User talk:Tony Sidaway/The Ungovernable Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion originated on WP:ANI [1]

Contents

[edit] Admin User:Tony Sidaway

I recently came into contact with this administrator after it came to my attention that he had banned The Ungovernable Force (TUF) for disruptive editing regarding the Anarchism in the United States article. During what admin Tony Sidaway referred to as an edit war, TUF continually reverted the edits of the suspected sock puppet (Drowner) of banned user Hogeye, who has been repeatedly blocked for numerous violations of Wikipedia policy and, worse yet, ban evasion. Tony Sidaway decided to block both TUF and Drowner. That, of course, is his judgment call to make, and perhaps it was the right decision, although I am tempted to feel that it was not. First, TUF was in adherence to the exception outlined in WP:3RR, and was actually upholding WP:BAN. Several perennial editors of the article asked Tony Sidaway to explain his block of TUF, but were met with curt, dismissive, and even rude responses. Tony Sidaway did not assume good faith when TUF explained the good reasoning behind his reverts, calling his "excuses" "unconvincing." He refused to consider any of our arguments in favor of TUF (TUF was not disrupting the article, he was helping us). He, on the other hand, referred to TUF's actions as "grossly disruptive," "pointless," "hopelessly mindnumbing," "tooth-grindingly pointless," "trivial," "ridiculous," and more. He referred to my opinion of the situation as "saddening," repeatedly insisting that our arguments did not matter.

I would appreciate an outside perspective on this matter. In my future endeavors on Wikipedia, I hope to be able to adhere to Wikipedia policy, but sometimes the policiy is vague. The policy on "disruptive editing" is such. I may be completely wrong, and Tony Sidaway may be completely right. I suspect, however, that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm perfectly willing -- happy -- to admit this. I just wish that some of his fellow administrators could ask Tony Sidaway to, perhaps, cool it, and do the same, so that this does not happen again. --AaronS 00:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in this case Tony Sidaway was in fact correct to ban both parties, principally because it seems The Ungovernable Force (talk • contribs) was engaging in aggressive editing even if in pursuit of reverting a suspected sockpuppet. Although the reversion of patent vandalism (as in, page blanking, mass page moves, etc.) would of course not count in this manner, this issue was regarding an attempt to prevent a banned user from editing. Successive, high-frequency reverts are not, in my opinion, and I think also in the opinion of the majority of Wikipedians, a very sensible solution to ban evasion - the correct action would have been to request that the sockpuppet be banned either by Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress or by noting it here on AN/I versus persistent reverting. So, Tony Sidaway's judgement was correct, although I wouldn't have personally employed the mode of interaction regarding the comments that Tony Sidaway responded to; note however, I wouldn't go so far as to term Tony Sidaway's responses in that case necessarily inappropriate, merely perhaps not quite as helpful to the scenario as they could have been. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually did note on this page that Hogeye had this new sockpuppet. [2] At this time I had only reverted the page once. And again, a warning would have been in order as far as I'm concerned. The Ungovernable Force 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate if AaronS would provide specific diffs as to what was said. That may clear out things a bit. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. The bulk of the discussion that I am referring to is available at User:Tony_Sidaway#blocking_of_User:The_Ungovernable_Force. I would like to clarify that my primary problem is with TS's behavior and attitude, which I find to be definitely in the wrong, whereas my secondary problem is with TS' initial decision to block TUF, which I have a hunch is wrong, although I appreciate and have taken to heart NicholasTurnbull's comments on the matter. --AaronS 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not making any judgement calls on the validity of the block, I wish Tony would act with more civility. For instance, in this edit, there was no need to comment that TUF was so "ignorant". Just explain things nicely. We all know Tony is right most of the time (so shoot me, that's my opinion. I agree with him on many things.). But we all also know that he has a way of rubbing people the wrong way and not getting along. It is a repeating pattern that seems to strike Tony much more often than other blocking admins. Please, Tony, I urge you to reconsider your attitude when dealing in areas that are sensitive to others (read: blocking them). I'm not saying "do not block them", you know what you're doing... but you need to at least try and get along (especially with people who are following policy to the best of their knowledge). Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I should make a report here on these blocks. The Ungovernable Force responded with civility to the block, but contested it. He posted an unblock template and the block was reviewed by CesarB (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who rejected the appeal. I reduced the block to 24 hours when the editor complained, reasonably I thought, that 48 hours was excessive in the circumstances.

I slept. An administrator already familiar with the situation attempted to contact me while I slept with a view to lifting the block, and then released the block when I did not respond. When I awoke, I endorsed the unblock, searched for and released one autoblock, and informed the other admin of what I'd done.

The Ungovernable Force seems still to believe that he has a perfect right to blindly revert edits ad infinitum. This is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On the suggestion that I was in any way uncivil, I utterly reject this. --Tony Sidaway 01:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not as bad as some, but not the nicest, by any stretch of the imagination. To quote, "I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however." How is saying that someone is "manifestly ignorant" civil? Directly followed by assuming bad faith ("I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened...") it looks fairly uncivil to me. Just my opinion though. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Mark, I was civil, even courteous. I am not at all convinced that The Ungovernable Force would have listened. Tell me this is uncivil, I dare you. --Tony Sidaway 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you might consider that, in light of the comments of a few people unrelated to this incident, as well as the people who feel offended, it is entirely possible that, perhaps, you were not as civil or courteous as you may have thought. Usually, people do not note incivility or discourteousness without good reason. I've found that, in my own experience, when well-intentioned third parties have remarked that I have been uncivil, they are usually correct, upon further, even superficial, reflection. Certainly, when well-intentioned, good people tell me that I have offended them, I take it to heart. Now, it is true that, on Wikipedia, sometimes people "cry wolf" just to stir trouble. I don't think that anybody, here, is doing that. The main reason that I have a problem with this situation is because I am concerned that someone who has displayed the kind of attitude that you have displayed with regard to others charges himself with the enforcement of Wikipedia policy -- policies which include civility and the like. --AaronS 01:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Lord V, but I'll dare. To say "I am not at all convinced that you would have listened" is condescending, assumes bad faith, and is uncivil. Period. You're an admin. You have the power to fix things around here. There's no need for you to say such things; just do what has to be done with the minimum of commentary. Kasreyn 06:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that's prettily argued, but incorrect. The statement was appropriate to the context. It certainly isn't uncivil to infer from a person's resolute failure to recognise after a block that he had been doing the wrong thing that he would have been unlikely to recognise this if he had been told before the block. --Tony Sidaway 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, could you not have assumed good faith and blocked the sockpuppet or locked the page so that it actually stopped the problem? If you felt the way in which TUF was handling it then you could have handled it a lot better than just blocking both sides. As NicholasTurnbull suggested, a request could have been made to have him blocked, yet when you as an administrator was there to see it occuring, and knowing full well that TUF was attempting (remember good faith) to stop what he believed to be breaking the rules, instead of doing as Nicholas suggested you blocked them both. This seems to me to be a very heavy handed solution and one in which you are punishing a person for their choice of how to handle the problem. Enigmatical 01:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming good faith (which I have done at all times in this interaction) would not require me to make poor decisions. Protecting the page would have prevented everybody else from editing the article, when only two editors were acting in a disruptive manner. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And you consider automatically assuming he wont listen good faith? Enigmatical 01:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I made no automatic assumptions. I saw disruption, investigated the situation further, and terminated it. I informed both editor of their errors and patiently dealt with the many misconceptions of The Ungovernable Force, and adjusted his block. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in general, could we please ask that when editors say "Foo said bar" can they provide diffs? it not only makes it easier for anyone who cares to see what happened, it also greatly increases the chances that anyone will respond. - brenneman {L} 01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • If Tony had called the user "ignorant" I would agree that was uncivil. However, he did not actually do that. He referred to the user's "...manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works,...". I think that makes all the difference in the world. Pointing out that someone has shown ignorance of the way Wikipedia works is not uncivil. He could have used warmer/fuzzier language perhaps, but the language he chose was in no way improper for the situation. Johntex\talk 01:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just because I don't think I should have been blocked in the first place doesn't mean I will continue this type of action if I encounter a similar situation--do you think I want to put up with all this again? Yes, my own personal interpretation of policy was that I did nothing wrong. Although I still believe that written policy supports my actions, the fact that most admins who have commented seem to support your block shows that I am mistaken in the eyes of the people who matter (at least when it comes to blocking). And I agree with others--you are often quite impolite in many of you interactions on wikipedia. I was trying not to bring that into this, but someone else did for me and I can't dispute it. The Ungovernable Force 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that I was uncivil to you in this instance? Some diffs would be nice. --Tony Sidaway 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The comments being discussed above came accross as incredibly impolite to me. If it was a one time thing I would have forgotten it, but based on your prior history of uncivil and nearly uncivil comments (and the numerous attempts to get you to stop making them), it seems like a bigger issue you have. The Ungovernable Force 01:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if you go back and look again, I'm sure you will see that you were mistaken. I was actually quite courteous (looking back, I surprise myself by how courteous). Here's an example:
Looking at the edits you kept reverting on that article, they seem quite trivial. One was the addition and removal of the statement "Goldman was an anarcho-communist." (a statement that seems to be confirmed in the Emma Goldman article) and the other was even more puzzling: warring over the words "property" and "possessions". What harm would have been done if you had let the article stay in the form that drowner edited it to? How was the disru[tive pattern of a mutual edit war between you preferable to that?
And here's another:
No, let me explain. Edit warring of the scale on which you were carrying it on, and over such trivial content differences, is disruption. In less than ninety minutes, you each performed about six reverts. At each point you, yourself, had the option of saying to yourself "oh, the content isn't so bad, I'll wait until he can be blocked for evasion." And yet six times you decided to blindly carry on your edit war. That, my friend, is disruptive editing.
See? What there was about this that you perceived as rudeness, I don't know, but it seems to have completely evaporated. --Tony Sidaway 05:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between calling someone ignorant and claiming that they are "manifesting ignorance" of policy? Does that mean one can put any kind of attack after "manifest" and thus it is no longer being uncivil? So if I were to say that "given his manifest rudeness towards other people" does that mean I am still remaining civil? I think not. You can sugar coat it any way you like.. but basically Tony not only accused TUF of being ignorant, but also judged him on the spot without so much as warning him based on nothing more than his own views of whether he felt he would listen. I consider that generally inconsiderate to make such a judgement call. Enigmatical 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] section break - ignorant

I think JohnTex is drawing a distinction between my remark to the effect that The Ungovernable Force is clearly ignorant of how Wikipedia works (he actually thought he was helping Wikipedia by blindly edit warring) and saying he was merely "ignorant." There is a clear semantic distinction in English. One is a factual observation, the other a slur. --Tony Sidaway 01:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't address the bad faith, and like I said above, taken in context of your comments in general to others, I think there is a problem. The Ungovernable Force 01:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Please give diffs. If you are claiming that I assumed bad faith at any time in my dealings with you, just give the diff. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This one--the one being discussed above. I have had very little interaction with you on this site in the past, yet you seem convinced that I would have continued after receiving a warning. First off, that is false, just so you know for future reference, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is that you made an assumption that the only way to keep me from editing that page was to block me. That is a bad faith assumption. As far as I can tell, you had absolutely no reason to assume that was the case. I have never been blocked before (which is surprising considering I edit some fairly controversial articles), nor have I ever shown willfull disregard for policy (in fact, I have often compromised my ideals to make others satisfied here, even when I wasn't convinced that I was violating policy or when I thought the policy should be changed). Besides, even if I'm ignorant of how policy works, do you really think I'm ignorant enough to keep reverting when I know I'll be blocked? Even if I think what I'm doing is right, I'm not stupid enough to do that. The Ungovernable Force 02:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy that this was not in any way an assumption of bad faith. I observed from my discussion with you that you still believed that you had been doing nothing wrong. I told you that I was "not at all convinced that you would have listened," I remain unconvinced. --Tony Sidaway
But you blocked me before that discussion--you made an assumption that that was the only way to keep me from editing that page. And the fact that you remain unconvinced shows bad faith, especially considering the number of people who have recently vouched that I am a good editor, and the fact that I have never knowingly violated a policy, except for one instance fairly early on in my editing here. And the fact that I haven't done so since should tell you something, especially considering all the controversial articles I edit, problems I have had with other editors and disagreements I have with wikipedia policy. Despite those things I have not wilfully violated policy, and that should tell you something. I listen when others talk, because I know I'm not perfect, and because I'd rather not piss people off over something that probably isn't very important. Maybe next time you can wait and see what happens, rather than assuming I will screw up. The Ungovernable Force 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I blocked you before the discussion, while you were engaged in a pointless and disruptive edit war. I agree that you didn't wilfully violate policy--you actually believed that you were helping Wikipedia with your edits. I assumed no bad faith then, I assume no bad faith now. But I tell you, in all honesty and with the utmost incivility, you must not go on treating Wikipedia like this.
If people have told you that you are a good editor, those people are mistaken. No good editor blindly reverts. Ever, --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, what a fine time to make it about the person, not the behavior, and basically give us a textbook example of incivility. You're incorrect in your absolute statement. I've blindly reverted a permanently banned stalker, for example, based on a specific "block on sight, revert on sight" instruction from Jimbo. If it was a good edit, I've gone back and re-made it by hand. Making absolute statements like that is seldom an effective way to advance the discussion towards better understanding.
Good editors make mistakes. Good editors can be dead wrong about some rule or another, or totally clueless about diplomacy and dispute resolution, and end up causing disruption after disruption on account of it, but they can still be good editors. Characterizing someone as "not a good editor" based on one misguided revert war is unhelpful in the extreme, not to mention uncivil, unproductive, and contributing to a poisonous atmosphere. It's bad for the Wiki. Please refrain from doing that, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about being wrong about rules. It's about engaging your brain before pressing the buttons. Blind reverting is a sign of someone who has not yet learned how to write an encyclopedia without engaging in warfare. I utterly refute your intemperate, inaccurate and unjustified accusation. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood me. One point I made was that there exist exceptions to the absolute rule you stated. A second point was that making such absolute assertions tends to be unhelpful in the process of achieving understanding among conflicting parties. A third point, independent of the other two, was that taking a issue you have with someone's behavior and turning it into a comment about them, is unhelpful, uncivil, unprodctive and poisonous. All three of those points are correct. I would further suggest that you refrain from making any judgement about whether or not someone's brain is engaged. You're right that back and forth reverting is the wrong approach, but there is a much better way you could communicate that than the way you did. Your lack of diplomacy is stunning sometimes, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you should read my comment again. I was simply responding to a claim by Ungovernable Force that others had said he's a good editor. He's not, and if he shows signs of believing that he is, he should be told in no uncertain terms that he isn't. The rest seems to be your own rather strange projections on the situation. You may to your own satisfaction have made some point or other, but it has little or nothing to do with the Ungovernable Force situation. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, good editors also listen when others have serious concerns about their behavior, especially when such a large number of them make the same complaint over and over and over and over and over again. Let me say now, because I don't think I have yet, I now realize that I could have handled the situation in a better way, but I still believe there was no reason to block, and even less reason to keep the block, especially after the other party involved was indefinitely blocked (which is what should have happened in the first place) which would have prevented any further edit warring (and blocks are preventative, not punitive). The Ungovernable Force 04:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you still aren't hearing what I'm saying: it's not appropriate to say "this person isn't a good editor." That's not a call you need to be making for any reason. You can address the behavior perfectly well without characterizing the individual, and doing so is infinitely better in terms of the effect your words have on the situation. Talking about the person instead of the behavior is the textbook characterization of incivility. It's not cool, Tony. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you really, truly believe that it is inappropriate to say "this person, who engages in blind reverting and whose friends claim he is a good editor, is mistakenly advised", then we'll have to disagree. Really, we shall. I stand by my words to The Ungovernable Force (which you appear to have misread in some creative ways: If people have told you that you are a good editor, those people are mistaken. No good editor blindly reverts. Ever,
This in my opinion must be said to someone who has edited disruptively and believes that his behavior on the wiki is acceptable. I don't believe for one moment that it's uncivil. There is a pleasant way to say this and I deliberately chose the form that I did (rather than the form you seem to have misremembered) because I am sensitive to the meaning of the words. Civil, but nevertheless very firm. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony is exactly right about what I meant, and about the semantic distinction. Showing ignorance of X is not nerely the same thing as being ignorant generally. It's like the different between an athletic playing poorly one day and being a poor player. The subject may not like to hear the statement that they played poorly or were ignorant of something, but it is still a factual observation and it is not incivility. Johntex\talk 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I agree completely with your semantical distinction. What you are overlooking however is that in either case a person is being called ignorant. Does the fact they used the derogatory term in relation to a single topic invalid it as being uncivil? Does that mean I could call someone an idiot but only in relation to their driving and thus not technically be calling that person an idiot in general? It is still rude and it is still uncivil. Enigmatical 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • It absolutely matters. Please consider my example of the athlete. The speaker is not saying that the athlete is terrible in general, or is unredeemable. The speaker is making a factual statement about a certain circumstance. Your example is flawed. He did not call you an idiot. He did not call you ignorant. He said you showed ignorance of something. He could have used the phrase "lack of awareness of" and perhaps it would have offended you less, but it would have meant the exact same thing. Saying you were showed ignorance of something is not the same as calling someone ignorant. Therefore, it is you that are overlooking something, not I. To use your driving analogy, it would be more like saying "you drove poorly today" than it would be to saying "you are an idiot driver". Johntex\talk 02:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for agreeing with me. I can clearly see that you also feel there was a better way of saying something other than using the word ignorant. Clearly this word is inflammatory and Tony could have used good faith and simply pointed this out to TUF. You nicely avoided the use of the word "idiot" and appropriately changed it to "poor" which again clearly shows you are being civil. The problem is exactly that, the use of such a blatantly harsh word without even the attempt to try and address the issue with civility or even good faith shows that it was uncivil. So now that we completely agree that a better word could have been used, I will be curious to see if Mr Sidaway would even admit that he could have been a bit moer civil.... somehow I doubt it, but unlike him not giving TUF a chance, I will give him the opportunity to prove me wrong. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In this case, The Ungovernable Force clearly is ignorant of that fact that blindly reverting as he was is disruptive. This is a factual statement. It is not uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • If you cannot see that purposeful use of such an inflammatory word is uncivil on your part, then I do not think there is any hope here. Using your own definitions (to try and highlight the point) I believe you have shown beligerance in this situation. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • We'll obviously have to agree to differ here. The word "ignorance" is not intrinsically inflammatory and was not used in an inflammatory context. --Tony Sidaway 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section break - stupid

    • I have to agree with Enigmatical, here. There is no nice way to call someone stupid, just as it would be offensive for me to say, "John, seeing as you are terrible at baseball, let me try, in my vast skill, to teach you. Of course, I'm sure that, despite my best efforts, you would continue to be a terrible baseball player." --AaronS 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Except that Tony did not call anyone stupid. First off, ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Ignorance is about a lack of information. Stupidity is about a lack of brain power. Secondly, saying someone showed ignorance of something is not the same as saying they are ignorant. Thirdly, I don't see anywhere in Tony's commetns where he said anything evern remotely similar to your "you are bad at ___. I'll try to teach you, but I'm sure you'll fail anyway". Since he never said anything remotely similar, your analogy is completely misplaced. Johntex\talk 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Tony said: I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however. You still seem to think you did nothing wrong. Now, let's forget what most people would note as the condescension, patronization, and demeaning nature of such remarks, and simply focus on the analogy. My original analogy was attempting to convey the haughty tone of Tony's words, but let's forget that. So, "Sadly, given that you are terrible at baseball, I suppose that I should have told you that you are supposed to run to first base, not third base, after hitting the ball. Of course, I doubt that my expert instruction will help. You'll probably still be terrible at baseball." The analogy stands. Regardless, this isn't really the point. See my comments above about what seems to me to be some fairly obvious social standards. When someone says, "Hey! That was offensive," and then a bunch of other neutral people say "Hey, he's right. That was offensive," the correct response is to at least consider their remarks. In most cases, those people are usually correct in their assessment. The proper -- and civil -- thing to do is not to claim complete rightness. It certainly is not proper to say, "Wait, let us analyze the semantics of the words just spoken so as to determine their offensiveness." That's just silly. We already have many interpretations of the semantic meaning, here -- most importantly, the interpretations of those who feel as if they were treated uncivilly. --AaronS 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Then I believe your "manifest of rudeness, inconsideration and incivility towards other people" is what many are trying to highlight here. A simple factual observation shared by more than one person. Civilization (where the word civility came from), dictates that one does not make assumptions on behalf of another, especially where power is concerned. Thus to make such an assumption and block a person because you belief (bad faith) they would not listen is clearly uncivil. Enigmatical 01:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please give diffs. If you're alleging incivility, show where I was uncivil. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a concluding statement here. I blocked two editors for profligate, ridiculous, edit warring over trivial differences of wording. After copious patient, detailed and informative explanations, one of them falsely accuses me of incivility and assumptions of bad faith. He will nevertheless be treated with precisely the same courtesy, patience and good faith if ever I am called upon to block him for disruption again. All in a day's work. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a concluding statement, as well, then. First, you say that you "blocked two editors for profligate, ridiculous, edit warring over trivial differences of wording." Such is statement is untrue on two grounds: (1) the reverts were not "ridiculous," even if they were wrong, as TUF had good reason behind him, even if you feel he was mistaken; and (2) it is absolutely clear that the reverts were not with regard to "trivial differences of wording" -- as has been expressed by TUF and numerous other well-intentioned editors, it was about stopping a banned user's sockpuppet from being disruptive and evading a ban. Still, you refused to listen to anybody. Your explanations were curt, dismissive, and short, far from "patient, detailed and informative." I am disappointed in you for refusing to budge an inch on this matter. Even if you were right in your initial action, I am now certain that you were wrong in every subsequent act of arrogance. --AaronS 03:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You obviously have not viewed the reverts. This was a ridiculous edit war. They were obviously over trivial differences of wording. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have viewed the reverts several times. Please do not presume that I am ignorant of the situation. Perhaps the problem is that you are still looking at the reverts at this very moment and have not actually seen any of the discussion going on around them. Or, just maybe, those who disagree with you aren't suffering from ignorance or lack of perception. --AaronS 04:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you've viewed the reverts "several times" then your conclusion can only be due to faulty perception. --Tony Sidaway 04:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This smacks of utter arrogance as far as I am concerned. To say that the only answer is that someone else is wrong and Tony is right just proves why he treats people like this. I am sorry Tony, but this is just incredibly poor form. Who do you think you are to judge someone else MUST have faulty perceptions? Or is this another "semantical" display where he hasn't personally attacked someone but mearly pointed out a statement of fact? Bah! This i getting beyond a joke now. Enigmatical 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I admit I'm arrogant. Of course I haven't attacked him. I'm suggesting that, in view of his reports, his perceptions must be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
And do you understand that the very definition of arrogance is to place your own worth above others? It means that in any given situation, you will automatically assume you are right and they are wrong. Can you not see that having arrogance as an administrator is not in the best interests of wikipedia? It means your own views will always remain true to you and you will never back down even if you are wrong (Because it would thus cause a loss of pride and be counter to your display of arrogance). There is a huge difference between someone entering into a discussion with you (and appearing as if they wont change their view just like you), and being issues a formal warning. Had you issues that formal warning I am sure (good faith) TUF would have said something like "While I disagree I will stop". Secondly, you now call this person a bad editor, which is in direct violation of wikipedias rules of condemning the behavior not the editor..... and now we learn that all of this comes down to pure arrogance. Well, I am sorry to tell you this, but pride comes not from always being right, but from admitting when you are wrong and taking responsibility for your own actions. Please correct this gross misjudgement on your part, it is the only fair and sensible thing to do... in view of your "menifesting ignorance" due to self-admitted arrogance... your perceptions must be wrong ;) Enigmatical 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section break - Friday

Sadly, I must concur with GTBacchus. At the risk of being rude, I have to say that Tony's reponse only further demonstrates the basic problem: Tony has shown time and time again that he's here for his own ego, not for the good of the project. Tony, please: do us all a favor and stop with the Pope act. You're not infallible. Stop acting like you are, and stop being disruptive. Being a longtimer is no excuse for boorish behavior. Friday (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. And Tony cares more about this project in his own strange way than most. pschemp | talk 04:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not an excuse. Tony generates a lot of light, but he also generates many times more heat than necessary. His abrasive style contributes to an increase in pointless drama, for all the times he enrages someone instead of handling a conflict situation with any finesse. His being right means that he generally gets away without much criticism from those who understand how he's right, but none of that means that he couldn't do much more for Wikipedia if he went ahead and improved in the area of diplomacy, and stopped being the drama-magnet that he's become. When people walk away from a dispute feeling terrible, it's not good for the Wiki. Tony could contribute far less ill-will to the atmosphere here than he does, without compromising his contributions to the encyclopedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Great, I can't wait until a year or so, when I can start doing whatever I want. Maybe if I become an admin, everybody will agree with me without question, too. --AaronS 04:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't give him the right to act with such lack of consideration, nor to believe that he is infallable. Despite multiple people telling him that he was uncivil and showing him diffs to prove it, he still claims he has done nothing wrong (while I might add accusing TUF of saying the same thing and not even giving him a warning but judging him on the spot... hypocricy?) and is ignorant of peoples concerns in this (again I am using his own definitions to highlight the point). At what point (and how many people) will Tony finally understand that perhaps his way of handling it wasn't the best? Again, I sadly believe this is never, but unlike his judgemental actions of blocking TUF without warning, I am prepared to give him the opportunity he never gave TUF. Enigmatical 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a storm in a teacup. An editor gets upset about being blocked for disruption--this happens very often, just look at unblock-en-l. The blocking admin usually picks up some flack for not agreeing with the editor.
There was no incivility, there was no assumption of bad faith, but these things sometimes take on a life of their own. Could we have handled it better? Certainly, I think we could all improve our behavior. --Tony Sidaway 04:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tony, maybe it's a storm in a teacup, but why do you generate dozens of times the number of teacup storms as any other admin I can think of? Why are you so terrible at walking through a teashop without for some mysterious reason being followed by hurricane season? How long will it be before you consider that you could be doing something better, and you could get more good work done while generating less drama? Why are you stubbornly closed to that possibility, that you could be better at diplomacy and dispute resolution? Maybe your ideas about how to treat people with respect and dignity are... wrong? Maybe that's why every other day someone starts an AN/I thread complaining about you? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Those are loaded rhetorical questions. I think I've demonstrated ample flexibility here while firmly resisting misplaced claims that I've been uncivil. If something happens to convince me that I've been uncivil at any point in this discussion, then I'll change my mind. I think the real complaint here, when you boil it down, is that I'm extremely arrogant. In some people, arrogance might show as rudeness and unwillingness to communicate, but fortunately this isn't the case here. I'm very sure of myself but I'm reasonable, I do listen to criticism (even if I don't agree with it) and I respond to it in a reasonable manner. Arrogance also means that I'm less likely to flinch from a messy situation. However I tend to make decent, workable decisions so it's not such a bad thing. In this situation I think just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right. I've heard no complaints from the reviewing administrator or the administrator who lifted the block (only thanks from him for lifting an autoblock).
Now some editors, including The Ungovernable Force himself, tackled me at length about the block. I answered them civilly, patiently, faithfully and at length. I do not see how I could have done it in any other way. I obviously couldn't say "the block was wrong" because I wasn't and the reviewing administrator agreed with that. Instead I concentrated on getting through to The Ungovernable Force just how mistaken he was to edit war in the way he had. I think I did a very good job; the objections were trivial and seemed to involve a very creative reading of various policies. I was courteous and considerate, reducing the block when the editor complained about the length.
Now I ask you: what else could I have done? --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that proper form would have been for Tony to warn TUF before blocking. Police use a force continuum to escalate the amount of force necessary to handle a situation. Police certainly don't shoot both a mugger and the citizen fighting the mugger in an effort to get the old lady's purse back. Even though both were fighting, one was trying to do something good, a block does not seem warranted at all. It is disappointing when Admins use the full force of their authority before taking a less aggressive form of action. Tony should reread all of this and learn to treat users with more respect. That would help encourage more users and grow the community. IAgree 05:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Warnings in situations like this, where clearly unreasonable and disruptive editing is going on, are not given that often. The Ungovernable Force insisted for some time, even when blocked, that he was doing nothing wrong, so I remain extremely skeptical about the suggestion that a warning would have helped in any way. --Tony Sidaway 05:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure would have been nice if you tried, that way you would have WP:AGF. IAgree 05:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
We've been through this before. Blocking someone for disruption doesn't involve assuming bad faith. --Tony Sidaway 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
"I sadly admit that, given your manifest ignorance of how Wikipedia works, some effort should have been made to inform you that you shouldn't be doing what you did. I'm not at all convinced that you would have listened, however." This does. You thought the only way to stop TUF from his reverts was to block. That is aggressive and assumes bad faith. Perhaps a message on his talk saying "TUF repeated reverts of vandalism is disruptive, instead of continually reverting, please notify an Administrator to help." That would be something you could have done that would have demonstrated good faith that the user was trying to work for the best interest of the Wikipedia community. Blocking is bad faith by assuming that was the only thing that would have worked. To continue the analogy from before a police officer can stop a fleeing suspect by shooting them in the leg, but per procedure they yell "STOP or I'll shoot" first. You did not yell, you just shot. That to me is bad faith. IAgree 05:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Your interpolation of "bad faith" into this situation is novel. Blocking ongoing disruption is not "bad faith". --Tony Sidaway 07:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Let me try to explain this in even plainer English. It is bad faith to assume that action as stern as a block was the only means of dealing with the situation. Admins have many tools to work with. You don't have to use the block as your only tool. Try checking out WP:TT to see how warnings should escalate. On this page it shows them going from Good faith to General note to Caution Warning to Final warning to Blocked to Block & warning . Blocks should not have been the first course of action. You just jumped right to the aggressive, maybe that is why you rub people the wrong way. IAgree 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a pattern of yours [3]. IAgree 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an administrator and I block edit warriors. --Tony Sidaway 07:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase that has electrified me here is Tony Sidaway's above: "In this situation I think just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right." In this thread and on TUF's talk I see precisely two editors supporting this block: NicholasTurnbull and cesarb. Is there somewhere else I should be looking for this consensus that this was a good block? - Aaron Brenneman 06:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now let's get this straight. Are you seriously suggesting that it wasn't a correct block? --Tony Sidaway 07:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a nitpick here, but that isn't addressing the point. If Tony says that "just about everybody has admitted that I got the block right" but there only two admissions that this is so, then clearly there is no consensus. A quick read of this discussion shows that the consensus is that Tony should have been less forthright, and that this is repeated behaviour. Is this a fair summary? --Jumbo 07:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The block was completely justified. Tony's behavior was absolutely fine. I think Tony is showing wonderful restraint in dealing with these exagerated claims of abuse! FloNight talk 07:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the part of the job they don't tell you about. ;) --Tony Sidaway 07:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
When a person is asked a question and responds by answering a different question, one that shows him in a better light, it unsettles me ever so slightly. A claim of consensus when only two voices are raised in support remains incorrect, no matter how many later voices may then be added. I am not saying that Tony was wrong or right, merely nitpicking at the inconsistency. --Jumbo 08:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't have blocked TUF, I would just have blocked the sock, on the basis that blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, and edit wars with a banned user can be prevented by blocking the banned user's sock(s). (Of course, you could stop any 3RR violation by blocking one side only, but that would cause further disruption when the blocked side complained - in this case the blocked side is not allowed to edit Wikipedia, ever, so they can't complain about being treated unfairly.) But Tony's view on this is also a legitimate interpretation of policy, and this is a lot of unnecessary fuss over a block that has already been reduced, then undone. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had problems with Tony in the past, but honestly, I'm tired of virtually every action he takes being questioned. It gets to be a bit tiresome. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Certainly, then, it must be the fault of those questioning his actions, and not the source of the actions himself. I see that you've adopted Tony's own, if I might say, peculiar worldview. --AaronS 11:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though I typically agree with his end results, if he got there with any care for the basic processes we have in place, there wouldn't be this constant hand-wringing over what he does. If he stops acting as if he's above the rules - even if he's wrongly called on it every so often - people would likely call him the best admin we've got here. Instead, we get this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would agree with you if it was a case of the same old people following him around everywhere and levelling the same complaints. This however is a case of multiple different sources all complaining of the same thing. I only joined this conversation because Tony recently showed the same rudeness in something I had done. In finding this I now discover that his behaviour has been ongoing for some time. So if his every action is questioned, and each time its by a new person... at what point do you start to think the only common factor here is Tony? Enigmatical 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/n/User_talk%7ETony_Sidaway_The_Ungovernable_Force_80ec.html"