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: 05:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• ImprobabilityDrive (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

ImprobabilityDrive, aka Infinite Improbability Drive, is disrupting Wikipedia by repeated edit warring, violating WP:CIVIL, making false claims, misusing policy, adding unsourced/ controversial assertations, and POV pushing.

ImprobabilityDrive's edits repeatedly fail WP:NPOV, and he also violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He accuses those who revert his edits of being "POV Pushers" and ascribes a conspiracy to the editors who disagree.

I am impressed that this user has advanced knowledge of wikipedia in terms of policy, signing, archiving, and so on. Such as within 15 minutes of registering on wikipedia and with this user's second ever edit ImprobabilityDrive was able to sign his/her name and within a short period of time knows advanced knowledge of tags 1, 2. This taken in conjunction with knowing all kinds of policies and using those in edit wars is distrubing.

Desired outcome[edit]

The hope from this RfC is that this new user will stop this bad behavior or avoid articles that user cannot obey policies on.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Neutrality[edit]

Creationism related[edit]

1. [1] Adds controvesial claim without source
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]

Louisiana Baptist University[edit]

1. [10] Adding tags to Louisiana_Baptist_University claiming cited material is synthesis/WP:OR.
2. [11] Issues are addressed, and user adds more tags to the same article.
3. [12] Issues addressed, after prodding the user removes tags.
4. [13] Claimed that newest edits (Dave Souza's edits which clearly meet WP:V and WP:RS, and which have muliple citations) are an essay and places "essay tag" on article. There is some question as to whether this was a comedy of errors, but the excessive use of tags still creates issues.
5. [14] After the tags are removed and discussion on the talk because the material is sourced, user wants a WP:RS removed claiming it has no "relevance."
6. [15] Not getting his way now writes "I am starting to wonder if this article even deserves to exist."

Civility, attacks, harassment, and ascribing motives[edit]

1. [16] Claims wiki-editors are working for private orgs by adding a COI warning and a veiled threat.
2. [17] "What is your agenda, to propagate a smear on the imprecise Morey?"
3. [18] Calling other editors' reverts vandalism
4. [19] "FM doesn't own the article. Neither do you."
5. [20] "Disruption of active content dispute by User:FeloniousMonk"
6. [21] "why not let somebody else attempt to cite wikipedia policy."
7. [22] "Your comments, IMHO, shows that your interest here is retaliatory" and "The behavior exhibited by the evolutionary gang on this forum, in my opinion, is truly contemptable"
8. [23] "You seem to be only posting pro-smithsonian side."
9. [24] "he is choosing to cause choas on a section"
10. [25] "Hostile editor at Creation-evolution controversy...User_talk:Hrafn42 is engaged in disruptive edit warring at the creation-evolution controversy article..."
11. [26] "Do not preach to me about disruption"
12. [27] again accuses editors of having a COI: "I still wonder about the COI issues with regard to other users blanking the content I added to the article on the flimsy grounds..."
13. [28] Accuses other editors of "piling on".
14. [29] Again infers motives, noting "and untirely [sic] unwanted for specious reasons"
15. [30] Implies that checkuser was retaliatory, rather than legitimate, and accuses others of being part of a plot: "one 3 strike contributor on the 3RRR rule is filing frivolous and apparantly retaliatory charges ... as others goad him on."
16. [31] spurious accusation of trolling
17. [32] Accusation that previous sockpuppet charges by this editor were unfounded.

edit warring[edit]

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37] (NOTE: prev editor had warned ImprobabilityDrive, noting, "(Removing one last time. Next time it's added constitutes edit warring by Improbability Drive.))
6. [38]
7. [39]
8. [40]
9. [41]
10. [42]
11. [43](NOTE: edit summary "Restoring blanked section pending consensus" is highly inaccurate as consensus had already been reached on removing section)

Sock Puppets[edit]

1. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (3rd)
2. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImprobabilityDrive

Despite the check user result, user still denies what is clear to many other editors.

Applicable policies[edit]

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:NOT
4. WP:NPOV
5. WP:OWN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
6. WP:SOCK Orangemarlin 19:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable guidelines[edit]

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:AUTO
3. WP:CON
4. WP:POINT

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Arbustoo 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. •Jim62sch• 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Guettarda 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. FeloniousMonk 17:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Orangemarlin 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hrafn42 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. [44] advice to "slow down"
2. [45] re accusations of censorship
3. [46] explaining sourcing issues
4. [47] "Making large numbers of changes which are disputed ... only makes matters worse"
5. [48] re certain types of sourcing
6. [49] advising against edit warring
7. [50] re effects of aggressive editing

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.

{This is going to take awhile, I will be responding to one point at a time.}

Regarding ^{[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy&diff=124276141&oldid=124244350]} "Adds controvesial claim without source"

Below is a full and accurate accounting, to the best of my ability, of the sequence of events.

• At 04:07, April 20, 2007 by IID, adding a statement that the political backlash against evolutionary theory coincided with the rise of the eugenics movement.
• Between 04:07, April 20, 2007 and 05:32, April 30, 2007, user Arbustoo became aware of IID's work on the Louisiana Baptist University article, where my motives may have been miscontrued by user Arbustoo.
• At 05:32, April 30, 2007 by Arbustoo Note, no discussion was added to the talk page regarding the insertion of this ^{{fact}} tag by Arbustoo, to an article that, to the best of my knowledge, he had not previously contributed, said article being an article that has less than 100 edits.
• At 04:57, May 1, 2007 by IID Removing clause tagged with fact.
• At 04:59, May 1, 2007 by IID Concurring with intention of fact tag, and indicating this on the talk page (moving a removal of a disputed clause for others to see).
• At 02:38, May 2, 2007 by Arbustoo expressing frustration, after the disputed clause was removed, in what does not appear to be a friendly tone.
• At 02:43, May 2, 2007 by IID expressing frustration and providing two links ^{[04:57, May 1, 2007 by IID]} and ^{[04:59, May 1, 2007 by IID]}
• At 04:58, May 2, 2007 by Arbustoo Indicates this is a double-standard.
• At 01:26, May 3, 2007 by IID Attempting to explain.
• At 03:19, May 3, 2007 by IID Clarifying above, that is, the disputed text in the article was added earlier in my career at Wikipedia, and as I grew to learn more about the policies, and when the clause was disputed by Arbustoo, I freely removed the disputed text.
• NOTE: I do actually believe the full context, including the removed clause, is citable: "Coinciding with the rise of eugenics, the controversy became political when public schools began teaching that man evolved from earlier forms of life per Darwin theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of Tennessee passed a law (the Butler Act of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible." Among other places, this is noted, if memory serves me correctly, in the book Summer for the Gods written by Larson. However, I don't have the book with me right now, so in good faith I removed the disputed text pending a look up. I do plan to add the citation back if I can find the correct page number, assuming others agree that a a citation from a relevant expert in the creation-evolution controversy making the observation is grounds for inclusion. Meanwhile, the portrayal of this episode might portend a retaliation charge due to OWN issues related to the Louisiana Baptist University article. However, said possibility only being an assertion of possibility on my part, is up to other commenters to decide, as I am AGF. I am responding to this RFC since four users have certified, even though other established wikipedians have indicated that this RFC is premature pending my work with RockPocket.[51]. Regarding the selective account provided below, my request to rockpuppet came as a response to this suggestion which occurred at 07:35, May 4, 2007. I am unaware of any previous recommendations to find a mentor, but after a failed RFCU and a specious summary ban, I took the advice. Infinite Improbability Drive 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding:

[[User:Arbustoo|Arbustoo]] 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ImprobabilityDrive was very wrong. He said I edited the article ZERO times when in fact it is OVER A HUNDRED. ID's reply was hardly an impressive rebuttal to the charges of [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:3RR|Edit Warring]]

I apologize, but I really must respond to this. If you follow the links provided to substantiate and support my assertion, is is easy to see that the version above is correct. I added "to the best of my knowledge" in case some edits to the article were lost or deleted, but the current log does not show Arbustoo as a previous contributor to the article mentioned. As far as I know, this is the only section I am allowed to edit. Infinite Improbability Drive 23:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Jim62sch statements with regard to the above account, which is in regard to the History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy article, just one point in this RFC, and I even tried to ephasize this with a bold one point at a time: Please don't mischaracterize what I wrote above, I never stated that Larson implied "causation", and neither did the disputed edit. My recollection is that Larson deemed the coincidence important enough to put it in his book, though, this is based on my memory, and subject to fact checking. I only noted that Arbustoo failed to note why he put a fact tag on the talk page; whether or not an explanation for the fact tag should be added to a talk page is perhaps a matter of courtesy. Please take the time to follow the links I added to make sure you understand just what it is you're commenting on. Thanks. Infinite Improbability Drive 23:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

In response to the assertion by ImprobabilityDrive that, "... other established wikipedians have indicated that this RFC is premature pending my work with RockPocket."

• First, I shall note that ImprobabilityDrive did not contact RockPocket until after it became clear that and RfC was to be filed
• The statement, which mentions plural support (firing for effect) appears to be duplicitous. On editor made the comment, which was fundamentally his opinion. This opinion, however, was not representative of the opinions of other "establish Wikipedians"

As to the above referenced edits:

1. While the Larson book was a Pulitzer Prize Winner, there seems to be no indication that the temporal correlation is indicative of causation, nor have I yet found evidence that any other writer sees the correlation as causation. Thus, Larson's view, whether it won a prize or not, appears to be a solitary view, and expressing it as a predominant view violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.
2. ImprobabilityDrive fails to mention that other editors took issue to what they felt was whitewash and "obfuscation"; see [52] and [53]. In addition, ImprobabilityDrive's edits on the page were in clear violation of NPOV and were, in effect, a low-grade edit war.
3. Arbustoo correctly used the fact tag. When a citation is missing, there is really nothing to discuss. Secondly, the statement by ImprobabilityDrive that Abrustoo "...had not previously contributed" to to the LBU article is demonstrably false. Arbustoo's first edit to the article was this, at 02:19, on 30 January 2006. In fact, Arbustoo is a regular on this article with 100 edits to date.
4. Actually, this places doubt on the veracity of the removed material.

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

1. Arbustoo 22:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ImprobabilityDrive was very wrong. He said I edited the article ZERO times when in fact it is OVER A HUNDRED. ID's reply was hardly an impressive rebuttal to the charges of WP:CIVIL and Edit Warring.[reply]
2. Well-reasoned and sums the issues with ID's claims. Now that his dishonesty has been laid bare, it's fair to say the he did his cause dirt. Odd nature 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

• Since Jim62sch responded ImprobabilityDrive changed his comments without mention, by writing: "to the best of my knowledge, he had not previously contributed." Seems like if you want to know, you look at the history, and once you are wrong you correct your claims. Also in that very diff, ImprobabilityDrive said Louisiana Baptist University has "less than 100 edits." That is false as you can tell by looking at a 100 edits/page (Note that takes us from 03 May 2007 until 15 March 2007). Again this really has nothing to do with edit warring/WP:CIVIL. But it is rather interesting that these responses are incorrect.Arbustoo 23:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also ImprobabilityDrive updated his mentor claims. However,regarding the mentor ImprobabilityDrive's diff is AFTER the one supplied by Jim62sch. So how does that change Jim's point? Arbustoo 23:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

My experience on Louisiana Baptist University was that ImprobabilityDrive brought up reasonable points in a generally polite way, and though rather quick to add tags or propose deletion was within the bounds of what I'd consider acceptable behaviour. However the behaviour on other articles was clearly disruptive, and needed to be considerably improved. .. dave souza, talk 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. dave souza, talk 00:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I completely disagree. That user was adding tags to claims that were cited. When it became clear that this user wasn't going to get his way he said the citations then had no relevance. When that argument didn't work he wanted to delete the whole article. Intially it appeared that the user was acting out of concern for the article. But with the ever changing excuses from claims that cited material was "synthesis" to "no relevance" to "delete the article" it was clear that those edits were in the interest of downplaying/removing material critical of an alleged diploma mill. Arbustoo 02:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ImprobabilityDrive was shown to be a "likely" sock puppet of VacuousPoet, and was blocked accordingly. (This user still keeps up the charade claiming checkuser is wrong.) Due to the block and checkuser, there is no reason to respond to the numerous false claims made by ImprobabilityDrive. However, let this serve as a warning to the sock puppeteer that wikipedia does not tolerate sock puppets, gaming the system, or deceit to push a POV at science-related articles. Arbustoo 22:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. •Jim62sch• 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Haemo 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. dave souza, talk 00:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Orangemarlin 05:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Odd nature 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hrafn42 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sr13 (T|C) 07:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.