User:David Shankbone/IndefiniteBanForIP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for my composition to present evidence to ArbCom to have an IP troll indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.

Contents

IPs Used (and corresponding dates)

  1. 71.112.7.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (January 27, 2007 - April 11, 2007)
  2. 71.112.6.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (April 12, 2007 - April 29, 2007)
  3. 71.112.142.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (May 9, 2007 - May 23, 2007)
  4. 71.112.115.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (May 25, 2007 - June 2, 2007)

BANNED FOR EIGHT MONTHS BY User:Swatjester and confirmed by User:Kurykh

  1. Chichichihua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (July 24, 2007 - August 2, 2007) (confirmed through CheckUser)
  2. 71.112.130.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (February 10, 2008 - February 14) (Blocked by WJBScribe [1])

I know it is standard practice on Wikipedia to assume that anyone (1) without an account and (2) making edits from an anonymous IP address might be more than one person. But in the case of 71.112.7.212, all of the edits are indeed the same person. Their IP address traces back to a static IP assigned by Verizon in Seattle, WA. The pattern of edits are also the same. Most notably—as inidicated above—this user's complete inability to participate positively on Wikipedia in any way. Even on the level of using a signature on their posts. I urge any admin reading this to seriously look over this user's history and take it seriously when other editors request a longer ban of this user. He/she contributes nothing positive towards Wikipedia and has definitely behaved like a troll and shows no signes of change. BaseballDetective 23:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin review of IP behavior as suspected sockpuppet

The IP was the subject of an extensive review of its behavior for suspected sockpuppetry here on February 26, 2007. The suspected user was User:Rbaish. The result proved inconclusive. Below is the evidence presented by User:Futurebird:

  • Editing the IFD tag [6] (I have no idea how an IP user would know about this)
  • Edited my userpage [7] Looks to me like Rbaish was just bein' friendly. You are a graffiti fan so he put a little there. But you deleted it. NIMBY? <--unsigned comment from 71.112.7.212
  • Tried to imform him of this but he deleted it from his talk page [8]... twice [9]
  • Has a history of deleting warnings from his talk page [10],
  • 71.112.7.212 deleted information from Cool (aesthetic) again... this is getting old. ---> 22:10, March 1, 2007 Doh! All IPs must look the same to me. This was not 71.112.7.212, but rather 71.224.241.18... futurebird 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This doesn't seem to have any evidence of "sockpuppetry", it's just futurebird's criticism of Rbaish's editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs).

Admins who have blocked

As User:71.112.7.212
1. March 16, 2007 - User:Nihonjoe blocked for "extensive, repeated, and unrepentant vandalism"

IP Request for Unblock: "Where's the vandalism? I haven't vandalized anything. Please show me the diffs."
Response from User:MacGyverMagic: You've been blocked because you repeatedly removed material and failed to consider the warnings you received.
March 17, 2007: Denied again any vandalism, allowing others to believe that the IP was being used by someone else. Proclaimed "Show me the diffs"
User:Chrisch response: "By checking your recent contrib list, I can see that most of your edits are vandalism (especially the "remove advertising" edits). I am not required to spoon-feed you examples of your destructiveness - you can clearly see this yourself. Understand that if you continue arguing, reverting your talk page, or anything else against Wikipedia policy, you will be banned."
Engage in edit warring with User:Bobo192 and User:Real96, who were reverting the IP's removal of vandalism warning templates from their Talk page for being "incivil/incorrect". User:Chrisch reverts back to version with templates.

2. March 27, 2007 User:Seraphimblade blocked for "3RR, BLP on Nancy Reagan"

IP strongly denies they violated any policy or guideline: "If you would please unblock and speak to the editor that filed the incorrect 3RR I would appreciate it."
User:Seraphimblade response: "...that material does not belong in Nancy Reagan's autobiography-not even attributed. See WP:ATT, and the cautions on using sources with a clear bias." Later, "As to the block, yes, I do still believe that between the reverts and BLP issues that it was quite justified. Your continued lack of understanding on that seems to indicate that the concern was justified-surely, you don't honestly believe that the NYT was using "encyclopedic" in the sense of "appropriate source for an encyclopedia"?"
On Seraphimblade's page User continues to claim the block was unjustified. Seraphimblade replies: "Going to repeat this one more time. The block was not incorrect, you were edit-warring over something removed due to a BLP concern. Technically, you were engaged in a disruptive edit war rather than actually breaking 3RR. I'm not going to reblock and unblock you to cross an i rather than dot a t."

3. April 1, 2007 User:Kafziel blocked for "trolling and 3RR on Talk:Afro"

IP Files a 3RR against User:DavidShankBone, who is reverting IP's vandalizing of Talk page comments. User:Kafziel writes to IP: "You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for your persistent removal of others' comments at Talk:Afro. Thanks for bringing the situation to my attention by filing a 3RR report."
IP files a request for unblock, claiming the Talk page comments it was removing were "personal attacks" (see "other behavior" below).
User:Kurykh declines unblock: "Personal attacks are false and insulting labeling of editors. You fit neither category. Hence, by logical deduction, those were not personal attacks"
IP still claims that it was removing "personal attacks".
User:Jayron32 responds to IP: "The larger issue is not blind adherance to a little policy lik 3RR. By reducing it to that, you obscure the greater issue. The greater issue is that this IP address (see the contribs list) has a long history of vandalism, and such vandalism and the refusal of the user(s) of this IP address to cop to it has frustrated some of the established users. The removal of comments from talk pages is only a single event in a long history of problematic edits. Additionally, removing personal attacks from a talk page does NOT serve any purpose for the attackee. Ideally, if the comments ARE personal attacks, the attackee would want the evidence to remain in plain sight to justify their accusations of personal attacks. If the attacks are removed, it is difficult to build a case against the accused attacker. In short, leave attacks public. If they are truly personal attacks, the only person they can embarass is the one who left them."
IP denies that it is disruptively editing, again.
User:Jayron32 replies no obscene vandalism, but disruptive edits are there: "Reply to above. OK. I did a review, and despite multiple blocks, I see no outright examples of vandalism. I am making an unqualified apology for leveling such an accusation. With regard to the rest, it appears I stand no chance of convincing you of the reasons of why your behavior has drawn the ire of many others. By constantly trying to divert the issue to 3RR, by trying to refuse to confront your own behavior, and by trying to imply that others bad behavior somehow excuses yours shows me that you will never be convinced that you can be incivil without actually breaking any other wikipedia policy. I consider the matter closed from my perspective."

4. April 7, 2007 User:Kafziel blocked for "content removal and removal of others' comments from talk pages"

Kafziel: "You have been blocked for a period of one week for your disruptive edits. Being bold does not include being reckless, and removal of talk page comments and article content is vandalism. Unsourced statements in articles should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, not removed without discussion. The only exception to this is articles on living people. And removal of others' talk page comments, as you did here, is always vandalism and will not be tolerated."
IP denies this was vandalism and in reality was a "mediawiki hiccup", despite well-established pattern of just thi sort of behavior. Requests an unblock.
User:HighinBC, reviewing the one edit, unblocks. "Please be careful when editing other peoples pages not to remove other peoples content."

As User: 71.112.6.35
5. May 23, 2007 User:WJBscribe blocked for "vandalism, trolling"
 As User:71.112.115.55
6. June 1, 2007 User:WJBscribe blocked for "vandalism, trolling"

Vandalism

  1. January 27, 2007 - First warned by User:Shablog for vandalism on Jews for Jesus
  2. January 28, 2007 Second warning about vandalism on Jews for Jesus, by User:Seraphimblade
  3. January 28, 2007 - Warned about reinserting contentious edits on Black supremacy by User:Futurebird
  4. February 25, 2007 - Warned about vandalizing Cool (aesthetic) by User:Futurebird
  5. February 25, 2007 - Second warning about vandalizing Cool (aesthetic) and removing sourced information by User:Futurebird
  6. March 5, 2007 - Third warning about vandalizing Cool (aesthetic) and removing sourced information by User:Futurebird
  7. March 14, 2007 - Warned about vandalizing Affirmative action and removing sourced information by User:Clpo13
  8. March 15, 2007 - First warning about removing Academy Award win mention on Meryl Streep by User:BaseballDetective
Response by IP: please don't add vandalism warnings when i've made good-faith edits. it is uncivil and is a form of vandalism. we don't need wikipedia littered with "acadademy award nominated" and "academy award winning" in intros. that's an advertisement for the academy awards which is against wiki's no advertising policy --71.112.7.212 talk 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
9. March 15, 2007 - Warned to stop deleting templates and blank the 1. Meryl Streep, 2. Alfonso Cuarón, 3. Ang Lee, 4. Albert Brooks, 5. Sissy Spacek, 6. Anthony Hopkins, 7. Alan Alda, 8. Rosie Perez 9. Billy Bob Thornton pages by User:BaseballDetective
IP's response: these are "personal attacks" and "removed graffiti"; "removed incivil duplicate messages"
After multiple page blanking and template removing, BaseballDetective wrote to the IP: "You have been warned. You are persisting. Your IP traces to Seattle, Washington. Please, enough already."
IP Response: "Page blanking? Huh? Where's the diff. please stop harrassing me. If you want to discuss, discuss on the relevant pages."
Baseball Detective reply: "This is all being discussed in an appropriate way. Your behavior as a troll is evident in your actions, your anonymity and your blanking of your page."
  • BLOCKED MARCH 16, 2007
  1. March 26, 2007 - User:Arcayne (referring to IP's vandalism and edit-warring at Nancy Reagan): "AGF doesn't presume stupidity at bad behavior. Provide precise references for ANY statement from the Kitty Kelly book. Please do not use cruft and non-RS stuff in a POV attempt to discredit the BLP, as I will revert it as a violatin of the BLP. I will report you to the appropriate admin the very next time you do. i certainly hope I have made this position crystal clear."
  2. March 27, 2007 - User:DavidShankBone (re: vandalizing at Afro): For some reason you seem to think you are an authority on Afros. Please take your issue with the photograph to the Talk page instead of continually reverting; several editors find the photograph representative of an Afro, and as the person who took the photo, I can confirm it was an afro. Not all afros form a "halo/cloud" as you contend. If you have a better photo, then use it. If you continually revert, I will ask for other intervention. Looking at your Talk page, there are better ways to edit on Wikipedia than the way you are going about it. We are here to collaborate, not to impose our views. Thanks
  • BLOCKED MARCH 27, 2007
  1. April 1, 2007 - User:Jayron32 - Vandalizing Talk pages - "Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Afro; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox."

Bot and User warnings

  1. March 4, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits, contribute positively "Welcome" message
  2. March 14, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  3. March 15, 2007 - Bot: Asked to sign "trollish nonsense" by User:BaseballDetective.
  4. March 16, 2007 - User:TedFrank warns IP that "Your deletions and edit-warring are disruptive."
  • BLOCKED MARCH 16, 2007
  1. March 17, 2007 - User:Seraphimblade: "To the anonymous editor, it would seem that many of your changes have a strong consensus against them."
  2. March 18, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  3. March 18, 2007 - User:Cquan: "Just a friendly reminder: please sign your name "
  4. March 26, 2007 - Bot: Second 3/26 sign edits
  5. March 26, 2007 - User:Bignole (re: Nancy Reagan vandalism): "Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Not only are biographies supposed to avoid defamatory information, which your edit is trying to include, but even more so when the the information is poorly cited. Just citing an amazon link is not reliable, especially when the subject manner is defaming the character of a living person."
  6. March 26, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  7. March 27, 2007 - User:Arcayne - 3RR Warning - "You have now violated the 3RR rule. I will not report your violation if you immediately cease in your attempts to add uncited statements to the article of a living person."
  • BLOCKED MARCH 27, 2007
  1. March 29, 2007 - User:Seraphimblade - re 3RR: "If someone brings up a BLP concern, stop. Don't re-add the material they stated they were concerned about, get wider input first. If the consensus is that the source is reliable and the material is acceptable, then put it back. We take edit-warring with BLP concerns involved very seriously, and the best advice I can give you is to not get involved in one."
  2. March 30, 2007 - Arcayne - Sign edits - "Furthermore, if you aren't going to bother signing your posts to me, please don't bother writing to my talk page. Of course, this would apply to any of your numerous accounts. You've dug the hole that you're in, so be a grown-up and dig your way out. Don't blame us for looking down our noses at you for what you have done to yourself."
  3. March 30, 2007 - User:Arcayne - Don't blank other User talk pages - "Please stop blanking my user talk page. If you don't like what I've written, don't add my page to your watchlist. I am sorry that you feel the info stated is unfair. However, were you not accused of being a sock? Were you not blocked for 3RR? Unpleasant truths fill the world, sport. You might learn something from that, before you get booted indefinitely. I truly do hope so."
  4. March 30, 2007 - User:Chrisch - Page blanking User pages.
  5. March 30, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  6. March 31, 2007 - User:Chrisch - No Personal Attacks - "What you wrote was actually a personal attack, so this is your first warning for posting such a message. I trust it won't happen again."
  7. April 1, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  8. April 1, 2007 - Seraphimblade - Disruptive editing - "Generally, when several editors contact you with concerns, it's probably time to focus on your behavior, not theirs. I would strongly advise you to do so."
  9. April 1, 2007 - User:DavidShankBone - "Please sign your edits to talk and discussion pages, which you've been asked to do repeatedly - continued disruptive editing could lead to blocking"
  • BLOCKED APRIL 1, 2007
  • BLOCKED April 7, 2007
  1. April 8, 2007 - Bot: Sign edits
  2. April 10, 2007 - User:Dev920 - Sign edits
  3. April 10, 2007 - User:Dev920 - Sign edits

Trolling

  1. March 31, 2007 - Trolled User:BaseballDetective by telling him he is hiding information by archiving his talk page.
  2. March 31, 2007 - Trolled BaseballDetective again. BaseballDetective's response: "How dare you go to other people's talk pages, spout paranoid nonsene and then have the gall to act offended when someone speaks back. I have not contributed to Wikipedia in over a week and in your case, I stopped posting here since March 17th. Grow up and stop stalking others you pathetic troll."

Trolling DavidShankBone

In response to David Shankbone's participation in the April 1 and April 7 blocks of the IP, it starts to troll pages David Shankbone edits or has photographed on.

Afro March 25-Present

Original Afro
Original Afro
"Wig" Afro
"Wig" Afro
Tribeca Afro
Tribeca Afro
Lauryn Hill Afro wig
Lauryn Hill Afro wig
  • January 28, 2007 User:DavidShankBone puts Original Afro photo on Afro page.
  • March 25 User:Deeceevoice resizes Original Afro and adds caption "Young woman with a parted afro style."
  • March 25 IP removes Original Afro. Edit summary: "image not an afro"
  • March 25 User:141.156.41.168 reverts IP and restores Original Afro photo. Edit summary: "rev. It most certainly IS an afro!"
  • March 25 IP removes Orginal Afro. Edit summary: "not an afro -- just long hair but not a halo/cloud" and replaces it with a barely-visible Bell Bottom photo.
  • March 25 Shankbone reverts back to Original Afro. Edit summary: The photo is an afro, I was a witness to it, and the bell bottom photo is barely visible
  • March 26 IP removes Original Afro and puts up Bellbottom again. Edit summary: "not an afro. actually this other photo doesnt look like one either, but its hard to tell its so far away". Shankbone reverts.
  • March 27 IP reverts back to Bellbottom photo. Edit summary: "do not use undo for non-vandalism." Shankbone reverts and changes caption to read "Woman with parted afro curls."
  • BLOCKED MARCH 27, 2007
  • April 1 IP edits caption to read "Woman with a style similar to an Afro." Shankbone reverts.
  • BLOCKED APRIL 1, 2007
  • BLOCKED APRIL 7, 2007
  • April 21 IP User:71.112.6.35 Removes David Shankbone's Afro photo. Edit summary: "Cleaned up". David Shankbone reverts April 21.
  • April 22 Removes Shankbone's afro photo. Edit summary: "Remove original research". David Shankbone reverts April 22.
  • April 26 Removes afro photo. Edit summary: "Not an afro". David Shankbone reverts April 26.
  • April 26 Removes afro photo. Edit summary: "Removed photo, not an afro". David Shankbone reverts April 26.
  • April 28 David Shankbone replaces Afro photograph with a DSLR shot of a woman with an unmistakeable Afro at the Tribeca Film Festival.
  • May 15 Spanish Wikipedia User Steve-o places a photo at the bottom of the page of what, to many editors, looks like a ridiculous wig (Steve-o disputes this in good faith). The natural Afro photo is at the top, Steve-o's is at the bottom.
  • May 15 David Shankbone removes "Wig" photo with the following edit summary: "Removed photo for following reasons: 1) it's very poor quality, blurry, little detail; 2) although a male afro would be welcome, it is not necesary, at least if it's this one; 3) it doesn't look real"
  • May 16 Steve-o reverts to his photo with this edit summary: "(1)It haven't really poor quality 2) It's interesant have an afro-male 3) It's truely real xD"
  • May 16 IP User:71.112.142.5 takes "Wig" photo and puts it at top of the page and moves Shankbone's to the bottom. Shankbone reverts back to Steve-o's placement (Tribeca Afro at top, "Wig" Afro at bottom).
  • [replaced with better image May 17] IP completely removes Tribeca Afro and puts "Wig" Afro at top. Edit summary: "replaced with better image"
  • May 17 User:Paul Barlow reverts IP. Edit summary: "RV idiot playing silly games."
  • May 17 David Shankbone changes some wording in the thumbnail of "Wig" photo to make its detail more encyclopedic.
  • May 17 IP replaces Tribeca Afro with "Wig" Afro. Edit summary "replaced inferior image". David Shankbone reverts back to Tribeca-lead/Wig-bottom positioning.
  • May 17 User:Deeceevoice removes "Wig" Afro photo. Edit summary: "deleted. sorry, but this looks like a wig -- and a bad one at that."
  • May 17 User:Kafziel semi-protects Afro page. Edit summary: "Protected Afro: disruption by multiple IPs [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:56, May 22, 2007 (UTC))"
  • May 23 User:SecurID crops Tribeca Afro but keeps it in the lead; restores "Wig" Afro photo.
  • May 23 User:141.156.39.86 removes "Wig" photo. Edit summary: "deleted. this is so obviously a wig -- and a cheap-o, tacky one at that. deeceevoice."
  • IP BLOCKED MAY 23, 2007
  • May 27 User:84.178.254.52 (German IP whose behavior mirrors IP's on other pages) removes Tribeca Afro and restores "Wig" Afro. Edit summary: "Undid revision 133028868 by 141.156.39.86 (talk) obviously not a wig"
  • May 27 User:84.178.254.52 Places "Wig" Afro at bottom and puts cropped version of Lauryn Hill (who is conclusively (cited) wearing an Afro wig, not an Afro) as lead.
  • May 27 Shankbone reverts changes. Edit summary: "revert wig photo again"
  • May 28 Shankbone restores Lauryn Hill photo to "Pop Culture" section, with citation to wig. Edit summary: "added Lauryn Hill photo of her in an Afro wig to pop culture section, with citation to wig use in shows during this period"
  • May 28 IP User:71.112.115.55 removes Tribeca photo and restores "Wig" Afro to lead. Edit summary: "replaced image -- previous not an afro."
  • May 28 User:Paul Barlow reverts IP.
  • May 29 User:Mel Etitis semi-protects Afro page. Edit summary: "Protected Afro: persistent disruption from variety of IPs [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]"
  • IP BLOCKED JUNE 1, 2007

Miss Understood April 7, 2007 - Present.

  • April 7 - IP places a notability tag on page on which User:DavidShankBone took a portrait of the subject. Reverted by Shankbone April 7. Talk page discussion ensues. IP Reverts Shankbone on April 7 to put the notability tag back on.
  • Shankbone reverts April 8, IP reverts April 8, Shankbone re-reverts April 8.
  • April 9 IP re-applies tag instructing "do not remove until we have consensus on this." User:Dev920 removes tag April 9, stating "Miss Understood is notable. You are the only person who disagrees with this."
  • April 10 IP re-applies tag telling User:Dev920 and User:DavidShankBone to prove notability. April 10 Dev920 removes tag. Dev920 and User:SatyrTN supply links to stories in The New York Times, Powell's Book, Literary Illusions, et. al., and removes tag. April 10 David Shankbone agrees that with the new citations, notability has been affirmed.
  • April 11 IP places Request for Deletion tag on article, even though IPs do not have such authority, the notability was affirmed, and they did not fill out any information on why it was AfDed. April 11 David Shankbone reverts.
  • April 12 IP restores tag and Shankbone reverts again. IP switches to new IP, User:71.112.6.35
  • April 26 re-applies notability tag. April 26 David Shankbone reverts.
  • May 25 IP switches to new IP, User:71.112.115.55 and re-applies notability tag. May 25 DavidShankbone removes tag.
  • May 26 IP re-applies tag. May 26 David Shankbone removes tag.

DavidShankBone talk page trolling

Other trolling of DavidShankBone

Laughter

The current lead photograph on Laughter is destined to be deleted based on its licensing and discussion of the license here at the Commons. The Commons has come to the decision to delete all these Sxc licensed photographs by July 1, 2007. I took a photograph of me tickling my nephew for the page. The image that is to be deleted has proven to be popular (something I raised at the Commons). I attempted to raise this issue on the Talk:Laughter page. The following comments were supplied by the IP:

  • May 23 - i don't much like the photo of the "child laughing uproariously". he looks like there might be something really wrong with him, or that he is being forced into the photograph. child abuse? 71.112.142.5 05:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I responded: It's a kid being tickled by the photographer, who has one hand on a large DSLR camera. What more can say laughter? It's clearly not a look of horror or upset, but playful laughter. Given the amount of room behind him, he's free to run away and it's doubtful one mhand would be able to keep the kid from running, especially as the others maneuvers with a large camera. It's simply a child being tickled and laughing. --David Shankbone 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The IP responded: "there are other hands in the picture, you have to look closely. it isn't just the kid and the tickling hand. i don't know what the third person is doing but they might be restraining the boy. zoom in on the face and you'll see what looks liek someone in a lot of pain" [Unsigned]
  • On the main article, the IP and it's German IP friend continually removed the photo and replaced it with the to-be-deleted one:

German IP friend and editing DavidShankBone's images

Another tact was taken in conjunction with the German IP. My Wikipedia User name is in the name of the files, and this IP, despite being told by at least four admins that this is okay, feels this is "self-promotion." This is at the root cause of the attacks on my photography for Wikipedia. The IPs decide to take matters into their own hands and begin editing my photographs to crop them and remove my association with them. They originally removed my name from the licensing, as well (which is against the license). The German IP then went to EVERY national Wikipedia project and replaced my images with their own edited images. This included on:

User:Thuresson cropped the Mary Stuart Masterson photo and I was fine with that - he did it properly, and it looks better. I never reverted, never re-uploaded, etc. However, the IPs above have a trolling agenda specifically to remove my User name from the file names. This has been brough up on the Commons with both Commons admins Dschwen and Siebrand. On Siebrand's page, I brought up the inconsistency in the arguments these IPs raise for replacing the photos:

(unindent)I placed the cropped photos on the pages to alert those pages that these cropped images are available in case the pages want to use them over the full-bodied versions. The Woody Harrelson photo clearly looks better, the Michael Apted photo did not; nor does the Jeffrey Wright photo, although I will do my own work on that. These are the issues despite your protestations:

  1. You claim you were simply trying to improve the images, but every image you cropped was mine. You first started editing on w:Laughter and w:Afro, both pages I edit on, as does your friend, the IP in Washington. You came out of nowhere, raised the exact same arguments, and engaged in the exact same behavior as the Washington State IP.
  2. This inclued, on May 15, adding the ridiculous photo of a kid in a wig to the Afro page. You did this as w:User:84.77.39.62, your first IP.
  3. On May 27 you came back as w:User:84.178.254.52 to put the wig photo back on, despite seeing in the history several editos kept removing it off the w:Afro page. You reverted an editor who was the FOURTH editor (not me) to remove the ridiculous photo of the kid in the wig. You didn't revert me. On the Talk page it is clear there is only consensus by vandalizing IPs to remove my photo good photograph of a woman with a natural Afro, not a wig. The only people who don't want this up on the page are you and your vandalizing IP friend in Washington State.
  4. An hour later on May 27 you came back to remove my photo of the natural afro to put a cropped photo of Lauryn Hill who is once again, not wearing an Afro, but a wig.
  5. You say you are trying to improve Wikipedia by getting rid of advertising and far-away shots, yet you somehow cropped the photo of Lauryn Hill to put on the Afro page where your edits were reverted by multiple editors, but NOT on the w:Lauryn Hill page. Your close-up shot is clearly the better...why wouldn't you have taken the old far-away shot down and put your close-up shot there? Perhaps because it's not a David Shankbone photograph.
  6. Also on May 27 you start to edit only photographs of mine, and you replace my photograph on every national Wikipedia where they exist. I suppose to improve them? Maybe...but of course, you didn't actually put the photographs up on any of the national Wikipedias THAT I HAD MISSED, such as the Arabic Wikipedia (don't worry, I've since replaced the photo).
  7. Every edit you have made specifically relates to my work, and even when you have cropped one other photograph, you used it to take off my work, such as the Lauryn Hill in an Afro wig photograph, but didn't even bother to replace it on the Lauryn Hill page. Oh, but you did go to EVERY national Wikipedia Afro page to remove my Afro photo. You didn't do this with every Lauryn Hill page, not even on the Deutsch or English Wikipedias.

Other behavior

  • Whenever the IP is warned of trolling, vandalizing and disruptive editing, they remove the warning as "vandalism" to their talk page, a "personal attack" or "harrassment."
"vandalism"
  1. March 15 (User:BaseballDetective)
"personal attack"
  1. March 30 (User:Arcayne)
  2. March 30 (User:Arcayne)
  3. March 31 (User:BaseballDetective)
  4. April 1 (User:BaseballDetective)
  5. April 1 (User:DavidShankBone)
"harrassment"
  1. March 15 (User:BaseballDetective)
  2. March 30 (User:Arcayne)
  3. March 30 (User:Chrisch)
  4. March 30 (User:Chrisch)
  5. March 31 (User:Chrisch} (User:DavidShankBone)
  6. March 31 (User:Chrisch}
  7. March 31 (User:Chrisch}

Chichichihua