m |
→Indefinite block of Jack Merridew: I was just thinking to myself, we need a "Comment by CheckUsers" section so this doesn't get lost... |
||
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
:: |
:: |
||
: '''Comment by CheckUsers:''' |
|||
:: I just wanted to note here that the information about Davenbelle is correct. He is a banned user and was known to edit from Bali, Indonesia. I compared the information on Jack with the old information we know about Davenbelle, and both are in the same large city, but Jack is on a different ISP. That in itself doesn't mean much because it is simple to have changed ISPs over all that time (even by editing from work or school), so sockpuppetry can't be ruled out, while at the same time, CheckUser ''alone'' is certainly not conclusive in this case. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: '''Comment by parties:''' |
: '''Comment by parties:''' |
Revision as of 22:26, 17 February 2008
- Below is Workshop proposals by User:White Cat. For proposals presented by other users see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.
For related evidence see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence /by White Cat
Proposed principles
Consensus
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Consensus can change
2) Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for both individual editors and particularly the community as a whole to change its mind.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Breakdowns in consensus
3) Sometimes efforts at dispute resolution amongst a group of editors can fail, and the process of building consensus can stall. Where editors are unable to resolve disagreements amongst themselves, they should turn to others for help, for example by requesting a third opinion or making a request for comment.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Building consensus: external discussion
4) Whilst editors are free to discuss matters of content and policy outside of Wikipedia, only positions expressed on Wikipedia itself are relevant in evaluating consensus.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
WikiProjects
5) A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors that use said pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work. It may maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Building consensus: WikiProjects
6) WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content or policy. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them.
As a purely practical matter, to the degree that a WikiProject's membership correlates with the corpus of editors who have an interest in contributing to a particular subject area, the consensus of the WikiProject's membership may be said to be the consensus at large.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Absurd — Any local-consensus is subordinate to project-wide consensus (re your practical matter). --Jack Merridew 12:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd, indeed These local-consensus problems are just that, problems. I can show you half a dozen problem areas where a small group of people on a Wikiproject are trying to bulldoze their decisions over bunches of articles where nobody wants their involvement. If anything, Wikipedia should be entirely skeptical of any consensus that can only be shown by participants in a project. In the end, consensus is not what some wikiproject says, it's in what editors do.SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- The degree to which WikiProjects set guidelines is nebulous, and ought remain that way. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ownership of articles
7) Wikipedia editors, whether acting as an individual or as a corpus, do not have the right to control content that they contribute to Wikipedia articles.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Guidelines
8) Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Indefinite block of Jack Merridew
1) Per remedies on the previous arbitration case and per the evidence on stalking and likely sockpuppetry User:Jack Merridew is blocked indefinitely.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by CheckUsers:
- I just wanted to note here that the information about Davenbelle is correct. He is a banned user and was known to edit from Bali, Indonesia. I compared the information on Jack with the old information we know about Davenbelle, and both are in the same large city, but Jack is on a different ISP. That in itself doesn't mean much because it is simple to have changed ISPs over all that time (even by editing from work or school), so sockpuppetry can't be ruled out, while at the same time, CheckUser alone is certainly not conclusive in this case. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Oppose White Cat has a tendency to accuse people he disagrees with as being socks of Moby Dick. IIRC, he did it to me once. When I first saw Jack interact with Cat, it didn't appear that he knew him at all. In fact, I felt bad for Jack, not knowing what he was getting into when you disagree with Cat. I'd consider building an evidence section to support his, but this assertion is so laughable that I don't think it's worth the effort. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pay close attention to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Findings of fact. And both you and Jack clearly did more than simply disagree with me. You made disagreeing with me a habit. How many times have you or jack agreed with me? -- Cat chi? 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose White Cat has a tendency to accuse people he disagrees with as being socks of Moby Dick. IIRC, he did it to me once. When I first saw Jack interact with Cat, it didn't appear that he knew him at all. In fact, I felt bad for Jack, not knowing what he was getting into when you disagree with Cat. I'd consider building an evidence section to support his, but this assertion is so laughable that I don't think it's worth the effort. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- I would also recommend more aggressive measures to keep this person off of me should arbitration committee conclude that he is indeed a sockpuppet. If not my most formal apologies. -- Cat chi? 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think there could be any connection here and here? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? That that's me? Nope; just an editor with a dim view of trivia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think there could be any connection here and here? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support per the evidence of unconstructive editing behavior. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- The first link you give documents disruptive editing by White Cat; the second, we've discussed and I don't see why you're mentioning it again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Whoa. Massive assumption of bad faith of an editor who edits with the intention of positively contributing to wikipedia. Seraphim♥ Whipp 23:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Davenbelle/Moby Dick edited with that disguise. Once the mustache fell he ended up getting blocked indefinitely. Bali, Indonesia is a non-English speaking region with a population of 3,150,000 (capital Denpasar: 491,500). What are the odds of someone on the web stumbling to two near-native English speakers from such a small region on a topic not concerning anything local? It may be understandable for people from Bali to commonly edit Bali related articles. But Oh My Goddess! episodes or some ANI discussion on ASALA attacks are hardly related to Bali or Indonesia. Granted 10% of the web visit wikipedia according to alexa, but surely such a crossing of paths defies statistics.
Jack is actually the third person from Bali that cause me grief as Davenbelle and Moby Dick were never officially confirmed as sockpuppets as logs expired before such a check could be preformed.
-- Cat chi? 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Davenbelle/Moby Dick edited with that disguise. Once the mustache fell he ended up getting blocked indefinitely. Bali, Indonesia is a non-English speaking region with a population of 3,150,000 (capital Denpasar: 491,500). What are the odds of someone on the web stumbling to two near-native English speakers from such a small region on a topic not concerning anything local? It may be understandable for people from Bali to commonly edit Bali related articles. But Oh My Goddess! episodes or some ANI discussion on ASALA attacks are hardly related to Bali or Indonesia. Granted 10% of the web visit wikipedia according to alexa, but surely such a crossing of paths defies statistics.
- Oppose: 3,150,000 is a pretty big region by some standards (as a comparison measure, my country, the Netherlands Antilles, isn't even 200,000). The chances of there being two Balinese editors with fluent English skills are actually pretty high. The chances of two editors getting irritated with White Cat are also pretty high. Not saying that you aren't right, but your logic isn't persuasive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh really? Per List of countries by English-speaking population The Netherlands ranks 14th most English spoken country. Netherlands Antilles alone is ranked at #114 despite its very small population. On the other hand Indonesia isn't even ranked in the top 120. Bad analogy.
Mind you Moby Dick had a lowly opinion of Pop Culture something Jack also demonstrated as early as 19 July 2007. So to summarize.- What are the odds of two people to...
- ...know fluent English?
- ...be in Indonesia?
- ...be in Bali?
- ...be a foreigner in Bali, Indonesia? (how many are there? total?)
- ...have lowly opinion on pop culture?
- ...visit wikipedia?
- ...edit wikipedia?
- ...come across White Cat on wikipedia
- ...get irritated by the most annoying White Cat <sarcasm>so much that they follow him around</sarcasm>?
- ...participate in Turkey related discussions in an inflammatory way? Something one of them is sanctioned from.
- ...edit the article Belldandy?
- ...edit over 100 pages that User:White Cat also edited?
- White Cat has edited 7696 distinct pages. Wikipedia has 11,941,671 pages currently. Your chance of editing a single page as White Cat has edited is (100*7,696/11,941,671) = %.0644. For editing 100 different pages that number gets much much lower roughly (.0644)100 ~ %7.73*10 -120 I think. This is the chance of such a coincidence.
- ...join wikipedia a day after the other leaves?
- ...a combination of any four items from the list above?
- ...a combination of all of the items above
- What are the chances? And mind you these are the similarities at a glance.
-- Cat chi? 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)- I have no doubt edited at least 100 articles you have also edited, and so have others. It's not surprising because Jack probably is interested in some the same stuff as you are. When I stop to think about it, despite how we've driven each other crazy, you and I have a some very similar tastes in anime. You're also counting all the stubs that Jack probably redirected. Jack knows you've created articles that likely don't pass WP:FICT, Jack wants to clean those articles up, there you go. Given that, I think 100 is a low number, and not at all suspicious. That sums up at least seven of your above points. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- And the community told you to disengage for it. See the thing I love about this is that when you were RfCed (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott), jack was there to defend you despite overwhelming community consensus telling you to disengage. Among the issues involving you there was an entry concerning Porthos, the dog from star trek which Jack was present on every step. He was also present with the rank insignia debate. These are articles I edited most. He didn't just edit articles and run, he participated in the discussions to purge them till the end. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no doubt edited at least 100 articles you have also edited, and so have others. It's not surprising because Jack probably is interested in some the same stuff as you are. When I stop to think about it, despite how we've driven each other crazy, you and I have a some very similar tastes in anime. You're also counting all the stubs that Jack probably redirected. Jack knows you've created articles that likely don't pass WP:FICT, Jack wants to clean those articles up, there you go. Given that, I think 100 is a low number, and not at all suspicious. That sums up at least seven of your above points. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- What are the odds of two people to...
- Oh really? Per List of countries by English-speaking population The Netherlands ranks 14th most English spoken country. Netherlands Antilles alone is ranked at #114 despite its very small population. On the other hand Indonesia isn't even ranked in the top 120. Bad analogy.
- Whoa -- I'd like this to be a coincidence, but I'm not sure. The evidence White Cat presents, while circumstantial, is very nearly what Yogi Berra would call "too coincidental to be a coincidence." It's not just the region Jack comes from, but the timeframe of his edits, specifically how there is no overlap between what might be his other socks during a period where both were ostensibly "active". Like I said, it's circumstantial, but it certainly bears closer examination. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 05:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would also recommend more aggressive measures to keep this person off of me should arbitration committee conclude that he is indeed a sockpuppet. If not my most formal apologies. -- Cat chi? 21:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Absurd — I have not read everything White Cat has linked to yet, but put simply, Bollocks. He has had it in for me ever since the Ah! My Goddess (TV series) episode articles were redirected. See the evidence I presented in the prior TV case. A hundred pages? Sounds about right; these case pages, an/i, our talk pages, the OMG episode and character pages. FWIW, I'm tempted to go and confiscate the WP:AGF image on his user page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've read more of his "evidence". It seems to be focused on three issues; geographic, professional edits and editing of common articles (and a whole lot of original research). I will stipulate that I am currently in Indonesia and have visited Bali. I am not Indonesian, I am a native speaker of English which is widely spoken in Indonesia as it is worldwide. There are a great many foreigners here; villas are cheap. I have also lived in 6 other countries, visited several dozen, and travel often. I'm sure that logs will confirm this; ask User:Alison who did the User:Grawp case. White Cat refers to gaps in my editing — which are there, so? Last May and some of June I was in Singapore and was not focused on this site. He also refers to my professional editing, which I would thank him for in other circumstances. The professional edits to my first article seem rather tame to me; Bold text, for example. I added categories, too; I believe I looked at other articles and followed what I saw. His third point is that I've edited a number — I think he says 190 — of the same articles as he has. So? I believe I first encountered him on Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes/Archive 1#Episode notability which was unpleasant. That whole discussion led to edits to common articles such as the episode articles and later the character articles. He has been very disruptive as I've previously documented. When I've seen this, I've pointed it out on places like an/i. This is not harassment, and it is certainly not stalking.
- I have been aggressively harassed by Grawp and others. I have been impersonated something like a half a dozen times. That White Cat is accusing me of "stalking" him while seemingly reviewing every edit I've ever made is creepy in the extreme. No, I don't think he is Grawp. What I do see in common is harassment of deletion-minded (the nice, civil way of saying deletionist) editors by some who would keep the endless crappy articles they've created. In the Talk:List of Oh My Goddess episodes/Archive 1#Episode notability discussion, White Cat implores other editors to leave him alone when, in fact, the discussion is about the articles. Ever since that encounter, he has been very vocal about tv issues but has not done much about the poor state of the many articles. This is what has led to him being here on these two cases.
- I am here to clean things up. There are many, many articles that need work and many more that need to go because they are fundamentally unencylopaedic. I see this as an issue of scalability. Wikipedia has reached a point where it is time to empty the trash. --Jack Merridew 10:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it was that absurd why would you be trying to defend yourself that hard? -- Cat chi? 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll not be baited by you. --Jack Merridew 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bait? You have participated in every discussion concerning Oh My Goddess! Every template deletion, even the afd, deletion review, and flrc? Now there is a logical reason why I would participate or edit such articles: I edited them regularly. I created most of those pages, spent a good deal of time. Why have you been involved with nearly every discussion and edited every article concerning Oh My Goddess?
How about your involvement with ASALA on ani?
Is it pure coincidence that you started editing just a day (less than 24 hours after) Moby Dick made his last? You visited Singapore the same period Moby Dick went missing and was unable to comment on the deletion discussion?
User:Diyarbakir was very careful not to give me any evidence to help identify him as Moby Dick. He avoided Bali related topics all together for example.
-- Cat chi? 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bait? You have participated in every discussion concerning Oh My Goddess! Every template deletion, even the afd, deletion review, and flrc? Now there is a logical reason why I would participate or edit such articles: I edited them regularly. I created most of those pages, spent a good deal of time. Why have you been involved with nearly every discussion and edited every article concerning Oh My Goddess?
- I'll not be baited by you. --Jack Merridew 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it was that absurd why would you be trying to defend yourself that hard? -- Cat chi? 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Completely inappropriate for this venue. While I personally find this to be disgusting, scurrilous and scabrous, even judged by the abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat, it is nonetheless completely inappropriate to bring this kind of
gutter slandermongeringaccusation to this page. User:White Cat knows perfectly well that we have venues for the suspicions he raises; by bringing it up here, this aspires to little more than a smear. This should be taken up at SP or ANI. Eusebeus (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)- Your personal attacks aside (please be creative in the future), this is exactly the right place for this. Entire arbitration cases can be constructed around stalking and sockpuppetary. WP:ANB/I will not handle such requests. I can't relate WP:SP to this at all, you probably meant WP:RFCU but that isn't necesary as we know they have similar IPs (same geographic region). You may be in the business of spreading disruption but I am not. -- Cat chi? 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You, White Cat, have a long amply documented history of argumentative, tendentious and disruptive editing across many subjects so who needs to be creative? - you bring your own rope (Cf. links at any of WC's RFAs. That you have imported your brand of confrontation to this arena is therefore not surprising. Proclaim away that calling you out on this bullshit is disruptive, but who, exactly, do you think you are fooling with this? You practically have a permanent space at AN/I, so maybe we should shift this discussion over there. I am sure that there are many admins who would jump with joy at the prospect of dealing yet again with more of your high drama. Eusebeus (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- And I am causing drama, dude you are one one swearing - almost as if you are panicking. And I haven't even begun collecting evidence, this is just the raw data for the most part. As for my RfAs, see the full list before commenting any further. Feel free to post it to WP:ANB/I and observe how it flies. Why are you asking me about it? If this was supposed to intimidate me, it didn't work. -- Cat chi? 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- You, White Cat, have a long amply documented history of argumentative, tendentious and disruptive editing across many subjects so who needs to be creative? - you bring your own rope (Cf. links at any of WC's RFAs. That you have imported your brand of confrontation to this arena is therefore not surprising. Proclaim away that calling you out on this bullshit is disruptive, but who, exactly, do you think you are fooling with this? You practically have a permanent space at AN/I, so maybe we should shift this discussion over there. I am sure that there are many admins who would jump with joy at the prospect of dealing yet again with more of your high drama. Eusebeus (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your personal attacks aside (please be creative in the future), this is exactly the right place for this. Entire arbitration cases can be constructed around stalking and sockpuppetary. WP:ANB/I will not handle such requests. I can't relate WP:SP to this at all, you probably meant WP:RFCU but that isn't necesary as we know they have similar IPs (same geographic region). You may be in the business of spreading disruption but I am not. -- Cat chi? 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)