- ( Allabout2006 | talk | contributions)
- sock ( 209.248.254.66 | talk | contributions)
- sock ( 68.251.158.126 | talk | contributions)
- sock ( 69.39.135.109 | talk | contributions)
- sock ( 208.54.15.129 | talk | contributions) appears to be a public computer
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Description
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
The user in question refuses to stop spamming the Alkyl nitrites article, beginning with a link to allaboutpoppers.com, a website he is almost certainly associated with, owned and operated by Rushbrands, a large manufacturor of Alkyl nitrite products. The site is full of ads and links to buy alkyl nitrites. Refused to admit the site was at all commercial. constantly reformatted the alkyl nitrites article to eliminate mentions of the hazards of nitrites use. when confronted by various users, the user in question launched personal attacks- calling me and others vandals, alleging (completely unfounded) sock puppet activity on my part, and more. has violated WP:3RR and been blocked for violations twice. refuses to engage in any sort of civil dialogue or accept concensus on article content.
- Update, February 24, 2006: 209.248.254.66 has been blocked for one month by Nlu; user has used two new ip's and continues to violate 3rr and basic civility guidelines etc.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- alkyl nitrites history- apologies for not providing diffs, but a glance at just the history and edit comments will give a good idea of what he has been up to.
- talk:Alkyl nitrites
Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
(again, apologies for not providing diffs, but a quick glance at these pages will clearly demonstrate the actions of this user.)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
- -- Nlu ( talk) 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User linked wikipedia-watch, which should be an instapermaban. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above summary of events appears reasonable and accurate to me. Edgar181 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have reverted some of Allabout2006's linkspam. Amcfreely 04:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{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 ~~~~):
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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{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 by user:OnceBitten
In reviewing the cited text above I understand why those who have been at odds with the subject of this RfC. The article does a very good job at presenting factual information regarding harmful effects of the chemical compounds. Allabout2006 (and their alleged sock puppets) feels that there should be alternative information to present a balanced argument. The link to "All About Poppers" is commercial and that speaks for itself in Wikipedia policy. As for the article it seems that the most recent sticking point is over the Dusenburg article - one side wants it in and the other wants it out, why not include a section on controversy, present the NPOV information and let readers decide? As for the talk page material, I think that it demonstrates that Allabout2006 really doesn't understand the rules and doesn't seem to even think about them, instead their defense is to become a victim. In reviewing this users contributions, its a one topic interest here; evidently the topic and its presentation are something that this user believes very deeply about. Here's the rub - if the user is banned, he/she/it can go to any internet source and revisit the article. So the challenge is, not only how do you protect the integrity of the article, but whether or not there is anything within reason that can be done to get this user to also accept its content and itegrity as well.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.