User:TheChief/Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ADD NEW EVIDENCE IN A NEW SECTION
This evidence was restored from Tony Sidaway's talk page. I reproduce it here to prevent it from being buried and unavailable. TheChief (PowWow) 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This article was authored by User:Texture
[edit] The Evidence from User:Texture
Tony, your deletions and undeletions against consensus (or interrupting the discussions to gain consensus) are well documented. Here's some samples from both RfC:
|
Reprinted at Tony Sidaway's request:
|
|
Reprinted at Tony Sidaway's request: [edit] VfUI'll start with this unblock:
I reviewed the policies and not only does it decide the disposition of speedies but it breaks down how speedies are handled differently from VfD deletions. I questioned Tony regarding this statement and through the discussion it became clear that he does not believe VfU policies apply to admins. Admins can ignore the need to get consensus to undelete and can undelete even while a VfU vote is in progress (and heavily to keep deleted) in order for him to make a VfD vote on it. From the RfC:
[edit] VfU: Francesca EasthopeWikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Francesca_Easthope was nominated for undeletion on Aug 13. AFter Votes tallying 3 delete, 1 striken (mine), and 1 undelete (nominator), Tony undeleted and placed on VfD:
People on VfD were upset that he overruled VfU. Here he created the VfD after undeleted against the VfU vote:
The response was overwhelming delete votes and disenfranchisement:
Oddly enough, he agreed with both the VfU that it was a hoax before he short-circuited it and the VfD unanimous delete vote:
[edit] Warren BenbowWarren Benbow edit history before speedy deletion:
After Tony undeleted, he created this content:
In the later VfD Curps explained what happened:
His edits were made:
The following is the deletion history:
time. It has never been listed on VfU. List it, and I'll even vote to undelete. Until then, it is a speedy delete.)
Tony then took the odd step of nominating his own edits for deletion:
In this he explained:
And joked about his delete/undelete war:
Simultaneous VfU and VfD continue. [edit] Savoir-faireFrom wp:admin noticeboard/incidents:
Ungle G transwiki'd and per CSD #A5 it can be speedy deleted as well as deleted by vote. It had been transwiki'd by the time I reviewed the result and deleted. I added this to the VfD when I deleted it:
[edit] RfD on VfD votesIn the RfD he made theses comments concerning VfD votes:
[edit] No faith of other admin's decisionsBelow Tony restores after Cryptic deletes. Cryptic did so because transwiki was performed. (Edit history):
(Delete log):
[edit] SummaryI believe the following actions and opinions are inappropriate for admins:
I don't think Tony Sidaway understands an admin's role in Wikipedia. He does not follow policy and has announced his plans to continue to do whatever he decides to regardless of votes or other admins. He is not responding to attempts to discuss the issue. Many, including me, have been trying to talk to him about his actions. I have stated I have no interest in punishing him but I only want him to edit as a normal user. (Such as in the case where he undeleted an article, replaced it with his own content, then VfD'd it. - He could have just created the new article he did and skipped all else. He refused this idea.)
Despite all the criticism, he believes he was vindicated in the RfC and will continue his current views and actions on admin powers.
|
[edit] Some other Evidence of Misconduct
- Attempt by User:TheChief to mediate (from deletion record by User:Tony Sidaway, original conversation took place over a lengthy period). [1]
- Not only deleting evidence, but some uneeded and unconstructive comments [2]
- Tony removes an attempt by User:TheChief to have a dialog about his recent behavior [3].
- Deletion of talk page items, using edit summaries to violate WP:FAITH, WP:NPA [4] [5] [6] [7]
- Tony refuses any attempt to mediate the conflict [8] [9]
[edit] Evidence from RfC, reprinted
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
Incivility and personal attacks
-
- "Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief." [10]
- "I'm utterly disgusted at these shenanigans." "I'll take this as a blatantly bad faith deletion ... This was pure bloodlust" [11]
- "Egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Wikipedia administrators" [12]
- "It is idiocy like this that truly disgusts me" [13]
- "Utterly ludicrous deletion. Despite the false claims made elsewhere" [14]
Responding badly to criticism
-
- "Your criticism was not only intemperate, it was completely misplaced." [15] (in response to an apology by another user)
- "Stop making patently false claims about my opinion" [16]
- "This was patronising, offensive and of course completely useless advice since I'd done nothing of the sort." [17]
- "I found your comments completely unacceptable ... It seems like sadism for the sake of it." [18]
- "Don't breach good faith repeatedly and then try to lecture someone else to do what you already are signally failing to do." [19]
- "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" [20]
Stating there are no problems
-
- "My only claim to acting in this way is that I can get away with doing so because I'm good at it" [21]
- "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." [22]
- "WP:IAR is certainly something that requires extreme arrogance, and can sometimes lead to censure. I've no problem with that." [23]
Lecturing other people on behavior but not heeding his own advice
-
- "(WP:CIV, WP:FAITH and WP:NPA) are not optional or "advisory", they're policies which you're expected to follow." [24]
- "You don't like to see someone saying negative things, and you take them as personal attacks." [25]
- "This "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff has no place on Wikipedia" [26]
- "We should all make a habit of checking our perceptions in case they should happen to be incorrect." [27]
[edit] evidence from User: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 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 encyclopedoa 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? David D. (Talk) 16:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
