The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Scholars who've asked for their biographies to be deleted, Catholics, Buddhists, feminists, Muslims ...
HRIP7
post Thu 26th January 2012, 6:19am
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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: Thu 26th January 2012, 8:09am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Thu 26th January 2012, 1:04pm
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



"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:Soc...wbiggin/Archive

In fact, this investigation found only one sock. What sort of editor can so badly misquote his sources? (Don't answer.)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Fri 27th January 2012, 1:22am
Post #3


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 1:19am) *
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:

QUOTE
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Silver seren
post Fri 27th January 2012, 1:47am
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu 30th Dec 2010, 2:09pm
Member No.: 36,940

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Fri 27th January 2012, 4:44am
Post #5


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 12:19am) *

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, along with Horsey's thread 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Fri 27th January 2012, 5:00am
Post #6


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Web Fred
post Fri 27th January 2012, 8:44am
Post #7


Pervert & Swinger
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat 13th Feb 2010, 3:25pm
From: Manchester, UK
Member No.: 17,141

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 27th January 2012, 5:00am) *

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.


And just who do you think will take notice?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Catfish Jim and the soapdish
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 2:17pm
Post #8


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 10th Nov 2011, 2:10pm
Member No.: 70,329

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Abd @ Fri 27th January 2012, 1:22am) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 1:19am) *
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.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 4:22pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Catfish Jim and the soapdish @ Thu 23rd February 2012, 2:17pm)


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

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

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 23rd February 2012, 5:59pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 9:24pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 6:19am) *

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.


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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Tarc
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 9:27pm
Post #11


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,124
Joined: Fri 7th Mar 2008, 3:38am
Member No.: 5,309

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 23rd February 2012, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 6:19am) *

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.


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.


So, George Bush?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Thu 23rd February 2012, 9:42pm
Post #12


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 23rd February 2012, 9:27pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 23rd February 2012, 4:24pm) *

QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Thu 26th January 2012, 6:19am) *

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.


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.


So, George Bush?

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

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 23rd February 2012, 10:35pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th 12 14, 3:14am