User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

Please read the talk page first! In general the standard RfC format is a total crock, and does nothing to aid in moving toward a solution. Compare the various incarnations of Kelly's RfC for evidence. Please treat this as a quasi-article, and address all signed commentary to the talk page.

Who are we talking about
User:Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

Aims
It's good to begin with the end in mind. e.g.
 * 1) That Tony Sidaway use the talk pages to resolve any disagreements with other administators

Perceived problems
Short, concise statements


 * 1) Tony Sidaway has a history of engaging in wheel wars. Wheel wars are unproductive, and an improper use of administrator privileges.
 * 2) Tony Sidaway adds speedy tags to userbox templates already under discussion.
 * 3) Tony Sidaway deletes userbox templates which don't have a consensus for deletion.
 * 4) Tony Sidaway continues his actions after multiple warnings.

Evidence of perceived problem
Diffs, very brief commentary
 * Special:Log for Patrick Alexander (cartoonist)
 * Special:Log for Colony5
 * Special:Log for Template:User GWB
 * Special:Log for Gazeebow Unit
 * Special:Log for Template:User against Iraq War

What has been tried before

 * WP:ANI diff, 05:35, February 1, 2006 "/* More wheel warring */ I'm seeing some rather vague statements about disruption here, but nothing specific. Please do make an RfC and we'll try to sort it out."—User:Tony Sidaway
 * User talk:Tony Sidaway diff, 10:13, February 1, 2006 "/* "evidence" */ And I forgot to say: fuck process!"—User:Tony Sidaway (the "Fuck process" comment)

Tony's response
Cutting the gordian knot

I think the problem here is not so much lack of communication--I seem to do about 25 to 30 user talk page edits per day--as a prolonged period of pushing the envelope with administrator actions. Whilst my actions frequently get results (Tally Solutions Ltd 12k, 2d, SuperOffice 15k, 4d), they often do so in a way that some people find alarming, even distressing. And even if I ignored that effect, others would not. While the arbitration committee may seem to be happy with what I do, they wouldn't remain happy for long if in trying to do the right thing, I alienated other editors, which is definitely not the right thing.

So here's what I'll do:
 * Lay off DRV for a bit. I'm satisfied that there's site-wide consensus for edtiors being able to see and edit stuff that's under review, but that will come further down the road.  The prospect of people actually editing articles being discussed, while commonplace for AfD, is very alarming for DRV regulars and they need time to get used to it.
 * Stop deleting templates
 * Stop undeleting deleted articles.

Then we'll review that in a month's time to see how everybody feels. --Tony Sidaway 07:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Tony's response

 * There is a copy of the response, and an area for discussion, on the talk page.