Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 12 September 2007

This IP has been employed by a vandal. It is one of many IPs in the ranges detailed in the following query: <http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois?lg=EN&query=AR-MIDA2-LACNIC>. Established editors of several pages related to the development of nuclear energy in Argentina (especially Huemul Project, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica and Ronald Richter) have identified a common pattern of highly biased and disruptive edits from IPs in these ranges, which point to a single editor. This editor has made several crude attempts to pass as different people, and accused others of of vandalism and of having a biased POV themselves. The editor in question has also personally attacked some of those who revert or correct his/her POV additions. Finally, this anonymous editor continues to edit from multiple IPs and refuses to register under a username, being well aware that such a behavior prevents administrators from blocking him/her.

For details, consult the contributions of this group of IPs in the aforementioned articles and talk pages. If you find this IP blocked, please check the facts above before unblocking it or taking issue with the measure and the responsible administrator.

200.45.6.95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

200.45.6.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

see talkpage editor

• Blocking administrator: Beetstra (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Yamla 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

200.45.6.95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False allegations of vandalism, administrators abuse against Statement of principles

Decline reason:

You should discuss on talkpages what you want changed, i.s.o continuously pushing your (biased) point of view. I suggest you start discussing here on this talkpage, and I will inform involved editors. --Dirk Beetstra 16:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--200.45.6.95 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing a POV against other editors is not vandalism, what you did is. You should explain in the talk pages your own actions. I'm editing those pages in good faith. What specific problem do you have with my edits? --200.45.6.95 15:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

200.45.6.95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False allegations of vandalism, administrators abuse against Statement of principles

Decline reason:

Per Beetstra, does seem like part of a clear pattern. Mangojuice 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The edits performed on the abovenamed articles speak for themselves. This IP, and many IPs in this range all perform the same edits, which are generally reverts of many other established editors. Therefore I believe that all these edits are performed by one person. These edits are constantly reverted, by many other who do not (apparently) not agree with the edits. You have been asked repeatedly to discuss on talkpages, yet you are not doing that, you insist in performing the same edits over and over. I am sorry, I, and quite some others, define that as vandalism. I will not review this unblock again, but I would suggest that other administrators first have a good look at the type of edits are performed by IPs in this range (one can also have a look at a.o. the edit history of my userpage, and the other edits that are performed by an IP out of the same range). In the meantime, the pages are now protected, you are free to discuss hat you want to be added or removed here, or, when your block ends, on the talkpages of the pages themselves (or when you hop to another IP address). --Dirk Beetstra 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you try to involve others in what you did? I say that you are a vandal because you are charging me without proof. --200.45.6.95 16:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I consider the yellow box that you copied from other uninformed editor (not even your own stuff) a personal attack and I'm demanding you to prove it.--200.45.6.95 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits by this account are exactly similar to the edits by the other accounts (as is the focus on the the same small subset of articles). You also use the undo without a further explanation, while those specific edits have been reverted by many other editors. Reverting edits over and over, while many other established editors do not agree, and not discussing these edits is vandalism. I don't need more proof. --Dirk Beetstra 16:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I. If any more unblock requests get put up by this IP, I suggest the next reviewer protect this talk page. Mangojuice 17:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Still it is not vandalism. Vandalism is to erase a true documented sentence like "based on the reading of a faulty spectrometer" or "to whom no specific innovations ... " without further explanation other than false allegations of vandalism. And this is precisely what you did. Also, many sentences were fully discussed with the "established editors" and faced with lack of solid arguments or evidence to call for, they turned to attack me, like you. --200.45.6.32 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is just exactly the point. 'Also, many sentences were fully discussed with the "established editors" and faced with lack of solid arguments or evidence to call for, they turned to attack me, like you". Apparently you also are/were not able to convince other editors of the validity of your edits, and therefore you turned to pushing your POV to the articles, without even further trying to convince the other editors ('vandalism'; for the last, what is it, two years?). The edit history of the abovementioned articles is a whole list of reverts by you, with an occasional good edit between then. Again, I suggest you to either discuss it here (as we do now), or, when you have changed your IP again (or even better, created a serious account), discuss on talkpages. And this time, please, try to convince the editors that you are right, or that your edits are in line with our policies and guidelines instead of constant edit warring.

So to give a start. You added several times the sentence 'to whom no specific innovations ...'. To me that sounds unnecessery insulting to the person in question, and I am sure that is the reason why that edit was reverted, and that the sentence was dismissed in discussions. Also, that is true for, I am afraid, the majority of the world population. So also I think, that that sentence should not be in a document. Still you have insisted for some time that thát sentence was put into the article, even when other editors did not come up with solid arguments. So, why do you think that that specific sentence is detrimental to the document? --Dirk Beetstra 18:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I see you have lost your cool again: Special:Contributions/200.45.6.32. I am sorry, but that type of behaviour is not going to help your arguments. --Dirk Beetstra 18:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock the pages and erase all your false allegations of vandalism now, please--200.45.6.198 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I do not care what do you think about the whole issue, unless you have some facts to add to the articles you blocked. --200.45.6.198 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)