Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  speedy deleted WP:CSD at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Chowbok/Wildhartlivie
Appears to be effectively an attack page. this edit shows an intention to keep this without filing any RFC or SPI reports for an indefinite time. The "Confirmed sockpuppets" section contains at least one user that the previous SPI cases concluded was not a sock of WHL. The "Probable sockpuppets" contain sevceral users that the previous SPIs clearly indiacte are not socks of WHL, although some are socks of others. A recent request for speedy deletion was declined. I'm not sure if I would have done the same, but this is probably not blatant and clear-cut enough for speedy. However it seems well worth an MFD discussion, this kind of retention of accusations, at least some of them disproved and others speculative, on-wiki, is not good for the project. Delete. DES (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC) DES (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete ASAP because of the false accusations of sockpuppetry. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which ones are false? I've seen several people say I'm wrong, but nobody seems to refute the actual evidence cited.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to understand, as of right now you have no evidence. You have no proof. You have nothing until you file the SPI. The burden of proof is squarely on you here, and every minute you spend on this page but not filing it erodes any good faith in your page that might exist. Please stop defending the page, and file the case. Dayewalker (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One needs evidence cited to refute. There is a decided lack of that on this page and only speculation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I am one of the named editors there that are in good standing with the community. I am not a sock of anyone.  I would appreciate this being deleted ASAP also since there are no difs nor any SPI showing that there is a socking violations going on.  I also would have no problems at all with having my account checked if there is any questions about this.  This is just an attack page. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The diff pointed out in the nom, of Chowbok's comment, is rather old in the span of this dispute. Since the time when he made it, I've explained to him that according to policy he either needs to use the page at some Wikipedia process soon or take it down. He asked if he could have time to decide whether that's what he intends to do with it, specifically "just a day or two". I personally thought was reasonable. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:47, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed that, I came onto this from the declined speedy a couple of days ago, while looking through declined speedies for other purposes, and read the linked sockpuppet and ANI threads. However, an MFD discussion lasts for 7 days, which is well more than "a day or two", and of course the user can always store this off-wiki if desired. If User:Chowbok chooses to comment here (notification was made of the filing of this MfD) such comments might be very relevant. DES (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Equazcion The linked diff appears to be roughly 34 hours before this MfD was filed. I can't find your later explanation to Chowbok, nor Chowbok's "day or two" response. Could you link to them, please? DES (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Started roughly here: . Continues here, and in the last comment, Chowbok asks if he can have some time to decide: . Then Rossrs asks how much time he needs, and he says a day or two here: . Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:24, 21 Feb 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This seems far beyond a simple listing of diffs which could be used to file a case, as several of the accusations are far beyond logical lines. Since an MFD runs seven days, if this page still exists when the MFC closes it should be deleted. That seems plenty of time to file whatever case this is building up for. Dayewalker (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete How does this page even consist of evidence that could be used for a future SPI? Far as I can tell, this is simply a list of users that Chowbok doesn't like because they dared to communicate or agree with WHL at some point in time. If this is the kind of bullshit users can now do to each other, something has broken down in the community. This page should've been deleted by an admin when it was discovered. I look forward to any SPI filed but I bet good money there never will be one. This is just one more baseless accusation in a long line of baseless accusations constantly made by Chowbok. He/she has been gunning to get WHL and anyone associated with her blocked because of what appears to be a personal vendetta.  Pinkadelica ♣  20:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dayewalker. "Use it or lose it."  The 7 days of the MfD gives the user sufficient time to file something with this data.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious strong delete - Obviously. This is an attack page that is designed to cast aspersions on my colleagues and friends on Wikipedia and contains specious allegations that are in no way supported by valid diffs and also allegations about accounts that were clearly disproven by previous checkuser. Also per User:Pinkadelica, this is completely unacceptable and inappropriate content, although an SPI would clear those editors named. This is beyond ridiculous and based on Chowbok's dislike of me and desire to take down anyone associated with me. What I don't get is why he didn't include Rossrs in his net he cast, unless he just overlooked him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't add Rossrs because he clearly is not a sock of yours, simple as that. I actually am making a good faith effort to figure out who's a sock and who isn't (hence the different categories listed). If I'm wrong about some, it's your fault for muddying the waters. If you came clean about your socks and gaming the system, that would end the mysteries.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, please get it clear. Evidence was submitted to Lar today that should clearly proves to his satisfaction that I am not LaVidaLoca and she is not me. Stop making specious accusations about other editors and cease and desist throwing that up. First of all, I did not sockmaster anyone or "muddy the waters". That proof has been submitted. Your bad faith attempts to continue to smear this all over the encyclopedia is evidence of your intent. Not to mention your personal attack posted at an IP talk page in which you were not involved, in nearly all content discussions on article talk pages and your "Note: It's probably inevitable that this page will be deleted soon, so I recommend all interested parties archive it locally" is evidence enough of your vendetta against me. That's the crux of this deletion nomination: personal grudge. Do you actually get some modicum of pleasure in harassing me and my friends and colleagues? You've been directly asked by at least two different editors to remove your aspersions cast upon them. That and your refusal to delete this page reflect bad faith at every step. I've seen no evidence of good faith in any of your efforts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Maintaining such a list in the abscence of Checkuser or SPI evidence seems an invitation for disruption elsewhere, and would certainly be seen as an affront to included editor if unfounded. If Chowbok wishes to engage is supposition, let him either file or take his list off-project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete immediately Changing my vote from above, in which I extended good faith to allow for the SPI to be filed, then this page deleted. Based on what I've seen from the author, and this edit where he tells "interested parties" to save the page for their own usage, I can no longer assume good faith on this one. It's clearly an attack page with no SPI in the immediate future, and should be deleted immediately out of respect for the parties with no evidence. Dayewalker (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G10, WP:UP, WP:SNOW or, if need be, WP:IAR. Surely no good can come from allowing pages like this to remain? This page is not only doing no good for the project or the community but the drama it is creating amongst the named editors (the accusations against many of whom have actually been disproven) and at AN. I would, however, plead with Chowbok to tag it as db-user and move on. HJ Mitchell  |  fancy a chat?   22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everybody keeps saying that, but nobody tells me which ones and where. Please point me to the disproofs.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For starters, read the edit summary here. "No connection between MisterSoup/Kermit the Clown and any other parties." Doc9871 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Even if this were a legitimate precursor to an SPI (which seems doubtful), including accusations of WP:OWN and other "issues" clearly show this to be an attack page... Doc9871 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a precursor to an RFC, if anything.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Look more like "was", as it seems to have been deleted... Doc9871 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.