Talk:Alan Robock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Self editing?[edit]

Judging by their promotional editing and deletion of criticism, Is the user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Alan Robock?

(This comment was initially placed on this talk-page at 03:22, 5 January 2017. As detailed below, this comment has been the subject of a May 19th admin-noticeboard "WP:OUTING" claim. So far, this comment has been deleted twice, and re-instated once already by User:Nyttend. I am again re-instating it, as it is part of the below discussions.

Boundarylayer (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There was, and is, no evidence that the IP editor was involved in either promotional editing or deletion of criticism. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
You are in error. This particular IP editor deleted a "controversy" section that was written by someone in "Delft University of Technology"/the Netherlands*. This particular IP user with a suspected Conflict of Interest, is located beside Rutger's university New Jersey, were Robock is employed, amongst other things. We've been over this and their far more problematic edits below.
  • In 2017 he has become the subject of mockery, when it was discovered that he used the font "Comic Sans" repeatedly during his presentations.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The editor did not delete a "controversy" section - the editor deleted blatant vandalism in a BLP. Please stop misrepresenting the edits. However you may feel about the subject, this is inappropriate. - Bilby (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

An IP editor with a suspected Conflict of Interest[edit]

The IP user, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), with a IP location situated on the east coast of the US, displays disturbing signs of having a conflict of interest WP:COI with respect to Alan Robuck. The IP user, first in Nov 2016 and then in January 2017, was engaged in editing 2 separate articles, both related to Alan Robuck.

The most curious edit by this IP user, that I've found, was how they seem to know more than what the references state, specifically, that the conference attended by Alan Robuck and the murder-victim Vladimir Alexandrov was titled a talk on "nuclear-free zones", when the reference on his page, does not use that term, which clearly suggests that the IP user is intimately familiar with where Robuck and his friends went, in the 1980s.

Secondly, within minutes of making this edit to Alexandrov's article the IP user then quickly moved to the Alan Robock page and edited the description of Alan Robuck from "Professor" to "Distinguished Professor" and also, likewise, deleted the embarrassing criticism levelled at Alan Robuck for using the type-face Comic Sans during a scientific presentation in 2017.

Who could this IP editor be? I think you may have an idea: Remembering that (A) they edit in a manner that suggests they know more than what the supplied references state on the Vladimir Alexandrov page. (B) They then promote Robock to Distinguished Professor on wikipedia and (C) They then delete the embarrassing fact that Robock unwittingly used Comic Sans when presenting to a serious group of scientists in 2017...

Unfortunately, I am unsure if I am permitted to tell you my speculation on the real name of this IP editor, as that could be construed as the dasteredly practice of WP:OUTING. However, while I genuinely value the right to privacy both online and offline. I am of the opinion that when conflicts of interest arise, the person has clearly conducted themselves in a manner that has voided their right to privacy and due to this, they should be named.

Boundarylayer (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The IP has made 3 edits to the article, one of which was to remove vandalism. The remaining two were to make minor corrections, neither of which was promotional. I think you may have made an error. - Bilby (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Bilby, can you please re-read my talk-page comment, where I spell it out for other editors? As expecting you to open your mind and for you to independently assess the conduct of this IP user, was clearly foolish of me.
Laziness I know all too well, however why you didn't look into the specific contents of the edits by this IP user, is truly curious to me. Instead you went to the trouble of suggesting I was mistaken? It just seems odd, that is, if laziness was really your excuse?
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I did - I was responding to your original talk page comment, [1], as opposed to the rewritten one that you added after I responded. If possible, it might be easier if you don't change your comment after someone has responded to it.
In regard to your new comment, I guess I need to be clearer. Removing "In 2017 he has become the subject of mockery, when it was discovered that he used the font 'Comic Sans' repeatedly during his presentations" was removal of vandalism. The remaining two edits to this article, [2][3], were to add his correct title, as per the source being used [4]. Even if this amounted to a COI, which is unclear, none of this represents a problem. - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I changed my inital comment as from your response, I got the feeling that what I had written wasn't being understood, or more sinisterly, the ambiguity in my initial comment was being seized upon to attempt to say "he's mistaken, there is no conflct of interest, move along, move along, nothing to see here".
My suspicions of which, really only seem to have bee confirmed by your recent comment. When I read your truly dubious claim that " Even if this amounted to a COI...none of this represents a problem".
When in fact it is a problem, as contrary to your classic cherry-picking to present the IP editor as problem-free. The reality is, the IP user edited the article on Robock's colleague in the 1980s, Vladimir Alexandrov, who is a suspected homicide victim. The IP user, inserted a title for a 1980s conference, that does not appear in the reference supplied. Maybe you think that's just super? But inserting such unsubstantianted content into an article, least of all an article on a murder victim, is indeed a "problem". Editors should only summarize references, that is , they should not clandestinely know more about the topic than the reference, and re-write articles. So despite your attempts to downplay the conduct of this IP user, they most clearly have a Alan Robock-centric conflict of interest and their editing style is very much, a problem.
Oh are you serious, ahaha, and now, now I see from your recent edits yourself Bilby, you have gone and tried to patch-up this very edit by the IP user, over on the Vladimir Alexandrov article. What is your motivation for doing this?
Bilby, Why are you going after the edits made by this IP user, and patching up their most glaring problem edits? A Problem edit that you obviously made a conscious decision to drop from even bringing up in your classic cherry-picking attempt above, when you were trying to suggest that the editor has no COI and their edits were not a problem?
You really make me laugh, you know that? You say: The IP user is not a problem...and that's why you just fixed a problem edit of theirs? Are you a little post-truth con-man or what?
Honestly, what a transparent deception on your part. I'm beginning to wonder, if you too perhaps also have a conflict of interest in respect to Alan Robock? As you're operating in a manner that definitely suggests that you have.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Boundarylayer, the IP has made a total of five edits. Three were to this article:
  • [5] - added Robock's correct title, per the provided source.
  • [6] - returned the correct title after it was mistakenly removed.
  • [7] - removed vandalism.
In addition, two edits were made to Vladimir Alexandrov:
  • [8] - a minor copyedit, with no change in content.
  • [9] - corrected the subject of the conference where Alexandrov disappeared.
All of the edits are minor, and none is particularly problematic. However, to check, I looked into the name of the conference to see if I could confirm if the IP was correct or not. I found that the conference name (and subject) was included in "A Cold War Climate Mystery Endures: the Vanishing of Vladimir Alexandrov" published in Science Digest, which was one of the main sources used in the article. Accordingly, I clarified the conference name and added the reference to that claim.
I certainly respect the need to tackle COI editing on Wikipedia, and it is good that you raised your concerns. However, in this case there is not enough to confirm that there is a COI, and the edits themselves are uncontroversial. - Bilby (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The IP user edited a page on a man who is a suspected victim of a homicide. This alerted me to investigate this IP user, as they knew the correct name for the conference that the deceased man attended in the 1980s. The IP user was indeed correct about the name of the conference and it was precisely this knowledge that they displayed Bilby, that I found curious. As the IP user clearly knew more about the movements of the missing man, that what the reference at the end of the sentence stated. So as you might expect, I found this edit curious, and also problematic because editors adding content that is not supported by the reference at the end of the sentence, is a problem.
So I looked into this IP users geo-location, and it states that it is a park in New Jersey. Rutger's University, were Alan Robock works is also in New Jersey. So along with the IP users edit's of this article on Alan Robock, I naturally concluded that this IP user, could very likely be Alan Robock. I posed my concerns of a conflict of interest(COI) on this talk page, in the form of a question in January 2017.
I raised this issue of a conflict of interest on this talk page in January 2017 and left it at that. As it is obvious, that I suspected this IP user to be Alan Robock or his affiliates, with a conflict of interest. That's all. I simply just wanted to give other editors a heads-up that we could be dealing with a person editing a wikipedia page... about none other, than themselves.
That was January. I then left the scene and haven't even edited wiki in a few months. Yesterday, out of the blue, I was contacted by the registered user-prokaryotes, who might I add, never disclosed that that they were editting this article on Robock in 2015, and thus appears to be a bit of a fan of Robock.
In any case, I was made aware that this undisclosed fan-user-"prokaryotes", not only deleted my January heads-up to other editors, but that this registered user was bringing me to the administrators noticeboard over apparent "OUTING" claims. They must really not want it to be known that Alan Robock or his affiliates were editing this page. When they start mischaracterizing you, and removing your insight, right?
To my surprise, I read that the admins actually saw right thru prokaryotes and his "OUTING" claim was shown to be entirely without merit. The admins showed perspicacious wisdom and corrected him that I was not OUTING anyone, but merely raising COI concerns.
So with red bits of egg on his face after that "OUTING" accusation blew up in his face, prokaryotes and friends, have now moved to trying to garner support for me to be topic banned, entirely. If he and his ilk wins here, what would happen? Well they might succeed in having this conflict of interest case, getting swept under the rug and along with it, I'd be punished for pointing it out. That's a very convenient win-win for this Robock fan-girl user-prokaryotes, isn't it?
To this end, prokaryotes has mischaracterized me and my edits on the admin noticeboard and seems to be suggesting that I'm now, get this, making legal threats or insinuations. Bizarre I know! As despite user-prokaryotes's dogged attempt to de-rail attention away from this COI, so as to make it disappear, by now going to such unscrupulously deceitful depths, to have me banned.
One can actually only conclude that these hilarously unsubstantiated accusations made by user-prokaryotes, can't really be anything else but a last-ditch grasping-at-strays-attempt to make this editorial issue at hand, disappear, and to have me disappeared along with it.
As so far, prokaryotes has been recorded as (1) having deleted my COI on this talk page that I wrote in january, He then has been recorded as (2) misleading admins as to the true motivations for his conduct on the admin-noticeboard, as he now unscrupulously attempts to have me banned from ever editing here again. All for what? Because I pointed out that we have a pretty obvious case of Alan Robock or his affiliates editting Alan Robock's wikipedia article?
While, I do use colorful language, I'm I definitely won't be making any apologies for user-prokaryotes transparently motivated reasoning, for why they have consistently tried to mischaracterize what I have written, or why they are cherry-picking what I've written to claim; what has really plainly been 1 fantasy story of theirs after another. As honestly what will they come up with next to try to deceive you?
Moreover why are they even allowed to constantly try to make stories up? First it was, "He's OUTING, silence boundarylayer, now it's he's making legal threats...silence boundarylayer!" So What'll be next? "He is batman...silence boundarylayer? As it certainly is heading that way.
Why is this fan-girl user-prokaryotes, making up any of these claims? - Other than to divert attention away from this plain case of a conflict of interest on Alan Robock's page?
To that end, user-prokaryotes I should now go and inform an admin of this transparently deceptive and not to mention unscrupulously scheming conduct of yours. When in January all I did, was pose a question of COI. Though as we've found out, it was a question user-prokaryotes just did not WP:LIKE, as they knew it was true. So they tried to make it disappear.
But instead, the Barbra Streisand effect came into force, and with all the attempts at distracting away from it. You've actually succeeded in making me look into this article further, and as detailed below, we now have pretty strong evidence that someone at Rutger's University, and therefore with a conflict of interest, is editing this page. That's the truth of the matter, deal with it.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Boundarylayer: I simply don't tolerate conflicts of interests --- Even if the IP is AR, which we can not confirm, it could be someone else still, for instance a student, or simply someone else. And then: Editors who have a general conflict of interest may make unambiguously uncontroversial edits prokaryotes (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
prokaryotes Again, the line you decided to cherry pick, is pretty well taken out of context by you. I simply do not tolerate conflicts of interest, deception and deceit - That line, was directed moreso at you than Alan Robock, although naturally Robock also has a minor COI for editing this page and not declaring who he is. Moreover you can tell that I thought his conduct on his page was minor, by recalling how I only dedicated a single-solitary-line to raising Robock's COI in January, and left it at that. You can check the talk-page history to verify this. While on the other hand, here months later, here in May, I find out you deleted this very talk page comment of mine and then began claiming I was "OUTING" to admins, when I wasn't, and now you've gone and started a campaign to have me utterly banned from every editing on the topic close to your heart? You've tried to silence my raising of a minor COI way back in January, with a non-stop stream of deceptive accusations. "He's OUTING, silence him! oh shit that didn't work, alright he's making legal threats, silence him! Ban him!" yadda yadda yadda. Do you have some other explanation for this transparently deceptive charade of yours? Other than the fact that you took a major dislike to me for whistleblowing and raising this COI?
Secondly, you seem to intentionally obfuscate the matter. When have I never insinuated that this IP/Robock should be banned, or whatever you are getting at, in your last paragraph? Editors with conflicts of interest may indeed make uncontroversial edits such as those that Robock made to his own page, but they still MUST declare their conflict of interest, they must declare their identity. As otherwise, issues such as this arise. Let me break it down for you again. Exactly why we have rules, for why those with conflicts of interest, should identify themselves.
In January I stumble upon this IP:user after they edit the article on a missing person. This IP placed really obscure information without a reference into an article on a missing person. I don't know about you, but that definitely made their edit trip my "controversial" limit. As I was naturally left wondering, how does this IP user know this obscure piece of information about this missing person? It was true information not contained within the reference at the end of the sentence and that's precisely what made it controversial, as the article is on a missing person. So I look into this IP user and see that it is very likely Alan Robock. As not minutes after editing the article on this missing person, they then edited this page on Alan Robock. So I say to myself, ah what is he doing editing without declaring who he is? This is probably just Alan Robock unaware of the issues surrounding editing articles on yourself, and while it is totally understandable how he remembers the title of the conference, that his now-missing colleague attended in the 1980s.
The very act of not declaring who he was, instead editting as an IP:user of both his own Alan Robock article and editing the missing person's article on his former colleague, was what motivated me to write 1 line on this talk-page, to alert other registered editors that we quite possibly have a case here of a IP:user editing articles on themselves. Which is frowned up, and a conflict of interest. So please keep a look out for editing from this user. That's it, I left it at that and moved on in January. Not until you went and dragged this up again and tried to remove my heads-up to other editors, did I even give any of this a second thought.
Lastly, while you're technically right that it could indeed be "someone else" at Rutger's with a lesser conflict of interest as you speculate. I would actually raise my eyebrow up a bit again if it were not Robock himself behind this specific IP. As prokaryotes what kind of student of Robock's would both be intimately familiar with the details of the movements of a distant colleague of Robock's and simultaneously be silly enough to go and add the obscure title of the conference that this missing-person attended in the 1980s, and to do so, without providing a reference for this information? If the IP user is Alan Robock, then that's obviously understandable why he edited in the manner that he did, not feeling it necessary to supply a reference and it drops my eyebrow. Due to the fact that Robock was colleagues with the missing person, so Robock edited from memory. Though by not declaring who he was, and knowing material on the delicate issue of a missing person, material that wasn't in the reference at the end of the sentence that they wrote. This raised an eyebrow, as that is a controversial edit due to the nature of the matter and it is a problematic editing style, as they editor did not provide a reference for this obscure title.
Judging by what they edit and their editing style. I was pretty confident that this IP:user was Robock, I didn't pursue the matter and left it at that in January, as I respect a person's privacy, and do not wish to "OUT" anyone. However with that said, when a person's edits are as eyebrow raising as this IP:users. It is precisely why those with a conflict of interest really should declare them, it also precisely why I thought I acted prudently to point out to other registered users that frequent these talk pages, that we likely have a conflict of interest with this IP user. So be on the look-out fellow editors, and as you know, I left it at that in January...I really wasn't expecting a fan of Robock's to take issue with me pointing out that there is a likely conflict of interest and have you attempt to accuse me of everything under the sun, in order to wiki-gag this whistleblowing of mine.
Boundarylayer (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
A talk page is not the right place to publish essays, and as pointed out, you should not edit your comments, after someone else commented. Competence is required, please read it WP:CIR. And may be spent less time to create a wall of text, and instead look closer to those arguments you make, for example i didn't deleted what in your words amounts to blowing the whistle. prokaryotes (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A talk page, really is the right place to detail the chronology of suspicious or problematic edits. My last comment, or "essay" as you like to call it, is simply spelling-things-out for the convenience of other editors. Editors who may not be intimately involved, or are not aware of just how deception -laden and circus-like this entire attempt to make the raising of a conflict of interest, disappear.

To that end, at 12:43 on May 19th, you, a devout Alan Robock fan- User-prokaryotes, began "OUTING" proceedings on the admin-noticeboard. You started these proceedings with the desire to have my January COI comment "fixed"/removed from this talk page. User:KoshVorlon got trigger happy and came in and deleted this January COI concern. This deletion however was then reverted by USER:Nyttend, but then yet another editor came along and deleted it again. User:Bilby, this latter, censorship happy editor, then proceeded to stay around for a bit and tried their hardest to mislead us that this IP user was (A) Not a problem and (B) was not Alan Robock. Both of which of course, were transparent deceptions. As I detailed above and below.

Now bearing in mind that you, User-prokaryotes edited the Alan Robock article way back in 2015, and appear to be such a defensive fan of his, to be motivated enough to start "OUTING" proceedings against my January edit. Ultimately, you are responsible for the deletion of my January Conflict of interest comment. You attempted to deceive me and the admins that I was "reading to much into" your motivations, but the actions you have taken defintely suggest that you are a defensive fan. You see, I suspect that you knew that Alan Robock was editing this article. He edited this article in November, January and March. I suspect, that, you being a long-time fan of Alan Robock and all, and how you now want to have me topic banned, no-less. That you had come along in May, you read my January comment, you then checked the edit history and saw that I was indeed correct. As yet another IP user from Rutger's university was editing this article in March.

However as you are a big-big fan of his, you did not want it to be known that someone you apparently look-up-to, was editing their own wikipedia article.

So you started admin-noticeboard proceedings to have my January comment "fixed". You motivated 2 editors to come in and "fix"/a gangster-esque euphemism for disappear as it turns out, that january whistleblowing of mine. So look, earlier we had assumed good-faith and thought it possible that you were just a major stickler for anti-OUTING guidelines or whatever, but this pretense that you used. Did not work out for you, did it? So you threw your initial poker-face away and now you've gone all-out and want me topic banned.

Am I missing anything? Or is there some other explanation for this entire charade that you started? You are a fan of Alan Robock, right? The article has you recorded as editing this Alan Robock article in 2015. Moreover, the specific topic ban you wish to enforce. Isn't a ban on biographies or whatever, but a much broader ban on "climate related" articles. Which is pretty curious in of itself, isn't it? They wouldn't happen to be the articles that you edit on, and you are a fan of, would they? Wait...Of course they are! You spend all of your time editing climate related topics! So really? You make me laugh man. It never ceases to amaze me, at the deceptive lengths some editors are willing to go to, to get what they're after. To censor things, to get people banned. It really is astounding to see what fan-boys will do, to "protect their idol". Boundarylayer (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The threading here is somewhat difficult to follow; I'm responding to the user who mentioned me with "USER:Nyttend". I tend to agree that this speculation without evidence wasn't helpful (see WP:WIAPA, the bullet point starting with "Accusations"), and as long as it's not a matter of abusing the OUTING policy, I don't have a reason to object. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. When this all started I was absolutely bewildered why someone would try to cover up the obvious. I could not explain their actions until I noticed that they are actually a fan of Robock's. My above was not an accusation but the only logical explanation for what would motivate someone to start this entire circus of admin-noticeboard accusations.
Nyttend, I'm not too familiar with abusing the OUTING policy, or wiki-rules in general, but I do suspect that this charade, is indeed a case of that. A fan of Alan Robock's who tried to act innocent and had my COI comment removed, but in reality this was a fan who knew I was right. Alan Robock is very likely editing this article on himself. We now have 2 IP:editors situated at Rutger's university and it's surroundings editing this article, in both the past months of January and March. So judging by their extremist conduct, this fan knew this was the case and wanted to protect the idol of their fandom. So this fan started these trumped up OUTING proceedings, and when that didn't work out for them. Now they've started "TOPIC BAN" proceedings on the admin-noticeboard.
The shoe-fits. This is not an accusation, but merely an attempt to explain this absolutely surreal and bewildering barrage of admin-proceedings that have been levelled against me by them. Moreover, need I mention that when this fan failed to win their "OUTING" case, they then swiftly moved to start a vote to have me topic banned?
Boundarylayer (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I had hoped that if we stepped back from this a bit, it would give everyone time to calm down again. But this is so far into the personal attack category that you really need to rethink your approach. How about we let this issue sit for a bit before revisiting? There is no urgency, and it seems that emotions are far too high. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple IP users are editing this page with a Conflict of interest[edit]

After editing as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the above discussed IP user then switched their ID to (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This latter address is not just geo-located to a park in New Jersey, but located precisely at Rutger's University, New Jersey. The very university that Alan Robock is working at.

User:Bilby...claimed there was not enough to go on to confirm a COI. Do you still stand behind that claim? Boundarylayer (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't confirm a COI from the general area in which they edit. There remains the possibility of a COI, but that's the best we can do. However, the main issue is whether or not there are significant problems with edits associated with the IPs. As this is not the case, there are no specific actions that we need to take. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)