Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agriculture (talk | contribs) at 13:34, 21 October 2005 (→Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:34, 21 October 2005 by Agriculture (talk | contribs) (→Response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 16:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

Tony Sidaway is often incivil, does not respond well to criticism, and tends to ignore problems that people may have with him.

Description

Tony Sidaway is frequently incivil and belligerent to users who disagree with him, and has on several occasions made personal attacks against such users. He frequently calling claims that do not match his opinion "patently false" or "idiocy", when such claims are either misunderstood by Tony, or a matter of differing opinion.

When Tony's actions are questioned by other users, he frequently responds by telling that user to "stop making false accusations", by denying the incident, or by attacking the user who brought it up. In general he tends to be unwilling to discuss problems that may exist with his behavior, or to reach a compromise over them.

Finally, Tony has made several claims that there are no problems with his behavior and that any complaints against him should not be taken seriously, and sometimes lectures people on good behavior when his own behavior goes against the very advice he gives.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Incivility and personal attacks

  1. "Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief."
  2. "I'm utterly disgusted at these shenanigans." "I'll take this as a blatantly bad faith deletion ... This was pure bloodlust"
  3. "Egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Misplaced Pages administrators"
  4. "It is idiocy like this that truly disgusts me"
  5. "Utterly ludicrous deletion. Despite the false claims made elsewhere"

Responding badly to criticism

  1. "Your criticism was not only intemperate, it was completely misplaced." (in response to an apology by another user)
  2. "Stop making patently false claims about my opinion"
  3. "This was patronising, offensive and of course completely useless advice since I'd done nothing of the sort."
  4. "I found your comments completely unacceptable ... It seems like sadism for the sake of it."
  5. "Don't breach good faith repeatedly and then try to lecture someone else to do what you already are signally failing to do."
  6. "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"

Stating there are no problems

  1. "My only claim to acting in this way is that I can get away with doing so because I'm good at it"
  2. "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."
  3. "WP:IAR is certainly something that requires extreme arrogance, and can sometimes lead to censure. I've no problem with that."

Lecturing other people on behavior but not heeding his own advice

  1. "(WP:CIV, WP:FAITH and WP:NPA) are not optional or "advisory", they're policies which you're expected to follow."
  2. "You don't like to see someone saying negative things, and you take them as personal attacks."
  3. "This "I'm right, you're wrong" stuff has no place on Misplaced Pages"
  4. "We should all make a habit of checking our perceptions in case they should happen to be incorrect."

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Civility
  2. No personal attacks
  3. Assume good faith
  4. Wikiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Attempt by User:Radiant! here
  • I have noticed several users attempting to discuss some or all of these issues with Tony, and failing to resolve anything, and would ask those to add a link or two in this section.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Radiant_>|< 12:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agriculture 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Tony is probably one of the biggest threats to Misplaced Pages these days. He is hostile towards others and abuses his position as an administrator to push his own POV. He is unwilling to listen to other opinions or accept criticism. Anyone who questions his actions is not only automatically wrong, but typically an "idiot". He has violated consensus on many occasions prefering to go with his own POV instead, typically justifying it by saying that many of the consensus votes were "idiotic" or something similar. He is abusive to other users, and refuses to qualify decisions he has made:

I am perfectly capable of going through every single one of Radiant's other points an demonstrating how--with 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, he's managed to mire himself into believing that he's proven me to to be wrong. But actually I don't have to do that

As a user this behavior would be reprehensible in it's own regard. As an administrator it constitutes a violation of the power, authority and trust instilled in him by the community. His actions go too far and something needs to be done to let him know that his arrogant, abusive behavior is not befitting an administrator before he drives more good users from Misplaced Pages. Agriculture 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

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 editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.