Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 07:58, 1 July 2015 (→Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My mind's gone completely blank and I cant think what to put in this header.

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your work cutting down the size of the Gamergate controversy article and resolving talk page disputes. Bosstopher (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

How very thoughtful! --TS 04:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hatting/unhatting

This is just a notification that the hatting you recently did is here. Not interested in debating it here, not seeking any sanctions against you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No offence taken. You're doing the right thing by taking it to the enforcement page. Cheers. --TS 20:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As requested

Reminding me how much I miss the writings Iain Banks. Since you asked for a templating.

In all seriousness keep up the good work, you're very much appreciated. — Strongjam (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll bear that in mind next time I am tempted by the siren call of the Great Enfolded. --TS 00:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated!

Thanks for tagging me! I was actually just wondering if I should add the template to my own page to indicate good-faith awareness of the contentious circumstances on and sanctions covering the gamergate mess, but I was genuinely not entirely sure if it would "count", or if the template has to be administrator-applied, or something similar. Sappow (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think self-tagging would have counted, because it's only to establish that the editor is aware of the circumstances that apply to their edits in a certain area.

I tagged one editor whose activities looked suspicious but then noticed that there were a few others who looked new to me (I only recently stopped editing in that topic) so I ended up tagging a few newcomers. --TS 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kudos...

Hi Tony Sidaway, Apologies for the interruption. I thought that this I deliberately stepped back a few months ago to give new editors a chance here was worthy of recognition. I think it's the kind of attitude that Misplaced Pages could use more of; on all sides of all disputes. - Ryk72 12:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It's my long established practice. In my view the Gamergate fuss bears certain parallels to the "global warming hoax" nonsense that immediately followed the theft of emails from CRU in East Anglia. So you will not be surprised to hear that I first consciously exercised this disengagement strategy after a brief period of intensive involvement at the article on that topic. Others who failed to disengage didn't have a very happy time, irrespective of their stance on the issues. --TS 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough

Wasn't intended as an attack but point taken. freshacconci talk to me 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I had intended to smooth things over on your user talk page, but real life intervened. Thanks for taking it so well. --TS 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you review?

Tony, thanks for writing the Arb Rep. I've copyedited it. Please take a look and revert or otherwise change anything you don't like. Tony (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You've made good changes to improve readability, as well as style fixes. It moves closer to my goal of a readable and fair summary of a very delicate case. --TS 13:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 attack on Dallas police has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Tony Sidaway. 2015 attack on Dallas police, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

A brief personal note

Hi, Tony, just wanted to stop by and say that although I have often disagreed with you I very much appreciate the deliberate and measured way you approach your editing. Misplaced Pages could use more like you. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A Grand Statement

"An encyclopaedia is not amoral. It either supports evil through complacency or it embodies an overall force for good by refusing to flinch from the delineation of all, both evil and good. When we flinch and turn a blind eye to violent attempts to subvert our great work, then we face the true test.” -- Tony Sidaway

MarkBernstein (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment requested

There is now a concrete proposal on Talk:Autonomous spaceport drone ship re article scope. It is in line with the sentiments of several editors in the (rather confusing) discussion earlier on that same Talk page, but the earlier discussion had both a different proposed change as well as comments that led well beyond discussion of just the scope of this single article.

Would appreciate it if you might consider weighing in, since the first operational use of the new ASDS is in just a few days, on 28 June. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. As I have no particularly strong opinions on the matter I'll leave the discussion there. --TS 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

" "social justice warriors" (a term DHeyward appears to use without irony) ". Your comment is made without citation or diff. I don't hold nor espouse the views you've attributed to me. I do cite sources that are underrepresented. I do comment on sources that I think are being misinterpreted (such as the unsourced lead saying the mass shooting threat is from GamerGate when our own section on the threat says differently as does the detailed sources). I also don't use the term "social justice warrior" in my own voice. I'd appreciate a retraction of the aspersion. --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for my imprecision. You actually used the phrases 'social justice advocates', 'social justice campaigners' and 'social justice revolution' in your own voice, in the course of pushing your synthesis. --TS 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

More OR/Synth (law doesn't forbid it, nor was the request entirely turned down) And without irony you use the term "reasonable" in pushing your synthesis though one side didn't think it reasonable to install metal detectors and check permits, though it is lawful and it's in the source as the universities position. . We can agree that she cancelled because she felt threatened by a threat of a mass shooting. Now, I don't call you out personally on your SYNTH because I understand your point of view and I understand the topic often has strong views. I would have hoped it was returned. I can find more but what's the point? You understand your own viewpoint. That I can contribute with a different view on the same material because there are specific and nuanced differences helps build a more accurate article. War by attrition is specifically outlined in WP:CTDAPE. I don't push my POV into the article and I don't disagree with consensus. I Assume the same of you when I see your synthesis and POV creep into statements on the talk page (it ranges from WP:SOAP to WP:SYNTH, as with most of editors in the area). --DHeyward (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)