Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom davy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

The named user focuses on a narrow set of articles and edits entirely without discussion. His only communication, despite repeated attempts to engage in dialog, is through edit summaries. Most of his edits are reverts or undos.

[edit] Desired outcome

That this user engage in discussion and edit collaboratively, rather than simply reverting the work of others.

[edit] Description

user:Tom davy, in his short time here, has focused exclusively on articles related to the People's Mujahedin of Iran. His edits consist almost entirely of reverts and undos. Although several other users have attempted to engage him in discussion both on the article talk pages as well as on his talk page, not once has he posted in talkspace. He has not breached 3RR, but his constant reverts without discussion make improvements to this set of articles difficult.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behaviour

Edit summaries appear to be this user's only form of communication with other editors. The following examples are typical, as can be seen in this user's short history.

  1. db vandalism
  2. Please refrain from adding biased and false material favourable to the current Iranian theocracy. This is a dictionary. Thank you

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:TALK
  2. WP:AGF

[edit] Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [1] my first attempt
  2. [2] user:BoogaLouie's attempt
  3. [3] user:Gwen Gale's attempt

[edit] Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Both of the following edits occurred after Gwen Gale's note.

  1. [4]
  2. [5]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC) (initiator)
  2. // BoogaLouie (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

Dear all, I believe that some users such as Mr Dchall( Chris) and his friend Bougaloui are misusing this wikipedia by constantly making biased edits on the PMOI. For example the whole paragraphs about several resolutions or recent court victories of this group in the European Court of First Instance and the UK court have been deleted by the above gentlemen. I do not wish to accuse either of them of any thing, but this is rather un-believable of how they are so keen to repeat the allegations made by the current theocracy and by deleting such facts which are good for users to know when they want to make a study about PMOI. I hope I have not offended any one but I am really suspicious of the motives of the above. Yours sincerely, Tom Davy


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

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.

[edit] Outside view by AGK

My view, as an uninvolved administrator, is that Tom has gotten a little too wrapped up in the going-ons of People's Mujahedin of Iran and related pages. The evidence presented (most resoundingly, a simple glance over his contributions) highlights edit warring, incivility, and a number of other editorial behaviour characteristics which are neither helpful nor professional, and are not expected of a constructive contributor.

The outcome of this request for comment should, I feel, be a very loud message to Tom, saying "we've noticed your behaviour is disruptive, and we'd like you to stop". Obviously, no formal "sanctions", as such, can be passed by this discussion, but it will provide some useful reading material for administrators who, in the future, are taking action against future disruptive behaviour (should Tom continue in his current vein post-rfc).

Anthøny 09:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Naturally. Anthøny 09:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Rlevse

This user's contribs, actions, and attitude have all the earmarks of a disruptive WP:SPA. I commend those who submitted this to try to turn this user into a constructive editor vice immediately getting him indef blocked. Unless User:Tom davy has a major change in direction, I fear, however, that will be the outcome of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Naturally. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    Partial endorsement, with reservations about the latter portion. Anthøny 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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.

[edit] Proposed outcomes

[edit] Proposed outcome 1, from AGK

Foreword

I'm going to deviate from the standard requests for comment structure, and set up this section for proposing outcomes. Here, I'd like to create a work space, where any editors can propose and develop possible conclusions to this rfc. Hopefully, we'll all settle on one conclusion, which can then be acted upon, at the closure of this request for comment.

Essence of proposal

My proposal here, is for a "formal, official" caution to be issued to Tom. In that caution, he would be instructed that there have been serious concerns expressed over his specific contributions (with examples, to allow him to 'develop and learn'), and that a major reform on his part is needed.

In the caution, I would be interested in seeing included, some 'guiding words', perhaps pointing towards what he could do to change (for example, branch out his areas of article contributions). Lastly, the cautionary notice would include directions that, if reform is not achieved quickly and/or if disruption continues (the two are essentially opposite ends of the same stick), a block is likely to follow.

Text of proposal, "caution"
In other words, 'part 1' of the actual text of the proposal.

Tom, it has become apparent, that your recent edits are of a disruptive nature. In particular, the evidence provided at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom davy#Evidence of disputed behaviour highlight the behaviour that is being complained about:

  • Reverting, rather than discussing with the other side: it is essential that, rather than blanket-undoing the edits of others to force what you view as the correct version of an article (example, [6]), you take time to get in touch with the editor who made the change, and discuss your concerns with them. Edit warring is never the answer, and is disruptive.
  • Undoing other editors inappropriately: similarly, when undoing other editors (if that is necessary), and the edits are not blatant vandalism, take time to explain why you are reverting them, in the edit summary (example of not doing this, [7]). See also, Help:Reverting#Explain reverts.
  • Acting as a single purpose account: although contributing in the one topic area is in no way prohibited, it isn't always the best route to go down. It may be worthwhile if you expand your contributions to other topic areas: as you clearly have strong feelings regarding your current area of contributions, it may be generally more helpful if you slim down the number of edits you make there; if you have to deal with that area less, you may be able to stay cool more. Please review Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot for details on what is expected of editors in this arena.
Text of proposal, "future repeats"
In other words, 'part 2' of the actual text of my proposal.

Please be aware that a major reform of your contributions are needed; if you can't edit constructively, it will ultimately become necessary to block your account to prevent future and further disruption to Wikipedia and its articles.

It is essential that you take heed of the concerns detailed above, and adjust your editing accordingly. Tom, please ensure that you ask yourself before every edit: 'will my change really help the project?'; do that, and you can't go wrong.

Take heed of these concerns, and remember: edit warring helps nobody–discuss, don't blanket-revert; 'branch out' your contributions–there's a tonne of articles out there, and People's Mujahedin of Iran is but one of them; and, keep calm and cool at all times. Blocking will meet future disruption, but you have one chance here; don't blow it, please.

Conclusion

Hopefully, these will stem off future disruption, and offer Tom a chance for reform. I am open to amendments to my proposed conclusion as necessary, and would welcome similar attempts at proposing a conclusion from other editors.

Anthøny 21:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be fine with this outcome. I'm not looking for a block, just discussion from this user. Since the start of this RFC, he has made efforts to discuss his edits. Thanks for being creative here. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)