Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC

Background

TDC was listed as a vandal on April 4, 2004. He already got banned once for telling another user to "suck his own dick". He broke the three edit rule, restarted an article that had just been voted to merge with another one, and more can be seen at the vandal page. Get-back-world-respect 00:08, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from Vandalism in Progress

I retract my prior complaints about TDC. This user is okay with me. Perhaps he's the most honest Wikipedian. 172 15:28, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

TDC created an article about "Oil for food allegations" when he saw his edit wars at the 2003 invasion of Iraq were fruitless, and then tried to vandalize against the consensus to merge his allegations into the Oil for food article. His continuously inappropriate writing ("suck your own dick" [1], "you have met in TDC the biggest most stubborn prick on the face of planet earth, and I will not stop until your stomach churns with bile at the site of [TDC]" [2], or "whine fest" [3] shows very well this person is not here to contribute valuable information.

When his attempts to delete "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people, most of them civilians, and their military use remains controversial." from an article failed, he claimed that only "limp dicked western historians" [4] doubt his opinion and later changed the statement into "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an estimated 275,000 people, most of them civilians, but many credit their use with ending the Second World War." [5]

He then listed the article for deletion without any explanation at talk and kept reverting rather than argumenting. [6] Get-back-world-respect 23:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These changes seem perfectly reasonable to me, and his listing of any page on VfD can stand or fall on its own merits. I fail to see how what you posted here is even close to vandalism. RickK

So "limp-dicked historians" is perfectly reasonable and it is ok to ignore the policy to discuss before you list for deletion unless the case is clear? Why don't you log in if you write here? Get-back-world-respect 00:03, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments on Talk pages are not vandalism per se. 159.225.155.86 00:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

His dick-speach is unacceptable, so are his continuous edit wars, and I even regard his listing for deletion as vandalism because he did not discuss it at all before and just used it on a page that did not fit with his personal view. Up to now there are 9 votes for keep, none for deletion. Why do you not log in before you write here? Get-back-world-respect 00:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think RickK even wrote that comment. Looking at the edit history of ViP, it doesn't appear that he's made any edits to the former "User:TDC" section. [7] [ alerante | “” 23:30, 14 May 2004 (UTC) ][reply]

He continues with his personal attacks even when voting on an adminship request: [8] Get-back-world-respect 22:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to personally insult me on his user page. Get-back-world-respect 16:55, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

TDC is apparently working hard to change articles to present his point of view. This is not a bad thing in itself - NPOV comes only from collaboration between people of different points of view. I'm however going to second GBWR's view here; TDC's attitude and methods are inappropriate and as things stand TDC isn't helpful to Wikipedia. Fredrik 17:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am just poking a little fun at GBWR on my own talk page. He or she has made every attempt possible to slander me and get me banned. Clearly this person has some issues, and has been spoiling for a fight with someone like ever since they got onto Wiki. I have contributed quite a bit to Wiki, and not only in politically charged articles as my detractors would claim.

No one likes a tattle GBWR. I can be quite reasonable if approached reasonably. I think the overall quality of Wiki improves drastically when two dissimilar contributors can work out agreements in a grown and civil manner as I have done with 172 on several occasions now. But I can and will be the worlds biggest prick if I do not feel that I am being treated fairly. Instead of running around and whining to every admin you can find, in some lame attempt to get me banned, why not try and act like a grown up.

Stop concentrating on this facade of “getting back world respect” and try and gain my respect.

Act like an adult, and I will treat you as such. TDC 17:39, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

In defense of TDC

I can vouch for what TDC is saying. This is 100% correct. TDC is always honest, he knows what he wants, and he has a realistic view of the balance of power on this site. He can work with users who come from very different perspectives and he can work toward NPOV. BTW, he has a sharp sense of humor when he's making fun of people. 172 15:31, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, as a coincidence I never came across an article where you behaved appropriately. But I saw you do a lot of things that are not meant to be done here, so I added references to your vandal listing. I never got personal though, I see no reason to offend people I do not even know. You, however, do not seem to have understood basic wiki principles like " no personal attacks". Get-back-world-respect 22:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

TDC "apologized" for trying to insult me on his page by removing the picture and telling me "Listen chooch (...) Seriously now, shut up. Or you might be up for furhter nomination." "shut the fuck up" and called me a "dildo".

The rules are straightforward: No personal attacks. Over there it says Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. In extreme cases, users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Specific types of slur covered by this include but are not limited to the following: * Political affiliation attacks (often, calling someone a Nazi) - On his userpage TDC calls indymedia "Nazimedia". He already got banned once. Get-back-world-respect 00:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"I have contributed quite a bit to Wiki, and not only in politically charged articles as my detractors would claim." I will try not to laugh.... Ericd 19:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seing as TDC referred to me as "biatch" and "honey cakes", seldom watches his tongue in conversations, and... well, I don't even want to get into his edits. Let it just suffice to say that I've had a less than pleasant experience with him. I'm not perfect myself, and I'll be the first to admit that; but resorting to adopting pet names and cursing at opponents is just too much. Rei 05:45, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

copyright infrigement

It seems like some contributions from TDC are copyright infrigement. See Talk:Hugo Chávez. Ericd 18:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He's done that in the 2003 invasion of Iraq before, also. Rei 16:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars and personal attacks again

TDC again ignored the three revert rule at Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "an edit war? BRING IT ON, my little monkey" [9] and personally attacks others "you dont (sic!) know jack shit" [10]. A user who writes "Who the fuck cares about a concensus." [11] clearly is not meant to join a wiki project. Get-back-world-respect 00:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Will you please quit your bitching. Do you do this every time you cannot win an argument? You know, go whining to authority figures. TDC 01:36, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for proving again that your only means to "win an argument" is inappropriate language. Get-back-world-respect 02:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you ever sit back and listen to yourself? Seriously. I thought that most children learned when they were seven that the only thing tattling got them was a severe ass whomping.

Every time you get into an edit war with a contributor instead of talking about specific disputed statements in an article you just find some admin and bitch and moan to them. I think you would find it more productive to talk tghan whine,

I have a feeling that you may be nominated for another award in the not so near future. TDC 02:24, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

As you would have noted if you checked talk pages and edit summaries, I discuss, argue, and acknowledge the limitation of reverts unlike you. Furthermore, I never personally attack others as it says more about the one who does it than anyone else. Get-back-world-respect 02:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

discuss, argue, and acknowledge more like whine bitch and moan TDC 02:41, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Just glancing over the edit summaries of TDC's recent contributions I see him making repeated personal attacks and threats of edit wars. I haven't looked at what's being argued about, it's not relevant and it doesn't matter who's "right." This is simply not the way to go about things here on Wikipedia. Bryan 05:39, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With groupthink and legalism increasingly prevalent on Wikipedia, I find it refreshing to see someone bluntly state what he believes and bluntly state his objectives regarding articles. This makes it easier to understand where TDC is coming from, and in turn, how to reach compromises with him. Once you people start disregarding the over-the-top barbs, all of you will find that it's very easy to work with him. 172 16:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having been looking at Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki I have to comment that I find TDC approach to editing and general politeness inappropriate for constructively presenting an issue on which there will obviously be strongly conflicting POV. It seems a very achievable task to represent two sides of the debate on this page, and his lowering of the tone in discussion has certainly hindered this endeavour. On a side note, as a newbie to the internal politics of the Wikipedia community, I find it somewhat remarkable that 172, who appears to be standing for overall admin status, should be supporting use of such offensive and uncooperative editing. --Zippedmartin 18:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, no-- I'm supporting him because of his cooperative editing, and I am speaking from the basis of experience. He once called me a "Marxist who laughs at his victims," but I got over it once I found out how easy it is to work with him when the interaction centered on sources, facts, substantiation, and, in short, on the content of articles and the merit of his proposed changes, not on his blunt language. If you think some of his changes are biased, then add some more detail contextualizing the information or offering the contending POV. He'll accept it reasonably discuss the changes. 172 06:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So he acts like an asshole but is a smart person to work with, is that your point? 209.197.154.139

I have looked into this myself, and am of the same opinion of GBWR. This user is very problematic. He also makes blatently pov edits, and initiates endless revert wars to protect these edits. Different methods in the dispute resolution process have been tried on multiple occasions, and have not resulted in any perceptible change in his conduct. Binding steps should be taken. Kevin Baas | talk 00:31, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Of course he has a strong POV. But he's willing to meet other users halfway when they have a command of the facts and are willing to work with him. See, e.g., Hugo Chavez and History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953), where he worked very well with others with considerably different backgrounds (including me) and helped improve both articles. 172 02:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are there any new developments on the situation ? I have been engaged in "nonfriendly discussions" with him about various articles and I really think that his unreflective spreading of Right-Wing Pro-US-Proaganda seriously hurts Wikipedia. I have wasted hours trying to clean up after him which I could have used much more productively to write new articles - but I am just unable to ignore what he writes. Turrican

I am sorry if I dont want articles like The US Invasion of Afghanistan to turn into the Z-Mag encyclopedic compendium. After going over my edits and your edits, its clear why my still stand. TDC 17:20, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

User TDC and his crony Adam Carr are conspiring to keep certain articles grossly one-sided and right-wing. Their constant reversion of any changes to Khmer Rouge that didn't suit their political preferences led to the freezing of the entire article several days ago. They have also vowed to revert my future changes to a wide range of articles. There can be no compromising with people who refuse to discuss anything but merely insert propaganda and delete any hint that there might be another side than theirs to an issue. Both of these people have insisted on attacking other users personally, including me. I do not believe that they are here to make positive contributions; on the contrary, their destructive and disruptive behaviour gets in the way of others' efforts. Shorne 20:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Umm last I checked, I spent the better part of 1000 words in talk explaining why your changes are/were complete garbage. TDC 20:39, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still thinking that NPOV has no sense for TDC. Strangely 172 supports TDC. IMO he/she has the same kind of view about NPOV but on the opposite side, for instance he/she still support that the Kmher Rouge were US-backed. This is an assertion that I have renounced fight. At worse, they have a vision of Wikipedia as an energy consuming eternal war between opposite conceptions, at best (Hmm... not best... only not so bad...) they will make some political agreement "OK for Hugo Chavez but do't touch my US-backed Khmer Rouge...". I wonder if they get some money for that ? As I don't get any penny, cents, kopeck, centime or candy for contributing in Wikipedia I found this controversies boring and inefficient. As for myself except on few subject were I'm a primary witness I found that it was a quick way to get rid of these controversies by sourcing them even if it doesn't suit my POV.

Ericd 21:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)