Wikipedia:Requests for comment/75.47.x.x

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

It is important to note that there are other users editing from this IP range (75.47.0.0/16).

IPs in question:

Diffs linking the different IPs together:

User changes IP about once a day.

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Cause of concern

{Add summary here, 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] Disruption

A user in the IP range 75.47.x.x has been editing articles about California highways for some time, at least since 2007-12-07 ([14]). Has been edit warring.

Examples:

Unresponsive to others' concerns; ignores messages on his/her talk page and often outright removes them (see [27], [28], [29], [30]). I had to threaten a block (for disruption) to get him to respond at all ([31]). Can be hostile ([32], [33], [34]). Makes bulk changes without discussion ([35]). Does not use article talk pages for discussion.

Removing others' talk page comments (user's own page not included): [36], [37]

Changing a redirect into the former article, making some edits, and reverting to the redirect for no apparent reason: [38][39]; refuses to explain why: [40]

Vandalizing this RFC: [41] and again: [42]

[edit] Harassment

After reverting an edit made by User:PhATxPnOY916 ([43]), user reverts changes made by PhATxPnOY916 on several unrelated articles ([44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). Is asked to stop by PhATxPnOY916 ([49]). 13 days later he does it again ([50], [51], [52]).


Attempts to resolve the dispute:

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

  1. Disruptive editing
  2. Harassment
  3. Civility
  4. Talk page guidelines

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

75.47.x.x becomes more responsive to questions and uses article talk pages as an alternative to reverting.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Evil saltine (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. I have tried and failed to communicate. --NE2 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  2.  — master sonT - C 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. -- PrestonH 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.


[edit] Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

[edit] Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}


[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

[edit] Users endorsing this response

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.


Q.

A.


[edit] Outside view by Scott5114

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.

I haven't been extremely involved with the 75 IP, but I definitely think that there's something that may need to be done with this user. 75 seems to try and make good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, but their choice of contributions is so far off the mark that a lot of editors find the need to watch over the IPs to check to see if there's anything that needs to be cleaned up. Attempts to reach the IP are largely pointless, as the user has the tendency to merely revert anything posted to its talk page, using edit summaries such as "Just stay out of my way"[61], "Just don't bother me, i have nothing to say"[62] and "rm incivility" [63] even when the posted discussion is by no means incivil. The user has also reverted others with edit summaries such as "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!!!!"[64], "STOP THAT!"[65], "I don't believe you! Why aren't you telling the truth?!"[66], "Stop Being Fanatic!" [67], "Sorry, you are denied to submit your text; please avoid nonsense and lies from this moment" [68].

The diffs presented above demonstrate, to me, a fundamental assumption of bad faith. Many of 75's edit summaries are incivil and could even be construed to contain personal attacks. Several users have attempted to reach out to this user and help guide them towards Wikipedia's accepted modes of conduct; however, the user has responded by either ignoring their input or outright belligerence. Numerous chances for reform have been extended to this user, but they have no intent to take those opportunities. Therefore, I believe that more drastic action may need to be taken against this user.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Evil saltine (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional views

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.

{Enter summary here.}


Users who endorse this summary:


[edit] Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

3)

Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] 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.