Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: HRIP7

Another scholar asking for his biography to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ian_Dowbiggin#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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Idowbiggin/Archive 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive140#Rita_M._Gross:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rita_M._Gross

and there was Abbas, a Muslim, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahir_Abbas_(3rd_nomination)

Let's collect these cases here.

Posted by: Fusion

"Night of the Big Wind" (who?) alleges that "He used already a string of sockpuppets" and references this investigation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Idowbiggin/Archive

In fact, this investigation found only one sock. What sort of editor can so badly misquote his sources? (Don't answer.)

Posted by: Abd

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:

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.

Posted by: Silver seren

I'm fixing up the article right now. There were clear problems with it, such as specially cherry-picked language from sources and even outright misattribution from sources or having the information not be in the source at all.

But Dowbiggin is clearly important in the euthanasia debate field. It'll take a little while to fix this all up, but i'll keep it looking good afterwards.

Posted by: radek

This, along with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=36487&st=0&gopid=295289&#entry295289 just epitomizes the sheer idiocy that rules that site. I know, I know, there's plenty of crafty conniving evil there too, but sometimes just the sheer stupid of Wikipedia is blinding. The whole SOPA thing comes to mind too. It really is the case that most of these people are plain and simple morons (with a few shifty cynics, well poised to take advantage of them thrown into the mix). Here's the sad thing. Usually words like "moron" and "stupid" are used as hyperbolic insults in nasty flame wars. Here it is about the most charitable adjective that one can come up for some of these people. Calling them stupid and moronic really does involves a whole buttload of good faith to begin with.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Don't just complain about it on WR---write it all up. As I keep saying, there's enough material on WR alone for twenty books about Wikipedia's failures.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

And just who do you think will take notice?

Posted by: Catfish Jim and the soapdish

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.

Posted by: mbz1

Are you sure? One power-hungry, incompetent admin could have retired alright, but another thousand of power-hungry, incompetent admins , including each and every member of govcom, have stayed:D

Posted by: mbz1

I believe that every person who has bio on Wikipedia should have the right to have it deleted. If after he's offered to remove attacks from his bio, and promised attacks will never be added there again, he still wants it deleted, his request should be fulfilled. To do otherwise will be a bullying in my opinion.

Posted by: Tarc

So, George Bush?

Posted by: mbz1

Which one, George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush
Yes. Everybody. If a person requested his/her biography to be deleted from wikipedia, this request should be granted.