Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.105.71.34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(86.105.71.34 | talk | contributions)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view by McClenon
4 Outside view
5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Anonymous user 86.105.71.34 pushes POV edits in Romania-related articles; shows lack of civility to other Wikipedians, insults other users, disregards the NPOV and verifiability policies.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Anonymous user 86.105.71.34:

makes controversial, nationalist edits in Transylvania;
makes controversial, nationalist edits in Republic of Moldova,
adds unencyclopedic hype about Romania as a tourist destination on the Romania article;
inserts unsupported figures for the number of speakers of Romanian and refuses to cite sources;
makes controversial, nationalist and unverifiable edits (including fake figures) in Hungary related articles (Hungary, Magyars, Hungarian minority in Romania, Hungarian language, Economy of Hungary, and most probably the edited figures in Israel and other contributed articles are false too)
routinely insults other contributors in edit summaries
harasses and insults contributors who disagree with his edits
routinely questions the good faith of contributors who disagree with, or even question, his edits
removes questions and warnings from talk page without response

It is possible that this user has also edited from:

138.25.2.22
203.162.17.78
202.69.200.15: same level of English, same topics, same views

Several of these seem to be tied together by signing with a Romanian flag:

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Controversial edits

[edit] Lack of civility

In edit summaries:

Removing messages from own talk page, or blanking it altogether:

[edit] Harassment, insults

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmabel&diff=25609790&oldid=25364392 (for translation see here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmabel&diff=25838701&oldid=25835023
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIulianu&diff=26711072&oldid=25331227
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGutza&diff=26710175&oldid=23873186
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romanian_language&diff=26461224&oldid=26339933
- Assuming I understand correctly, he called me an ignorant old... well, there is no English word with the same connotation, but the Yiddish would be "gonif". Literally "thief". -- Jmabel | Talk
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Moldova&diff=27287344&oldid=27270471: In this context, "not good for your health" borders on a threat. This might not be 86.105.71.34; it's one of the suspected socks that appeared when 86.105.71.34 was blocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikkalai&diff=27288136&oldid=27287474

[edit] Impersonation

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Also please note

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&diff=27169827&oldid=27162370; translation available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jmabel&oldid=27214978#Salut. I'm not sure if this was intended by User:86.105.71.34 as an attempt to solve the dispute, or as a further attack; assuming good faith, I will credit it as an attempt at the former, but there is some of the latter within it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

IulianU 23:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel | Talk 02:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC), ~~although I think the sockpuppetry accusation should be dropped: editing from various IP addresses is fine, unless he is trying to create an illusion of a group of people being in agreement.~~ -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, these edits from other IP addresses are being used to evade a block; the uniform "signature" and the style make it almost certain these are all the same person. I'm not sure if "sockpuppetry" is the right word, but, as I understand it, evasion of a block is considered an even worse offense. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

86.105.71.34 refers below to "false accusations", but does not indicate which of the statements above he considers false. Most of the evidence above is simply documentation of edits from what certainly appears to be a fixed IP address, and which certainly all appear to me to be violations of policy. 86.105.71.34, what part of this are you claiming to be false? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
grin ✎, but I believe this is a case of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism due to the obvious lack of will of communication and sneaky inserts of false figures. --grin ✎ 12:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
--Tamas 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC) , but I believe this is a case of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism due to the obvious lack of will of communication and sneaky inserts of false figures.
nagytibi ^{! ?} 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Ronline 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC) His/her edits seem to be in bad faith and by trying to push an extreme POV it makes the articles seem exaggerated, which make them non-credible, which in turn defeats the entire purpose of "portraying Romania in a good light". I explained this to the user. Anti-Hungarian edits are also unacceptable (childish things like that belong in the 1980s!). Ronline 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

- I withdraw my RfC for this user. I have contacted to him and in my talk with him he has been very polite and reasonable. He has also explained his edits and has not persisted in reverting them once he is given a reasonable argument (i.e. the mobile telephony figures for Romania) Ronline 06:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Node 19:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Olessi 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{!!!???? What is this? I read now for the first time but sincerely I am shocked! I don't know what is about all this "campaign". Very, very weired. Hello friends! First of all I must appreciate the effort and willingsness of Ronline which I consider a very good influence on what is happening on the page of Romania. He help me a lot and I wish of course in the future to work with him. I didn't know that I have to explain here some things, but Ronline told me so. So, it seems to me that is a weired campaign against what I have edit. Anyway I have learned to colaborate and this thing is already obvious. I proposed you some new paragraphs like Galery,...On some issues we have to admit that we agree. To the others we will start collaborating to see what can we do. I hope the false accusations will be droped and no more lies about my edits will be said.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 6 Nov 2005.

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 ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I will partially agree with the summary. It is clear that this anonymous editor is uncivil and engages in personal attacks and insulting edit summaries. I have not researched the details of the facts of the controversial edits. I will add one note as to what I do not agree with in the summary. This anonymous editor is accused of removing information from his talk page. He is only following the controversial guideline of Remove Personal Attacks, showing why it is a controversial guideline.

I seldom favor unilateral administrative action. However, an anonymous editor who does not defend reply to an RfC should be dealt with by 24-hour blocks if he engages in personal attacks or insulting edit summaries.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Robert McClenon 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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 ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_86.105.71.34_f033.html"

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/86.105.71.34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Controversial edits

[edit] Lack of civility

[edit] Harassment, insults

[edit] Impersonation

[edit] Applicable policies

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit] Also please note

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

[edit] Outside view

[edit] Discussion

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search