Wikipedia:Requests for comment/David 5000

In order to remain listed at 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: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (David 5000 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

 * Participating in a game to purposely create fake articles on Wikipedia. See also:  Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the full details.

Description
I'm not sure if this is the proper course of action, but "comment" doesn't sound too harsh, so here goes. It appears that he was one of several individuals at this online forum who made fake articles on Wikipedia to see how long they'd last.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * The user profile of the forum member, "David 5000", claims he is from Cambridge, as is User:David 5000.
 * Known fake articles that he (the forum user) created are: Zakir Raman and Weasel (expression). Others may exist.  At least one of his articles has also been fraudulently incorporated into at least one real article, George Harrison.

Applicable policies

 * Complex vandalism

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Asked David 5000 to explain his vandalisms and clarify whether he made any others, his reply was "To be fair only one of those is fake, I use the expression 'weasel' with my friends."
 * I now realise that this was a mistake. When I replied, I was unaware of the creation of the page, or of the large debate going on around the issue.  I didn't know you were an admin either, and was certainly not told that blocking was a possibility if I did not provide a satisfactory answer.  If I'd known all of this I'd have taken the issue as seriously as I now realise that it is.  I wouldn't classify that as 'trying and failing to resolve the issue' though - when I realised the scale of the problem I tried to post on here (after you told me that this page existed), but was blocked.  I have apologised on this page and by email - I hope that the issue is resolved now, and I'm happy to help with any more questions that you have. David 5000 17:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * BRIAN 0918  15:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner 16:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) (Although I think, at this point, WP:AN/I is the appropriate place for it, I want to make sure this RfC isn't deleted.)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Cyrius|&#9998; 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * r3m0t talk 16:58, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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.

First of all, I should say that no other vandalised articles exist, so there's no need to search for more. I admit to and apologise for the creation of these two pages. The Zakir Raman page was completely fake, but in my defence it had been edited and expanded by many users after my initial creation - the only role I had was starting it in the first place. As for the 'Weasel' page, that is an actual expression in usage in some parts of England, but I did embellish the facts.

I apologise deeply for these two edits, which I repeat are the only vandalising acts that I have ever committed in my time on Wikipedia. If you look at my edit history you will see that I have made a number of valuable contributions. I would argue that they count as an 'isolated incident', for which the blocking policy clearly states "Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism".

As for the punishment: if it is decided that the block should stay (and it's fair enough if it is, I have admitted the vandalism), why was my previous block 'indefinite', instead of just being 24 hours? The blocking policy clearly states that blocks for vandalism should last 24 hours. Also, may I question the irregular application of the punishments. As has already been discussed, User:Hedley was also involved. I greatly dispute his assertion that I was willing to let the vandalism remain, while he took the effort to report it - if I had been in #wikipedia, I would have done the same as him. The only difference between us is that he logged into wikipedia earlier than me after this began, so was the first to be able to defend himself. I was also disappointed that I was blocked without being given the chance to defend myself.

Once again, I apologise, I hope that this does not result in a long term block (and indeed cannot see how it should, due to the Blocking Policy), but if a block is agreed upon I will serve it and hope to continue to make valuable contributions to the Wikipedia in the future. David 5000 16:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) David 5000 17:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have been, by User:Calton brought into this dispute. Calton is correct in that I created vandalism in a minor role, adding a random picture to a fabricated article and also creating Tito Jibbanotiles, which was fabricated. He, however, ignores some key points.

This situation was discussed last night on IRC channel #wikipedia, with the user brian0918 (who started this RfC) and Cyrius. I actually reported my own vandalism, as well as numerous other articles (such as Conor Mcbrian) from those forums. I had infact forgotten about the vandalism, so when I reported it I only then realised I must of been involved. I didn't deny involvement at that point, but it appeared to be the case that as I reported the vandalism, I had been excused from any sort of punishment which may have occured. This I think may have been furthered by brian0918's not including me in the RfC. Furthermore, the forum thread brought me to Wikipedia, when I didn't know what it was about and didn't know that phony articles were stupid and inappropriate.

At the end of the day, I think I came good from this and whereas User:David 5000 and others involved were willing to let the vandalism remain, I reported it so as to clean up the Wikipedia. I'm sure many users begin here as a linked vandal, only to eventually clean up their act, and I hope this can be understanding on this RfC as (I feel) I am a good contributor now to the Wikipedia. Hedley 13:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * I think User:Hedley may have done more than he admits. See this thread - . It appears "DJ Hedley" created a page called Androcult and one other article, as yet unidentified. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 17:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Brian0918 knows of this. The third article was a John Walsh or something along those lines, and it no longer exists. I honestly don't see why you pursue evidence against me (see Second Outside Comment below), yet insist on creating evidence protecting David 5000. Did he come clean? No, infact later on he was still bragging on those forums that 'Zakir Raman was my article'. Hedley 18:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you mind adding these articles to your response above? Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 18:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to. I have to question your interest in this, you have an obvious bias towards User:David 5000. The case is towards him and not me, and i've already been excused on both the Admin Noticeboard's Incidents page, aswell as in the outside comments below. Hedley 18:19, 19 Mar 2005 (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.}

You should add User:Hedley to this RfC, since he also seems to be an active participant in this game.

Note that CoolClarity Chat member DJ Hedley wrote on Feb 18 2005, 03:10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito_Jibbanotiles Complete rubbish off the top of my head.

and in Votes for deletion/Tito Jibbanotiles, User:Hedley writes

This person does actually exist I think, but the content itself appears to be pure lies because theres no record of the artist or song ever making number one in Jamaica, as is claimed. Also note how the persons name is spelt differently in the article itself so its probably completely made up anyway, delete.

Note also that in Votes for deletion/Zakir Raman, User:Hedley professes to "discover" the hoax, though he (in his Co olClarity Chat posting of Feb 19 2005, 17:41) says I added a random picture of Zakir Raman (biggrin.gif icon added)

--Calton | Talk 10:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 17:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Second outside view
David has been blocked indefinitely. As Hedley has come clean about his role and been helpful, I have no particular desire to block him, although he should be aware of the depth of my disappointment should he be involved in any further vandalism. Snowspinner 15:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why was User:David 5000 blocked? He has not had a chance to comment here and poses no immediate threat to the wikipedia. I have unblocked him. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 15:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you Daniel M Nazarian? How do you know User:Plasmic Squonka!, and why did he create an article about a fake German Aristocrat Daniel Nazarian?  -- BRIAN 0918   16:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the full details. -- BRIAN 0918  16:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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