Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LevelCheck

Add links
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, not different disputes. 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: 21:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

User:LevelCheck Talk Contribs

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

User:LevelCheck has, since he/she arrived at Wikipedia, disrupted its function, in ways which I do not believe to have been in good faith, violating the policy at WP:POINT. The pattern began with his nomination of User:SamuraiClinton for adminship [1]. This was a nomination which would almost certainly fail, as SamuraiClinton at the time was involved in a dispute over neologism-writing and other behaviors (since straightened out). It would be obvious to any good faith editor that this was an inappropriate nomination. User originally made this nomination anonymously, only registering when the nomination was almost removed due to being made by an anon. The user was warned on their talk page.

Nevertheless, disruption of Wikipedia continued--the user continued to make edits that could not conceivably be in good faith. For example, Poking dogs with sticks was created as a redirect to animal cruelty--when I enquired about it, the user replied saying "The redirect seemed like a good idea at the time. Go ahead and delete it if you want" [2]. The user also engaged in other disruption, including creating the article Worst United States President in history and then violating the 3-revert rule on it. New users might mistakenly create such an article, but I maintain that someone familiar with WP policies, which this user certainly seems to be, would not create such a page (it's now on Vfd, with a vote running 31 to 0 in favor of deletion).

I was finally moved to file this RFC after this user created Category:Phony Texan Warmongers, stocking it with Tom DeLay and George W. Bush; he also created Category:Islamophobes and added it to Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Pipes. After the category was removed on DeLay, LevelCheck reinserted it, saying that "The category does exist. If you'd like, I'd be open to renaming it "Alleged Phony Texan Warmongers". Otherwise, your remedy is to list it on WP:CFD" [3]. Again, this just shows familiarity with WP policies, which he/she has willfully chosen to break in submitting this obviously bogus category.

This is not to imply that all his/her edits are controversial; for example, several articles she's tagged for speedy deletion were quite worthy (being user tests or other obvious cases) and were deleted by me. I would encourage this user to use common sense when editing and not wikilawyer in bad faith. Meelar (talk) 21:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Post-script: Finally, after I submitted this Rfc, the user endorsed it him/herself.

Following the incidents below (calling Viriditas a fascist, saying "Death to deletionists" on RickK's RfC), I've informed the user that further inappropriate edits will result in a request for arbitration. Meelar (talk) 23:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Applicable Policies

[edit]

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]
  1. Meelar (talk) 21:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]
  1. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Zscout370 21:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 21:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) Based on a brief encounter at List of national flags
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. UDoN't!wAn* 00:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Although I found the user very helpful it does seem there are many problems with his editing, he/she has a good heart though
  6. Viriditas | Talk 01:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) User has now taken to making personal attacks on my user page (how long have you been a fascist [4]), and accusing editors of being Jews with agendas on Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism: (I'm referring to a small number of individuals on Wikipedia - you, User:Klonimus, User:Humus sapiens, User:Jayjg, and User:SlimVirgin among them - who believe that articles related to Judaism should reflect a pro-Jewish and anti-Islamic and anti-Palestinian POV, and that anyone who disagrees is an "anti-Semite"...I think this article could do well with a few more editors who are neither Jewish nor Islamic. [5] [6])
  7. — Helpful Dave 01:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC). Note that UDoN't!wAn* is a sockpuppet. Perhaps even LevelCheck voting against him/herself for a laugh.
  8. android↔talk 02:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC). The nomination of SamuraiClinton was in extremely poor taste.
  9. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:17, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Ashley Pomeroy 23:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC). Clearly a bad egg. See also this page [7] on the current WP:AN/I; the user seems to be a sockpuppet of a character called User:TonyMarvin.
    That last statement is blatantly untrue. I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. LevelCheck 00:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Well, talk to them over there at WP:AN/I; even if you aren't a sockpuppet, you're still a worthless distraction.-Ashley Pomeroy 13:21, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    No Personal Attacks. Klonimus 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. Klonimus 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Way too many Islamic sympathisers are disrupting WP these days. Withdrawn see my comments on the Arbcom page. Levelcheck is disruptive but much less so than the Islamists. I think he will mature with time. His recent behavior is much better. Klonimus 07:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that I also created Category:Islamofascists, which was speedy deleted despite having been listed on WP:CFD? On what do you base your claim that I am an "Islamic sympathiser"? Furthermore, what makes you think that a handful of fanatics should be allowed to define the religion of 1 billion people? We don't let Jerry Falwell and Eric Rudolph speak for Christianity as a whole. LevelCheck 21:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I deeply sympathise. Klonimus 01:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. Radiant_* 08:14, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC). Also, endorsing the RFC against RickK on the grounds of "Death to deletionism" is a statement I find hard to take in good faith.
    • Agreed, and note that it came after his promise of good behavior below. It doesn't seem like a good-faith statement. Meelar (talk) 12:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  13. The bad-faith RfA against SamuraiClinton was appalling, particularly in light of subsequent revelations. And the frivolous page creation is extremely irritating. Furthermore, this extended use of "Socratic" techniques in order to change/define policy by this and other users is wholly inappropriate and should be stated as such. Slac speak up! 22:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Garden variety troll. See also: [8], [9]. Korath (Talk) 05:31, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  15. --cesarb 21:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. Postdlf 19:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

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.

As many of you surmised, the nomination of User:SamuraiClinton for admin was indeed Socratic in nature. I feel that such communication has value because it forces us to defend and explicate what we believe, rather than taking it for granted. A similar value is served by a discussion of whether categories such as Category:Islamofascists are appropriate in a NPOV encyclopedia. Unfortunately, it appears that these actions were misinterpreted and taken out of context. Thus, since the Wikipedian community has so requested, I will refrain from further Socratic actions on Wikipedia. LevelCheck 02:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. I'm not seeing anything particularly heinous in anything this user has done. Call off the lynch mob and go write an article or something. Everyking 12:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Everyking, too much wikilynching fever. Klonimus 07:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

[edit]

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.

Zscout370's view

[edit]

This user has also been causing a stir at Talk:List_of_national_flags by continiously adding the Palestine flag and removing the Israeli flag without the consensus of the group. He mentioned that Palestine should be listed at the page, while keeps on saying that Israel is a disputed nation. Zscout370 21:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Klonimus 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Same thing User:Islamist (wonder what his bias might be?) has been doing.
  2. Whimemsz 04:31, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 05:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/LevelCheck&oldid=1064220535"