Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oranjelo100

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Closing due to inactivity and low participation. There is also a very rough consensus, that the filling of this RFCU was inappropriate. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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: 23:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC).

---

• Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

There is a conduct dispute with editor User:Oranjelo100, previously User:Emperor-Overlord100, regarding a disagreement about suggestions related to the quality and quantity of performed edits.

Editor User:Oranjelo100, previously User:Emperor-Overlord100, tends to perform large numbers of edits, ending up with relatively small amounts of actual changes to the articles. Also, those edits are almost always left with empty edit comments, further increasing the confusion and mangling the history of articles.

While his edits do add new content in many cases, there are issues with the layouts of those contributions – they're poorly written, requiring later copyedits and/or rewrites, in order for new content to follow the general language and layout style of Wikipedia articles. Many times those rewrites/cleanups are taking longer than it would be required to do the same from scratch.

The discussion started on User talk:Oranjelo100#Please get yourself a blog and continued later on User talk:Dsimic#Number of edits (Oranjelo100). The main issue there is this editor strictly refuses to at least consider any of the advices, and those advices are presented only with the best intentions.

Update, 23 November 2013: Also, please have a look at this edit. I bet it's Oranjelo100 hiding behind an IP address, and those words really aren't something that's deserved.

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

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style
• Wikipedia:CITE
• Help:Edit summary

It would be really great to see improvements in quality of User:Oranjelo100's edits. That way Wikipedia would get a good editor.

Here a few examples of the above mentioned rewrites/cleanups performed so far, as well as examples of numerous edits performed for small amounts of actual changes:

• diff #1
• diff #2
• diff #3
• diff #4
• diff #5
• diff #6
• diff #7

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

• Dsimic (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• --DrSeehas (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

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

Q. @DrSeehas: It's not obvious where you have tried talking to Oranjelo100 to resolve this dispute. Can you provide a diff or two of a discussion you've had with him? If you can provide that, I'll mark this as certified. —Darkwind (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. Sorry, but I gave up to talk to Emperor-Overlord100/Oranjelo100 long ago, because I never got any response from Emperor-Overlord100/Oranjelo100 so there can't be any discussion with Emperor-Overlord100/Oranjelo100 :-( The main reason was always the same: This editor strictly refuses to at least consider any of the advices.
Some diffs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oranjelo100&diff=prev&oldid=561791105
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oranjelo100&diff=prev&oldid=565488679 --DrSeehas (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

{Add summary here.}

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

It seems rather excessive to need an RfC/U for this. Oranjelo100 is well-intentioned but has a problem competently contributing to articles in English. A number of his edits are unsourced. He fails to handle criticism, as can be seen here. At the same time, Dsimic, while frustrated at Oranjelo100 for not quite getting it (how to edit Wikipedia etc.), could perhaps have been slightly better tempered in his reaction to Orangelo100's editing (same link). Per WP:COMPETENCE, it would be sensible if Oranjelo100 started listening to criticism, and it would be good if Dsimic could try and stay calmer when they find a user infuriating.

Commented on the talk page. — Dsimic (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree, as noted in own view. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tom Morris that a user conduct RFC is not appropriate. I don't see a an identified conduct issue. (Most user conduct RFCs involve tendentious editing, personal attacks, POV pushing, or edit-warring. I don't see those.) I see concerns by the certifiers that the subject editor may be inexperienced and may be causing problems by complex, good-faith edits to complex subjects involving computer architecture. I don't see a serious effort by the certifiers to try to advise the subject either to change his editing style or to identify a conduct issue. I suggest that some uninvolved editor should be asked to work with the subject editor to help learn how to become a more productive editor, and that the certifiers not file user conduct RFCs about issues that do not involve user conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on the talk page. — Dsimic (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. As author of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.  

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.