Case Opened on May 1, 2005

Case Closed on 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I feel LevelCheck has been editing in bad faith. 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 User originally made this nomination anonymously, only registering when the nomination was almost removed due to being made by an anon.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.

In the RfC, the user addressed the issue of what he/she referred to as "Socratic editing", claiming that the creation of the bogus categories and the nomination of SamuraiClinton were intended to "force us to defend and explicate what we believe, rather than take it for granted" [4]. The statement did not address the larger issue of disruptive editing, editing designed to get a rise. I mistakenly assumed, however, that the user was showing contrition and would be more helpful in the future.

Regrettably, the disruptive editing did not cease. For example, the user asked on User talk:Viriditas "How long have you been a fascist?" [5]. This was followed by a warning on his talk page to avoid further disruptive editing. Hours after this warning, LevelCheck created the article Izziehugger. That article is currently on Vfd, where the votes are running 9-0 in favor of deletion. "Izziehugger" is an obscure political epithet created on Usenet--it receives 25 google hits, according to LevelCheck, who noted this fact in the article. I believe that in noting the extreme obscurity of this entry, LevelCheck signifies that the artice was not created in good fath--as Postdlf noted on the vfd, "No reasonable Wikipedian would have created this." Indeed, LevelCheck appears to be editing in bad faith.

I tried to assume good faith in this case, but a consistent pattern of disruptive editing has made it impossible. LevelCheck appears to be editing not for the good of the encyclopedia, but solely to provoke people. Not all of his/her edits have been controversial (for example, he/she has tagged many articles for speedy deletion which were quite worthy). But the bad-faith edits are simply too numerous for these to be innocent mistakes. I submit that this user is disrupting Wikipedia for some reason, be it their own entertainment, "Socratic" editing, or what-have-you, and request succour from the Arbitration committee.

Meelar (talk) 23:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Well after this request was submitted and arbitrators had questioned his behavior, LevelCheck edited Jumbo shrimp. It had been a redirect to shrimp, and he changed it to a redirect to oxymoron. I'm not sure where to request an injunction banning him from editing non-arb-case pages, but consider this my request. Meelar (talk) 02:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

No comment. LevelCheck 21:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept, though I seriously wonder if this this user is a sockpuppet. Ambi 22:45, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Ambi's question on socks was enough for me to go look, 'cos it smelt that way to me too, but there's no IP matches in the past week. There's been a pile of good edits, but the behaviour in the complaint is certainly problematic enough - David Gerard 23:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept. This is extremely eccentric behaviour and I would like to see what circumstances might be responsible for it. --Grun t 🇪🇺 00:44, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
Accept. ➥the Epopt 15:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Neutrality^talk 03:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) For demonstrated disruptive editing habits, LevelCheck is prohibited from editing outside his userspace and pages related to this case for the duration of the case.

Passed 4 to 0 at 23:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)