Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: Wikipedia:RFC/TS2

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: 02:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

---

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

---

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 1.7 Other users who do not endorse this summary 1.8 Concurring statement by Agriculture 1.9 Concurring statement by Scimitar 1.10 Concurring statement by Texture 2 Questions on the validity of the RFC itself 3 Response 4 Outside views 4.1 Outside view by David Gerard 4.1.1 Dissenting view by Radiant 4.1.2 Re-Admin-ing 4.1.3 Resolution, not conflict 4.2 Outside view by Gmaxwell 4.3 Outside view by Mark 4.4 View by Sjakkalle 4.5 Outside view by TheChief 4.6 Addition to the Outside view by TheChief 4.7 Outside view by Spinboy 4.8 Outside view by Kelly Martin 4.9 Outside view by Xoloz 4.10 Outside view by User:FeloniousMonk 4.11 Outside view by Unfocused 4.12 Outside view by Zzyzx11 4.13 Outside view by Titoxd 4.14 Outside view by Davenbelle 4.15 Outside view by Cool_Cat 4.16 Outside view by Ambi 4.17 Outside view by Patsw 4.18 Outside view by MONGO 4.19 Outside view by Lifeisunfair 4.20 Outside view by +MATIA 4.21 Outside view by Mel Etitis 4.22 Outside view by Marskell 4.23 Outside view by Friday 4.24 Outside view by Karmafist 4.25 View by brenneman 4.25.1 Dissenting view by Tony Sidaway 4.26 Suggestion by Agriculture 4.27 Outside view by Daycd 4.28 Outside view by McClenon 4.29 Outside view by Encyclopedist 5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Tony Sidaway is often incivil, does not respond well to criticism, and tends to ignore problems that people may have with him.

[edit] Description

Tony Sidaway is frequently incivil and belligerent to users who disagree with him, and has on several occasions made personal attacks against such users. He frequently calling claims that do not match his opinion "patently false" or "idiocy", when such claims are either misunderstood by Tony, or a matter of differing opinion.

When Tony's actions are questioned by other users, he frequently responds by telling that user to "stop making false accusations", by denying the incident, or by attacking the user who brought it up. In general he tends to be unwilling to discuss problems that may exist with his behavior, or to reach a compromise over them.

Finally, Tony has made several claims that there are no problems with his behavior and that any complaints against him should not be taken seriously, and sometimes lectures people on good behavior when his own behavior goes against the very advice he gives.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Incivility and personal attacks

1. "Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief." [1]
2. "I'm utterly disgusted at these shenanigans." "I'll take this as a blatantly bad faith deletion ... This was pure bloodlust" [2]
3. "Egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Wikipedia administrators" [3]
4. "It is idiocy like this that truly disgusts me" [4]
5. "Utterly ludicrous deletion. Despite the false claims made elsewhere" [5]

Responding badly to criticism

1. "Your criticism was not only intemperate, it was completely misplaced." [6] (in response to an apology by another user)
2. "Stop making patently false claims about my opinion" [7]
3. "This was patronising, offensive and of course completely useless advice since I'd done nothing of the sort." [8]
4. "I found your comments completely unacceptable ... It seems like sadism for the sake of it." [9]
5. "Don't breach good faith repeatedly and then try to lecture someone else to do what you already are signally failing to do." [10]
6. "A succession of often quite breathtaking bits of illogic, and marshalling citations to edits that don't say at all what he claims they say" [11]

Stating there are no problems

1. "My only claim to acting in this way is that I can get away with doing so because I'm good at it" [12]
2. "I've got some very longstanding and strong differences of opinion with some other editors, and I've found ways to resolve them in a way that prevents friction on the wiki." [13]
3. "WP:IAR is certainly something that requires extreme arrogance, and can sometimes lead to censure. I've no problem with that." [14]

Lecturing other people on behavior but not heeding his own advice

1. "(WP:CIV, WP:FAITH and WP:NPA) are not optional or "advisory", they're policies which you're expected to follow." [15]
2. "You don't like to see someone saying negative things, and you take them as personal attacks." [16]
3. "This "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff has no place on Wikipedia" [17]
4. "We should all make a habit of checking our perceptions in case they should happen to be incorrect." [18]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Civility
2. No personal attacks
3. Assume good faith
4. Wikiquette

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Attempt by User:Radiant! here
   • I have noticed several users attempting to discuss some or all of these issues with Tony, and failing to resolve anything, and would ask those to add a link or two in this section.
2. Attempts by User:FeloniousMonk
   • [19]
   • [20]
   • [21]
   • The entire conversation, including Tony's reply, is here.
3. Attempt by User:Theresa knott (After discussion with User:Texture on Theresa's talk page)
   • [22]

   • Theresa asks "Tony you are rubbing people up the wrong way because you are assuming that you know better than them. When you undo another admins actions, or you cut short a debate by acting unilalterally you are in effect saying "you are not important" to them." (unanswered by Tony)
   • Theresa praises Tony for saying "I'm not going to undelete bad speedies if they're sent to VFU in future." but he continues to undelete items on VfU:
     • Listed on VfU - Alex Nisnevich (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
     • Undeleted by Tony - 14:46 (19:46 UTC), 22 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "ExamDiff"
     • Posted on VfD - Tony SidawayTalk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
   • Theresa asks "Tony you have not addressed Texture's complaint. It looks to me like you broke your promise not to undelete a page on VFU and also lied about it by claiming that it hadn't been deleted in the first place. Is this the case?" (Response to Theresa does not address the question but instead discusses his opinion of why he undeleted:)
     • "Theresa, to make it absolutely plain, my change of policy with respect to recovering speedies does not cover actions I may take to enforce proper process on VfD when an article has been unilaterall deleted as part of a dispute over closing. It is absolutely unacceptable for a sysop who disputes a keep result simply to change the result to his preferred one and delete the article--much less if the original closer and a complainant have reached agreement on a relisting and this is in progress."

4. Attempt by User:Texture after request for evidence by User:Tony Sidaway
   • Request by Tony Sidaway for evidence: [23]
   • Removal by Tony Sidaway of majority of Texture's response: [24]
   • Next edit in section by Tony Sidaway after deleting most of Texture's response: [25]

     23:09, 27 October 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tony Sidaway (→What does this mean? - And finally, I remind you that you earlier claimed that I undeleted against consensus. If you look above I don't think you'll find a single example of where I did that.)

   • Texture's response to removal: [26]

     (cur) (last) 11:06, 28 October 2005 Texture (→What does this mean? - I won't revert your removal of my comments but don't complain to me)

   • Tony Sidaway deleting entire conversation from his talk page: [27]
   • Tony Sidaway deleting my response to his deletion without comment or explanation: [28]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Radiant_>|< 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Agriculture 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Scimitar ^parley 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Tεxτurε 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Tony Sidaway believes that he does not have to follow consensus on any occasion.
7. Concur with Zoe. Ambi 08:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. I did talk to Tony about the events in the immediate runup to this RfC, but not about the particular topic of it, so I'll endorse this as a summary of the dispute which I think has substance. Tony's response below is unusually candid for an RfC response, and is to be welcomed for it. I'm disappointed that, elsewhere he is now suggesting the RfC is 'sabotaged' — I wonder does he view that as leaving both it and his response without meaning? -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. -- Karl Meier 09:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. --fvw* 12:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. -- David D. (Talk) 00:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
6. 05:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who do not endorse this summary

1. Bahn Mi 01:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC) This RFC is divisive and completely unnecessary.
2. MONGO 08:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Comments such as "Tony Sidaway believes that he does not have to follow consensus on any occasion" are extreme to the point of absurity.
3. Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC) To the extent that the evidence is editorialized to the extreme, I agree. I am simply ignoring the absurd stuff because it's transparently false. Nevertheless the principal criticism is of incivility and that section I take very seriously, so it would be unfair to ignore this RfC simply because it's tinged with silliness. Some of the outside views contain some important lessons for me, and I have endorsed those that I think are important.
4. Nicodemus75 23:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Frankly, this is nothing more than a silly, partisan RfC intended to smear Tony.
5. GordonWatts 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC) I do not know Tony too well, but in the few interactions we've had, he's been polite and respectful. See below, in Marskell's outside view where I elaborate and provide diffs, examples, and a logical conclusion. --GordonWatts 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Silensor 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC) This is nothing more than a smear campaign under the guise of an RFC. The first line of the statement of dispute begins "Tony Sidaway is often incivil" which is blatantly and patently false. If that is not a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Silensor 17:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Charles Stewart 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC): I haven't followed the whole material that has been cited, but in particular:
   1. I do not think the evidence that User:FeloniousMonk has assembled amount to Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, since FM has not given good grounds to doubt TS's judgement on this matter and TS's 'fault' appears to be saying just this. In general, TS has been in the fore of senior admins who are willing to cry foul when other admins misuse their privilege, and I suspect this RfC is a case of punish the whistleblower.
   2. TS does tend to be short and blunt in explaining his executive decisions, there is room for improvement here, but I do not belive that TS is generally incivil, as this RfC appears to be claiming. Occasional lapses are better dealt with by other means than an RfC. --- Charles Stewart 17:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Pcb21| Pete 14:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
9. David Gerard 17:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Gateman1997 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Tony may be a pain in the butt sometimes, but he's always civil and makes an effort to include all sides. This is a baseless RFC.
11. Jacoplane 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concurring statement by Agriculture

Tony is probably one of the biggest threats to Wikipedia these days. He is hostile towards others and abuses his position as an administrator to push his own POV. He is unwilling to listen to other opinions or accept criticism. Anyone who questions his actions is not only automatically wrong, but typically an "idiot". He has violated consensus on many occasions prefering to go with his own POV instead, typically justifying it by saying that many of the consensus votes were "idiotic" or something similar. He is abusive to other users, and refuses to qualify decisions he has made:

I am perfectly capable of going through every single one of Radiant's other points an demonstrating how--with a succession of often quite breathtaking bits of illogic, and marshalling citations to edits that don't say at all what he claims they say, he's managed to mire himself into believing that he's proven me to to be wrong. But actually I don't have to do that

As can be seen, others are wrong simply by default and in his arrogance he feels no need to actually justify his position. As a user this behavior would be reprehensible in it's own regard. As an administrator it constitutes a violation of the power, authority and trust instilled in him by the community. His actions go too far and something needs to be done to let him know that his arrogant, abusive behavior is not befitting an administrator before he drives more good users from Wikipedia. Agriculture 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Agriculture 17:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 15:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concurring statement by Scimitar

Tony is an editor who I have a good deal of respect, perhaps even admiration, for. His contributions to this encyclopedia are undeniable. He frequently comes across as arrogant and condescending; additionally, over the last few weeks I've been tempted to resign my adminship because of our encounters, on the basis that I must have seriously violated sysop procedure (in dealing with Maoririder) for him to be so livid with me. Eventually, I decided that I hadn't done anything horrible, and he must be personally disgusted with me for some slight. Now, though, I'm rather indifferent to his outbursts because I've found that my confidence in him as an administrator has been badly damaged. Having said all that, I think that his apology settles the matter, and I'm willing to drop it.--Scimitar ^parley 14:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Scimitar ^parley 19:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concurring statement by Texture

I don't want this to be a "hang Tony" party. I have had the experience of polite disagreements with Tony on his talk page and on mine on a number of issues. I have joined this RFC not because of individual incidences of hostile language but because of an overall dismissal of other opinions on his use of admin powers. Tony believes that VfU/DR/VfD is only for those who cannot WP:IAR and delete/undelete what he does/doesn't think belongs despite no policy allowing it and large consensus against it. I have suggested with Tony that he propose new policy changes to CSD to allow the things he wants to delete outside of policy. He has dismissed this idea and prefers to delete because he can and thinks his opinion is sufficient to override policy. (I'll find and add this discussion to the above.) Tony disrespects consensus and others opinions in a way that leaves those disagreeing with him feeling like Tony's opinion matters more than theirs, even in numbers. I would like this RfC to result in directing Tony to follow all policies (and not interrupt any that are in progress by taking unilateral actions) and respect all consensus and not WP:IAR. (In effect, ask Tony to be an administrator and not a unilateral sysop.) Tony's disrespectful language is a small matter compared to disrespectful actions.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. --Tεxτurε 17:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 08:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. That's also a good point. All Wikipedia editors should act within consensus ([29]). Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. --fvw* 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. --Doc (?) 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Xoloz 08:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. FeloniousMonk 16:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who dissent from this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC) I have often acted with the intention of reversing a bad decision by widening the scope of discussion, and this has almost always been forthcoming. If you widen the scope of a discussion and opinion flips from delete to keep, then what existed before cannot realistically be called consensus. My acts have thus been consensus-forming acts, rather than as they have been misrepresented here, consensus-breaking.

Supporting information. (Requested by Tony Sidaway):

Tony felt that deleting worthless advertisements should be at the Admin's discretion (without a rule or policy allowing it) and I suggested that Tony propose a change to CSD to allow this as a speedy deletion. [30] Tony did not want it added as an undisputed rule in CSD since Tony thought some were useful and could be cleaned up. I suggested that the new rule would not mandate deletion but leaves it at the discretion of the admin. [31] (Tony felt this was taunting. The style was one of asking questions and moving to the next question without awaiting answers.) When Tony refused this idea [32] I stated that Tony didn't want it as a rule but wanted to do what Tony felt should be done and not have to adhere to a policy. [33] Tony responded "that discretion, by its nature, cannot be legislated". [34] (Hopefully all my cut-and-pasting came out right.) - Tεxτurε 22:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on the validity of the RFC itself

Although from the start I had concerns about the validity and motivation of this RFC due to certian factors, I generally feel that unless an RFC is completely invalid, we should avoid Meta discussions inside RFCs. I think there are some reasonable points to be made about Tony's choice in words, so although I share some concerns with Sjakkalle below, I left the meta discussion out of my view. However, it has since come to my attention that Radient has been specifically targeting users who have had disagreements with Tony and is asking them (and only them) to come comment. I believe this behavior will cause the RFC to represent a higly slanted and inaccurate perspective, thus potentially causing it to become entirely invalid. Please see my comment on User_talk:Radiant!#Your_RFC_on_Tony. --Gmaxwell 17:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a watchlist, and I know how to use it. I'm editing here hours after the posting of the RfC and my talk page message only because of Real Life. It strikes me as an RfC with a range of views of various hues and it does seem that editors have moved to write their own views whether specifically messaged or not. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• This should really be on the talk page. But anyway, an RFC must be endorsed by people who addressed the issue and failed to resolve it. So the reasonable thing is to contact those people. Judging by Tony's talk page, there were a lot of those. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 10? 11? of them, quite a few of whom haven't talked to Tony in a while? Sorry. That sounds like a weak excuse. I wasn't questioning your intentions, only the result. --Gmaxwell 17:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to be anal about this, I'd say that at the top of the page it clearly says that "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."

So technically, this kind of pot-luck RfC, involving multiple disputes, is invalid. Nevertheless I've found it most illuminating, and frankly have been very gratified at how highly I'm regarded, while appropriately chastened at the sections that I view as legitimate criticism. Others in the various disputes have of course been uncivil, sometimes far more than I, but that doesn't excuse my own incivility. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the same dispute and all the members have addressed the same issue with Tony together and apart. The only pot-luck is the many ways Tony has demonstrated his disregard of consensus and others' opinions. I was contacted because I was involved in many of these incidents and was an appropriate person to inform regarding the RfC. - Tεxτurε 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[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.

I completely concur with Agriculture and Radiant that I am frequently uncivil. I have given a good account of my differences with those to whom I have been uncivil, but those often good reasons for disagreement, up to and including personal attacks on myself, do not excuse my dealing with others in an uncivil manner.

I therefore tender an apology to all for any act of uncivility. Specific cases may be dealt with on my user talk page where I undertake to make amends.

There is no excuse for incivility on Wikipedia.

On matters other than civility I find myself in complete disagreement with the proponents. The case has been worked over several times, and currently says that when face with problems dismiss them as "patently false" and ask those approaching me to "stop making false accusations." Actually this is only something that I say when approached with a patently false accusation. It does not help Wikipedia to represent falsehoods as truth. A good example of such a falsehood is: "Finally, Tony has made several claims that there are no problems with his behavior and that any complaints against him should not be taken seriously." Utter nonsense. Rubbish. I have said no such thing.

Even when I have acted unilaterally my actions have been confirmed by the subsequent consensus or decision. I think that the outside views that I have chosen to endorse most fairly represent the situation, and lacking not for defenders, I will in general let their voices speak for me. Remember, just because you disagree with somebody's action, doesn't mean that he is wrong. Just because you weren't satisfied with somebody's answer, doesn't mean that he didn't adequately explain himself. It is a corollary of our civility policy that we must not hold our disagreements against one another. I think Kelly put it best: "I would suggest that if you find yourself offended at what Tony has to say, perhaps you should think about why he's saying what's he's saying and look into yourself to see what you have been doing wrong." There is a subtle distinction there between what I say and how I say it. I promise to work harder on the latter.

One person in this case has responded to my request that he back up his claim that I have undeleted articles contrary to consensus. He posted a massive and unsightly table on my talk page, which I summarised and responded to in detail. Rather than take this response, he now falsely claims that I have removed evidence. This is a completely unacceptable withdrawal of good faith, and a failure to address my points. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who dissent from this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Tεxτurε 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC) - Last paragraph above recently added regarding Tony's deletion of my response to his request ("if you have the cases, do please revisit them"). I have added it to the evidence section above since he has deleted most of it from his talk page and then the entire conversation. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Havne't had a chance to read a lot of this RfC closely (so why don't I shut up & do that? Wrong question!), so I will likely end up modifying or better qualifying my position later on. But for now, I'll say that almost everyone commits breaches of incvility from time to time (what, me? Never! How fuckin' dare you!!1), and a sincere apology goes a long way in my little red book. But that's half the step; the other half is being able not to repeat, but rather learn from and improve on one's previous mistakes. On this front also, Tony enjoys my confidence. El_C 00:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Uncertain I could approach this objectively now. El_C 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add outside views 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.

{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.}

[edit] Outside view by David Gerard

This is ridiculous.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. David Gerard 13:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Kelly Martin 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Absolutely.
3. Unfocused 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. MONGO 17:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC) I kinda agree with this attitude. But if people are offended they deserve an apology and that's what this RfC is about. So it's ridiculous, but so what? We don't make an encyclopedia by offending the people who are supposed to be writing it.
6. Bahn Mi 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. --Nicodemus75 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC). Tony is abrasive, not uncivil.
11. JYolkowski // talk 16:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Agree with Christopherparham, and I have my doubts as to the validity of this RfC anyway.

[edit] Dissenting view by Radiant

1. Wait a second. There is a dispute, and people attempt resolution, and two arbcom members call it ridiculous? What then would you propose editors do if they have problems with one another? Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   This may possibly, I dunno, suggest that it's ridiculous, maybe. Is it possible? - David Gerard 10:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   I don't see much evidence that this RFC was intended to resolve anything. Rather, it appears to me that it was intended to gauge public support for demanding Tony's deadminship. This may not be an inappropriate use of RFC, but let's call a spade a spade, ok? Kelly Martin 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   What then would you propose editors do if they have problems with one another? Radiant_>|< 11:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   Oh, I don't know, perhaps you could try talk TO one another instead of AT one another.... Kelly Martin 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

   YUO ARE TYRING TO DISTORY WKKIPEDAIA!!!11! - David Gerard 20:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   Okay, that makes a grand total of seven edits I've read from Mr. Gerard, and they have been uniformily sarcastic, and (amazingly), increasingly bizarre. If I didn't know better (He is on Arbcom, right?), I'd by now be convinced that Mr. Gerard was either six years old, or seriously troubled. This isn't intended as a personal attack -- I am worried about this person, or about WP if he has disguised his age this long. Xoloz 22:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

   I would argue that he's injecting humor into a humorless situation. I laughed. And if you disagree? I WILL RFC YUO. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Xoloz 08:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC) I'll join Radiant here. The problem is, in my past experience, conversations with Mr. Sidaway haven't involved his listening very much, as far as I could tell. That makes it necessary to "talk AT" him and the community in this way. A blanket statement of the "ridiculousness" of any good faith action is also, in my view, counterproductive, flippant, and somewhat demeaning. I don't blame Radiant if he feels that this sort of unhelpful, vague generality is more an impeachment of character than anything, and I hardly see how anybody can call that a good idea. If WP is a consensus forum, such weak attempts to suggest that even discussing this subject is ridiculous are antithetical to our purpose here. The fact that this outside view, in its oversimplicity, is likely to promote "Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck" style "yes-no-yes..." non-discussions is another indication that it is perhaps more fit for a kindergarten than a community forum. Xoloz 08:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
   • Oh this is just so much tosh. Take Xoloz first conversation with me on my talk page.
     • Xoloz asked me if it would be okay to vandalize my web page under WP:IAR [35]. Remember this was in the middle of a second AfD discussion that was headed for an absolutely thumping, overwhelming keep vote. He seemed to have a problem. He wanted the article kept but he had thought up some process-based reason why he should instead tell VFU that the article should be kept deleted. A good, solid bureaucratic reason no doubt, but a reason for him to decide, it appears to me, the exact opposite of what he thought was merited on the article content.
     • I explained my view to him [36]--that VFU is broken and continues to misrepresent and ignore undeletion policy, and that by the way his example would violate WP:POINT. I added some emphasis on the purpose of AfD and VFU "We must never delete good articles, and where AfD does so VFU is supposed to correct the error. When both fail, it's left to people like me to correct the error".
     • He replied that he thought that WP:POINT wouldn't matter (hoo boy!) [37]. He raised a good point about IAR as a license for mischief. He said that he thought that VFU would probably have undeleted the article (it wouldn't have, and I think that it's significant that the only two people who said this both voted keep deleted before I undeleted the article). He said I sounded like an egomaniac (duh!)
     • I explained the finer points of WP:POINT [38]. I corrected him on some points of fact (I find I have to do this a lot, it wasn't just Xoloz). I edited my comment to intensify my loathing for the corruption and impotence of VFU [39].
     • Xoloz replied that he hadn't a clue what I was talking about [40]. He again tried to reason by analogy. He thought that I as an editor was broken and therefore any attempt to sabotage me would be justified. Nice try, no banana [41]. He went on a bit. He said I didn't understand due process.
     • I gave him the Cook's Tour version. " Of course IAR is egocentric! You need to be an egomaniac to use it, and a very accomplished one to get away with it." [42]
     • He said he was "surprised and pleased" that I appreciated that I was an egomaniac [43]. He said he thought "this particular IAR idea idea will lose" by which he meant the idea that when the rules don't help to build the encyclopedia you ditch the rules and not the encyclopedia. He said "Notwithstanding your own skill as the "get away with" sort, if thing ever catches on at WP with a real idiot (over time, that is all but inevitable), its tryrannical potential will become obvious."
     • I replied "That's why only egomaniacs ever use this method. It's like a tightrope walk. The idiots may try it, but they don't get away with it, so it's a self-correcting mechanism."
     • He gave a reply that indicated to me that we understood one another completely "I'm quite sure it self-corrects to zero". With which I agree completely. IAR is a stick of dynamite, the trick is not to be there when it goes off.
   • But now Xoloz seems to believe that we were just talking past another, and no serious discussion took place. How odd. I believed that I had indicated that I understood his qualms and agreed with them. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
     • Well, I'll give Mr. Sidaway credit that I don't think our discussion was entirely unproductive. I'll stand by my remark, though; while things certainly might have been worse, I don't think Mr. Sidaway understood, or accepted, the gravity of the damage that can be done to one's reputation through unilateralism. Certainly, I'd expect him to understand that his continued belief in his capacity to "get away with" these things was not very satisfying to me. Hence, public discussion in this RfC is good. Note, Mr. Sidaway, before you get too nonplussed, that I refrained from certifying the initial complaint, largely because I realized our discussion was more civil than some on your talk page. So, I did show some deference for that effort. Xoloz 01:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Snowspinner 23:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. I'll tell you why this RfC isn't ridiculous- because Tony apologized for his incivility, something that I can't otherwise have seen happening, since he's never given the slightest indication that he might be wrong somewhere. I actually appreciated the apology, and entered this RfC in good faith. The apology went a long way in repairing my somewhat damaged view of Tony. I would suggest ArbCom members consider there wording more carefully, because when they call it ridiculous without stating reasons, they mock not only this RfC attempt, but all the other editors who approached it in good faith.--Scimitar ^parley 14:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
   • If I disappointed your hopes of getting me to make an indication that I "might be wrong somewhere", it may be that I didn't realise that such a recognition was expected of me. We're all relatively mature people, we realise that where there's a difference of opinion it is necessary for us to review our opinions and check for evidence that we may be wrong. I think it would be somewhat onerous and unproductive to require all Wikipedians to premise every statement of opinion with "this is a statement of my opinion" and every statement of fact with "this statement of fact is subject to checking, though I have verified it to the best of my ability."
   • Where I make statements of fact that I have checked, and they are not refuted, but rather are answered by further statements of fact that I can easily check and refute, I tend to assume that the argument I am making is probably a good one. If reasonable arguments are made against my position, I will tend to concede their validity (see my discussion with Xoloz). If despite claims to the contrary my actions nearly always result in something that enjoys considerable consensual support (such as my kidnapping and rescue of the Wolters article from the usual VFU stalemate, and the undeletion of Homa Sayar), then a little controversy isn't a bad thing. I don't mind people disagreeing with me if the end result is overwhelmingly agreeable to the wiki. I can live with the idea that not everybody on the wiki agrees with the result. This doesn't mean that I refuse to countenance the possibility that I may be wrong, only that I usually find myself faced with overwhelming evidence that a particular action was in fact the right thing to do. If on the contrary I found that my judgement was frequently shown by subsequent events to have been in error, I would change my behavior accordingly.
   • This RfC is about incivility, and like most people editing this RfC I have occasionally shown my exasperation with fellow editors in a manner that they have found offensive. It is of course ridiculous to single out any one editor for this, but the criticism is of course generally valid. We must all take civility seriously. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I didn't expect you to say "I might be wrong somewhere". Sorry, that was empty-headed rhetoric on my part. My problem was your hostility in regards to Maoririder, not your POV. You seemed to label all of us who had been involved as persecutors, and that really bothered me, especially coming from somebody I have quite a bit of respect for. You came across (to me) as viewing me as some sort of simple-minded witch-hunting moron with an overanxious trigger finger. Simply stating that you view civility as important made a big difference, and having people, especially respected ArbCom members, call the notion of this RfC ridiculous bothers me. --Scimitar ^parley 17:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am very shocked by the behavior of certain parties towards Maoririder. As you know I apologised to one person whose statement on the RfC I'd singled out and described in very harsh terms indeed. I still feel that his actions were indefensible, but I think I could have worded my criticism in more temperate language. Your phrase "simple-minded witch-hunting moron with an overanxious trigger finger" is pretty close to how I feel about the affair, with the exception that I don't believe that you have the excuse of being a moron or simple-minded. I find the first ban on Maoririder completely incomprehensible, and your five-minute warning laughable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Admin-ing

• And here I was worried that my estimation of you was being repaired. If you think back, you'll note that I wasn't a sysop (promoted Sept. 1) at the time, and couldn't really do much about the block in any case. The warning was (IMHO) well-phrased, and the fact that the blocking admin chose not to warn again was up to his discretion, not mine. Also, if you check my RfA request, you'll note a link to the Maoririder RfC, and full disclosure of my actions. You'll also notice your vote of support on my RfA. I wish you had chosen to take this view when the actual events were going on, rather than nitpicking months later. Could the situation have been handled better? Yes. Were the actions of those involved (at least two of which were subsequently promoted to adminship) reasonable given the situation? Yes. If you feel I'm a trigger-happy, witch-hunting sysop, I'd be happy to resign the powers and re-apply. I have no qualms about seeing whether I have the confidence of the community or not.--Scimitar ^parley 19:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's a bold statement indeed. I'd had a similar thought: If Tony is quite certain about both the appropriateness of his actions and his community support, would he be willing to do the same? In fact, would all those admins and arbitrators who certify and oppose all be willing to be held to this standard?
  brenneman^(t)(c) 22:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Tony's cast doubt on both my judgement (trigger-happy) and my motivations (witch-hunting). Before I applied to be an admin, I really wished a few admins would step down and test how satisfied people were with their performance. Given the sort of things Tony's thinking about me, as well as the large number of people who seem to agree with him on all counts, I have no problem stepping down and re-applying. If Tony says the word, I'll request that my powers be removed, and then I will re-apply. I won't ask him to do the same, because although I questioned his judgement, I've never questioned his good faith.--Scimitar ^parley 23:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Feel free to step down, Scimitar, I certainly won't object if you surrender the tools. I see little sense in doing so, however, should you intend to re-apply. Let's await the result of that arbitration case. I did support your RFA, it is true. I did not at that time have a close enough acquaintance with the maoririder case, which now having investigated it on an edit-by-edit basis, I view as an utterly shocking and disgraceful episode. You were involved, as an editor, in the decision to block maoririder at a time when, after a mere week of editing, his edits had improved markedly, and at a time of day when they can have been causing absolutely no disruption on the wiki because he was not even editing at the time. In your defense, at least you saw fit to warn maoririder that a block might be imminent--the only such warning maoririder ever received to my knowledge. The block, made by another editor, followed five minutes later. Maoririder had never once before then been given any reason tot suspect that he might be blocked, and indeed I cannot to this day understand why he was blocked. Words fail me. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• We're to take it as read then that, regardless of Scimitar's willingness to test the community's faith in him, you won't be taking the same admirable action? - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. I would ask to be de-adminned if I was convinced that I could provide no further service for Wikipedia as an administrator. The response to this RfC has demonstrated in a more than satisfying manner the community's continuing confidence in me, and my ability to learn from my mistakes. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

• Then why shy away from actually testing the community's faith? An RfC is like being beaten with a wooly stick - lots of sweat raised on the part of the whack-er, while the whack-ee can just smile and wait for it to be over. Have the courage of your convictions and stand again. Call it a "vote of confidence" or something, and keep your powers while it runs. Otherwise your claims are simply empty rhetoric. If you want to learn something from this, learn from Scimitar's example. Until admins, all admins mind you, are reminded that they serve the group and not the reverse, we'll continue to have disputes of this nature. At the very least Tony, those who some claim are allied against you would have to eat crow in the event of the resounding re-adminning you're predicting.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I call bullshit. If you were convinced of the communities confidence in you and what not, you'd have no worry about deadmining and reapplying. Obviously since you are not willing to put your adminship into the hands of the community for redecision, then you realize you have no community support and would rather just hide behind the invicibility of a lifetime appointment. Agriculture 03:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of language is constructive. Rx StrangeLove 04:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Look around the RfC. I see very, very many voices, and only a tiny few are calling for me to step down as an administrator. Moreover de-adminning me would not cause me to be more civil, so it would not be much of a remedy for the cause of the RfC.

As for Aaron's talk of eating crow, I think he would have to bashfully admit that he's already had his fill today [44]. I decline to take advice from one whose judgement has been shown to be so wanting as to lead him into deliberate vandalism and disruption to make a point. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever the spirit your critisicm is given in, I'll take it as well-deserved. Unless, however, your claim is that nothing I ever say will ever again merit consideration, it misses the point.
• If you'll take the time to re-examine my last comment, I'm attempting to be constructive. I'm not asking you to take my "advice", I'm asking you to follow the (very fine) example that Scimitar has set.
• If you choose not to "put yourself on the block" as it were, it will only deepen the sense that you're avoiding any possible consequences of your actions.
• If you do choose to submit yourself to the "will of the people" as it were, the esteem that your peers hold you in can only be increased, whatever the outcome.
• Again, if you'll examine my last comments above, I'm not asking you to step down, but to be re-confirmed, as detailed below. I'll say no more on this at this time, but would ask that either someone other than Tony (or his supporters) explain to me why this would be a bad thing or that someone other than myself (or those who've raised this RfC) attempt to explain to Tony why it would be beneficial.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 05:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• You describe the example of Scimitar as very fine. I'm sorry I cannot agree that it's anything but populist tub-thumping. it's bad enough that we used beauty contests at all, but they're probably the most efficient way of weeding out unsuitable administration candidates. I remain an administrator until I, the arbitration committee or Jimbo Wales decide to ask a steward to de-admin me. I will consider taking the step myself if ever I intend to spend an extended period away from Wikipedia, or I decide that I want to remain an editor but don't want to use the buttons any more. . --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• I enjoy being an admin. However, I have difficulty holding a position of responsibility in a community when key members of the community question not just my judgement, but also my good faith. You still haven't really answered the question, Tony- do you question my good faith as a contributor? Because you seem to be doing so. If my good faith is being questioned by somebody who bloody well ought to know that I'm acting in good faith, than I'll step down to see if the community feels the same. Again, and I'll put it in a simple, yes, or no format that even you shouldn't be able to sidestep- are you failing to assume good faith in regard to my actions?--Scimitar ^parley 14:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution, not conflict

Tony and Scimitar recognise that their discussion of the Maoririder affair became overheated, both sides acted in a defensive manner but now recognise that the best thing for Wikipedia is to set recriminations aside and permit the Arbitration Committee to do its job in the current investigation of the Maoririder case. Each one recognises that the other is a good administrator and editor and no finding in the Maoririder case will change this.

Cosigned by:

• Scimitar ^parley 16:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsed by:

[edit] Outside view by Gmaxwell

Just because a user is outraged does not, by itself, mean they are being uncivil. In the cited cases above, Tony was clearly expressing outrage at, well, outrage worthy situations. It is important that we preserve the ability for users to criticize, even with intense words, where it is warranted. If Tony has been issuing more criticism than most lately, it is because he's been digging into some of the more controversial, error prone, and ill-considered-action attracting parts of Wikipedia. It is regrettable that in some cases such criticism may be received harsher than they were intended and that feelings may have been hurt. In some cases this may have been avoided if Tony spent a minute more in consideration before hitting save. Some users have thinner skin than others, and a simple rewording can often avoid pushing buttons. However, Tony has been quite willing to apologize in such situations, and discuss things to make them right. Especially in situations involving established editors and known controversial and heated subjects, this is really the most important factor. His cooperation with other editors, even ones he disagrees with, are a testament to his reasonableness and good faith.

1. Gmaxwell 14:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC) With the exception of "has been quite willing to apologize in such situations, and discuss things to make them right". I agree that it has been generally true but in the heat of the moment I have failed to recognise that I was giving offence and to take steps to separate the outrage from the offence.

   You're too hard on yourself, Tony. You could have easily called to question the motivation of those bringing the RFC, rather than addressing their concern as presented. Your desire to do that right thing is, as cited above, an important factor. I think it's clear that you've been reminded about the need to be careful with your words, and that the RFC has served its purpose. --Gmaxwell 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Kelly Martin 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC) To accuse Tony of "personal attacks" for taking umbrage at the clearly inappropriate conduct of other editors is ridiculous. (Will I now be accused of personal attacks for calling this ridiculous?)
4. Unfocused 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. DS1953 19:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC) In my view, very few of the examples cited were "uncivil". Strongly worded, yes. Perhaps in some cases, too strongly. The comments cited were not, in large part, sarcastic or abusive. Choosing language that indicates a forceful disagreement rather than a mild difference of opinion with a position should not be prohibited. Further, Tony has apologized for coming on too strong in those cases where someone took offense. I am satisfied with his conduct as a whole.
6. Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Insofar as this makes clear that offering a critical opinion is not the same as 'personal attacks' or 'incivility' and insofar as being outraged does not, by itself, mean an editor in general, or Tony in particular, is being uncivil, I endorse this view. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
8. After examining 6 or 7 pieces of evidence, and seeing that only egregiousness was being called egregious, I realize this is without foundation. Demi ^T/_C 05:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Alphax ^τεχ 14:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
12. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. David Gerard 20:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
14. --Nicodemus75 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
15. I strongly agree with this one. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
17. Well put. Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
18. Chelseaboy 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
19. Tony can be a little gruff, and he has rubbed me the wrong way a time or two. But most of us could work on that. I think that overall Tony is pretty reasonable; this RFC is probably an over-reaction. Derex @ 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
20. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Mark

Tony Sidaway is a Top Bloke.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Mark 14:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC) fwiw
3. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Unfocused 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. --Duk 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. His editorial contributions are outstanding. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Understament --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

7. --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Known him all my life, always by my side, don't know where I'd be without him.
9. Alphax ^τεχ 14:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
11. Doc (?) 17:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) (doesn't mean he isn't sometimes wrong)
12. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Nicodemus75 23:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC). One of the best editors/admins on WP.
14. Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
15. Pcb21| Pete 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] View by Sjakkalle

I fear that I might be speculating here, and at times failing to assume good faith, but I will try to sum up some of my feelings around this battlefield.

First, I think that although this RFC puts civility or lack the thereof as the reason it was filed, I think it is really motivated just as much, if not more by annoyance of Tony Sidaway's administrerial actions, in particular some of his undeletions which have been controversial. Because of that, my view will include some of my thoughts on the matter.

Second, I disagree completely the statement by Agriculture that "Tony is probably one of the biggest threats to Wikipedia these days". He certainly has some very strong views, has done some very controversial things, but he is here in good faith.

Now, on the civility issue, the quotes cited are incivil. End of question, they would have been better left unsaid. We should also be aware of that Tony has been the subject of quite a bit of incivility himself. In particular the vandal sockpuppet IgnoreAllRules was uncalled for.

There was an incident on October 19 at the WP:ANI which I think needs some discussion, because it seems to be the run-up to this RFC. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Not_a_3RR_block, (Note that such a post might be archived at some point in the near future.) Some things to take into account here which were not mentioned in the RFC.

1. The conflict here between Radiant! and Tony Sidaway has been taking place over several weeks. It has taken place at several forums, including my talkpage until I found the need to put my foot down and declare that any further fighting there would wind up being deleted. This fact alone means that Radiant's blocking of Tony Sidaway was inappropriate.
2. Blocking is in any case not a thing you do to someone if you are trying to approach them in a friendly manner. In most cases, it will in fact just lead to increased hostility.
3. I unblocked the account based on the fact that the "edit-warring" had taken place several hours ago, blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish it.

Now on the question of admin actions. The last case was the case of the Albert M. Wolters article, which Tony undeleted based on the pretence of WP:IAR. This thing was out of process, hence I suppose Tony's reference to WP:IAR. Now, my view on this, is that this is an abuse of WP:IAR. Even though I supported the undeletion of the article, and the inclusion of the article at the deletion debate, it was out of process to undelete it so soon. When DESiegel tagged the article for speedy deletion, I made an error in removing the deletion-tag and not speedying it. I apologize for it.

WP:IAR is not supposed to be a carte blanche for doing whatever you like when the rules don't suit you. It is supposed to mean that you should not follow policy, just for the sake of following policy, that if something clearly right is not mandated by the rules, the red tape should not get in the way. In this instance a number of users, in good faith, voted "keep deleted" and wanted the article to be in a deleted state. The undeletion debate should have been allowed to go its course for five days, and then undeleted if a majority supported it.

I might mention the last time I got into a heated dispute over out-of-process deletions and undeletions was in the circus of the Historical persecution by Jews. Clearly in that case, breaking the process and ignoring all rules to do what one admin and a number of other users thought would lead to the correct result (the deletion of the article) did not do any good. In that case, Tony correctly protested vehemently against this.

Now, many of Tony's actions are controversial, but arguably reasonable. The first RFC against Tony dealt with his closing of deletion debates. I endorsed that document, because I think that his actions there were for the most part within the bounds of reason. His "binary" view of AFD closing is in fact also endorsed by myself, albeit in a somewhat milder form.

I think that Tony's critics would get further if they concentrated on the things which clearly are out of process. Things like the recreation of Systemwars.com are among those. Adding complaints about actions which are controversial, but within the bounds of reason only lend credence to Tony's case: that his critics are out to criticize each and every move he makes, and that they are so rabied that he doesn't have to take them into account anyway. I would suggest to Tony that many of the criticisms made against him are in fact reasonable and should not be dismissed simply as being made by foaming-at-the-mouth enemies. I would suggest to his crtics that they listen to what he says, and be ready to embrace some of it, because much of what Tony says is reasonable as well.

A final thing I would like to say about this RFC is that I very much doubt that it is a real attempt at coming to agreement with Tony. I think it is to gather support for a view that Tony is a rogue admin, one who ought to be deadminned. In my view, calling for mediation by the MedCom would have been more helpful than the RFC.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. IgnoreAllRules, the vandal, was identified as someone in disagreement with Tony who resorted to creation of a sockpuppet account. I endore Sjakkalle MONGO 17:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

   Thanks for the discretion, but that was me. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

3. Fadix 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. David Gerard 20:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC) IAR is a stick of dynamite. You'd best be very sure before using it!
6. Nicodemus75 23:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I endorse this because I think my those who raised this RfC should reflect on it. It's tinged heavily with Sjakkalle's personal views on various issues, which I'm sure he will appreciate I do not share, and it also unfairly represents my dismissal of counter-arguments. I expand on this elsewhere so I won't repeat it here.

[edit] Outside view by TheChief

I agree that Tony has been uncivil, and I agree that he seems to have a problem with his authority. I am hesitant to endorse this RFC as I am not wholely familiar with the process itself and I do not want to see any punative action taken against someone who appears to be a good editor, with a simply character flaw. TheChief (PowWow) 15:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. TheChief (PowWow) 15:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree. Note that RFC is (quite literally) a request for comments - not a punitive process. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to the Outside view by TheChief

I have talked with Tony on his talk page about this issue and I feel that he is not taking the issue seriously. While I continue to feel that it is not right for me to endorse the RfC here I feel others should read our conversation. Tony is unrepentant, refuses to acknowledge the problem, and continues to try and hoist the blame for his attitude and conduct onto others using indefensible arguments. If he is unwilling to use this RfC as a catharsis for change, introspection, and reevaluation of his behavior I feel we are accomplishing very little. I find it very disturbing that an administrator can act as he does. Someone in a position of power who refuses to acknowledge personal problems and deal with them gives carte blanche to regular users to follow their example and dilutes the power of other administrators by not setting a good example. The first step in an issue such as this involves the party in question admitting to the problem at hand. As Tony refuses even to do this, I am at a loss for suggestions for further constructive dialog with him on the issue. TheChief (PowWow) 16:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. TheChief (PowWow) 16:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
2. David D. (Talk) 00:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Spinboy

With Tony I can no longer assume good faith. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 15:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Agriculture 05:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. David D. (Talk) 01:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Apologies for not signing in. The guy's a rogue, who if he wasn't supported by Dave Gerard and others in the establishment, would be on the carpet. He doesn't listen to anyone on any subject, although he's smart enough to pretend to, and he's often rude. It's allowed if you're "in" though, as Mr Gerard once more proves on this page. Still, his trolling of the deletionists has warmed up many a dull day, and anyone who so enrages the likes of Aaron and Zoe can't be all bad. Keep up the good work, Tony! -- Grace Note.

[edit] Outside view by Kelly Martin

I've known Tony for many years, and my comments here will be colored by that experience. Tony tends to become very passionate about things he believes in, and especially in fighting against what he feels are injustices. In this case, Tony feels very strongly that other people are doing stupid (and, yes, I mean stupid; this is clearly how Tony feels about what's going on) things on the Wikipedia, and he's campaigning to minimize the impact of those stupid things as well as to get them to stop. His actions are entirely in good faith and are, in his view, in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Tony is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets; he is certainly not one of its greatest threats. His words were in righteous anger at those he perceives are harming the encyclopedia itself, or harming the community which writes the encyclopedia, and I cannot bring myself to fault him for them, even if they were at times somewhat over the top. Tony has a special talent for analyzing problems, finding their causes, and striking boldly at their roots to resolve them; Wikipedia would be far the worse for his absence. I would suggest that if you find yourself offended at what Tony has to say, perhaps you should think about why he's saying what's he's saying and look into yourself to see what you have been doing wrong.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Kelly Martin 15:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Unfocused 15:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC) I couldn't say it any better than this.
3. Gmaxwell 16:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Aye. Hall Monitor 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Right on the button. All these outside views save me from saying this myself.
6. I agree, but with the caveat that it works both ways - if Tony finds himself offended at what someone has to say, he should also think about why he's saying what's he's saying and look into himself to see what he has been doing wrong. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Alphax ^τεχ 14:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. This is exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the wording for. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 14:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
11. David Gerard 20:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Nicodemus75 23:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Robert McClenon 17:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Chelseaboy 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
16. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC). A perfect summary.
17. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Xoloz

I had my first conversation with Mr. Sidaway over the Wolters article, a communication which became quite extensive. I too found him unduly harsh, condescending, and resolute to the point of obtuseness. He was quite frank in admitting to be egocentric ("Of course IAR is egocentric! You need to be an egomaniac to use it, and a very accomplished one to get away with it.") [45]

Others users have suggested that Mr. Sidaway is the subject of regular attacks from a set of known opponents; whether this is true, I cannot say, but I certainly cannot be considered such. Prior to this exchange with Mr. Sidaway, I held him in high regard from afar as a dedicated, hard-working editor. I'll take him at his word, and hope the apology indicates a real intent to try to improve his communication style. As an editor, there is no doubt he contributes to Wikipedia's betterment.

Having said that, I personally believe that someone with an admitted tendency to incivility is not good administrative material. Like Scimitar, I feel Mr. Sidaway's harshness (and his pattern of what I consider IAR abuse) has gravely damaged his reputation as an administrator, and I personally have almost no confidence in his abilities in that capacity. Xoloz 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Xoloz 16:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. I agree, with the caveat that I believe Tony should continue as an admin at present; my confidence in him is damaged, not shattered, and in any case, it isn't my confidence he needs, it's that of the community.--Scimitar ^parley 18:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Tεxτurε 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. With Scimitar's caveats. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
5. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC), no caveats.
6. Agriculture 05:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. With the same caveat as Scimitar. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC), no caveats.
9. Pilatus 16:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Susvolans ⇔ 09:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
11. David D. (Talk) 01:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:FeloniousMonk

Tony is a significant and valuable contributor to the project. But I've also seen Tony lose perspective and act unilaterally, flouting community consensus when pursuing editors he perceives to be damaging the project.

For example, the results of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis show that Tony's view was in the minority and there was broad consensus that Mel's actions were in response to vandalism. Yet within a day or so Tony was at User_talk:Mel_Etitis and had lost sight of the fact that edit wars are not more harmful than personal attacks and bullying. He publicly attacked Mel as being "dishonest" and completely ignored or brushed aside calls for him to abide by the consensus of the RfC and drop the matter, and to either present evidence supporting his allegation or apologize to Mel. This while promoting the impression that his actions represented the community, something not reflected by the results of the RfC.

An administrator occasionally acting unilaterally, exaggerating, dismissing community consensus, and losing perspective is not the most pressing of issues, considering all that goes on at Wikipedia. Yet when it becomes disruptive, or causes a fellow valued editor to taper-off his contributions, as in the case with Mel, a gentle reminder is order. Hopefully Tony will thoughtfully consider all comments in this RfC in a constructive manner and put them to positive use. Tony, I'm quoting your own recent words here: Don't desperately cast around on one hand to find someone else to blame, and on the other hand try to minimize the harm that you've done; it isn't pretty. Also: Don't be melodramatic. Just take your medicine and don't do it again. [46]. I mean this as the gentlest of reproaches.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Scimitar ^parley 18:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Tony does seem to presume to speak for us all at times when really it's best just to speak for yourself. -Splash^talk 20:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Reasonable summary. If people disagree with someone, discuss, do not dig yourself in. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Doc (?) 17:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Nandesuka 00:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
7. I have found myself embarrassed that I voted for Tony as an administrator. Susvolans ⇔ 17:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
8. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Robert McClenon 17:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Unfocused

What sucks the worst about this RFC is that it is encouraging further tension, factionalism and voting rather than looking at simple laissez-faire solutions to problems. (Laissez-faire, by the way, needs more expansion regarding it's applications in social policy. Right now, it's almost exclusively an economics article.)

Incidentally, this is the exact same thing that Tony Sidaway is being criticized for fighting against over the course of the last several months. There is clearly a not-actually-organized group of well intentioned users who try to codify every aspect of Wikipedia into rigid rulesets rather than simply experiencing the joy of editing and staying the hell out of each others' way.

Courtesy is a whole lot easier to offer if you don't have a group of Wikilawyers trying to put everyone in lockstep. Fighting the calcification of Wikipedia is something every user should thank Tony for, as so many others don't have the stamina to keep up with the incessant drive of those whose preferences seem to be wiki-politics and codification of the community rules over building the encyclopedia.

(Do you get the sense that this also applies to AfD and VFU, where people don't seem to be willing to get out of each others' way for the sake of the community that's building the encyclopedia? If you do, you get my point. If there's a group of a few users of obvious good faith who think content is useful, then get the hell out of their way. You don't need to enforce your opinions on every corner of the place where there are no practical limits to the dataset. Just skim off the real garbage and vandalism and see what develops by the efforts of those working in their own areas of interest.)

As is clear above, I welcome Tony's efforts, and don't think they are misplaced. However, Tony should apologize for the discourtesies he's used along the way. I recommend an offer of a good faith, referenced edit to an article of each offended party's choice as proof of sincerity, but this is not a demand.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~:

1. Unfocused 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Kelly Martin 17:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
3. DS1953 19:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - except that I object to the term "Wikilawyers" as casting a noble profession in an unfavorable light :)
4. Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC) I would only explicitly disendorse the divisive reference to deletionism. I wouldn't expect anyone to "get out of each other's way" to the extent of not initiating or participating in deletion debates. I think we can all agree that there are many, many people being uncivil, but this RfC is about my incivility and that is what we're addressing. We're certainly not saying that people with my views don't have a right to be administrators, or to use their powers in that way that I do, subject to policy (that would be a different RfC). What we're saying in this RfC is that civility matters. We're all endorsing the civility policy.

   Note that I did not say we shouldn't initiate or participate in deletion debates. However, it appears to me that the root of the disagreements which led to the heated exchanges, and what's behind most of the new codification, is very much centered on deletion, especially regarding "enforcement" of deletion decisions. It seems that everyone in this dispute is finding it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to each other and the editing public at large, even when civil, and that's a real problem in itself. Unfocused 01:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

5. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Agree with the spirit of it, but as a firm believer in WP:IAR I think that "codify every aspect of Wikipedia into rigid rulesets" is a strong overstatement. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Robert McClenon 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
8. Alphax ^τεχ 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Rx StrangeLove 05:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC) I think the first three paragraphs in this section are the most important on the whole page. Tony is fighting a difficult battle and I respect him for that. That's not to say I don't wince once in a while when I read one of his more over the top commments. And I wish that Tony would find other ways of expressing disagreement at times but instruction creep is florishing these days, Tony is one of the dwindling few that are willing to take a high profile stance against it.
11. David Gerard 20:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Nicodemus75 23:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Agreed on most points. Un has summarized the problem of Wikilawyers to precision.--Nicodemus75 23:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
13. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
14. Chelseaboy 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zzyzx11

Looking at this RFC, it is generating much tension, factionalism and voting. But we must not lose sight of this important lesson: It is extremely crucial for Tony to follow the civility policy at all times because he is a prominent, active user who has become one of the significant faces of Wikipedia. In fact, I sincerely hope that he literally posts a note to himself of this lesson next to his computer. Because I am deeply concerned that frequent incivil outbursts from any prominent, highly active admin might damage Wikipedia's reputation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Carbonite | Talk 00:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Good summary. Short and to the point. Tony needs to set a better example, because he is a good admin and people respect his opinions.
3. Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Well said.
4. Endorse with a caveat. He has proven he cannot handle his responsibility and action needs to be taken. Agriculture 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Robert McClenon 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. David Gerard 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC) It's so annoying having to bite your tongue and say something more detailed than "Go away, you idiot" even when it's the right answer.
8. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Scimitar ^parley 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Johntex\^talk 02:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Very well said.
11. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Susvolans ⇔ 09:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Titoxd

Tony Sidaway is a good editor, we can all agree on that. However, as Zzyzx11 points out, he has become one of the public faces of Wikipedia, due to his administrator status. While adminship is not a big deal, it does come with some responsibilities, and one of the most important ones is to be a good example for other editors. Tony has given plenty of good examples, but the summary undeletion at Woodroffe Avenue's entry on Deletion review isn't one of them. It even made me momentarily lose my head and vote out of spite in that article. My point is that administrators have a de facto requirement of doing everything we as a community expect of all users. One of those expectations is to engage in discussion with other uses, and not to unilaterally perform any action that might upset the work of other uses without discussing it first. Tony, I am completely sure that you only mean the best for Wikipedia; however, if there's something I would like you to remember from all of this is that Ignore all rules does not mean Ignore all discussion. Outside of that, you're doing a good job.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Maybe I'm a bit more cynical, but I agree with the spirit of this. Ambi 08:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Davenbelle

Tony is a good editor and I feel that he does act in good faith. However, I also feel that he occasionally is uncivil — as others have documented — including a few times with me: Davenbelle up to his old tricks and This [is] the most revolting bit of gratuitous nastiness I have seen from you. Utterly beyond belief.

My primary concern with Tony's conduct on wikipedia is his befriending and protecting problem users well after it is obvious that they are a problem. I refer specifically to the arbitrations in which I've been involved with User:Trey Stone and User:Cool Cat.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek stricken by  Davenbelle 03:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Davenbelle 03:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Karl Meier 09:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. FeloniousMonk 09:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. JAranda | watz sup 23:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Davenbelle, this is so far over the top that you could in fact build an entirely new top and it would be a long way over the top of that. In the two controversial incidents in which you've been involved, one where you were caught edit warring and the other wikistalking, Tony's refused to take your side; here you are now, on an RFC concerning Tony, complaining about his "befriending and protecting problem users" during those two incidents. That's worse than pathetic (and I'll see you next week at my RFC for describing a GF comment as "pathetic" ;-)). It seems to me that the issue is not that Tony has "befriended" problem users, it's that he befriended the wrong problem users. It's time for you to grow up and let Trey Stone and Cool_Cat slide out of your life. It's a big wiki. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Davenbelle, this is profoundly against the spirit of the decision concerning you on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. You appear here to be letting your obsession with Coolcat get the better of you. It's a big wiki — there are lots of bits that don't involve Coolcat or anyone with anything to do with them. You really should acquaint yourself with them - David Gerard 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Cool_Cat

This RfC is outragious and in no way (I can see) does it benefit wikipedia. I protest the very existance of this RfC at the highest degree it fits civility. --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

1. --Cool Cat ^Talk 04:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Nicodemus75 23:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who don't quite agree:

1. I wouldn't go that far. I think it's ridiculous, but Radiant! doesn't see why it is and got quite upset that I said so (and, I think, that others agreed with me). He honestly thought this was a useful thing to do and I think is surprised it's not really turning out to be much of one. OTOH, it opens discussion - David Gerard 20:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
   • I am neither upset, nor do I hold the view that it is ridiculous to discuss a controversial issue such as this one. Come to think of it, if you consider this page useless, why are you here? :) Radiant_>|< 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Can't quite agree with you there, pussycat. Radiant has uncovered a few users with a serious beef with Tony (admittedly, one or two with problems so frivolous you have to wonder why they bothered), and Tony seems willing to hear their complaints and take them into account in his future behaviour. A lot of this RfC seems farcical, but we should not ignore the positives in our rush to condemn the negatives. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ambi

This is a particularly difficult case, and I've ended up endorsing a range of views here. I have little doubt that Tony means well and is acting in good faith here, and to that end I think Kelly Martin summed it up quite nicely. I also agree that his presence here - though this has lessened markedly lately - has been quite helpful to Wikipedia. At the same time, I'm sick and tired of the righteous incivility, and the unnecessarily controversial actions with little regard for consensus or playing nicely with others. This would be easily enough solved if Tony tried to treat others with respect (which I notice that he has pledged to do in the future) and talked controversial proposals over instead of doing them unilaterally. It might also be helped by Tony - and other parties involved in these frequent battles - calming down a bit and dropping the constant fixation on deletion issues at the expense of all else. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and frankly, if all you're doing is fighting inclusion-deletion battles, you're really not helping us much. I've become fairly cynical about all of this changing, but who knows, I might be surprised. Ambi 09:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ambi 10:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Radiant_>|< 10:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Robert McClenon 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Carbonite | Talk 14:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Kelly Martin 15:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC) I agree that Tony could stand to be more diplomatic and take less unilateral action. The people he's yelling at, though, unquestioningly deserve it. And I too am quite sick of the stupid deletion policy wars, which would be aided immensely if all sides would stop pretending that they have a consensus to do anything. At least Tony hasn't pretended that his actions have consensus support; he just says that they're the correct thing to do.
6. Alphax ^τεχ 16:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
7. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
8. FeloniousMonk 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
9. Scimitar ^parley 14:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
10. Agriculture 14:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
11. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
12. Susvolans ⇔ 09:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
13. Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) A little bit out of date and wide of the mark, and the suggestion that I'm less useful now we've got an efficient page protection process running is simply wrong. Some good sentiments, though.
14. David D. (Talk) 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
15. Aquillion 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
16. —Morven 11:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC). And agreed with Kelly Martin, as well, about the deletion policy wars.

[edit] Outside view by Patsw

You can see from the above comments a pattern of arrogance, hostitility, and a double standard. The first contentious article I edited on the Wikipedia was Terri Schiavo.

1. Rather than engaging in a discussion on the talk page between Professor Ninja and myself, he deleted the discussion with a mocking comment [47]

Defining 'bloat' - This is the definition of bloat. When someone just deletes your section and nobody misses it.

2. Rather than support his own point of view on the debated matters in the Terri Schiavo article, he solicited others to do so on wikien-l, which I didn't know at the time existed -- so while it doesn't quality as stealth, it was an attempt to strong-arm a newbie.

This interaction was instructive to me as to why many wikipedia contributors choose to remain anonymous and how Wiki-intimidation works.

I know what the consensus of the cabal is that all this arrogance, hostility, and double standards are necessary to enable the Tony Sidaway's of the Wikipedia to deal with the patsw's of the Wikipedia. The problem with double standards like they deserved it, of course, applies only when you are not part of the "they" on the receiving end. So does the Wikipedia work on policies and guidelines or smart people who condsider themselves above the policies and guidelines that only apply to the little people? When they deserve it, does anything go?

I'm just thankful that every so often there arises an opportunity to hold this behavior up to wider scrutiny. I'm not Tony's victim. Perhaps the cabal considers this rough treatment described above as a rite of passage for a newbie which I was in April 2005. patsw 16:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. patsw 16:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

While not specifically supporting this view or the RfC in particular (as I've no knowledge of it beyond patsw kindly bringing it to my attention on my talk page) can confirm that what I take away from this incident now is what patsw feels as well. At the time the Terri Schiavo article could have best been described as a cess pit -- it was rife with POV from both sides of the Schiavo coin and (in this Tony Sidaway was right) bloat. A particularly nasty user, whom I am still on the fence as to whether or not he was merely or a troll/vandal or an actual bad faith editor by the name of NCDave was being extremely destructive in the article. At the time I brushed off many people's actions, including this particular action of Tony Sidaway's, as a typically human backlash against NCDave and the (false) association between him and anybody who supported his views. In this case patsw freely admitted his bias towards sustaining the life of Terri Schiavo. While this raised the ire of many editors, I can't help but feel the nature of this article was such that biases towards one side or the other naturally grew stronger with the introduction of vandalism and false facts (which was coming, again, from both sides -- those in favour of Schiavo's life would delete the entire article and put comments condemning the article or wikipedia editors of being murderers, while those in favour of Schiavo's death would insert similar comments equating Schiavo with the typical "retarded" stereotype). In fact, patsw ended up as one of the few editors on the article who was freely willing to contribute to the article and work around his own biases to collaborate with the other editors on it. Now, it is important to note that when Patsw first arrived his contributions were less than satisfactory as they merely espoused his POV, but as people legitimately answered his questions, he learned what could and could not legitimately go in an entry of encyclopaedic character.

In short -- tempers were flaring, and I brushed off the actions of Sidaway as a manifestation of that temper -- and I freely admit some satisfaction at the time that one who seemed to support the actions of NCDave was getting their "just desserts" -- while in retrospect Sidaway's actions did not legitimately contribute to a wikinewbie's development into a competent and useful editor. Professor Ninja 07:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• Both of you deserve a sincere apology. I acted in the heat of the moment, in an attempt to reduce clutter in a very big talk page. It seems that I killed an interesting meta-discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by MONGO

If you hang around articles that are politically charged, WP:AFD, WP:VFU and similar Wiki namespace areas as much as Tony does, you're bound to end up getting in a disagreement or have another editor end up argueing with you at some point in time or another. I won't contest that Tony may have come across to some as arrogant, condescending or authoritarian, and may have not followed all the proper procedures all the time, but I will contest that he did so maliciously and or with callous disregard for his fellow editors. I first encountered Tony in never ending arguments (mostly my bad) over in the George W Bush talk pages...and in the face of my rather blunt and sometimes hostile demeanor then, Tony was the voice of calm. At times, I am suprised he didn't file an RFC against me, but realize now that he didn't because he isn't petty, and he is able to admit that he may not always be right, just as he has done in statements made here. The difference between the working relationship Tony and I have compared to those that have endorsed this RFC and Tony, was a result of us both listening to each other and relying on talk pages and a belief that a good dose of civility can make a big difference. That's my prescription in this matter as well. MONGO 16:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. MONGO 16:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 20:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Gritting your teeth and dealing civilly and pleasantly with people you think are being idiots is pretty much a requirement of working on Wikipedia. An occasional explosion, though regrettable, is to be expected; then the thing to do is apologise and try to clean up afterwards.
4. Karmafist 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Point well taken. MONGO learned from my example and has come back to remind me of it.
6. --JAranda | watz sup 03:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Lifeisunfair

Tony does get carried away at times, and it would be advisable for him to tone down some of his remarks. Having said that, I don't believe that his strongly worded comments (most of which — including the examples cited above — are justified) have escalated to a level of incivility warranting this RfC.

As noted by others, Tony participates in many controversial goings-on. His handling thereof is nothing short of commendable, as he consistently applies the same set of standards to every situation (irrespective of what/who is involved). In some cases, Tony is one of relatively few users to challenge the common sense-defying bureaucracy that plagues our community (and damages the integrity of the encyclopedia). As such, it isn't surprising that he steps on a few toes along the way. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Tony (which I sometimes do), it's abundantly clear that his actions (including the controversial ones) are made in good faith.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Lifeisunfair 19:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Although, I'd suggest what while an RFC wasn't needed, Tony's still taken away some good advice Gmaxwell 05:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 20:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. Unfocused 14:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Re: Gmaxwell's comment: An RFC should not necessarily be looked at as a request for any kind of sanction or punishment. They're always needed when at least two editors certify them because that's the minimum standard we've set for setting up a public comment forum. However, they should be more focused on solving troubles and reducing tensions rather than demanding sanctions.
7. Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Well said! I agree with Unfocused too.
8. Chelseaboy 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by +MATIA

Tony Sidaway is a very good admin, a WP:COOL guy but he is only a human like the rest of the good contributors here (apart from the bots).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. +MATIA ☎ 23:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Lifeisunfair 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC) Tony is a terrific admin.
3. REX 11:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 20:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Nicodemus75 23:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
6. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC) Yep, I'm human.
8. Alhutch 18:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC) I have only had good interactions with Tony Sidaway

[edit] Outside view by Mel Etitis

There's no denying that Tony Sidaway has a tendency to explode with indignation and become offensive, generally followed by an iron-clad stubborn refusal to back down, however obviously he's overstepped the mark or simply got things wrong. I've experienced it myself, a some have pointed out here. Perfectly true, of course, that that's human (did anyone suggest otherwise, though), and certainly not the biggest threat to Wikipedia; no more than a very, very minor threat if that. What worries me about this RfC is rather the reaction of others. In the face of the evidence, and even though he himself has accepted that he has been uncivil, and has apologised (generally rather than individually, but still, many of his supporters have blindly denied that he's been anything but courteous under fire. Instead of comments like: "yes, he's made mistakes, but this RfC is an overreaction", or the like, we see: "leave the poor mite alone, he's a little angel". It's that lack of judgement on the part of editors, including admins and ArbCom members, that worries me, and to my mind constitutes a much greater threat to Wikipedia than T.S.'s outbursts.

In my own case, I see that some of those same people are occasionally still referring to my "biting newbies", etc., despite the fact that there was no evidence for this, and a pile of evidence to show that I'd done no such thing, but had explained Wikipedia policies and guidelines at length and repeatedly, and tried to sort matters out civilly and sensibly. So the lack of judgement in T.S.'s case isn't completely blind, but adjusts to cases (and, more significantly, to people); T.S. pleads guilty and is defended as having done no wrong, while I provide evidence of my innocence and am attacked as having offended grievously.

These are just two cases; there are many more examples. I don't know what the root is – shared politics, or financial inetrests, or personal friendship, or something I've not thought of – but what's especially worrying is that there's so little attempt to hide the behaviour. But why should there be? What can anyone do to stop it?

• I have written a response to this on the talk page. I ask Mel Etitis to finally accept that his actions damaged the wiki and alienated new editors. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Karl Meier 14:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
3. FeloniousMonk 15:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC) I see above that Tony still refuses to accept much responsibility for all of his own actions that damage the wiki. As far as alienating new editors... how is alienating established, trusted editors more acceptable? It's been shown that the sort of new editors Mel faced are the disruptive, abusive sort.
4. Mandel 10:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC). I keep as far as humanly possible from these disputes. But Tony's belligerent attitude (I've faced him personally) makes him a less than desirable admin.
5. Ambi 00:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
6. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
7. Robert McClenon 17:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Marskell

In an early comment above Tony calls this a "pot-luck" RfC. I tend to agree. Let's all get this on the brain same dispute with a single user. Who is the offended party? What, precisely, is the dispute? I'm not saying that people haven't raised legitimate complaints about his behaviour, but what exactly is the focus of this? This is in some ways a meta-wiki comment, but I often stumble across these RfCs and wonder what the f--- is the point beyond allowing bitterness to accrue in a single spot. Cite a specific dispute before starting up these random shooting matches. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Marskell 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC) This kind of thing is useful to an established editor like me, but it could be pretty intimidating to some of the people who are first party to an RfC. I understand that the c in Rfc means comments, but sometimes it may seem that it stands for cruelty. I'd like to see personal Rfcs become routine where one party refuses to communicate with several others on a single matter of content or policy in dispute, or where the communication seems to be stalled. That's what they're meant for. I'd like to dispel the idea that Rfcs are a bad thing, or something you threaten people with. Wikipedia isn't or shouldn't be that kind of place.
3. --GordonWatts 04:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC) I stumbled across this RfC, and, while I try to edit less now-days, when I saw Marskell's post, I decided to look: I know Marskell from the Terri Schiavo editor, and, while he seems like a country bumpkin army person oversees, I trust his analysis. He seems to have made a good point. That said, I don't know Tony too well, but I do know him enough to estimate that he probably could not have gone too far off base, and wonder what specific complaint is being addressed in this RfC. Recently, he unblocked the Schiavo article after two other editors edit-warred with me over inclusion of some history. Here, he politely asked another editor to not pressure Anons into registering. All this is normal to me, so far. The only really questionable thing Tony has ever done (as far as I know here) was to put one user on his watchlist, because Tony, and other editors had some trouble with this other editor, and Tony -like anyone else -has a right to put a page on a watchlist. In conclusion, I see a lot of smoke, but no fire. That said, I do suspect that Tony lost his temper as many allege, but I HIGHLY suspect that is was not done unless someone provoked him, and I see this as no more than a human mistake. Therefore, I conclude that I highly support Marskell's point here.--GordonWatts 04:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Friday

This may well be condemned as fishing for additional conflict, or a pointless restatement of already-expressed ideas, but please accept my assurances that it's not intended as such. There's ample evidence (and his own admission) that Tony has problems with civility. Combine that with his attraction to controversy, and you've got a volatile situation. I think the ability to stay cool is essential for an administrator, and to me this means Tony should give up his adminship. I'm not saying he's a bad editor or that the project is better off without him, I'm simply saying he should not be an administrator right now.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Friday (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Tεxτurε 20:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
3. TheChief (PowWow) 22:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Agriculture 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
5. Pilatus 13:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Having seen Tony's answer to AAron I end up endorsing this.

Why is this ok but my much more gentle proposal removed? "Rubbish", "Ought to be ashamed", etc?
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference is that here, Friday is suggesting "Tony should give up his adminship" and what you proposed was more of a faceoff, showdown or a duel. Yours was a direct challenge to engage in an approval contest. A request for one to give up adminship is a lot different than a challenge to a fight of sorts, seeking approval to keep adminship. Unfocused 02:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how your "duel" analogy is appropiate. It's not as if I suggested that there could be only one admin when the dust settled. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't know that not every duel in history has resulted in a fatality? Unfocused 02:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought your idea was good. Tony of course brushed it away because he's biased against you. Agriculture 02:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Karmafist

My only guess at to why this RfC is happening must be something to do with Luigi30's Law. The longer you are in the thick of things, like Tony has been, the more likely you are to become desensitized and myopic to issues that you've heard time and time again. However, unlike many other users paralyzed by the effects of "long in the tooth hubris", Tony can step back from an issue and find a way to work constructively if he feels he went too far, as I learned at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Maoririder/Evidence once he realized I was acting under WP:AGF. Since then, he's been a valued asset to my growth within Wikipedia, and even though I disagree with his opinion on WP:IAR, we'd be losing a great part of our community if he left and I ask everybody here to try and help him out if it seems like any potential heated arguments happen again, as I hope we can all do for each other. Karmafist 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I rescind my comment here. karmafist 22:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Karmafist 18:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC) For luigi30's law. Good insight.
3. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC). Sounds about right.

[edit] View by brenneman

I look at the Albert M. Wolters discussion on this RfC's talk page and I clearly see people trying to work together for the betterment of Wikipedia. Trying to make a collective decision as per Wikipedia:Consensus. At the point where Tony joined into this discussion, qualified statements about "not repeating AfD" are in fact tendered, but good sense was also being displayed and the discussion was happily moving in the direction that Tony prefered. Tony, for reasons that are still unclear to me, choose to abandon this, and engage in a little bit of revert warring and raise no small amount of bad blood.

When I look over Tony's contributions, especially those areas where Tony has received praise, I see page protection and adding of editorial content. Neither one nor the other of these requires Tony to interact heavily with other users, I am quick to note. Also, several people have praised Tony for his gentle treatment of people new to Wikipedia. Again, this does not require Tony to engage in debate, nor to accept any feedback on his behaviour.

The areas where Tony seems to have difficulty are in working as equals with people whose views happen to differ from his own. I understand that it is frustrating for Tony when people don't see things the way that Tony does, and can be maddening when attempts to sway them are unsuccessful. I also understand that it is often easier to kill the messenger than accept an unpalatable message.

I understand that deletion is a particular bone of contention with Tony, and I'm sorry to bring it up again. It serves, however, as an excellent example of the sort of problems that have led to this RfC. Tony initially took some part in the discussion of changes from "Vote for Undeletion" to "Deletion Review". When Tony dropped out of that discussion, I urged him to remain involved, but Tony declined. When that discussion was completed and long after the changes were made, Tony engaged in an edit war over what Tony found unacceptable. Discussion has now moved on, and I credit Tony for the part he is taking in it.

When I examine his previous RfC I see strong support for his autonomy as an admin, but also quite a lot of discussions around how things could have been handled differently. The talk, in particular, has paragraph after paragraph of thoughtful commentary regarding how his conduct could be improved, as well as much strong support for Tony personally and for his actions as an admin. Despite some incivility scattered around, it was a nuanced, positive outcome. Tony appears, however, either unable or unwilling to see the complexities, and prefers to think of it as a victory.

As I watch this RfC unfold, something similar appears to be happening. Like an oyster turning painful grit into a pearl, every criticism, whether carefully worded or woefully intemperate, only adds another layer to his victory.

A word that I see used with frightening regularity by Tony is "false". Tony defends his paradigm with great vigour, and denounces as falsehood things that challenge it. I believe that his binary view of AfD outcomes is, in fact, simply a representation of his binary view on life. Any RfC that doesn't utterly destroy him is a victory, any outlook that does not parallel his own is falsehood. his reductionist factionionalisation of contributors as "deletionists" is simply another facet of this same behaviour.

I understand that life-long habits are very hard to change. I also understand that, at some level, this must be very painful for Tony. It's no fun for anyone else, either. I also see that many of those who defend Tony so strongly often are forced to resort to the same anti-intellectual, divisive, binary language.

I've attempted on several occasion to reconcile my differences with Tony, and will do so again. I'd ask that Tony take the very difficult step of understanding that there are no "sides" here, that both the world and Wikipedia are full of shades of grey. I'd ask that Tony attempt to stop viewing things as "blatant falsehoods" or "ridiculous calumny". I'd ask that Tony set aside his love of a well turned phrase and engage those with whom he disagrees.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Agriculture 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
3. David D. (Talk) 01:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Robert McClenon 17:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dissenting view by Tony Sidaway

• I realise that Aaron meant his original address sincerely. I'm not going to hold the many misrepresentations above against me. I'll just reply with two sentences, which follow:
• So editing, successfully negotiating amicable outcomes in controversial areas, gaining adminship, protection and (particularly) unprotection of controversial pages, investigation or arbitration cases, successful interaction with editors at all levels, mentorship, informal mediation, advocacy, and all the many other things I've done don't require any interpersonal skills. Pull the other one. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That was really inappropriate. Agriculture 16:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What does pull the other one mean, anyway? Seriously, I don't understand. Xoloz 08:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • From "pull the other one, it's got bells on". It's a colourful saying from the land that invented "yerwhatyerwhatyerwhat" and "get 'im, 'e's Irish!". Tony is implying that Xoloz is (or may as well be) applying excessive pressure to the pedal extremities, i.e., giving a version that differs radically from what Tony sees as the truth. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "Applying excessive oscillatory forces to the pedal extremities" would be more likely to achieve the desired effect. But surely it's a derivative of "you're pulling my leg?!" anyway. -Splash^talk 17:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion by Agriculture

As Tony has refused to appropriately deal with this RfC and indeed has said he will no longer read it, I move we bring this to the next level and file an ArbCom request. Agriculture 01:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Agriculture 01:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
2. Pilatus 15:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary, but were unable to resist correcting the spelling of "endores" (sign with ~~~~):

1. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC) I mean, c'mon! You honestly believe the ArbCom will accept this case? Maybe if you tempted him into a revert war, or got him on tape mocking Jimbo's beard ...
2. Chelseaboy 14:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
3. Even setting aside the question of whether this is appropriate for the arbcom (and it isn't), looking at the page above, I think it should be pretty clear where arbcom members stand on Tony Sidaway. Half of the arbcom would need to recuse itself just to hear the case.--Scimitar ^parley 16:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
4. Arbcom members aside, I think it's pretty obvious that consensus is WITH Tony rather then against him. I don't think there is any reason to move forward with anything and would suggest that if Tony is done dealing with this RFC we close it out as he's promised to be more WP:CIVIL.Gateman1997 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Daycd

The following interaction was one of my first interactions with Tony Talk:List_of_biomedical_terms. I spent a lot of time splitting this list from a giagantic A-Z info dump into smaller pages one for each letter in the alphabet. In the process of doing this I realised that this list was not encyclopedic and in fact a detriment to wikipedia since it would direct editors to produce redundent or non-relevent pages. Tony was not willing to accept the rationale for this deletion. Not only did he not listen to the arguments he put down those of us that instigated it. His quotes at the time: "Don't try to delete it ever again" "if the mind-numbing stupidity of the deletion isn't evident to everyone then there's no point" He also reminded us that one can "Fuck the rules" as he demonstrated. As a newbie at the time, I was close to packing up and leaving since this non collaborative and, frankly, hostile environment is not pleasant and NOT productive.

I then ran into him on several school deletion threads where he was acting in a similar manner. I have NEVER seen Tony compromise, except when the consensus is so much against him he has no option. Since i do not follow his every step in wikipedia, I could be very wrong on this issue, but from what i have seen he is more destructive to the process of building an encyclopedia than constructive. I mean this in the sense that he often frustrates valuable editors who are acting in good faith. I am sure Tony does a lot of positive for the encyclopedia and I would encourage him to keep those things up but I wonder how many other editors have left due to his dogmatic postion on most issues?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. David D. (Talk) 17:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I will restate the repeatedly stated and note that this is a difficult case. I have endorsed several outside views that try to address this issue in a nuanced way. I do have a few comments that I have not seen made.

The first is that I would suggest that Wikipedia: Ignore all rules should be deprecated, or viewed as a controversial guideline, like Delete Personal Attacks. (I would delete it, but I think I am in the minority there.) It can encourage strong-willed editors, such as Tony is, to be harsh and abrasive, as he is. There are certain Wikipedia rules that should never be ignored. They include civility, NPOV, and respect for consensus. There is room for disagreement on whether Tony has been "uncivil" and thus in violation of policy or simply harsh and abrasive. However, IAR should never be seen as allowing breaches of civility. There is room for disagreement on whether Tony has disregarded consensus. That allegation has been made. I would disagree, but would also say that the fact that it has been made repeatedly does mean that Tony should at least address such concerns. IAR should never be seen as encouraging disregard of consensus.

My second comment is that many, probably most, of the issues about Tony have involved deletion. Deletion questions are inherently controversial, and always will be. The problem is not simply that the deletion process is flawed or broken, although it does appear to be. The real problem is that there will never be any consensus on deletion. Any deletion question involves conflicts in philosophical concepts of what Wikipedia is and should be. Since there will never be consensus, civility is even more important than elsewhere in Wikipedia. In most of the deletion disputes that have been cited that I have studied, it appears that Tony was both right and abrasive, and that being right did not warrant being abrasive. Admins who handle deletion have a special duty not just to try to be civil, but to be seen as being civil, and to avoid being abrasive.

In deletion questions, Tony may be the right admin in the wrong place. He can either change his style, or apply his considerable ability in other areas, such as page protection, that are not inherently controversial. It might be easier for him to change his area of emphasis than his style.

Tony has apologized, and has said that he will try to change his conduct so that it does not appear to be uncivil. I would also suggest that he consider avoiding the inherently controversial area of deletion, at least for a while. I think that would be a good resolution.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Robert McClenon 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Tεxτurε 18:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Encyclopedist

Wow, this RfC is getting too big. I like Tony Sidaway, and I think he is doing what is best for Wikipedia, even if others don't like it. While some things on his part may be incivil, in think two RfCs and an overkill debate is getting tiring.

1. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.