was displayed could have raised so many questions in my mind about all this, but the more I think about it, a year-long notice on your talk page is not the right way to do this. But that is only my opinion. If you feel strongly enough about this, I will drop it, though I can't speak for others. ] (]) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :OK, as you've asked above, I will drop this. As I've noted over on the IRC arbitration case talk page, I do believe that you accepting this sanction was a genuine attempt to heal wounds. Sorry for any angst I caused. ] (]) 18:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Apparently FloNight's editing restriction has been interpreted as a community sanction. There are two other community-imposed editing restrictions, and neither of those is displayed permanently on a user talk page. There are numerous arbitration-committee-imposed editing restrictions, and none of those is to my knowledge displayed permanently on a user talk page. As a concession to FloNight's polite request, I'm displaying this particular sanction on my talk page for a few weeks as she asked me to, but in the interests of being able to read discussions on the talk page I'm using the show-hide trick, which is commonly used for purposes like this. The restriction is also listed on ]. I had gone out and had not come back to complete formatting when you asked me about it. --] 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::''"none of those is to my knowledge displayed permanently on a user talk page"'' - I agree entirely, and that sounds like what I said: ''"the more I think about it, a year-long notice on your talk page is not the right way to do this"'' (in other words, I've changed my mind as we've discussed this) - I would now support you removing the sanction notice from your talk page altogether, but as you use the page history as your archive (the true 'wiki-way' to archive), leaving current messages, such as this, on the page, seems logical. Also, leaving it there might help remind you of the sanction, though I'm sure that's not needed. Anyway, I'd like to apologise again for bringing this up like this, and I will now try my very best not to mention this sanction again while it is in force! (Well, apart from replying to FloNight below and maybe saying something on the IRC case talk page). ] (]) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My intent in writing the sanction was to make sure that the two parties in the case that have engaged in repeated incidences of incivility to the point of causing disruption were both placed under sanctions. That only one party in the case was given a civility sanction by the Committee seemed to overlook the root problem in the case. I did not feel that either of these parties had responded to past warnings and stronger action was needed for both. | |||
| In my comment to Tony saying that I wanted to write a Civility sanction, I said that it would remain on his talk page for a few weeks and then a link to the user subpage would replace the full sanction on his talk page. We do not require parties in cases to have the sanction visible on their user talk page. It is pretty common for parties to quickly archive the notice of the final ruling that Clerks place on the involved talk page. I have no problem with Tony modifying the way the sanction is displayed as he has done. (While I wrote this there was an edit conflict and it seems that this is sorted.) ]] 19:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks FloNight. I was sure you had said something, but failed to find it. I still can't find the exact diff, but that's neither here nor there, just me thinking it would be easy to find based on ''"In my comment to Tony saying that I wanted to write a Civility sanction"'' - I must be looking on the wrong page. ] (]) 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Newsletter == | == Newsletter == | ||
Revision as of 21:58, 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)
Newsletter
I have contacted the Newsletter maker/distributor and made it clear that you do not wish to recieve one. Regards. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Don't worry, if I get one by mistake I'll just delete it from the page. No probs, no fuss. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Fair enough Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Test Card Girl.jpg
Many thanks for that Tony. It was careless of me. Hopefully that should sort it. A bright cold day in april (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
