Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] I'm being a "wikidetective" again?

[1] User:Crotalus horridus here removes a Jimbo endorsed guideline. Kim Bruning 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It clearly has not accomplished Jimbo's original intent. The CSD criterion itself is far more divisive and inflammatory than anything it has been used to delete. Furthermore, Jimbo's caveat (not to go on deletion sprees) has been blatantly ignored. This edit was made more out of frustration than anything else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[2] Blu Aardvark is involved here? I'm not sure he should be refactoring things he's involved with in that way. :-/ Oh dear. Kim Bruning 14:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, gawd. I am not "involved in that way". I did have a related disagreement with Tony Sidaway on the userbox issue, but my removal of a statement from WP:AN was in no way related to my involvement. I had read Crotalus horridus's talk page previously, and had observed similar statements and accusations made by Netoholic, and the reaction they had caused. I felt that such a trollish statement made by Netoholic during an already tense situation was something that, in good faith, could be removed under the WP:RPA guideline - although, granted, that guideline is disputed. Nonetheless, I stand that my removal was made in good faith, and give no apology for performing it, despite some of my other actions on that particular date. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Association of Members Advocates is starting up again. I don't know if they're ready to help out yet, but you could ask. Kim Bruning 10:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On a sidenote, the deletion spree was clearly against Jimbo's suggestion of Feb.6. Halibutt 17:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence from David Gerard

Apart from the usernames mentioned (Userboxes (talk • contribs) as a publicised second account of Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) [3]), I can't see multiple accounts being used by any listed participants.

There are no checkuser results on Firebug [4] [5], as the edits have fallen out of the recentchanges database by now. - David Gerard 19:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note from Haukur

This case revolves around deleted content which puts Crotalus at a serious disadvantage in preparing evidence since he is not an admin. I suggest he be granted a temporary sysop flag to be immediately removed if he uses it for anything except viewing deleted content. He is, in my opinion, comletely trustworthy. If this is unacceptable I suggest the Committee assigns to him an assistant with admin tools to help him prepare evidence. Haukur 10:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Seconding Haukur's request. --Aaron 16:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


I am not willing to grant temp admin powers to people but I am willing to recuse from the case and act as an assistant myself. Or he can approach the Advocates who certainly have admins in thier ranks. Or for that matter he may ask for help from any admin on the Admin noticeboardTheresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. It would be very inappropriate to grant sysop powers here. The only time that has ever been done before was for the election coordinators at the last board election, and that was very different circumstances, and far more trusted users. The templates can always be temp-undeleted, blanked and protected, if Crotalus wants them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Since it will probably make things easier for us all, I will undertake to submit the content of all the deleted boxes on the evidence page. But first somebody has to open the case. Please? :) --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk

Someone has queried whether I should perform clerk duties on other cases for the duration of this arbitration. I don't see why not, but I undertook to put this to the committee. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for you not too. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be wise for there to be no clerk for this case. The workshop page is open to everyone of course but let us not muddy the waters any further. - brenneman{T}{L} 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ummmm... bullshit? Phil Sandifer 02:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Phil is right. There's no reason this case can't have a clerk. Tony probably shouldn't clerk (he's recused himself from other cases where he wasn't even a party), but that doesn't prevent other clerks from joining the case. (I'd open this case now, but I'm strapped for time.) Johnleemk | Talk 03:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I should bloody well hope we do have at least one clerk on this case. Incidentally Aaron has half-opened the thing by starting a Workshop page. I persuaded FCYTravis to try to open it properly but he omitted a few things. Could a clerk go through and fix the omissions, please? As a courtesy I have notified my fellow participant, Crotalus horridus. --Tony Sidaway 10:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The clerk's "office" has been hugely controversial, we've already had one admin bow out over supposed irregularities, several members of the clerk's team are close enough to Tony they would have to recue anyway, and whatever the outcome of this it's going to be in all likelyhood a mess. Shouldn't the major rule for the clerk's office be "first do no harm"? The workshop pages are open to anyone, let them do their thing there, but there is no compelling reason for any clerk action outside the most mechanical and lots of reasons against it. Please try and avoid digging in your heels over this, and comments like "Ummmm... bullshit?" are uncivil and should be avoided.
brenneman{T}{L} 10:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Because God forbid you not have every possible advantage when you try to string Tony up. Phil Sandifer 12:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about the clerks office, except that it is considered hugely controversial by some members of the community - myself included. I, personally, see no reason why this shouldn't be clerked, but given your lack of civility here, I would hope that a nuetral third party clerk would be the one who performed the duties. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed - I will recuse from cases that Aaron is involved in - my distaste for his crusades is far too high for me to take anything he says remotely seriously. Phil Sandifer 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Which members of the clerk's team are close to me? Snowspinner, perhaps. The others are people I have seldom worked with if at all (Johnleemk, over a year ago?). This seems like an ad hoc and completely insupportable suggestion. Already this case has suffered from lack of a proper clerk. An outsider has blundered in and half-opened the case, ignoring all my polite requests that he complete the job so that I could present evidence. Another person whom I begged for help has done a more competent job of it but the parties were not notified, For lack of competent clerical help, the case is already off to a messy start. --Tony Sidaway 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
We've surivied that in the past we will survive it in the future.Geni 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The clerk's office will treat this case no differently from any other case. Tony Sidaway will not edit it in any capacity other than that of a participant, and clerks will not edit it in any capacity other than that of clerks. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisive? polemical?

How did "divisive and inflammatory" become "polemical or inflammatory"? Or was that the original version of T1? —Ashley Y 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Tony_Sidaway_7e73.html"