Wikipedia:Requests for comment/64.62.161.12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

64.62.161.12 is accused of block evasion (including the use of a sockpuppet), violation of the three revert rule, general incivility, trolling, user-baiting, disruption, and disregard for Wikipedia policy.

[edit] Description

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of blocked user BeBop, who was in turn suspected of being a sockpuppet. BeBop's edits were not bad, but he seemed to have a bit of a personal crusade in terms of speedy deletion articles. On several occasions, this user made edits to templates such as the {{d}} tag that redirected to VfD instead of speedy deletion. BeBop also made inflammatory remarks towards users in RfA, which led to his eventual ban. 64.62.161.12 came right after BeBop was banned and posted on the banning admin's talk page asking for BeBop to be unbanned. 64.62.161.12 has posted several comments that are perfect examples of trolling and user-baiting, including voting Oppose in an RFA without an account and without signing said comments.

While it should be noted that there is nothing wrong with saving stubs from being speedied--indeed it is encouraged, as long as they are not nonsense--the user has been disruptive in continuously recreating pages such as User:Uncle G, as well as User:Wikipedia is Communism No. x and other vandalism remnants which show up on the Most Wanted Pages list, and he has failed to comply with requests to stop. While not as serious as an extended vandalism spree, such behavior is disruptive and time-wasting. His incivility in interacting with other users, and persistent return under different anon IPs after being blocked has prompted this RfC.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Evidence of trolling
  2. Evidence of disruption
  3. Evidence of user-baiting
  4. Evidence of trolling and incivility
  5. Evidence of disruption
  6. Evidence of disruption
  7. Evidence of trolling, user-baiting, and connection to BeBop
  8. Evidence of disruption and connection to BeBop
  9. Violation of three revert rule

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Civility
  2. Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule
  3. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
  4. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  5. Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks
  6. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  7. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet
  8. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
  9. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
  10. Wikipedia:Patent nonsense

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk page of 63.209.14.211
  2. Talk page of 63.124.185.186
  3. Talk page of BeBop
  4. Above examples of behavior also include interwoven interaction with user

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  2. • Thorpe • 20:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. cesarb 20:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. W(t) 06:02, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  5. Mgm|(talk) 14:39, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Antandrus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Trilobite (Talk) 18:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ghost Freeman | Talk 18:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hedley 18:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. func(talk) 18:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. • Thorpe • 18:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. David Gerard 19:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[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.

Please accept me in good faith.

I try only salvage articles from speedy delete and make wanted pages a useful funtion. This disturbs people who been speedily deleting many pages suddenly someone contest them.

I guilty of being noncivilized. Only to them guilty to me! Thorpe come call me vandal in headline! What I did not vandal. He did it again & I call him stupid.

Defend Will Champion not disruption! How dare you! Famous drummer of famous band! Why any person put that on speedy? I add music-stub. I ask on coldplay:talk for fans to contribute. Still I take thirty seconds on google add birthday and remove silly sentence. This is totally valid stub. Will Champion is A#1 proof that deletionists abuse speedy delete templates.

CesarB comment on Admind, real comment. Not userbait. My vote no good maybe, valid comment still. He does not understand non-sense which state clearly "The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense: Really poorly written content" I delete speedy delete note on poorly written article, to make it good stub. He replace it - HE IS VANDAL. HIS ACTION RESULT IN ARTICLE DEATH PENALTY.

Thryduf comment on Admind, real comment, real vote. Not noncivil. Everyking say same thing. He brown noser. He accept all bad decision.

Edit template d. Be bold! Many user on talk template delete say that it overused. Speedy delete = article death. Users ignorance choose delete and d tags. Short easy tags should point VfD for community consent. Speedy delete needs speedy template only those who read & understand speedy criteria.

Feydey: Genuine criticism which he understand just fine. I apologize for delete tag appear on his page. Don't bite newcomer. Mel Ettis make no wiki tags. I also tell him be bold! He do not need admin approval to make redirect. db tag would get deleted when he wanted a redirect. Call this disruption is not good faith at all by LinuxBeak.

3RR on warning article. No, that not 3RR. I explain rationale, Use common sense; blank article in user space do no harm to wikipedia. Delete it does because high amount of links. Why uproar to delete blank non-harmful page in userspace? If Anthony Pero care, then he can request delete. No admin act on this 3RR. Unsigned by 64.71.148.70

[edit] Translation

I took it upon myself to rewrite this reply so that it's in English. I know this user knows better, and I know that this user is fully capable of speaking English. However, for the sake of being able to read what the heck is being said here, I now provide you with a readable translation.

Please accept me in good faith.

I only try to salvage articles from speedy deletion as well ask making pages that are marked as "most wanted"; I believe this is a useful function. This disturbs people who like to mark pages for speedy deletion; now someone (me) is contesting them.

I am not guilty of being uncivilized. (unintelligable)! Thorpe came and called me a vandal in the headline! What I did was not vandalism. He called my a vandal again and I called him stupid.

I was defending the Will Champion article, which is not a disruption! How dare you! He is a famous drummer of a famous band! Why did anyone mark that article as speedy? I added the music-stub tag. I asked on Talk:Coldplay for fans to contribute. I took thirty seconds on Google as well; I added his birthday and I removed a silly sentence. This is a totally valid stub. Will Champion is proof that deletionists abuse the speedy delete templates.

CesarB commented on RFA. This was a real comment and not userbait. My vote was not good, perhaps, but it was still a valid comment. He does not understand what "nonsense" is which clearly states "The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense: Really poorly written content" I deleted the speedy deletion note on a poorly written article in order to make it a good stub. He replaced it - HE IS THE VANDAL. HIS ACTION RESULTED IN THE ARTICLE'S DEATH PENALTY.

Thryduf commented on RFA as well. It was a real comment, and a real vote. It was not uncivil. Everyking said the same thing. He (Thryduf) is a brown noser. He accepts all bad admin decisions.

As far as editing the {{d}} template, I just have to say this: Be bold! Many users on the template's talk page say that its overused. A speedy delete equates an article's death. Ignorant users choose to use the {{delete}} and {{d}} tags. Short and easy tags should point towards VfD for community consent. Speedy deletion needs a speedy template only to those who read & understand speedy deletion criteria.

Feydey: I gave genuine criticism which he understood just fine. I apologize for placing the delete tag on his page. Please don't bite the newcomer. Mel Ettis make no wiki tags (???). I also told him to be bold! He does not need admin approval to make a redirect. The {{db}} tag would get deleted when he wanted a redirect. Linuxbeak is not assuming good faith at all by calling this a disruption.

Concerning the 3RR violation: No, that was not the three revert rule. I explained my rational: Use common sense. There were blank articles in the user space. They do not harm Wikipedia. They tried to delete it because it there's a lot of articles that link to it. Why all the uproar to delete harmless black pages in the userspace? If Anthony Pero cares, then he can request that it is deleted. There was no admin action on this 3RR.

I would like to point out that the user has failed to sign his edits ever since being banned. He signed them without failure until the point of his banning. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:03, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

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.

[edit] David Gerard

Blatantly obvious trolling/vandalism account, obviously someone's sock puppet - no-one comes along on their second day on the wiki and nominates someone on WP:RFA - and a lot of removal of speedy tags to prove a point. I blocked the User:BeBop name for this, but the IP is still at it - David Gerard 19:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: I'm entirely unconvinced RFCs are a good way to deal with this sort of blatant sockpuppet troll - they only encourage them - but it will hopefully serve as notes for anyone dealing with this idiot in future - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 19:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Jones

I do not believe banning is the appropriate action for this particular individual. Within the community, there will be characters whose "eccentricities" may seem unecessary, and even hostile, however if the community is to evolve and adapt Evolution we must embrace those with alternating perspectives.

Conclusion

A referral to the committee for a restorative justice program would be far more constructive than an outright ban. It is clear that a more creative solution is necessary.

- J. Jones aka the "Marmot"


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.