User talk:Jhamez84/The Lancastrian Vandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page relates to a *generally* unregistered user who circumvents rules and blocking via means of Dynamic IP address allocation, and occasionally some sleeper accounts and sock puppets.
I've put this page together, in as civil and impartial manner a possible. This page is in reaction to this user's edits, trolling, attacks, slander and demands, and will hopefully demonstrate that this user's accounts and IPs receive a full Wikipedia:Range block.
I've named him the Lancastrian Vandal as his edits, vandalism, demands and trolling all relate to the removing of a modern county system (geographic frame of reference), in place of an ancient and dissused system of land division (namely Lancashire). This is in direct breach also of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) (see Counties of Britain).
I further hope to demonstrate my case for intervention, by providing evidence, quotes and links to his edits that clearly break the following rules:
- Wikipedia:Vandalism
- Wikipedia:3RR
- WP:3O
- Wikipedia:Civil
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
- WP:POINT
Contents |
[edit] Aims and motivation
[edit] Geographic/Political issues
This user wants to assert that just two of his local towns (Shaw and Crompton and Royton) are in Lancashire (which they were until the year 1974) rather than the correct Metropolitan Borough of Oldham and Greater Manchester. For the record, these areas are certainly not Disputed territories in any sense of the word.
We've even had to reference that Shaw and Crompton is the the Oldham borough using the"Official British Place Name Archives - Crompton" from the Greater Manchester County Records Office - however the vandal still refuses to accept this.
The user is a confirmed racist (as identified as an affliate of far-right polititcal party the British National Party in the Talk:Royton page), and thus due to Oldham's association with inter-racial problems (Oldham Riots) and high ethnic-minority population, his aims to hide mentions of Oldham are clearly racially motivated, rather than backed up by any kind of source.
He has a clear bias and appears angry at the council, occationally adding POV comments to the borough's page about the council (see this edit as an example of unsourced statement).
This issue has persisted for well over a year, with edits like this petty vandalism still occuring after initial complaints.
His sophistication and persistence has increased over his 18 months of sock pupetting, trolling, and being blocked - though he cites sources to bend a point of view (this appears helpful, though is using a obscure, but simillar division of land to persue his POV]), he also fails to use discussion or edit summaries, and appears to want conflict and attention.
[edit] Pornography and obscene images
A case I stumbled upon (but I've had no dealings with) as part of my research into this guy is his attempts to assert links to pornographic sites on an actresses article - Sharon Stone - in and around May 2006 (see edit history). This has been blocked and reverted time-and-again (by an administrator) until he's started targetting those who've tried to reason with him (see this nonsensical propaganda), and (this example of mischeif).
[edit] First appearance
This user first appeared on Wikipedia around March 2006. His first edit was alarming, but unsophisticated. His edit was to his old school, Crompton House. This school lies (verifiably) in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham - however he chose to edit this out:
A link to this edit can be found here
I naturally found this most inappropriate, and fixed this personally. However this prompted my first edit war, and gave way to comments like:
This is not true - Oldham is a bordering town yes, but he was removing the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham from the page, which is a wider area which encompasses the Shaw. The Lancastrian Vandal was probably born pre 1974, and is refering to a disused system of geography he identifies with - placing him in the defunct Crompton Urban District - very unusual.
If you refer to the relivant articles you can quite easily verify that Shaw and Crompton is part of the wider Oldham Borough. The area that Lancashire covered was altered in 1974, with the much of its southern regions replaced with Greater Manchester which you can also verify with these sources - [2][3] [4] [5].
To provide some context for international users, the Lancastrian Vandals assertions are like stating in the Dallas article, with absolute conviction, that it is still part of the Confederate States of America!
[edit] Going against consensus and conventions
We (the majority of editors backed up by the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)) have tried our level best to highlight that we are in a verifiable position to say we are in the right.
The user is aware of the consensus of the conventions, and the rules for breaking them, however...
and...
When confronted with the naming conventions, this user attempted on this occation to imply that I (as well as another user) were some kind of undesirables. It had no effect however.
[edit] Bad Faith and inappropriate edits
In trying to rectify the situation, and justify why edits favouring my persuassion are correct I left a firm but fair message on Talk:Shaw and Crompton. However, I was quickly targetted and my message was altered to promote an agenda (see this clever edit).
As a banned user and sock puppet, he also used clever entrapment techniques to try and block me as part of his vendetta. He then wrote to User:TheKMan with this edit thinking he was an admin.
In March 2007, the Lancastrian Vandal breached the Three Revert rule here, using the summary "r/v - see discussion". There was no discussion taking place, he just wanted to include his racist propaganda again on the Royton article.
[edit] Multiple IP addresses
The Lancastrian Vandal uses multiple IP addresses, via means of Dynamic IP allocation, and signs as such here. Most of these IPs are taking from edits or talk pages- some are highly informative such as User_talk:213.122.34.70, others just further his cause once-or-twice.
Many of them are used to assert pornography onto Wikipedia. See the Sharon Stone edit history for some interesting activity there.
A list of his known IP addresses are as follows:
[edit] 81.131-
- 81.131.7.207
- 81.131.8.200
- 81.131.12.148 (this account was used to assert pornographic links onto Wikipedia - reverted by admin)
- 81.131.22.72
- 81.131.33.194
- 81.131.34.69
- 81.131.41.180
- 81.131.42.194
- 81.131.44.229
- 81.131.46.40 (this account was used to assert pornographic links onto Wikipedia - reverted by admin)
- 81.131.46.179
- 81.131.57.237
- 81.131.60.58
- 81.131.69.244
- 81.131.77.188
- 81.131.78.39
- 81.131.85.141
- 81.131.130.226 (this account was used to assert pornographic links onto Wikipedia - reverted by admin)
[edit] 213.122-
- 213.122.9.237
- 213.122.10.218
- 213.122.23.86
- 213.122.33.254
- 213.122.34.70
- 213.122.36.190
- 213.122.40.204
- 213.122.56.221
- 213.122.87.239
- 213.122.91.35
- 213.122.93.157
- 213.122.95.32
- 213.122.98.232
- 213.122.103.101
- 213.122.105.116
- 213.122.125.60
- 213.122.143.43
[edit] Related IPs
The following are suspected IPs (following the exact same edit patterns to the same cause), but could be unrelated and/or a seperate computer base:
- 201.19.187.39
- 61.88.180.180
- 68.5.182.198
- 196.201.22.235
- 200.176.31.208
[edit] Fresh wave: 2007
In February 2007, The Lancastrian Vandal changed his IP range, but non the less, as part of another uprovoked personal attack against me he signs that he is the same editor of the previous distruption here.
The new range appears to begin as 88.104-
- 88.104.113.12 (this account appeared some time after the main controversy, but attempts again to compromise text in the Royton article about the BNP. This account also makes highly comparable edits and threats, as indicated by his edit history.
- 88.104.53.181 (per reasons above - traced from Royton edit history)
- 88.104.125.97 (the account used to perform a personal attack upon me, and sign that he is the same editor as before).
- 88.104.50.163 (used to assert his political and racist bias upon the Royton article on 24/2/07).
- 88.104.3.225 (per above, 23/2/07)
- 88.104.17.40 (more distruption and personalisation of edit summaries, disguising bad faith edits as spelling corrections).
- 88.104.25.101 (breached 3RR on 10/3/07)
- 88.104.17.254 (used on 19/06/07 - breaching WP:POINT and not using edit summaries or discussion to again assert his obsure understanding of geography for Royton)
[edit] June 2007, and the County Palatine of Lancaster
This IP range was used to violate WP:POINT, in an effort to rename longstanding codified categories about Oldham and the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. The editing style, content and motivation appears to be highly simillar.
Following pressure placed upon the IP, an account under the name of User:Albireo223 was created to edit to the same effect, though again was overturned for his/her actions. Subsequently an 88.104 IP raised a recategorisation debate on June 9, 2007, and several of the comments hailing from the anon are of a highly personal and unhelpful nature.
On the 19th June 2007, The Lancastrian Vandal struck again, adding uphelpful remarks and Lancastrian references to the Royton article. Escentially another breach of WP:POINT. It also confirms again the use of the 88.104 IP address as his own.
I also wrote to him explaining that this is unacceptable and a waste of time to repeat the process again, though he wrote back with threats of revisions, and evidence of gaining the system. Jhamez84 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR violation
The Lancastrian Vandal often circumvents warnings and blockings due to his multiple IP addresses. However, as I've took it upon my self to watch editing patterns closely, I have been able to successfully report him for violating Wikipedia:3RR, here, on March 22, 2006.
He was reported for a second time here, on June 20, 2006.
He was reported and blocked for a third time for 3RR violation at the bottom of here, on March 11, 2007 (a year later than the original successful report, but still edits to the same effect!).
[edit] Sock Puppetry
Upon reporting the Shaw and Crompton article for some violation of Wikipedia:3RR, an administrator found it appropriate to uphold my claim, block the offending IP addresses, and Semi-Protected the article so only established editors can edit the page.
However, this led to the Lancastrian Vandal making his first account User:Argol136, simply in an attempt to circumvent the blocking and protection status.
Looking at User:Argol136 user/talk page you will be able to identify that he was instantly blocked for creating such a sleeper account.... This led to an instant creation of a sock puppet, named User:Algol126. Appropriately, this account was picked up by an admin and blocked indefinately for being a sock puppet.
His sock puppetry has increased rapidly and has even used them to send malicious and slanderous messages to admins (see this edit,
A list of all his (from this point onwards named User:Argol136) accounts can be found here:
- User:Argol136 (Master Sleeper Account)
- User:Algol126
- User:MillwardBrown
- User:Praesepe913
- User:Hankinshaw
- User:Filmfan1971 (officially suspected - but certainly another sock puppet)
- User:Argol910 (a clear sock puppet but currently dormant/suspected. It was a single purpose account to appear as an alternate editor in an edit war with an administrator in adding pornographic material.[8])*
- User:Albireo223 (talk) follows the naming convention of some of the other names (foreign name followed by three numbers), and editted articles and categories to a highly comparable effect.
- *Argol910 Supplimentary: User:Argol910 reappeared as a contributor in March 11, 2007. The account was used to circumvent the semi-protection status on the Royton article ([9]). He also asserted he was an administrator [10], and, following receiving a NPOV violation from another user ([11]), cut the tag and placed it on his page ([12]).
- He then engaged with an administrator with this malicious lie and determination to promote his POV (this comment also demonstrates an awareness of past events, confirming sock-puppetry).
