Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451

This page is from a request for comment about some inappropriate behavior by User:33451. It is preserved as a record of the discussion. Since 33451 has acknowledged that the behavior was inappropriate and promised not to repeat it (see the updated response below), the matter should be considered closed. --Michael Snow 20:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (33451 (aka Mr. Grinch)| talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

• Description:

User:33451, whose signature formerly appeared as "Mr. Grinch", has persistently engaged in disruptive behavior and vandalism since this account was created. In particular, Mr. Grinch has made several edits posting material related to pedophilia in entirely inappropriate places. Because this pattern has repeated itself in spite of warnings, and because the behavior is so extreme, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Mr. Grinch's intent is to disrupt Wikipedia. Mr. Grinch has now received multiple warnings about this behavior.

In addition to the pedophilia-related posts, which are effectively vandalism, Mr. Grinch has adopted several tactics characteristic of other disruptive users. These include inappropriate listings for deletion, creating obviously inappropriate articles, interspersing legitimate edits to make inappropriate contributions more difficult to identify, and challenging the premise that Jimbo Wales should have any authority over Wikipedia. While these actions individually might be innocent or inadvertent newbie tests, taken together they suggest that this user is quite familiar with Wikipedia policies and is deliberately flouting them to cause disruption.

At this point, we propose that any sysop who observes Mr. Grinch making disruptive edits be authorized to block him immediately, without additional warnings, for up to 7 days. If such a block is imposed, it would trigger an immediate request for arbitration. Once the 7 days have elapsed, Mr. Grinch would only be allowed to edit pages related to the arbitration case until the matter is resolved by the Arbitration Committee.

Proposed remedy stricken based on resolution noted above. --Michael Snow 20:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

1. Vandalism of Template:In the news
   • [1]
   • [2]
2. Subsequently adding this vandalism to Wikipedia:Revenge of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - [3]
3. Sneaky pedophilia-related vandalism to User:BigCat (who has not been active since Jan 2004)
4. User:Anthony DiPierro/VfD
5. Created the pages "Horrible ---- of a President" and "Terrible President who deserves to burn in hell" (since deleted)
6. Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
7. Mr. Grinch apparently shares an IP with User:Shquid, who was blocked by Infrogmation for vandalizing the Wikipedia logo. See User talk:Infrogmation. It is quite possible that Shquid is a sockpuppet of Mr. Grinch.
8. Template:In the news was later vandalized in a similar fashion by 216.255.48.36 (contributions) and 216.255.48.112 (contributions). Both IPs received warnings and were blocked for 24 hours. It is quite possible that these were also Mr. Grinch.
9. His statements on Talk:Main Page might also be considered in light of the vandalism.

• Applicable policies:

1. Wikipedia:Vandalism
2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

• Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

1. User talk:33451
2. User talk:Lucky 6.9

• Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

1. Michael Snow 01:09, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:23, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

• Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:23, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
2. Lucky 6.9 06:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Ambi 07:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.

Okay, I have seen your complaints and I will respond to them in the order in which they were posted above:

• Template:In the news: This was intended to be vandalism, but I only did it to see what would happen if it was done.
• Wikipedia:Revenge of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense: I wanted the vandalism to live on, and I thought it would be safe on a BJAODN page.
• User:BigCat: The joke wasn't obvious at first, but I did get it. I edited it anyway to link it to pedophile.
• User:Anthony DiPierro/VfD: Okay, I'll admit that this was a newbie mistake. My first experience with VfD was unpleasant, and after seeing User:Information Ecologist's subpages deleted, I thought this was the same type of thing.
• Horrible —— of a President and Terrible President Who Deserves To Burn in Hell. More "what will happen?" tests.
• Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy: What's wrong with starting a discussion there? I find it disturbing that one person has so much power over the wiki. I didn't know that Jimbo Wales provided the Wikipedia's bandwidth, and I've withdrawn my objections.
• User:Shquid: He was a sockpuppet. I will admit that.
• The IPs at 216.255.48.* were also me. I wanted to see a reaction to the "I'm Evil".
• Talk:Main Page: Huh? This looks ok to me. I really don't see what the problem is there, talk pages are designed as a place to give my opinion.

All in all, I made a few mistakes, but since it's been brought to my attention that these were not appropriate, I've made only good-faith edits and that's what I plan to do in the future. [Edited after reply]

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

1. — 33451 | Talk 14:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response to response

I accept the assurance from 33451 that he will make only good-faith edits in the future. The remaining sections below were in rebuttal to previous responses by 33451. Based on the current response, a rebuttal is no longer necessary. --Michael Snow 20:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal of response

Note: This rebuttal was written in reply to Mr. Grinch's original response. Mr. Grinch has now seen fit to alter his response, so some of my rebuttal deals with claims that no longer appear on this page. I do not find it very encouraging that Mr. Grinch keeps making up new excuses for his conduct instead of accepting responsibility for it. — Michael Snow 16:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These kinds of answers only further demonstrate the pattern of bad faith editing by this user. They are disingenuous at best, and several of the explanations completely lack any semblance of credibility. For example, Mr. Grinch would have us believe that the material he posted on Wikipedia:Revenge of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense is something he "found" by "looking through the history" of Template:In the news, when in fact it is the same as what he himself posted on that template earlier.

The claim that User:BigCat actually meant to say he was a pedophile, but misspelled the word, is too preposterous to be believed. It should be quite clear that BigCat's statement Papi love encylopedias, Papi is 'pediophile uses 'pediophile (note the apostrophe) as a contraction based on encyclopedia. While it may be intended to pun on the word pedophile, it is definitely not an admission of pedophilia, and anyone who understands the seriousness with which most people view pedophilia would not lightly go bandying about such accusations about others. When said about someone who is no longer here to defend himself, it is particularly appalling. Finally, I rather doubt that Mr. Grinch is only 14, as he claims, and it is quite plausible that he is an adult impersonating a 14-year-old for his own purposes, whatever those may be. —Michael Snow 16:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to overlook the fact that you don't think a teenager would edit Wikipedia, and explain the following details:

• I have stated before: I DID NOT POST "I'M EVIL" ON IN THE NEWS. An IP did this. I was looking through the history to determine who reverted my contributions, when, and why, when I found vandalism by these IPs.
• As for User:BigCat, how would I know that he is no longer here to defend himself? I happened to misread his user page, Michael, and the word appeared to be "pedophile". — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 16:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute in any way, but I think it should be pointed out that Michael S. didn't say that he doesn't think a teenager would edit Wikipedia — Michael is well aware of the fact that we have a number of teenagers here, and some of them are excellent contributors. Mr. Grinch, I don't know you at all, but I do know Michael quite well, and I'd suggest that if he is troubled by your actions, it would be worth considering them more carefully, as Michael is in my experience a very wise person and possessed of remarkably good sense. Many people find after editing here a while (and playing around with the site, maybe some vandalism here and there) that the site is serious, and they make remarkable changes in how they act here, and what they are here to do. If you are (as many have represented) someone who's arrived here in the former attitude, I hope you will seek to change. I, among others, would be happy to do what I could to support you in changing your ways, which is always a difficult thing to do. Forgive my intrusion. Jwrosenzweig 16:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do seek to change. However, I must first get all this out of the way. Why was my addition to BJAODN considered “vandalism”? Why are you people trying to tie me to Shquid? I, for one, find it offensive that you would accuse me of all this. I'd like to change, but there are obviously a number of issues that need to be dealt with first, and no one supports me. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I applaud your willingness to discuss these issues -- I'm afraid I can't explain why people are reactnig the way they are. Certainly I don't know you or your work at all. Since you are sincere about figuring out what is going on, but you don't feel you can change until you understand the criticisms, here's my advice. We have people here called mediators who try to resolve conflicts by getting everyone talking. This is an excellent opportunity for mediation. I suggest you leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation asking for a mediator's help -- they're very good and sane people, and their role is to get people aware on both sides of each person's opinion. If you feel a little hesitant about entering mediation alone (and don't worry -- mediation is only for discussion....no penalties or consequences result from it), I suggest contacting the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates, volunteers who inform new users about our policies and help guide them through. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: Mr. Grinch left a request for mediation, which I removed to his talk page before I read this after Jwrosenzweig left me note explaining this. I would ask that people keep working here for a bit to try to figure this out, rather than moving to RfM at this juncture. I hope this helps, and I'm certainly open to returning this to RfM if that makes sense. BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 19:25, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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.

{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 ~~~~):

Discussion

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