Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur

I'd like to ask the arbitrators how we can deal with the constant vandalism from Levzur's anonymous proxies - 213.157.202.0/24, 213.157.193.0/24, 213.157.209.0/24 and 213.157.194.0/24. It is happening on an absolutely continuous basis, any time the articles in question are unprotected or the proxies unblocked, often within a matter of hours of unprotection or unblocking. I am normally loath to block dynamic proxies en masse, given the impact on other users, but I can't see any alternative in this case. As far as I can tell, Levzur is the only Wikipedian editing through those IPs, so the number of people affected should be minimal. The only other alternatives are to let him have his way (not acceptable to anyone, I think) or to permanently protect the articles in question (against policy and blocking the entire community from editing them). -- ChrisO 08:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's anonymous vandalism, then you can do whatever you feel is best to deal with it. What the best way might be isn't really for the arbitration committee to say--we're no more able to make bans and blocks effective than any other user (We're just able to declare them to be so, if you see what I mean).


 * Personally, I'd say that range blocking isn't ideal, but if you really think it's for the best, I for one am not going to argue. If it's unlikely to affect anybody other than Levzur, then it's hard to have objections against it, but just in case, I think you should give a reason when blocking which is going to make sense to people who aren't Levzur (ie, something a bit more verbose than just "Levzur: vandalism").


 * But this is just me speaking as a common or garden editor, not as an arbitrator. --Camembert


 * Thanks for the advice. Guanaco's wording seems to fit the bill: "Levzur - constant edit warring past the 3 rv limit, general disruption, possible sneaky vandalism, use of multiple proxies to escape bans". -- ChrisO 20:59, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As this user has ceased to edit using his account, ceased to edit productively or discuss at all since the arbitration began, wouldn't it be wise to begin treating him like one?

Most of the remedies, findings of fact, etc. were drawn up before he decided to become an anon, and a vandalising anon at that. Considering this, wouldn't a significant ban be more appropriate than what's there now? Ambi 09:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * By "begin treating him like one", I assume you mean "begin treating him like a vandal"? But admins are already empowered to deal with vandals with extreme prejudice, without requiring arbcom, so nothing really changes. However, it does indicate that we might as well close the case, so I'll start that off. Martin 18:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)