[WikiEN-l] cancelation of the deletion review of the satanism userbox

[George Herbert]

On 6/1/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> Tony Sidaway wrote:
> > That is a non-sequitur.  Please address the arguments.
>
> You're both arguing at cross-purposes.  You keep explaining why
> what you did was necessary and important, while he keeps asking
> why you are doing it so high-handedly.


Speaking of which, this lovely comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=56396077&oldid=56368286

": Moreover you've seen that at least a dozen other editors see nothing
wrong with this kind of refactoring and think it improves the environment.
>From my conversations with others not involved in this infantile RfC, I'm
convinced that the claims of disruption are completely unmerited. --[[User
talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 22:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)"

Infantile?

Tony, there are many, many other extremely active editors and admins who
never have a hint of an RFC filed against them, or other administrative
actions.  You are literally going around daring people to do it to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3&diff=prev&oldid=56316893

This is not the way to make positive contributions to WP.  Going around
pissing people off is not making effective positive contributions.  Just
because your WP friends aren't pissed off by all this doesn't mean that
other people aren't, and the record number of user complaints and RFCs
against you should be proof of this.


-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com / george.herbert at gmail.com