Scholars who've asked for their biographies to be deleted, Catholics, Buddhists, feminists, Muslims ... Options

[HRIP7]

Another scholar asking for his biography to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n#Ian_Dowbiggin

As far as I can make out, the biography was turned into an attack piece by a now-blocked sock, Jabbsworth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The BLP subject has been blocked too as a "sockpuppeteer" (by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (T-C-L-K-R-D) ), after having made a grand total of 7 edits with two non-overlapping accounts. A prime example of Wikipedia assuming good faith, eh?

Nothing against secularism, but if it stoops to smearing academics because they follow a religious faith ... Dowbiggin is a Catholic, but there may be a wider pattern here, crossing religious boundaries. For example, last month a Buddhist feminist scholar requested deletion of her biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...n/Rita_M._Gross

and there was Abbas, a Muslim, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...3rd_nomination)

Let's collect these cases here.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

[Abd]

As far as I can make out, the biography was turned into an attack piece by a now-blocked sock, Jabbsworth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The BLP subject has been blocked too as a "sockpuppeteer" (by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (T-C-L-K-R-D) ), after having made a grand total of 7 edits with two non-overlapping accounts. A prime example of Wikipedia assuming good faith, eh?

Will wonders never cease?

(Yes. They won't.)

So Catfish Jim blocks Idowbiggin and Witte22, who were confirmed as each other. (These identifications, I've found, can be strong but still mistaken, for it might represent two colleagues sharing access and using the same OS and user agent, as might be very common at an academic institution.) Catfish Jim seems confused.

The report also found that Pro Veritas Vincit and Pro Veritas Vincit II were the same user. (Like, big surprise! This wasn't a concealed sock, even if not properly disclosed and handled, as would be common with newbies.)

Witte22 had a total of five edits, all on one day, to the article on Ian Dowbiggin. I think it's extraordinarily rude to block the defamed subject of a BLP, based on an alleged transient error, like socking. Good chance that Ian Dowbiggin couldn't use his account, perhaps he forgot his password

Idowbiggin only had *two* edits, both to the article about Ian Dowbiggin.

This was draconian enforcement, applied without warning. Night of the Big Wind did warn, but that was on November 13, on Talk:Witte22. The last edit of Witte22 was on November 12. The last edit of Iandowbiggin was on October 11.

This is incompetent administration. Nobody is watching. Who cares?

I see that now the article is before AfD. Big Dark Farts, er, Night of the Big Wind, looks like he might be Bad News.

Blowing it Out My Ass, er Night of the Big Wind, commented in the AfD, immediately:

Comment Point is that mr. Dowbigging is trying to sweep a few uncomfy but sourced things under the table. He used already a string of sockpuppets to achieve that, and now tries it by OTRS. How shall I say it: "An inconvenient truth". I am very unhappy about this attempt... Night of the Big Wind talk 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To my mind, anyone who so blatantly misrepresents the truth should be blocked until and unless they show an understanding of the error. There was no "string of sockpuppets." There were two accounts, probably the same person (or two people editing from the same IP, which would, in a case like this, be utterly unsurprising), with two edits from one account, which had the name of the subject of the BLP -- who was promptly warned by our Big Fart about COI, so obviously Big Fart believes he's the subject -- and five edits from the other account. Now, if Big Fart edits articles like this, with drastic misrepresentation of what is in sources, he's utterly untrustworthy. He doesn't understand how to be objective and neutral. Of course he's "unhappy." He's got an agenda and it is being frustrated.

Big Fart goes on with "he should have used the Talk page." Right. After ID had been warned about COI, he didn't know what to do. Perhaps he created a sock account, perhaps he asked a colleague. Who was promptly blocked. I'd believe Big Fart if he'd asked for the subject to be unblocked, so he could participate on the Talk page. Did anyone tell Ian Dowbiggin that he could comment on the Talk page? Let me guess. No. I'd love to be wrong about that.

It looks like Ian Dowbiggin is going to come out of this okay. The article will either be deleted or cleaned up, probably. Big Farts has been blocked three times, twice for revert warring and once for harassment.... I think he's not likely to last long ... but I've been wrong with those kinds of predictions, there are highly abusive editors who are still editing.

[Catfish Jim and the soapdish]

As far as I can make out, the biography was turned into an attack piece by a now-blocked sock, Jabbsworth (T-C-L-K-R-D) . The BLP subject has been blocked too as a "sockpuppeteer" (by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (T-C-L-K-R-D) ), after having made a grand total of 7 edits with two non-overlapping accounts. A prime example of Wikipedia assuming good faith, eh?

Will wonders never cease?

(Yes. They won't.)

So Catfish Jim blocks Idowbiggin and Witte22, who were confirmed as each other. (These identifications, I've found, can be strong but still mistaken, for it might represent two colleagues sharing access and using the same OS and user agent, as might be very common at an academic institution.) Catfish Jim seems confused.

Perhaps.

I admit I've made mistakes from time to time as a sysop... this may be one of those times. However, I've always been happy to revisit actions I've made if it's brought to my attention that I may have been mistaken. If it's brought to my attention.

Anyway, this power-hungry, incompetent admin has since retired from Wikipedia, so you can rest assured that it won't happen again.