Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheDoctor10

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 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: 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC).

(TheDoctor10 | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Description

TheDoctor10 (talk · contribs · block log) continues to add speculative information to Doctor Who related articles and edit wars when other users attempt to remove the information. He has already received two 24 hour blocks.

General statement by Khaosworks

As the main target of TheDoctor10's ire, I would like to say this: the problem with TheDoctor10's conduct is that he takes any alteration of his edits personally. When I remove his speculative edits or trim them down, he says I am trying to control the articles. When other editors do the same he accuses them of being in a cabal. If you look at the various examples cited, he is confrontational, uncivil, makes unreasonable demands (like demanding that it be discussed on a talk page before any edit or reversion of his edit at first instance, even when it is patently obvious why it needs to be edited), and is generally creating a hostile atmosphere.

When reversions take place he seeks refuge in the oft-repeated defence of, "But it's true!" that we've seen many times from other problematic editors. Many of his edits have simply no basis in fact, or aren't even reasonable speculations based on the material at hand. As I and other editors have constantly reminded him: it doesn't matter if it's "true" that "it's been speculated". The issue is one of notability and verifiability, and he does not seem to understand that. Despite our trying to assure him it's not about him, he continues to assert that we are reverting his edits "on principle", even though there are numerous examples of acceptable edits from him that are left alone.

When I ask him - implore him, even - to take it to third parties and get an outside view, he refuses, claiming that the deck is stacked against him anyway. This is either an expression of paranoia or an awareness that what he is doing is wrong, or both. In any case a content RfC filed for List of minor Doctor Who villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) garnered a few responses and all were against the edits he was trying to introduce. He breaks 3RR and games the system and then argues that 3RR is an entitlement despite us quoting policy to him otherwise, again an oft-heard cry from other problematic editors.

As a result of this, it becomes increasingly difficult to view his edits with anything but scepticism, and is rapidly heading toward the point where his fears about reversion on principle might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As I often said, "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." I'm sure he'll see this RfC as another manifestation of what he calls the "Khao-club" ganging up on him.

The unfortunate thing about having to bring this RfC is that, occasionally, he improves and provides decent edits. However, when the editing becomes blatantly non-acceptable, and is removed, he throws another tantrum. He makes snide asides about editors, he hides insults behind comment markups, and does not play well with others. He is an edit warrior, pure and simple. Until he realises that he needs to abide by consensus, understands what it means by original research, or notability or verifiability, and not take edits personally, it is going to be very difficult to work with him.

He won't listen to us and I for one am tired of explaining again and again to him. Perhaps he'll listen to someone else not involved. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Previous version reverted to: 09:14, 22 October 2005
1st revert: 06:56, 23 October 2005
2nd revert: 07:22, 23 October 2005
3rd revert: 07:25, 23 October 2005
4th revert: 07:34, 23 October 2005

Previous version reverted to: 18:48, 20 November 2005
1st revert: 08:25, 21 November 2005
2nd revert: 16:57, 21 November 2005
3rd revert: 18:12, 21 November 2005
4th revert: 17:10, 22 November 2005
5th revert: 16:43, 23 November 2005
6th revert: 17:23, 24 November 2005

General incivility and finger crossing on talk pages (non-exhaustive examples):

[1] - "Yours, with the deepest respect."
[2] - ""
[3] - "Yours, with the greatest  respect."
[4] - "I  apologise for having broken the 3RR."
[5] - "Sod off"

Adamant that he is entitled to revert three times per 24 hours:

Personal attacks:

[9] - Attack picture on talkpage (was deleted by User:Khaosworks)
[10] - User:TimPope reporting to AN/I)
[11] - In reference to User:Sean Black: "even a sub-tropical diplodocus like you"
[12] - calling User:PaulHammond "... you inutterable buffoon."
[13] - Referring to User:23skidoo as "A raving lunatic"
[14] - called User:Snowspinner "another mindless buffoon"

[15]

Threat of sock-puppetering:

[16]

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

By User:Josiah Rowe

[17]
[18]

By User:Khaosworks

[19]

By User:Sean Black

[20]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

--TimPope 17:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Sean|Bla ck 21:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

JB Adder | Talk 21:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
23skidoo 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PaulHammond 11:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC) I would have wanted to write my own summary, but this unfortunately sums it up perfectly well IMO.[reply]
Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) (as my minor interaction with him probably wasn't enough to certify rather than endorse)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Also, see my comments on the talkpage of this page!

I apologise for the personal attack, and for any accidental times I reverted 4 times. I do, however, maintain that the 3RR is self-contradicting, so needs to be re-written.

Most other things I have to say are elsewhere on WP (check my contribs, and the talkpages of Khaosworks, Snowspinner, Sean Black, TimPope, Josiah Rowe, PaulHammond and so on), but I certainly don't feel that adding what admins call speculation and what I call statements of the truth is grounds for RfC. I don't do it deliberately to disrupt, I do it simply because I find it interesting.

When I offer to bring in individuals to agree with me (matching the "consensus"), I am accused of sockpuppeting, before I've even tried to get people to email in.

I am accused of vandalism when I alter someone else's post on a talkpage [21], not that it was drastic anyway, but other's changes to my posts on the same page are accepted. This is biting newbies.

My "threats" to sock-puppet were neither intended nor, actually, threats. They said that I may sockpuppet, and in all cases I stressed that I meant may rather than will. I meant it as in "it is physically possible for me to..."

I am told that I perform every action on WP deliberately to disrupt [22], and that I contribute poor edits. When I was blocked for 24hrs the last time, Snowspinner thought it hadn't carried, and blocked me for 48hrs instead. Fair? However, at least he unblocked me very promptly on my telling him of my mistake.

I am tempted to remove everything I have contributed, including the reversions of vandalism, and badmouth WP to, among others, The Guardian, one of WPs most admirant supporters.

Nearly every single edit I've made has been either adjusted out of recognition or removed within 12 hours, and when I complained that Khaosworks and his pals seemed to be trying to take over the Doctor Who articles, I was effectively told not to be so stupid. Therefore, now, when almost every edit I make is reverted almost immediately, I do indeed take it as either a personal affront, or as proof that the "Khao-club" is trying to always have the last edit.

As to the "finger-crossing" and swearing, there's no policy against that. If WP doesn't want hidden text, then they ought to remove that feature from the syntax. There is equally no policy about calling people raving lunatics on my own talkpage, and I'm almost certain that there isn't one against calling someone a sub-tropical diplodocus, or buffoons.

As to the first set of reversions, on The End of the World [23] and List of minor Doctor Who villains, I made scrupulously sure that everything was a statement of the truth. I even offered to write to Russel T Davies (the writer of Doctor Who) and ask his opinion, but was accused of planning to fake a letter from him.

When Josiah Rowe told me that my "if" on the LOMDWV was now redundant, as it had been proved otherwise, I promptly stopped adding that information to that article, but I still think that TEOTW is lacking. Prior to that, I did try to suggest a way forward [24] which was, of course, rejected (I think probably on a matter of principle). And, on Rose Tyler at least, PaulHammond just removed the information without an edit summary [25], suggesting that he thinks he isn't required to use them when deleting large chunks of (useful) information.

Note that I found out about the newbies policy after being put on RfC, when I researched exactly what the defences for me were. [To be continued].

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

TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of Hipocrite

Anyone who knows how to say "biting newbies" is no longer one. Having read only the assertion and response, it is clear that D10 is trying to lawyer his way around the charges. That there is no policy about not being a WP:DICK doesn't mean you should be one.

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

Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{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.}

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

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.