Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Responses from David Levy

[edit] Tony Sidaway's response to this RfC

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)
Which is the reason the RfC was started. ViridaeTalk 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ned Scott's outside view

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)

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)
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)
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)
"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)
"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)

[edit] Comments by Sarah

Endorse, with Friday's caveat in general, but I don't think such a caveat applies to this particular situation. Tony had clearly indicated that he had had enough and wanted to be left alone. I don't think there was anything to be achieved by continuing to pursue him in that vein. The outcome of Kelly's RfA was highly predictable to most of us from the outset and given their long term friendship, Tony's reaction was also highly predictable. Kelly's RfA evoked strong feelings from many people on both sides of the debate. And given the obvious predictability of the entire situation, I think it would have been better to respect his request and leave him alone and give everyone on both sides the opportunity to cool off post RfA. I don't see pursuing Tony here, on his talk page or elsewhere, achieving anything positive and it would be best if the involved parties simply let it go and moved on. Sarah 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, Tony may voluntarily enter a discussion, engage in blatant personal attacks and other incivility against some of its participants, accuse them of perpetrating "despicable" attacks, respond to concerns regarding said incivility and accusations with further incivility and accusations, blank discussions on talk pages other than his own (including one not pertaining to him), demand that no one attempt to address any of this conduct, and claim to have "walked away" while continuing to engage in blatant personal attacks and other incivility and accusing editors (whom he labels "trolls") of "harassing" him for nothing more than seeking amicable dispute resolution (which they explicitly attribute their to respect for and admiration of Tony). All of that is okay, and Tony is free to do it whenever he pleases.
Again, this is not about Kelly's RfA. It's about Tony's apparent belief that he's permitted to treat his fellow editors with utter contempt, demand that no one respond, and accuse them of "harassment" (while continuing to engage in the same misconduct) if they refuse to comply. —David Levy 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, your point doesn't fly with me at all. Wikipedia is not about holding hands and being friends. Here we're an encyclopedia; we're not a dating service or a myspace. It doesn't matter why Tony cannot abide by the community's expectations of civilized behavior; it's his responsibility to see that he does. If Tony's feeling are so strong in this matter that he can't behave reasonably, he simply needs to refrain from commenting in these sitautions. I expect he'd make excuses for himself; why are you doing it too? it disappoints me to see other people do it too. (Ammended since that last came off sounding harsher than I meant) Friday (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to ElinorD

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)

I should also say that this would never have reached this point had Tony, at any point, stopped and said" Ok I will try to behaviour better". A simple modification in behaviour is what is being asked of him here, nothing drastic - just that he should act in a manner befitting a wikipedian. ViridaeTalk 03:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
Hence the RfC. ViridaeTalk 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Viridae why watse the time! it should be clear by now that the rules don't apply to tony and he knows that! (Hypnosadist) 09:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When it's best to drop a dispute

We're not always on the same wavelength. What appears to one person to be utterly beyond understanding appears intuitive to others. It is clear to me that the overall tenor of responses so far gives some support to my view that, when a person expresses extreme pain over a matter and makes his wish to disengage clear, insisting on pursuing the matter cannot make Wikipedia better.

Like all dispute resolution processes, this RFC's goal is to decide where we go from here, to ask "What is best for Wikipedia?"

We have one editor who has expressed some views that have offended some editors, and who in turn clearly finds recent conduct beyond the pale, and having said his piece has made it plain that he wishes to drop the matter and move on.

We have another editor who misguidedly seeks a resolution that he can never have. Despite the absence of an ongoing dispute he seeks to escalate.

The first editor has said what he felt he needed to say and rejects attempts to engage the subject further.

The second editor, despite having been advised by several parties to drop the issue, wishes to continue.

As that first editor, like all other editors I reserve my right to spend my volunteer time on Wikipedia in improving it as a I see fit. I am not engaged in any activities that are the subject of a complaint, other than refusing to engage the subject of my original complaint any further.

The remaining complaint simply comprises, as far as I can tell, the fact that I strongly disagree with David's conduct and that of other Wikipedians and I have said so in a manner than David found unacceptable. Well, I tried my best, but it failed and I stopped when it was clear that it had failed.

So what's the best thing for Wikipedia? I suggest that the most achievable and most beneficial will be that my continued requests that David finally disengage will finally be heeded. Nothing can be achieved by continually tugging on a raw nerve. We're both Wikipedians in good standing and both deserve respect and freedom from harassment. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You are refusing to be civil and refusing to acknowledge you are BEING uncivil. The disa greement over Kelly's RfA does not matter one bit, it was simply a disagreement and that is not what this is about. Cool your language, abide by WP:CIV a core policy and there will be no problem. But while you continue not to do that there will be a problem and there will continue to be a problem as you will piss people off time and time again with your abrasive attitude and name calling. ViridaeTalk 04:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what is uncivil about this comment. --Tony Sidaway 04:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
At what point was I talking about this comment in particular, or for that matter characterising everything you write as uncivil...? ViridaeTalk 04:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Viridae...do you think you have been abusive? I do. Do you think you have been incivil? I do. Frankly, I think you have engaged on several attempts to "get" people and that is bad form for an administrator. I really recommend you stop this.--MONGO 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that is the pot calling the kettle black. MONGO I have commented on your civility issues several times because they keep on appearing. At some point if you are paranoid enough you may construe this as being out to get you. Stop having people complaining about your lack of civility and I will stop commenting on it. End of story. ViridaeTalk 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Surely, if you have to keep going after people, perhaps the problem is with you, not those other people. I find this RFC to be incivil, I find your badgering to be incivil. I recommend you cease escalating conflicts and get busy writing an encyclopedia...I certainly have. End of story.--MONGO 05:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
MONGO you are the most consistently uncivil person I have come across on wikipedia. This conflict was always in Tony's hands. Had he not responded to requests to be more civil with insults it would nto have escalated to the point it did. It is not harrasment to point out to someone that WP:CIV applies to them, and nor is it harassment to use the dispute resolution process to resolve a dispute. Tony was uncivil. He got called out on it. He responded by being even more uncivil. He then got called out on it by even more people. He continued to be uncivil (and blank other peoples talk pages and the wikiquette alerts section regarding him). so the RfC was started. At any point, had he stopped and said "Ok I will stop calling people names now" then this would not have been escalated. As Friday said:
"On the other hand, "Leave me alone" cannot be a magic incantation that instantly demands that all attempts at dispute resolution must stop." Tony had been provided with ample opportunity to stop this dispute escalating. There were multiple chances for reconciliation before it made it to this RfC, but he continued to behave in the same way as what got him into the situation in the first place. It is not harassment to pursue a legitimate dispute through the dispute resolution process and in my eyes, and the eyes of others who have commented on his talk page on on this RfC, multiple and continuing breaches of WP:CIV, one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, is a legitimate dispute. 06:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Tony, if you're truly interested in moving on, you should know that reverting someone's comments with a rude edit summary does not come off looking like an attempt to "move on". Simply ignoring comments you don't want to respond to looks a lot more like "moving on". Friday (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, this has nothing to do with the RfA. What you're saying is that someone can be as uncivil toward others as he/she pleases, stop, and consider the matter closed. Then when the editors to whom this individual has been uncivil politely attempt to address his/her conduct, this somehow constitutes harassment (because the incivility isn't "ongoing").
What this fails to consider is the fact that we're people, not automatons. When someone's feelings are hurt, "moving on" doesn't change that.
Yes, Wikipedians in good standing deserve respect. Do you honestly believe that you're been respectful of the editors with whom you disagree? I repeatedly noted that my desire to resolve this conflict stemmed from just such a sentiment (hardly a statement that should escalate the dispute), and you responded by branding me a "troll." That's hurtful, Tony, and I expect you to have the decency to realize that. —David Levy 04:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Are we going to try to find a resolution to this dispute, or not? I suggest that the way forward is to disengage, not to quibble about the manner of disengaging nor to continue to harp on the raw nerves. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a simple resolution to this tony, you follow WP:CIV and WP:NPA. (Hypnosadist) 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hurling insults and accusations and then demanding that everyone shut up and go away isn't resolution. Nor, for that matter, is the attempted enforcement of WP:CIV and WP:NPA quibbling.
And that goes for me too. You've alleged that I engaged in "attacks," and I ask that you cite the diffs. It certainly wasn't my intention to offend anyone, and I want very much to avoid doing so in the future. Do you? —David Levy 05:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The way to end this dispute is to walk away. Can you find it in yourself to do that? --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is one of a long line of disputes both major and minor about your civility. It will not be resolved by once again burying the matter. ViridaeTalk 05:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hell, I can find 2 arbitration cases in which you were found to be uncivil - thats in addition to an unrelated RfC and the countless complaints I have seen on your talk page. Perhaps its time you considered changing your ways...? ViridaeTalk 05:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, Tony, you're arguing that you have the right to engage in blatant personal attacks and other incivility and demand that anyone who takes issue "walk away." And if they don't, they're "harassing" you.
You certainly can ask people to stop pursuing amicable conflict resolution, but said individuals aren't obliged to comply. If they don't, this doesn't entitle you to label them trolls and remove their messages (and other users' replies) from a project page. Doing so isn't remotely tantamount to "walking away." It's piling on yet another personal attack.
And again, you didn't merely engage in incivility. You've continually alleged that I "attacked" others, and I've requested that you provide diffs demonstrating the behavior to which you're referring. (I hold myself to the same standard to which I hold you, so I certainly wish to address these concerns. I cannot do so without your co-operation.)
Of course, you're under no obligation to honor these requests, but your apparent disdain for discussing these matters doesn't entitle you to continue engaging in blatant personal attacks and other incivility against users who seek such discussion in good faith. —David Levy 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm arguing solely that, for the good of Wikipedia, you respect my wish to drop the matter. I disengaged and made my wishes plain. Wikipedia isn't the place to pursue and worry personal disputes to death. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also not the place to continue inappropriate behavior when you've been asked repeatedly to stop. Wikipedia has a code of conduct because it helps the project work better. This is the crux. Friday (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Tony, take the hint, your behavior has been out of line for months and you need to correct it. (Hypnosadist) 15:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. In what way am I continuing inappropriate behavior? --Tony Sidaway 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
For those who see it that way, what's inappropriate is your chronic drama-escalating incivility. It's been an ongoing problem for years now. But I suspect those who see it as a problem and those who don't are sufficiently far apart that little meaningful communication is possible between them. Friday (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Friday while this "But I suspect those who see it as a problem and those who don't are sufficiently far apart that little meaningful communication is possible between them." seems demonstrated fact, why is it so? Why is he so protected from the rules of wikipedia if the thing that does not exist, does not exist?(Hypnosadist) 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Figure that one out, and fix this problem, and you'll have my full support for Supreme Mugwump of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
"Supreme Mugwump" theres a title worth wageing wikijihad for. (Hypnosadist) 16:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In what way are you continuing inappropriate behavior? By not citing evidence to corroborate (or retracting) the serious allegations that you have continually lodged. By not acknowledging that your conduct was out of line and apologizing for it. By not acknowledging that this is an ongoing problem and taking steps to ensure that your behavior improves in the future. —David Levy 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm unconvinced that there is any "drama-escalating incivility" here. If anything, my continued refusal to continue to engage was the cause of the problem here. You cannot have it both ways. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
By what standard does responding to a polite dispute resolution attempt (which the editor in question explicitly attributes to his respect for and admiration of you) by blanking an entire good-faith discussion on a project page and simultaneously referring to said editor as a "troll" constitute "refusal to continue to engage"? How do you justify this conduct? From my perspective, the worst part isn't the fact that you've engaged in such behavior; it's that you evidently believe that you've done absolutely nothing wrong (and presumably intend to continue down this road in the future). —David Levy 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What about other people's wishes, Tony? Why don't you respect them? Why is the only acceptable course of action for everyone else to do what you want? —David Levy 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Iamunknown

This is not about Kelly's RfA - this is about what happened after Kelly's RfA and Tony's steadfast refusal to abide by WP:CIV, while continuing to attack anyone and everyone who broached the subject with him. Furthermore, although there may have been some incivility in the RfA (didn't pay close attention) I have not seen any of that continue far past the subject of the RfA. Tony however has a history of uncivil behaviour, which is inexcusable and he continues to behave like this. This dispute would not have happened had he simply agreed to stop attacking those people who questioned his behaviour. ViridaeTalk 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way is my current conduct in breach of Civility policy? I have repeatedly asked that you and others respect my wishes, for the good of Wikipedia, to drop the matter, and I have done so in as polite a manner as is possible. --Tony Sidaway 15
51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. [1] Dismissive of attempts to discuss the RfA close: "If you cannot be bothered to write the word, don't bother to argue about the powers you have mistakenly vested the "crats" with.
  2. [2] Characterised discussion as idiocy.
  3. [3] Pure wankery.
  4. [4] Called bureaucrats loonies.
  5. [5] Removed attempts to resolve the situation with the edit summary "utterly unacceptable".
  6. [6] Removed active discussion regarding the dispute from Phil Sandifer's talk page with the edit summary "More bullying and wankery. Removed."
  7. [7] Removed attempts to resolve the situation with the edit summary "This is descending into badgering."
  8. [8] Left note on his userpage saying he will ignore any further attempts to contact him over this issue.
  9. [9] Removed attempt to discuss the issue and characterised the attempt as "more attacks and false accusations".
  10. [10] Removed yet another attempt to resolve the situation including the notice of a wikiquette alerts discussion about his behaviour.
  11. [11] Removed the actual wikiquette alerts discussion, referring to David Levy as a "troll" for posting it.
  12. [12] Removed notice of this RfC, which he characterised as further hounding.

that should help you, calling people loonies, trolls and bullies is uncivil. Discribing edits as wankery and idocy is uncivil. (Hypnosadist) 16:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask: "In what way is my current conduct in breach of Civility policy?" Please address the question. --Tony Sidaway 16:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhh.. Tony, you seem to be taking a stance of "Oh, look, a bunch of diffs of me being a total dick. Well, I'm not being a total dick at this exact moment, so there's no problem here." Sorry, that ain't how it works. Friday (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, most the the diffs show me making it plain that I did not wish the hounding to continue. Secondly, the purpose of an RFC is to resolve a problem. The problem was resolved, on my part, before the RFC was called. All that is required now is that David heed the very strong hints by other editors, yourself included, to disengage. I believe that it is plain that he had done so. All that remains is your own attempt to revive a dead issue. --Tony Sidaway 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
First the diffs show you being uncivil durring a DR process. Second that is the problem that needs resolving, your incivility. Notice that its YOUR name at the top of the page, thats a hint that its you in the wrong. Not even your friends think you are civil, please keep up the good editing you do just can the drama. (Hypnosadist) 16:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh...well, the ongoing hounding of Sidaway will play out nicely for the hounders if they go to arbcom. The fact that they failed to know when to stop hounding him is evident.--MONGO 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do i think david should have stopped posting on tony's page earlier than he did, YES. Is tony incivil to a wide number of editors over a long period of time, YES. (Hypnosadist) 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Your desire that good-faith attempts at dispute resolution not continue does not entitle you to violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA (even if you refer to it as "hounding" or "harassment").
Nor, for that matter, does temporarily ceasing your incivility magically resolve the problem. It doesn't negate all of your recent (and likely future) misconduct. It doesn't erase the serious allegations that you've lodged (and refuse to corroborate or retract). It doesn't replace a simple apology and commitment to strive for better behavior in the future. —David Levy 17:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the avoidance of doubt

For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to state clearly that my wish to drop the issue was and remains genuine. I withdraw all statements of opinion, whether hurtful or otherwise, pertaining to the conduct of all involved, and apologise for any hurt caused, whether deliberate or otherwise, by me to other people. It is clear to me that there are fundamentally irreconcilable differences that cannot be resolved by further discussion. Further, that any attempt by any party to pursue the differences can only damage Wikipedia. We should try to forget the recent RFA and move on. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If you wish, I will withdraw my outside view. Closing this would probably be best for all involved. WaltonOne 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It must end. Picking at this wound will not heal it. An editor who clearly wishes to disengage should not be hounded. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Tony. If you promise to keep the community's concerns in mind and make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future, I'll consider the matter resolved. —David Levy 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So will I, and for the record, my outside view was not meant as anything personal (just mild criticism). I respect many people on both sides of this case, and while I had strong feelings on the Kelly Martin RfA, I think it's time for it to end. WaltonOne 18:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you promise the above, Tony? —David Levy 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
All of my edits are intended to improve Wikipedia, and I promise to do this to the best of my ability. --Tony Sidaway 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to make anything worse, but it's a tad insulting to Tony to ask him to promise something he already does, and would have done without this RfC. But if we have to play pretend so you guys feel this was something useful, so be it. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It's insulting to ask that Tony "keep the community's concerns in mind and make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future"? Are you seriously suggesting that he already was doing this? Are you seriously suggesting that asking him to do this is "insulting"?
No one is "play[ing] pretend." We're asking Tony to be more civil and receptive because we want him to be more civil and receptive. —David Levy 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
What is insulting is thinking he's not already doing this, or that him doing so is a result of this RfC. I understand why you are asking, and I understand that you are doing so in good faith, but come on. -- Ned Scott 08:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
If he was already doing this there would have been no RfC so its perfectly valid to ask him to do so. ViridaeTalk 08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know for certain that this RfC will have any long-term benefit. That's what I'm attempting to accomplish by politely asking Tony to modify his conduct (as I did many times before the RfC was filed). I don't understand how it's "insulting" to not automatically assume that someone will do something in the future that he has repeatedly failed to do in the past. —David Levy 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Except the part where he didn't do anything wrong, and you guys just feel butthurt for no damn good reason. If you can't see that Tony's just responding the way he is to shut you up, then you are a fool. Nothing has changed, and you have only wasted our times. It is ridiculous activities such as these that force good editors to work the system, just so they can get something productive done. -- Ned Scott 06:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIV is expendable now is it? You never had to participate in this. ViridaeTalk 06:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me for my lack of ability to better express myself without being harsh, but I do hope that doesn't prevent you from considering what I say. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you took the WP:CIV comment as being directed at you - it wasn't It was still focussed at Tony's civility not your comment. ViridaeTalk 07:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that Tony "didn't do anything wrong" and that it's appropriate to engage in blatant personal attacks and other incivility (in addition to removing discussions from pages other than one's talk page) as a means of shutting people up? —David Levy 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou Tony, there was always a simple end to this from David' and my POV. Please keep in mind that this was never about the RfA itself, anyone's conduct in it or anyones opinions about it, that was simply the catalyst. Can you please try to remember in the future that good faith attempts to bring an issue like this up with are exactly that, good faith. If you do I think this will make life easier on everyone. I am delisting the RfC if that hasb't already been done. ViridaeTalk 21:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In my mind, it was always and will always be about the conduct of the RFA (with which I had no involvement) and about the unreasonable hounding of certain editors afterwards. But I don't think I or anybody else can hope to rectify that, or indeed to do anything but worsen that damage by continuing. It is, in my view, an unmendable rift. I fully endorse the well supported outside views by ElinorD and Iamunknown, particularly the following:
sometimes showing that we're right can and should be sacrificed for the greater good of getting on with writing an encyclopaedia.
Please, all parties, drop this issue, and get back to the encyclopedia.
I have had just a tiny taste of the fall-out from that RFA, and feel fortunate that I was not involved in it in any way. We must draw a line under that distasteful affair, holding no grudges. It must die. --Tony Sidaway 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This was NEVER about the RfA, and claiming repeatedly claiming that it is is simply putting incorrect words into both David and my mouths. This most recent statement combined with a complete lack of any admission that you have been uncivil and a complete lack of any indication that your civility is going to undergo any longterm change leads me to believe this issue isn't solved at all. Withdrawing from the dispute resolution process when it has reaches a point such as this will only serve to escalate the matter further in my opinion, so I strongly suggest Tony re-engage with the members of this community who are making a good faith attempt to impress on him why his uncivil attitude is harmful. Yes I realise this will open me to further baseless claims of harassment, so I suggest that anyone who is wishing to make these claims try to come up with a logical reason why a good faith attempt to resolve a situation that has continued for far to long by way of the appropriate channels in the dispute resolution process ViridaeTalk 13:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
While I sincerely appreciate Tony's apology, its nonspecificity, combined with an evasive response to my request that he commit to behaving better in the future, are disappointing. I fully share your concerns, but I'm not certain that relisting the RfC would be beneficial. At this point, Tony has received constructive criticism from the community, and it's up to him to act on it. I don't know what's considered procedurally correct in this circumstance, but I'd rather err on the side of goodwill toward Tony than intensify the conflict. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility of Tony voluntarily addressing our concerns on this talk page. I hope that he does so (and that the need for a future RfC does not arise). —David Levy 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, that reasoning works for me. (I didn't go to bed after all). ViridaeTalk 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No future RFC on this issue seems sensible to me. Tony knows that many people think he's too often way too uncivil. He knew it a year or two ago, too. This is not a case of lack of information on his part. RFCs are really only useful for reasonable editors who are willing to change their behavior in response to feedback from other editors. Ideally this would mean every editor, but not everyone understands that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I think if anyone has a future problem with Tony's incivility, send it to arbcom. They'll act or they won't, but another RFC seems quite useless. Friday (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. ViridaeTalk 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with the finding of the RFC. Most of those who have commented have remarked on the inappropriateness of continuing to badger someone who has made it quite plain that he doesn't want to continue. I sympathize with those who wished that this affair could be written off as a matter of one editor's incivility, but it is clear that this view does not enjoy wide support. That is why we must all try to forgive and forget. --Tony Sidaway 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
And on the basis of that statement I predict a future arbcom case. ViridaeTalk 22:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Even the arbitration committee could not engineer an outcome more agreeable to those who have commented on the RFC. --Tony Sidaway 22:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You have still failed to make any admission of incivility and any resolve to change that. You have been through two arbcom cases and now two RfCs regarding that matter and yet I still see no desire for long term change. I have no doubt that this will end up in arbcom again should this state of affairs continue unchanged. ViridaeTalk 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to step back and think that maybe the comments on the RfC don't all agree with you in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That others don't see a blatant disregard for the civility policy as a problem is worrying in itself. ViridaeTalk 07:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not confuse the community's belief that attempting to reason with you is futile with one that you were in the right.
I'm trying very hard to accept your apology (despite its hypothetical nature), but you aren't making this easy by portraying yourself as the victim of our "badgering" and "harassment" (your terms for our attempts to politely discuss your blatant incivility). The fact that you've yet to even acknowledge that you shouldn't have called me a "troll" (no matter how annoyed you were) is less than encouraging. —David Levy 03:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
"I'm trying very hard to accept your apology ..." Apology? Where did you see an apology? This editor was parsing words so as to not issue an apology, yet is still attempting to portray himself as the 'wronged' party in this matter. S.O.P. for him, in my opinion. Duke53 | Talk 04:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a little worrying. Duke cannot see my full and complete apology above, for some reason, and David and Viridae now seem to want to keep the issue open after they have been urged very strongly by a dozen or so parties, plus myself, to drop it. David and Viridae don't now seem able to accept my apology--which I can only repeat was and remains sincere and was expressed in the most all-encompassing way I know of. I'm going to take the unusual step of removing this page from my watchlist in the hope that all parties will listen to their better judgement. Best wishes to all. --Tony Sidaway 10:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I informed you that I was delisting the RfC in the hope that you would choose to address our concerns nonetheless, Viridae expressed agreement with my logic, and you responded by claiming that we "want to keep the issue open" and announcing that not only will you not be addressing our concerns, but you've actually removed the page from your watchlist. Wow.
"For the avoidance of doubt," I do sincerely appreciate your apology (as noted above). The problem is that it is, indeed, "all-encompassing." Rather than apologizing for any specific conduct, you issued a blanket apology "for any hurt caused, whether deliberate or otherwise, by [you] to other people." This is not even an acknowledgment that you've done anything wrong (let alone a pledge to modify your behavior accordingly). It's a carefully worded apology for any hurt feelings that you may or may not have engendered.
Then, when I indicated that "if you promise to keep the community's concerns in mind and make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future, I'll consider the matter resolved," you issued the evasive response that "all of [your] edits are intended to improve Wikipedia, and [you] promise to do this to the best of [your] ability."
I reiterate that if you promise to make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future, I'll consider the matter resolved. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge that you've failed in either regard. I only request that you agree to make a good-faith effort to be civil and open to constructive criticism in the future. What's so unreasonable about that? —David Levy 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] [unbiased opinion of an amazed reader]

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)
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)
It was listed untill the matter was deemed resolved. ViridaeTalk 05:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)