Meta:Requests for adminship/Tony Sidaway

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Tony Sidaway

Vote closed: not nominated - promotion criteria doesn't met (75% support)(Result; 12 Support[57%], 6 Oppose, 3 Neutral) --Aphaia 10:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been an editor on English Wikipedia since November, 2004, and became an admin there in March, 2005. As well as this, I have been appointed mentor to two editors by the Arbitration Committee, and in February was appointed a clerk to the Committee. I have developed one tool for tracking the history of anti-vandalism activities on an article, to enable administrators to make decisions on protecting articles. It works on all of the most active Wikipedias and I will adapt it to any other Wikipedia WikiMedia project on request.

David and I tend to think pretty similarly so he and I may find ourselves collaborating. I have set up a project to detect and fix bad deletions on the English Wikipedia and I am producing a tool to help with this--the tool will be as applicable to meta as to any other Wikimedia-owned project that is accessible from the Toolserver. Here's the confirmation diff from en. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• ZOMG CABAL! Heh. Support - David Gerard 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as Cabal member, etc. Esteffect 00:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Joined meta the very same day he voted (on the 28th
• Support. I can vouch for Tony as a nonIdiot(R) on en.wikipedia, and as a mindful admin. Linuxbeak 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: you only have 90 edits; the rules require that you have at least 100 on meta. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? Oh interiot's tool is most likely out of synch with the meta server. Check this link instead. Seems well over to me.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is about my hundredth edit, and I was well over by the time I nominated myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose - yes, Interiot's Tool had a slight lag time of a few hours and showed only 90 edits. However, making over 400 edits in a two to three day timespan (most of them minor edits adding categories) during your RfA makes me hesitate; the 100 edit requirement is supposed to mean that you are active on meta. Before the edits on March 27, the day before your RfA started, you had 90 edits, indicating that you weren't active. I'm glad that you've started editing meta now, but please give it more time and I will support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry for the 400 edits. It's part of a project I'm doing for cleanup, and is likely to comprise most of what I'll be doing on meta for the next week or so. It is absolutely the case that a few days ago I had less than 100 edits. But I don't see what that had to do with anything really. I'm going to be continuing to bang off thousands of infrastructure edits in the near future, the effect of which will be, hopefully, to immeasurably improve the infrastructure of meta. It'll be easier for people from other projects to find things they need, basically. And that's what meta needs badly, in my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Zscout370 01:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I'm new to meta, there are serious claims he's abused admin and clerk powers on English Wikipedia. Perhaps those should be considered. See, for example the RFAr. (So en:User:Tony Sidaway is on my watchlist.) Arthur Rubin 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why do I have the feeling that there is more to this story than you're telling us? Linuxbeak 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course there is. I'm asking those considering his adminship to consider the dispute there and decide whether his actions there, if repeated here, would be good for m:Wikipedia. Any summary I could make would probably be disputed by both Tony and the other admins involved in the wheel war. Arthur Rubin 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The culture here may be sufficiently different that he wouldn't make admin decisions in conflict with that culture, as he has on en:Wikipedia. However, one of the proposed findings of fact (at, I think 7 for and 0 against) in the RFAr was that he engaged in a wheel war. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No offense intended, Tony. I'm sure you won't hold this against me if our paths cross in the future. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Question I suppose it is a bit facetious, but (and I see that is similar of Arthur's opinion as well) what assurances do we have that you will not go on rampages such as those (in the past perhaps?) on en? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 02:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am aware of no suggestion that I have engaged in rampages on en. I have asked the arbitration committee to seriously consider desysopping me, and they have not taken the opportunity to do so. It appears that they still have confidence in my abilities as an administrator--if perhaps they'd rather I hadn't leapt head first into so many conflicts over applications of the deletion policy on en. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What "rampages", precisely, are you talking about? Please detail (a list of what concerns you personally, not a pointer to someone else's list) - David Gerard 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Wheel wars as raised above, although for some reason I don't see that as becoming as much of a problem here... besides, the recent catagorization and cleanup is insanely useful. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Jacoplane 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• yes Anthere 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Utterly committed, utter trustworthy. --Doc glasgow 12:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 15 edits on meta. All to user page and vote here.
    • (True, so discount the vote if that's the rules - but being an admin with 10k+ edits on en.wiki perhaps entitles me to be a character witness)--Doc glasgow 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • By the way, this sort of edit-counting with the implication of discrediting a vote recently got an en: user sanctioned by the arbitration committee for propagation of assumption of bad faith. But, as you say, this is a different place, so presumably this sort of thing is OK here - David Gerard 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Extreme Cabal Support. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Good user, but Oppose for now. Little experience with meta; only 15 article edits prior to March 27. Recent interest shown in Meta is good to see; please come back in a month. Sj 17:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Has a meta mentality and will do good cleanup work. Please do tread cautiously, though; Meta is a place of many memories. ;-) --Eloquence 17:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Shouldn't even be an admin on en. --Blu Aardvark 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - and by the way, Blu Aardvark is on indefinite wikibreak which he only seems to come out of to oppose various RFAs. I wouldn't pay him any heed. --Cyde 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, he's a good chap. His views are just as valid as yours or mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) I was wrong about Blu Aardvark. See his recent vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Also note the fact that, prior to that, I had been harrassed by a multiple number of admins, and had been unreasonably blocked for calling Raul654, who is a troll, a troll. That isn't to justify my actions, but you do have to recognize the circumstances around them. It doesn't do just to say, "Well, Blu's a common vandal" and ignore the abuses that I was subjected to from SlimVirgin, Raul654, NicholasTurnbull, Kelly Martin, and others. --Blu Aardvark 09:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm on an indefinate wikibreak, yes, but with the caveat that I may swing by to comment on discussions that interest me. I didn't come over to meta to oppose an RFA, however (indeed,I supported a different one just above this discussion). I came over here to oppose the inclusion of a site on the spam blacklist, because it is leading to collateral damage on other projects, not even run by Wikimedia, that happen to run the MediaWiki software. However, I'm a RecentChangesJunkie (that's how I prefer to read different wikis). This discussion was active, and I commented on it. Nothing too unusual, if you happen to look over my contributions on en, VKoL, ED, or hrwiki. --Blu Aardvark 09:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• neutral - We need Tony on the english wiki as much as possible. I'm not too keen on giving him away to meta. :) -(Zero on the english wikipedia) K' 12:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - too soon. oscar 17:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose due to wheel warring on Wikipedia. Angr 13:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral Phe 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. James F. (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support Naconkantari 22:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Andrevan 22:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)