Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/TheDoctor10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Response to TheDoctor10's response 2 3RR is not contradictory 3 Finger-crossing and hidden text 4 Content issue

[edit] Response to TheDoctor10's response

One small clarification: the problem that merits this RfC is not the addition of speculative and non-notable information to Doctor Who pages. It's the refusal to accept the judgements of the community on his edits, and consequent edit warring to preserve his additions. Some of TheDoctor10's contributions have been judged worthy of inclusion, and remain either in their original form or edited for encyclopedic style. Nevertheless, he continues to perceive any removal of his edits as a personal affront. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As for the issue of the reversions being "statements of the truth" — that's never been in question (as TheDoctor10 framed the sentences as "it has been speculated that..."). What was debated was whether the speculation was notable and verifiable, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. The community felt that it was not; TheDoctor10 disagreed. An RfC eventually supported the majority view. TheDoctor10 continues to emphasize the truth of his comments, despite frequent attempts to explain that this was never the issue. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no. It is an issue with me. This KangarooCourt is just as much about me as about the Khao-club.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it is an issue with you. But none of your edits were deleted because they were considered false. They were deleted because they were considered non-notable and/or unverifiable, which are different criteria. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

About TheDoctor10's proposed compromise:

Prior to that, I did try to suggest a way forward [1] which was, of course, rejected (I think probably on a matter of principle).

He is correct: it was rejected as a matter of principle. However, the principle was not "We reject all contributions by TheDoctor10" (an absurd notion), but "Wikipedia does not support the creation of content forks as a way to resolve disagreements between contributors." (The guideline on content forking should probably have been linked to during that stage of the discussion.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what's wrong with a content fork.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you ought to read Wikipedia:Content forking.--Sean|Black 07:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it. I honestly don't see what's wrong with a content fork.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Doctor10 said: I am told that I perform every action on WP deliberately to disrupt, and that I contribute poor edits.

No-one has said that. Maybe you could provide a link to any person actually saying that everything you do is done with the intention to disrupt. Speaking for myself, I think that you imagine you have good intentions. Certainly, not *all* of your edits are poor, and very few of them are untrue. The trouble is that you can't accept that not *everyone* wants to read all the thoughts about Doctor Who that occured to you while you were reading Only Human. Imagine what the Doctor Who pages would look like if everyone added their latest theories and refused to let others trim them. They would become unreadable.

The problem arises when you revert-war after people think your additions are unnecessary, then characterise yourself as the victim of what you call the "Khao-club". Basically, Wikipedia isn't your own private fan site, and you cannot expect others to treat it as such. PaulHammond 11:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You want a link: look here

I had a look at the link. Sean doesn't say that everything you do is disruptive, which is what you said you had been told. Who told you this? Or are you merely exaggerating for effect. PaulHammond 12:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations of every action you do being disruptive, merely that he thinks you're trying to be. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR is not contradictory

I do, however, maintain that the 3RR is self-contradicting, so needs to be re-written.

It isn't. You just haven't understood what it is saying. What it says is that people can get banned (as you have discovered) for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. But then it goes on to say that you *shouldn't* think that reverting 3 times a day is a good way to edit an article. The 3RR is an attempt to get people to calm down and think about what they are doing, not an example of good practice - for that look to something more like WP:HEC PaulHammond 12:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finger-crossing and hidden text

The hidden text feature is intended to be used to leave instructions and notes to editors (such as "Don't change this spelling" or "Make sure you cite a source"). You can find proper uses of commenting if you check out Casino Royale (2006 film), for example. Considering that he isn't leaving instructions on the talk page with his hidden text, I'd like to invite Doctor10 to explain in his response exactly what his motivation is for putting hidden messages on the talk pages. He's right that there probably isn't a rule against doing so ... but then he isn't being cited for violating such a rule. It all reflects on the general issue of his lack of civility and that is a policy that is being cited. 23skidoo 15:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content issue

I would actually say adding unverifiable and speculative information is just as bad as revert warring and disrupting... Phil Sandifer 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that. It's meant to be a feature of wiki that if someone adds something that they're not sure of to an article, others will either find a source for it, rewrite it, or delete it if it's wrong. The problem comes in not accepting that adding bunches of speculation and marginalia to an article can ultimately make it unreadable, or uninteresting. PaulHammond 12:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable and speculative are specific problems, however, and their nature is to be unsourcable and thus always to be removed. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Widespread speculation certainly has a place in articles (see John F. Kennedy assassination, for instance), but without sources, yes, it's just as bad, if not worse. If work on the article is disrupted it will eventually get back to normal, but unsourced information makes the article worse overall.--Sean|Black 01:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)