User:Rogue 9/Sandbox/RfC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
- (Tony Sidaway | talk | contributions)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
[edit] Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Tony Sidaway is currently engaged in what seems to be an active crusade against userboxes, and is going about it in a singular manner: He waits until a userbox is nominated for deletion by someone else, then vandalizes it (through page moves as well as more mundane means) so that it appears to violate policy, in a blatant attempt to manipulate the ongoing Template for Deletion process by making the template appear to violate policy where the version originally nominated for deletion did not. This is an obvious attempt to cause people who see the altered version to vote delete based on policies that the template did not violate at the time of nomination.
He will also engage in edit wars with other users when others attempt to restore the template to its as-nominated format and content. This behavior has been exhibited on several template pages, described in the Evidence section. In addition, he will use speedy deletion frivolously on templates that are currently undergoing the TfD process, in clear attempts to circumvent consensus before it can be reached.
The subject of this RfC is not the substance of the userboxes, but rather Tony Sidaway's edits to them. Tony should have left the userboxes as they were when nominated, in order to let the TfD process proceed unabated.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Edits to Template:User freedom: [1] (Jan 27), [2] (Jan 27), [3] (Jan 28), [4] (Jan 28), during that template's TfD, which took place from January 22 to 31.
Edits to Template:User pacifist3: [5], [6] (both Jan 31), during that template's TfD, which began on January 31 and seems to have vanished after the template suffered yet another out-of-process speedy deletion.
Exhibited much the same behavior at Template:User allow fairuse, which has since been deleted.
Has stated his position on userboxes to be that "they all go, ultimately," [7] a fairly clear indicator that his edits against userboxes are not taken in good faith, but rather out of his zeal to see them destroyed.
[edit] Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
After the first mass deletion, he was questioned on his talk page why he did it. His reply: 'what the community thinks isn't important. what's good for the wikipedia is important.' Later, he repeated the action. [8]
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
[edit] Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
