Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/68.170.0.238

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

User:68.170.0.238, aka Andrew Lin, Andrew P Lin, KellyClarksonTV, 128.2.247.44, 128.2.247.60, 24.53.252.190 (and possibly others, I'll call him "Andrew" as that is his real name) has persistently, blatantly, and openly violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy by posting and editing articles covering a wide range of topics, but most often deal with soda, sugar, various non-existent addictions, and batteries. He has posted several vanity articles as well, and has altered and vandalized VFDs on his articles. Despite promises to Jersyko and RickK that he would stop making such edits, he has persisted, and has been blocked from editing numerous times. No amount of reasoning or blocking has changed his behavior.

Description

[edit]

Andrew has been editing Wikipedia since at least April 6, 2005. He is, by his own admission, on a crusade to eradicate soda from the world (and Wikipedia, apparently) and push a fringe naturalist health diet (which somehow involves eating hundreds of bananas). His other interests include exploding batteries, non-refined sugar, MSG, various herbs, and writing songs about some poor girl in his computer science class. He has been warned multiple times to stop making POV edits to articles in these subject areas (in addition to posting new, POV articles), and the NPOV policy has been explained to him at length. He has expressed some semblance of remorse on both RickK's and Jersyko's talk pages, but has continued to ignore the policy in practice.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

Vandalizing VFDs

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]

Article and User Page Vandalism

  1. [6] (the recurring "stop drinking soda" message)
  2. [7]
  3. [8] (reappears many times, [9], [10], [11])
  4. [12] (several similar edits, such as [13])
  5. [14] (has done the same to user pages [15], [16] and other talk pages)
  6. [17] (sneaky vandalism, which is what he seems to prefer)
  7. [18]
  8. [19]
  9. [20]
  10. [21]
  11. [22]
  12. [23]

POV Edits

  1. Many of Andrew's POV articles have been speedy deleted
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]
  5. [27]
  6. [28]
  7. [29]
  8. [30]
  9. [31]
  10. [32]
  11. [33]

Vanity Edits

  1. Created the 25 Years of Beauty article (VFD)

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia:No original research
  3. Wikipedia:Sock puppet

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]
  1. Jersyko's attempts to explain Wikipedia policy to Andrew - [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]
Andrew's, as it turns out, insincere response to Jersyko - [39]
  1. RickK's attempts - [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
Andrew's, as it turns out, insincere promise to RickK - [45]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Jersyko talk 01:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
  2. RickK 04:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) User promised on his anon Talk page that he would stop posting anti-soda rants, and then turned around and did it again. I have blocked him 3 times for repeatedly creating POV articles and adding POV material to existing articles -- the first time for 24 hours, the second time for 48 hours, the third time for 4 days.

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I'm not sure an RfC will help here, but by all means let's give it a try. --W(t) 19:29, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  2. Probably not. But I just want to add my agreement and support of blocks as necessary. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. This seems accurate to me. --Xcali 19:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. I've encountered this user, and it's uniformly frustrating. Blocks are appropriate. Meelar (talk) 19:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support blocks, or whatever can be done to prevent the same inane articles reappearing and being speedied. Summary accurate to what I've seen. --Kiand 19:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    68.170.0.238 is now editing as User:128.2.247.44. --Kiand 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    And 128.2.247.60. Please please, will a sysop block this guy? My talk page can't take it anymore. - Jersyko talk 17:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
    Both of these IP's come from the Carnegie Mellon University netblock. I've contacted their registed abuse manager, as these kind of edits almost certainly break CMU's computer usage policy. --Kiand 17:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. This seams accurate to me as well. Vandalised vfd's = no-no. Blocks now and long. gtabary 23:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yes, this seems accurate to me. This user appears to be completely uncooperative. I support blocking if no improvement is made in behavior. -- Karada 17:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. I have no personal experience with this user, but the edits, additions and other contributions of this user are uncalled for. Dealing with this user is an unnecessary waste of precious editor and admin time. Aecis 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I feel the same. I limit my contribs to WP, for this kind of user drives me away. Why do we have to deal long and long with this behaviour? I feel sometime restrictive rules would be good in WP. I understand I could well be the "victim" of such rules. Well... that's a risk. Gtabary 22:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  9. And it continues ... Fructose Addiction ... Banana Addiction ... --Tabor 01:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Extremely persistent pushing of a POV. Somehow I suspect this will all end up in arbitration. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  11. This nutrition kookery needs to stop. Klonimus 06:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've seen POV-pushing, but this is ridiculous. — Phil Welch 05:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Block please. Fenice 05:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Block for extreme POV, disruption and just plain tinfoil hattery. I've personally blown off at least three of this guy's entries since becoming an admin about two weeks ago. - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. POV pushing, please block. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

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.

{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.}

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

Outside view

[edit]

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.}

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

Discussion

[edit]

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

  • Okay, this has been sitting around for a while, and he's still out there undeterred. So what's the next step? Is there any long-term solution besides commenting on it? Dmcdevit·t 08:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/68.170.0.238&oldid=1138660170"