Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memills

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Memills



 * Code letter: G


 * Supporting evidence: Removal of criticism, commentary, COI, NPOV violations, and edit warring across multiple pages:,, , , ,  All accounts seem to be either the same person (likely) or several people working together (unlikely).  If the former is shown to be plausible, I recommend that the master account be given a stern warning and asked to edit using only one account, preferably while logged in to avoid the false impression of consensus. Listed at AN/I with request for page protection (protected) and then relisted at AN/I for a second time when the first incident was archived after the page was semi-protected, since the master account showed up to revert again when the IP's could no longer access the page. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Memills appears to admit that he is using 68.99.124.205 in this edit. Compare these two diffs.  I suggest that he is also using the others.  Note, the list above is only a sample; there are many more.  I'm not sure why he is doing this, as his edit history shows he has been on Wikipedia since 2006.  Is it possible that he is just too lazy to login?  If that is the case, can someone please ask him to edit while logged in?  The average person looking at the edit history suspects that different accounts are reverting to his version.  The account he seems to admit using also added his name to List_of_evolutionary_psychologists. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to decline at this point. One of your diffs of edit warring is a year old, you don't have any actual 3RR violations, and the closest you come involves a self-confessed IP.  I'm not seeing evidence of disruption that is consistent enough or serious enough to warrant confirming his IP(s). Thatcher 02:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, edit warring and 3RR violations are the least of our concerns. User:Memills and several anon accounts have been removing criticism from evolutionary psychology, segregating it into a very small subsection, and forking it out into evolutionary psychology controversy, a violation of NPOV.,, , , , , , ,  A criticism and merge tag have also been added,,  suggesting that the information be merged into related sections per the NPOV policy.  (See also: Words_to_avoid)  These tags have also been removed by Memills., .  Those diffs cover just some of the most recent (within the last two weeks) NPOV violations by Memills and his associated IP's. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you actually need checkuser confirmation of his IPs to deal with this? If there is consensus to revert the content fork, just do it.  Unless he is actively pretending to be more than one person (double voting and such, or swearing that he is unrelated) I'd rather not offically reveal his IPs. Thatcher 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and I agree with you. I've left a message on his talk page and invited Memills here to shed some light.  I'll contact the editors he has been reverting to find out the scoop.  I'm not entirely clear on the history, as I only ran into this problem by chance after seeing the multiple reverts by different accounts on my watchlist.  The irony is, I'm actually on his side, but I'm trying to uphold balance in the article.  If you feel this should be closed out, then that's ok, but if the problem does come up again, I hope we can restore this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * for now, bring it back if there are continued problems. Thatcher 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''