Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

message: I have already stated that I regarded David's hounding of another editor unacceptable. That he then started hounding me does not make his conduct any more acceptable.I would appreciate it if he would cease this unacceptable conduct.  He will not change my opinion of the appalling behavior of multiple parties in the recently closed RFA, but it will also be noted that, unlike David, I have had my say and tried to move on.
:I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion regarding the RfA, Tony.  This isn't about the RfA.  This is about your blatant personal attacks and other incivility.  It isn't okay for you to engage in such conduct, "move on," and claim that any attempt to resolve the resultant conflict constitutes harassment.  —David Levy 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the reason the RfC was started. ViridaeTalk 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Sidaway's response to this RfC

message: This is a summary all about how my life got flipped-turned upside down
Incivility is never good etc etc, but Tony's behavior is reasonably understandable for the given situation. It is vital that we understand that we are real people behind these names, that we are human. Don't get me wrong, Tony can piss me off at times, but this isn't an issue. Civility is good, but so is being a little understanding and a little less demanding that people be perfect.  -- Ned Scott 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Ned.  Tony's human, and I don't expect him to be perfect.  I expect him to consider the possibility that he erred (instead of dismissing such claims as harassment).  I also expect him to realize that other editors are human too (and therefore have feelings that are hurt when they're labeled loonies, idiots, wankers, and trolls).  I don't think that this is asking so much.  —David Levy 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedians need to be a little less sensitive for the good of the encyclopedia. Not saying it was right or wrong, but just saying... tough it out. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with you here Ned. To even suggest that people should accept this kind of behaviour as regular in order to keep a few people on board the project is preposterous. I am willing to cut everyone some slack once in a while, everyone knows that I can be strongheaded myself at times. However the events where I turn to verbal violence and such can be counted on one hand. Tony and several other people on this project however are starting to show "vandal fighting"-skills that should all worry us. If this is what  "Wikipedians need to be a little less sensitive" about then it is time we trash WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. With those kinds of "friends" to the project, who needs enemies. I have considered multiple times to open RfCs on several of these people, but it just takes too much time to gather evidence and I choose to ignore instead. That does not mean I don't care, it means I have a thick skin and look at myself as long as other people don't have a problem with the same issue. Well apparently, there is more then one person that thinks this now. When it all comes down to it, Tony is still one of the reasons I left WP:TV because being a "TV guy" he didn't find me worthy of discussion. That also damages the project, just as much as vandals. Perhaps it's even worse. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "To even suggest that people should accept this kind of behavior as regular in order to keep a few people on board the project is preposterous." I'm not saying that. If you want to make this about Tony's behavior over-all, fine, I might not even disagree with you, but when I look at this specific situation I think "well how the fuck did you expect him to react". And he still handled himself better than most do. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "To even suggest that people should accept this kind of behavior as regular in order to keep a few people on board the project is preposterous." That is exactly what you and ElinorD are suggesting. If you think david has been so out of line start a RfC on him, but tony's incivility is a constantly re-appearing problem, the biggest problem of that is refuses to accept hes EVER been uncivil. Then editors turn up a say its ok its tony hes allowed to do it, "well how the fuck did you expect him to react" CIVILLY thats how ned, thats how.(Hypnosadist) 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ned Scott's outside view

message: All very well to work on that nice principle that everyone moves on and is happy, but this is the second RfC where Civility has been the primary focus and a small example from the countless times Tony has been downright uncivil and used personal attacks. This behaviour hinders the production of the encyclopedia by fowling the atmosphere. All the requests for him to change his behaviour have been very polite (except one) - and at least one of them was downright syrupy. This issue has escalated to an RfC because Tony has refused to accept that he is being uncivil, instead characterising the multiple requests for him to play nicely as harassment. What's more - multiple requests by multiple people apparently constitute harassment by David Levy - perhaps we are all sockpuppets of each other...? ViridaeTalk  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assure you that's not going to happen.  So now what?  Attempt to pester and demoralize him until he goes away?  Persuade his peers to block him for a few hours so he can reflect on how his intemperate words have made others feel?  Those things aren't going to happen either.  Accept that Tony is a great editor but has flaws like all of us, and you will be more at peace.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt anyone (Tony included) would dispute that he is uncivil at times.  I could be wrong of course; I'm just guessing.  I think where the disagreement lies is that Tony doesn't think his behavior is unacceptable.  Friday (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the RfC. ViridaeTalk 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  What's your goal here?  Suppose he will not change.  What would you like to happen?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my hope that he will change. Lets address the possobility that he doesn't should we come to it. ViridaeTalk 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this issue, he hasn't changed in years, it seems unlikely he would now.  It's very unclear what can be done about it; hence, nothing ever being done about it.  That's why that question is a good one.  Friday (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite.  This RFC isn't the place to discuss what to do about occurrences like the recently closed RFA.  However it is to be expected that extremely poor conduct will lead to the expression of strong opinions. Trust me, my language has been quite commensurate to what I perceive as behavior unworthy of any Wikipedian, by multiple parties.   But I said my piece and moved on.  --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of the problem, Tony.  It isn't okay for you to engage in blatant personal attacks and other incivility, "move on," and act as though the former never occurred.  —David Levy 04:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am willing to put up with the base level (although I would prefer to not even have to deal with that, as I sure many people would). But this latest exchange escalated well beyond that. We as wikipedians shouldn't have to have to sit around and put up with such blatant disregard for one of the core policies just because the editor in question has been like that for years and doesn't want to change. There are other steps in the DR process - perhaps mediation might be a useful next step. But I would prefer not to have to deal with that till the time comes. ViridaeTalk 04:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Virdae, this farce is not helping.  Tony, come on.  "Commensurate to what I perceive as behavior unworthy of any Wikipedian?"  It's okay to verbally abuse people if they've misbehaved?  Or only if they've misbehaved really, really, really badly?  That's just dumb.  There's a right and wrong way to speak to people.  In your edit summaries, you often plead melodramtically with others to show a shred of human decency, etc.  Part of decency is treating people--even scoundrels (btw, are you fellow editors really as wicked and corrupt as you make them out to be?)--with a modicum of respect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Civility is one of the 5 core policies. It is not negotiable. Tony is frequently uncivil and in this case especially so. What part are you missing? ViridaeTalk 04:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to ElinorD

message: I have to wonder if there is more time, effort and intelligence spent by Wikipedians on 
A.) encyclopedic content
B.) arguments, lawyering, counter- and counter-counter-maneuvering, quoting, complaining, bitching, moaning, and navel-gazing on a scale I never imagined existed.
(Please note that I don't intend this comment toward David, Tony, Ned or anyone else in particular.  I've just never seen a time-sink like this before.  Is all of the [insert all that stuff from part B. above] going to be around 100 years or more from now?  I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia will, I just hope that at some point all of this stuff [again, part B.] can be hidden from people who actually come to Wikipedia to learn something.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.11.3 (talk • contribs) 
:Amen.--MONGO 10:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no dog in this fight, but how do you have dispute resolution with a bunch of anonomous people on the internet yet have it invisable to other anonomous people?  if you can figure that out i'll nominate you for the nobel.--Cube lurker 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed untill the matter was deemed resolved. ViridaeTalk 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [unbiased opinion of an amazed reader]