User:Improv/Quotes/tony sidaway rfarb

Me



 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes.


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I tried talking to myself, but the result was quite fruitless. I simply cannot get myself to agree to disagree. Every conversation ends in vehement agreement.

Statement by party 1
I've deleted an obviously moribund project page rather a lot of times. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Other administrators undelete it. I think it must be deleted. It must not be allowed to exist because it refers to articles on Wikipedia in partisan terms and expresses an interest in those articles' retention. Specifically, it says:


 * The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results.

It must die. It must not be allowed to live for one minute. There is a massive consensus to delete it, but even if 1,000 wikipedians said that it must exist, it would still have to be killed immediately. It must die because it promotes Wikipedia as a place to campaign again neutrality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2
I'm seeing people blocked indefinitely for making a few silly edits, but we're having a huge argument over whether such poisonous material should be held on our project pages. A project devoted to nurturing and keeping articles that are supposedly "pro-life/pro-catholic". Wikipedia articles we know should always be neutral, reporting only external comments in a manner that seeks to represent the facts about what is being said. They should never adopt a partisan viewpoint and no group within Wikipedia should be permitted to suggest that this is remotely acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by a close sibling of party 2 (is probably also party 1)
I remember the backstreets of Naples, when we were two children dressed in rags. I only popped in today to check that the obscene thing had truly died (thanks to the bold action of another administrator). If it had not, I would have done what I believe to be the duty of all administrators in the face of such a monstrosity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider
This is overdoing it. The page was deleted and undeleted eight times within three days, and if revert wars are harmful then so are wheel wars. I haven't been following this debate, but it is apparent that while few people object to the deletion of this page, several people object to Tony ignoring or overriding an ongoing discussion to do what he feels is right. He seems to have a reputation for doing that.

The issue then isn't whether he is right (as seems to be the case here), but that when something is under consideration, those people considering it don't appreciate being ignored; it's a matter of civility, really. Since such debates tend not to last more than a couple of days, one might wonder what the point is in rushing the issue, since this can cause undue wikistress with no difference to the end result. The end might justify the means, but if the same end can be reached by different means, then it's preferable to use the means that causes the least wikistress. And if an action is contested, discussion is always preferable over edit wars, regardless of which side is correct. WP:HEC, anyone?

Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 02:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement By Less Random Party
Which i'm going to place on the talk page to save some space. karmafist 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by brenneman
What exactly does it take to get administrator review happening? Tony's the walking definition of the death by a thousand cuts, and in light of the recent lowering of the bar if there's not some "admonishment" at least, how is anyone supposed to take the ArbCom seriously? - brenneman (t) (c)  15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Erm, I know you have issues with Tony, but there's times when some common sense really wouldn't go astray. Ambi 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Really official request for injunction
I move that Tony be put under the mentorship of a cup of tea. Whenever he feels the need to perform an admin action twice (because the first action was undone by some other admin) he should instead take the issue up with a cup of tea, and under the mediating influence of a cup of tea discuss the matter with that other admin. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll chime in to support the request for the injunction, and to support the notion that Mr. Sidaway's frequent unabashed unilateralism in open contempt of ongoing discussions, justified under the cover of IAR, needs to be considered by a competent body capable of disciplining admins. If Mr. Sidaway's innovative "case-against-himself" can be reshaped such that this issue is addressed here and now, marvelous. Otherwise, unless the injunction succeeds, Arbcom will need to hear a similar case eventually. Xoloz 07:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommend reject
I was one of the five admins who restored the article after Tony's out of process deletions. I recommend that this RFArb be rejected as WP:POINT, without prejudice to the issue being brought up again in a more responsible way. For now, it seems to me that other admins have effectively worked together to make Tony's actions in this matter ineffectual. That's a happy outcome for everyone, including Tony. Therefore, I don't see Arbcom involvement as appropriate or necessary. Should similar shenanigans continue to be a distraction and a burden on so many administrators, review of this and similar activities might become needed. Nandesuka 13:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What on earth? Firstly, it was a perfectly within-process deletion - it had already been MfDd with a large consensus to delete. Secondly, it's a completely obvious deletion - ignoring the bureaucracy, it makes no sense to keep this around. Tony's done some controversial things in the past, but harassing him on this one (let alone undeleting the article at all) is downright bizarre. Ambi 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "In process" would have been closing the MfD properly, which NicholasTurnbull did, correctly, rather than simply deleting it regardless of the MfD consensus. One could view this as "process wanking," I suppose.  I agree that it is subtle.  But civility and respect for other contributors are often subtle things. Nandesuka 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

 * Reject, while some issues are raised, the contestant should give in to his better nature. Fred Bauder 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject: both in light of Nandesuka's comments, and because if there's a more substantial case against Tony, someone else should bring it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject, as per Fred. I would disagree with Nandesuka that Tony's deletion was in any way "out of process". Please check your common sense unit to see if it needs replacing. ;-) James F. (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reject - Snowball clause Raul654 13:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)