Wikipedia:Requests for comment/204.113.91.11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:52 UTC, 8 October 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

UPDATE: Barbara Schwarz has been banned by the Salt Lake City Library, the University of Utah, and the LDS Church (the three sites mentioned in the RfC), from using their computers any longer. This solution is much better since Wiki won't have to block public servers at the Library and University in Utah. I have no idea how to close this RfC down since it appears to be a moot point now. Vivaldi 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


This user, who identifies herself in posts as Barbara Schwarz, was recently banned and is again vandalizing the discussion page of the Barbara Schwarz article by constantly using personal attacks and threatening lawsuits against the editors after being repeatedly warned to behave properly both on her talk page and in the discussion itself.

[edit] Description

The latest vandalism involves Ms. Schwarz repeated attempts to publicly "out" an editor by exposing his real name and location. Although she has made an incorrect guess at the real name, this is still inappropriate to harass and attack a 3rd party who has nothing to do with this dispute.

Also, Ms. Schwarz repeatedly attacks editors and Wikipedia itself with threats of civil lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and she reports that she is calling police in an editors hometown and that police there are interested in him.

Barbara Schwarz is using three distinct public posting locations in Salt Lake City to commit her vandalism. This includes 204.113.91.11 (the Utah Education Networks public library facilities), and 205.127.246.166 (the Salt Lake City public library), and 12.110.19.97 (the genealogical library at 50 East North Temple in SLC, Utah). Each one of these IP addresses has been added to the spam blacklist at AHBL [[1]] because of her abusive internet activities. See: [[2]] for proof of this. There are literally over 30,000 repetitive spamming posts originating from these IPs written to USENET. Vivaldi 05:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [[3]]
  2. [[4]]
  3. [[5]]
  4. A more recent tirade nameing names including "porn king" Jimbo Wales.
  5. From a sockpuppet account. More vandalism.
  6. Vandalism again
  7. Vandalism

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. No_personal_attacks
  2. No_legal_threats
  3. No Sock Puppets

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:204.113.91.11
  2. [6]
  3. [7]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Tilman 08:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman
  2. Vivaldi 00:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Vivaldi

I am new to Wikipedia and I would appreciate any advice or suggestions that you can provide. I am hoping to prevent this user from repeatedly adding personal attacks and revealing real names and addresses on articles or discussion pages. Numerous times I have had to remove these attacks and even after a period of blocking they continue.

I filed this RfC with the hope that I could gain some assistance in stopping this behaviour. If WP:VIP or WP:ANI is the appropriate forum for this, then I would be happy to make my reports there. Vivaldi 00:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Tilman 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Tilman
  2. Modemac 12:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (You may also want to take a look at the "discussions" (i.e. flames) involving this subject on alt.religion.scientology. This Google search for "schwarz" and "wikipedia" should suffice.)
  3. Super 7 - Everything else is just transport 19:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I have seen this woman abuse, threaten, and lie about many people, myself included. I have a USENET 'kook' file and she has over 100,000 entries, and it is missing a number of months of her abuse. All attemps I have seen at problem resolution, both here and on ARS have been met with more libel or off-topic posts and edits.
  4. Desertphile 11:53 LMT, 10 October 2005. I have sought legal redress against Ms. Schwarz's defamation and lible, but the Salt Lake City, Utah, lawyer I discussed the issue with said that in his opinion it is futile to sue a pennyless person who is mentally ill. His opinion included the probability that her being ordered by a court judge to cease her abusive behavior would not induce her to cease that behavior.
  5. Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Ms. Schwarz's very first statement to me started "You are an idiot, Feldspar. Try to learn about due process. Appeal rights are for anybody. Looks you are a German, a member of Tilman's OPC gang, and you think I should be treated righless like a Jew."[8] I don't even know what "OPC" is supposed to stand for.

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):


[edit] Outside view by McClenon

As of 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC), this RfC has been certified by only one editor. It has been endorsed by two, but is not properly certified unless the endorser will change their signature to a certification that they have also tried to resolve the issue.

Also, why not post this to WP:VIP instead, if the edits are considered to be vandalism, or to WP:ANI, if they are in some other way clearly in bad faith?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 17:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Soltak | Talk 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I've reviewed a bit of the evidence and it seem clear that this dispute would be better off at WP:VIP
  3. Nikitchenko 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Endorsing McClenon's view. Take it to WP:VIP. The complaining cabal needs to grow up a little.
    This must be the first time I've ever read this. I've seen it go the other way plenty of times, that an editor unhappy with someone else's edits squints his eyes, pretends it's "vandalism" when it's not, and reports it at WP:VIP. That is frequently considered childish behavior on the part of the reporter. I have never before seen people accused of "need[ing] to grow up a little" for not interpreting personal attacks on them as vandalism, and I must admit I find myself puzzled why anyone would think it immature behavior to bend over backwards to give a problematic user's behavior the benefit of the doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    I do not share your opinion, my endorsement remains. --Nikitchenko 12:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.