 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- 16:03, July 10, 2005, Rama blocked TDC (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 16:03, July 14, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (provocative and disruptive reverts, abundently warned-)
I would like to ask for your comments about the case of TDC (talk · contribs · block log); a long-time "borderline case", specialised in taunting and exasperating other users (with already two RFCs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2), he has engaged in some sort of campaing of 3RR toying on Pablo Neruda.
I think that TDC has the potential of being a very good contributor; unfortunately, he spends most of his energy in making provocative and disturbing statements, insults other users, and globally act in bad faith. Since he is also very familiar with the letter of the rules, which he tends to use to better violate the spirit of them, I think that it is important to convince him that an actual good faith is indispensable.
I have warned him on the issue, a warning he took as a provocation to do more taunting; I therefore blocked him for two days. Upon his return, he immediately reverted Pablo Neruda twice, upon which I decided to further block him, for 4 days this time (see User_talk:TDC#Blocked).
Giving the rather severe nature of this retribution, I would like to specifically require the comment of other admins and make sure that this is in accordance to collegiality. Thank you in advance for your insights (and thank you to cesarb who pointed me here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Rama 17:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have been back and forth repeatedly on my views of TDC. He is knowledgable; he would have a lot to bring to Wikipedia if he supported the spirit of the enterprise, but instead he seems to be more interested in disrupting articles where he is a (usually lone) dissenter from a broad consensus. He also (and to my mind, this is worse) has been known to add dubious material to articles, inaccurately cited from books, so that it remains there until someone can track down the book and show that it says no such thing, at which time the material is removed. He also, by his own admission, makes deliberately overstated edits in article, hoping to use them as negotiating positions. I continue to believe that if he were aligned with the goal of creating a good encyclopedia, he would have a lot to contribute to it; increasingly, I doubt he ever will be. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I think an arbitration case is the next step. It doesn't appear that the RfCs have worked. Perhaps a ban on editing certain articles is in order. Carbonite | Talk 19:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- This has been much debate for 3 years at Wikipedia: should we accept someone who is brillian or knowledgable, even if they are disruptive? Maybe when there were only 100 contributors, it was a necessary price to pay. Now, I say: if you cant' cooperate, or go post on a blog or newsgroup. Uncle Ed 03:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Having opened the second RfC on TDC, I am quite familiar with his behaviour, and at this point I think Rama was acting correctly. His efforts to derail the Pablo Neruda article are truly shameful, made all the worse by the announcement on his user page his avowed goal of "pissing on the grave" of Neruda. Is it time to take this user to the ArbCom. I will do so, based on the material we gathered in the RfC, if someone else will lend a hand. -- Viajero | Talk 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Viajero for your comments and your message on my talk page. I would like to point to User_talk:TDC#My_Defense, where TDC makes what I think are rather interesting and sound suggestions. I think that the precise matter could be deemed closed for the time being. Rama 20:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)