Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geoeg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 04:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Geoeg (talk • contribs • logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Geoeg, a recently recreated single-purpose account that's in the business of promoting the image of Dr. Petr Vanicek, does so in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:SOCK, and WP:COI. All advice from more experienced editors and admins is greeted with abusive replies. After several 3RR blocks (from a revert war about removing notability tags) he charged back in and continued his ways. He seems unwilling to learn to be a cooperative editor.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

We seek some admin focus on him, such that conduct norms can be specified, warnings given, and if necessary blocks applied, to try to get him to change his conduct and become a cooperative editor.

[edit] 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.}

Two articles he created, Petr Vaníček and Vaníček analysis (since moved to Least-squares spectral analysis), are the area in which the dispute developed. He created these fully formed, with lots of references, but mostly just primary references to works by Vanicek and his students. The WP:NPOV and WP:COI were immediately apparent, and there was a question of notability due to absense of independent sources on the bio. He drew attention to his work by linking Vaníček analysis on lots of technical articles in related areas. I tried to ask him to disclose his close relationship to the subject, so we could work around his COI, but that ticked him off to the point where he made a veiled legal threat against me (here and explained to him by another editor here); but let's look at more recent conduct...see evidence below.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Talk:Petr Vaníček is a record of his problematic interaction on the biography.
Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis is a record of his problematic interaction on the technical article.
This diff is his abusive response to a third opinion offered by a WP:3O volunteer.
WP:NPOV and WP:COI: This diff is his latest iteration at giving more credit to one originator of the method than to others; it's not as explicit as where he started, but he insists on bold full name for Petr Vanicek (editor's ex advisor), but non-bold initials only for J. D. Scargle, based on his interpretation of a few words in a paper, rather than being neutral about what the method is called. Much of the edit warring has been about trying to get to a neutral presentation.
In other recent edits since coming off block he continues to remove tags added by editors without WP:COI ([1]), and in other edits ([2], [3], [4], [5]), he adds and restores references to his own thesis (Mensur Omerbashich) in support of biased claims such as that Jeffrey Scargle did nothing but simplify the method and deserves none of the credit, even though people call it after him (the original article said it was "mistakenly" named after him by some).
WP:NPA: His only two talk-page edits since coming off block ([6], [7]) are personal attacks accusing me of setting a trap for him and lying, none of which is true, as is easy to verify in the history, e.g. this diff of mine.
The discussion in the section on his latest block (User talk:Geoeg#Three revert rule violation block) includes lots of incivility and personals attacks by him.
His COI is documented elsewhere (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#User Geoeg), including evidence of his use of a WP:SOCK to try to hide his connection to who he really is. Please follow up there if there's any question about his COI or SOCK problems.
Instead of responding here as requested, he continues his personal attack on me when I work to improve the articles.
Explicit claim of article WP:OWNERSHIP while ranting against anyone trying to help improve the article.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Comments

Having brief encounters with Geoeg I can safely say that except for Sock puppetry, there is plenty of evidence to show a failure to follow all of these policies and guidelines. Forgetting to log in shouldn't be equated with using a sock puppet. The editors dealing with Geoeg have done a great job being as civil as possible and explaining the way Wikipedia works to him, with little result but much frustration to show for it. The frustration reflects in the assertion of sock puppetry. There is no need to pile on things that could be interpreted as a mistake, removing number 7 will show that we're being fair minded and not "throwing the book" at someone. Anynobody 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

First request to him to be up front about his relationship with the subject so we can work around his conflict of interest.
WP:3O: request and responses Talk:Petr_Vaníček#Third_opinion, Talk:Least-squares_spectral_analysis#Opinion_of_3O .
Diff by User:Athaenara informing him of Wikiquette report on his conduct at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg
Incident report in an attempt to get some help or advice in dealing with the problem.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Geoeg#Evidence of attempts to resolve (I wasn't sure about adding ~8.6 kb to this section). — Athaenara ✉ 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Mediation was proposed and explained, and he turned it down.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Dicklyon 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

EdJohnston 01:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Bfigura ^(talk) 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As the blocking admin on his second 3RR block. Sam Blacketer 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried a few times to discuss issues with Geoeg, and once tried to compromise between him and Dicklyon, but I haven't been as involved in the dispute as Dicklyon and Athaenara. Zvika 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur as the blocking admin on his third (current) 3RR block. If another admin wishes to unblock Geoeg for the purpose of commenting here, I have no objection if he agrees to stay away from the articles in question here. KrakatoaKatie 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Insofar as it will do anything, I concur. I have put Geoeg (and Dicklyon) on notice that further 3RR and civility violations will result in one or more admins coming down on them like three tonne of bricks. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr

Geoeg has declined to respond and has turned down mediation since we started this RFC. Since nothing has improved, I have filed an RFAr: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Geoeg. Dicklyon 06:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

Geoeg has removed the RFArb claiming approval from Mike Godwin. He has also removed information from the COIN noticeboard archive (see here and here). In response to these actions, Spartaz has placed Geoeg on an indef block. The relevant thread on ANI is here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. 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:

[edit] 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.