User talk:Spinrade

Ariel Fernández[edit]

Hello, Spinrade. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Drug design, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies.
Why are you adding only citations to papers written by Ariel Fernández? As explained here, the citation that you added to Drug design is inappropriate. Boghog (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no COI with Fernandez. I am learning about her work and believe it is of significance to the articles I am contributing. If you have no scientific background to evaluate the merit of my edits, please stay out.Spinrade (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some knowledge of the subject area. If you look at the edit history of drug design, I have been a major contributor, especially in using high quality secondary sources (review articles) to support the material that I have added. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources because they help establish notability and they tend to be more reliable. A surprisingly large percentage of scientific research cannot be repeated. One should be especially cautious of papers published by this particular author because the reliability of some of his other papers has been questioned. Finally it is very suspicious when a new editor tries to shoe-horn is publications authored by the same author in a variety of Wikipedia articles. This strongly suggests to me that you do have a conflict of interest. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have ABSOLUTELY NO COI with Fernandez, and I don't even know her. A questioned paper is not a retraction and, at least in the free world, Fernandez is completely clear unless proven guilty of generating invalid or false data.

Right. If you don't even know him, why would you only cite his papers? Boghog (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We learned his stuff in school and thought it was relevant to the contents of Wikipedia. I added his works because they were missing and they are relevant. I now see that this is a broken operation, based on bullying by ignorant people, where anyone says anything they want.

Genetic drift[edit]

Your recent actions on Genetic drift show a lot of sofistication for a beginner. Two edits with your ID and two with only an IP address. Just so it is not blatantly obvious that you violate the 3 revert rule. But it is obvious that you are. So you are not sofisticated enough. Edit-warring is not an efficient way of introducing your favourite material in Wikipedia. But it costs the community a lot to counteract it. It is a loss-loss process. --Ettrig (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring, not me. Material should stay until and unless someone proves scientifically that it is irrelevant or invalid.

That's incorrect. The policy here is that material is included if there is a reliable source, if it is notable, and if there is WP:CONSENSUS to include it. The burden of evidence is on the person seeking to add material.

You are clearly trying to force the inclusion of material that is opposed by multiple other editors, and doing so on multiple articles all related to the work of a single author. Aside from the prohibition on edit warring, this creates a high degree of suspicion that you have some relationship with the subject matter. I'd urge you to stop this effort, which will be futile in any case. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:C0A5:9377:2BD6:D798 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see how Wikipedia works. It is completely broken. I am free to edit and have provided a good addition with reputable sources, whereas no one presented any argument to prove that my addition is irrelevant or not worthy of mention. This is just bullying. What a disappointment. I thought Wikipedia was going to turn into a valuable resource one day. Not a chance!

If "bullying" means you can't come here and edit war your preferred content into articles over the objection of 4 or 5 other editors, you're dead on. Wikipedia works by consensus. 2601:643:8100:8AF4:C0A5:9377:2BD6:D798 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive comments[edit]

Please take a look at WP:NPA and do not restore this edit. I don't care if its true or not - it is an attack, and it is extremely unlikely to contribute to a solution of the conflict. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, please remove also the attacks by Molevol1234 to Fernandez. They are equally unconstructive.Spinrade (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any attacks in the last few comments, and I'm not going through the whole history. Also note that WP:NPA protects Wikipedia editors. WP:BLP protects living article subjects, but is not intended to suppress spirited debate of the subject. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

You may be interested in reply to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spinrade. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with these baseless unfounded accusations. Many people in the world are taking the side of Ariel Fernandez and believe he is being unfairly treated. Spinrade (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen bond energy[edit]

Hi Spinrade! I see that you've contributed to the article hydrogen bond where I see a mention of ion cyclotron resonance for determining the bond energy. Are you familiar with any quantitative details of a such determination?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately I cannot help there.Spinrade (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spinrade. Thank you. Eteethan(talk) 22:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what do you mean by the puppetry or why are you accusing me of such thing. I was born and raised in Dortmund and I am not related to Ariel Fernandez, except I know of his work of course, and have not used those IP accounts you are referring to. I don't know what else could I say.Spinrade (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See this thread. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariel Fernandez[edit]

It's tricky handling accusations of conflict of interest on Wikipedia, because we also have very strict rules about WP:OUTING other editors; that is, linking their WP username to a real world person. I've had to remove two of your comments from the page because they attempted to link a WP editor with a real name. Please be very careful not to do that anymore, or you could be blocked from editing. I am *not* saying you cannot continue to argue your points on the talk page; I have no idea who is right or who is wrong or what is going on. But no real names. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, understood. But then why don't you also remove the Molevol1234 comments in the talk page? This editor links my comments to those of a real person, Ariel Fernandez, and speculates that I am a sockpuppet of this person.Spinrade (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing contrary to policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mike V • Talk 00:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinrade (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is unjustified/ abusive. No reason for blocking is given. Just speculation. Spinrade (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request moot as a more detailed one was filed a short time later before this one was acted upon. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Arifer (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mike V • Talk 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinrade (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a real person and I am nobody's sockpuppet or involved in sockpuppetry. I have checked the IPs under investigation. They correspond to cities that are hundred or thousands of miles apart from each other. It is impossible to imagine how sockpuppetry would take place like this. Suspected sockpuppets Spinrade (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) DORTMUND, DE 190.224.156.37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) Neuquen, Arg 201.219.74.176 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) PINAMAR, ARGENTINA 181.28.63.62 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) Buenos Aires 198.30.200.84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) COLUMBUS, OH, USA 198.30.200.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) COLUMBUS, OH, USA So, I am using accounts in cities separated by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of miles appart? This is absurd. Please can you stop this nonsense? Thanks, Spinrade (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I am not a sock" is the argument almost every sockpuppeteer makes, and geolocation is (as mentioned below) not a reliable tell against. The evidence is overwhelming that you're socking, and the exceptional claim that you're not will require exceptional evidence to overturn that. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spinrade (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no evidence. Can you please provide the evidence that constitutes the basis for the sockpuppeting charge so I can defend myself?Spinrade (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per our privacy policy, this is not possible. Suffice to say, it's a technical match as described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive. You've exhausted your appeals, talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can you please provide the evidence that constitutes the basis for the sockpuppeting charge so I can defend myself?Spinrade (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were able to, they aren't that stupid, Arifer. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: How would you know the IPs unless you were also Arifer? Wikipedia accounts have their IP addresses hidden to everyone but Checkusers, and Checkusers need a compelling reason to check them, let alone expose them. Not to mention, Checkuser data is only retained for so long, and all the IPs in that archive are long stale. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole list was shown to me as I was notified of the Sockpuppet investigation. Here is the list:

Suspected sockpuppets Spinrade (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) DORTMUND, DE 190.224.156.37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) Neuquen, Arg 201.219.74.176 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) PINAMAR, ARGENTINA 181.28.63.62 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) Buenos Aires 198.30.200.84 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) COLUMBUS, OH, USA 198.30.200.16 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) COLUMBUS, OH, USA

So, I am using accounts in cities separated by hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of miles appart? This is absurd. Please can you stop this nonsense? Thanks, Spinrade (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, no it isn't. And in any case, those IPs are from the Nov 30 SPI. Further investigation in private by a CU has stated that you are Arifer; the CU involved stated as much today and levied a block based on that information. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this speculation. I am not arifer and I don't even know who or what is arifer. This block is abusive and I request that it be removed. Spinrade (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speculating, and I very heavily doubt the checkuser was speculating. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]