Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IPSOS

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 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: 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC).

IPSOS (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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.

Conduct in breach of WP:NPA, WP:MEAT and WP:DE

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.

Cessation of false allegations against User:Coldmachine.

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.}

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.)

WP:NPA - continued accusations of sockpuppetry against User:Coldmachine despite resolution by User:MastCell here. Accusations also listed here, here, here, and a checkuser listed by User:GlassFET who may, or may not be part of a WP:MEAT breach in association with User:IPSOS, here

WP:MEAT - working in tandem with User:GlassFET to cast aspersions on good standing of other wikipedia community members. This is evidenced not only in the above links but also reinforced by editing of this very RfC here.

WP:DE - user has history of causing controversy with edits that are tendentious, reject community input, and with comments/edits which work towards driving away productive contributors.16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC) See: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Emnx_(3rd) for comments by User:Arthana here, noting allegations against other users including User:Whateley23
User:IPSOS wipes and archives any discussion on his/her user talk page without engaging with other wiki users as evidenced here
Also see discussion here for involvement of other users, and an administrator.

16:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

--Arthana 22:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

--Arthana 21:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

{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:

Outside view by GlassFET

There is actually a history of sockpuppetry related to Mandrake of Oxford and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford, as documented in 3 sockpuppet reports and 2 checkuser requests:

All reports and the first checkuser were filed by IPSOS. They appear to have been filed promptly and correctly according to process, without incivility or spreading accusations. I opened the second checkuser simply because I am also involved with the articles and the accused users were beginning to rant.

Both Coldmachine and Arthana appear to be fairly obvious socks, though of course appearances can sometimes be coincidental, which is why I opened the checkuser to be sure.

This RfC would appear to be premature, intentionally not waiting for the results of checkuser, and in my opinion is retaliatory, unfounded, and intended to intimidate a user trying to deal with repeated sockpuppetry using the officially sanctioned means. There were good reasons for filing sockpuppet reports and process appears to have been followed correctly.

The user making the accusation has made no attempt to follow official dispute resolution processes. Based on this, this RfC appears to have been made in bad faith, without attempting to resolve the problem in any meaningful way. GlassFET 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Dcooper

None of the evidence provided shows any wrong-doing on the part of IPSOS. On the contrary, IPSOS appears to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Coldmachine who filed this RFC has also accused IPSOS and GlassFET of being sockpuppets here [12]. This appears to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT and is a waste of time. I recommend that Coldmachine move on. If Coldmachine does not, I would suggest that he be blocked.

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

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.