Report active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers here. |
---|
Before reporting, read the spam and vandalism pages, as well as the AIV guide. To submit, edit this page and follow the instructions at the top of the "User-reported" section. For other issues, file a request for administrator attention. Important!
|
This page was last updated at 17:43 on 29 May 2024 (UTC).
if it is out of date.
Alerts
Bot-reported
- 81.136.144.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). . DatBot (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- 35.132.168.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). . DatBot (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
- 217.206.228.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Administrator
I have given three warnings to a Wikipedia contributor, by name Rakkar, regarding continued reckless vandalism of the Harm Reduction page.
As a contributor I have interpolated well-referenced critiques of the various harm reduction illicit drug interventions which represent the current concerns of governments, organizations and agencies regarding harm reduction. Indeed, so weighty are these arguments that the United Nations review of the international drug Conventions, to which I was a contributor, in March 2009 rejected pressure to include harm reduction as a policy plank within those Conventions. The importance of the counter-arguments regarding harm reduction are that level of international significance that Wikipedia would be less than encyclopedic and relevant if these arguments were excluded. Balance is what Wikipedia must stand for, but unfortunately it appears that Rakkar has no interest in a balanced debate.
Contribution to Harm Reduction page – 15 Jan 2010
On 14 and 15 Jan 2010 I edited the Harm Reduction page to reflect the current state of the debate on certain harm reduction interventions. All text was carefully and correctly footnoted and factual. On the 18th of January Rakkar removed everything with a quick undo, putting a list of spurious rationales onto the Harm Reduction Talk page which showed neither knowledge of the subjects he claimed to be adjudicating, nor an engagement with the cited documents I had given. The stated rationales used to strip my contributions were unevidenced supposition, logically unsound or clearly ignorant of the evidence I had cited.
1st warning – 6 Feb 2010
On the 6th of February I gave a first warning to Rakkar, lodged on his talk page, after he continued to remove factual and cited content, even after a number of patient postings on the Harm Reduction Talk page providing greater detail behind the citations, and (again patiently) pointing out his errors in interpretation or logic.
2nd warning – 27 March 2010
After a continuation of the same behaviours of removing slabs of evidenced text, again on the basis of groundless rationales, I issued a second warning on the Harm Reduction Talk page.
3rd and final warning - 31 Mar 2010
After more patient and evidenced discussion on Harm Reduction Talk I issued a final warning to Rakkar, only to have him once again remove almost the entire critique text of one subsection, and after removing a well-known, well evidenced, general criticism of Harm Reduction from the opening paragraphs.
I can only suppose that Rakkar brooks no alternate view, and Wikipedia is the poorer if it becomes the flag-bearer for sectional interests rather than reflecting the major sides of an ongoing debate.
I am now seeking whatever remedial action is appropriate for Rakkar. I have no problem engaging someone who has a valid point of criticism or concern, but Rakkar’s habit of removing slabs of well-evidenced text, rather than using more helpful and collegial methods of improving a page is, I believe, a clear example of premeditated sanitizing vandalism.
I await your response.
Example of indiscriminate deletions: (cur) (prev) 13:09, 18 January 2010 Rakkar (talk | contribs) (29,698 bytes) (Removed recent edits - see talk section Minphie's Edits.)