Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mr Tan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

[edit]

Mr Tan has persistently and stubbornly disrupted editing and personally attacked other editors. His position is that he alone is able to judge the acceptability of English style, grammar, etc., despite the fact that his English is very weak. He has made innumerable edits which have turned good English into bad, sometimes on a very large scale. He has so far refused to listen to any of the editors who have tried to point out his errors, and to moderate his behaviour. This Request for Comment is now our only recourse.

(It should be noted that, since this RfC was opened, Mr Tan's behaviour has continued unabated, and in fact has probably worsened.)

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  • disrupting Wikipedia
  1. blanking article and replacing it with his own poll
  2. replacing article in toto with his own version
  3. placing 'gcheck' template on article with no grammatical errors, and again
  4. placing non-standard edit-warning and link to temp page on article (the temp page is itself typical of his behaviour, with no mention of it on the main article's Talk page, and a peremptory order to other editors not to edit it)
  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. User talk:Mel Etitis#Mr Tan
  8. [7]
  9. [8]
  10. [9]

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Civility
  2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:Mr Tan#Zanskar
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]
  5. [13]
  6. [14]
  7. [15]
  8. [16]
  9. [17]
  10. [18]
  11. [19]
  12. [20]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moumine 20:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JMBell° 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ypacaraí 04:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. He provides lots of good content, but doesn't accept help on his errors in English usage. He will revert grammatical errors. --Defenestrate 05:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr Tan seems to behave in a thoroughly un-wiki manner, rude etc. I commend the other users in the dispute for their calmness and patience, which is highly impressive. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mr Tan is a rude, ignorant bully who has vandalized entries in the past after his false information was corrected. Fabshelly 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)fabshelly[reply]

Response

[edit]

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.

Some of the content comes from [21] as I find it relevant for the response

User:Mel Etitis

[edit]

In the first place, you have shown unsociable behaviour at the very start of our talks which made our mutual misunderstandings build up as each stage of the discussion "level up".

Secondly, I would like to point out that ignoring one's comments is not only rude, but it will also cause a wrong turn decision without the opposite party's correction. (You, however, have done that many times). This is really making my life difficult–If I edit after consulting him but in the case that he did not respond, he will get indulged in an edit war. See Talk:Zanskar on his attitude. I just can't understand him-despite explanations, he threatened blocks against me and said that I am conducting "near-vandalism" in User Talk:BrokenSegue. If he is keen enough to judge my explanations (In which he didn't) on my reasons for the edits on grammar, surely such a thing would not have happened. (This sort of attitude did not show out in other articles --see Nakhi for example)

Thirdly, I admit that many of my works look like a piece of shit gramatically and structurally--this is the reason of my frequent peer-review of many of articles written by me.

Although I welcome help like people from him with gramatically good english, the problem of your approach towards articles--he seem to have a very negative approach towards the content of many articles, the stiffest being Zanskar.

I hope that I get this message very clear----Mel Etitis did not make his explanations clear enough and also being partially too arrogant--despite repeated reminders, several messages were not responded (Is this a proper user conduct for an admin?)

Fourthly--he did not even make a comment on this very (original version in my talk page) on this debate. This will make many users who are currently commenting my user conduct--may have an mistaken interpretation of what it is supposed to be.

Fifthly, concerning about the content dispute about the Zanskar article–all I want is him to give me some time and patience to let me copyedit–despite appeals, still he repeatedly reverted my changes before I could complete the whole process (it may be [[22]]). Is he being reasonable?

Sixth, Mel had once stated and "threatened" arbitration in the sense that I can continue to contribute content to articles, but not copyedit, just by saying that my english is too lousy and repeatedly reverting nearly every edit of mine especially in Zanskar, the stiffest (and most intense) of being is between late May and Early June [23].

But again this is a question that leaves being properly defined. A person's standard of english maybe poor, but this may not be the case in the future. Analyse it---A person with poor english may not be able to detect his mistakes well--I"ll apologise for any "casualties". I"ll encourage him if he finds any mistakes in my grammar (but it seems strange towards his attitude in Zanskar).

Last, but not least, to me, all the above reflects that either he does not have an analytical mind or, he has a very poor sense of interaction with me (especially with my facts), or he is simply too stubborn (notice his behaviour between Zanskar and other article that we have co-edited). Take note--I'm fighting on this dispute just for the sake of the goodwill of wikipedia (my loved-place) and the right of my opinion--I have totally nothing to gain, and wikipedia is not at all a battleground. Is this all Ad hominem?

If this dispute--having a two-month long history gets nowhere, I have no choice but to consider leaving.

With that, I shall conclude my response--goodbye.

I also have one more point to add: Mel Etitis has a tendency to criticise people unanimously--see Talk:Zanskar for example. Furthermore, he insists on his way, rather than elaborating on his reasons on his acts (edits and reverts). Is this a proper user conduct? I may not know wikipedian rules very well, but it seems that Mel does not totally deserves the credits that he have.

Nor would I find anything wrong with telling Mr Jimmy Wales about this case (I had done it before); I don't see why these people merely having the impression that I'm toying his talk page to vent his anger. Too bad he doesn't respond to my message, but that doesn't warrant Mel to spread rumours to talk bad about me.

James Bell

[edit]

You have been understating about every action that I have done. Do not think that I use a word blindly---I always check a dictionary upon every word that I use, yet I do not know the meaning. Analysation is the critical factor to develop mutual understanding.

  • But I do, Mr. Tan, I most certainly do. Tell me now - what does "vehement" mean? Use simple words to give the meaning so it will be clear to all. And regarding analyzation ("analysis" would be the correct term), I am the most analytical of persons, planning all my moves days ahead. Though a little flexibility is necessary, of course. You don't notice that I'm analytical, do you? Good. JMBell° 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I could say that I am extremely thankful for all the efforts of JMBell in resolving this dispute.

{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 ~~~~):

  1. Tan 10:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

[edit]

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.

{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 ~~~~):

  1. I agree completely with Mel Etitis. Mr Tan has been very rude. He bosses people around, takes ownership of articles (for example, saying "I want" this and that) and insults people. And his use of English does not come close to the level of those he has criticized. Further, I think that those involved in editing the same articles have been extremely patient with him. Maurreen 17:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've had similar difficulties with this user. See Talk:Tibetan_people#Explanation; also, you might look at the edit summaries for roughly March 19-24, 2005 at Tibetan people (article history). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  3. The histories bear out this complaint; Tan has made *many* bad edits and near-vandalizing edits, as my scrutiny of many tens of edits has convinced me, and he has been consistently recalcitrant, arrant and high-handed in his disputations with the opposed users especially where mastery of the English language is concerned. They have made a convincing case for it, and he has not defended himself adequately, doing it rather in an incomplete ungrammatical gnomic manner. He has acted with atrocious wikiquette, and I strongly suggest censure. --maru 22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've known Mr Tan for sometime, and since I've been requested repeatedly to comment on this issue, here are my thoughts. 1) Mr Tan's English is certainally not the best. He'd have to accept it wholeheartedly without disputing other wikipedians English proficiency. Until he acceps the fact that people who revert his edits are trying to improve the English on the page, I don't see much of a headway on this issue. 2) Mr Tan has indulged in personal attacks over many edits. The attacks are uncalled for and is a serious matter in any sphere (why limit it to wikipedia alone?) 3) Mr Tan has to realise that the editors in question here are not out to fulfil a hidden agenda or indulge in witch hunting. The issue had flared up after Tan had taken a stubborn stance and refused to back down after proven wrong. I'm sure all would be ready to forgive Tan if he could tender an apology and accept his limitations. 4) Mr Tan's disregard for notices is a cause for concern. I had noticed this a long time back when I was working with the Sikkim article and later when I assisted Tan on the Arunachal Pradesh article which was a major POV. 5) Mr Tan has the impression that Mel, Moumine and JMBell are trying to crucify him. Instead of carrying unilateral tasks, it would be better if he read wikipedia policies and discussed the matter with editors. If still in doubt he could open an RFC. Mr Tan would have to realise that this is a collaborative effort, and the ultimate aim is to produce a refined article rather than indulge in unnecessary bickering over minor issues. 6) As I've mentioned before, it would be better if Mr Tan switches over to adding new content to articles or creating stub articles rather than cleaning up articles. He'd have to realise his limitations first. 7) I've requested Tan to use a good word processor, but I don't know how far he has acceded to my request. 8) Mr Tan tries to use a /temp page for the article, but it is often a mirror image of the original article. The temp page should be done if a major structural and content change is expected. The temp page has a limited shelf life and should be open to others to comment about it. However using a temp page to portray a viewpoint or biased matter is a gross abuse of its use.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mr Tan and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Temp pages. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As someone who occasionally referees for English language academic journals, I would comment that Mr Tan's grasp of English grammar is substandard. A paper that showed as many typing errors and grammatical errors, particularly where these obscure the meaning of his work, would either be rejected or require a major rewrite. It is my opinion that Mr Tan should accept that prompt copyediting of his work is not just likely to occur but is in fact desirable. Average Earthman 16:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr Tan seems to me like User:Chan Han Xiang who had a history of similar disputes a couple of months ago... similar user profile too... (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chan Han Xiang) Hayabusa future 05:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I have just finished reading some of the conversations between users Mr Tan, Mel Etitis, Moumine and JMBell. Firstly, I will commend the latter three for their unbelievable patience in dealing with Tan, the amount of time and effort taken especially by Mel and JM to assist Tan almost breaches the borders of belief! Mr Tan, if you read this, you are either at a point where you believe your English language skills to be better than everyone else, or you are simply being difficult. For mine there is no difference in the two viewpoints; you have created problems in numerous articles and represented yourself in an horrific manner. To Mel and JM, bravo for your patience and attempted assistance. To whomever it is that is charged with sorting out this mess, good luck, and you have my support in censuring Mr Tan for his contrary conduct that quite easily falls under the definition of 'vandalism'. Cory 06:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. My interactions with User:Mr Tan are rather limited; I only ran across him because I saw a highlighted change on recent changes where he purportedly reverted "vandalism" [25] (his edits were being highlighted because he had previously been reverted by an admin). I thought that was odd and investigated; what I found was evidence of a relatively minor content dispute which Mr Tan was blowing all out of proportion, demanding that Mel provide a link to the "policy" that governed Mel's interpretation of Wikipedia style, or else he would "treat [the edit] as vandalism". [26]. Mr Tan then arguably violated WP:3RR to enforce his position; when Mel listed the incident on WP:AN/3RR, Mr Tan accused Mel of "heresy" [27]. (It would appear that Mel's listing of Mr Tan was technically incorrect, but Mr Tan is nonetheless being uncooperative.) This brought the conflict to the attention of a number of people, and discussion ensued, which I largely did not participate in. Some time later, Mr Tan posted a lengthy discourse on my user talk page [28] basically accusing Mel Etitis of stalking him. I referred Mel to the comments left on my talk page [29]; Mel chose to leave a note referring me to this RFC, and so here I am. For what it's worth, I think the main problem here is Mr Tan's language skills, combined with an unnecessarily combative and possessive attitude. Mentoring may be of some assistance here. I would also suggest to Mel that he avoid using one-click rollback for edits that colorably could be described as a content dispute, but otherwise can find no substantial fault with his conduct in the corner of this affair with which I have been involved. Kelly Martin 15:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I'm new to Wikipolitics, only recently making substantial edits, but while this matter is relatively trivial, concerning whether a map improves the article, or not (pending a better one) Tan insists on removing it and my arguements seem to have zero weight to him. Simply, my impression is "I wants what I wants, and to hell with you" is his Wiki-Wolrld View. For the extent of my effort, look in on my TALKS with him on Tsushima Strait and tender me some advice. Here are quick links: my talk (Article 11) and his talk (Article 85 88 to 91). Reverting will probably escallate the situation, so I left that for another. (This has already cost me too much time - I could have been researching or writing.) Part of me wonders if I should show him a Polack is far more stubborn than an any Chinaman that ever lived, but THAT would be juvenile. He does seem to bring one's blood pressure up - like dealing with my teens! I add this here as that seems to be the best recourse. Fabartus 15:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, what is the big fuss? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss?

Mr Tan 13:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

9B I unfortunately closed the window wherein I'd already written at about page length on this interesting and telling development/point I need to add to the above Para-9 complaint:
Mr Tan is a young man of about fifteen doing his best to contribute.
The proof is here but I copy the pertinent point here (Note the cut and paste and timestamps):

Hey, what is the big fuss, Mr Bartus? I only made two reverts, and explained that bad maps can be misleading. Now you have corrected them, Thanks. But what is the matter? I am satisfied, you are satisfied. Why spur the big fuss? And don't be too harsh. I am at your son's age--fourteen to fifteen, approximately. Thanks.

Mr Tan 13:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Subsequent to the above exchange, Mr Tan has indicated a willingness to work with myself and My son Jon. I don't know what the relative merits of Mr Tan's factual controversys are, but I would suggest that banning his good faith efforts is far more than a little harsh. I would suggest that he be reigned in especially in terms of proofing his work using Show Preview as an additional experience this morning on Tsushima Islands - History clearly shows - he made no less than five posted edits in thirty-three minutes, plus two others a short while later this morning alone. (From 09:29 to 10:03, thence to 12:54, iirc). None-the-less, he took some direction, and the spate has added usefully to the article, if obfusticating the history and reducing it's usefulness. These are the actions of an enthusist and youth, not of a vandal.
I have made the point rather strongly (i.e. escalating immediately to adding the above original post) that he needs to be chary of others time, and I suspect he has learned at least part of that lesson. Consequently, I will lend him guidance insofar as he lets me, as our exchanges today are promising. It would certainly be best if he vetts major edits with someone, and I guess I just volunteered, but if so, we need provision and authority to lock an article for a large change. I believe the subst template does that, but don't know who can use it and when it can be used within guidlines (at this writing).
Lastly, Mr Tan might be asked to be self-restrained (as well as self-disciplined) in editing an article undergoing rapid evolution. By that I mean, he can probably add data as he dug out and added the names of the two parts of the once monolithic island of Tsushima, as I noted the article needed to him -- part of his spate of edits above. He just needs to be sensative to making substantive changes rather than spates of realatively minor edits. He can certainly be a useful asset if he were to focus on reasearching topics sufficiently to write stubs and short articles, rather than trying to polish an article into a high state of quality at this point in his career as a writer.
In sum, I admire his pluck and energy, but abhor the High Maintenance and stress he seems to have inflicted upon other editors. A sanction such as removing himself when requested from a given project, except for submitting material to and through the requesting party might be in order, and a reasonable measure if and whenever he lets his exuberence loose on any project. That probationary measure coupled with encouragement to build new articles, will benifit both him and wikipedia. If such a probationary measure is not part of the Wiki-toolbox, perhaps an RfC on that is in order. I'll do what I can for the later, but we may want a few others to work with such an ambitious youngster in various timezones. Fabartus 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Since two days ago, he's working with me so cross your fingers. I just reorganized our dialongs (in the main, on his talk page), so added the paragraph changes above (at strikeout). Fabartus 17:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good luck working with him - I'd love to update and correct the Bae Yong Joon page, but know that if I do, he'll be back to his old tricks again. I'm not that patient of a woman...so again, I wish you luck. Fabshelly 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)fabshelly[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mr_Tan&oldid=1059294586"