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: 11:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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.

User:Pansophia has been edit-warring and using the article kaiser Permanente to pursue a private grudge against KP rather than generate an encyclopaedic article, and substituting ad hominen and incivility for argument over content. This is not the only or first instance with this user and this article.

Following a block of Pansophia for 8 reverts to Kaiser Permanente Pansophia's account has shown no contributions, however two IP addresses on the same university network User:209.129.168.40;User:209.129.168.40 have shown a similar pattern of reverting edits to the article and almost nothing else. WHOIS shows the IP address to be in the same general area.

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.)

209.129.168.40
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53756828 recurrent assertion KP is not properly non-profit
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=next&oldid=53756828 exaggeration of regulatory dispute in Texas (reference re-added does not support assertion, see talk)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=next&oldid=53757360 exaggeration of regulatory action "series of fines"
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=next&oldid=53757620 reversion without discussion - Kaiser members agree to arbitrate... assertion about litigation, a repeated addition
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=next&oldid=53757930 re-addition of WP:RSWP:EL non-compliant link to site criticising, but unreliably, KP.
Pansophia
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=53254033&oldid=53253341 one of many removals of NPOV tag - 3RR violation - following POV reversions
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53253138 recurrent assertion KP is not properly non-profit, and re-addition of WP:RSWP:EL non-compliant link to site criticising, but unreliably, KP.
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53252544 undiscussed removal of accuracy tag
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53251126 ditto
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53248472 the profit/not for profit assertion again
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaiser_Permanente&diff=prev&oldid=53247815 NPOV and not verified tags removal.
  7. Adds a personal attack / self-reference to Kaiser Permanente, accusing other Wikipedia editors of being Kaiser employees: [1]
Public PCs and open proxies
  1. Pansophia abuses open proxies and Tor proxies to attempt to avoid the 3RR: [2] [3]
  2. Reverts from a Berkeley, California library PC: [4] [5] [6]
Previous disputes on the same article
January 2006
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pansophia&diff=next&oldid=30369723 Cotman8 said "I feel you have taken this article into a bizarre direction for an encyclopedia by making it a 'dissect kaiser site.' "
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaiser_Permanente&diff=next&oldid=33661702 same sort of thing: unbalanced criticism using unacceptable links (WP:RS;WP:EL --> disagreement met with ad hominem.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP is not ... a soapbox
  2. 3RR
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:EL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. see Pansophia's talk page - now blanked but in the history.
  2. talk page for Kaiser Permanente

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Midgley 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Antonrojo 11:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (My attempt to resolve the dispute was to make several requests that controversial edits be discussed)[reply]
  3. Rhobite 14:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I am not involved closely-enough to certify the RfC, but I agree that user:Pansophia appears to favor pushing a POV over finding the most accurate article. At one point he reverted [7] the article back to his last edit of a month prior[8]. He explained later that he was too busy to read the individual changes that occured so he just wiped them all out.[9] That is not a good attitude to have in a collaborative editing project. -Will Beback 08:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I second Midgley in that Pansophia and the two IP addresses appear to show no contributions except reverting edits to the article resulting in what reads like a blog on an organization he or she dislikes. IP address 131.220.141.131 has one edit that does the same thing, unsure if same user or member of the same organization/entity as Pansophia Kato 08:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Looks like very definite POV pushing, EL violations, cite sources, Et Al. Before you went through RfC though, you might/could/should have mentioned it at WP:ANI. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:50, 20 May 2006 (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. 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[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. 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:

Discussion[edit]

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.

More