Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Iopq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

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

User:Iopq's account was created September 28, 2005. The user seems to have made many productive edits. However, on December 1st, the user created the article Wc3forum.tk. The article was an attack page aimed at a web-forum. It contained racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic slurs directed against members of that forum. Jkelly (talk · contribs) left a very harsh message at User talk:Iopq and deleted the article. 82.81.3.87 (talk · contribs) recreated it. It was db'ed by Tomlillis (talk · contribs), and User:Jkelly deleted it again. It was recreated again, and User:Jkelly deleted it and protected it from recreation. What followed was recreations of the article under multiple new names, vandalism of user pages, personal attacks, use of multiple IPs to avoid blocks, and the involvement of a final total of four administrators (User:Jkelly, User:Tomlillis, User:Jtdirl, and User:Lucky 6.9). User:MacGyverMagic would later replace the Talk page warnings after they were removed by uninvolved User:Irpen. After the episode, User:Iopq's comment was "I guess the admins don't have a sense of humor".

I am certifying this account below, with the caveat that I am not an administrator. I'm just involved in counter-vandalism. Tom Lillis 03:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Jkelly forgot to list me as admin, so it's still 4 admins involved although I didn't use any admin powers as far as I can remember. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irpen's deletion of the warnings

To the question as to why he removed the warnings from Iopq's talk page he answered the following on his own talk page diff:

I've been in touch with that user several times over several articles and I had an impression that User:Iopq is a reasonable editor with an interest to contribute. I was surprized to see the harsh words and I thought of them, as possibly, unjustified. I wanted to check and followed the link to the article over which the argument was only to find out that the article was deleted. As such, I had no way of checking what this was all about and, since I have reasons to assume good faith from the user from my past experiences, I deleted what seemed to me a strange intrusion to his talk page. If I was mistaken, I would like to apologize. As I wrote in my edit, I don't mind the restoration of what I deleted. --Irpen 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Wc3forum.tk multiple re-creations (viewable to admins only, extremely offensive content is midway through article)
  2. WC3FORUM recreation of above
  3. Other unknown article(s) deleted by User:Lucky 6.9
  4. [1] [2] Racist / personal attack vandalism of User:Jkelly
  5. [3] Homophobic / personal attack vandalism of User:Tomlillis
  6. 19:13, December 1, 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:82.81.3.87" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism of talk pages, making up 'articles' of offensive rants)
  7. 19:14, December 1, 2005 Lucky 6.9 blocked "User:82.81.3.87" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Attack pages, reposting nonsense, attacking users)
  8. 19:20, December 1, 2005, Lucky 6.9 blocked 212.179.203.216 (expires 19:20, December 8, 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (Repeated, calculated attack pages via shifting proxies)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CSD
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  4. Wikipedia:Edit summaries
  5. WP:SOCK

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Harsh warning from Jkelly
  2. Calmer warning from Tomlillis

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Jkelly 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tom Lillis 03:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I endorse the account. I am an administrator and blocked the anonymous IPs doing the attacks and reverted some of the most disgusting attacks. I was frankly astonished to find out that the perpetrator was an account holder. I had presumed that it was just a vandalizing newbie, not an actual contributor. That that user thinks his behaviour funny defies description. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I certainly think it's strange that a registered user would go on such a rampage as this. Let's just hope that goes down as a lapse in judgement and that it doesn't happen again. - Lucky 6.9 22:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. For reasons clearly documented above, editors have to be vigilent in monitoring this account. 172 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. If Iopq has no intention of being repentant about this, this should head straight to RFAr. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:28, 12 December 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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

This is my response I accidentally wrote in the discussion page:

[edit] My statement

I didn't write the article, I copied it from another wiki. The article "attacks" my own forum where my friends post. Meaning it was an inside joke with the forum members that enjoyed the article on encyclopediadramatica. What I forgot is that the rules of conduct on wikipedia differ from encyclopediadramatica. -Iopq 01:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WOW WHAT???

I'm getting blamed for what Iehova did... good job LOOK AT HIS IP IT IS IN ISRAEL LOOK AT MY IP IT IS IN THE USA

Incompetence and false allegations astound me. I even have A DIFFERENT FORUM ACCOUNT THAN THE POSTER. I am iopq on that forum he's Iehova. All I did was put up that article. -Iopq 01:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] What I'd like to add

I'd like to add that Iehova is the user who is the original author of the article so he is the one who restored the article the second time. He is also the one who said he went on a wiki editing rampage. I don't believe he is a registered Wikipedia user. I told him I posted his article on wikipedia and he thought that my posting of his article was funny. The article was removed in minutes after I posted this and that's when my involvement in the issue has ended.

-Iopq 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

{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] Inside view by User:Jkelly

My perspective is not that I am in a dispute with User:Iopq. I am baffled and appalled by User:Iopq's behaviour, and hope that an RfC might demonstrate to that editor that the episode was not a matter of humour. Jkelly 03:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Jkelly 17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. (Bjorn Tipling 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC))
  4. 172 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view by the perpetrator

ATTN: WIKI ADMINS It's fucking incredible how idiotically dim you are. I posted repeat confessions saying who went on a rampage caused by YOUR lack of humor and poor judgment regarding my carefully worded article, but you keep on blaming a perfectly innocent user whose only fault was copying my article from a funny wiki. Now you put him on eTrial and ostracize him while trying your shitty-ass best to keep me from throwing your precious little case into oblivion. Good job, you succeed at life.

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

  1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.83.191 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Inside view by User:Tomlillis

An addendum from myself: I'm pretty baffled by the the sudden change in behavior by Ipoq. He's made a number of valuable and legitimate contributions in the past, so I certainly wouldn't consider him a habitual vandal. However, the display under discussion here absolutely was out of line. I'd not go so far as to suggest disciplinary action, but a reminder of the rules in general might be beneficial. Tom Lillis 05:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Tom Lillis

[edit] Inside view by User:Jtdirl

I was so baffled I wondered for a moment if some vandal had got access to his account, but that is unlikely. It was extraordinary. But even more extraordinary was his response. That he thought it merely a little humour left me flabbergasted. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. User:Jtdirl
  2. Jkelly 17:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. (Bjorn Tipling 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
  4. 172 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Mzajac

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.

I only discovered this dispute after the fact. I've collaborated with iopq on a few articles, and I was impressed with his good nature, knowledge, and willingness to contribute. I am shocked to see the nature of this rather ugly prank. There appears to be some history outside of Wikipedia involved. Its seriousness should be taken into account in any decision against iopq, but so should his value as a contributor. —Michael Z. 2005-12-3 16:59 Z

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

  1. User:Mzajac
  2. Jkelly 18:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. (Bjorn Tipling 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Outside view by User:btipling

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.

I also only discovered this dispute after the fact. I was browsing all of the various evidence provided and found the site the removed article was about and found this disturbing quote from one of it's members (that I'd suspect is the orignator of the article - but have no evidence):
So I went on a wiki-editing rampage

3 blocks, at least 100 articles edited, re-edited and owned once more. We need to raid wikipedia with smoething like a 100 people and reverting thousands of articles simultaneously to throw it into chaos.

You can view it for yourself here: http://s7.invisionfree.com/WC3FORUM/index.php?showtopic=1784

If that is him, he seems to be calling for a 'raid on wikipedia,' and that's pretty disturbing. (Bjorn Tipling 20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

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

  1. (Bjorn Tipling 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC))
  2. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[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] Outside view by user:OnceBitten

This is my third contribution to Wikipedia; For the record, in section "Evidence of disputed behavior", link number 4. (Four), example 1 and example number [4] are actually attributed to IP address 84.110.0.4 not to User:Iopq. That IP address is assigned to:

RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: P.O. Box 10096
City: Amsterdam
StateProv:
PostalCode: 1001EB
Country: NL
ReferralServer: whois://whois.ripe.net:43
NetRange: 84.0.0.0 - 84.255.255.255

While I personally found the edits to be offensive, and it "could" very well be User:Iopq, it needs to be clarified that 84.110.0.4 is cited as the author. OnceBitten 22:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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.