User:Jeff G./Tweety21 CS-Archive

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ban endorsed, user is already indefinitely blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tweety21

To closing admin: Please note that Tweety21 has blanked a ban endorsement from this page. See here. If you believe that a consensus for a ban does not exist, please ensure that other endorsements and/or comments have not also been blanked. --Yamla 17:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request a formal ban of Tweety21 (talk · contribs). This user has a long history of abuse and continues to blank whois information from IP addresses and makes numerous false claims that her privacy has been violated. I think the best place to read up on this is at User:Precious_Roy/sockproblems. This user has set up an abusive sockpuppet account as recently as today (Libertybell01 (talk · contribs)) who was blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) as a transparent sockpuppet account. Several editors have tried to explain IP addresses, whois information, and our privacy policy to this user. User has several sockpuppet accounts and continues to edit via IP addresses, often claiming to be a different person. Even ignoring these problems, user has a long history of inappropriate behaviour on the Wikipedia. See the above link. --Yamla 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd even say prevent her from coming back for her own good. I was planning to blank the IP talk pages she edited from, per her concerns of privacy (she is claiming that her ex-bf is stalking her), but since a case is opened here I suggest we discuss it. I am not saying we should delete all the pages, just blank the few IP talk pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing the whois information from IP talk pages serves no purpose as it is, of course, freely available. If Tweety21 is banned, it would be entirely appropriate to blank any reference to IP addresses having been used (as per the right to disappear). If Tweety21 could show he or she understood IP addresses and whois information, and understood how no privacy violations were taking place, it may be appropriate to unblock Tweety21 at that time. At the moment, this user is simply throwing around groundless accusations and causing significant disruption. --Yamla 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, sorry it's late :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence for all of her disruptions is about as incontrovertible as I have ever seen. Many of us have spent countless hours dealing with her destructiveness of Wikipedia, time that could have been spent for much more constructive purposes. My feeling is ban her permanently. I have a question for lucasbfr: When you say blank the IP talk pages, do you mean blanking the way it's usually done (with the edit history intact), or do you mean completely wiping out all history (I'm not even sure that's possible). If there is no history of all of her misdeeds, she could come back with a vengeance (as she is prone to do) months or years from now, and there would be no evidence for all that she has done in the past. Could you clarify? Thanks. Ward3001 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean blanking (as in courtesy blanking), as we often do for stale messages on IPs, not a deletion or an oversight. The edits would still be in the history, but hidden from a google search. -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. This user is a malicious troll, possibly certainly has psychological issues as well, and has already gone much farther than she should have ever been allowed to go. — madman bum and angel 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. Just a quick glance shows me this is something that has gone on way too far. Only one concern: Yamla, according to your notification, if you are suggesting that she can comment here, I'm assuming she cannot given her block. I'm not suggesting that she be unblocked (unless she asks via an email to be fair and then it will be an instant block if she does anything funny). Or was that posting simply to inform other admins and thus probably should be reworded? Just want to make sure it's clear. I'm not sure her posting here would be of any help; this is for the community to discuss her actions on its face, and she's gone way past any possible defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Tweety21 has been given more than generous opportunities to express herself, in response to dozens of warnings and several unblock requests. She also has made it quite clear by her behavior that she has no intention of complying with Wikipedia's policies if she is given 2nd, 3rd, 4th ... umteenth chances. Ward3001 18:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban and agree with [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr] that a courtesy blanking of IP's and accounts would be appropriate here. Presumably this is a situation where it is best for the individual involved and Wikipedia if they are not editing here.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Premature Most of Tweety's problems can be explained as a result of inexperience and insufficient engagement with our rather more arcane processes, plus extreme concern for her privacy. (She says her abusive ex knows her Wikipedia nick, which is why she went ballistic over the IP issue.) Of course, her actions can also be explained as a result of deliberate disruption, but I choose not to endorse that view for the time being. I believe the account should be indefinitely blocked for her own protection but that she not be considered a banned user, so that she can create a new account and start fresh. As long as she avoids repeating the same dramas, this should not be a problem. If it repeats, well then, "Fool me once..." Thatcher131 20:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

- I agree with the above. I can see how some of these problems might be due to her address and name being known by an abusive boyfriend. If she could create a separate account, and prevent problematic associates from discovering it, she might do better. If she doesn't, or if it becomes evident that the new account is demonstrating the same problems, then a full ban might well be called for. I would suggest that at least one admin be advised of the new account name, however, so that they might be able to e-mail the party in the event that the new edits are too clearly coming from the same party. John Carter 20:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Although I acknowledge Thatcher131's good faith intention to be fair, I think the problems go way beyond the "ex-boyfriend" issue. Even if you sift out the recent blanking of IP Talk pages, you see a tremendous amount of vandalism, sockpuppetry, vote-stacking, legal threats, and false allegations. And she has been given warning after warning after warning. Things have been explained to her over and over, but nothing has changed her behavior. As for creating a new account and starting fresh, she has created multiple user names (as well as using multiple anonymous IPs), each one with the same destructive behavior. I understand the need to be fair, and even to go the extra mile. But if you look at her history, it seems obvious to me that we have gone many, many miles more than we should have. She is the kind of abusive editor that makes me want to quit editing, and I think I am not alone. We need to try to balance being fair with what's in the best interest of Wikipedia. Ward3001 21:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what did this user do and what is his/her POV he/she is trying to push? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See the annotated list. (Her talkpage has since been deleted so unless you're an admin you'll have to take my list of the suggestions and warnings she received at face value.) Precious Roy 20:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

She created some articles about people and bands that were deleted on notability grounds, recreated them with name variants rather than go through the DRV process, eventually reacted badly to the deletions, and then overreacted when people started pointing out that her habit of editing while logged out (whether accidental or to give the appearance of support) was giving away her location and workplace. She threatened a user or two over the perceived privacy issue, was blocked, then created sockpuppets to continue trying to remove what she considered private info. There is a sockpuppet investigation page where an admin speculated she might be a PR person for these minor notables. Regardless of the reasons, she just doesn't "get" editing here. I simple would perfer to block the account but not consider her "banned" so she can try again. If it doesn't work out, we can always come back to this later. Thatcher131 21:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support this suggestion by Thatcher and John C. --Rocksanddirt 20:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. Seems reasonable given past opportunities ignored. Odd nature 21:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• I'm dying here! Check the edit history, she's popped up and vandalized a comment in this CSN—twice. Priceless! Precious Roy 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• This is very much her pattern. She simply cannot resist any opportunity to disrupt acceptable procedures on Wikipedia. I don't mind admitting, I am very uncomfortable if she is allowed to continue editing under any username. She has gone on rampages before seeking vengeance on those who speak out against her abusive editing (or even disagree with her edits), vandalizing our edits, making false allegations to admins about us. In fact, she has made false statements about me since this CSN discussion started. Ward3001 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• In light of the vandalism by the editor under discussion, I withdraw my earlier comment. I am now forced by circumstances to agree with Ward3001 above about the proper resolution of this matter. John Carter 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would endorse a ban. User seems to be a relentless troll who has abused several sockpuppet accounts, and has tested the community's patience beyond any limits. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents worth

I think it is important to point out the results of the "checkuser" results, see below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tweety21 This led to the unblock of tweety21s account and the only thing done after was to try and remove private information. No disruptions or vandalisms occured. user Precious Roy seems to have a problem with the outcome of the Checkuser, he should take it up with them. Also in regards to the recreation of article "Jeff Aquilon" I started a couple of lines, went to get a coffee and when I came back it was speedily deleted. But I had not had a chance to even really start it so I created it, it went to a vote ( which I don't even think I participated in and it passed)

The bottom line is it worth banning someone because maybe they over-reacted to information being public? and also the "sock puppet" tags were put on before the outcome of the checkuser, were removed after checkuser, and then replaced for no reason.

Lastly, Why did Precious Roy delete from my User Page my contributions to Wikipedia, this appears to be malicious.

I feel it was important to add my perspective because otherwise its just a witchhunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tweety21&diff=159776499&oldid=158615563 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tweety21&diff=156793064&oldid=156754292
>
>

The result of the checkuser is that there was no result. The admin who was handling it declined to do it, for whatever reason. As for your talk page, that was deleted by an admin out of consideration for your privacy concerns. Every one of your "contributions" to Wikipedia is still there, for all to see. Precious Roy 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Tweety21 account was unblocked because you rescinded your legal threat and promised to behave (which is why you were promptly re-blocked when you started removing content from pages again). Let me point something out to you—go to the talk page of any anon IP (here's one to make it easy for you). See that box at the bottom of the page with the blue dot with an "i" in it? Click on the link that says "WHOIS" and read the page that results—that's where the information you keep deleting comes from; that's where it says the Library, the Bank, or the name of the ISP. That box with that link is at the bottom of every single IP page, in case you hadn't figured that out for yourself. I thought I should let you know because (all together now) "KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!" Precious Roy 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was also told by an administrator I have a right to put my side of the story up here, in case anybody trys to delete it. Look I am trying to go about this the right way. I could easily make up a new account and start editing away ( my internet at home has a new ip everytime I recycle the modum) but I want to clear my name that I did anything wrong by trying to cover up my private information: Does anybody need to know which library I edit from. Also I am very offended that someone would accuse me of being a "PR" firm, this was hurtful to me as I was writing up articles to highlight new talent and not to get money. I think it is also insulting to "Darci Monoco" I think I spelled that right to accuse her of being "an abusive sock puppet" the checkuser would show her ip is a completly different geographical location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm having a hard time getting my head around here is why in the world, if you are so concerned about personally identifiable information that you are willing to engage in disruptive edits, are you again editing from an IP and adding diffs containing an email address? Something just doesn't add up here.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My reply

I am using a computer which is handled by a public ISP if I am using the right terminology, this ip does not give out my physical location as it is used by many users across Canada. Like Road Runner or something like that, It does not give out what street or anything that I am on. See if I do this through a new account that I would be accused of "sock puppetry", I just want to clear my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is no different from any of the other addresses you have been editing from. Not one of them ever revealed your home address or home street. You have persisted in removing the whois information from those IP address pages as well, however, and claimed repeatedly (and falsely) that posting the WHOIS information on those pages was a violation of your privacy. --Yamla 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My reply

I am using a computer which is handled by a public ISP if I am using the right terminology, this ip does not give out my physical location as it is used by many users across Canada. Like Road Runner or something like that, It does not give out what street or anything that I am on. See if I do this through a new account that I would be accused of "sock puppetry", I just want to clear my name. It's not a disruptive edit to state my point of view. And the above remark commenting on Psychological states of mind, unless "Mad dog" is a certified Psychologist he has no right to put something abusive like that, it's like saying someone does not have the right to edit Wikipedia because they are black or Blind. I think anybody being constantly accused of being a "PR" firm, or someone who lives out in California would be driven a little to distraction. Its quite annoying. Have you ever seen the movie The Cable Guy? And for anyone who wants to see my contributions Check out my user page. I actually got an email of thanks from a lady, whose son I did a wiki of (he was a painter who died unexpectedly)I am not going to lie I was very disappointed when a wiki I did for "The Nest Foundation" was marked for being "non-notable" by Precious Roy the Nest Foundation trys to help sexually abused Children in New York. He could have at least offered advice as to how to clean it up or something. But to state it was non-notable was very hurtful. Why is the Nest Foundation Non Notable, but some wiki on a murderer that Roy put up is notable. Does not make alot of sense to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If any admins who can see deleted article edit histories want to go check, I did a LOT of copy-editing to that NEST article before speedy tagging it. Same with Coven. Tweety forgets that she thanked me a number of times for helping her out and for my work on "her" articles. Precious Roy 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, when 4 of my articles are marked for speedy deletion by the same user Precious Roy you can't help but feel targeted, especially when he altered around my personal page, I am not sure if you are supposed to do that, but if you do that to Roy, he yells vandalism.

Looking back I know I ranged out when my personal info was being discussed on Wikipedia, but can you see how annoying it is to have someone you don't know (the internet can be kind of scary)discussing that you edit from ***** public library, or that you work for the ABC company, this feels very threatening to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

None of this explains your abusive sockpuppetry (and please don't claim you have not engaged in abusive sockpuppetry, this isn't even open to debate, we know as well as you do that you have used multiple accounts here to bypass your block), nor does it explain your blanking of whois information from IP talk pages. There's simply no reason to believe you will never again do this or any of the other behaviour you have been doing. I still believe it would be best if we just require that you stop editing Wikipedia. I note that even today, you are continuing to edit via IP addresses when this is the whole basis for your complaint about privacy violations. Even your comments here give absolutely no reason to believe you have substantially changed your behaviour. While there is not unanimous consensus for a ban from editing, I believe enough people do indeed support the ban. --Yamla 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I called you a vandal when you put AfD tags on articles without actually listing them for AfD, and I never altered your personal page; what on earth are you talking about? Precious Roy 17:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued abuses

Tweety21 (talk · contribs) has continued abusive sockpuppeteering. She set up Casper01 (talk · contribs), for example, to continue editing Bryten Goss‎ even though she is blocked. Yesterday, she removed an endorsement of the ban from this page. There's simply no way anyone can claim she is not being blatantly and deliberately abusive. --Yamla 15:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As Casper01 (talk · contribs) she removed false statements, which I pointed out in the above discussion, made by Tweety21 (talk · contribs) on User talk:Isotope23 here. Ward3001 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a plus, I suppose, but she also continued editing Bryten Goss even though she knows perfectly well she is not entitled to do so while blocked. She has also continued blanking whois information from IP talk pages. --Yamla 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't see it as a plus. Her behavior sometimes has been to make false statements, then revert (often under a different user name) after she has been challenged on it. I see it as a continuing pattern of abusive editing followed by an attempt to cover it up after she is caught. If this were the only time she had done something like that, I would see it as a plus, but she has a history of doing this for more sinister reasons. Ward3001 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Given the odd behavior that is pervaiding this discussion, I change my mind about this issue, and think that endorsing an indefinite block for amongst other things abusive sockpuppetry, and disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you are endorsing a ban, or just supporting the indefinite block? WP:BAN gives more information on what a ban entails. --Yamla 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant ban. --Rocksanddirt 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any serious question here? Can this be closed? --B 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all questions have been resolved. While there was not unanimous consensus, I believe there's sufficient grounds for a ban here. Note, though, that I am the person who opened this case. --Yamla 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla. I note Thatcher and the editor in question (or, at least, the IP which claimed to be the editor) seem to be the only ones who disagree with that option. John Carter 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. It looks like the user is already blocked. --B 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.