Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

The user known as Roylee has carried out a sustained introduction of fringe theories and original research into a large number of articles (145 listed at User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee) since December 2004. The edits have concerned, for example, a Mende people in the Americas (before the Transatlantic slave trade), shipbuilding in the Sahara, a relation between the Mende of Sierra Leone and the Mende language of Papua New Guinea, a Phoenician origin for the Latin language, and a possible African origin of the Olmec culture.

He normally uses innocuous edit summaries, mixes questionable contributions with useful edits, has good command of English, and sometimes in-line sources his introduction of fringe theory to external sites that back up his arguments. Roylee's pattern is to edit a web of articles that are not well-trafficked to support his theories, sometimes under alternating accounts and IP addresses. Thus in cases where a suspicious editor investigates a suspicious contribution, she finds it backed up by related articles. In cases where Roylee was challenged on his user talk, he gave calm, verbose and seemingly knowledgeable arguments for his case. When his pattern began to be recognized he began to blank arguments from his page.

Roylee exploits both the technical limitations and social vulnerabilities of Wikipedia to carry out large scale editing that damages the credibility of Wikipedia. The use of rotating IP addresses has made it difficult to block him. The lack of familiar warning signs of vandalism led his edits to be unrecognized for months. He has ignored attempts at reason and compromise.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Due to the complexity and scale of Roylee's editing, the evidence will take the form of a chronological account of interactions with Roylee with examples illustrated by diffs, rather than by lists of diffs.

User:Roylee's first edit on 24 December was to Chess, stating that the common theory that originated in India "is now increasingly drawing heated criticism" and adding "(See timeline of chess for a brief explanation.)". One hour and seven minutes prior to this edit, 4.241.218.97 (talk • contribs) had made an extensive edit to Timeline of chess adding five bullet points with external links arguing for a Chinese origin. (These contributions were removed on 10 February by User:Imran with the edit summary "removing early non-academically verified claims".)

Roylee's second edit was to Origins of chess consists of rewording (with some exclamation marks), addition of external links, linking to Timeline of chess with a claim of a Chinese origin and linking to figurine that is claimed to be from "several hundred thousand B.C." The article was already sympathetic to Roylee's edits because on 21 December 4.241.218.198 (talk • contribs) had added information on theories of an Egyptian and Chinese origin. The only response by other users to this edit was formatting. About an hour later, 4.241.218.198 returned to add a series of exclamations about the supposed lack of evidence for an Indian origin, which is reverted. 218.198 then returns to add detail to the claim of Egyptian chess and make a link to an older version of Chinese chess. 4.241.217.217 (talk • contribs) makes a series of edits amounting to formatting and word choice. The response again is formatting. 4.241.218.150 (talk • contribs) makes a small edit to state that "chess-like games" rather than "chess" were played before the alleged invention in India. A cleanup tag is placed on the article because of the massive influx on non-standard formatting and then 4.241.218.150 makes three edits amounting to formatting. In an interesting twist, on 23 December another user then moves an external link that 218.150 added to Chess variant and was reverted with the edit summary: "Revert: Content disagreement. The chinese origin of Chess theory is not mainstream; the Indian origin one is the one accepted by all scholars. I'll put this back in as a minority viewpoint" No action is taken at this point to remove the misinformation from Origins of chess. Further edits on 23 December by 4.241.216.136 (talk • contribs) and 4.241.222.101 (talk • contribs) reinforce the message that chess is older than the Indian version. A formatting edit by another user follows and then three edits by Roylee on 23, 25 and 27 December along the lines of 4.241.x.x (one of which is the second with which this paragraph started). This sequence which included a link to the Roylee-created Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin, which was subsequently deleted (AFD discussion), is reverted on 28 December. To close out this paragraph, I will go back to the figurine link mentioned previously: On 23 December 4.241.222.101 (talk • contribs) added commentary on possible uses of figurines, a paragraph about the world's oldest discovered doll referenced to the BBC, and a final sentence, "Figurines dating from varied time periods have been used to discount some historical theories, such as the origins of chess, in favor of others."

The third edit on 25 December of Roylee is to Xiangqi, claiming that it is the foundation of modern chess through Egypt. It references origins of chess as evidence as well as Silk Road and chess variant. Silk Road was not edited by by 4.241 until early July 2005. Roylee had gained some attention by this time. On 26 December 2005, User:Kosebamse left a welcome message and noted that Latin Alphabet: Circumstantial Evidence for Egyptian Origin appeared to be original research. (Kosebamse was also the one who reverted Roylee's edit to Origins of chess described above two days later.) Roylee replied calmly defending the integrity of his edits. The same day, User:Andrewa also left a welcome template and pointed to WP:NOR.

No further edits were made to User talk:Roylee until 7 April 2005, when Logologist challenged an edit. In the meantime, Roylee had done about 250 edits inserting fringe theories in self-supporting webs of articles. A spot check notes that 4.241.x.x addresses were used during period as well. In case there is some doubt about the pattern of edits, it may be worth looking at edits relating to Logologist's query. (This can be done on practically any set of Roylee's edits.) On 7 April, Roylee edited Suez Canal to add that it had been dug "perhaps to facilitate trade with West Africa. See shipbuilding". Prior to this two edits to shipbuilding were made to make mention of "Afro-Olmecs" and state that there has been sailing in the Sahara for over 20,000 years. Roylee responds to Logologist's questioning of his Suez-West Africa connection with a seemingly authoritative response. Roylee then edits Suez Canal to state that "original documents" that state that the canal was made to the Mediterranean Sea actually meant the Red Sea "as is common in many ancient manuscripts". Vandalism soon after this brazen edit is reverted to Roylee and the information stays.

Jumping ahead to 21 April, User:Mark Dingemanse invited Roylee to explain his addition to Mende language with the edit summary "adding external reference" that the language originated in Papua New Guinea, again with links to articles he had altered. A foggy discussion ensued on Talk:Mende language. Mark Dingemanse then tracked Roylee back to Mende people, which Roylee had filled with his theories and challenged him again with a link to reliable sources. Roylee reverted Mende language under a misleading "adding external academic references" edit summary and was reverted by Mark, who also undid Roylee's edits to Mende people, explaining his actions on Talk:Mende people. This explanation was swiftly deleted by 4.241.221.175 (talk • contribs), and this IP was invited to engage in discussion once again by Mark Dingemanse. Mark Dingemanse subsequently asked BanyanTree, Mustafaa, and Gareth Hughes for their opinion on the Mende edits. Mark continued to dig back into Roylee's edits, began seeing an alarming pattern of fringe theory insertion and created User:Mark_Dingemanse/Roylee on 22 April to track the complex pattern. Following Mark Dingemanse's heads up, BanyanTree put a notice on RC patrol, which prompted a comment by Mirv that he had noted previous fringe edits and that Roylee "seems to contribute mostly original research, which looks reasonable but is obviously erroneous to anyone who knows something about the subject." On 23 April, Mark made the first connection of Roylee with 4.241.x.x after 4.241.217.139 (talk • contribs) tried to defend Roylee's edits to Maya hieroglyphics. The users that Mark Dingemanse had notified, as well as others who had run into Roylee's, began going back into his edit history and removing/reverting dubious contributions and using User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee as a central clearing house. Roylee began reverting challenges to his edits on his talk. [1] [2] by 4.241.221.175, [3]... The constant supervision by other users, normally followed by reversion, led him to abandon the Roylee account on 7 July 2005 after about 400 edits from this account.

While the group of "Roylee watchers" continued removing dubious old edits, no new edits were detected until Gareth Hughes found on 2 November that a Roy Lee's Junior (talk • contribs) account had been created on 1 August with a similar editing pattern to Roylee. As an example of the most recent editing (now up to almost 100 edits), on 5 November 2005 Roy Lee's Junior created Nabta Playa, a stated ancient civilization with the first known archaeoastronomical megaliths. Further edits to the article were made by 4.241.219.41 (talk • contribs). On 21 November, Wetman (talk • contribs), who had no previous dealings with Roylee, indicated that the article did not reflect mainstream archaeology, noting that 'much work is needed here, by a level-headed knowledgable editor'. In response to this, Mark Dingemanse tagged the article with {{verify}}, after having asked Roylee to engage in discussion of his edits regarding Nabta Playa. Roylee did not respond; instead, on 1 December, Roylee removed the {{verify}} tag placed by Mark Dingemanse and continued adding content.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. No original research
  2. Cite sources
  3. Verifiability
  4. Reliable sources
  5. Check your facts

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Mark Dingemanse's series of messages starting with a polite reminder and ending expressing concern over a perceived pattern of edits over various theories regarding Saharans, shipbuilding and electricity is reverted by 4.241.222.206
  2. Mark Dingemanse reverts 4.241.222.206 and is reverted by Roylee, who states "I don't want your words here."
  3. BanyanTree asks to stop using misleading edit summaries when reverting to contentious content and is reverted by Roylee
  4. Mark (not Dingemanse) comments on the "I don't want your words here" contribution, stating that "bad edits will be removed", and 4.241.221.175 reverts both Mark and his own previous comments (It is unclear if Mark realized that Roylee was commenting on edits that he had blanked.)
  5. Mark Dingemanse asks Roylee not to revert users who are trying to talk with him and Roylee responds "you are a con artist mixing disguise, deception and truth. ... Apparently you have problems with memory, because as I said before, I don't want your words here. How many times must I say this? Begone. and then reverts both Mark Dingemanse's edit and his own response
  6. Bletch lists points of concern to an edit at Olmec regarding genetics, is seconded by Paul Barlow asking for clarification, and Roylee responds by saying that he didn't actually read the article he referenced
  7. 62.121.100.26 (Dave Lowen) challenges the validity of a quoted source on genetics and accuses Roylee of Afrocentrism and Roylee responds with material from neonazi site stormfront.org
  8. DaveLowen criticizes the credibility of Roylee's sources and Roylee ridicules DaveLowen by adding comments in parentheses in DaveLowen's text, while simultaneous blanking the two welcome messages referencing his now deleted article. This is Roylee's last edit to User talk:Roylee
  9. Mark Dingemanse tells 4.241.217.139 not to delete comments by other users and 4.241.217.139 states "We are not trying to hurt you. We are trying to help you. Throwing labels at others hurts them and sets you up for a lawsuit. It is possible to edit without calling people names. But apparently you don't care about hurting others feelings. You will be prosecuted."
  10. Nabta Playa article started by Roy Lee's Junior, successively linked in to small edits on other articles to support world's earliest known astronomical device
  11. Fringe theories on Suez Canal inserted by Roy Lee's Junior are reverted by Mark Dingemanse - no response from Roylee
  12. Wikiwizzy reverts a month of edits by Roy Lee's Junior and 4.241.* addresses to Predynastic Egypt, encouraging dialogue on the talk page.
  13. Roy Lee's Junior reverts, with an edit summary that includes a reference, but no engagement on talk page
  14. Roy Lee's Junior has not responded to any of the messages left on his talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


  1. — BanyanTree 09:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. — Wizzy…☎ 09:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. — mark ✎ 10:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. — Paul B ✎ 13:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Gareth Hughes 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Andrewa 13:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'm not sure if my encounter with him on Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) would count for certification, but I heartily endorse everything written here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. I ran into problems with him inserting claims that the Olmecs language came from Africa on the article about alleged transantlantic contact before Columbus. He actually provided cites but since I knew the idea was not standard scholarly belief I checked the references and they were horribly unreliable websites, perhaps written by him himself. I removed that, left a clear explanation on the talk page, and only later realized that these kinds of stealthy edits were added to Ancient Egypt and other articles I watch but that I missed them as they looked reputable on the face of it and referred to other articles, all of which he had already altered. This guy is a cancer gnawing away at the inside of the encyclopedia and exposes one of Wikipedia's major weaknesses. DreamGuy 20:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. — Gwalla | [[User talk:Gwalla|Talk 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Stirling Newberry 15:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Having checked the historical sections - chess - I am qualified to judge, they show a clear pattern of subtle vandalism and an attempt to use sock puppets to create the impression of an edit consensus where none exists. There is no evidence of a Chinese origin for Chess, and there is no academic controversy.
  7. (Bjorn Tipling 20:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
  8. Vsmith 21:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Pjacobi 10:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC) -- based on my experiences on Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri
  11. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC) -- I briefly ran into Roylee a few months ago, and I can confirm the problem. I haven't seem him since, so I'd have to review recent events before moving to "endorse".
  12. CH 05:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC) -- I came across this RfC while researching social networks among anons who primarly contribute vandalism, hoaxes, or other undesirable edits of some scientific categories at WP, and was quietly appalled by what I found when I examined Roylee's contribs. (I am a mathematician by training, but as a UG I minored in Near Eastern Studies and as a consequence have some knowledge of Egyptian chronology, ancient scripts, ancient shipbuilding practices, and other topics discussed with stunning inaccuracy by Roylee. I even know some Middle Egyptian, although this language isn't in my Babel because that language is dead and perhaps for that reason isn't supported.)

[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.

{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

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

Discussion takes place on talk.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Roylee_ef38.html"