Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat


 * Below is evidence presented by User:White Cat. For evidence presented by other users see Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence.

For related workshop see Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop /by White Cat

Community ignored the issue

 * Assertion: The wikipedia community for the most part has ignored the dispute. Although the issue was taken to WP:ANB/I many times and as far as ArbCom before no true attempt to resolve the dispute was made by the community. No offense to arbcomers but the first RfAr was for the most part useless and non-binding and hence has failed to resolve or at least partially resolve any of the concerns raised. Also for example if you check the block log of TTN, he has been blocked once and only once despite being a frequent revert warior.

So I think the lack of community (as a whole) action on the matter has contributed to the problem.

Intentions

 * Assertion: Some of the involved users are mass purging popular culture related material for reasons much different from what they claim.


 * -
 * - (User talk:TTN/Archive 8)

Vandalism
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. [...]

Above is a quote from Vandalism. I'd like arbitration committee to review these mass blankings from the perspective of this official policy. Any deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia should be treated as such. I feel what these editors are doing is just that.

Revert waring

 * Assertion: Some of the involved users had engaged in revert waring. In occasional cases they revert-wared in groups if they face resistance.

I am not going to insult arbitrators intelligence with more evidence on this. Other people have provided adequate amount of examples: #Evidence presented by John254

Not seeking consensus

 * Assertion: Nearly all of the involved parties failed to seek consensus and rather than making compromises or actually discussing the problem, they tried to brute force their way. The issue of purging episode articles lacks any kind of real consensus behind it even though some people make-believed themselves of such a thing. There is evidence of people ignoring opposing views for convenience.

Bulbasaur

 * Article:
 * Total number of edits to the article since creation at 17:55 on 1 January 2003: +2000 (I did not care to count after 2000)
 * AFD? Yes:
 * Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur
 * Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)
 * Featured? Yes, former.
 * Featured article candidates/Bulbasaur/archive1 (promoted)
 * Featured article review/Bulbasaur/archive3 (demoted)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings and reredirectifications are in bold. Reverts of redirectification and removal of tags are in italic.

Bot-like (automated looking) edits by TTN

 * Assertion: Some users such as TTN have edited in a bot-like (automated looking) manner. Pay close attention to the timestamp. Below are the edits of TTN between 20:58 and 21:11 (13 minutes). Source (I see no reason to link to these individually as this is merely a duplication of the sourced log.)

Evidence

 * There is a reason why we have Bots/Requests for approval.

Geographic location
I was talking to Tony Sidaway at his talk page on 13 February 2008 (as usual I won't be getting any timely assistance from Tony) and after I made that post a "Jack_Merridew" joined irc (#wikipedia) and soon after changed his nick. Out of curiosity I ran a /whois check and found out that his IP leads to Bali, Indonesia. Jack Merridew's earlier contribution has lots of edits relating to Indonesia and Bali. It is most evident on an earlier version of his userpage. I suspect a checkuser will place him in Bali, Indonesia.
 * Geographic location of Jack Merridew is confirmed with checkuser.

Edits too professional for a new editor
First edit of Jack Merridew (back then 'User:Senang Hati' meaning happy hearts in Indonesian or so Jack Merridew claims) was rather professional with wiki-linking, bolding of the first sentence, sectioning external links, categorization ... He even picked the right stub template. He made other 3 professional edits to the same page. All this happened between 8-9 UTC on 11 April 2007. Page was nominated for speedy deletion at 12:45 UTC. It was speedy deleted at 14:39 same day. Jack complained (complaint itself is professional, he knew about the hangon template and etc without actually seeing it (see his complaint)) and got the article restored. Jack placed a hangon template the same day after it was restored. He requested a username change 2 days after his first edit (his 17th edit) over COI concerns.

All this leads me to believe this user had edited wikipedia prior to his first edit as Jack Merridew/Senang Hati. All this is consistent with Sock puppetry.

Connection
Now why is any of this remarkable at all? For starters it is the same geographic location (Bali, Indonesia) as Davenbelle that had been blocked indefinitely for stalking me.
 * User:Davenbelle source
 * User:Moby Dick source
 * User:Diyarbakir source


 * The relevant cases are:

Now Jack Merridew had a tendency of showing up in discussions not related to anything he is editing such as here on a discussion on ASALA attacks (not fiction related). Please review his conduct there in the light of Harassment and perhaps What is a troll? as it may be applicable. Mind that this is consistent with Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
 * Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
 * Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir
 * Most notably: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
 * Common edits
 * had edited 214 pages that I have also edited.
 * had edited 115 pages that I have also edited.
 * had edited 38 pages that I have also edited.
 * In contrast
 * had edited 190 pages that I have also edited. Mostly articles I created and he redirectified.

Furthermore. Jack Merridew's first edit was on 11 April 2007 which also happens to be a day after Diyarbakir's last edit. His last edit on April 2007 was on the 19th. He resumed editing on 8 May 2007. So between 19 April and 8 May 2007 Jack made no edit.

Between 26 April and 2 May was the discussion on Moby Dick/Diyarbakir's conduct leading to the indefinite block.

So the last edit of Jack on April 2007 is 7 days prior to the block discussion on Moby Dick/Diyarbakir's conduct and resumed 6 days later. Hence they don't intersect.

Jack focused this entire contribution between 11 April and 19 April on various non-profit organizations operating in Bali. After a break, Jack Merridew resumed editing on 8 May, 6 days after Moby Dick's block. From 8 May to 25 June (nearly 2 months) he made 48 edits most focusing on Indonesia related articles. 

On July 2007 Jack Merridew made 881 edits almost entirely focusing (attacking) on fiction related articles as if someone switched off his interest to non-profit organizations in Indonesia. 

On 27 July 2007 Jack Merridew participated on Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek)‎. I started the articles in question. Davenbelle and Moby Dick has a history in participating in votes I have participated in the opposing corner. This was the 6th AfD Jack has participated with my count.

I also do not believe this was a random coincidence.

Graphical overview
To put it graphically:

Statistical analysis
What are the odds of one person to...
 * 1) ...know English?
 * 2) * 800,000,000-900,000,000(Total English speakers) / 6,500,000,000(World population) = %12.31 - %13.85
 * How about fluent English?
 * 1) ...be in Indonesia?
 * 2) * 234,700,000(Indonesian population) / 6,500,000,000(World population) = %3.611
 * 3) ...be in Bali?
 * 3,150,000(Bali population) / 6,500,000,000(World population) = %.0485
 * 3,150,000(Bali population) / 234,700,000(Indonesian population) = %1.342
 * 1) ...be a foreigner in the country they are in?
 * 2) * Whats the average percentage of foreigners in a country? %1? Less? And by country I don't refer to the Vatican.
 * 3) ...have lowly opinion on pop culture?
 * 4) ...visit wikipedia?
 * 5) *Percent of global Internet users who visit Wikipedia: %9.075 of 1,244,000,000 (Number of Internet users) - alexa.com
 * 1,244,000,000*.09075 = 112,893,000 (Number of people visiting wikipedia based on above data)
 * 1) *112,893,000(Number of people visiting wikipedia) / 6,500,000,000(World population) = %1.737
 * ...regularly?
 * 1) ...edit wikipedia?
 * ...regularly?
 * 1) ...come across White Cat on wikipedia
 * ...regularly?
 * 1) ...get irritated by the most annoying White Cat so much that they follow him around ?
 * ...regularly?
 * 1) ...participate in Turkey related discussions in an inflammatory way? Something User:Moby Dick is sanctioned from.
 * 2) ...edit the article Belldandy?
 * 149 individual usernames (86 Registered users and hence 63 annonymous) have edited this article including my own. Now this may explain why User:Gerbrant or User:Khym Chanur or user:Purplefeltangel or User:Hibana (random picks) coincidentally edited the article.
 * User:Gerbrant and I have edited 81 articles in common ranging from World War I to Geneva drive. All coincidences. User has 6,589 edits.
 * User:Khym Chanur and I have edited 25 articles in common ranging from Paper to Sollog. User has 1,311 edits.
 * User:Purplefeltangel and I have edited 53 articles in common ranging from Norns to Canada. User has 2,049 edits.
 * User:Hibana and I have edited 47 articles in common ranging from Tenchi Masaki to Jimmy Wales to Adolf Hitler ) to Jean-Luc Picard. User has 13,443 edits.
 * 1) ...edit over 100 pages that User:White Cat also edited?
 * 2) * 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.
 * 3) (a combination of any four items from the list above)
 * 4) (a combination of all of the items above)

Now consider the case of the above analysis applying to two individuals (you basically square the probabilities which makes them exponentially unlikely).

Now add the fact that one of them joined wikipedia a day after the other left.

What is Jack Merridew doing
User added ER to list entry to a number of Oh My Goddess! episodes that he redirectified.


 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am unsure if this violates the temporary injunction in word, but it may in spirit of "halt all activities".

Some past behaviour

 * User:Cool Cat
 * Deletion log of [[User:Cool Cat] ] (recreated 4 times by Ned Scott, speedy deletion tag was also removed 4 times by Ned Scott)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat <- I was forced to initiate this
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30 <- Ned Scott initiated this dissatisfied with the MfDs result
 * Further edits (after the closure of drv): (Ned Soctt) (Closing admin) (Ned Scott) (Some other admin)
 * To the talk page: (Ned Scott) (Closing admin) (Ned Scott)
 * Requests for comment/Ned Scott <- filed
 * Requests for comment/Ned Scott <- Particularly review this
 * User talk:Thatcher (related)
 * RfAr was filed but was declined but this user has been talked to by User:FloNight (on behalf of arbcom I think) some time ago over the issue.

To date, user has edited 398 pages that I have edited. Thats more than the sum of all of the accounts used by Davenbelle (User:Davenbelle (214), User:Moby Dick (115), User:Diyarbakir (38) -> 214 + 115 + 38 = 367 < 398), a user indefinitely banned for stalking me.

Current behaviour
But it appears he has returned to his old ways and is contradicting even the most minor thing I am doing.


 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Username policy:
 * 2) Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop: ,
 * 3) User talk:Kirill Lokshin: ,
 * 4) *User:Jack Merridew joins in:

I request arbcom to review this behaviour. While they may not be problematic on their own, in contrast to past activities they may be.

Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

 * Assertion 1: Some of the editors who wishes to purge episode and character articles from wikipedia which they feel are "unnecessary"/"non-notable" work/vote in groups for this goal. In such votes rather than the community opinion, their group voting dominates the xfd. Outside-wiki communication may be the case or they may be simply watching each others contribution to find out which articles are being purged. This is particularly important because any ruling promoting "taking disagreements to afd" will likely result more of this behavior.


 * Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 24


 * Assertion 2: Some of the editors who wishes to purge episode and character articles from wikipedia slowly remove content via arbitrary standards. First they trim articles that are decently long making it possible to merge them into a "list of character" or "list of episode" article. Then this 'merged' list article is also removed. Expanding content is strictly banned. For example on this diff demonstrates the lack of tollerance in expansion of the content even with out of universe material. The information on Bulbasaur, a formerly featured article is now a mere redirect is now confined to three paragraphs and it is not possible to expand it. It is rather relentless that not even featured articles or formerly featured articles survive from the wrath of editors seeking to purge all fiction related content. This diff implies Pikachu is next in line to disappear for being non-notable despite being the most well known Pokemon and perhaps the most well known anime character outside of Japan. WP:SPINOUTs and WP:STUBs are not banned so users remove anything useful to make way for an ultimate mass redirectification.

Truth Be Told (Dexter episode)

 * Article:
 * Total number of edits to the article since creation at 13:07 on 17 November 2006: 32
 * Involved users
 * Redirectifiers: (7),  (1),  (1)
 * Redification reverters: (1),  (1),  (5),  (1)
 * AFD? No.
 * Edits since first redirectification. Reverts of redirectification are in italics and reredirectifications are bold

Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)

 * Article:
 * Total number of edits to the article since creation at 12:19 on 7 September 2005: 70
 * Involved users
 * Taggers: (3),  (7)
 * Tag removers: (5),  (4),  (1 - AFD closing admin)
 * AFD? Yes: Articles for deletion/Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) (61 edits)
 * AFD Participants:
 * Participants with edits to the artice:
 * Other participants:
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * Other participants:
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * Other participants:
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.
 * How many are these people generally biased against fiction? -- Cat chi? 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings are in bold. Removal of tags are in italic.

Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode)

 * Article:
 * Total number of edits to the article since creation at 15:01 on 16 January 2007: 42
 * Involved users
 * Redirectifiers/taggers: (1),  (1),  (3),  (2)
 * Redification reverters/tag removers: (5),  (1),  (1)
 * AFD? No.
 * Edits since first tagging. Tagings and reredirectifications are in bold. Reverts of redirectification and removal of tags are in italic.

Statistical analysis (number of common edits)

 * Assertion: Some of the involved users have exhibited the behaviour defined at Sock_puppetry. This may be a result of off-wikicommunication or through following each others contributions - of which neither is any better.


 * Number of Edits (Distinct pages) - Date of first edit
 * TTN: 30050 (13881) - 2006/06/19 19:42:56
 * Jack Merridew: 6544 (2802) - 2007/04/11 13:29:44
 * Eusebeus: 5361 (3395) - 2005/11/17 11:55:30
 * Ned Scott: 31447 (8215) - 2005/12/08 04:09:38
 * Common edits:
 * TTN - Jack Merridew: 750 <- 750/2802 = %26.77 of edits by Jack Merridew are to pages that TTN also edited
 * TTN - Eusebeus: 521 <- 521/3395 = %15.35 of edits by Eusebeus are to pages that TTN also edited
 * TTN - Ned Scott: 363 <- 363/8215 = %4.42 of edits by Ned Scott are to pages that TTN also edited
 * Jack Merridew - Eusebeus: 246
 * Jack Merridew - Ned Scott:226
 * Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 216
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus: 109
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Ned Scott: 90
 * TTN - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 135
 * Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 83
 * TTN - Jack Merridew - Eusebeus - Ned Scott: 60

Validity of such comparisons
To offer contrast to the above numbers, I have ran the tool on the four arbitrators accepting this arbitration case. Now arbitrators frequently edit 'same pages' such as "/Proposed decisions" and "/Workshop" of arbitration decisions. Even so...
 * Number of Edits (Distinct) - first edit
 * FT2: 24241 (3220) - 2004/07/11 12:11:55
 * Sam Blacketer: - 15324 (10649) - 2006/12/12 23:36:59
 * FayssalF: 36232 (13221) - 2005/04/02 13:00:16
 * FloNight: 8827 (3205) - 2005/10/11 00:29:41
 * Common edits:
 * FT2 - FayssalF - FloNight: 39
 * FT2 - Sam Blacketer - FayssalF - FloNight: 14

There exist 0 articles these users (arbitrators FT2, Sam Blacketer, FayssalF, FloNight) have all edited. Three of the users (FT2, FayssalF, FloNight) have edited 39 common pages (mostly noticeboards and user talk pages) and have one and only one article they commonly edited. That is 1 common article-space edit since 2005/04/02 13:00:16.

Gaming the system such as the arbitration injuction

 * Assertion 1: Parties are continuing to game the system and it appears they will continue to do so with the current wording of the /Proposed Decision.

They have stated on a number of occasions to continue their current behaviour on "Television related" articles to "Video game related" articles. While numerous examples of such edits and statements here is a few:

Examples

 * Articles for deletion/Command Carrier (3rd nomination) <-- (16 February 2008 nom)
 * 18:39, 15 February 2008 edit at User talk:Seresin by TTN
 * #TTN has also edit-warred on videogame character articles