Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway

[edit] Deletions by various administrators using the new T1 criterion

See also: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_del_userbox


9 February, 2006
  • 00:59, User:Splash deleted "Template:User pacifist3" (T1, obviously.)
    • Text: "This user thinks pacifists make good target practice." Image: Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament symbol. Link: Pacifism
10 February, 2006
  • 17:13, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User donkey" (attack template)
    • Text: "This user votes Democratic, because they're better than the Republicans." Graphic: photograph of a grazing donkey.
  • 18:02, User:Johnleemk deleted "Template:User participant userbox war" (ok, I have had it. non-encyclopedia related userboxes are one thing, and those that present a political POV are another, but this is way out of line. TFD IS NOT A WAR. WE ARE ALL WARRIORS ON THE SAME SIDE IN BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. FUCK FACTIONALISM)
    • Text: "This user is a participant of the Userbox war.", Image: boxes. Link:WP:TFD
  • 18:05, User:MarkSweep deleted "Template:User fought userbox war" (dangling rdr)
    • Redirect to a moved template.
  • 18:11, User:Taxman deleted "Template:User USA Police State" (divisive template, no value for the encyclopedia)
    • Text: "This user thinks that the USA is a police state." Image: US flag on red background. Links: USA and Police state
  • 18:56, User:Taxman restored "Template:User USA Police State" (6 revisions restored)
  • 19:09, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User does not support Michael Jackson" (T1, attack on Michael Jackson)
    • Text: "This user does not support Michael Jackson". Image: mugshot of Michael Jackson taken by Santa Barbara County Sheriff's office. Link: 2005 trial of Michael Jackson
  • 19:15, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User GWB2" (T1. Clearly divisive and inflammatory)
  • Text: "This user believes that George W. Bush's edits to the constitution need to be reverted." Image: George W. Bush. Links: Main Page George W. Bush, USA PATRIOT Act, Movement to impeach George W. Bush
  • 19:29, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User USA Police State" (T1, divisive and inflammatory)
  • 20:05, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User against Iraq War" (T1: Divisive and inflammatory)
  • 20:46, User:TShilo12 deleted "Template:User USA Police State" (content was: 'This template was censored. If you're an admin with honesty and principles, please restore it to its earlier version.' (and the only contributor was 'Revolución') see discussion on Jimbo's talk page.)
  • 21:24, User:Curps deleted "Template:User against Iraq War" (CSD T1, "divisive" templates)
  • 22:26, User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User Anti-ACLU" (T1: divisive and inflammatory)
    • Text: "This user does not support the ACLU.". Image: ACLU symbol with a slash across it. Links: ACLU.
  • 22:27, User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User Anti-UN" (T1: content was: '<noinclude>{{db-attacktemplate}}</noinclude><div style="float: left; border: solid #6699ff 1px; margin: 1px;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px...')
    • Text: "This user does not support the United Nations.". Image: UN symbol with a slash across it. Links: United Nations.
  • 22:28, User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User no Rand" (T1: divisive/inflammatory)
  • 22:30, User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User No AmE" (T1: divisive/inflammatory)
  • 22:50, User:Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User-AmE-0" (t1)
  • 23:04, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User vandalism" (T1, orphan)
    • Text: "This user is a Wikipedia vandal." Image: Stop sign with a hand, palm facing front. Link: Wikipedia:Vandalism
  • 23:05, User:Physchim62 deleted "Template:User antiatheism" (T1: divisive/inflammatory)
    • Text: "This user opposes atheism on the basis that a lack of theism promotes immorality or is otherwise harmful." Image: centerpiece from Michelangelo's Cistine Chapel mural. Links: atheism, theism, morality
  • 23:47, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User admins ignoring policy" (T1)
  • 23:48, User:Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User no Rand" (content was: '<div style="float: left; border: solid #880000 1px; margin: 1px;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; color: silver; background: gray;"| style="...' (and the only contributor was 'Revolución'))
11 February, 2006
12 February, 2006
  • 08:43, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy" (Recreation of T1 speedied template)
  • 10:32, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy" (Recreation of T1 speedy)
  • 10:33, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/Anti-fascism" (Clone of Template:User anti-fascism)
  • 10:36, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/antiatheism" (T1)
  • 10:37, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU" (Clone of T1 speedied anti-ACLU userbox template)
  • 10:38, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/Freedom" (Clone of Template:User Freedom)
  • 10:38, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/antiatheism2" (Clone of T1 speedied template)
  • 10:39, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/Anti-UN" (Clone of T1 speedied anti-UN template)
  • 10:40, User:Tony Sidaway deleted "User:Userboxes/M1911" (Clone of Template:User m1911)

[edit] Crotalus' recreation of deleted templates

User:Crotalus horridus used User:Userboxes to recreate and deploy several deleted templates and to create clones of existing templates.

[edit] Edits by Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs)

6 February 2006

[edit] Edits by Userboxes (talk • contribs)

  • 04:50, User:Userboxes (This is not an actual user page. It is a placeholder in case the Infoboxes to Userspace proposal passes.)
  • 04:52, User talk:Userboxes (For now, redirect to Wikipedia talk:Use of userboxes)
11 February, 2006
  • 07:41, User:Userboxes/Anti-UN (Userfying to avoid CSD T1 concerns)
  • 07:42, User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU (Userfying to avoid CSD T1 concerns)
12 February, 2006
I have provided diffs for some but the content is obvious from the edit summaries
  • 08:02, User:Userboxes/Freedom (Moved from {{Freedom}})
  • 08:06, User:Userboxes/M1911 (Userfying)
  • 08:07, User:Jwissick (Changed reference to M1911 to point to userspace template.)
  • 08:12, User:Userboxes/Admins_ignoring_policy (Some users still have this transcluded - userfying)
  • 08:12, User:Liftarn ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:14, User:LordRM {{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:15, User:-Ril-/Header ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:16, User:Aaron ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:18, User:Raccoon Fox ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:19, User:Raccoon Fox (Point to userfied versions of Anti-UN and Anti-ACLU)
  • 08:20, User:Raccoon Fox (Userfied Freedom userbox)
  • 08:23, User:Mike92591 ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:25, User:Holocron (Switched to userspace versions of 2 deleted userboxes)
  • 08:27, User:Makitk (Moved 2 userboxes to userspace transclusions)
  • 08:28, User:Robert McKay/Userboxes ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:30, User:James Anatidae/Userboxes ({{subst:User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes/User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy}})
  • 08:31, User:James Anatidae/Userboxes ({{User:Userboxes/Freedom}})
  • 08:33, User:Userboxes/Anti-fascism (Userfying)

[edit] Edits by Silence (talk • contribs)

  • 12 February 2006
    • 05:49 User:Userboxes/antiatheism(moving controversial userbox from templatespace to userspace per User:Userboxes/Anti-UN, etc.)
    • 05:51 User:Userboxes/antiatheism2 (moving controversial userbox from templatespace to userspace per User:Userboxes/Anti-UN, etc.)

[edit] Tony Sidaway's deletion of the templates

Tony Sidaway discovered this and deleted them as recreations and clones.

[edit] Growth of Userboxes

Estimates of number of userboxes created by month:

May 136
June 78
July 95
August 113
September 281
October 415
November 380
December 1553
January 2022
February 1-13 627

Source: the following sql query run on a live mirror of the database.

select min(rev_timestamp) , page_title, count(1)
from revision
, page
where page_namespace=10
and page_title like 'User_%'
and rev_page=page_id
group by page_title
order by min(rev_timestamp);

Number of userbox templates:

When run on January 4, the above query produced 3520 lines of output, one per userbox.

When run on February 14, the query produced 5870 lines of output.

Addendum: please see Interiot's expansion on this. [2]

[edit] Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia

  • Administrator log for the Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia.
  • Undeletion log
  • Original wording of page: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an organization for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group."
  • Wording of page at time of deletion: "The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results."
  • Deletion discussion
  • Talk page spamming by User:Shanedidona. Wording:
  • Discussion page shortly after Nandesuka undeleted for the first time, showing massive deletion pile-on (estimated 52-9), and notice from Aecis giving evidence of attempted ballot stuffing [3]
    • Nandesuka has said here in announcing his undeletion: "there will certainly be consensus to delete this," [4]

Summary (adapted from wording originally drawn up as a finding of fact)

At 21:05, 24 December 2005, Shanedidona (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) created a page in Wikipedia project space called Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. This page was avowedly intended: "for the purpose of rallying voting on articles about topics such as abortion. This is a pro-life group." This page was not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia and constituted an overt and conscious attempt at organized vote stacking. At 00:56 the following day, Aecis (talk • contribs) listed it for deletion.

In response, Shanedidona used the category system built into the Catholic userboxes and contacted over 40 users who were listed as Catholics and asked them to "please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia" [5]. This was another overt and conscious attempt to influence the result of debate on Wikipedia by manipulating the proportion of committed Roman Catholics who were involved.

At 13:09, Extreme Unction (talk • contribs) reposted a copy of a comment by Aecis, the nominator, in which Aecis showed that every single keep voter in the debate had done so after being spammed by Shanedidona [6]. At that time there was a clear, if not overwhelming, consensus to delete the article. I deleted it and announced this: "I have deleted this as "Not remotely compatible with Wikipedia's policy of neutrality." [7].

Over the following days the page was repeatedly restored by administrators who claimed that it was an out-of-process deletion, three times by Nandesuka (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), twice by Sean_Black (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and once each by Fennec (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), Musical_Linguist (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and Karmafist (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), and deleted eight times by me, while the clear consensus to delete continued to mount to ludicrous proportions. The debate was finally closed after three days, at 01:39, 28 December by NicholasTurnbull (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who also deleted the page.

During the debate, I continued to discuss and defend my actions. [8],[9],[10],[11],[12], saying:

"Campaigning of this type against our policy of neutrality must be stamped out ruthlessly, deleted on sight. In accordance with this I again delete this project page. There is a clear and insurmountable consensus to delete this, and even if there were not, it and every project page like it would still have to be deleted because of its conflict with that policy. Please do not restore this."

I also submitted my conduct to review by the arbitration committee, which rejected the case by (0/4/0/0) after seven days [13].

I feel that it was necessary to delete the page immediately because the debate on its deletion had already shown a clear consensus to delete, and the debate itself was being abused as a focal point for ongoing attempts to subvert the neutrality policy.

Those admins who undeleted the page indicated that they thought that taking unilateral action while the community was discussing the issue was disrespectful and against the deletion policy,[14], and because they thought my actions were per se disruptive in the same way as edit warring and 3RR violations[15].

My response is that the page clearly had not a snowball's chance in hell of not being deleted, and that the undeleters were process-wrangling for the sake of it and have lost their sense of proportion. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would consider a deletion of this kind to be a breach of any Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 12:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User GWB

  • Administrator log for Template:User GWB
  • Undeletion log (was recently speedied again under T1 and protected from recreation)
  • Original wording: This user hates George W. Bush and wishes they didn't have to revert vandalism there." The word hates was linked to a category called "Wikipedians who dislike George W. Bush" and the name of the President was linked to the article about the President.
  • Wording at time of first January 10 speedy by Tony Sidaway: "This user can't stand George W. Bush and wishes they did not have to revert vandalism there." The phrase "can't stand" was linked to the same category, and the name of the President and the word "there" were both linked to the much-vandalized article about the President.
  • Most recent wording (Feb 17, 03:00 UTC): "This user opposes George W. Bush but equally vandalism of his Wikipedia biography."

Summary (adapted from wording originally drawn up as a finding of fact)

At 19:42, 25 December 2005, Celestianpower (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) created a userbox template Template:User GWB with the wording "This user hates George W. Bush and wishes they didn't have to revert vandalism there." The name of the President was linked to the article about the President, which is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia.

This was not only an unsuitable statement for a template but it also amounted, through the transclusion mechanism, to multiple cases of incitement to vandalize the article in the manner of "Don't stick beans up your nose."

At 11:20, 10 January 2006, I deleted this template as part of a group of attack templates which had been brought to my attention on my talk page by Doc_glasgow. I listed them all for review on Wikipedia:Deletion review [16].

Over the next thirteen hours the template was repeatedly deleted, five times by me, once each by Doc glasgow, Zoe and Carbonite, and restored three times by Jtdirl, and once each by Celestian Power, Dragons flight, DESiegel and Alai. The template was eventually edited to say "This user opposes George W. Bush and vandalism of his Wikipedia biography" without any link to the article.

Before, throughout, and after this incident, I announced, explained and defended my actions [17], [18],[19],[20],[21].[22],[23],[24] and produced a gallery of the templates so that non-administrators could see what had been deleted [25]. --Tony Sidaway 12:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Sidaway's administrator actions with respect to userboxes

(A few purely administrative temporary undeletions for the purpose of copying, and their associated redeletions, are omitted)

  • 3 January 2006
    • 07:25
    • 09-00-09:56
      • Delete all templates linked from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion and then delete the page, on the grounds that "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources"
    • 09:29-09:31
      • Delete all templates linked from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal and then delete the page, on the grounds that they had "no conceivable encyclopedic use)"
    • 08:59-10:08
      • Delete all templates linked from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs and then delete the page, on the grounds that "Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources"
    • A total of 80 deletions of items occurred in the above three actions. They were nearly all restored immediately by administrators who disagreed with this bold action. Ambi deleted some also.
  • 9 January 2006
    • 02:02,
      • Delete Template:User against scientology with summary "Sole purpose is to attack a religion , cf: User against jews Do not rescuscitate."
      • One person recreated this but another administrator deleted it. Nohat also temporarily undeleted it to add to his collection of deleted templates.
  • 10 January 2006
    • (See also Template:User_GWB above.
    • 07:52-08:13
      • Delete Template:User ms sucks,Template:User jerk,Template:User jacko wacko,Template:User does not trust Jimbo,Template:User delete deletionists,Template:User browser:Other,Template:User apple sucks,Template:User bad eu,Template:User bad EU on the grounds that they were attempts to attack or denigrate the subject.
    • 08:35
      • Wikipedia:Deletion review: commenting on a submission of my deletion of Template:User against scientology for review: "Well often the editors in this most bureaucratic of discussion pages do endorse non-bureaucratic deletions of unsuitable material. So on this issue I think that, despite our differences on form, there is substantial agreement."
    • 09:21
      • Wikipedia:Deletion review: Submitting the attack templates for review: "As we're still making policy on this, I'll discuss these recent speedy deletions in detail, with the hope that we can decide what kind of attack can acceptably be speedied. Reverse chronological order because that's how the deletion log lists them...Overall I think that userbox templates of this kind have no place on Wikipedia because they abuse Wikipedia facilities in the service of attacking a person, a group of people, a company, or the works uniquely associated with a person, persons or a company."
    • 10:10
      • Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion: Discussing a proposed speedy deletion criterion for attack templates. "This seems to be in line with the intent of A6. By turning a blind eye to the use of some templates in userspace in order to systematically denigrate a person, a group of peple or a corporation or other organised body, or the products uniquely associated with a person, persons of an organised body, we would be condoning such organised campaigns. Wikipedia userspace would be in danger of being abused as a campaigning medium for black PR. We cannot overlook this because of Wikipedia's immense popularity--it's one of the most popular websites in the world. Just as we summarily delete personal attack articles, I think it's time to apply the same standard to template space."
    • 13:14-16:59
      • Delete Template:User War on drugs,Template:User Anti-ACLU,Template:User Anti-UN,Template:User GWB and Template:User GWB2 as attacks.
    • 21:23
    • 21:38-21:43
      • Deleted recreations of speedied templates Template:User bad eu,Template:User apple sucks, Template:User does not trust Jimbo,Template:User jacko wacko, Template:User jerk, Template:User ms sucks, Template:User No EU, Template:User Anti-UN, Template:User Anti-ACLU, Template:User War on drugs, Template:User Fear Bush as "vote-stacking attempt" (recreated as links to WP:DRV)
    • 23:29
      • Deleted Template:User War on drugs as attack
  • 11 January 2006
    • 12:56
      • Deleted Template:User jacko wacko (attack)
  • 12 January 2006
  • 13 January 2006
  • 28 January 2006
    • 12:52
      • Deleted Template:User ancestry (attack template)
  • 31 January 2006
    • 16:20
      • Deleted Template:User no Rand (attack userbox)
  • 31 January 2006
    • 16:25
      • Ddeleted Template:User Antiracist hitler (offensive juxtaposition of Hitler image with refs to MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela)
  • 10 February 2006
    • 17:13
      • Deleted Template:User donkey (attack template)
  • 10 February 2006
    • 17:36
      • Deleted Template:User Derek Gardner (vanity template (!))
    • 19:09-23:47
      • Deleted Template:User admins ignoring policy, Template:User vandalism, Template:User against Iraq War,Template:User USA Police State,Template:User GWB2,Template:User does not support Michael Jackson as CSD T1.
  • 11 February 2006
    • 10:34-16:06
      • Deleted Template:User R. PETA2 as T1, User:Userboxes/Anti-UN and User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU as recreations of speedied templates
    • 12 January 2006
    • 08:43
      • Deleted User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy (Recreation of T1 speedied template)
    • 10:32-10:40
      • Deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-UN, User:Userboxes/antiatheism2, User:Userboxes/Freedom, User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU, User:Userboxes/antiatheism, User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy as clones of T1 speedies, and [[User:Userboxes/M1911 and User:Userboxes/Anti-fascism as clones of existing templates.
  • 13 January 2006
    • 03:29-03:41
      • Deleted User:Boxes, User:Boxes/Life, User:Boxes/Location, User:Boxes/Time, User:Boxes/Belief, User:Boxes/Religion, User:Boxes/Regional Politics, User:Boxes/Political Parties,User:Boxes/Sexuality, User:Boxes/Userboxes, User:Boxes/Funny, User:Boxes/Wikipedia which were clones of Wikipedia Userbox project pages.
    • 22:34
      • Deleted Template:User opposes ubx screwing (Recreation of a T1)
  • 15 February 2006
    • 00:29
      • Deleted Template:User bad eu (Dead link content was: '#REDIRECT Template:User bad EU')

[edit] The deletion process is sick

Here I present evidence that the deletion process, and especially the deletion review, is sick.

1. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1

  • I think this is probably a reasonably familiar document to most of the arbitration committee. For those who haven't seen it, prepared to be shocked at the depth of division it shows in thinking on deletion.

2. See Catholic Alliance. Administrators undeleting a page that should have been speedied out of hand because they thought a 52/9 pile-on wasn't enough of a consensus.

3. Deletion review comments indicate that editors believe that their purpose is to monitor how perfectly a process has been adhered to, rather than whether the process arrived at the correct result.

  • [26] "Rigorous enough or not, the debate was unanimous. Note also that, for the most part, this page is not to repeat the AfD debate. See the final sentence in the yellow box above" in response to the comment "Albert Wolters is an important representative of a school of christian thought. He is well published in a number of fields and the above mentioned book has been translated into a variety of languages. On what basis has he been judged "boring" and is this a rigorous enough criteria to delete a wikipedia article?"
  • [27] "Keep deleted. Valid AfD."
  • [28] "Keep deleted, the AFD seems valid, there were no irregularities in the process, and this page is about process, not content."

Our undeletion policy is supposed to consider whether "Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored", but this is denied by the clique of deletion review, and my attempts to place this information about our undeletion policy on the page have been consistently reverted.

4. Administrators who take reasonable steps to correct obvious errors, with strong records of good judgement and successful outcomes, are resisted and falsely accused of wheel warring.

[edit] At least some of the sickness is directly caused by the actions of certain determined individuals

I present a record of some determined resistance to my attempt to bring the VFU header into line with the undeletion policy. The main problem is that the header misrepresents DRV as the sole method by which articles can be undeleted. This is not consistent with the undeletion policy. Another point where it is adrift from the undeletion policy is in its statement that Deletion review is solely about process. The undeletion policy is for undeletion of good items (the wording in the policy is that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the item) and good items cannot be discerned without examining their content.

Aaron Brenneman reverted every single attempt, and also blanked all of my talk page comments with a redirect to the talk page of WP:DRV.

[edit] Rebuttal of Xoloz alleged "wheel warring" evidence

  • If this was wheel warring I'm a banana.

[edit] Thomasine Church (log)

Summary. Despite some misguided attempts to prevent a perfectly routine history undeletion, it went ahead as normal.

  • 12 December, 2005
    • 22:01
      • On WP:DRV, announced perfectly normal history undeletion of some deleted revisions of an article that had been turned into a redirect: "I'm restoring these items from the history. They refer not to Nasranis, but to a small sect formed by a Catholic-raised chap who calls himself Mar Didymos, based in Pennsylvania. There's absolutely no harm in having the information in the history and it may (or may not) be a good idea to have a few words in the main article to distinguish the Nasranis (who use the term Thomasine Church and claim a direct link, via a convocation in 1918, with the remnants of the Thomasine church in India, from these other fellows sho seem to derive their philosophy from traditional teachings about Thomas. We can't really decide whether or not to do that while the items remain deleted."
    • 22:02
      • Performed the history undeletion
  • 13 December, 2005
    • 10:17
      • On WP:DRV, rebutting the suggestion that verifiability questions should halt history undeletions: "That's complete nonssense. The editing history of nearly every single article on Wikipedia is choc full of unverifiable material. Moreover I see no reason to describe the material that are being unreadonably withheld from undeletion as in any way unverifiable. It's heavily slanted towards representing the claims to the Thomasine Church as fact, but is a fair representation of the claims made on the church's own website, which is owned by an identifiable individual with an address in Pennsylvania. As history undeletions are not withheld without very good reason, I shall undelete again. Please do not delete the material again; the presence of the material in the history of this article does not compromises the integrity of Wikipedia and may be useful to some editors wishing to write on this strain of gnosticism. And do please read the undeletion policy, particularly the section that says "History only" undeletions can always be performed without needing to list the articles on the votes for undeletion page, and don't need to be kept for a full ten days."
      • Pilatus claims that I failed to allay fears about unverifiable material. I am clear in my mind that the above allays all reasonable fears. The article is just about a small scale church and it's factual with respect to that church's aspiractions but biased as to that church's place in the world. In short, it can be treated like any other biased material on Wikipedia--edited to remove bias and included in the encyclopedia in an appropriate manner. --Tony Sidaway 03:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 10:18
      • Restored the article as announced.
    • 10:20
      • On User talk:Snowspinner: "A request for history-only undeletion has been made, and was performed by me under the terms of the undeletion policy."
    • After that the matter left my hands, although I did make a post on wikien-l:
    • 10:50
      • (Excerpted) "As I've outlined before, DRV is even more prone to assumptions of bad faith than AfD. In a great example of instruction creep, it now purports to declare some material (not copyright infringing, not defamatory) unfit even for a history undeletion."
    • Snowspinner eventually found a place for this material in his userspace.

[edit] Seth Ravin (log)

Summary: following a suggestion on wikien-l by Jimbo, I closed this AfD and tried to start a discussion on the Seth Ravin article, which numerous people had suggested would be better recast about his companies. Someone reclosed the AfD and deleted the article before this could be done. I did a history undelete, rewrote as an article about FutureNow in my own userspace, history-merged the rewritten article with Seth Ravin and moved the merged set to TomorrowNow, where it remains. A perfectly good article was saved from mindless deletion.

  • 20 January 2006
    • 20 16
      • Email from Jimbo on wikien-l (excerpted): "I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote"."
  • 21 January 2006
    • 01:12
      • Close AfD 2 on Seth Ravin: "The result of the debate was keep, seems to be no coherent reason to delete. Let's take this to the talk page of the article and respect Jimbo Wales' concerns about lack of discussion prior to listing for deletion [29]"
      • Charles Stewart had said: "It might make sense to abort this AfD, undelete TomorrowNow and put together a new AfD convering both articles, though I won't do that since I am happy with keeping this article and making TomorrowNow a redirect to it. I think that the person is somewhat more notable than the company, since he seems to be going through a series of posts in the software industry doing similar sourcing deals. It seems that Seth makes the companies newsworthy, not the other way around."
      • One of the delete voters, Titoxd, had said: "Delete, but I'd be content if someone created the article for TomorrowNow and merged it there"
      • There were 14 deletes (including titoxd's), 7 keeps and some merge suggestions. Not a consensus to delete.
    • 01:17
      • Talk:Seth Ravin (which is now Talk:TomorrowNow):
      • "What to do about this article This article deletion was obviously very controversial and the discovery of the achievements of at least one of his companies suggests that, if we're considering deleting articles about this kind of fellow instead of some alternative, we're probably going to lose useful information. For instance, there were numerous suggestions on the latest AfD that his company might be more notable than he because of the achievements. But if we delete the article that doesn't solve anything. One alternative would be to just rewrite it as an article about one of his companies (but then what happens to the information about the other companies?) Let's discuss, not deletion, which would be silly, but how this information should be presented in the encyclopedia. "
  • 22 January 200
    • 07:20
      • AfD was reopened and article was deleted anyway
  • 23 January 2006
    • 05:21
    • 05:22
    • 05:22
    • 05:23
      • Talk:Seth Ravin (which is now Talk:TomorrowNow):
      • "The AfD was reopened and reclosed with delete. I have history-only undeleted the article for the purpose of discussing the proper disposition of the contents."
    • 05:34
      • Aaron Brenneman mucks about with history undeletion
    • 05:41
      • R. Fiend fixes the deletedpage template
    • 05:48
      • Aaron brenneman reverts that and pops a speedy tag on the history undeletion
    • 06:40
      • History-undeleted Seth Ravin was wrongly speedied as a G4 (recreation)
    • 08:34 Repeated history undeletion under the deletedpage template
    • 08:38
      • User:Tony Sidaway/TomorrowNow (which is now history-merged with FutureNow)
      • Rewrote stub by referring to history-undeleted page and adding lots of references (this is a much-written-about company)
    • 09:20
    • Trying to explain to a very suspicious Aaron Brenneman that his words "angling for another undeletion" described precisely what I was doing and there's nothing wrong with that.
    • 09:46
      • Deleted Seth Ravin in preparation for the history merge with the rewrite.
    • 09:47
      • Moved completed stub to Seth Ravin in order to perform history merge with the original article. Move was annotated: "To pick up relevant Seth Ravin history)"
    • 09:47
      • Deleted superfluous user-space redirect from the move
    • 09:47
      • Restored the deleted revisions, effecting a history merge with the TomorrowNow rewrite
    • 09:48
    • And that's it! The deleted article Seth Ravin was turned into a perfectly good article about one of his companies, TomorrowNow.

[edit] Brian Brolly (log)

Summary: Routine recovery of a wrongly speedied article about a highly notable individual.

Nandesuka has made false claims about the nature of this article when speedied as "nn-bio" under CSD A7. Here is its original content:

Brian Brolly, Innovative Entrepeneur.
  • Former CEO of Really Useful Theatre Company.
  • Founder of Classic FM UK
  • Past and present Associations with Paul McCartney,Alan Parsons to name few.
  • Owns a Hillman Traveller.
http://www.ibdb.com/person.asp?ID=104802

So there are three clear claims of notability, and a link that contains a fourth: that he produced, alone or with the other members of Producers Four, four Broadway shows. Nandesuka is attempting to mislead the committee. Moreover this was a quite straightforward undeletion to which nobody had the slightest objection.

  • 14 December 2005
    • 12:10
      • Straightforward undeletion under the exception clause of the undeletion policy. Article was about a former manager of Andrew Lloyd-Webber's production company, and the co-founder of one of the UK's most important independent national radio channels: Classic FM. The article when speedied also noted "past and present associations" with Paul McCartney and Alan Parsons. This was not a speedy candidate. The deleting admin is an Australian high school student and it's possible that he hasn't heard of Lloyd-Webber, McCartney, Parsons or the UK-based Classic FM.
    • 12:11
      • Article was re-speedied while I was wikifying
    • 12:15, 14 December 2005
      • Saved my version. Was informed that it had been re-deleted but went ahead with the save.
    • 12:16
      • This restore occurred automatically due to the save.
    • 12:21
      • Informed Harro5, the deleting admin."Hi, I noticed that you deleted Brian Brolly as "CSD A7". However the article clearly states that he founded Classic FM and he's a former CEO of Really Useful. He isn't even remotely speedy material. I've undeleted and wikified it."
    • 14:37, 14 December 2005
      • I had forgotten to remove the speedy tag so someone else did it.

[edit] Gazeebow Unit (log)

Summary: An AfD listing was aborted and an article about a marginally notable Newfoundland rap group was redeleted, despite having no consensus to delete.

  • 31 January 2006
    • 09:30
      • Normal history undeletion while it was undergoing deletion review,
    • 09:31, 31 January 2006
      • Protected the top (blanked) version as is common with history undeletionsannotated: "History undeletion for ongoing WP:DRV discussion"
    • 10:32, 31 January 2006
      • Unprotected, annotated "Second thoughts (I looked at older versions of the article))"
      • I decided that the article had probably been deleted in error, as it seemed to be quite a good one.
    • 10:51 Decided to give it a second AfD, as this often works where DRV gets stalled by questions of process.
    • 12:17 It seems to be heading for a consensus to keep, despite objections on grounds of the irregular process.
    • 12:41, 31 January 2006
      • This wasn't nice. Someone deleted the article while it was on AfD despite two votes to keep and evidence that the group had received national airplay. Undeleted it so that the AfD could continue; I'm sure that it would have been kept.
    • 12:43 Reopened the prematurely closed AfD.
    • More people intervened unfortunately and it was aborted on what appear to me to have been purely procedural grounds. We probably lost a good article there.
    • Xoloz asserts that verifiability of the article was under question. What if it was? This sort of thing would have been handled very well on AfD, where such questions are addressed on a daily basis. --Tony Sidaway 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Louisiana Baptist University people (log)

Summary: A perfectly normal series of temporary and history undeletions for an article whose deletion was being challenged on Deletion Review, punctuated by random deletions made by other administrators.

  • 27 January 2006
    • 14:42
      • Temporary undelete of the article for the purpose of discussion on DRV
  • 28 January 2006
    • 14:57
      • Created a blanked version and protected that
    • 14:58
      • History undelete under the protected version. This enabled people to see deleted revisions (which were uncontroversial) without fully undeleting the article. A compromise.
  • 30 January 2006
    • 11:48
      • Had been speedied again for some reason. Create new blanked top and protect it.
    • 11:48
      • Another routine history undeletion.

[edit] Patrick Alexander (cartoonist) (log)

Summary: Tried keeping an uncontroversial article openly editable while its deletion was reviewed, with some success. The article was greatly expanded and I think it likely that it could be undeleted now and would pass AfD.

  • 30 January 2006
    • 13:06
      • Temporarily undeleted article while its deletion was being discussed.
    • 13:07
      • Marked article with "deletion under review" template
    • 13:56-14:08
      • DollyD made some god faith edits expanding the article considerably:
        • expand from one paragraph to three, adding more information about the cartoonist's work
        • Add relevant external link
        • Add references to nominations for awards
  • 31 January 2006
    • 09:33
      • Somebody protected the article, but as there was no ongoing vandalism, no content dispute, and no apparent other reason to protect, I unprotected it.
    • 11:47
      • Phil Boswell performed an edit on the article.
    • 14:02
      • It was protected again (still no good reason). Unprotected again.
    • 14:33
      • Had been deleted during ongoing discussion. Undeleted it as a history undeletion.
    • I don't know whether this guy is that notable, but I think this established that an article could be improved while on deletion review.

[edit] SuperOffice (log) and Tally (accounting) [log]

Summary: Two perfectly good articles about notable companies were wrongly listed for deletion by a chap who wanted to make some kind of point about the deletion of his own pet article. I undeleted and submitted both to AfD a second time, significantly expanding one and adding references, stock ticker information, etc, to another. They both got overwhelming keep results.

[edit] Monique deMoan (log)

Summary: Despite the best efforts of several administrators, a wrongly speedied article about a porn star with a twelve-year career in non-internet pornography was undeleted, improved, listed on AfD, discovered to be a copyright infringement and rewritten, and then kept. This is a so-so article but the rabid rush to delete it wss completely unjustified and, frankly, quite mystifying to me. Needless to say, the keep vote was, as usual, quite overwhelming.

[edit] Albert M. Wolters (log)

Summary: The erroneous deletion of an article about an internationally known professor, a specialist in the Dead Sea Scrolls, was reversed by bold action in undeleting and taking to a second AfD. During that, the article was discovered to be a copyright infringement and rewritten, and received and overwhelming number of keep votes.

[edit] Warren Benbow (log)

Summary: Despite the best efforts of a long-experienced administrator, a wrongly speedied article about a notable drummer and record producer was undeleted, taken to AfD and expanded, where it was kept unanimously.

[edit] Systemwars.com (log)

Summary: An article 100% newly written by me was taken to AfD but wrongly speedied as a recreation during the debate. The article is currently available as a history-only deletion in my userspace (probably no longer in use and may be deleted after this case).

[edit] OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood (log)

Summary: An article by Snoop Dogg and one of his collaborators was undeleted by me and David Gerard on the grounds that we don't delete Snoop Dogg albums without a very good reason. This and a whole slew of other unofficial albums including some mixtapes were listed for deletion and deleted. During the debate an effort an writing about them as a whole was speedied. I did some temp undeletions later with a view to a complete rewrite but didn't have the time and have redeleted.

[edit] Userboxes are a focus of trolls and a source of discord and bad PR

[edit] Karmafist on Wikipedia Review

  • "You Say You Want a Revolution? Alright, Let's Go" Wikipedia Review, Feb 19.
    • "Wikipedia is quickly becoming an information source of millions, but it's secretly run in the shadows by an ex-pornographer and a bunch of mediocre nerds on a power trip. Are they bad people? For the most part, no. But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely -- Jimbo is quickly gaining absolute power there , despite the site being seen as some wonderful free to all information utopia. He can have Wikipedia as a commodity to be bought and sold or he can have it as a true open source collection of all human knowledge, but he can't have it both ways. I hope he chooses the latter, but I sure as hell will make sure that everyone I come in contact knows that ambiguity between the two is mere attempts at deception, and must be stopped by any person in good conscience for the good of any random innocent person who types something in on Google and goes straight to Wikipedia now."

[edit] On Ta bu shi da yu

After Ta bu shi da yu submitted his evidence, in the form of a complaint about my deletion of the religious userboxes and their page, he and I talked on line and I explained that my bold reaction, partly fueled by the action of Kelly Martin for similar reasons, was to get rid of something that at that time appeared to me to be a new and dangerous threat to the neutrality policy. He has given me permission to submit from the IRC log.

Feb 18 14:54:38

  • Tony_Sidaway:
    • "You see what happens when you post to my evidence page? :)"
      • (I was making light of my inability to help him to get rid of some copyright infringing Time magazine covers quickly.)
  • ta_bu_shi_da_yu:
    • "I only did that because I wanted comment on one deletion you did. I reviewed your deletions, you only seem to delete crap. Your problem is you come across too abrasive. You've offended me more than once, you know."
  • Tony_Sidaway:
    • "I'll tell you why. It was because I was extremely rattled by the use of the inbuilt categories of the religion userboxes to try to sway votes on MFD in the Catholic Alliance and other cases. I'd seen three examples in less than three weeks and I thought it was time to do something about it. A misjudgement, obviously."
  • ta_bu_shi_da_yu:
    • "OK, fair enough. You probably should just respond to my evidence... whereever that goes in an ArbCom dispute."
  • Tony_Sidaway:
    • "I'll copy my response to you to evidence. Is it okay to quote you? From IRC I mean."
  • ta_bu_shi_da_yu:
    • "Sure. Anything I write here can be copied. I'm an open book when it comes to admin decisions discussion."

[edit] Undeletions

In support of proposed finding of fact "Tony Sidaway has permanently undeleted many deleted articles."


In general these have been carried out under the exception clause of the undeletion policy:

  • If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. If deletion policy dictates that the undeleted page is an AfD candidate, please list it there. If you are unclear as to whether it was out of process or not, the normal undeletion procedure should apply.

Sometimes when it's obvious that an article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place I'll just take it to AfD and give it a second run. In such cases, it's nearly always kept with a thumping great keep vote. It's better to do this in such cases rather than sit around on DRV arguing with people who generally refuse to discuss content at all.

Comments on Nandesuka's addenda:

  • Gazebo Unit
    • This relisting for deletion of a marginally notable but well verified article was prematurely closed on the pretext of concentrating the debate in one place. See separate section where I discuss this in some detail.
  • List of Louisiana Baptist University People
    • Perfectly ordinary temporary undeletion during deletion review. See separate section where I discuss this in some detail.
  • Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)
    • Perfectly ordinary temporary undeletion during deletion review. See separate section where I discuss this in some detail.
  • Systemwars.com
    • A new article created by me which was incorrectly speedied as a recreation while on AfD.
  • OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood
    • One of my few veritable failures. This was undeleted both by me and David Gerard, and was then relisted for deletion and deleted by consensus.

[edit] Browbeating and intimidation in the deletion process

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters

  • 24 February 2006
  • 25 February
    • 13:21
      • Thanks for asking, it's a common mistake to not understand what we're actually doing here. If you want the closing admin to take your recomendation into consideration, yes you must be explicit. You might, for instance, be basing you "keep" on it being the first sprite comic. Then if evidence comes up that it's not, and you don't revisit the discussion, we wouldn't know that the rational no longer applied. It takes very little extra effort to say why you want to keep, and far less to say "keep per foo" than to say that you won't do so. Thanks! - User:Aaron Brenneman 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 March 2006
    • Brenneman still badgering keep voters with false claims that they must justify the decision not to vote to delete, lest they be ignored by the closing admin:
    • 01:01
      • So, if we agree that that cannot be demonstrated as per WP:V and WP:NOR you'll support delete, right? User:Aaron Brenneman 01:01, 2 March 2006
    • 01:13
      • Does this mean that you're specifically not adressing the question of this article? Or is there an already stated rational that you're agreeing to? If it were presumed, for example, that was that this was the first sprite comic and it was then found not to be the closing admin might lend less weight to your recomendatins. For this reason it's always a good ides to explain yourself more rather than less. - User:Aaron Brenneman 01:13, 2 March 2006
    • Brenneman is still insisting, in the teeth of an impending strong keep result, that the those who want to keep the article present evidence to support their opinions by one particular claim made about the article:
    • 21:45
      • This is making my eyes hurt. This all seems to come down to the "first" thing, so could we have the evidence laid out nice and neat here? - Aaron Brenneman 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is the first
        Claims in Wikipedia:Reliable sources that this is not the first
        Other evidence that this is the first
        Other evidence thath this is not the first

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/First_Union_Jam

The above representations have no basis in deletion policy and can only have the effect of intimidating those who feel that an article is actually quite a good one and needs no further justification ("If in doubt, don't delete", which Aaron Brenneman has repeatedly attempted to remove from the deletion policy without discussion).

I refer the arbitrators to earlier evidence and findings of fact on the deletion process from the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics, in particular the following findings of fact:

  • "Dismissal of AfD results"
  • "Aaron Brenneman's warnings to new users"

[edit] Bad faith assumptions in the deletion process

I present an incident from August, 2005 when, in keeping with the guideline for adminsistrators, instead of closing some discussions which had very few participants, I relisted them in the hope of getting more discussion.

Typical example:

  • 29 August 2005
    • 02:36
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day of my Capture: 'relisting for more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • At that time the listing had only the nomination and one delete vote, and there was a little discussion between the article's creator and others. Common practise in cases of inconclusive deletion discussions is to relist, which I did here.

This and similar cases brought some attention Radiant!, who in closing this AfD said:

  • 29 August 2005
    • 07:43
      • {{vt}} Delete, should not have been relisted. Radiant_>|< 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

If consensus can be measured by sampling the opinions of two people, this is news to me. The situation became quite ugly in subsequent days. In many instances he falsely accused me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and of attempting to introduce a quorum system. When a good administrator cannot do his job properly for fear of accusations, the deletion process suffers. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilatus makes grossly misleading statements to the arbitration committee

1. Pilatus aserts that "OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood" was "a mixtape", meaning a cheap tape put together for promotional purposes. He is attempting to mislead the committee. The item is a DVD and is available commercially from HMV Japan. and this was discussed at the AfD. The main artists are Snoop Dogg and one of his sometime collaborators. [58]

2. Pilatus falsely claims that I did not discuss my actions. Yet he himself selectively quotes me from, of all places, WP:AN/I, where I said:

"The album is listed by HMV Japan and waa produced by Snoop Dogg. We do not delete articles about the works of Snoop Dogg, even bootlegs, without a very, very good reason. It doesn't matter what AfD says, it doesn't matter what DRV says, we're running a serious encyclopedia, not a chatroom, and we never let broken processes kill good content." [59]

3. Pilatus also says: "Despite the convincing outcome, Tony resurrected some of the material as Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes (log), which was soon after speedy-deleted as recreation of deleted material."

Again he attempts to mislead this is misleading. The second article, which was created as a start on cataloguing a number of encyclopedic items that had been lumped together in one AfD, was deleted before the conclusion of the AfD, before the decision had been taken to delete. It was thus a bad speedy deletion. Since it was close to Christmas I let the subject slide. I temporarily undeleted some of these items for a while but did not find the time to give them the article they deserved.

Addendum: having discussed this at some length with Pilatus, it now appears to me that he may simply be confused. He seems to honestly believe every word he has said. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by brenneman

[edit] Timeline of userbox deletion by Tony Sidaway

Assertion: Tony Sidaway has carried out an agressive campaign of user box deletion. This is not only in direct opposition to Jimbo's wishes, it hasn't been effective as the cost has been great disruption.

Evidence to support assertion: 1) Such a campaign exists. From the deletion log.

  1. 22:34, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User opposes ubx screwing (Recreation of a T1)
  2. 04:35, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics
  3. 03:41, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Life (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  4. 03:40, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Location (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  5. 03:38, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Time (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  6. 03:37, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Belief (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  7. 03:36, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Religion (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  8. 03:35, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Regional Politics (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  9. 03:34, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  10. 03:32, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Political Parties (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  11. 03:32, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Sexuality (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  12. 03:31, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Userboxes (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  13. 03:31, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Funny (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  14. 03:30, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes/Wikipedia (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  15. 03:29, 13 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Boxes (See Wikipedia:User Page and WP:NOT)
  16. 10:40, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/M1911 (Clone of Template:User m1911)
  17. 10:39, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-UN (Clone of T1 speedied anti-UN template)
  18. 10:38, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/antiatheism2 (Clone of T1 speedied template)
  19. 10:38, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Freedom (Clone of Template:User Freedom)
  20. 10:37, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU (Clone of T1 speedied anti-ACLU userbox template)
  21. 10:36, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/antiatheism (T1)
  22. 10:33, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-fascism (Clone of Template:User anti-fascism)
  23. 10:32, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy (Recreation of T1 speedy)
  24. 08:43, 12 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Admins ignoring policy (Recreation of T1 speedied template)
  25. 16:06, 11 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User R. PETA2 (T1)
  26. 10:34, 11 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-UN (Recreation of speedied template)
  27. 10:34, 11 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted User:Userboxes/Anti-ACLU (Recreation of speedied template)
  28. 23:47, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User admins ignoring policy (T1)
  29. 23:04, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User vandalism (T1, orphan)
  30. 20:05, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User against Iraq War (T1: Divisive and inflammatory)
  31. 19:29, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User USA Police State (T1, divisive and inflammatory)
  32. 19:15, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB2 (T1. Clearly divisive and inflammatory)
  33. 19:09, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User does not support Michael Jackson (T1, attack on Michael Jackson)
  34. 17:36, 10 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Derek Gardner (vanity template (!) content was: '<div style=
  35. 16:25, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Antiracist hitler (offensive juxtaposition of Hitler image with refs to MLK, Malcolm X and Mandela)
  36. 16:20, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User no Rand (attack userbox)
  37. 11:51, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:JasonGastrich (Seems to have been created by a page vandal (User:Baldono))
  38. 23:21, 28 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User ku klux
  39. 12:52, 28 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User ancestry (attack template)
  40. 14:39, 27 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User homosexual-no
  41. 20:09, 14 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User edit warrior (Worse than the earlier version. Refers to editing as a weapon.)
  42. 19:55, 14 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User exports bad drivers (Attack template)
  43. 03:45, 13 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User edit warrior (Promotes edit warring)
  44. 18:37, 12 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User Nepal Maoists
  45. 18:36, 12 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User against Saud
  46. 16:58, 12 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Nepal Maoists (Sole purpose attack on monarchy of Nepal)
  47. 15:12, 12 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User against Saud (content was: '<div style=
  48. 12:56, 11 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jacko wacko (Sole purpose personal attack)
  49. 09:42, 11 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB2 (was temp undelete. See User:Tony_Sidaway
  50. 09:41, 11 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User GWB2
  51. 09:20, 11 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Fear Bush (Was temp undelete to get content. Now at User:Tony_Sidaway
  52. 09:18, 11 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User Fear Bush (1 revisions restored)
  53. 23:36, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB (Attack template. Incitement to vandalism. DNR.)
  54. 23:29, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User War on drugs (sole purpose attack on US drugs policy)
  55. 23:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB (Attack and incitement to vandalism\. DNR.)
  56. 21:43, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User bad eu (vote stacking attempt)
  57. 21:43, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User apple sucks (vote stacking attempt)
  58. 21:43, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User does not trust Jimbo (vote stacking attempt)
  59. 21:42, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jacko wacko (vote stacking attempt)
  60. 21:42, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jerk (vote stacking attempt)
  61. 21:42, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User ms sucks (vote stacking attempt)
  62. 21:40, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User No EU (vote stacking attempt)
  63. 21:40, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-UN (vote stacking attempt)
  64. 21:39, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-ACLU (vote stacking attempt)
  65. 21:39, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User War on drugs (Vote stacking attempt)
  66. 21:38, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Fear Bush (Vote stacking attempt)
  67. 16:59, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User War on drugs (Sole purpose attack on US government policy on drugs)
  68. 16:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB (Attack on George W. Bush, incitement to vandalism of the article)
  69. 16:57, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-ACLU (sole purpose attack on ACLU)
  70. 16:57, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-UN (sole purpose attack on UN)
  71. 15:29, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB (Personal attack, and advocates Wikipedia vandalism)
  72. 13:49, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB2 (Attack on George W. Bush)
  73. 13:11, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jerk (temp undelete)
  74. 12:49, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway restored Template:User jerk
  75. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User War on drugs (Sole purpose attack on US government policy)
  76. 11:22, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User No EU (Sole purpose attack on EU)
  77. 11:21, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Fear Bush (Sole purpose link Bush admistration with neo-fascism)
  78. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User GWB (Sole purpose attack on George W. Bush)
  79. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-ACLU (Sole purpose attack on ACLU)
  80. 11:20, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-UN (sole purpose attack on UN)
  81. 08:13, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User ms sucks (sole purpose attack on microsoft and its customers)
  82. 08:09, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jerk (sole purpose personal attack)
  83. 08:08, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User jacko wacko (sole purpose personal attack)
  84. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User does not trust Jimbo (sole purpose personal attack)
  85. 08:03, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User delete deletionists (sole purpose is attack on group (albeit jokey))
  86. 08:00, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User browser:Other (Sole purpose is attack on Microsoft's IE browser (yes I know it sucks))
  87. 07:58, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User apple sucks (Sole purpose is an attack on Apple Computer.)
  88. 07:54, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User bad eu (redirect to deleted userbox that denigrated the EU)
  89. 07:52, 10 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User bad EU (Sole purpose is denigration of the EU)
  90. 22:02, 9 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User against scientology (Sole purpose is to attack a religion , cf: User against jews Do not rescuscitate.)
  91. 10:08, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Wikipedia:Userboxes/Beliefs (No conceivable encyclopedic use.)
  92. 10:07, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User childless (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources (childless movement))
  93. 10:07, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Pro-life (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  94. 10:07, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Pro-choice (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  95. 10:06, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User life and choice (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  96. 10:06, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User against fox hunting (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  97. 10:06, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User ape-equality (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  98. 10:05, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User flag Australia (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  99. 10:05, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Run-Off (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  100. 10:04, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User vote (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  101. 10:04, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Monarchist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  102. 10:03, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User liberty (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  103. 10:03, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User liberal (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  104. 10:03, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Christian democrat (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  105. 10:03, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User apolitical (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  106. 10:02, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User No Marxism (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  107. 10:02, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User libertarian socialist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  108. 10:01, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Socialist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  109. 10:01, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User anti oligarchy (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  110. 10:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User marxian (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  111. 10:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User marxist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  112. 10:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Christian communist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  113. 09:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Trot (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  114. 09:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Commie Bastard (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  115. 09:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anarcho-capitalist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  116. 09:58, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anarchosyndicalist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  117. 09:58, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anarchist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  118. 09:57, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User pro concealed carry (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  119. 09:57, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User anti gun control (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  120. 09:56, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  121. 09:55, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-2 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources (must have missed this one))
  122. 09:54, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Jew (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  123. 09:53, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Jain (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  124. 09:53, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Adventist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  125. 09:53, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User rc (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  126. 09:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Catholic Evangelical (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  127. 09:52, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:Reformed Baptist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  128. 09:51, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User eastortho (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources, even as a joke)
  129. 09:50, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User religion flying spaghetti monster not really (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources, even as a joke)
  130. 09:50, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User IPU2 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources, even as a joke)
  131. 09:50, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User pope (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources, even as a joke)
  132. 09:50, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Hell (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources, even as a joke)
  133. 09:49, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User spiritual humanist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  134. 09:48, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User secular humanist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  135. 09:48, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User humanist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  136. 09:48, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Noahide (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  137. 09:47, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User lennonist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  138. 09:47, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User monolatry (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  139. 09:45, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User religion interest (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  140. 09:45, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User religion (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  141. 09:43, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-4 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  142. 09:43, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-3 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  143. 09:43, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-2 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  144. 09:42, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-1 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  145. 09:42, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evol-0 (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  146. 09:42, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User creationist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  147. 09:42, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User evolution (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  148. 09:40, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User No Recycling (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  149. 09:40, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Recycling (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  150. 09:40, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User clean fuels (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  151. 09:39, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User not-Drug-free (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  152. 09:39, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Drug-free (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  153. 09:39, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User All Drugs (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  154. 09:39, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User cannabis (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  155. 09:38, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User EFF (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources)
  156. 09:31, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Wikipedia:Userboxes/Seasonal (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  157. 09:31, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Santa is Satan (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  158. 09:31, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User NoSanta (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  159. 09:30, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Santa (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  160. 09:30, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Remembrance Day (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  161. 09:29, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Halloween (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  162. 09:29, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Canada Day (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  163. 09:29, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Earth Day (No conceivable encyclopedic use)
  164. 09:03, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User antimonarchist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  165. 09:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Christian (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  166. 09:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User AI (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  167. 09:00, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Chinese Traditional Religion (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  168. 08:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Capitalist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  169. 08:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Communist (Proselytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)
  170. 08:59, 3 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted Template:User Anti-euro (Prosylytising is not a defensible use of Wikipedia resources.)

2) That it has been ineffective:

  • Analysis of above, plus notes on overall userbox numbers

3) That it's been disruptive

  • How can we measure disruption?

[edit] Lack of respect in application of sysop powers

Assertion: That Tony Sidaway is a wheel warrior.

Evidence to support assertion: No evidence is presented that any of these actions did not occur, only that it was the "right thing to do". Thus this one will be taken as read.

[edit] Lack of respect for consensus in editing

Assertion: Tony Sidaway either does not understand, cannot recognise, or chooses to ignore genuine consensus. He has demonstrated that he is either unable or unwilling to arrive at compromise editorial positions.

Evidence to support assertion:
1) VFU header During the change from VfU to DRV, Tony initially took part in than withdrew from discussions regarding possible changes to the process. When the changes were implemented, he edit warred over the results unti he was blocked.

Initial discussions
All diffs are to VFU Talk unless otherwise specified.
Discussion on changing the name of the process from "Vote for undeletion" were occuring as early as 26 August 2005 "Name change (again)" and explicitly expanded to reviewing kept articles on August 29, 2005 "Comments from main page". In the period between 29 August and 21 September 26 editors contributed to discussion on the page, including Tony Sidaway ten times, making him the fifth most prolific contributor "VFU Talk history."
Tony made a counter-proposal on 14 September 2005 "The scope of VfU - Alternative proposal." When Tony nexy commented on the page, no editor had expressed support for his alternative proposal and five had rejected it outright "Afd challenge - Wikipedia is not a democracy." When Tony last commented on the page in this period "Purpose of the page section" seventeen editors had moved in support of the proposed wording, and two (including Tony) had opposed.
In the time between 21 September and 19 October Tony Sidaway did not contribute to discussions on the page.
Tony withdraws, invited back
  1. (User talk:Tony) 04:20, 21 September 2005 Aaron Brenneman (VfU mechanics) [60]
  2. (User talk:Tony) 07:11, 21 September 2005 Tony Sidaway (→VfU mechanics) [61]
  3. (User talk:Tony) 07:39, 21 September 2005 Aaron Brenneman (→VfU mechanics - Ok, thanks.) [62]
Edit war over header
  1. (VFU Header) 00:23 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Purpose - Fix stuff, particularly the false claim that this page is not about content) [63]
  2. (VFU Header) 00:34 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (Page arrived at by consensus, not fiat. Use talk page.) [64]
  3. (VFU Header Talk) 01:05 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Serious problems) [65]
  4. (VFU Header) 01:11 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Purpose - #*The page can be undeleted under the undeletion policy) [66]
  5. (VFU Header) 01:13 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Purpose - Remove some ultra vires stuff) [67]
  6. (VFU Header) 01:14 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Purpose - Fix mistatement of the focus of wikipedia: we're about *content*, not process) [68]
  7. (VFU Header) 01:15 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (Fix misstatement of purpose--see undeletion policy) [69]
  8. (VFU Header) 01:17 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (rv - use the talk page or block me for 3RRR, it's your choice.) [70]
  9. (VFU Header Talk) 01:22 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (Please do feel free to use the talk page, Aaron) [71]
  10. (VFU Header Talk) 01:24 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (#REDIRECT Wikipedia talk:Deletion review) [72]
  11. (VFU Talk) 01:27 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (Copied from Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header)
  12. (VFU Header) 01:31 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (Another go at a policy-compatible version of the pager header) [73]
  13. (VFU Header) 01:32 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway m (?Purpose - sp) [74]
  14. (VFU Header Talk) 01:34 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (Please address my points, Aaron. Putting a redirect over my requests will not make them go away.) [75]
  15. (VFU Talk) 01:34 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (?Serious problems - Added pages in question)
  16. (VFU Header) 01:35 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (rv - Please stop. Edit warring is unhelpful, use talk page, worj WITH other contributors, not against them.) [76]
  17. (VFU Header Talk) 01:38 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (Look where the redirect points. Trying to hide on this little talk page accomplishes nothing.) [77]
  18. (VFU Header) 01:56 19-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (Not edit warring, just being bold by stating policy in different ways until we find one we can agree on.) [78]
  19. (VFU Header) 02:01 19-Oct 2005 Aaron Brenneman (rv - what, I'm edit warring on my own? Use the talk page, make consensus, it's not being bold it's egomania.) [79]
  20. (WP:ANI) 02:10, 19 October 2005 Aaron Brenneman (→Not a 3RR block) [80] Extensive discussion followed this.
  21. (VFU Header) 04:16, 20 October 2005 Tony Sidaway (→Purpose - Incorporate two points in the undeletion policy that have been missed so far: the exception for out-of-process, and the emphasis on content: is wikipedia a better encyclopedia with?) [81]
  22. (Block log) 11:45, 19 October 2005 Radiant! blocked "Tony Sidaway (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Revert war on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header) [82]
  23. (Block log) 11:45, 19 October 2005 Radiant! blocked "Aaron Brenneman (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Revert war on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Vfu header) [83]
  24. (VFU Header) 11:48, 20 October 2005 Radiant! (Revert. Tony seems to be want the right to unilaterally undelete anything, but consensus is heavily opposed to that.) [84]
  25. (VFU Talk) 04:18 20-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Header wording "Process not content"?) [85] Tony's first edit to the talk page since 21 September.
  26. (VFU Talk) 04:23 20-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway m (?Header wording "Process not content"?) [86]
  27. (VFU Talk) 04:23 20-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Header wording "Process not content"?) [87]
  28. (VFU Talk) 04:26 20-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Where should IIDDD be placed?) [88]
  29. (VFU Talk) 04:27 20-Oct 2005 Tony Sidaway (?Where should IIDDD be placed?) [89]
  30. (VFU Header Talk) 04:49 02-Mar 2006 Tony Sidaway (Reverting blanking that was performed by redirection to another talk page.) [90]
  31. (VFU Header Talk) 05:46 02-Mar 2006 Aaron Brenneman (?Serious problems - See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Archive_4#Copied_from_Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_undeletion.2FVfu_header) [91]


[edit] Full undeletion of articles on DRV

  • Claims there is consensus.

[edit] This arbitration

  • Full WP:OWNership of sections, forking over three word differences, etc.

[edit] Deletion as an acceptable editing methodology

Assertion: Tony Sidaway has claimed that deleting material to force editorial changes is an accepted practice.

Evidence to support assertion:

[edit] Evidence presented by Physchim62

[edit] Crotalus horridus has attempted to sidestep the deletion of userboxes

The transfer of deleted templates to userspace mentioned in the statement by Tony Sidaway is not the only instance of Crotalus horridus attempting to sidestep the deletion of userboxes:

  • 00:22 (UTC) 2006-02-11 removed a speedy deletion tag from Template:User against Iraq War
  • 21:20 (UTC) 2006-02-06 removed a speedy deletion tag from Template:User recreate after substantive edit [diff]
  • 20:10 (UTC) 2006-02-03 recreated Template:User admins ignoring policy after second deletion
  • 19:40 (UTC) 2006-02-01 recreated Template:User no Rand after deletion

It should be mentioned that Crotalus horridus is not the worst offender in this respect among "pro-userbox" users (see User:Physchim62/Userboxen)

[edit] Crotalus horridus has engaged in other disruptive activity

I have encountered Crotalus horridus on a number of occasions in the last month: I do not recall having come accross him before his unsuccessful request for adminship. I can testify as to the difficulty in persuading him to accept dispute resolution, and to his tendency to want to pass by force to achieve his aims on Wikipedia.

On the evening of 2006-02-06 (EST), Crotalus horridus decided to nominate Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for deletion at WP:MFD [92]. It took an hour of negotiation with me and a second administrator to persuade Crotalus horridus that this was not an appropriate manner to raise his concerns about the user RfC process: he withdrew the nomination after having reverted four attempts to close as a speedy keep [93], [94], [95], [96], for which he was briefly blocked for disruption.

In the run up to the Canadian federal election on 2006-01-23, Crotalus horridus joined in the debate as to whether or not, and in what terms, it was appropriate to mention the "blackout clause" prohibiting publication of East-coast results before the closure of the polls in British Columbia (the debate is archived at Template talk:ElectionResultsCA). While the consensus view was that a neutral statement of the existence of this Canadian law was appropriate during the three hours that it applied, Crotalus horridus could not be convinced that this did not constitute a violation of WP:NLT. In the twenty minutes before the first polls closed (01:00 UTC 2006-01-24), he edited Template:ElectionResultsCA four times [97], [98], [99], [100] to remove the mention of the Canadian law. Being reverted at each step, he decided to subst the template [101] into the main article concerning the election Canadian federal election, 2006, and then to edit the substed code as to remove the mention of the blackout law, [102]. When the mention was replaced he reverted this as well [103]. He was blocked for three hours for breach of WP:3RR, but not before he had been able to remove the template from 46 articles concerning individual electoral districts [104].

[edit] Contrib records: Firebug v. Crotalus horridus

As CheckUser is incapable of resolving these allegations of sockpuppetry, I have compared the contibutions of Firebug and Crotalus horridus from 2005-12-19 to 2006-01-02 (last contribution from Firebug). During this period, their contributions overlapped at three points (times in UTC):

Date Firebug
contribs		 Crotalus
horridus
contribs
2005-12-27 12:12–12:50 12:49–13:50
2005-12-19 13:40–13:59 13:42–14:07
2005-12-19 03:59–06:35 05:11–06:21

They both made edits at 05:54 (UTC) 2005-12-19 (Firebug, Crotalus horridus). Physchim62 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Physchim62's evidence

This has been moved to the talk page.

[edit] Other users have attempted to sidestep userbox deletion

[edit] D-Day

[edit] Dussst

  • 15:56 (UTC) 2006-02-10 created Template:User participant userbox war
  • 22:05 (UTC) 2006-02-03 edited Template:User admins ignoring policy to personal attack version "This user is pissed about admins abusing policy."
  • 16:38 (UTC) 2006-01-28 created Template:User USA Police State

This user has now been indefinitely blocked as a reincarnation of User:Bourbons3, as well as for repeated posting of copyvio material: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dussst may be banned user User:Bourbons3. Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revolución

Physchim62 (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:CyberSkull

  • 09:35, 18 January 2006 . . CyberSkull recreated Template:User cannibal as fork of deleted Template:User Cannibal (then on DRV)

(added by --Doc ask? 10:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Evidence presented by David Gerard

[edit] Jimbo considers the present userbox situation "not acceptable"

As quoted in [105]:

Feb 15 17:11:59 jwales userboxes
Feb 15 17:12:00 jwales eh
Feb 15 17:12:40 jwales I'm looking at the political beliefs one now.
Feb 15 17:13:50 jwales My only comment on the userbox situation is that the current situation is not acceptable.

I submit that this quote helps illustrate that this is a situation where "community consensus" cannot overrule good sense and project focus; and where an administrator may in fact be entirely correct in taking drastic action without going through detailed process and consultation of community opinion in a situation where community opinion doesn't actually have a say in the matter, even when opposed by other admins; c.f. the recent {user pedophile} arbitration case. - David Gerard 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xoloz' evidence appears to be the same submitted by Radiant!

This appears to be the same stuff Radiant! earlier brought an RFAr on which was resoundingly rejected - David Gerard 17:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further use of templates for vote-stacking

WP:ANI#Janizary_vote_recruitment_from_userbox_template — an example of userbox votestacking still being a serious problem requiring prompt admin action. Note defiance of the vote-stacker - David Gerard 07:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion

The Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion was deleted. My question is: why? I see no discussion of the deletion anywhere, and indeed it was undeleted quite speedily. At the very least I believe that there should have been an AfD. There was one later at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Various userbox listing pages, started on 5 January 2006, however not before the page was deleted and restored.

[edit] Evidence presented by Ta bu shi da yu

[edit] Evidence presented by Xoloz (on behalf of an absent colleague)

This collection is not my own, but is submitted for a well-respected friend who is absent from the project.

[edit] Mr. Sidaway frequently engages in administrative "wheel warring"

Note: I added the dates and wikified the article links, as per the request of Tony Sidaway. Johnleemk | Talk 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Sidaway has a penchant for wheel-warring, and has engaged in numerous such conflicts in the past (list is updated through 31 January).


[106]: Mr. Sidaway repeatedly undeletes the article "Gazeebo Unit", despite opposition, while discussion of its verifiability was ongoing. (31 January 2006)

[107]: Mr. Sidaway repeatedly undeletes the article "List of Louisiana Baptist University people", despite contrary consensus at AfD, both during and after discussion at DRV (which eventually endorsed deletion.) Mr. Sidaway continued to undelete despite objections from several others. (27 to 30 January 2006)

[108]: Mr. Sidaway undeleted article "Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)" while discussion was ongoing at DRV, despite objections. (30 to 31 January 2006)

[109]: Mr. Sidaway restored "Seth Ravin", contrary to AfD consensus, without bothering with DRV. (23 January 2006)

[110]: Mr. Sidaway restored "SuperOffice" despite several objectors deleting it pursuant to AfD consensus. Although SuperOffice was eventually undeleted by consensus, Mr. Sidaway's repeated recreations were premature, constituted wheel-warring, and were disrespectful to legitimate objectors. (18 January 2006)

[111]: Mr. Sidaway undeleted "Tally (accounting)" despite an AfD consensus, and the redeletion by several objectors. (18 January 2006)

[112]: Mr. Sidaway undeleted Warren Benbow, despite AfD consensus and without bothering with DRV; Sidaway then wheel-warred with User:Geogre, who clearly objected. (16 to 18 August 2005; final undeletion 5 January 2006)

[113]: Mr. Sidaway wheel-warred with several other admins over the speedy deletion of "Monique deMoan". (14 to 15 August 2005)

[114]: Mr. Sidaway wheel-wars with many admins over the deletion of "Systemwars.com" per AfD consensus, and eventual DRV endorsement. (4 to 5 October 2005)

[115]: Mr. Sidaway undeleted "OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood" despite AfD consensus, wheel-warred with several admins, reposted a new AfD before DRV was complete, and ignored repeated objections regarding WP:V for the article. (23 to 24 December 2005; 8 January 2006)

[116]: Mr. Sidaway wheel-warred with many admins over the speedy deletion of "Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia" while the page was at MfD. (25 to 28 December 2005)

[117]: Mr. Sidaway wheel-warred over the speedy deletion of "Brian Brolly." (14 December 2005)


[118]: Mr. Sidaway prematurely undeleted "Albert M. Wolters" while article was at still DRV, wheel-warred to keep it undeleted, and opened a new AfD while DRV was ongoing. (17 to 18 October 2005)

[119]: Mr. Sidaway wheel-warred with User:Splash over the undeletion of the article "Thomasine Church" while the article was at DRV, despite several concerns over WP:V. (13 December 2005)

Mr. Sidaway, it is shown above, has a long history of disagreement with deletion processes at WP, and wheel-wars unabashedly, despite objections, in a most persistent, unfriendly way. Without comment on Mr. Sidaway's "banana-ness" (see his response above), this is clear wheel-warring.

Brief reply to Mr. Sidaway's rebuttal thus far:

Mr. Sidaway seems, in his account, to gloss over the fact that other admins were undoing his actions. If he provides text to justify his choice, he takes that as conclusive. If an article "was deleted anyway", or "would have been deleted", that alone, to him, seems to justify his choices. Mr. Sidaway, apparently, fails to notice wheel-warring: if another admin undoes his action, he doesn't even acknowledge this having occurred, and repeats his original action without much reflection. "Was deleted anyway" is no defense against wheel-warring; wheel-warring is a devisive and uncivil means to achieve a result, and is worthy of condemnation whether its end proves to be appropriate or inappropiate. Even if he were always correct on the merits of specific deletions, attempting to achieve his desired result through wheel-warring is disrespectful of his fellow admins, and of the spirit of consensus itself.

Who is the "friend" referred to? Rob Church (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Radiant! - note resemblance to Radiant!'s rejected RFAr against Tony - David Gerard 17:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Wheel warred over Brian Brolly? Yes same old stuff. I laughed when I saw that one, it was just a straightfoward undeletion of a bad speedy. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Nandesuka

[edit] Tony Sidaway has undeleted many articles often wheel warring in the process

Tony Sidaway has undeleted many articles. In the course of these undeletions, he has often edit or wheel-warred. For purposes of this evidence section only, I am flagging any instance where Tony undeleted something twice in response to two or more separate administrators as a "wheel war." (Note: this section is still under construction).

[edit] Evidence presented by Pilatus

[edit] Tony engages in wheel warring and refuses to discuss his actions

Tony sometimes engages in wheel warring. He refuses to discuss his actions and prefers de facto policy making to engaging in discussion to effect policy change.

[edit] Thomasine Church

The article on the Thomasine Church (log) had as its subject an obscure Gnostic religious group and was deleted as unverifiable in October 2005.

Soon after the article had been recreated as a redirect to the Saint Thomas Christians of India, Kappa posted a request for a history undeletion on WP:DRV [155], on the chance that there was anything useful in the deleted article. Ten editors recommend not to restore the deleted version, mentioning concerns with verifiability and citing the then recent Seigenthaler hoax.

Despite the vocal opposition, Tony restores the article twice, which is then deleted twice by two different admins. Just before the article is restored the second time, Tony leaves a note on Kappa's talk page, stating "... The process-bound nature of DRV is such that they'll probably attempt to overstep their bounds again and order its deletion ... ." [156] He does not allay peoples' concerns about keeping unverifiable material and the impact this might have on the reputation of Wikipedia in the ongoing discussion on DRV. Instead he points to the undeletion policy (which is descriptive, not prescriptive, like any other piece of policy here) [157], [158] or offers up concealed insults. [159].

In his evidence section Tony categorically states that "the above [his contributions to the discussion at DRV] allay all reasonable fears" about verifiability. [160] This is not so, proper behaviour would have been to put forth what advantages there may be in having the deleted versions in the history or, armed with the deleted versions, to submit a new, properly sourced article on that Gnostic group.

[edit] OGTV 2

OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood (log) had as its subject a certain mixtape with tracks by Snoop Dogg. While some bootleg tapes have a place in fandom (because they contain material not available otherwise), this one is just another mixtape, one of hundreds. As such, the article was deleted in November 2005. While the CD is indeed listed online, namely at HMV Japan and at Rakusen, the Japanese online shop, those listings are silent about the publisher. HMV Japan points to Out Tha Trunk Records, another online shop, where it is currently unavailable. All evidence is that AfD was right and that this is indeed bootleg material.

On December 21, undeletion was requested by Lajbi on WP:DRV. Those against restoring the article argued that it was merely a skeleton article, consisting of nothing more than a tracklisting and an infobox, and that the subject of the article was too ephemeral. Those in favour of resurrecting the entry seemed to have had the impression that this was an actual Snoop Dogg album. [161] Nonetheless, the article was restored three times by Tony, three times deleted by three different admins and finally restored by David Gerard, who was under the impression that this was a legit album. Tony justified his actions stating "it doesn't matter what AfD says, it doesn't matter what DRV says". [162]

At the same time there was a mass nomination of about two dozen Snoop Dogg mixtapes listed on AfD, to which OGTV 2 was added. That debate came to the conclusion that those tapes were too ephemeral to warrant an entry here and should be deleted. It was pointed out by a veteran editor (FuriousFreddy) in the deletion discussion [163] , [164] and on Tony's talkpage [165] that the material was far too ephemeral to be subject of an article and diverted editors' attention from other articles in need of cleanup. Tony declined to comment. [166], [167].

Despite the convincing outcome, Tony resurrected some of the material as Snoop Dogg minor albums, bootlegs and mixtapes (log), which was soon after speedy-deleted as recreation of deleted material.

This wheel war contributed to FuriousFreddy taking a wikibreak. [168] Tony continued unapologetic, even oblivious to the turmoil he had caused. [169]

Despite the testimony of two seasoned editors in the area of rap music (FuriousFreddy, quoted above, and TUF-KAT, "It's bad enough that pointless official compilations ... get articles, we don't need unofficial pointless compilations as well." [170]) that this album is a subject unsuitable for Wikipedia Tony continues to maintain in his evidence section that it in fact is [171] and insinuates that I submit evidence in bad faith.

[edit] DRV

Tony Sidaway tried to change the undeletion policy by fiat and without accompanying discussion.

  • [172] January 27, 2006: Tony adds a note to WP:DRV stating that he will undelete acticles listed there on request without accompanying discussion on WT:DRV. His last edit to WT:DRV before that date was on October 20, 2005. [173]
  • [174] The note is removed by Aaron Brenneman with a remark on WT:DRV [175] "I'd appreciate it if it could be discussed here before being replaced. Please note that "I've replaced it" doesn't constitute "discsussion""
  • [176] Tony puts his note back, stating on WT:DRV: "I'll replace it after removing the reference to myself" [177]
  • [178] Aaron removes the note again, commenting on WT:DRV ":Please note that "I'll replace it after removing the reference to myself" doesn't constitute "discsussion". ... It is no use to Wikipedia to have written practices that create dissent. I've removed it until there is wider discussion" [179]
  • [180] Tony responds on WT:DRV "It's simply an informative notice. ... What else is there to discuss?" and makes veiled threats against Aaron with reference to the recent webcomics arbitration case
  • [181] Tony performs his first undeletion on "his" new policy on Rosario Poidimani.
  • [182] Rossami is worried: "When was the first version added to the page and when was it's addition discussed? I'm undecided still about whether I think this is a good idea or not for the project but I'm disturbed that it appears to have been snuck onto the page without any discussion."

This undeletion policy announced by Tony is the background to much of the wheel-warring in late January 2006 and eventually led to the "RfC" in Aarons user space.

On Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Proposed decision Tony still maintains that history undeletions (which he had been performing under "his new policy") are not subject to the administrative 1RR suggested as remedy by the ArbCom. [183]\

[edit] Catholic Alliance

The Catholic Alliance was a wikiproject for canvassing on topics related to abortion ethics. Soon after its creation the page was nominated on MfD, eight times deleted by Tony and eight times restored by different admins while MfD was ongoing. The MfD was closed early after three days with a final tally of 52/9 and the page deleted by NicholasTurnbull.

It was pointed out that while the outcome of the debate was never in doubt, closing the debate early might serve as a focus for trolls invoking censorship and that in the interest of peace and to be more respectful to the community to let the inevitable take its course. [184], [185], [186], [187], [188] [189]

Tony does not respond to any of these concerns and continues to wheel-war.

[edit] Evidence presented by Netoholic

[edit] Crotalus horridus is Firebug

User:Crotalus horridus is an account run by the same person as User:Firebug, and also banned User:LevelCheck. This person, who I will refer to as "Josh", has used these accounts to perform bad-faith Sock puppetry, including AFD and RFA vote-stacking, deception, evasion of responsibility, and creating the illusion of broader support for several positions including the Userbox dilemma.

Rough timeline
Other evidence of a connection

Note to Arbitrators - There is more evidence that I'm holding back on, due to a desire to keep this section short and to the point. If the above (and below) does not convince you of a connection, I will share the other evidence. -- Netoholic @ 20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As Firebug, Crotalus agressively opposed userboxes

Firebug "left" over the userbox controversy, but the timing is suspect, due to being also named in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug. Before leaving, Firebug was particularly opposed to admin deletion of userboxes, and acted disruptively.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin/original
  • Firebug participated heavily in this RFC, strongly opposing "grotesque defiance of community consensus" by admins who've deleted userboxes.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 3
  • Firebug creates this RFC in response to Snowspinner's userbox actions
Userbox re-creation
  • Template:User-grammar nazi - deletion log, re-creation (see deleted history as well)
  • Template:User purge - deletion log, re-creation (in deleted history)
  • Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate - deletion log, re-creation (in deleted history)
  • (There are more. May need admin assistance identifying other recreations which have since been re-deleted.)


[edit] Evidence presented by User:Arthur Rubin

[edit] Tony engages in violations of WP:CIVIL

[194] refers to StrangerInParadise's actions as sabotage. If "vandalism" is not to be used for actions which have the effect of vandalism, even if not necessarily the intent, then "sabotage" should not be used for actions which merely show that the poll is inaccurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

[edit] Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Tony_Sidaway_Evidence_555b.html"