User talk:M. Dingemanse/Roylee

Activity

Anyone who watches this? — mark ✎ 28 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Opie 28 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)

Yup. I do. Not much happening of late, though. Paul B 13:49 28 June 2005 (UTC)

I wish that were true, Paul. I've been on a revert spree just now, and I've checked the contribs of some of the numerous 4.241.x.x IP's Roylee is using nowadays. See my recent contribs for a modest list of reversions and removals. There is much more, but I don't have the time to check everything. What I often do is hitting 'Related changes' on our watch page (this way) so as to have a list of all recent edits to the articles listed here. I cleared Crane (machine) and Engine and some related articles yesterday, and now I noticed that the information had silently been readded by a Roylee IP. It's disheartening. — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 13:42 (UTC)

I've just placed a warning on the talk pages of all known Roylee IP's. — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant that there's not been much happening here. Roylee seems to have "died" as Roylee when you told him he was being monitored. No comments have appeared on his user page for a long time. I am not computer-savvy enough to identify his edits from IPs, so simply continue to observe several of the pages that have been drawn to my attention here. Paul B 16:10, 29 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, Paul. Yeah, the trouble is that he has a dynamic IP. At Talk:Mende language, he once told me 'Note that large buildings with numerous computers in them will display such activity, because each computer has a slightly different IP address.' Presumably, that's his situation. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

RfC?

Have you considered opening an RfC? — Gwalla | Talk 2 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

I considered it a while ago and decided it would take too much time. Maybe it is a good idea by now. Thing is, he has never responded to an inquiry of any editor since our clash over Mende tribe/Mende language, april this year. He just keeps editing quietly and anonymously. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)

My plan is to wait a bit, revert any of his policy-violating edits, give him a second warning (on all the IP talk pages and on his original page) and another chance to explain his position, and then to ask another admin if a temporary block can be put on the IP range from which he is editing. I also have the feeling that due to our constant patrolling, he is editing less frequently lately. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to open an RfC, since that's the official way to get a block and you've already done all of the work of compiling evidence. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

And it is a lot of work. I have been around some of the pages, and some of it is plausible. I think an RfC is appropriate. Just block the whole IP range ? Wizzy…☎ July 3, 2005 06:21 (UTC)

I think I'm not going to do it, mainly to avoid wikistress. Anyone else is more than welcome to start an RfC, of course; I will certify it immediately. — mark ✎ 3 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

rpyle731

Hi, Mark. This is Robert Pyle, user rpyle731. I have unfortunately gotten mixed up in the situation with Royalee. I assume the person is a former or current employee at my job. I have made a few small edits from work, and have tried to revert and correctly cite my edits when I get home. Since I found out about the situation, I may have made 1 other edit from work (one of the 209.150.67.x IP's). I have always tried to be a good user. If I have made any mistakes, I am sorry. My editing has always been of a minor variety, spelling fixes and grammar basically. Also I have been working on Interwiki links for the Chemistry article. Bob 08:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:Roy Lee's Junior

If you were going to create a sockpuppet account of an abandoned account, why would you name it after your old account? Anyway, has there been much activity recently? I haven't gone through the IP contribs in a while. Cheers, Banyan Tree 14:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the recent changes of our list for quite some time, either. But Roy Lee's Junior (talk · contribs) has exactly the same editing pattern as Roylee in both the choice of subjects and the kind of things that are added to articles. He doesn't seem to get it, probably has noticed that the search for his questionable edits did die down a bit. — mark ✎ 15:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the pattern is the same. Nabta Playa (created by User:Roy Lee's Junior) is the focus of his subsequent edits. Before reverting, I have asked on a few talk pages like Sahara for verification. Wizzy…☎ 09:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added {{verify}} tags to some of his more egregious fringe articles. Other users are beginning to notice the problem, too; see Wetman's comment on Talk:Nabta Playa. — mark ✎ 12:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are still 'droppings' of Roylee's on the Suez Canal article that you reverted. Wizzy…☎ 12:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC, again

I can't believe that almost no-one responds to requests for verification. This means that the problem goes largely unnoticed. See also the exchange I had with DreamGuy about the issue here. — mark ✎ 12:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an RfC on this page ? Request For Comment sounds appropriate. Wizzy…☎ 12:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having found yet another POV fork at Colonisation and Recent History of South Africa, I want to open an RfC, but don't really know how. This page seems the best one to refer people to ? Wizzy…☎ 09:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The South African history fork looks bona fide to me; I couldn't discover any Roylee 'droppings' in it. To open an RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#User-conduct_RfC. Yes, we can refer people to here, but more importantly, we have to provide a decent amount of diffs that show the disruptiveness of Roylee's contribution and that establish that the bulk of his edits constitute original research and the addition of fringe theories. I agree that we need to have more people look at this case and will immediately certify the RfC; will also try to assemble some evidence. — mark ✎ 09:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there were no characteristic Egyptian items, but the page is not referenced from anywhere, and it was created by a 4.241.* account, and seems to have nothing new in it. I have asked at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board if it can be merged. Wizzy…☎ 09:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an old copy of History of South Africa - I redirected it there. I thought I had all the major South African history pages on my watchlist, hence my suprise with this one. Wizzy…☎ 15:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have drafted an RfC at User:BanyanTree/Work/Roylee, Roy Lee's Junior and 4.242.x.x, but frankly have no idea if it is formatted correctly and am too tired to feel confident that it is ready to go live. Please comment, modify, add, delete, etc and, if acceptable, feel free to make it live on my behalf or certify it yourself. I am off to bed. - Banyan Tree 09:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Mark, I am unused to this, and I have only one comment on Roylee's page - most of my discussion has been on Article Talk pages. Can you post this ? Wizzy…☎ 09:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. BanyanTree, I'm really, really glad that you've done this. I never could have summarized this complex matter better than you did. Thank you very much! — mark ✎ 10:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's live now. — mark ✎ 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BanyanTree, thanks for doing the initial heavy lifting on this RfC. Wizzy…☎ 15:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm slightly awed at Mark's persistence in this matter, and I don't think I really grasped how insidious the edits were until I started recording the diffs through articles. I've never seen anything like it. I'm not sure what I want out of the RFC, but at least it's out there now. Though it was kind of amusing that you two seemed to reach a decision point last night just before I, prompted by the start of this section, had reached a first draft stage. It was clearly time for an RFC. - Banyan Tree 16:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to expect from the RfC. As I said back in April, I think this sort of thing really hits Wikipedia in its weakest spot. I hope that the RfC will make more editors aware of this weakness, and of the fact that many articles still contain unidentified traces of Roylee's original research. Quite frankly, I must say I tend to agree with DreamGuy that the system is inherently flawed because "any nut with a lot of free time on his hands can go put his insane theories all over the place and it takes a group of people to track them all down and try to undo the damage". — mark ✎ 16:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the weakest spot - the New Page (Nabta Playa or SA History) allows users to work in peace until a fully fledged article is born - BanyanTree knows all about that. Then you knit it into the fabric of WP, but with a solid enough article, people just nibble at it. Is there a technical solution ? The circularity is hard to spot, but maybe something like Related Changes would help. The SA History page was a sleeper - looks kosher, pictures, etc, but there could be a parallel universe of SA articles that regular South African editors would not see. What Links Here definitely helps. Not sure really. Wizzy…☎ 17:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the editing highlights a flaw that goes beyond using new articles as nodes for bad edits. It attacks Wikipedia through the structure of Wikipedia user specializations. People choose specific areas in which to specialize and are thus have the knowledge to notice nonsense arguments and revert accordingly. Alternatively, the vandal watchers are generalists and, due to Assume good faith and Don't bite the newcomers, will not normally revert edits that aren't obviously vandalism and, even if they challenge an edit, will normally back off if the user seems to be more knowledgeable than they. Because Roylee makes authoritative-sounding edits across user specializations, the topic specialists will not follow the edit pattern out of their normal hunting grounds while the vandal hunters won't push too hard. I've often thought that, if it wasn't so destructive, I would admire Roylee for the way he exploits the social structure of Wikipedia. The dynamic IP address is certainly part of it, but the really troubling bit is how easy it is to pull one over on Wikipedians.

The good news is that it has been discovered and users have tried to repair the damage. The bad news is that I'm sure we've missed IPs and we don't know if there are other "Roylee"s out there who we don't know about. It took over a hundred edits before Mark began to reel Roylee in. Is there another user whose made 50 similar edits, who has not been discovered? Are there a hundred such users? I've certainly felt drained by the effort involved in tracking edits, even as peripheral figure, and can't imagine how exhausted the more active watchers have been. It's certainly made me have some pretty extreme thoughts in terms of solutions. I have actually considered that a massive range block would be an extreme, but appropriate, solution. Being entirely frank, it may also have convinced me that the perennial proposal of prohibiting anon editing may have some merit. I had previously thought that all of the good edits of anons outweighed the vandalism, but I had also assumed that the vandalism was being identified and removed. Roylee has shown that extraordinary vandalism can last months, and we don't know enough to say if this is closer to the best or worse case scenario. I think evidence towards either end of the spectrum will help me decide if I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or a game about being an encyclopedia.

I would like to hear your reactions. For me, reverting vandalism is either just an chore or sometimes interesting when the pace picks up, but Roylee just make me feel... unsettled, which probably means that it's important. With best regards, Banyan Tree 03:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here. I feel the same; unsettled. — mark ✎ 20:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location

I don't know whether the info will help at all, but from the rDNS info, the editor is in the San Diego area. 66.126.66.150 (talk · contribs), for example, is ppp-66-126-66-150.dialup.sndg02.pacbell.net, and 4.241.15.159 (talk · contribs) is dialup-4.241.15.159.Dial1.SanDiego1.Level3.net. 209.150.67.44 (talk · contribs) is for pixeyforty4.aradiant.com, which is for an outsourcing company in San Diego, so they may have been editing from where they work (see [1]). ^Blank ^Verse 21:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from where they work — yes, see also the comment by rpyle731 above. — mark ✎ 09:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My gosh, you guys certainly do have a problem anon! For what it is worth:

209.150.64.0 - 209.150.95.255 is registered to
- Time Warner Telecom
- Littleton, CO
- twtelecom.net
- abuse@twtelecom.net
4.0.0.0 - 4.255.255.255 is registered to
- Level3 Communications, Inc
- Broomfield, CO
- level3.com
- abuse@level3.com

Not that you are likely to get any results from contacting them! But you do have plenty of text from the contribs you noticed to apply authorship detection tools to establish that one person is indeed writing all this stuff. (Not that I have any doubt, after some spot checking.) Even better, if you have a suspect in mind for whom you have enough authenticated text (perhaps from an obscure published article), you should even be able establish your anon's identity with something reasonably close to certainty. (The mathematical tools available include the same ideas behind statistical analysis for DNA profiling, and more. Alas, I have not yet found a good reference.) Knowing his identity should help you track his activity, although you'd need to resist the temptation to send him a polite email asking him to stop being a pill (not gonna happen).---CH 04:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerted Attempts to Insert Dubious/Cranky Material into WP

Just wanted to say that I happened across this as a result of the Siegenthaler defamation scandal. Over in the physics pages, I have encountered some similar problems, only with more than one problem user! Anyway, it is definitely the case that keeping this kind thing out can be very difficult, particularly if some well-intentioned users are reluctant to accept the possibility that some people are such monomaniacs that they are utterly unable to respond reasonably to attempts to engage them in a scholarly discussion. It's very frustrating, especially because I feel that current Wikimedia policies regarding WP tend to drive out people who have expert knowledge of some subject and wish to contribute high quality, balanced, but generally "mainstream" articles. (Surely that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, I often want to say. But clearly, WP is a utopian social experiment which can be, and perhaps is slowly being subverted by a disproportionately tiny percentage of bad actors to pursue their monomaniacal agenda.) ---CH 03:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind duplicating this comment over at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Roylee? — mark ✎ 09:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]