Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.105.71.34

Does 86.105.71.34 have the potential to be a good contributor
I want to be clear: I think this person has the potential to be a useful contributor to Wikipedia, but only if he is willing to be civil and understands and consents to the goal of creating an NPOV encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should withdraw that remark. Having been blocked, he seems to be getting around the block by editing from different IPs and being even nastier. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_Moldova&diff=27287344&oldid=27270471. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

How to proceed
As far as I can tell, 86.105.71.34 has simply ignored this RfC and evaded a block by editing from other IP addresses. I gather from Karynn (with whom I communicated on the #wikipedia chat) that the logical next step would be to proceed to arbitration. I'd be interested in hearing from the others who signed on to this as to whether they wish to do that. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about these processes, but having run through Arbitration briefly, it indeed seems to me that this is the next step. Or maybe Ronline could try and talk to him again and convince him to be more civil? --Tamas 20:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Ronline could. I simply wonder how effective arbitration against an anon could ever be, I would say it is a matter of blocking the vandal, but it may be pretty hard. It might be easiest to simply declare that one suspicious edit of an anon in the given topic should result revert all of its edits and a polite request to communicate with us. Unless he chose to talk we revert everything dubious. I don't think arbitration could tell or enforce more than that.

I would say we should revert and block him, it's not that hard to spot these edits. [talked with guys on irc and they tend to agree that arbcom isn't for obvious cases where the community agrees. revert and block.] --grin &#9998; 22:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't object to that, but I personally will not block someone who has been attacking me: I consider that sort of thing too subject to admin abuse; I certainly won't object to blocks by an admin who has not been involved in the content disputes. FWIW, I have at no point been systematically reverting 86.105.71.34's edits to articles: I simply remove what strike me as bad edits. If anything, up till now I've tried to give him more latitude than usual, because he was claiming I was biased, so in many cases I went to the talk page on things I would normally simply revert. And I think edits should continue to be judged on their merits. Most of his have been bad, a handful have been good, I'll still leave his edits when they are good, and think others should as well.


 * Personal attacks placed on talk pages are another matter. Usually, I leave these, but in this case I'm ready to make an exception.


 * I suppose that if we can agree among ourselves how to handle this, the burden will be on him to file an RfC if he doesn't like it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

A concrete proposal
So how about this: -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) If he makes further trouble, we will request a block and will refer to this RfC to show it is a perisistent problem.
 * 2) We will remove future personal attacks that appear to come from this person, with edit summary referring to this RfC.
 * 3) We will suspend the usual assumption of good faith on edits that appear to come from this person, and are not self-evidently in good faith (e.g. cited from appropriate sources, etc.).
 * 4) Apparent good-faith edits will be judged on their merits.
 * 5) If he doesn't like it, he can file an RfC, since he's simply ignored ours, which is where this could have been worked out reasonably amicably.

Since Anon has not responded to the RfC, and since nobody else stepped up to defend him, I would presume we are in consensus. Therefore I favour dealing with him through administrative action (blocks, reverts) rather than going through arbitration. I think Joe's proposal makes sense. IulianU 21:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, well said. --grin &#9998; 22:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for replying to this so late - I only was aware of the messages now. I will try and talk to him by writing a message on his talk page. To me, he has been most polite. Ronline 12:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I say we don't start administrative action until we can hear his point of view. Please - let's try and start a bit more constructive dialogue here. Ronline 12:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just read his response to the RfC and it sounds sort of OK to me. And he has not done anything uncooperative recently. I suggest we wait a bit and see if he really changed his behaviour. If so, then this issue has been resolved peacefully, if not, we can proceed to harsher measures with a clear conscience. --Tamas 16:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am willing to adopt a wait-and-see attitude, but I will point out that his response claims that the accusations are false. In the circumstances, I cannot imagine what that could possibly mean. That he didn't make these edits? That they conformed with policy? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a bit strange really, but as long as he refrains from any further uncooperative moves, it is secondary (to me) whether he formally acknowledges that accusations were correct or not. --Tamas 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Re outside view of McClenon
Just a note: my warnings were supposed to be very polite and it is very hard for me to interpret it as a "personal attack". I believe most of the others could say just that: people were usually polite. --grin &#9998; 22:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)