Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.



Statement of the dispute
This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions. While the Deletion guidelines for administrators are deliberately vague, it does urge "attempting to be as impartial as is possible." This administrator has had considerable input (see below) regarding this, but has continued to stretch closure votes like Silly Putty picking up Spider-Man. brenneman (t) (c) 15:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Description
Um, yeah. The template has summary in both these spots?

Powers misused

 * Deletion (log):
 * {list page or pages not deleted}
 * Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School Already listed on AN/I, sorry.
 * Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3
 * Votes for deletion/List of biomedical terms
 * Votes for deletion/Theta Theta
 * Votes for deletion/Not pron
 * Votes for deletion/Tory Belleci
 * Votes for deletion/CSE Revue
 * Votes for deletion/River City Theatre Company
 * Votes for deletion/Blaze (Pokémon)
 * Votes for deletion/Aage Neutzsky-Wulff
 * Votes for deletion/DKU
 * Votes for deletion/Festa no Apê
 * Votes for deletion/List of Applied Mathematicians
 * Votes for deletion/Folio (Company)
 * Votes for deletion/Indiana Jones 4
 * Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis
 * Votes for deletion/Absynthe Magazine
 * Votes for deletion/Triple Penetration
 * Votes for deletion/FactBites
 * Votes for deletion/Phenotypic freedom
 * Votes for deletion/Isv Kraan
 * Votes for deletion/Mandalis
 * Votes for deletion/Chhatrapati
 * Votes for deletion/Gobar
 * Votes for deletion/Krayt pearl
 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language

Applicable policies

 * Deletion policy
 * Decision Policy - while Deletion guidelines for administrators is by definition "rough", this is contravention of consensus. If users voted as per Guide to Votes for deletion, keep is not the result they wanted.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Tony's actions in the midst of these discussion:
 * Votes_for_deletion/Arab_hacker

My edit counts and date of first edits for this vote:
 * User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arab hacker

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * User:Aaron Brenneman (presumably, since he wrote this)
 * Ambi 16:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement
(sign with ~ )
 * James 16:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * ( ! | ? | * ) 18:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

Disputed VfD closings

 * Votes for deletion/Flood fill example in C
 * 3 merge-redirect, 2 delete, 3 transwiki. No consensus (38% merge, 38% transwiki)
 * 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 Sidaway Talk  16:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Votes for deletion/Calvary Christian High School
 * See closer's comments.
 * Votes for deletion/KarlSchererRevisited3
 * 4 deletes, 9 merges (to different targets), 2 keeps. No consensus.
 * Votes for deletion/Theta Theta
 * 1 delete, 4 merge-and-redirects but evenly split between 2 targets. No consensus.
 * Votes for deletion/Not pron
 * 2 delete, 4 merge-and-redirect. No consensus (67% merge-and-redirect)
 * Votes for deletion/Tory Belleci
 * 3 deletes, 3 redirects. No consensus (50/50).
 * Votes for deletion/CSE Revue
 * 2 deletes 2 merges and a move/rename. No consensus (40% merge, 40% delete).
 * Votes for deletion/River City Theatre Company
 * See the comments I made at the time. Uncle G's comments were also very much on the money in my opinion.
 * Votes for deletion/Blaze (Pokémon)
 * 11 delete, 7 merge, 1 redirect, 2 keep. No consensus (52% delete).  A couple of days later someone redirected to Pokémon Abilities, something that didn't need a VfD to do.
 * Votes for deletion/Aage Neutzsky-Wulff
 * 3 delete, 1 merge. Borderline (75% delete).  I could have gone either way.  The article has been cleaned up by a couple of people and is now rather a pretty little thing.  Remember this is why we're here: to make good encyclopedia articles.
 * Votes for deletion/DKU
 * The extreme paucity of android79's article edits may have counted against him here, as certainly did the newness of the proposer, Chill Pill Bill. In any case it was either 1:1 or 2:1, I can no longer remember which.  No consensus (50%/50% or 67%/33% split)
 * Votes for deletion/Festa no Apê
 * 2 deletes, 2 merge-and-redirects. No consensus.  (50% delete).
 * Votes for deletion/List of Applied Mathematicians
 * 4 merge-and-redirects, 3 deletes. No consensus (57% merge-and-redirect)
 * Votes for deletion/Folio (Company)
 * Ignoring the keep votes of various interested parties who were probably not regular editors (I'm not going to do a full check again now), there were 2 deletes and 4 merges. No consensus (67% merge).
 * Votes for deletion/Indiana Jones 4
 * 7 deletes, 6 redirects (to different targets), 1 keep. No consensus (50% delete).
 * Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis
 * 7 deletes, 4 merges (to various targets), 1 redirect, 1 keep, 1 transwiki. No consensus  (54% delete).
 * Votes for deletion/Absynthe Magazine
 * 4 deletes, 2 merge-and-redirects. No consensus (67% merge-and-redirect).
 * Votes for deletion/Triple Penetration
 * 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 5 redirect-and-merge. No consensus (50% redirect and merge).  There was also some mucking about and merging with Triple penetration.  Someone later redirected to Group sex which was fine with me. You don't need a VfD to do that.
 * Votes for deletion/FactBites
 * 3 deletes, 1 keep. Borderline (75% delete).  I could have gone either way.  2 more delete vote would have sealed its fate, but the fact is that all three delete votes came in the first 15 minutes, and there were no other votes to delete in the following 5 days it was on VfD.  It seemed to me that Wikipedia was not fired with a massive enthusiasm to delete this article.
 * Votes for deletion/Phenotypic freedom
 * 2 deletes, 2 merges (to different articles). No consensus (50% delete).
 * Votes for deletion/Isv Kraan
 * 3 deletes, 7 merges, 2 keeps. No consensus (<60% merge)
 * Votes for deletion/Mandalis
 * 2 deletes, 1 transwiki, 2 merge-and-redirects, no consensus.
 * Votes for deletion/Chhatrapati
 * 6 merges, 2 deletes, 1 transwiki. It's just 2/3.  I don't even consider calling a consensus without appreciably more than 70%.  I could have been bold and merged on my own account, but I decided not to.
 * Votes for deletion/Gobar
 * 3 deletes, 2 merge-and-redirects, 1 transwiki. No consensus (50% delete)
 * Made personal decision (ie: not as a result of VfD votes) to be bold and redirect to Gobar Gas.
 * Votes for deletion/Krayt pearl
 * 3 deletes, 2 merges. No consensus (60% delete)
 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language
 * 5 deletes, 4 merges, 1 keep. No consensus (50% delete).

Policy

 * See Guide to Vfd. In particular: "The decision to keep or to delete the article is made according to the administrator's judgement of what consensus is", and "If a VFD discussion yields no consensus, the decision defaults to keep the article. Note that this does not preclude editing, renaming or merging the article, as those actions do not require a deletion vote."

When I close a VfD, I want to give the editors maximum control over what happens next; as VfD closer I have to make the important decision--whether or not to delete, but if I don't get a consensus to merge I don't think I need to consider whether to merge or keep--leave it to the editors. Sometimes I unilaterally, as an editor, take that action myself, but I do so after closing and I make a note saying that I am being bold; my action is reversible and is not part of the closing process. For instance if there is a substantial vote to merge but this doesn't amount to consensus, then I may perform the merge myself. I do not, however, pretend that I can read into the vote that which is not there.

If there really is a consensus vote to merge, however, I will perform the merge as part of the VfD closure, and enforce it as part of Wikipedia policy if attempts are made to reverse it (this has happened, Votes_for_deletion/Jim_Robinson, merged on a 75% consensus, confirmed by subsequent vote in Votes for Undeletion.

On making dispositional decisions
It is not the closer's job to second-guess the disposition of an article--a VfD discussion is not required for a page move, a merge, a redirect or indeed anything other than a deletion. Any editor can perform these tasks if there is a consensus for them. If a consensus emerges during VfD (see above) it should be performed as part of the closing. It should not be manufactured by the closer.

On conservatism
Smoddy suggests "I would define the result of a "no consensus" as being "do the most conservative option".  The VfD guide agrees, and so do I.  The most conservative option a VfD closer can make, if there is no consensus to delete, is to leave what happens next up to the editors.

Unilateral undeletions
As far as I'm aware, there is no limitation on the power of an administrator to undelete an article.


 * Votes for deletion/List of biomedical terms
 * See associated talk page and remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucacy. I don't war over stuff like this, but I will not hesitate to make a bold move that I think may gather consensus, and withdraw if it doesn't.
 * Votes for deletion/Langer 2
 * Vote was to transwiki to dictionary, in November, 2004. Article was unilaterally deleted without VfD consensus. Restored by me because at the time of deletion there was no rule that a transwikied article could be summarily deleted.  Article was subsequently correctly VfD'd and deleted. --Tony Sidaway Talk  16:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Patently false allegations
I hereby absolutely refute the false, unsupported and malicious allegation by R. Fiend that I count socks and anons selectively "when it suits me." This refutation was added to the response after the thirteenth endorsement.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Tony Sidaway Talk 17:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) This RFC is a ridiculous attempt to drive away dissenting admins from VFD. VFD regulars' insularity and hostility to non-regulars isn't actually a good thing. I know a lot of the VFD regulars would love to remove the bit of the deletion policy that says explicitly, "If in doubt, don't delete!" ... but, uh, it's still there. Those involved in this RFC should be ashamed of themselves - David Gerard 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Kim Bruning 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)  Guess why I stay away from vfd ;-)
 * 4) Worst RfC ever. I close VfDs and get harassed without VfUs a lot aswell - No wonder no-one wants to do it. Hedley 19:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) People who take on the difficult task of closing VfDs deserve praise.  No one will ever be pleased by all the decisions made.  Antandrus  (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Do some simple math. When there is no consensus, VfDs should be closed as such. Don't open RFCs against people because you didn't get your way. This is an embarassment. malathion talk 20:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Tony's a trusted admin and editor doing a thankless task on VfD. I hope those who certified this RfC and endorsed the summary will think again. SlimVirgin (talk)  20:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) If the vote is not clear, then it should be kept and voted on again. Tony was playing it safe by doing what he did. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Instead of being awarded a barnstar for his considerable efforts, Tony Sidaway gets ... this RFC. El_C 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Is this a joke? HKT talk 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Tony's standard for real "consensus" should be a model for other closing admins. Kappa 10:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I can't find fault with Tony's conduct here.  Kelly Martin 02:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) I think Tony does a fine job. Every decision here was an appropriate exercise of his discretion. Even if someone else might have made one or two different calls, that's to be expected when you are presented with close calls.  DS1953 04:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) A waste of time for both the certifiers and Tony. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:31, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
 * 15) Unless they have substantial evidence, people should not make such allegations in the first place. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  13:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) At first I was not sure that this was a true RfC.  I am sorry to discover it is.  Hall Monitor 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) EvilPhoenix talk 08:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) I endorse this response. Some of the debates cited were closed differently by Tony than I would have, but on most of them I agree with his decision. I am surprised that a former arbitrator would certify this RFC. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  09:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) I consider it truly obnoxious that Tony Sidaway has to take the time and energy to defend himself against this crap.  No good deed (or in his case, many good deeds) goes unpunished.  A pox on the creator of this RfC.  --Mothperson cocoon 12:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) I do the closing over at CFD.  This is absurd that Tony has to defend himself here.  If there is no consensus, then there is no consensus.  To do anything.  Also known as keep.  I can't and won't say there isn't a consensus to delete, but hey, alot of people voted to merge, so let's do that.  If there is no consensus to delete, then there is no consensus to merge, rename, redirect, etc.  Anyway, many times I've gotten beat up by people who disagreed with my decisions, and it's extremely unfortunate that Tony is here.  --Kbdank71 17:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) A delete can only be undone by another admin.  Any user can do a redirect, a merge, or a move.  Therefore, it makes sense that votes for redirect, merge, or move should not be counted as votes for delete.  I can see no evidence that Tony was abusing his position here.  Anyone who takes on that task will have to make decisions that not everyone will agree with.  I see no justification for this RfC.  Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Agree fully with Tony. Merges and redirects are not administrator-dependent and should be counted as keep votes. As I see it, there are really only two outcomes of VfD: keep, or delete. After that, any editor can merge and redirect or continue discussion on the talk page as he sees fit. And if there is any doubt, don't delete. Keep up the good work, Tony. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:24, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Viriditas | Talk 04:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) CanadianCaesar 15:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Although I disagree with one or two of Tony's calls, this RfC is ridiculous. There is no bad faith here- Tony's goal is the betterment of the project.  And I say this as a VfD regular who often disagrees with Tony.Scimitar parley 19:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) I don't entirely agree with Tony's actions or comments in certain cases, but as to the statement of the current dispute - "This adminstrator has subverted the intent of VfD on numerous occasions." -, his reply is a clear and accurate one. I endorse the view that there has been no misuse of power. I am willing to withdraw this if, and only if, it is demonstrated that Tony would repeatedly take different courses of action after similar (preferably: identical) VfD outcomes, without a convincing explanation. KissL 16:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Tony is a marvelous admin with an exemplary record. Every admin makes tough VfD calls that someone will dislike, and Tony's are always thoughtful.  These allegations are mad. Xoloz 01:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) I see no merit in this complaint. Failure to find consensus where no clear consensus exists is not a flaw, it's good judgement.  Some administrators will be more conservative than others, and that's human nature that we all must learn to respect.  There's no reason why any of these articles couldn't later revisit the deletion forums in search of a clearer consensus.  Unfocused 22:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) I'm not a big fan of many of Tony's positions, but he's always acted in good faith in any actions I've been witness to. This RFC is a witchhunt.Gateman1997 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by smoddy
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''

I signed above as well. Many of these VfDs are entirely divided between "merge" and "delete", "redirect" and "delete", or "BJAODN" and "delete". Yet, when a decision cannot be made between two votes which are clearly not keeps, "keep" is the effective outcome. This is all very well in a vote between "delete" and "keep". But in a vote where the options are clearly opposed to keeping the article in its current state, this is senseless. I would define the result of a "no consensus" as being "do the most conservative option". So merge/delete becomes merge, redirect/delete becomes redirect. BJAODN/delete clearly mean the same thing, but with a good number of suggestions that it be sent to BJAODN as well as being deleted. So I suggest that "no consensus" be defined as "be conservative".

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) [[smoddy ]] 17:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) James 17:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Robert McClenon 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Carnildo 19:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) DES (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Marcika 08:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Any admin who defaults to Keep when not a single keep vote was cast is clearly doing something wrong. Also, Tony seems to like to count anons and sockpuppets...when it suits him. -R. fiend 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Joolz 21:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Calton | Talk 08:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Splash 19:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) feydey 03:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Niteowlneils 19:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Keeping an article with only 0-10% "keep" votes is outlandish. If 90-100% of the votes are merge/redir and delete, with no clear preference between the two, then merge/redir is the best way to go.
 * 14) Geogre 14:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Lack of consensus for delete or merge does not equal a consensus to keep as-is. At the very, very, very, very least, the closer should send the article to clean-up or RfE.  This is not in the rules, because it's assumed that people will be conscientious.
 * 15) Peter Isotalo 10:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Tony is a quite extreme inclusionist. He can vote and motivate votes however he wants, but if he can't keep his opinions in check when judging the outcome of VfDs in this manner he should consider concentrating on other admin chores instead.
 * 16) &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 14:57, August 17, 2005 (UTC) As usual, as Geogre.
 * 17) Hamster Sandwich 02:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Tony has behaved arbitrarily and poorly in regard to (A/V)fDs. Despite the fact, for example, that I have been a wikipedia user for over a year, and have contributed a lot of work to articles during that time, votes that I have cast have been "disqualified" by him and not counted. Sdedeo 00:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by McClenon
I agree with Smoddy as to how a consensus should be interpreted. Most of the votes in question were not "no consensus" but a consensus that at least narrowed the options.

I am not signing the original summary because I do not see an issue of abuse of the authority of an admin. I see an issue of differences of opinion as to how an admin ought to close VfDs. Would the admin in question be willing to refrain from closing VfDs, since he has a different concept of consensus on them than much of the Wikipedia community, but otherwise continue to perform other admin functions? In any case, I do not see an issue of abuse of the authority of an admin. Robert McClenon 19:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) (Are we going to assume Robert McClenon signs his own view?)
 * 2) I mostly agree with this view. Even though I often disagree with Tony's discussion closures, among other things, I don't think he should stop doing them. The "administrator's discretion" rule allows for a lot of leeway – Tony is following policy and I don't believe he's abusing or even misusing his admin abilities. If anything needs to change, it's the deletion policy, not Tony. As is clear from this RfC and the responses to it, there is little that is widely agreed upon when it comes to discussion closures. android  79  14:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) [[smoddy ]] 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC) I particularly agree with Android's comment, and don't ask Tony to stop closing VfDs.   [[smoddy ]] 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  23:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC) - I disagree with some of Tony's decisions but they do not constitute an abuse. (75% delete vote is a cliff to me. - As a result of Votes for deletion/FactBites I will add my vote to 75% delete votes that I would have normally passed as an obvious "admin-will-delete".)
 * 5) Septentrionalis 13:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Kim Bruning
VFD is binary; it has just 2 outcomes: Delete, and Not Delete.

People often say things like redirect, move, or merge, but all these options presuppose a Not Delete, and don't need admin privs anyway.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Kim Bruning 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) malathion talk 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Totally. Yes, Tony has taken VfD for a ride but if you vote merge, you vote to keep. Grace Note 06:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Yup, Kim is spot-on. Dan100 (Talk) 07:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Nice to keep that in mind Lectonar 09:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Although, in accordance with this, a no consensus between delete and merge should be treated as a consensus to merge the article, unless the discussion expressly indicates otherwise . Septentrionalis 13:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) A keep based on "no consensus" due to merge and redirect votes puts the article right back where it should be and any editor is then free to be bold and merge/redirect the article. DS1953 15:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Absolutely. I remember the first VFD debate I ever saw. It was Votes for deletion/TCS Victory (an article I made as an anon actually). It resulted with a merge result, but has so far not been merged. Merge is a kind of keep, and if it proves difficult, it may have to be kept instead. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) --Doc (?) 12:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)If 'kept' anyone can redirect/merge - although, if there's clear concensus, the admin should be encouraged to do it (and I note Tony often does). No abuse of process here - (except BJAODN is obviously a delete).
 * 11) That's why they call it votes for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
 * 12) Mailer Diablo 11:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Kim is absolutely right. It's up to those who choose "merge" or "move" or any vote other than "delete" or "keep" to follow up their own suggestions either boldly during the debate, or less boldly after an article is kept.  Such non-"Keep/Delete" votes cannot compel a closing admin to guess how these far more complex options were meant to be carried out by those who expressed the opinions.  Unfocused 02:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Mindspillage
Mostly just expanding on smoddy's and Kim Bruning's statements:

Consensus to delete requires just that: consensus to delete. Not "more people wanted to delete than wanted any other option chosen", not "a majority wanted to delete". Expanding on "be conservative", anything that is restricted to users with admin capabilities should be done conservatively, because not everyone can undo it; when in doubt, don't. Any other position than "delete" is shorthand for "do not delete, and this is what I would like to see done with the material". Merges and redirects are actions that can be done and reverted by any editor; consensus for those actions can be established on VfD, but also on the Talk page, or anywhere else; someone closing a VfD is not obligated to do these things (though it's nice), only to make one call: delete or not delete. While there are a few decisions I might have called differently than Tony, I don't believe he is out of line here. We don't have a hard line on where to make that call because any explicit policy would just be gamed, and judgment required there too. I seldom agree with Tony, but I think none of his calls here are out of line.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Kim Bruning 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC) this is an expansion on the viewpoint above.
 * 3) Kelly Martin 19:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Antandrus  (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Dan100 (Talk) 21:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Very true. Grace Note 06:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Phroziac (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Septentrionalis 13:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) DS1953 15:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC) (except for the "I seldom agree with Tony" part...)
 * 10) Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (same as DS1953, I think I agree with Tony about half the time...)
 * 11) Mothperson cocoon 13:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Joyous (talk) 19:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)  There were only 2 instances in the list above where I might have made the call differently than Tony. As a closer, I'm looking at the votes to decide "Do I go to the article and click the delete tab, or to I go to the article and remove the vfd tag? Merging and redirecting can be accomplished by anyone.
 * 14) Unfocused 03:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (except the part about "I seldom agree with Tony")

Outside view by Kelly Martin
I don't necessarily agree with all of Tony's calls in the above listed cases; in some of them I think he's outright wrong in his determination and should have decided the VfD some other way. That said, the harm from such mistakes is so minor as to be irrelevant. It is not even remotely critical that every deleteable article be deleted with all deliberate haste.

I think what this RFC really illustrates is the fundamental brokenness of VFD. There is little agreement even among regular admins as to how to interpret VFD votes and little agreement between editors as to what is or is not deletable. VFD creates animosity; it would be better for Wikipedia if borderline deletable articles were left intact without discussion than what is currently happening. I therefore suggest, without regard to whether Tony's conduct in these VFDs was inappropriate, that the entire VFD process is harmful to Wikipedia and should be discontinued immediately.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Kelly Martin 20:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Wholeheartedly. Though I probably wouldn't go as far as Ed did ... - David Gerard 21:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Totally. VfD has become a nasty pit. It attracts a lot of people who do practically nothing but try to get articles deleted, and is a well of unpleasantness and conflict. Grace Note 06:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Very much agree. -- Arwel 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Borderline articles should be kept. If this were practice as well as policy, VfD would not be broken. An actual Speedy keep mechanism would also reduce the load. Septentrionalis 13:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I wish.  VfD isn't so much broken as having taken on a whole monstrous life of its own.  But I haven't a clue what the solution is, and discontinuing it, while a lovely idea, probably won't work.  --Mothperson cocoon 13:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Fully agree.Dovi 07:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Robert McClenon 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Coolcat
OK, here is the deal. Wikipedia supposed to be a encyclopedia. A lot of people confuse wikipedia with an urban dictionary, a phone book, a list of type here etc... Such is noise rather than music. We also have "all mughty" groups of people such as the GNAA and people with dual personalities (or IP's) voting on VfD. So unless there is a cliff between votes (and there are lots of votes rather than lets say 4) it generaly qualifies to be "unresolved". Bear in mind some people vote because of their POV rather than how they feel about the significance of the material. If you think something is noise why dont you speedie it. If it isnt speedieable it shouldnt be VfDable. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1)  Cool Cat My Talk 21:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Llywrch
This is a poorly-written RfC. Reading it, I had no idea what Tony Sidaway actually did to violate the intent of other Wikipedians, & had to ask on the Talk page for these pertinent specifics. And even then, one of the authors of this RfC wrote a response directed to me, aparently to explain this issue -- yet written as if everyone who read it knew precisely what Tony was alleged to have done.

(I guess their complaint is that Tony Sidaway does not delete articles other people believe should be deleted -- but after having another look at the Talk page, it seems to be over how he interprets votes that aren't marked "Keep" or "Delete". A good RfC would have clearly defined the issue, & not force those of us who aren't regulars in the VfD forum to hazard guesses.)

As a result, this entire RfC has become part of a gripefest over how the VfD process currently works, with many people complaining that it is broken on both here & other pages. This continuing creep of the matter of this dispute indicates to me that maybe the problem isn't with what Tony has done, but is with the VfD process. This then leads me, at least, to the next question: will censuring Tony make the VfD process work much better? If this won't, then the Wikipedia policy of assuming good faith towards all of its members should then exculpate Tony from criticism, because any problems he may have made could arguably have been due to problems with the process.

Maybe Tony ought to take a break from the thankless job of closing VfD cases for a couple of weeks, just to see if he is causing the problem here -- but only if his adversaries are willing to apologize should this prove he is not the cause.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) llywrch 17:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User: Xaa
I'm afraid I can't endorse the idea that Tony has specifically engaged in wrongdoing. In reviewing each of the disputed decisions and his responses, I can see his point of view. I *disagree* with some of his decisions (some of them quite strongly), but I understand his reasons for making them. My only real problem is that the Arab hacker decision marks the second time I have essentially been told that my votes are not desired and will not be counted on Wikipedia because I lack seniority (third, if you count the e-mail I was sent soon after I made my first few entries on the VfD page). "Seniority" is always going to be a relative thing - Even if I'm here a month, people who've been here a year will still see me as a "newbie," and will discount my opinion for lack of seniority. I realize this is Wikipedia policy, so there we are.

In truth, I don't even know if this opinion will count at all. Likely, it will not. But, for what it's worth, here it is:

I don't see as how Tony has specifically engaged in wrongdoing. I feel that much of this RfC represents a difference of opinion. Perhaps a *profound* difference of opinion, but a difference of opinion nonetheless.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Xaa 14:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Texture
I have had to change my opinion about Mr. Sidway as a result of a recent discussion with him over his new decision to make all VfD results "binary" in nature. He has decided that, as a result of this RfC, all future VfD results will be either "Keep" or "Delete", even if there are no "Keep" votes. He is dropping "no consensus" as a valid result.

Despite my earlier support for him at this RfC and my ealier respect for his opinion of "no consensus", I have come to realize that he is now acting out of spite against his detractors. To toss out any acknowledgement of "no consensus" is to disregard the policy of consensus.

I have stopped short of endorsing this RfC because it does not address the problem I now see in Mr. Sidaway's VfD closures.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1)  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  21:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) That hardly seems like a constructive response. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Perhaps he should leave closing VfD to those who do not misunderstand the process. Jonathunder 19:22, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
 * 4) Example Votes for deletion/Knapsack (band) 6K, 6D - apparently a keep consensus (I would say no consenus, the outcome is the same, but it is confusing for anyone looking at this if they were looking for VfD precedent on bands), closed whilst this process is pending and a message on his user page says he is on a "wikibreak". I have also noted quite a few examples of him making personal attacks on other users  and generally arguing with other editors in VfD discussions in which he participates. I would expect better behaviour from an administrator. I also noted an example of him berating another admin for closing a VfD in a way he disliked.  --Tim Pope 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) IMO this "binary" appraoch is an incorrect view of VfD. DES (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) The binary view of VfDs is not helpful. It is inconsistent with the principle of "consensus" to suggest that there is no such thing as "no consensus". (I specifically do not support the allegation of "spite", in this Outside View, however.) -Splash 18:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Geogre 20:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC) At one point, Tony tossed in (WP:AN/I) "Does everyone agree with 80% being consensus" and "Should results be binary." That's not the place for such a thing.  What I have been aggravated about is that his decisions were a change of policy. The fact that the policy wasn't written up with strict laws that could cover every possible interpretation is in keeping with the old practice of the site.  We have always avoided "lawyering" the policies to cover every potential abuse, because our administrators are supposed to be sensitive, trustworthy, and non-advocate in these matters.  If one has decided, contrary to previous practice that lack of consensus is a consensus to keep without further action (referring to clean up, putting on a merge tag, renomination to clarify the vote), then you should see community input.  It is the worst of things to invoke "consensus" when taking VfD tags off but to say that you don't need consensus for this invocation because the rules weren't set up in such a way as to prevent you.  By the way: why do I not close VfD's?  Because I know that I would not be fair about it.  I think more should be deleted, and I think I might abuse the process.  Others should know of themselves their own disagreement with community but, apparently, believe it is a reason to own the VfD clearance process.  Geogre 20:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 15:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC) Strongly disagree with this tack. When I personally vote "merge and redirect" or "merge and delete," that means generally, "This doesn't deserve its own article, but the information inside should be retained somewhere else on Wikipedia."  That's a valid vote that many people make and is quite clear in intent. To have it ignored is insulting and counterproductive, particularly when it's a majority opinion.  It's not the closing admin's job to do the merge (although maybe it should be), but at the least he or she can put a merge tag on it, for instance.
 * 9) This is nonsensical, and a clearly making a point at the cost of rationality. [[smoddy ]] 15:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) I find it tiring to participate in consensus-forming when I feel there is a good chance that the consensus (or lack thereof) will be ignored. Nandesuka 05:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Hamster Sandwich 02:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Tony has a way of not accepting the outcome of a discussion when the result disagrees with his views, and, yes, there are incidents of spiteful behaviour .I do not trust Tony being impartial and feel he is pushing his agenda. Pilatus 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Tony's crusade against deletion of school articles, now turned into a crusade against deletion of almost all articles, has so colored his views and actions that I did not trust his opinions at either VFD or VFU. Blank Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>&empty;  16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) This type of binary mentality is what makes school inclusionists think there is a consensus to keep ALL schools. In fact there is not a consensus to keep ALL schools and it leads to huge fights. If this spreads to other areas then wikipedia is in trouble. Already far to much time is wasted in RfC, AfD, Arb com etc. Does anyone here ever have time to do constructive editing? David D. (Talk) 07:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Zoe
- deleted the deletedpage template, undeleted and unprotected the Monique deMoan article despite consensus on Votes for Undeletion to keep the article deleted. He did so without any discussion with any of the participants in the dispute and without discussion anywhere else. Zoe 00:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

He also unblocked, who was recreating the article in question who had been blocked for the behavior. Tony Sidaway did not discuss this unblocking with anyone. Zoe 00:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, see also this, and particularly the charming statement from Tony: "If the process gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, it gets trashed. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)." This is the philosophy of an administrator?  I thought admins were supposed to follow policy and try to get disagreeable policy amended, not decide that they get to decide, and only them, and not the rules, not other administrators, and not the community.  Geogre 02:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has now undeleted Francesca Easthope despite unanimous keep deleted votes on VfU. It is apparently his policy to decide all VfD and VfU votes on his own, without any interest or concern for the votes or consensus of others. Zoe 05:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:cje
I am the user who originally tagged the Francesca Easthope for a speedy. (As an aside I agree this was arguable and maybe a VfD would have been better; but I still think it was a reasonable call). When I saw the page re-appear and read Tony's comments that, paraphrasing him, 'we have to follow policy' my immediate reaction was "bureaucrat"! However, having read all the comments above and the way Tony has been jumped on for deleting articles, and now is jumped on for undeleting articles, then I changed my mind. I can certainly understand why he did what he did. I have no complaint on his taking Francesca Easthope  through the full VfD process. Maybe we need a better policy for "nonsense but not gibberish" articles, but don't shoot Tony for that! --Cje 14:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Ummit
I am an outsider who ended up here after wondering what all the fuss was on Votes_for_deletion/ExamDiff_%28second_nomination%29. In particular, I was puzzled why Tony was being accused of "attacking people who disagree with you" when, at least in the context of the ExamDiff RfD, it looked much more like it was Tony who was being attacked. Clearly there was some backstory here.

I think a big part of the problem is that we are having, by proxy, a debate on the huge issue of inclusivity. There are lots of people who feel strongly (and with good reason) that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that articles on frivolous or non-notable topics detract from that goal and should be deleted. But there are also lots of people who feel equally strongly that information is good, and that we should not delete well-written, informative articles merely because they are on topics which a conventional encyclopedia would not have covered. (Disclaimer: with the poles stated that way, I lean towards the latter, I guess more inclusionist stance, although there are plenty of articles I'm in favor of deleting. I've started several VfD's myself, and yesterday I think my votes on other VfD's were something like 9/10 Delete.)


 * [Comment: before 1,723 of you jump in and point me there, I have now discovered and read several of the Meta: pages on the various wikipedian philosophies, and I see that my remarks in the preceding paragraph are somewhat na&iuml;ve or superficial. Steve Summit (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)]

From what I can see here, most of Tony's VfD closures have been proper, though colored by his own "when in doubt, keep" preference -- a preference which of course is supported by the very same guidelines he's trying to follow.

If the real problem is that Wikipedia in its current state is more inclusionist than it should be, that's a problem eminently worthy of debate, but the debate shouldn't happen down here in a series of attacks on an administrator who is merely -- and I do think honestly -- trying to comply with the current set of guidelines and the opinions as expressed by the current set of VfD voters.

Also, I suspect that these labels "inclusionist" and "deletionist" and "mergist" are at risk of becoming prejudicial. We should all be working for the best Wikipedia possible (with, certainly, spirited debates along the side about what constitutes "best"). But if I've identified myself as an X-ist and I've labeled you as one of those disreputable Y-ists such that I automatically discount everything you say and do, that's not helpful.

Steve Summit (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.