Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr. Scott Brown

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany 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 debate was Delete Xoloz 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mr. Scott Brown

This user registered about 6 days ago, and the vast majority of his very few edits are to this apparent blog-entry of a user page. Wikipedia is not a webhost or a blog etc etc. His 5 (five) article contributions are questionable at best to a single article with which he has issues related to the user page. Whether he is in fact a puppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, I'm not quite certain (not me tagging) but there's a better than middling chance he's part of the gang. That's academic to the purpose of this MfD however, which should delete. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Andeh 18:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe he is a puppet, because at TVNewsTalk, a user named nyviewer had a "Spotteddogs.org" website, and in any case, page should still be deleted, it's a freaking stupid rant against the site by a nutcase. --CFIF ☎ 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete CFIF is wrong as I am firmly convinced that User:Mr. Scott Brown is the mastermind behind the User:Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring as I have confirmed that the tvnewstalk.net user nyviewer owned the domain name and has had a run in with the same person who used the name MrPhillyTV, which is identical to the name of User:MrPhillyTV, who is a Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet. Apparently, according to those who I talked with and at User:Mr. Scott Brown (which is laced with all sorts of personal attacks) this all was drawn out of a newscast tape trading deal that somehow went south. The behavior of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet matches many of the patterns seen over on the tvnewstalk.net website of MrPhillyTV/Scott Brown and appears to have been an attempt to somehow get some sort of revenge due to the botched tape trade. I have marked User:Mr. Scott Brown as a sockpuppet, as well. TV Newser 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know for a fact he's not the sockpuppet leader....the previously mentioned nyviewer is in fact the ringleader, as he had the spotteddogs.org site. --CFIF ☎ 19:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I know for a fact that this nyviewer is not and I have actually communicated with him and was told it was Scott Brown and was shown various communications by Brown to the domain's owner and some server logs he showed me. All of this surfaced when I was investigating User:Displaced Brit's allegations against you. Mr. Scott Brown is a more likely suspect, ginve the little thing we in the journalism industry call facts and evidence, plus something we call gut feeling. The person you accuse of being the ring leader did have a Wikipedia account, which was not on the list of the alleged sockpuppets, that he said got either got hacked or lost the password to which lead him to give up on Wikipedia. I spent enough of my time investigating this crap, basically engaging in what I do for my day job, I seemed to forgot why I even got on here to begin with and it has ceased being fun and I frankly think CFIF is suffering from some sort of parinoia with his sockpuppet allegations, albiet less than Mr. Scott Brown. The only good that has come of this is that I have discoverd a great 1970s cop show called The Sweeney, which I have just spent an absurd amount of money getting on DVD from the UK.. TV Newser 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Struck sock related comments out due to further review. --CFIF ☎ 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I do sometimes forget that not everyon has journalistic experience. It also came up that this nyviewer from tvnewstalk.net and you are having a bit of a problem on that website. You don't really need to go slandering people and really need to lighten up and stop accusing people without some sort of evidence other than they disagree with you. If you ever want to get in the journalism game, this sort of behavor will make you only hireable by either the New York Post or Fox News.TV Newser 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you both please keep the sock-related discussions elsewhere? They are immaterial to whether the material on the user page should stay or go (and it should go). Socketry discussion are just distracting in this forum. -Splash - tk 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Has anyone brought up these reservations to the user in question? I checked the user's talk page, and didn't see anyone warn the user about possible violations of policy on his userpage. A short note would have been nice, rather than what appears to be a sudden tag-for-deletion. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh, there's an {{mfd}} tag right there at the top of his userpage!! -Splash - tk 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but unless he checks a watchlist, he might not see it. Tagging someone's userpage is no substitute for a note on his or her talk page, which is what should have happened first. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the prerequisite, "Nominating a user's page for deletion without discussing the page with the user, either on the user's talk page or on the talk page of the page in question, is generally frowned upon, except if the user in question is permanently banned." Since it has not yet been determined if the user has been banned, this MFD was perhaps jumping the gun a tad. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:12, 30 August 2006 (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.