Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Tony Sidaway has been very uncivil to multiple people who were either involved in discussion about Kelly Martin's recent RfA or had asked him to curb his incivility. He has rejected multiple good faith attempts to address the issue, answering them with blanking and more incivility. Viridae^Talk 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE as a result of Mercury's outside view: I have intentionally left out most of the evidence involving the discussion about Kelly's RfA - it was a disagreement on how that should have been handle. It was however this discussion that prompted people to ask him to simmer down and be more civil - and it is his responses to these good faith attempts that prompted the RfC, because he responded with more incivility, accusations of harassment and finally blanking of any attempts to contact him at all.

(Begin edit by Mercury) You can put in the statements, I don't remember interacting with Tony on this issue, so with your Diffs on the KM issue, I think I'm still "outside". Mercury 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behaviour should be the focus.

Tony should recognise that he has been uncivil to multiple people who were acting in good faith. This includes people who he was disagreeing with for their views on the RfA (His views are not part of this dispute) and those people who have made efforts to resolve the subsequent dispute with his lack of civility.

Tony should, having recognised that his behaviour was not appropriate, modify it accordingly.

Description

Uncivil behaviour to multiple users over multiple pages, combined with a refusal to discuss why people found his behaviour unacceptable and removal of good faith attempts to resolve the situation from both his talk page and other peoples. Characterised attempts to resolve the situation as harassment.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)These may not be in chronological order.

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.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIV
2. WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Tony_Sidaway
2. Other diffs are in the disputed behaviour section because the evidence of the disputed behaviour includes his removal of attempts to discuss the issue.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Viridae^Talk 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. David Levy 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Jeeny 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Porcupine (prickle me!) 06:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Johntex\^talk 23:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

Addendum: I now consider this case to have been satisfactorily resolved. --Tony Sidaway 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

When editors (other than vandals, stalkers, and sockpuppets) make it clear that they don't want your messages on their talk page, then even if you think they're being unreasonable, it's more gracious to respect their wishes, and it's certainly counter-productive to force the issue. When someone doesn't want to discuss something, but is otherwise prepared to move on, an RfC may result in several people signing agreement that he could be more civil, but is unlikely to achieve anything positive. We all think we're right, but sometimes showing that we're right can and should be sacrificed for the greater good of getting on with writing an encyclopaedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ElinorD (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC) I accept Friday's caveat, but would apply it, for example, to a case of an admin who performed an abusive block, and refused to discuss it, or to similar cases, but not to this one. ElinorD (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, with the slight caveat that "leave me alone" is not always an OK thing for an editor to say. Some conflicts do need to be resolved. Friday (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Priceless. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. With friday's caveat. Mercury 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree with the sentiment (respect the desire of the person whose talk page it is). Daniel 04:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. 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)[reply]
10. Badgering repeatedly is pretty incivil in itself...does Tony get no credit for not saying "Fuck off"?--MONGO 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sarah's and Friday's remarks also make sense. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. As with Friday's and Sarah's comments. --Iamunknown 06:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 13:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on talk page. Viridae^Talk 03:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Users who endorse the summary:

1. Mercury 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. My sentiments exactly. Raymond Arritt 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I couldn't have put it better if I locked myself in a garret for a year. Dlabtot 03:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Silly sausages anyone? - Mailer Diablo 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I was not involved in this dispute, however I have witnessed the behavior of Tony Sidaways and experienced it. I've noticed a very condescending attitude, protections of and from others with whom he favors and are "friends" with (ie: Phil Sandifer), no matter which policy is/was broken. But let another, (outsider) do the same, they are blocked, reprimanded or dismissed as not important. He is rude, condescending, uncivil, belong to some clique of sorts, which I do not know the history, but definitely see a pattern, and a very poor attitude. They both seem to be connected at the hip. This makes it difficult for regular editors. As if they and others belong to an "elite" group above the "law".

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jeeny 03:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Duke53Duke53 | ^Talk 03:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kizor 11:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. I haven't any personal experience with Sidaways, but what I read so far seems to be support the view that he puts oil into the flames instead of fighting the fire. This kind of behaviour isn't helpful for improving WP. Gray62 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object strenuously to this RfC. It is manifestly unfair that Tony should be allowed to pass me in number of certified RfCs against him. I'm just as much of a raging asshole as Tony, and I cannot endorse any RfCs against him unless I'm treated with the same bewildering level of disrespect and disregard.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Phil Sandifer 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. :) Stifle (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who are fresh:

1. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. --MONGO 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ElinorD's view that (in most cases) people should drop matters when requested: we all have the right to be left alone (so long as we aren't actively committing blatant violations of policy, etc). However, I'm not sure that excuses the fact that Tony Sidaway removed an entire section from WP:WQA including responses from other users. Even if you believe that a user is a troll, and you don't believe in feeding them, that doesn't give you the right to redact other's comments. It's one thing to modify your own talk page, it's another to redact an entire section from a dispute mediation process. (It's an odd thing to do when the replying comments were urging Levy to drop the issue.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cheeser1 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's RfA produced spectacular, abrasive, and in many cases incivil reactions from many involved. I have seen none apologize. Shall I RfC everyone who was incivil and called Kelly a troll, or pestered anyone who supported her? No, it would be a waste of time. Please, all parties, drop this issue, and get back to the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Iamunknown 04:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that pointing the finger at Tony alone out of a crowd of editors is not really appropriate, although I'm not saying that Tony isn't at fault in any way. But given what would be required to make this appropriate (countless RfC's and unncessary drama), the last sentence of Iamunknown's statement is very endorsable. Daniel 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~ Sebi _[talk] 07:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Well said Peripitus (Talk) 11:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Endorse, but with the addition of "or opposed" to this part: "or pestered anyone who supported (or opposed) her". It is my view that there were people on both sides who behaved just as badly as each other. I strongly endorse Iamunknown's last sentence. Sarah 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   In retrospect, I agree with your addition. --Iamunknown 16:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. --MONGO 16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. ElinorD (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on talk page. Viridae^Talk 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These situations are always tricky- can we cut back on drama by telling the drama queens to cut it out? Doing so introduces its own drama. On the other hand, "Leave me alone" cannot be a magic incantation that instantly demands that all attempts at dispute resolution must stop. For those who see Tony's civility as a problem, it's clearly an ongoing problem. Wikipedia has a code of conduct for a reason; the easy answer of "don't worry about it; move on" is only going to be satisfactory for those who don't see this as an actual problem. Obviously we're far from universal agreement, but I suspect that significant numbers of reasonable editors do see it as a real problem.

Tony, you personally are in the best position to fix this issue. Don't be dense - recognize the role you play in these little dramas. Your behavior too often makes the project worse, not better- if you saw this, I suspect you'd instantly change your tune in the best interests of the project.

Those who brought the RFC should hopefully understand why it's difficult to do anything useful about this problem. If you feel it's warranted, consider collecting evidence as best you can and kicking this matter up to Arbcom. Focus on evidence that shows this is a recurring problem and attempts to get Tony to be less dickish have failed. They're the best hope I can see to arrive at something resembling a solution.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree! Gray62 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway is in many ways a good Wikipedian; he's fiercely committed to improving the encyclopedia, and I have considerable respect for him. In my many disagreements with him on policy-related issues (according to Wannabe_Kate, I now have more edits to his talk page than I do to my own), he has generally been reasonably civil to me, even while disagreeing with my views.

However, this does not mean that I endorse his occasional severe incivility towards other editors. Many of us, as intelligent people, have a tendency to be opinionated (and I count myself, as well as Tony, among that category), and to push aggressively for what we believe to be best for the encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with that, but Tony's attitude seems, all too often, to be somewhat intolerant of other people's views, and to believe that he and he alone knows what is best for the encyclopedia. I don't condemn him for that, but I urge him to think more about other editors' feelings. As I noted in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter, contributors are our most important and valuable resource; all of us, and especially long-established editors like Tony Sidaway, have a responsibility to be civil and welcoming towards others, and to be tolerant of their views.

I, like the overwhelming majority of the community, believe that Kelly Martin's promotion to adminship would have been a catastrophe for the encyclopedia. Tony Sidaway disagrees, and I respect the fact that he disagrees; I even understand it to a certain extent, given that (by all accounts) she used to be a much more civil and trustworthy editor than she now is. However, he needs to understand that other people disagree in good faith, and that, where the overwhelming majority of the community oppose a particular course of action, that course of action will not be taken.

I don't think that this case needs to be taken beyond RfC, and there's absolutely no need for any disciplinary action of any kind. Tony Sidaway is not a sysop and has not abused any position of authority or trust, so any further dispute resolution would be analogous to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, I urge him to be more tolerant of other people's views and more willing to compromise (while commending him for the good work he does on the encyclopedia). Walton^One 16:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Ned Scott 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an 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.