Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please edit this RfC correctly. The Response section should be left for Tony Sidaway. Robert McClenon 13:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] My bad

I confused the sections. Agriculture 14:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

moved from rfc

While Tony's apology is a good step in the right direction, it is too little too late. He has never settled nor apologized to me for the various points of friction we have had in the past. In addition this, his first admission of being wrong in the history of Wikipedia, strikes me as an attempt to dodge punishment. He's only willing to admit he's making mistakes when people draw him up on charges... with the sheer multitude of times he breaches community standards I shudder to think how often we would have to RFC him just to keep him playing fair. Agriculture 14:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be treating this RFC as an opportunity for free kicks - David Gerard 14:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm cool with this. Venting is better done in an RfC than on the rest of the wiki. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresented evidence/Altering evidence

It seems that it has become a common behavior to use the evidence section as a free zone for open editorializing and misrepresentation. Sure, everyone is supposed to read the links, but many do not... If we though everyone would read them there would would be no reason to excerpt text at all. In several of the cited examples on this case the situation was obviously misrepresented, or Tony incompletely quoted to further the argument. I will begin bringing RFCs up in the future for users who continue to editorialize their evidence on RFCs or Arbcom. If you can not present your evidence neutrally, then just provide uncommented difflinks. --Gmaxwell 14:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I usually read enough of the evidence to find out whether it supports the allegations. If I find that evidence has been ingeniously mislabeled (as appears to be the case here), though, I stop reading it and assume that the complaintant is full of shit in the first place. People who abuse good faith by misrepresentating what their evidence proves lose their assumption of good faith (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus). (This is my practice on RFCs. Obviously, in a request for arbitration I read all of the evidence; parties who misrepresent the import of their evidence will likely find that the ruling they get will be unfavorable to them.) Kelly Martin 17:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, [1] please don't substitute my uncommented difflinks from the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" subsection for a plain link to my Talk page: 1) Diffs are called for, as I'm soon archiving my Talk and a plain will then be broken. 2) My comments were left at Tony's Talk page, not mine; Tony cut and pasted them to mine. Linking to my page creates the impression that the conversation took place there, which it did not. Thanks, I'd appreciate it. FeloniousMonk 17:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It took an effort on my part not to accuse you of bad intent in only linking half the conversation, I'm disappointed that it wasn't indeed a mistake. Like most talk page dialogs, the conversation occured in both places, but only one place showed the entire conversation. I'm sorry that Tony's reasoned replied weakens your case, but showing the entire conversation is the only fair thing to do. I'm going to restore the correct link. If you archive, I'll just move the link to there, or you could be helpful and do it yourself. --Gmaxwell 17:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Gmaxwell, it is bad form indeed to alter others evidence, even when you don't like it. It's better form by far to offer counter-evidence of your own. -Splashtalk 18:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The case above wasn't attributed to anyone. The heading says Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute Attempts by User:FeloniousMonk, it doesn't not say evidence presented by FeloniousMonk. There would be no need for me to counter as I didn't see a need to change the material, just the location linked. Of the two pages FeloniousMonk could have linked, he selected the one where you could only see half the conversation, then below in his view he claimed that Tony "completely ignored" his request. By fixing the link to the page which showed the full discussion I was showing good faith that FeloniousMonk did not intentionally make his links misleading. The reply here causes me to believe that I may have been mistaken in that assumption. --Gmaxwell 18:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So you decry others for "editorializing" when describing their evidence, then alter other's evidence when they fail to adequately describe their evidence and use that as a justification to alter it against their wishes? Amazing. No, you are merely trying to mitigate the effect of that evidence, and that's called evidence tampering; blatant, bald-faced evidence tampering.
And to that end I see you reverted my repair of your evidence tampering to my evidence. This is a warning: If you continue to tamper with the evidence of others will fast find yourself the subject of an RfC, not just conducting evidence tampering at one. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk: I do not consider this evidence tampering. Your words were not in any way altered. He was attempting to provide a more accurate link, to the conversation in its entirety rather than the single posts of yours, which is more helpful to someone outside the dispute attempting to figure out what happened. I don't believe it matters which one of your talk pages it was on—note that it was pasted for continuity if you'd like—but I do believe context is useful here, and is better evidence of attempts to resolve the dispute when both sides are present. If you are planning to archive your talk page, then please post a link to a diff showing an old version, but seeing half the conversation does not provide a good basis for examining the issue. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate this attempt by one party to this RfC to misrepresent me so grossly. This RfC is becoming a disgrace. Thank you for correcting the misrepresenation, Gmaxwell. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The evidence speaks for itself. FeloniousMonk 19:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Only if it is presented. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I notice that much of the evidence added in recent hours is so grossly skewed and editorialized in such an obvious manner that it really doesn't required any refutation or correction. While some excellent points are made and will not be ignored, dishonest presentation does not help Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Davenbelle

Davenbelle writes: 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.

This statement is a little bit naughty. Davenbelle omits to say that he himself is also a user whose behavior was identified as problematic in both cases.

I did not befriend Trey Stone, I mentored him in an attempt to improve his behavior; I had some success, through a combination of blocking and good advice. Moreover in the arbitration case Davenbelle himself, an egregious edit warrior, was banned for one year from editing politics articles, because of his warring with Trey Stone (who was subject to a similar ban).

I also mentored Cool Cat, noticing as I did so that he was being harassed by Davenbelle and some others. In the subsequent arbitration case, Davenbelle and another were found to have engaged in "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions. The committee counseled them "to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat. If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." The committee appointed me and two others as official mentors to Cool Cat. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, being that harsh was uncalled for, and you know, it wasn't as black and white as you decided to picture it here. Fadix 03:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Naughty? I think not; I gave links to the cases and did not go into any detail about any of the parties. And "egregious" is your word, not ArbCom's; the "edit warring" I was called on was all in opposition to User:Trey Stone — who edit warred all over the wiki pushing his POV on political articles. Your cat seems to have run off in a huff again — apparently nothing to do with me. — Davenbelle 04:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You openly admit to being an edit warrior, but it's supposed to be all okay because the guy you edit warred against was Trey Stone. You were here dishonest about what happened, expressing qualms about my "befriending" problem editors, while omitting the fact that your own actions were identified in two arbitration cases as part of the problem.

As for egregious, well looking at one article alone, Corporate media, I can find hardly any edits by you that were not reverts. You made over a score of reverts on that article, most of them explicitly labeled as such by you. You're an egregious edit warrior.

I agree with Fadix that it wasn't black and white; I simply point out that, in addition to the "problem users" he identifies, Davenbelle's behavior was also problematic. The Arbitration Committee has addressed that adequately.

I remind Davenbelle that he has been counseled by the Committee "to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat". There is no need for him to track Cool Cat's actions and report them to me or to the Wiki at large. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Ryan Norton

I strikes me that if one wants to make a good impression on someone this is a good case history of what not to do:

  1. Call him a troll
  2. Insult his intelligence
  3. Get your friends to come on IRC and tell him what a fine chap you are

Ryan, my opposition to your mediation candidacy has nothing to do with our personal differences, but in your approach to resolving problems. Kelly felt the same concerns and she's an experienced mediator. May I suggest that, if you are experiencing "frustration" or "burnout", joining MedCom may not be the best of ideas at this time? A "slip" like that in the middle of a mediation will kill the mediation and has major potential to make the situation at hand worse than it was to begin with. So, yes, I am still concerned.

When I discovered that you had applied for a position as a mediator, I was horrified. You are not ready yet. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I never insulted your intelligence, I just spoke my mind - although I suppose one can gather quite a few things as an insult of one's intelligence. Also, I certainly never organized the IRC thing. It is clear you are taking this more personally then I realized. I assure that I do not take hours out of my day just to boost my ego :) - it really is because I care. You can choose to think otherwise - but it is to your own detriment, my good friend. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You talked down to me, and I think that's a bad habit that a potential mediator should work on removing. You need to work on a few other things. I'm sorry if this seems a little harsh, but you are not (yet) mediator material. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to FeloniousMonk

This is a straightforward one. FeloniousMonk's one-sided evidence has been dealth with elsewhere.

In his outside view, FeloniousMonk says "I've...seen Tony lose perspective and act unilaterally, flouting community consensus when pursuing editors he perceives to be damaging the project."

He refers to my interaction with Mel Etitis, who as a matter of undisputed fact has engaged in egregious edit wars over a period of several months in order to make a number of music articles conform to the Manual of style. Ironically, that document declares that it's a guideline, not official policy, and has contained the following introductory words for a long, long time:

The following rules don't claim to be the last word. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does it the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, not to mention easier to write and edit. In this regard the following quote from The Chicago Manual of Style deserves notice:
Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.
Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required.

In my outside view to Mel Etitis' case I quoted directly from both official policy and a recent arbitration case Yuber, which both spell out that edit warring is considered to be deleterious: "Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors", and "Jayjg (talk · contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts."

There were some other serious problems with Mel Etitis' behavior. He was less than honest in his requests for help on WP:AN or its subpages, accusing other editors of mass-reverting while omitting the fact that, only minutes before, he'd been engaged in precisely the same activity. A classic sterile edit war, with neither side budging an inch. And this was an administrator!

FeloniousMonk suggests that in continuing to hold and express a very negative opinion of Mel Etitis, I am ignoring the consensus view--that I should shut up. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia. Mel Etitis did unquestionably pursue many sterile edit wars, and did unquestionably damage Wikipedia and alienate newcomers in doing so. Those being the facts, it makes absolutely no difference that a number of editors ganged together and expressed approval of Mel Etitis' actions. Those actions were objectively wrong and the support he received from his peers can only be a matter of deep shame for our community in general but for administrators in particular. Popularity contests are of little use in determining whether a policy was broken and damage done to the wiki in this case. Evidence and logical inference, and (as here) a well constructed case, will always make very short work of such fripperies. Consensus must always be subject to commonsense. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Mel Etitis

Mel Etitis writes 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.

The evidence shows that Mel Etitis edit warred against newcomers to Wikipedia. Ignoring the advice in the manual of style itself that "Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules", he edit warred at the same time he claimed to be educating them. As just one small example, see the history of the M.I.U. Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article.

Mel Etitis was also dishonest when he called for help, saying:

  • BGC (talk · contribs) is mass reverting my attempts to tidy albums-articles, calling the removal of excessive Wikilinking (multiple links to the same year in successive lines, linking to seasons and months) and the conversion of hyphens to dashes "vandalous". Again, I started by trying to explain the MoS, etc., but he's just become more and more belligerent.

What he omitted to say was that only minutes earlier he had been edit warring with this same editor. At that time, Mel Etitis had been in the "mass revert" game for months. Newbies, sometimes already rather belligerent as newbies often are, were further provoked by his edit warring.


Mel Etitis claims that he helped newbies, but instead he simply promoted his viewpoint: " Please stop reverting against the MoS. Why do you think that Fall is relevant to the article, for example? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) [2]" He could simply have politely asked the editor if the word "fall" needed to be wikilinked in the article. Of he could have left the piddling little thing alone. Looking at the two versions of the article side by side, I am very puzzled as to why Mel Etitis thought it worth alienating a new editor over. We should be encouraging new editors to contribute what they can, not getting down into the mud and scrapping with them over every dot and comma.

This is what Mel Etitis was edit warring with a newbie over:

Don't ask me which version is which, they look almost identical to me, and both look just fine. Why was an experienced editor warring with a newbie over such trivial nonsense?

Wikipedia policy on this kind of behavior is summarised in my outside view on his RfC. Note that, contrary to the false impression Mel Etitis attempts to give, my use of language in the RfC is temperate and composed.

To this day, Mel Etitis refuses to acknowledge that his actions as an administrator or as an experienced editor were at all unacceptable. The arbitration committee takes a different view, repeatedly ruling that edit warring damages the wiki and treating confirmed edit warriors with commensurate harshness. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As someone who's been involved in disputes with the same editor as Mel Etitis was, I think it's important to recognize that the editor was not a "newbie," but a sockpuppet/new identity for a more experienced editor with a significant track record of abusive behavior. Monicasdude 23:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As the editor in question, I can assure you that I was forced to abandon my identity due to constant stalking measures by Monicasdude and that his OWN RfC speaks volumes on his abusive behavior. My so called "significant track record" thereof is virtually non-existent. And, Tony, I agree with you 100%. BGC 23:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. It is the case that Mel Etitis edit warred over piddling, piffling, idiotic trifles. This is not right. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The editing by User:Mel Etitis that User:Tony Sidaway describes as "piddling, piffling, idiotic trifles" was the removal of copyrighted images. See Template talk:Album infobox 2 for more details, if they are necessary. Jkelly 03:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick thought

Not really worth putting on the main page of the RfC, as God knows there is enough outside views. It looks like the original intention - to clarify whether Tony's actions, and - probably more pertinently - his tone were entirely helpful. Now it's just a big fat squabble between deletionists and inclusionists (of whom Tony is a self-professed inclusionist). The whole thing could be summarised as 'Tony's qualities and his intentions are good, but sometimes he upsets people whose views differ'. Nothing else on the page is helpful. Proto t c 15:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Actually I'm a self-professed mergist, though arguably mergism is really just a dissident branch of inclusionism. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I'm a redirectionist. I like the term redirectionista. Proto t c 12:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This quick thought ignores that Tony does not think process constrains admins. He thinks that admins can delete whatever and hopes that bad deletions will be caught. He thinks that he can bypass process and interrupt both DR and AfD discussions by undeleting or deleting outside of that consensus gaining process. Tony takes unilateral action at the same time that consensus is being formed for or against it. It has little to do with "inclusionist" versus "deletionist" since Tony has acted on both sides - supporting unilateral deletion and unilateral undeletion outside process or consensus. - Tεxτurε 15:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have observed that admins on RC patrol make judgement calls not strictly constrained by CSD. I think it's reasonable because in my experience RC patrollers generally demonstrate good judgement.
When I've taken unilateral action, it has been in the expectation, nearly always fulfilled, of creating a better consensus by widening the scope of discussion. This can hardly be called an anti-consensual stance; rather it is the reverse. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion to you, Tony, was to make that policy and not take unilateral action that was outside policy. Why not make policy what you want admins to do? - Tεxτurε 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Texture's comment is fair. The rather cynical tone of the message that TS wrote to Xoloz which appears to have rather shocked Xoloz has rather affected what people think is TS's attitude to rules as they apply to admins. In fact, all the evidence I have seen is that TS is an exceptionally careful admin who treats the rules very seriously, but believes that there are times when the due process the rules appear to require would involve obviously needless wastes of many peoples time, as indeed it does. This is very far from a cynical approach. --- Charles Stewart 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
How can you say that he carefully "treats the rules very seriously" but then will abandon them when it is a "needless wastes of many peoples time". You either treat the rules seriously or you discard them for convenience. - Tεxτurε 15:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Not true. The construction of the rule may mandate more effort than is reasonable to apply in the given circumstance. If you want to get philosophical, Kant's thesis of universalisability might apply here: you might say that one ought not to apply a rule when you see the rule leads to bad unintended consequences, eg. wasting many editors time besides TS's. One can arrive at such a conclusion after much deliberation, and with much respect for the process that resulted in the imperfect rule. --- Charles Stewart 15:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Texture, I would say Tony always follows the rules. Consult WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Anything that reduces AFD clog (speedy keeps/deletes/redirects when they're the obvious choice) is a good thing. And if Tony (or any other admin) makes an error, or what the later consensus deems to be an error, then a poor judgement call can always be undone. And I havem't seen many of Tony's be undone. Proto t c 16:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
According to WP:BOLD and WP:IAR Ed Poor was following the rules when he deleted VfD. I could delete the main page according to you. You are using IAR as an excuse for admin actions. "IAR should never be used by administrators to make up and enforce their own set of rules." If Tony, or you, want to allow speedy deletion of certain new articles then follow process and add it to CSD. Don't make up and enforce your own rules. - Tεxτurε 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The full title of WP:BOLD is Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. It shouldn't be used as justification for unilateral admin actions (although it often is). Carbonite | Talk 16:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Proto: is your comment in response to me? IAR does not state that rule breaking is not rule breaking. --- Charles Stewart 16:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we have to get back to the facts. I undeleted an article that had passed through AfD with a good number of debaters, and a unanimous delete As a result of my actions, the article got a second AfD in which the debate tended towards an overwhelming keep. The first AfD failed to have a proper debate, the second succeeded.

Why don't I do that all the time? Because I rarely see a case as blatant as that. Professor Wolters was not a different person the morning after I undeleted his article. The article was not significantly better. But a number of non-expert people, perhaps a little bored, had decided that it should be deleted, and my action stimulated Wikipedia's immune system, which is composed of a lot of other people, wide awake, who said "keep this article." Why didn't I wait for the VFU discussion to end? Because the VFU discussion was full of people who falsely claimed that the AfD was sacrosanct. In other words the undeletion policy, which mandates VFU as a place to judge content, was being ignored. VFU is far more broken than AfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venue shopping

You are basically saying that since you didn't like the way the VfU/DR vote was turning out that you venue shopped for a better vote. If you think that the VfU/DR process needs changing then propose a change. Don't reject the valid voting and start a new one on AfD because you didn't like the outcome! You didn't even bother to await the results to see if the outcome was appropriate. You IAR'd a unilateral outcome of your own. WP:IAR specifically says "IAR should never be used by administrators to make up and enforce their own set of rules." - Tεxτurε 15:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quick review of the facts

"I think we have to get back to the facts." No problem, Tony.

From the deletion log:

  • 20:28, 17 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Albert M. Wolters" (1 revisions restored)
  • 20:27, 17 October 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (Ditching copyvios, leaving Snowspinner's rewrite)
  • 01:05, 17 October 2005 Snowspinner restored "Albert M. Wolters"
  • 00:55, 17 October 2005 Fvw deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (deleteagain, on VfU)
  • 00:33, 17 October 2005 Snowspinner restored "Albert M. Wolters"
  • 00:14, 17 October 2005 Zoe deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (recreation of previously VdF'd article. Tony Sidaway strikes again)
  • 18:52, 16 October 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Albert M. Wolters" Emphasis mine.
  • 18:46, 16 October 2005 Splash deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (temp undel to provide content)
  • 18:46, 16 October 2005 Splash restored "Albert M. Wolters"
  • 23:33, 4 October 2005 Doc glasgow deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters)
  • 12:32, 20 April 2005 ALoan deleted "Albert M. Wolters" (content was: '#Redirect Al Wolters' - page move per WP:RM)

From Wikipedia:Deletion review, Revision as of 18:50, 16 October 2005:

[edit] Albert M. Wolters

I'd like to nominate Albert M. Wolters for undeletion. I have been away from Wiki for a while and was a little bemused to see that this article had been deleted.

Al Wolters is not a non-entity: he passes the google test and has published several books; including the very influential Creation Regained. Cheers, SteveBish 15:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. The AfD was unanimous and very recent, and so there would need to be something overpoweringly significant that had changed between the AfD and now for this to be overturned. Nothing of that sort is mentioned here. -Splashtalk 16:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Could an admin make the content of this temporarily viewable, please? Xoloz 16:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not usually done for AfDs, I have to say. As long as you promise that you plan to judge the process not the article, I'll temp-undelete it. -Splashtalk 16:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KD for now. Perfectly valid closure—it was, in fact, unanimous. However, a request to overturn on the basis that an important article editor was unaware of the AFD may be considered. Steve may also find this section of the deletion guide helpful. encephalon 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete Albert Wolters is an important representative of a school of christian thought. He is well published in a number of fields and the above mentioned book has been translated into a variety of languages. On what basis has he been judged "boring" and is this a rigorous enough criteria to delete a wikipedia article? Refphilosopher
    • Read the AfD in my post above. Rigorous enough or not, the debate was unanimous. Note also that, for the most part, this page is not to repeat the AfD debate. See the final sentence in the yellow box above. -Splashtalk 18:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete. Utterly ludicrous deletion. Despite the false claims made elsewhere in this discussion, it is the content that matters. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The claims aren't false in the least, no matter how much you dislike them. Per the nominator's request on my talk page, I've dropped the article into User:SteveBish/Sandbox for his (and everyone elses) use. -Splashtalk 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Emphasis mine.

We can clearly see that not only was this debate at either 2/2 undelete or 3/2 undelete if we count the nominator, it was in the process of reviewing the content. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Do read these things before you post them. The usual nonsense was being trotted out. "Rigorous enough or not, the debate was unanimous." Content arguments were being falsely discounted. Undeletion policy was being blatantly ignored, as is usual on VFU. This was an obvious, easy, summary undeletion, but VFU was turning it into the usual pointlessstalement. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The content was being had been provided, a link had been provided that explicitly says "you can recreate the article". Deletion Review only requires a majority, so at the very second that you abandoned consensus, the article would have been restored if no other opinons had been voiced. But I'm curious about your phrase, "was turning it into". Are you explicitly saying that you were trying to short circuit this debate, to "get in early" as it were? - brenneman(t)(c) 01:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well actually I recreated that article and it was speedy deleted several times; So much for "you can recreate the article." Why do you falsely claim that I abandoned consensus? The second AfD assembled a massive consensus to keep, as it was obvious any fair forum would do. Yes, of course I was trying to short circuit a debate in which undeletion policy was being blatantly misrepresented, in a forum that repeatedly reverts direct quotations from that policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've placed a more general statement on the main page, but will still reply to this. When people are talking, it's generally considered rude to interrupt them. That's what you did, Tony. A fine and civil discussion that you seem unable to understand was going to almost certainly result in the outcome you would have liked was interrupted. It's rude, and if you still don't see that I don't know what else to say. Please do read over what I've put on the main page.
brenneman(t)(c) 04:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it was rude. I was occupied with the idea that we had an encyclopedia to write, and ranked the function of Wikipedia as a discussion forum second to that function. Perhaps it was rude. It was certainly right. If your objection is simply that it was a premature act taken when an "undelete" outcome was obvious, then obviously your view of the situation is different from mine. If you accept that, despite the obvious merits of the article, the undeletion was in doubt, then you can hardly object to my taking the opportunity to make a doubtful outcome into a certainty by presenting the wiki with a fait accompli. This is an encyclopedia. It's the content that matters. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] View by brenneman

This is apparently more of an attempt at dialog than an outside view. It seems to expect a response. I responded to it and then, obviously, moved it here. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Moved body and response back to main page with change of formatting. E.g. replaced "you" with "Tony", etc. Not sure why we're looking for rigid adherance to the convention, but I'm felxible. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's response

  • Aaron, I realise that you mean that sincerely. I'm not going to hold the many misrepresentations above against you. 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 SidawayTalk 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for responding, and accepting my sincerity. If I've made misrepresentations of any facts please do correct me. If you believe I've misrepresentated your character, I think that's the point. What I'm trying to say is that almost no one's internal image of themselves correlates exactly with how others perceive them, and that perhaps there are areas where you could do with some introspection. Just as, I'm sure, could I.
  • To start to take your points above in turn, if you don't mind
This was a very close one indeed, (48/12/1) or 80%. With one neutral to support and three oppose moving either to neutral or no vote, which is the same things. I never said that you couldn't be persuasive, did I? If we examine the comments, we see almost exactly the same concerns that are expressed now: agression, lack of respect for consensus, attraction to dispute. Although you've made it clear that you won't submit to re-adminn-ing, I'd like to hear what comments you think that you'd recieve if you did, and how you'd address them.
  • Page protection Just grabbing the last few that were not directly vandalism related:
  1. 00:24, 27 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Coercive monopoly (no ongoing discussion)
  2. 00:22, 27 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Japanese war crimes (No ongoing discussion)
  3. 16:00, 26 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Ecuadorian-Peruvian war (Protected for over a week. Unprotecting to see
  4. 22:19, 25 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Bogdanov Affair (See WP:RFPP and [3])
  5. 02:02, 25 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Coleshill, Warwickshire (An experiment in free editing)
  6. 17:43, 24 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Suki (Protected for seven days)
  7. 10:30, 21 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected John Lott (Let's see if the shouty edit warring will cease)
  8. 10:19, 21 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Derek Jeter (Five days rest, time to edit again)
  9. 10:17, 21 October 2005 Tony Sidaway unprotected Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Five days protection should
I see that in the Bogdanov Affair, you made one comment on a talk page, in John Lott you made perhaps three comments, in Derek Jeter you made another three. In none of these instances were you required to make any concessions, nor were you required to hold the hand of any of the disputants to get them to talk. As this was a quick survey, I'm open to seeing more evidence here such as links to talk pages or diffs in history. Alternately, if there are other page unprotections that you feel better demonstrate your mediation abilites, please do provide them.
  • Arbitration cases
I'd be happy to see some examples of succesfull application in this area. I've only seen some second-hand sparks (e.g. Maoririder) and they seem to support my arguments on the main page: that treating others as equals, respecting their opinions, and working towards a common goal of compromise is very difficult for you. I am, however, pleased that you and Scimitar seem to have settled any problems that you may have had.
  • Mentorship/advocacy
Please do read my comments carefully, I've not said that didn't have "any interpersonal skills". I did say that this was an area you're widely regarded as excelling in. I'd simply ask you to note that mentorship and advocacy allow you to argue positions other than your own, and in almost no instance would you be required to shift from any opinions you entered into it with. Again, these are not discussion among equals.
  • Pull the other one.
I don't suppose this requires any comment.
brenneman(t)(c) 08:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it until someone comes up with some substantive and informed criticism. This clearly isn't, and I don't think there's any need for me to labor this point. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texture's Evidence

Texture provided some very interesting evidence on Mr. Sidaway's talk page, Mr. Sidaway promptly deleted the evidence. I have restored it here and asked for Tony's comments here. I encourage others to view this information and to think about both what it means, and what it means that Mr. Sidaway thought it correct to hide this information. I believe the best way to have a constructive dialog is to review all presented evidence and weight it fully. Not cover it up. Comments are appreciated. TheChief (PowWow) 18:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony has just deleted our entire conversation (minus the original evidence I gave him which he previously deleted) and left a now-incomprehensible comment by me (due to all the missing text) and claims it is ok because of a cite to the talk page history. Tony, why didn't you just archive the page? Why hide only our discussion? Why didn't you just archive my original evidence if it offended you so much? By only showing your response (in the original deletion) you leave out anything I say that you don't feel like responding to. This is the kind of dismissive attitude that started this RfC. - Tεxτurε 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It is simply false to claim that I deleted anything. I responded by summarising and refuting the purported evidence. A false claim was then made that I had deleted evidence. I have now removed the entire silly conversation, while fully citing the entire thing, including providing a diff showing the original purported evidence, which was unnecessarily massive in volume and was presented in a form that made it almost unreadable and made my entire talk page into an unsightly mess.

As this dispute is becoming quite surreal, I think this is where I remove this RfC from my watchlist. It's clear that the RfC inasmuch as it prevailed was about the need for civility--a message that I hope we will all heed. If I continued this conversation at this utterly petty level it would not be in the interests of Wikipedia. Such counter-productive accusations shall not prevail. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So, this is a return to the original RfC where you indicated you would no longer respond to any attempts to resolve the issue through RfC? - Tεxτurε 21:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway has just deleted my response to the complete removal of our discussion without comment or explanation: [4] - Tεxτurε 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from main page - accusations of sock puppetry

[edit] Agriculture's attack sock puppetry

David Gerard has blocked TheChief (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an attack sock puppet of Agriculture (talk · contribs) in connection with this his personal attacks and badgering in connection with this RfC. Agriculture has been blocked for forty-eight hours. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of the TheChief. This claim is fradulent. My only accounts are User:PDE (inactive for a long, long time), and this account. Agriculture 16:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agriculture has been unblocked. See WP:ANI for details. Radiant_>|< 16:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems if one speaks out against Tony, this is what happends, bear it in mind people if you decide to stay. Tony is well placed, and thus can get away with his blatent disregard for the rules. I for one won't stick around anymore. Agriculture 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Agriculture and TheChief made remarkably similar edits in the same style, and the IP evidence backed it. Wikipedia is very very very tolerant, but we're not actually stupid - David Gerard 17:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

TheChief (talk · contribs)'s sudden appearance on August 17, the very day that Agriculture (talk · contribs) first announced that he was leaving Wikipedia, is enough to raise a small suspicion, which is confirmed by a closer look. The new account edits a little for the next week or so, Meanwhile the Agriculture account is saying "Wikipedians are still acting like pond scum and issuing personal attacks". In another of its leaving messages, the agriculture account announces its malicious intentions towards Wikipedia, effectively a declaration of war:

If the admins have decided to let the trolls and vandals run this place (and lets face it a lot of admins are trolls and vandals), we have every right to hit them with their own medicine. I, for one, am sick and tired of sitting back and watching while mods let personal attacks from trolls slip while nothing happens. I say hit the trolls hard and fast with their own medicine. If trolling and vandalism is obviously ok in the eyes of the admins, then for goodness sake use it to combat the trolls. (emphasis mine)

Despite repeated claims that it is leaving, nevertheless the agriculture account slowly resumes editing in early September.

After editing during its first nine days, including edits to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Talk:Old Dominion University, both of which had also been edited by the Agriculture account, the TheChief account disappears for over a month, returning October 4, the same day that marks the return of the Agriculture account after a break of four days. TheChief edits sporadically in early October, taking another complete break from 8th to 16th. Coincidentally, the agriculture account makes few edits between 8th and 16th, editing on only two days during that period, only five edits in all. TheChief then edits daily from 20-31 October.

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Midwestern_Ivy_League, TheChief explicitly claims affiliation with UIUC. Agriculture uploads images of UIUC.

In retrospect, I think that Agriculture's declaration of malicious intent towards Wikipedia should have been taken far more seriously than it was. This editor claims once again that it has left Wikipedia forever, but it will be back, and we should probably keep a close watch for it. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • On a further note, if you compare the time logs for Agricultures edits vs. the time logs for TheChiefs edits (I've done so for the past couple of days) you'll find that there is always a time gap; consistent with a difference between editting from home and work.--Scimitar parley 14:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tony, why are you referring to Agriculture, who is not a bot, as “it”? Susvolans ⇔ 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not intended as a personal slight, but rather to clarify that I'm attributing statements to two distinct Wikipedia accounts, which have been identified as belonging to the same person. The final paragraph is worded awkwardly, but is intended to refer specifically to the account identity that publicly justified the use of trolling and vandalism on Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)