Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1

message: I've moved these comments by Ambi out of my response section (nobody else is supposed to edit there) so I'm reproducing Ambi's version here.  I have no further comments on this at present. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambi's comments on Tony Sidaway's Response 

message: *I'm firstly dissaponted by comments such as "Worst RfC ever." and "This is an embarassment."   To contrast, SlimVirgin expressed dissagrement in a civil and constructive manner, and I thank her for that.
*To allow us to focus on the central issue, I submit:
**To my memory, Tony and I have only directly interacted  one time.  I'll try and stay on topic, but I found his obfuscation there poor form, and his failure to reply ungentlemanly.  But so what?  Editors are allowed to be brilliant, stupid, cordial, rude, or even insinuatingly and slyly deceitful, and in that instance Tony was simply doing what any editor can do.
**I'd also rebut suggestions that this RfC is Sour grapes over some previous pages I wanted to remove.  I did not vote on the articles in question, and have in the past argued passionately against deletion of articles that consensus should be respected.
*Quoting "If in doubt, don't delete!" is a Straw man.  I am not and have not suggested that Tony should heve deleted all of these articles.  However, if the process is intended to be binary keep/delete, then Guide to Votes for deletion is 39 kilobytes too long.
*It's been asked what good can come of this, stated that what's the harm, etc.  The VfD process is a difficult one, and I would not support any changes to policy.  But the actions in closing these VfDs in this manner does not build community or consesus.  Just as archiving a talk page effectivly closes discussion, so does closing a VfD.  So, as to outcomes, I'd like to see more respect for the opinions of other, as opposed to wikilawyering.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I should have ended that point at the first sentence.  The rest was not relevant, and should have gone on Tony's talk page, where it is now was. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brenneman's further exposition as per llywrch's request

message: (Removed from reply endorsement)
# (Is this a joke? HKT talk</font> 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked again and I was wrong to say that licensing considerations precluded history deletion.  Smoddy states correctly that recording the contributors on the talk page is sufficient. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether implemeted as a move or a cut&paste followed by a delete, BJAODN is a vote to remove the content from the article space. This should be made explicit in the admin's guide to VfD, IMO. DES (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my understanding.  I think it's clear enough that it's a vote to remove the article from article space. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Carnildo

message: I am writing this specifically because I strongly disapprove of using administrator powers to further a debate that you are even tangentially involved in.  I disapprove of Cyrius's blocking Tony, as I am a firm adherent of the idea that any user involved in both good-faith and bad-faith editing should not be blocked summarily by an admin on the basis of the bad-faith edits alone.  This is precisely the same reason that I disapprove of Tony's blocking Carnildo.  I don't want to sign Cyrius's comments, but I do agree with them in essence, and wanted to make that known.  smoddy 16:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrius's part 

message: Tony has said that he insistes on 75% or more to consider a delete result if I understood him correctly. Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Restoring the page (for admins) says deletion requires a two-thirds majority (admitedly it says this in passing). I understand that some judgement is allowed, that anon or otherwise dubious votes may be discounted, that the strength or weakness of arguments may be considered, and the effects of a rewrite during the VfD be considered. But in a simple case, where the arguments were clearcut and did not change much (say a debate over notability) and all voters are established editors, what level should voters expect the closer to use?  Woud a 13D to 6K vote (no confusing votes of merge or redir or BJAODN or anything else) be a delete consensus? That is just over 2 to 1. How about 17D to 6K?  (Just under 3 to 1) Should we have a slightly celarer standard for future closers? DES (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be comfortable with the 75% to delete if it were consistently applied.  (I am unhappy that Tony does not delete at 75%.)  Two-thirds requires some judgement, IMO. - Tεxτurε 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And I think at this point we've all said pretty much all that can be said.  Rather than go round again, I'll call it a day on this RfC.  Nice job, chaps.  I'm rather pleased with the outcome. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is consensus to delete? 

message: Carnildo inserted the following into my response yesterday, shortly after being blocked for vandalism by me and then unblocked by another admin who I hope is beginning to regret it.  Carnildo must have known that the Response section is intended for me, and that his insertion would mislead others into thinking that the incorrect 85% estimate was mine.  I think it would be difficult to defend a charge of malicious vandalism in this case.
Because the case was not presented in evidence, it doesn't belong in the Response section, so I'm moving it here.
I have struck out his misrepresentation and replaced it with the explanation that, Carnildo knows, I have already given here and on WP:ANI. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff inserted into Response section of RfC, which doesn't belong

message: I added this section after R. Fiend made a false and very serious allegation:
I hereby absolutely refute the false, unsupported and malicious allegation by R. Fiend that I count socks and anons selectively "when it suits me."
R. Fiend add this comment to my section:
::Did you just add this statement above everyone's endorsement? Can you do that? Really, that seems blatantly foul to me. Anyway, here is the VfD is was referring to in general. See the this for discussion of the topic. -R. fiend 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Patently false allegations

message: The following attempt to start a discussion on my response section has been moved here:
* Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arab hacker
** Tricky one.   (delete vote, 28 July) only had one month experience and 15 edits in article space.   (delete vote, 29 July) only had 5 edits prior to 29 June.  (delete vote, 29 July) made 5 edits prior to 27 July.   (delete vote, 29 July via anon IP but signed) had only 14 edits prior to 23 July and to date has made only 13 edits in article space.   (delete vote, 16 July) has voted in literally thousands of VfDs, but has fewer than 100 article space edits, about a score of which are insertion of VfD tags.  Cuervo (merge vote, 15 July) just about scrapes home.   (merge vote, 14 July) had no edits prior to 27 June.  (merge vote, 14 July) had 7 votes prior to 21 June.   That leaves ,  and , for delete and  for merge.  I could have justifiably called delete here on what I consider to be a borderline consensus, but chose to let it slip because of the large proportion of questionable votes.  If it needs to be deleted it will be deleted in good time, on votes by people known to the community and without the taint of impropriety that this would have had. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Arab hacker]]

message: * Wikipedia Signpost, 08-Aug-2005. Deletion of Votes for deletion shocks system --Tony SidawayTalk 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We're all world famous.  Can we have our Wikipedia vanity articles now?

message: Separate from the way no consensus is reported above, I will dispute that a vote where every single person voting said "delete" is closed without deleting the article.  If 6 people vote "delete", 2 people vote "merge and delete", and 2 people say "delete and redirect", I believe the article should be deleted.  Yes, it was 6 votes (that said no more than the single word "delete") out of 10 but clearly 100% to delete. - Tεxτurε 23:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably agree with you there.  Or else I might perform a history merge and delete the redirect, and then paste in the merged text. It depends on how much material there is to merge, and how persuasive the arguments for merge were. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate discussion regarding votes to "delete" 

message: It has been pointed out to me that Tony said "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies." when unblocking someone.  Since this is wrong according to Wikipedia:Undeletion policy which specifies what actions to perform when undeleting based on whether it was deleted during VfD or speedy deleted, I was wondering what this statement meant.  I assume that if he did not know before, he will know now that VfU is for disposition of Speedies as well as VfD and cease any undeletes simply because they were speedy deletions. - Tεxτurε 03:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: VFU is an appeal forum for non-administrators, no more, no less.  Quite often an administrator will make a bad speedy call and another administrator (usually me) will revive it and expand.  It doesn't matter how many people vote "keep deleted" on VFU, an article whose status under the deletion policy is disputed (as is the case here) can be taken to VfD and discussed.  The article is now being discussed on VfD and looks to have a good chance of surviving.  The subject is a rather well known porn star who has scores of credits on imdb.  The first version of the article said she was a porn star but the deleting administrator obviously didn't check.  --Tony SidawayTalk 03:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: He's right that the first version written didn't contain a reference to google hits.  Actually it gave the year she entered the business--much more encyclopedic.  Needless to say I'm rather proud of that article, and from here the complaints smack of sour grapes. I have no idea why Radiant! thinks I have to go trailing to VFU everytime I want to correct a bad speedy. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I absolutely refute the suggestion that VFU can prevent restoration of a bad speedy.  At the most it can recommend its restoration.  VfD is the venue for decisions on deletion. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Sidaway: "VFU doesn't decide the disposition of speedies." 

message: Generally, it helps if one reads an article:
That is, if one consider wikipedians to be editors and not just robots designed for keeping indiscriminate information.  
Are you here to play with your un-deletion button or to research and build an encyclopedia? 
from the deletion log:
    * 22:14, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow" (6 revisions restored)
    * 22:13, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway deleted "Warren Benbow" (To placate geogre I will delete and then selectively undelete only the parts I worked on.)
    * 22:03, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
    * 22:00, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (THIRD undeletion without going through VfU by user:Tony Sidaway)
    * 21:47, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
    * 21:46, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
    * 21:05, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly undeleted for the SECOND time. It has never been listed on VfU. List it, and I'll even vote to undelete. Until then, it is a speedy delete.)
    * 17:48, 17 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
    * 13:31, 17 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (Improperly recreated. List on VfU.)
    * 21:48, 16 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Warren Benbow"
    * 22:08, 15 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Warren Benbow" (content was: 'Warren Benbow Warren Benbow- drummer, songwriter, music producer and educator; b. New York, NY . Born December ...')
--TimPope 08:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would help if people read things 

message: Tony Sidaway has now abused his admin powers by blocking Carnildo who disputed Tony Sidaway's closure of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Savoir-faire with a result of "no consensus". Carnildo attempted to reopen the VfD for further discussion, only to have it re-closed by Tony Sidaway with a comment of 'rv vandalism' .
In the past, articles have sometimes been relisted when additional discussion was needed to clarify an iffy decision. This has been, to my knowledge, completely uncontroversial. What is controversial is Tony Sidaway acting as if his decisions are law by blocking those who disagree and are attempting to continue discussion on the issue.
:Update: Tony Sidaway claims that this edit constitutes vandalism. All I see is a dispute over the interpretation of the discussion.
=== Powers misused ===
User blocking:
* 07:00, 3 August 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:Carnildo" with an expiry time of 3 hours (Disruption, tampering with closed VfD, personal attacks. Was warned.)
===Applicable policies===
Wikipedia:Blocking policy:
:When blocking may not be used:
::Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute [...]. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.
Wikipedia:Deletion policy:
:Limitations on renomination for VfD:
::In general, if an article has been discussed at Votes for Deletion and the discussion did not result in a "delete" decision, the article should not be immediately renominated for deletion, because unless there is a good reason for people to change their minds, the second vote would be identical to the first one. An exception can be made if a vote has no consensus and a severe lack of votes.
=== Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute ===
None. The severity of the abuse was such that I immediately unblocked Carnildo and blocked Tony Sidaway for 24 hours.
:Update: Tony Sidaway has requested (via IRC) to be unblocked so that he can summarize the Carnildo situation on WP:AN/I. I have done so.
=== Users certifying the basis for this dispute ===
* Cyrius|✎ 07:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special statement by [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]] 

message: * Cyrius|✎ 07:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users certifying the basis for this dispute 

message: When the results of the VfD on Savoir-Faire came to my attention, I noted that the result claimed by the closer seemed blatently incorrect (6 delete, 1 keep interpreted as "no consensus"), I re-opened it, posted a note on why I re-opened it, and asked for a second opinion on WP:AN/I.  This is the exact procedure I have followed before on VfDs where I felt the conclusion the closer came to was clearly incorrect, and I have never had it considered vandalism before.
Also, according to Tony Sidaway, I was blocked for personal attacks.  My best guess as to the "personal attacks" involved was my expressing a theory as to why the result of a VfD was "keep", and restoring that comment and part of the question it was replying to when they were deleted by Tony Sidaway.
--Carnildo 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed description of my actions 

message: Carnildo has edited closed VfDs under the guise of "correcting" them.  However I should have taken this to WP:ANI instead of blocking him myself (I had warned him).  I apologise to Carnildo for abuse of the BP, without prejudice for the future, should he resume his attacks on the autonomy of the VfD closer.
My points:
# Carnildo did not re-open any VfDs, although he claimed to be doing so in one of the two cases in which he tampered with a VfD result.
# Repeatedly tampering with VfD results is disruptive.  Carnildo had engaged in tampering with two VfDs in close succession.  I blocked him for three hours for disruption.  I should have gone to WP:ANI and asked someone else to perform the block.
In one case, Carnildo simply altered the result.  In another he edited it to remove the result, claiming to be re-opening it, but did not place any tag in the article or add it to do VfD day log--not surprisingly given these failures, I do not think his claim to be re-opening discussion could be taken as legitimate.
These actions are not acceptable.  A VfD should be kept unedited for reference purposes and comments should be made on the talk page. Neither of the VfDs in question had consensus. Carnildo did not wait for an explanation of the result, but acted unilaterally. He did not act in any way that would have opened the VfD again, only editing the text of the VfDs to add or remove material.  He does have the right to question a VfD result, as do we all. His actions however seemed to be something else entirely: altering the result.
There is no question of my having acted to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.  In one instance, Carnildo edited a VfD to insert his own closing result, with the edit summary "Correcting result":
* Carnildo's edit to Sue Jones VfD 
I reverted that and moved his comment to the talk page, where I responded to it fully and warned him about vandalism .
In the second instance, Carnildo completely removed my closing comments:
*Carnildo's edit to Savoir-faire VfD.
I treated this as more serious vandalism and reverted and blocked.  --Tony SidawayTalk 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: User:Tony_Sidaway has had a field day in arbitrarily and unilaterally deleting numerous userboxes that deal with religion or politics.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Tony+Sidaway&page=.  The userbox project is very upset with this Admin.
:MSTCrow 10:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox RFC