User talk:Tony Sidaway/RfC3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Second RFC Posting
I have to post this a second time because Sidaway has deleted the RFC posting on himself. He's also played around with the RFC page, as it pertains to himself. So now he's removing petitions of greivances against him in addition to running rampant deleting content.
- MSTCrow 11:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It was I and not Tony who deleted this first. I recommend immediate deletion to prevent forest fires, but having deleted it once, I will not war over it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- If he meant the one before you, I was doing cleanup to archive and clear the first RFC before this new one was able to be posted. If you were confused at what happened, MSTCrow, come see me. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The best thing to do would be to put the _old_ rfc back at the very least. A new one should go at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 - brenneman(t)(c) 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed the previous ones and they're both in the archives as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 1 and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 2. But as this one wasn't properly written up, it should probably be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The best thing to do would be to put the _old_ rfc back at the very least. A new one should go at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 - brenneman(t)(c) 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- If he meant the one before you, I was doing cleanup to archive and clear the first RFC before this new one was able to be posted. If you were confused at what happened, MSTCrow, come see me. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 11:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not linked from main page
This hasn't yet been linked from the main page, and it's been moved around and delted so much that my head is spinning. I've left a note on the original user's talk that he needs to fill this out, and then it will get linked to the RfC page and then it's 24 hour clock starts ticking, right? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- It got linked again, but once again, it is not filled out right. I already deleted this page once to give them a chance to not overwrite the past RFC, but I saw it was very, very incomplete, so I gave them another blank slate for them to do this. I am not going to delete this again, but if this RFC is not even taken seriously by those who are trying to file it, then either there is not enough support for this RFC or the filer is doing something odd. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- People need hand holding sometimes. I've offered to help people bring suit against myself before, so this isn't anything outside the lines. With everything else that's been going on, I think we should be going out of our way to make people feel that a) their concrens are listened to, and b) there do exist venues to raise them. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I've undeleted the deleted revisions in case anyone is interested in progressing this case. Note that I haven't received any interaction at all from the proponent of this RfC, despite my politely inviting him to do so, so the RfC seems to have been filed somewhat prematurely. As I'm not currently going around deleting userboxes, it might not be such a good idea to make a big deal of it. My reasons for deleting those that I did are well known and I've given ample defence of this action elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Still going on
Tony's still making unilateral decisions regarding userboxes, and other things. Canaen 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course I am. Making unilateral decisions is a very large part of what administrators are supposed to do. --Tony Sidaway 00:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
