Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tom davy

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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.

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

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.

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.


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

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:TALK
 * WP:AGF

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * my first attempt
 * user:BoogaLouie's attempt
 * user:Gwen Gale's attempt

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Both of the following edits occurred after Gwen Gale's note.
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


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

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:

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.''

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)

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)

Outside view by bwrs
This user's contributions are potentially constructive, and the use of edit summaries is something that I myself can learn from, but given that edits such as #4 (mentioned above) significantly change the point of view of an article, and neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, I join the other participants in this debate in strongly urging him to discuss such major edits on the talk page before making them. The user is always free to seek editor assistance in participating in such discussions. Bwrs (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Proposed outcome 1, from AGK

 * 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)
 * Seeing as how Tom davy has now been inactive for several weeks, I will use this remedy and close the RfC. Wizardman  00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)