Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MARMOT

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: 00:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• (MARMOT | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

MARMOT is accused of trollish behavior with Wikipedia; the specific charges include assuming bad faith, disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, userbaiting, manipulation of material, and disruption. There is also substantial evidence that this user is either a sockpuppet or a previous/current editor with an axe to grind.

Description

MARMOT joined Wikipedia on June 13. 2005, 11:15 UTC. His third edit, which happened at 16:57 UTC, was the creation of a user page at an IP address that has had a history of disruptive behavior. Nine minutes later, this user made an outside view at an old RFC. In the process of doing so, MARMOT placed his edit so that it appeared that User:Tony Sidaway had endorsed his (MARMOT's) outside view. Thus, a revert war between MARMOT and User:Weyes began, and it wasn't until Tony himself stepped in that the issue was resolved. MARMOT, in the following days, has actively participated against Weyes, including referring him to the Admin noticeboard as well as, for some unknown reason, alerting User:Paceyourself of Weyes's RFA (which MARMOT opposed, incidentally). After this issue, MARMOT created an RFC against User:Raul654, which was shot down in a short period of time. Shortly thereafter, MARMOT created Wikipedia:Administrators cannot vote. After a rather foolish and childish flame war, the proposed policy was listed for VFD. MARMOT, for the sole sake of continuation of the flame war, uploaded a picture from Animal Farm and placed it on the page.

From MARMOT's actions, it is reasonable to conclude that MARMOT did one of two things: he either a.) has discovered, studied, and identified how the inner workings of Wikipedia run, including Wikipedia:Request for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and most notably, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, or b.) is a previous/current editor with an agenda.

Several attempts at communication with MARMOT have ended in total disregard and disrespect, chiefly from MARMOT erasing the comments placed on his talk page with the edit summary of "vandalism" or "failure to reply - deleted". It was this second attempt at communication that has sparked the need for this RFC. As an editor, MARMOT is of course welcome to make edits to Wikipedia, but if he is here for the sole purpose of disruption, then those certifying the basis for this dispute would like it to be known that we are frankly weary of the trollish activity that MARMOT has taken part in. May it also be known that, in the event that this RFC fails to yield acceptable results, those certifying the basis for this RFC are completely willing and ready, and able to take this case to the Arbitration Committee, for we will not continue to put up with the behavior of this user.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Re-creation of a deleted user page with a history of vandalism and disruption
2. Edit to old RFC
3. Edit to old RFC again
4. Edit to old RFC third time
5. Erase edit of a User talk page
6. Reporting of Weyes to Admin noticeboard
7. RFC of Raul654
8. Oppose vote of Weyes RFA (not a disputed behavior, but related
9. Evidence of sockpuppet activity/axe to grind
10. Ozduster's incident
11. Evidence of userbaiting/trolling
12. Creation of Administrators cannot vote policy
13. Uploading of a potentially nonfree image for use in a flame war
14. Evidence of trolling; fanning a flame war.
15. First attempt of communication with user failed; MARMOT removed comment with edit summary "vandalism"
16. Asks for reasoning behind opposition for Raul654's RFC
17. Unsigned comment made; asking for voters to ignore a VFD vote
18. Evidence of userbaiting; comments can be taken as highly offensive
19. Makes unsigned comment on talk page of RFA
20. ...and the removal of said comment.
21. Possible sockpuppet activity/intentional troll activity
22. Direct targeting of User:Radiant!.
23. Conclusive evidence of soapboxing/axe to grind
24. Second attempt of communication with user failed; MARMOT removed comment with edit summary "failure to reply - deleted"
25. Not included on this list is the deleted RFC of Raul654.

Applicable policies

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:Copyrights
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
4. Wikipedia:Sock puppet
5. Wikipedia:Three revert rule
6. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
7. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
8. Wikipedia:Image use policy
9. Wikipedia:Edit summary
10. Wikipedia:How to create policy
11. Wikipedia:Revert
12. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages
13. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
14. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox
15. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
16. Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Previous attempt
2. Attempt at communication by User:Linuxbeak (was erased)
3. Attempt at communication by User:Taxman (was erased)
4. Warning by User:Mel Etitis

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
2. Taxman ^Talk 06:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC). Within 2 hours of noticing this [1], MARMOT deleted it with this edit [2].
3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Bishonen | talk 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Project2501a 23:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. --W(t) 23:53, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
5. AlexR 14:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. LittleRedRidingHood 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) He called the anus photo "liberalisation of faggotry!"

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.

"I can't condone paedophilia." Unsigned by User:MARMOT 09:41 Jun 19, 2005

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

Outside view

Don't feed the trolls.

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

1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) Yeah, in general I think Wikipedia would be a better place if we stopped feeding the trolls.
3. Radiant_>|< 09:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) Take this to RFAr if you must, RFC on him is pointless.
4. --cesarb 11:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• Outside view would be great if true trolls could be simply pointed out and banned. The reality of the Wiki is not so simple. Luckily if the dispute resolution process is properly followed, this one should be relatively simple. - Taxman ^Talk 08:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• "Don't feed the trolls" is a great slogan for Usenet; it doesn't make so much sense here. That's partly because Wikipedia trolls seem to be autophagous (actually, so do most Usenet trolls), but partly because we're not just engaged in conversation, but in doing something — creating an encyclopædia. Trolls can't just be ignored when they get very disruptive, and MARMOT is well on the way to becoming that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, hopefully he'll get disruptive enough fast enough that he can be banned without needing an RfAr. --Carnildo 06:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion

It has already become obvious that an RFAr case would yield just one result: a block. I am therefore opening a poll.

Poll: Immediate blocking

Question: In light of the evidence shown and the response that User:MARMOT gave, should User:MARMOT be blocked from further editing Wikipedia without the intervention of the Arbitration Committee?

Support

1. No wiki for you! 1 year! Project2501a 14:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:( Marmot

1. This guy should be permanently banned. LittleRedRidingHood 20:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC), seeing that I myself created the RFC and attempted to communicate with the user.

Note it should be noted that it is now not recommended to ban Marmot's IP, 2.253.96.42 because it is a NTL proxy Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 06:36 (UTC)

Poll: Send to ArbCom

Question: Immediate blocking by an administrator is not appropriate in this case, but should instead be sent to the Arbitration Committee for further action. This will leave the administrators' hands "clean" of the matter.

Support

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. Taxman ^Talk 14:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) - Should have a quick and painless result there, so why wait, lets send it along. The history and the response here are clear. No reason to waste any more time. - Taxman ^Talk 14:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unlike Pontius Pilatus, I like getting my hands dirty. We can end this now, with no need to preoccupy a higher commity, which is already busy enough. Project2501a 17:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   "Project2501a is reminded of [[3]], and that any blocking of Marmot at this time would be in violation of this." unsigned comment made by MARMOT, 14:14, Jun 20, 2005

2. Wikipedia is noa a democracy game. If plenty of disruptive behavior during short time presented, no need to bother busy people. mikka (t) 20:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Other actions possible

Question: Neither an immediate block nor ArbCom intervention would be satisfactory in resolving this issue. There are other options available, and it is possible to resolve this matter without a block or a hard-ban. Further options should be discussed immediately after voting.

Support

1. Send off to wiki gullag for reform Project2501a 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC). I'm open to ideas, but I see none available. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:25, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

m:Don't vote on everything

Dunno what it is, maybe something in the air. We seem to be getting a lot of polls lately. This isn't how we decide things on Wikipedia. If someone wants to block this fellow, they'll do it. If they want to send the case to arbcom they'll do that. A poll won't make any difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm, true, we were talking about this on IRC yesterday. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so polls and other "democratic" means of trying to resolve conflict have use, only when the users is willing to listen. MARMOT has shown us that he's not. Linuxbeak, either send him to arbcom or ban/block this troll. we do have a consenus, if i may say so. Project2501a 19:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd vote for that! :) Radiant_>|< 10:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Case sent to ArbCom and the result

You may find the new ArbCom case located here. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The result being that if User:MARMOT makes any more disruptive edits he may be blocked or banned at an admin's discretion. Suppporting diff [4]. So this page is not needed to add any more past evidence. Any future ill behavior, just notify an admin. - Taxman ^Talk 21:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Now for various additional actions including multiple sockpuppets, voting abuse, and personal abuse, MARMOT is blocked indefinitely, and any of his sockpuppets should probably also be. Multiple attempts were made to treat MARMOT nicely and fairly, but the unhelpful behavior continues. - Taxman ^Talk June 29, 2005 13:35 (UTC)