Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zizban

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: 00:24, 15 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 '

[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 then to endorse them.}

This user, who joined the Wikipedia in October 2004, has spent the past six months doing little more than a campaign against me. Using an army of sockpuppets, he has vandalised my user page, my user talk page, and has listed personal attacks against me, and other Wikipedians on his user and user talk pages. Removal of personal attacks from his pages (under the admittedly disputed WP:RPA) led to labels of vandalism.

His vandalism of my user/user talk pages has ranged from personal attacks to blanking, replacing with article content, refactoring content without my permission, impersonating seperate users via sockpuppets, and a series of extremely minor but annoying edits to my user page, which while not changing content, did change the page.

Dispute resolution attempts by User:Friday and User:Golbez have been ignored, eventually resulting in Zizban attempting to take out an RfC for 'abuse of power' when Golbez blocked him for vandalism. Golbez's attempts and blocks, and Fridays attempts did provide some temporary let up from his attacks, but he has not truely ceased at all since early September.

Zizban operates many sockpuppets, and also edits frequently not logged-in. He seems to assume that these either can not or will not be linked back to him. By acting as if his sockpuppets are seperate people, he is breaking Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets. His user page at one stage made a reference to me 'getting his work IP blocked for 24 hours', a direct association between him and one of the numeric IP sockpuppets beneath.

Most of his edits come from these sockpuppets. However, I am taking this RfC out against the Zizban account, as his orignal edits came from it, and the personal attacks were on his pages.

He and many of his sockpuppets have been blocked for this behaviour:

  1. [1] Zizban blocked
  2. [2] Generallego blocked
  3. [3] 141.154.151.219 blocked

[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.)

[edit] As User:Zizban

  1. [4] user page minorly vandalised
  2. [5] user page minorly vandalised
  3. [6] personal attack
  4. [7] personal attack
  5. [8] personal attack
  6. [9] personal attack
  7. [10] vandalism (extremely old)

[edit] As User:Generallego

  1. [11] copyright violation, vandalism
  2. [12] copyright violation, vandalism
  3. [13] vandalism of my user page
  4. [14] vandalism of my user page

[edit] As User:Zerozero

  1. [15] attempting to use a sockpuppet as a seperate entity, personal attack

[edit] As User:Asari

  1. [16] attempts to show one of his sockpuppets as a seperate entity, and could possibly be interpreted as a personal attack.

[edit] As User:24.52.0.219

  1. [17] pure vandalism of my talk page

[edit] As User:141.154.151.219

  1. [18] vandalism, copyright violation
  2. [19] vandalism, copyright violation
  3. [20] vandalism, copyright violation
  4. [21] vandalism of my user page
  5. [22] single full stop added to my user page, for no reason

[edit] As User:70.109.232.34

  1. [23] pure vandalism of my talk page, links this IP to User:Generallego
  2. [24] vandalism, again admitting to being Generallego
  3. [25] and again

[edit] As User:17.255.240.70

  1. [26] vandalism. This, but no other linked edits, might not be Zizban. But it came during one of his waves

[edit] As User:Symbols

  1. [27] vandalism of my user page
  2. [28] vandalism of my user page
  3. [29] vandalism of my user page

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  3. Wikipedia:Sock puppet
  4. Wikipedia:Copyrights

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [30] User:Golbez's attempt to resolve the dispute
  2. [31] one of User:Friday's attempts to resolve the dispute

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Kiand 09:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. I encountered this unfortunate situation a couple weeks ago, and left a note asking Ziand to stop with the pestering. I wasn't aware of the sock situation until reading this, though. Friday (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Obviously this user has some sort of grudge. It might be helpful to know why, but it doesn't change the fact that this is unacceptable conduct. Robert McClenon 21:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. User:Zizban should refrain from making personal attacks. However, some of these alleged sockpuppets might not be related to him/her; see my comment on the talk page. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:15, 11 October 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.

"I only have one ID, Zizban. It's all I have ever used. My ISP rotates IPs every seven days or so. This covers a huge area: all of Vermont, Half of Massachusetts and most of New York State. I'm sorry other users may have had the same IP as me at any given time, but I have no control of that. In addition, any similarities are coincidence, or more likely people or sock puppets of others trying to give me a bad name." --User:Zizban

{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

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.