Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tony Sidaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tony Sidaway

final (48/12/1) ending 00:49, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway is an interested and hard-working editor, and more importantly I think he has a strong degree of clue about the social structures of Wikipedia and how they work. About 5600 edits as User:Tony Sidaway (26 Nov 2004 - present) and 1500 as his previous username, User:Minority Report (01 Nov 2004 - 26 Nov 2004). I'm also familiar with Tony as a fellow critic from Usenet group alt.religion.scientology and have long known him to be able to maintain a reasonably balanced response in the face of blithering stupidity. I think he's a prime candidate for the Wikipedia mop and bucket and would wield them suitably. - David Gerard 00:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accept. --Tony Sidaway|Talk|contributions 01:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. I think he's "mopworthy".-gadfium 01:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. He's handled disagreements I have had with him in very civil terms. I also like his strong support of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks Samboy 01:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ryan! | Talk 01:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Duk 01:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Wow, thought he was one already. Unquestionable. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support for now. After more research about the things Everyking has pointed out, I may change my vote. --Lst27 (talk) 02:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. 100% Support Damn fine editor, damn fine person, and he'll make a damn fine admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Strongest Support Possible. In my experience, Tony has been incredibly hard-working and has displayed an almost uncompromisingly open-minded and positive attitude. I knew he's been involved in content disputes, and although some may disagree with him (they were quite contentious disputes), I hope all can agree that he was often the force behind resolving disputes when all the rest (including myself on occasion) were frustratingly and unproductively at a stalemate. He has a great knowledge of the policies and procedures of Wikipedia. Unlike User:Jag123, I perceive his edits to consist both of talk page discussion as well as many substantive namespace contributions. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. I strongly disagree with some positions he's taken, in particular those regarding explicit pictures; but I've got strong opinions too, and it doesn't stop me from properly doing the dirty work of cleaning up the little turds the trolls, children, and morons leave behind. I'll fight him on "remove personal attacks", and I'll fight him on explicit pictures -- but that's irrelevant to adminship. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  11. He's not already an...? Yeah.... ugen64 05:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. No-brainer - support. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Looks like a goody - support Grutness|hello? 06:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. jni 09:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strongly Support. Elf-friend 11:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Wait, he's not an admin? Well, give that boy a mop and bucket and put him to work. Fair-minded to a fault, he'll do a great job. --Calton | Talk 11:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. I don't see any reason not to support. The incidents that have been mentioned seem to be few relative to the number of edits. Carrp | Talk 13:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. At the risk of being unoriginal, I thought he was. --BM 14:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, he has always shown good faith and is a fine user. Rje 14:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Good user. Andre (talk) 14:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Jordi·✆ 14:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Good user with excellent knowledge of how the Wikipedia works. I don't think that he should be opposed for 1) his opinion on the inclusion of possibly offensive images or 2) his acknowledgement that the Wiki environment can be agonizingly frustrating for actual domain experts. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Strongly Support He has always tried to keep an open mind in edit discussion, tried to compromise and reach consensus in NPOV, tried to resolve issues rather than revert to edit war. I think he cares about the integrity and future of Wikipedia and has a firm grasp of the concept of the encyclopedia. The reasons levied in opposition to this nomination do not hold water to me; I have seen him repeatedly trying to avoid negativism and try to work with others.CiaraBeth 20:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Snowspinner 21:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Eh, why not. Mike H 22:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support SlimVirgin 23:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support. He has strong views and speaks his mind. And? He gets involved in contentious issues to resolve disputes, not further them. He is courteous more often than I am (and I try). He already holds himself to higher standards than is required by policy, and I presume will be even more careful as an admin. He does a lot of janitorial work around here and seems ready to take on more. Hey, hand him a mop and bucket. SWAdair | Talk 11:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. utcursch | talk 13:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Sure. JuntungWu 19:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. I could have sworn Tony Sidaway was an admin, but since he isn't, he should certainly be made one. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support. Had a somewhat unpleasant run-in with him recently, but the problem was sorted out on the talk page rather quickly and politely. While I don't always agree with him, I believe I can trust him with the additional admin powers. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  32. I thought $user was already an admin. dbenbenn | talk 21:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  33. Even though Tony and I have had stark differences on a few issues here or there, I respect his opinion and intellect, and offer him my most fervent support. —ExplorerCDT 21:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. I've seen him around for some time, and his judgement seems sound. --Improv 23:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. While I tend to disagree with him many issues, and often end up debating him, I still think he would make a fine administrator. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  36. A sensible editor, for the most part. No problems whatever with handing over the keys. A.D.H. (t&m) 07:59, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Excellent. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:02, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Not that my vote is needed at this point, but support. Nadavspi | talk 03:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support, definitely. -- Ferkelparade π 11:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  40. I would trust Tony to be playing with those toys a lot more than I do some people who already can. --iMb~Mw 17:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support. Every time I had interactions with him or even saw his work from a distance, Tony seemed a reasonable, moderate, cool-headed person. He constantly displayed the qualities and attitudes which I have come to expect from administrators, and, I daresay, from good ones. Rama 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support. On the whole I think he does good work and acts in good faith, and makes an effort to address concerns. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, I'm rather suprised to learn that he's not an admin already. Dan100 19:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support Charles Matthews 12:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  45. I don't know Tony very well , but what I've seen of him (mostly on the mailing list, I'll admit) makes me share some of the concerns of the oppose voters above. I am partially of the opinion that Tony may be a very fine contributor who, for whatever reason, is too consistently hardline and unwilling to compromise to be an effective admin. We have a number of editors whose contributions dwarf mine (Tony is likely one of these) but who don't have an admin temperament, and I think they should be valued but not promoted. That said, I don't know Tony well enough to be sure about this, so I won't oppose, and certainly many people whose judgment I trust support his nomination, so perhaps I am simply jumping to a wrong conclusion. Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) After posting my neutral vote, however, Tony left me a few comments on my talk page that I have considered. I've also had a brief spin through his recent contributions. Tony strikes me as a generally quality Wikipedian, whose opinions I often do not share, but whose fundamental commitment to this site is easily the equal of mine. I cannot, therefore, do anything but support him -- I would caution him to be very self-aware about areas where his strong opinions may cloud his judgment (and to be careful when dealing with "semi-policies"), but that's good advice for anybody, and shouldn't pose a serious obstacle to his being a productive admin. Sorry for the novel. Best wishes, Tony. Jwrosenzweig 22:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  46. support redcountess 23:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support - if anyone can be deemed to have served their "apprenticeship" it's Tony, and I can't imagine anyone who deserves it more. Arkady Rose 23:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. I'm an infrequent RfA voter, but the apparently baseless opposition, and especially the complaint that he agrees with close to 40% of those voting on the in-line photo, make it mandatory that i vote on this one. --Jerzy (t) 04:08, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very strongly oppose, based on my experience in dealing with him: tendency to get involved in disputes, uncompromising and negative attitude, support for explicit pictures displayed on articles (as opposed to being linked—the dispute over autofellatio being perhaps the most notable example), a stated belief that Wikipedia is no place for knowledgeable experts to work alongside ordinary contributors, and extreme deletionism. Everyking 01:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • support for explicit pictures displayed on articles — Wait... you're opposing someone (in part, at least) because of an opinion they hold? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • The frustration of true experts in the field in working for Wikipedia is a well-known problem but I don't see why this should be dealt with here. --JuntungWu 19:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Posts to wikien-l suggest he would take a heavy hand as an admin (see [1] for example). Other posts to wikien-l indicate an arrogant and condescending attitude. (see [2] for example). These examples are by no means isolated, but I'm not going to spend any more time digging through the wikien-l archives looking for more. I recognize Tony's numerous contributions but I don't want someone with his attitude with the "mop and keys". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • In all good faith, I fail to understand what is so arrogant and condescending in [3]. Rama 08:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose. Tony gives more liberties to people he agrees with. In one case, Tony praised a user for not discussing changes that were being disputed. [4] (For the record, it wasn't only Robert objecting to the edits in question) While Tony is entitled to his opinion, I would find it disturbing if an admin decided what edits can or can't be reasonably objected to or whether or not they are worthy of more discussion, and worse still, an admin defending a user who refuses to explain their edits (See my last posts on his talk page for more info) A lot of edits in the talk namespace, but I could not find much in terms of actual contributions to articles, apart from some minor work (categorisation, spell-check, disambig, etc). Unless there is a sudden short supply of admins to insert their opinions in arguments/debates/talk pages of controversial articles, I don't really see what Wikipedia will gain by making Tony an admin. --jag123 03:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. --jag123 23:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
    As nominator, I would certainly be interested in knowing why - David Gerard 00:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Extremely strongly oppose. Agree very much with James Everyking's analysis. If a user was doing this on purpose you'd call him a troll. This is in no way based on my disagreement with him on one issue or another -- I wouldn't oppose him for that -- but for his anticonsensual approach and the character flaws James mentions.Dr Zen 04:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Posting a gawd-awful picture of autofellatio to see how long it would last seems awfully close to disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Moreover, user nonchallantly speaks of forking the project and writing articles for "stability" rather than consensus. I find consensus to be a non-negotiable value for the project and am hesitant to support a user that feels differently. Cool Hand Luke 08:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose for now. Usually, I have no difficulty in making up my mind whether to support or oppose a nomination, assuming that I vote at all. This vote, however, is one of the more difficult ones for me. I've seen enough of Tony's work to know that he's a brilliant editor and an asset to Wikipedia. However, I am a little disturbed by his apparent propensity to push the boundaries further than the majority think is wise. His support for graphics that I, as a parent, would not want my son to find in an encyclopedia, does nothing to allay my fears; if we get too many admins with similar views, we could end up seeing Wikipedia going in directions that many of us would not be happy with. Tony, I think you're a neat bloke, but I'd like to see a less adventurous image policy on your part before supporting you for adminship. Sorry. David Cannon 12:21, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to neutral following correspondence from Tony, in which he clarified his position and allayed my fears to some extent. David Cannon 23:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. No pun intended, but his behaviour at autofellatio left a bad taste in my mouth, and is far too close to being disruptive-in-order-to-make-a-point than I'm comfortable in endorsing in an administrator. (P.S. The autofellatio article still sucks....) - Nunh-huh 01:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Agreement with Everyking. Daniel Quinlan 22:58, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, but not gladly. I think Tony has a bit of work to do before I'd support his nomination. His tone is at times aggressive in a way that I don't think appropriate for an admin, especially given to whom its been addressed. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:30, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. :/ ✏ OvenFresh² 02:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose at this time. He answered many requests to move articles in WP:RM only with the curt reply "pointless move". That just doesn't seem helpful to the requestor. He does seem to be a generally good editor in most other ways, however, so I may support in future. Jonathunder 19:41, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Too soon, maybe in a few months. -- Viajero 22:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose, agree with Nunh-huh and Coolhand Luke. The foremost virtues of an admin are benevolence, good judgement, and a commitment to using that judgement for the best of the encyclopedia. Given his recent behavior on a highly controversial page, I am not convinced that Tony would use his gifts in that spirit. No longer oppose. Kosebamse 10:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) Note: some further discussion is at User talk:Kosebamse.
  12. Oppose. I see some benefit in making him an admin, but I also agree with Everyking, Jonathunder and Cool Hand Luke. Ambi 14:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. David Cannon 23:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) (see comments under "oppose", above).

Comments

  • I'm waiting for Everyking to post some links to support his claims. I've only interacted with Tony on a few of his 7000+ edits, but he does seem like an agreeable fellow. Is there evidence to the contrary? Carrp | Talk 03:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The evidence presented doesn't reveal any major controversies. Carrp | Talk 13:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "They have been a great help: discuss before editing, and only revert once." Not in my experience...didn't you insist on the right to make radical changes to a disputed article without discussing points beforehand, and then accused me of article ownership when I reverted? Everyking 15:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it unfortunate that your involvement on one side of a policy disagreement where there isn't a clear right answer has led so many people to go against you on what looks to be purely on that basis. I find myself wondering if they expect this kind of issue to come up very often. --Improv 17:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll just comment that I met Tony at the second London meet-up, and spent an hour or so chatting to him; he is (for a Brit) fairly normal. Charles Matthews 16:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a final word, after Cecropia closed the debate and promoted me, to say thanks to all who participated. I learned a lot from all comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum: As an experiment, I have decided to keep an account of all administrative activity I carry out, in wikified form. Comments on individual items are invited--it's a list so you can just add a comment as a bullet point to the item you're commenting on. Anything major should of course be taken to WP:AN. User:Tony Sidaway/Admin log --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I've done a little bit of time on Special:Recent changes and spent a few weeks each on WP:VFD and WP:RM. I guess some people will also know me from WP:AN and its subpages. I'm familiar with the uses to which the admin tools are put and I'll concentrate on whatever I think needs most work. I've watched several arbcom cases through to the end, contributed to one recent case, and am active on wikien-l. This gives me a keen sense of the many pitfalls even experienced administrators can encounter.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I like to enter plain, ordinary words into Wikipedia and see what it makes of them. If the response I get doesn't make much sense, I try to make it better. I've put descriptions of some of the results of that work on my user page. I'm rather partial to falling, a little article on different aspects of falling that I conceived of during an edit on fall. But it's still only a stub, really.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. I've been involved in some very controversial articles, but I don't have a lot of problems editing. Fairly early on I found Uncle Ed's Harmonious editing club and I've tried to stick to its principles. They have been a great help: discuss before editing, and only revert once. I have found that most editors are only too happy to listen, if I make it plain that I am listening to them too.
4. Have you helped an article gain featured article status? If so, which one(s)?
A. I have not. I don't particularly expect to, either, because I don't think I'm (yet) a bold enough editor. See my answer to question 2. At the moment I do not have easy access to a library so my research opportunities are limited.

Replies from User:Tony Sidaway

As this stuff was getting cluttery I've copied it to my talk page. If anyone wants, please feel free to restore it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Corrected tally in edit summary)