Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

(TDC | talk | contributions)*

Statement of the dispute

TDC has been sanctioned four times in the past month for 3RR infractions and repeated 24-hour bans appear to have no effect on his behaviour, save to increase his self-admitted and transparent efforts to "game" the system by disguising his reverts.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

TDC has been contributing to Wikipedia for at least a year. In an environment in which many people have strong opinions, TDC stands out as an tenacious POV warrior, more interested in slanting texts to suit his particular political ideology than in building good articles. For him, the collaborative editing process serves as a weapon rather than as a matter of facilitation. It is virtually impossible to find an edit among his contributions which is not intended to score political points. He frequently gets into edit wars, yet makes minimal effort to enter into dialog and look for compromise on Talk pages. He blatantly tries to game the 3RR rule by disguising reverts as new edits, something he freely admits in edit summaries and on Talk pages. He rarely cites sources for his edits, and when he does the sources often turn out not to say what they claim he does or they turn out to be irrelevant and not mention the subject of his edits at all. (See Talk:Paul Robeson and Talk:Pablo Neruda)

In addition, TDC now appears to be editing some of the same articles over which he has been recently banned with the sockpuppet account User:Dagen. (See: Pablo Neruda, Fidel Castro, W. E. B. DuBois, Earth Day)

Once already an RfC has been compiled on him. It was initially filed on 7 May 2004. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

3RR violations

1. Iraq Liberation Act, 21 March 2005

TDC (talk · contribs):

1st revert: 04:56, 21 Mar 2005
2nd revert: 13:38, 21 Mar 2005
3rd revert: 21:50, 21 Mar 2005
4th revert: 22:18, 21 Mar 2005
5th revert: 23:56, 21 Mar 2005

Reported by: Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

TDC has already been blocked once already for violating 3RR on this article. —Christiaan 21:25, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The diffs appear to be quite different. I noted the edit comments though and will have a look at the actual page. Refdoc 00:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean the diffs appear different? —Christiaan 00:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to present evidence for a 3RR you should give the diffs which show that the violating user has not actually added anything in. As it is, I have banned User:TDC for one week form editing as this was the second 3RR violation in short succession on the same set of pages. But I also not the anonymous revert which conveniently appeared when "your" turn came. I think you are sailing very close to the wind, USer:Christiaan... Refdoc 00:51, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As remarked before, you cannot block someone for more than 24 hours under WP:3RR. I'll adjust the period of the block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, no argument. Refdoc 13:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1st revert: 17:47 18 April
2nd revert: 19:31 18 April
3rd revert: 20:15 18 April
4th revert: 22:23 18 April
5th revert: 23:43 18 April

Reported by: Viajero 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

According to this user's Talk page, he has been given 24 hour bans for violating the 3RR three on three previous occasions: 21 March, 22 March, and 3 April. Perhaps a stiffer sanction would be in order.

Can't find a version he has reverted to on the third revert.Geni 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery.TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok now I can this diff shows they are identical despite claims to the contry [1]Geni 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1st revert: 07:50, 18 May 2005
2nd revert: 11:09, 18 May 2005
3rd revert: 11:49, 18 May 2005
4th revert: 13:22, 18 May 2005

Reported by: Mark ¹ 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

More fun on Fidel Castro. TDC has not specifically been warned this time, but he is an enthusiastic repeat offender. With minor variations, the version reverted to is [2]. Mark ¹ 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop him a note suggesting that he put the steam down a little bit. Rama 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rama, I blocked him before I saw your post. By all means unblock if you feel a warning is more appropriate. I prefer to warn first too, but in this case, TDC and Trey Stone seem to have acted in concert, both have been blocked many times for 3RR before, and there's no indication that either of them reverted the fourth time in error. But if you feel differently, I won't challenge you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, see my whining below. El_C 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: this is quite all right, I just wanted to be absolutely sure not to be too rough. I still am trying to get accustomed to adminship, so I try to be cautious; the lead of experienced admins, especially from people for whom I have come to grow a particular confidence, is a good example in this regard. Rama 09:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-avowed 3RR "gaming"

BTW this is not a 3RR vio, as the versions are different. 21:43, 18 Apr 2005 1 (TDC's third consecutive COINTELPRO revision. Comparison TDC's three consecutive versions shows they are exactly the same: 18:15, 18 Apr 2005 compared to 21:43, 18 Apr 2005 and 20:23, 18 Apr 2005 compared to 21:43, 18 Apr 2005.)
Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery.TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (written on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR after three reverts; after four he was banned)
Subject: "3RR" Awww, someone failed to entrap me. Nice try and what'n, but try harder next time, I am ,after all, a fucking pro at this by now. Ciao. TDC 21:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) (User_talk:Viajero)
RV, thats two for each of us, I wonder who will be the first to reach 4 and get a temp ban (Paul Robeson edit at 17:09, 14 Apr 2005)
well, someone had best protect this page becasue it's time for an edit war. (Anti-globalization edit at 18:21, 2 Apr 2005.)
"RV, thats two for each of us, I wonder who will be the first to reach 4 and get a temp ban" [3]
"3 RV's a day will keep the admins away!" 13:49, 29 June 2005
"RV, another day, another 3 reverts" 22:24, 7 July 2005

Self-avowed "flaming"

RV to me, is it hot in here or is it just the flame war? 1
added criticsm section, let the flame war begin! 2

Personal attacks and incivility

"Well then go to a "decent university" and look it up little man. Thankfully my public library has a quite complete archive on CD-ROM" [4]
"Please see [[crying|quit complaining about my edits because you dont have acess to my sources]]" [5]
"are you so afraid of this obvious truth that you will not even take it to talk! And someone voted you an admin?" [6]
"so take your libelous slanderous bull malarkey and cram it sideways" [7]
" are you here to beat your fists in the sand and whine about me taking your toys from you?" [8]
"RV, shouldnt you be sending your monthly care package to Saddam right now?" 21:49, 16 Apr 2005
"I thought they took all of Saddam's money, is his family now paying you?" 05:39, 26 Mar 2005
"How many times do we need to cover this? REMOVED ORIGINAL RESEARCH" 03:01, 21 Mar 2005
"RV, so Blix beleives that the Iraq Liberation Act was a violation of 687? and what does the rest of it have to do with the article?" 18:23, 19 Mar 2005
"read my lips: ORIGINAL RESEARCH WILL BE REMOVED" 17:57, 19 Mar 2005
"removed original research, thought you could slip that shit in while I was away" 05:02, 6 Mar 2005
"RV, if you are too lazy to look for the source in the talk archives, that is not my problem" 14:24, 28 Jan 2005
"RV to non plagarized version, stings dont it?" 19:12, 28 Dec 2004
"Hubbard a phony, RV" 04:59, 8 Apr 2005
"RV, dont you have an article on Noam Chomsky to save?" 16:26, 14 Feb 2005
"last time, please site this bull or stop inserting it" 04:46, 16 Feb 2005
"once again, remove ridiculous statement" 04:35, 15 Feb 2005
"remove ridiculous statement" 06:07, 14 Feb 2005
"hey Ruy, when did the DPKR get niternet acess?" 14:23, 14 Mar 2005
"RV Ruy Lopez, I thought you were on that bus to the DPKR" 07:29, 13 Mar 2005
"RV, hey Roy I think there is a bus heading for the DPKR you should be on" 01:33, 12 Mar 2005
"RV, I dont discuss with a FOS (friend of Saddam)" 22:43, 21 Mar 2005
"Once again cite this ridiculous bullshit, remove it or I will take it to arbitration" 03:10, 21 Mar 2005
"RV, remove original research, so the little bitch has his pet articles protected and this is how he lashes out?" 30 Jan 2005
"RV, remove original research, please read the Wiki policy on original research before you embarrass yourself again" 04:11, 30 Jan 2005
"RV to Sr Paul, pathetic, now you wont even go to the talk page" 02:01, 15 Mar 2005
"RV to TDC, I see the Stalinist airbrush artists are hard at work today" 00:20, 15 Mar 2005
"RV, why so quick to take the pruining shears to the article, are you tired of it saying things you find uncomfortable?" 14:29, 14 Mar 2005
"Lets not be stupid here" 05:01, 24 Jan 2005
"RV, it is really sad to see you sink to this level, but replace sad with funny" 19:22, 12 Mar 2005
"RV, some people just never learn" 00:22, 12 Mar 2005
"remove bullshit" 20:04, 6 Mar 2005
"See, that’s where you are mistaken. If you argue with me, I will drag you down and beat you, that is why you must debate me, engage me, stimulate me." 18 Mar 2005
"last time, quoting is not "false" and a direct link to the article is present" [9]
"Go back to my point #4 above, and re-read it as many times as it is necessary for you to comprehend it, oakaley dokaley?" [10]
"so please do your blood pressure a favor and simmer down some." [11]
"Can you read?" [12]
"In the words of that great entertainer Justin Timberlake; cry me a river!" [13]
"Time to scuttle on over to Paul Robeson, and unprotect. Just remember, I win, I always do!" 3 May 2005
"ho ho, he he, ha ha, reinserted Smith act info" 3 May 2005
"as a devout Stalinist, Robeson spent a good deal of his life rhetorically felating his primary opponent." 3 May 2005
"as you have proven yourself to be, yet again, a no faith editor." [14]
"Are you being a stubborn idiot just to prove a point, and if so what would that point be exactly?" 11:02, 6 May 2005
"This is perhaps due to the fact that truth scared you too much to do so" 23:52, 6 May 2005
"please explain edits in talk, as other non assholes have taken the time to do" 01:16, 7 May 2005
"Hey, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Gamaliel has made every effort possible both in his actions as well as his rhetoric to prove himself a Grade-A asshole" 12:59, 7 May 2005
"do you even read these things before you revert them?" [15]
"You hate it when I am right, don't you?" [16]
"sorry, but this is Wikipedia.org, not wikipedia.cu, RV" [17]
"restored deleted material from vandal" [18]
"Gamaliel, its the 4th, why dont you take one day off of hating America and live a little." [19] [20]
- If you look at the context of this, it is even more appalling than it sounds on the face of it. Up until now I have given TDC the benefit of the doubt; I have now changed my mind about that. -- July 5, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
"You forgot a few relevant details in your rant.You missed a few things in your little tirade." 21:28, 19 July 2005
"Once again, your hypocrisy knows no ends."

18:07, 15 August 2005

Evidence of POV pushing

"I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda." [21]
"Ahh yes, exposing the shameful pasts of Stalinist like Neruda is quite rewarding." [22]
"Also, I cannot wait to piss on Pablo Neruda's grave once my sources come in." 15 May 2005
"When exactly was Kerry in Paris to meet with his communist overlords?" 17:40, 20 July 2005

Evidence of plagiarism

[23] I don't know the source of this paragraph, but it says "As noted in chapter I", so obviously it is right out of a book. Later that day, TDC wrote in an edit summary "whoops, copy pasted the wrong thing". [24]
[25] The section that begins with Louis Stein and ends with the quote from Josep Peirats is almost word for word a copy of a section from page 102 of Intellectuals and Assassins by Stephen Schwartz. Interestingly, one change TDC did make was omitting the three ellipses from the Peirats quote, implying that this is one continuous statement, when in the original it is not. TDC has repeatedly inserted this section into the article.
[26] This paragraph is a word for word copy from a section from page 382 of Paul Robeson by Martin Duberman. TDC intially reverted this change, then replaced it with a version that only changed a few words here and there.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

2005/04/18: [27] Viajero asks for a little more civility on Pablo Neruda, and TDC's response
2005/03/21 [28] Tony Sidaway queries a rather odd edit on Fidel Castro, labelled "Minor Edits", which appeared to be far from minor.
2005/04/18 [29] DJ Silverfish queries text inserted by User:TonyMarvin into COINTELPRO and requests supporting citation. TDc replies without citing. TDC's 3RR follows. [30]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Viajero 13:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
— Helpful Dave 14:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
— DJ Silverfish 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rama 21:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Hmm …. Where to begin ………

First let me address the allegations made by these two fine upstanding Wikipedians.

I admit that I have violated the 3RR rule several times. Some of these were the acts of a collaborative provocation between two users [31], so I was an idiot to fall into what was a rather transparent and crude attempt to silence me, so sue me. Others, I believe, were clearly the acts of an over zealous Admin. I feel the most recent 24hr ban was unwarranted because I had put new information into the article as well as restoring information that had been blanked. Other instance, there is no excuse and I will freely admit to my error. Simple enough I suppose.

What can I say, when you wave a flag, don’t be surprised when TDC comes charging.

Now let us move on the real reason I am being RfC’s.

For some reason Viajero has a problem with me. Viajero feels that my contributions to Pablo Neruda are not justified. His reasons for this, well that’s anybody’s guess because he has refused to discuss my contributions to the article in the article’s talk page. This is most likely due to the fact that my contributions are entirely factual, supported by credible sources, and presented in as an NOPV was as possible. So naturally he would not want to debate me, he has no legs to stand on.

In short, I am playing with his toys, and he don’t like it.

Now I know that some users are going to say “blah blah blah TDC does not work with others and pushes his POV blah blah blah (unintelligible remark about fascist right wingers)”. First, as I have said before the only POV I push is the truth. If it were up to the individuals who are behind this RfC, Wikipedia would be Commiepedia as evident by “Helpful Daves” drive to collaborate with likeminded users and push some editors off Wikipedia [32]. Secondly I can work with users who I have vast disagreements with, an example: [33].

You see, people like AndyL and 172, as much as I may have disagreed with them, could be reasoned with respected and both parties could walk away from a dispute without any hard feeling.

What we have here now, is a new breed, embodied primarily in Chameleon. The ultimate in POV warriors like me, but unwilling to collaborate, unwilling to respect others, and unable to see that they are wrong. They believe that they can turn Wiki into a might makes right forum; using group action to dilute others they find objectionable.

I think that the recent controversy around [Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism], the deletion from the main article the VFD of the new one and the continual attempts to re-merge make this point very well.

This is nothing more than a cheap parliamentary trick to get me kicked off and silenced, and I absolutely positively will not fucking stand for it.

What proof do I have? None really, just a hunch, as Chameleon is no longer open about his plans and refuses to discuss anything outside of private and what he demands to be confidential email. What’s he got to hide [34]? I suppose we will never know, seeing as how he is doing his best to cover his tracks in anticipation of his next Admin bid.

Do people take my harsh comments out of context? Most of them are simple jokes, and I will not be held responsible for a lack of a sense of humor. TFB I say. Oh, how dare I, was that rude? Oh well that’s the world in which we live.

No for a side issue that has been bugging me. Some users, whose names will be witheld for the protection of the innocent, have accused me of using sock puppets. I take this allegation very seriously as I feel it is one of the most dishonest acts that can be perpetrated on Wikipedia. Sockpupets skew what would normally be a dynamic debate where editors prevail or fail based on the strength of an argument or on the validity of the process. Seeing as how I believe I have mastered these since starting here over 1 year ago, I find Sockpupets vile and do not condone their use. Since I only edit from 3 locations, all within the Chicago land area (and Fishkill NY on two recent business trips), it should be simple enough to determine if any of these alleged sockpuppets are actually me by running the IP address through geobytes or any IP tracing site.

So, in short, either provide some concrete evidence that I am doing this or kindly STFU. TDC 19:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside views

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Sam Spade

I think TDC should be more careful of the 3rr and Wikipedia:Civility policies, and encourage him to contact myself or others when he feels a need for assistance. Sam Spade 16:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Sam Spade 16:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Jmabel

TDC brings a lot to Wikipedia, and I really hope this can be resolved in a way that doesn't involve banning him. He reads a lot of different sources than most Wikipedians, and often adds useful information to articles.

On the other hand, he is a belligerent POV warrior. I first really noticed him over http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC-2&action=edit&section=9an extremely polemical edit without a summary, a tactic that I can only presume to be intended as stealth. He is rather uncivil (I've endorsed the summary above) and I've never really seen him do any of the basic work of building an article: instead, he's always trying to score political points, slant articles his way, etc.

In the recent case of Neruda, it's hard to see the argument for including a lengthy passage from one of Neruda's (politically and literarily) most embarrassing poems (although I'm entirely in favor of mentioning the existence of the poem, and would have no problem with a line or two being quoted). Neruda is not mainly known for bad polemical poetry, and we do not customarily add this sort of thing to an article (e.g., we do not include an extract of Mirabeau's pornography. Or even Sade's. We do not quote George W. Bush's rambling, ungrammatical sentences at length.)

I wish TDC would show some indication of actually being more interested in building an accurate, useful encyclopedia than in trying to turn it into a soapbox. Or even as interested. Or even willing, if it's not his primary interest. Again, I think he has a lot to bring to the table, but if the price of his presence is that any article that doesn't go exactly his way becomes a battleground, I stop being interested in defending him. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Dbiv 08:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rama 08:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Dagen

This request for comment should be considered in the context of those bringing the complaint and their motivation for doing so. Without exception, I have discovered each of those endorsing the complaint are very frequently responsible for left or far-left wing agenda pushing within articles. To the extent TDC is fighting this propagandizing he should be congratulated. If you wish for a Wikipedia dominated by leftist propaganda then you will get rid of good editors like TDC. I stumbled on his good quality edits and noticed a systematic destruction of them by several users including most of the above endorsing the complaint against him. Those complaining should have clean hands, the above users do not.

Even worse, I believe the intent of this comment process is to have a chilling effect on TDC's edits and interest in making edits. It is an attempt at censoring an opinion that is not lockstep with the radical left agenda pushed consistently by the complainants. It is most improper in the circumstances. I see no valid complaint made and more to the point I see very real problems with the left wing agenda (usually self-admitted) by the group of editors above who act like a group of raptors descending on an article and leaving a left-wing leaning carcass in their wake.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Dagen

Meta-comment: I'm one of the endorsers of what you refer to as "the complaint". As far as I know, Dagen's remark is the first time on Wikipedia I've been accused of being "very frequently responsible for left or far-left wing agenda pushing" and lacking "clean hands". Would my left "agenda pushing" be demonstrated by these edits to Barry Goldwater: [35], [36] Or perhaps you can edify us with a demonstration of the thoroughgoing leftist agenda in my article on László Tokés?

If there is any basis for your charge against me, please start an RfC about my behavior, so that I have a suitable venue to defend myself. If not, please withdraw the accusation. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I side with Jmabel on this. Collectively accusing people without clear charges seems to me an unhealthy practive, very much unlikely to achieve our aim which is mediation (not lynching). For now I haven't yet seen any unacceptable behaviour of any of the endorsers on this page. As for their behavious on other pages, it is not the subject of this RfC and can be discussed in separate RfCs, which anyone is very welcome to fill in if necessary. Rama 06:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, consider the following. You know just as well as I do that some articles in Wikipedia are guarded like private property. In the case of Neruda, I fully expected the poem to be thrown out after a long discussion. I realize that when dealing with an article like this one, great care must be paid to how material is introduced. Usually one has to go overboard and be content with the knowledge that much will be tossed after discussion, standard negotiating tactics. No discussion, however, took place initially with Viajero initially just reverting my edits until he realized I was not going to give it up and Gamaliel jumping on the bandwagon. As you can see from the discussion, Gamaliel has no intent on having a real discussion about the article, continues to slander me with the Sock Puppet allegation, and is being completely uncooperative, and he is an Admin for Christ's sake! But somehow I am the sole asshole of that particular article?

I hope you will admit that much of what I contribute is solely unique to a contributor like myself. I don’t mind being the maggot of Wikipedia, uncomfortable to look at, but at the same time serving a valuable service to the project. Articles like lenoard peltier, the CPUSA and the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were drastically improved in content, POV and citation through my contributions. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think my comments on this page make it clear that (1) I think that you bring valuable material to Wikipedia, and I would like to see a solution that keeps you as a participant and (2) your behavior is often uncivil, and you seem to have no respect for the spirit of rules, constantly pushing the boundaries rather than trying to work cooperatively. Neither of these statements diminishes the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, let's stick to the facts please: I did not start out by reverting your edits to Pablo Neruda. I copyedited the entire text for style, structure, and NPOV, [37] and that included but did not exclusively concern your most recent edits. Later, I posted a message on the Talk page saying that I questioned your subsequent inclusion of the long citation of the Stalin ode. Your response was:

Isn't there something a bit wrong with that? Although he worked for the NKVD and helped Stalin and his disgusting regime commit act of murder and depravity, he is known for his poetry? Martin Amis was dead on.

With a comment like this, you completely destroy your credibility. It is not for us to pass judgement on the nature of his fame; our job is not to determine why he should be famous; we are here to record why he IS famous. If this distinction is lost on you, then I am afraid you will never really understand NPOV. -- Viajero 21:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My first edit to the article, a simple one just adding that he won the Stalin Peace Prize

16:47, Apr 16, 2005 [38], and now the edit just prior to that [39], compare this to your first edit [40], a complete removal of my work. No discussion, no talk, just a blanket deletion of all my contributions. Now, lets see your next move: [41], another deletion of my contributions in their entirety. And then Gamaliel jumps in, and his first contribution is a blanket RV [42]. In fact the fist attempt by you to discuss this took place after you eliminated my contributions twice. So please don’t play the poor abused editor, you did not want my contributions to stay, regardless of their veracity of them.

As far as my credibility goes, I will let my work speak for itself. TDC 21:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

If you claim that this edit of mine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Neruda&diff=12483077&oldid=12404798

is a "a complete removal" of your work, "a blanket deletion" of all your contributions, then it appears we aren't seeing the same things, don't even speak the same language. -- Viajero 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, I though I added the material earlier, that would be this edit of yours, your first to the article after my material was added [43].TDC 22:12, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This diff shows no changes. -- Viajero 22:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by 172

I feel compelled to come to TDC's defense here. Jmabel is correct to point out below that he brings a lot to Wikipedia; he does use more-- and a greater variety of-- sources than most Wikipedians working in his area, and he has been adding a wealth of useful information to articles for over a year. I say this despite my disagreement with TDC's stance on Pablo Neruda, and many similar disagreements in the past. Jmabel is way too harsh, though, in calling TDC "a belligerent POV warrior." "Belligerent POV warriors" get their way through wearing down opposition, and they do not tolerate editors who do not share their views. TDC works respectfully and constructively with users who do not share his views, at least when other editors give him a chance... It seems that some users are getting the wrong impression from his sense of humor... Mediation might work better here than arbitration. Although I am not a mediator, I volunteer to help out if anyone's interested. 172 8 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

BTW, TDC, regarding Neruda, after Khrushchev's speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the Sino-Soviet Split, the term "Stalinist" is most often used to refer to "anti-revisionist" Communists who attacked the Soviet Union as "revisionist." Neruda, however, was a member of the Chilean Communist Party, which did not take an "anti-revisionist" line. So if I heard a Chilean referred to as a "Stalinist," I'd assume that he/she belonged to a more extreme outfit than Neruda's party. You do make a good case that he personally was sympathetic to Stalin, but, IMO, Viajero has a point about keeping Neruda out of the "list of Stalinists." 172 8 July 2005 10:01 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for mediation, if you think you can help but, be that as it may, a recent edit summary like RV, another day, another 3 reverts is a pretty strong sign that TDC is rejecting efforts to ratchet down the problem. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Outside view by Trey Stone

I've only crossed paths with TDC on articles a few times but he seems like a good contributor. Tough on others at times but that's not necessarily a bad thing. He's helped in NPOVing some of the most blatant cases of bias that go unchecked. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

Discussion

Firstly I want to apologise to TDC for suspecting him of using sock puppets. The evidence is circumstantial and far from conclusive.

For the rest, there seems to be a clear problem here. How to solve it? TDC, would you consider mediation? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. As for the mediation, it depends, to what end? TDC 20:31, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To resolve our existing differences, improve communication and reduce the chance of future problems of the type we've encountered recently. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To resolve our existing differences: never gonna happen, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.

improve communication: a good possibility, but I doubt the sincerity of many, not all, of the parties involved.

reduce the chance of future problems: Inherent to the current setup of Wikipeida. Example based on current events: What is a Stalinist, and who decides. Is that decision based on who has the better argument (meritocracy), or who can bring more voices into the fray (mobocracy). What about that user that just refuses to shut up? What makes something notable? How notable should something be to be in Wikipedia? Who decides what is and is not noticeable? Why does the criteria for notability change so often? What about precident? Why is it that when a decision is made on one issue and another arises which is very similar, an exact opposite decision is made?

The problem is this: there are not rules here, not even basic ones really. Granted laws are primarily for the lawless, but with no procedure or standards the project looks like a chinese fire drill.TDC 21:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to understand the To resolve our existing differences suggested by Tony Sidaway not as a suggestion that our points of view should be identical (this indeed would be both unfeasable and undesirable), but that the means of expressing our points would be in adequation. Your very user page makes numerous allusions to confrontation; your edits are often very radical and apparantly rarely meant to find a commonly acceptable formulation; your edit summaries are sometimes needlessly insulting.

I understand that one could feel that there would be some sort of need for "balancing the POV" or something like this, but everybody should be well-aware that opposite extreme discourses do not cancel each other out, much to the contrary. A confrontational attitude does not tend to discourage other users from opposing you, but notably degrades the atmosphere of the articles. For people who get stuck into a cross-fire, it is extremely discouraging. So one thing which could be worked upon would be accepting other users as collaborators on one commons project, rather than opponants. You are an engineer, so I am confident that you see what I mean. Rama 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I agree at least in part to your comments. While my contribution at times may seem “radical” it is all a part of the idea that in certain instances, you have to shoot for the stars in order to make it to the moon. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see that we are talking of the same thing (which is a good start). See, my view of this is that most of the effect of this tactics is that it induces an arm race.

Firstly, it supposes an "other side", while we should all one team. If a user show his absolute inhability to behave as a member of one team, he should be talk to, in a RfC if necessary. Secondly, it encourages people to make increasingly ridiculous editions, and eventually the article only suffers from it. Also, what could be legitimately understood as a valid point (for instance, say, "Neruda had links with Soviet officials in the 1950s, there and here") will be summarily reverted if stated as "Neruda's lovefest with Stalin" (for instance). So in overall, while I understand how one could come to the conclusion you mention, I really have yet to see any positive effect of applying it.

I also cannot but notice the remarkable effectiveness of measured and exact discussion, even with users having very contrasted views of the same event (not necessarly for ideological reasons, it can very well be related merely to the national media of two users). So why not at least give the second solution a try and see how your edits are appreciated then ? Rama 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And BTW, just because I respect TDC's work, am a new arrival and am monitoring the reversions against him does not mean I'm a sockpuppet. I'm not. Check the IP's or whatever you do to find out, I'm not him. Dagen 06:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TDC, I'm sorry that you don't think that our differences can be resolved. I emphasize the word "resolved" and agree with Rama's interpretation. As encyclopedists we should be able to work together within the framework of Wikipedia towards the common goal of a better encyclopedia, not that our very different points of view should somehow unite. The encyclopedia would not gain, and indeed could only lose, from incorporation of our personal opinions into the articles. I urge you to reconsider my offer of mediation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, allow me to rephrase my answer as you have misinterpreted my reply. If by disputes you mean, differing opinions on what material should be presented and how it should be phrased, then I fully a free that I can and do work with other good faith users when I can. How many other users with my particular POV can say that they were able to establish a good report with a user like 172 ? As I am sure you have seen with the Ward Churchill article, that at times this particular approach does not work. TDC 17:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's really not the vibe I get from you, I'm afraid. And the main reason is your propensity to launch apparently unprovoked attacks. You just have to know by now that this is counter-productive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I think we could undergo mediation productively. Do you accept? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I honestly do not think it has gotten to that point. I have been in many similar situations in the past and they usually work themselves out, but perhaps in a few weeks if the issue has not been settled, then mediation might be an alternative. TDC 02:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my impression is that you seem to be blowing hot and cold on this. On one hand you express severe doubts about the adequacy of Wikipedia procedures, for at least a year you have felt free to launch some of the most extreme casual personal attacks I've seen made by a Wikipedia regular, you seem to engage in POV-pushing as a matter of policy, and you get into revert wars frequently. You appear to have little or no respect for those who try to collaborate with you on Wikipedia articles, regarding them it seems to me as opponents to be fought.

In short, I think a number of other editors have a problem with your behavior and attitude, and they want to see a genuine change.

It may be that they in their turn are exacerbating the problem, and that is something that mediation can resolve.

So I disagree with you. I think it certainly *has* reached a point where we should be looking for a resolution for what it perceived by a number of editors to be a long run of problematic behavior on your part, and by at least one other editor as some kind of political blackballing on the part of those who claim about you. I think something must be done, in the interests of Wikipedia. I don't think that just carrying on is really the wise thing to do at this point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like a make a quick comment here. TDC viciously attacks me all the time, but I must say I really don't care. At least he's honest and upfront, unlike many I could name. I don't think his incivility is a big deal. Sticks and stones, eh? My only problem with him is that he skews articles to the far right, which lowers their encyclopaedic quality. — Helpful Dave 18:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation proposal accepted by TDC

Allright then, I will accept your offer of mediation. TDC 13:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Who else agrees to enter into mediation? As this is a RfC concerning TDC's behavior I suggest that some others who have endorsed the RfC join me as a common disputant with TDC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think thats a very bad idea. Mediation w you is just fine, but as an AMA advocate, I have to vigorously oppose TDC accepting mediation w a group. 1 on 1 is balanced, w a potential for a neutral result. A gang vrs. 1 user is no kind of mediation in my book. Sam Spade 17:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with mediation between me and TDC is that it wouldn't affect the way people treat TDC. He and I could get along fine (I might, for instance, agree to avoid engaging with TDC at all) but next time he goes and attacks someone in an edit comment he's mincemeat. Nobody else would care about what Tony and TDC agreed.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's really up to him, but I don't see a mediation w such a large group of his opposition as practical or likely to succeed, despite his best intents. Sam Spade 00:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. It would almost certainly be better to try to use mediation to establish a dialog between us two as individuals. I have made a mediation request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Side issue: I just want to point out that Dagen has neither withdrawn nor formalized or substantiated his aspersion on my conduct and that of the others who certified or endorsed the original claim. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I understand and share the concern of Sam Spade's about keeping the RfC a fair discussion and make sure it never turns into some sort of public lynching. This being said, I though that these were supposed to be the closest thing to a discussion between one particulr user ad the rest of the community.

I this optic, while I accept the idea that one particular user would represent the others to technically facilitate the discussion, I think that it is very necessary that the outcome be an engagement of the user and the whole community toward each other.

One RfC has already taken place against TDC, which has not prevented this one from being necessary (with everything it implies of disturbance of the normal process of Wikipedia). I would really like to stress the idea that this RfC is not some ponctual chat to appease a bunch of angry users, but a cold-minded attempt to truely and friendly solve the matter on the long term. Rama 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, an RfC is an opportunity for the community to discuss and confront / communicate with a user seen to be problematic, but mediation is another thing entirely. It is a private exchange with a goal of resolution. An RfC often doesn't have resolution as its goal. Sam Spade 10:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To resolve a problem you first need to define it. A RfC is one tool to use to take the problem off the talk pages and permit a group of users to define precisely what the problem is, what they've done to resolve it and whether it is agreed that a problem still exists. This is pretty confrontational, but it's also a very good way of starting to work out how to resolve the problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

#"I have been quite consumed with destroying the “noble” and “romantic” image of undercover Stalinist Pablo Neruda." [44]

God forbid anyone know the truth about the matter, what was I thinking! And I think that after 14 months of having a piece of information rejected I can be entitled to gloat a little. But, that's nice, you know, following me around from edit to edit. TDC 13:51, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

In the light of your acceptance of the mediation, I think that the recent additions to this page can be understood as constructive comments which might help you identify ponctual cases edits or comments of yours which are seen disturbing. Since a few of them are dated of the 3rd of May, it might be helpful in the sense that the state of mind which led you to making them is probably still clear and lively in your memory. Perhaps this might make your working on this easier. Rama 07:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]