From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by John254

TTN has engaged in massive edit warring relating to redirection over a large number of articles

Please see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]. While far more evidence of TTN's edit warring could be provided, the template at the top of this page states that my evidence is limited to 100 diffs. Furthermore, as I have exhausted my diffs in providing but a partial description of TTN's egregious edit warring, other editors will need to provide evidence relating to the other participants in this dispute. John254 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Casliber

TTN's behaviour consistent with that of a Single-purpose account

As I am more on one 'side' of this debate than the other, this finding would ideally need someone entrusted by the arbitration committee or a committee member themselves to corroborate this - What I note is a lack of article mainspace contributions other than those involved with the processing of merging, redirecting and/or deleting and/or discussion of same. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply


TTN is showing behaviour consistent with being a Single-purpose account with the agenda of removing as much TV-related material as possible, and has become fixated upon it, whether rightly or wrongly. From the issues at AN/I and frequency of conflict I see an inability to interact constructively with others who do not share his (her?) point of view. If we are to presume this zeal is from a dedication to the project, I do not see anything in the way of contributing to the encyclopedia (though there was a little to start off with in 2006). In terms of antecedents, the only other notable occurrence is a block action on TTN on August 16th 2006 (see block log). cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Though TTN has attracted the most controversy, other editors are behaving in a similar manner

To put this in perspective, TTN is one of several editors, the vast majority of whose mainspace edits relate to tagging or removing material. Thus, it is a systemic issue which needs arbitration on whether it is helpful or disruptive as a whole. Eusebeus, AnteaterZot, Judgesurreal777, Doctorfluffy and Pilotbob have engaged in similar behaviour, as have Jack Merridew and Gavin.collins with RPG material though to their credit they have been more communicative and acknowledged some sourcing when it has appeared. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

PS: I have no idea how to show this in diffs other than to request that Arbcom look (or ask someone imaprtial to look) over the diffs themselves. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Checkuser of all parties suggested

Given the advantages of extra 'votes' or edits in AfDs or 3RR edit wars, it is a fair to assume sockpuppets would be advantageous in these standoffs. Given uncovering of socks in similar situations - eg. Burntsauce and Eyrian, with similar behaviours WRT article deletion, as well as vote stacking at AfD on the other side, most recently noted by Neil, [101] and another requested currently here. [102] - though this last can be stricken if proven negative.

Given the magnitude of this debate, which could stretch over thousands of articles, it surely must be a prerequisite to establish who is who (via checkuser), and who, if any, is violating the rules. cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Ned Scott

For anyone who hasn't noticed, this is very much in-progress

Unfair assertion on TTN's character and actions

Other edit warring parties

Sock and meatpuppet accusations for TTN are false

Rebuttal to evidence presented by geni

Rebuttal to #Evidence presented by geni:

Man, most of that violated WP:NOR, and the only thing I see as a reliable source, which in my opinion is a bit of a stretch, would be afterelton.com. I mean, holy smokes, that's a lot of OR (and not a single source for it). You might want to pick a better example. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal to Evidence presented by User:Neokamek

I'm not sure it's a violation of policy to use rollback in a content dispute. In the past, admins would get in trouble when they did it, that was because it was considered an admin tool, and there is a blanket "no-no" of using any admin tool in a content dispute. Out of the four pages that talk about the rollback tool, Wikipedia:Rollback feature (feature description), Wikipedia:Rollback policy (proposed policy), Help:Reverting#Rollback (help page entry), Wikipedia:Requests for rollback (an optional process for requesting rollback), only the last one, Wikipedia:Requests for rollback (an optional process for requesting rollback) actually says to not use rollback in a content dispute. Personally, I don't think rollback should be used in content disputes, but given those pages I listed, it would be a reasonable conclusion for an editor to believe they were not violating any policy with their action (in regards to rollback). -- Ned Scott 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal to evidence presented by White Cat

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat#Continuing harassment from Ned Scott

This is a perfect example of White Cat's retaliation against anyone who disagrees with him. He creates this section after I subst his workshop subpage [134] citing that it makes following the discussion harder, and asking him to check with an arb or clerk before doing it. Not a single proposal concerns me specifically in this entire case, nor does it concern Jack Merridew, but that didn't stop Cat from creating a huge paranoid section accusing him of sock puppetry. Wait a second, nether Cat or Jack are parties to this case.. but that doesn't stop him from using this arbcom case as a soapbox. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence/by White Cat#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry)

Wow, just wow. White Cat really doesn't get it. Hey, where's the context? Where's the the list of pages we've edited? Are you counting talk pages? Templates? Which discussions? What was being discussed? None of that is available, just twisted numbers in a childish desperate attempt to lash out at people he doesn't like. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal to evidence presented by Durova

You can't define that as a bias unless the same editors are working on those articles for books, take no action, but do take action for TV related ones. That's not to say a bias doesn't exist for some, but for the majority of the people involved here, that is not the case. One example that springs to mind is Nurse (Romeo and Juliet), which TTN did not (and may still not) believe is notable or needed as an individual article. If more than that one example of evidence is requested, I'm sure I can find more examples, in many different mediums.

This is a situation where noticeable cases are being dealt with first, but are not being targeted because of bias. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Rebuttal to evidence presented by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Re: #Articles concerning episodes and characters are encyclopedic

While there are a few who take such an extreme, I don't believe that is the feeling that most of those who back WP:FICT/ WP:EPISODE, etc, believe. Articles about episodes and characters can and are en, but that doesn't mean that a "just plot" version is the same thing. In other words, I'm asserting that the problem does not come from any misunderstanding of the phrase "encyclopedic content". A topic can be encyclopedic, but that does not mean the content of a given episode article is. That topic might some day have a very good article, but the content that was removed or redirected will bare little to no resemblance to that article, and be of little help in creating that article. Even when these articles are removed, we still want to cover these elements, but it just might not be in an individual episode format, due to the amount of encyclopedic content we have for that given topic (episode or character, etc). -- Ned Scott 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Chronology of notable discussions associated with this dispute

Below is a chronological list of incidents reported regarding this matter, as well as some other relevant discussions, which provides a history (not analysis or opinion) of this debate in which the named involved users in this case, the previous case, and the proposed earlier case participated. The below discussions will place the matter in context and provide a ready reference for any wishing to cite differences:

Other disturbing edits

Articles concerning episodes and characters are encyclopedic

While this dispute concerns behavior, the problematic behavior under question stems from a misunderstanding of what the phrase "encyclopedic content" encompasses. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." Many published specialized encyclopedias concern television episodes and fictional characters: The Encyclopedia of Fictional People: The Most Important Characters of the 20th Century, Disney's Junior Encyclopedia of Animated Characters, Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters, Comic Book Encyclopedia: The Ultimate Guide to Characters, Graphic Novels, Writers, and Artists in the Comic Book Universe, Mystery Women: An Encyclopedia of Leading Women Characters in Mystery Fiction, Vol.1 (1860-1979) Revised, Doctor Who Encyclopedia, The Burroughs Encyclopaedia: Characters, Places, Fauna, Flora, Technologies, Languages, Ideas and Terminologies Found in the Works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, The Unauthorized X-Cyclopedia: The Definitive Reference Guide to the X-Files, "Star Wars" Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows, The Encyclopedia of TV Science Fiction, Encyclopedia of Monsters, Encyclopedia Galactica: From the fleet library aboard the Battlestar Galactica, etc. These are not mere fan sites, but published books. Thus, suggesting that episode or character articles are uncyclopedic is not factually accurate or reasonable.

Evidence presented by Yukichigai

These first two sections are the same evidence I presented last time, but it's still relevant. I intend to do more detailed analysis of editor actions since the end of the last RFArb, but that takes time.

...well, intended anyway. It appears that other editors have stolen most of my remaining thunder.

More than 80% of TTN's edits are an effort to remove content

This one is a little difficult to show with diffs, because it is an evaluation of every contribution TTN has made to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I think I can make my point. Roughly 3000 edits to Wikipedia is the point at which TTN starts merging and redirecting articles on a large scale basis, though interspersed with some non-removal contributions to articles. (particularly Dragon Ball Z related ones) After 4500 edits however his edits are almost solely merges, redirects, or parts of efforts to accomplish either of the former. (such as AfDs or merge discussions) With his roughly 25000 overall edits (at last count) that means, conservatively, 82% of his edits are those which either remove content or seek to remove content.

I want to make it clear that I am not rallying for (or against) the merit of the articles TTN has merged/redirected. My only point is that with the vast majority of his edits being those which remove content and their number and frequency being so great, his edits have become disruptive rather than helpful.

TTN's attitude towards opposing editors is dismissive and unnecessarily inflammatory

There are countless discussions in which this is demonstrated, but since Eusebeus has already linked to Talk:List_of_Drawn_Together_episodes#Episode_notability (permalinked, just in case), let's start there:

Once the discussion was started, almost immediately TTN implies that he has the power to revert and protect articles if they include information he deems inappropriate, then subsequently suggests that despite starting the discussion there's no real point since the articles are going to be merged "eventually". Later he not only dismisses all previous arguments out of hand, but implies that the decision to merge is a foregone conclusion. (A statement he makes a second time in an even more dismissive manner) The next statement is his often-seen "the only opinions that matter are the ones I say" argument, eventually followed by insults and a large scale assumption of bad faith. After someone closes the discussion with a result TTN finds unfavorable, he "re-closes" it with the "true result", which is promptly undone by a self-described deletionist. After this TTN not only declares his intent to redirect the articles irrespective of "any sort of number consensus", but threatens to AfD the articles if he can't redirect them, then follows that already inflammatory statement with an open declaration of his willingness to engage in a revert war to accomplish his goals.

With the exception of the opening of the discussion and these three edits, the above paragraph details the entirety of TTN's involvement in the discussion.

TTN's edits routinely prompt editors to complain on his talk page

Examining TTN's talk page and archives, the sheer number of complaints cannot be ignored. Regardless of the potential merits of the edits which led to those complaints, the fact that there are so many, particularly for a non-administrator user, should be worrying. Here is a brief examination of his talk archives:

...more to come

Evidence presented by Pixelface

It is common practice for articles about episodes and fictional characters of notable works to not assert notability

The article Homer's Odyssey, about a television episode of The Simpsons, has existed for over five years [135] and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." [136] The episode is still considered notable.

The article Luke Skywalker, about a fictional character from Star Wars, has existed for over 4 1/2 years [137] and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". [138] The character is still considered notable. The article Baldrick, about a fictional character from the television series Blackadder, has existed for over 6 1/3 years [139] and does not contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." [140] The character is still considered notable.

Wikipedia has articles for every episode of Angel [141], Arrested Development [142], Babylon 5 [143], Battlestar Galactica [144], Blackadder [145], Bottom [146], Buffy the Vampire Slayer [147], CSI: Crime Scene Investigation [148], Doctor Who [149], Family Guy [150], Fawlty Towers [151], Firefly [152], Futurama [153], Heroes [154], House [155], Lost [156], Only Fools and Horses [157], Prison Break [158], Red Dwarf [159], Robot Chicken [160], Seinfeld [161], South Park [162], Star Trek: The Animated Series [163], Star Trek: The Next Generation [164], Star Trek: The Original Series [165], Star Trek: Voyager [166], Stargate Atlantis [167], The 4400 [168], The Boondocks [169], The Office [170], The Office [171], The Prisoner [172], The Simpsons [173], The Sopranos [174], The Wire [175], Ugly Betty [176], Veronica Mars [177], Yes Minister [178], etc.

Not all of those episode articles contain "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" yet the episodes are still considered notable. WP:N and WP:EPISODE do not describe common practice regarding articles about television episodes and fictional characters.

Jack Merridew has performed multiple reverts regarding notability tags on D&D character articles

On January 13, 2008, Jack Merridew performed 7 reverts on the Bhaal article. [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185]

On the Bahamut (Dungeons & Dragons) article, Jack Merridew restored the {{ notability}} tag thirteen times from December 16, 2007 to February 3, 2008. [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] The article was protected on February 3, 2008 by Black Kite. [198]

It should be noted that sockpuppets have been edit-warring over notability tags on some D&D character articles, and this request for checkuser case on Grawp is related to that. Anonymous editors have also harassed Jack Merridew [199] [200] on his talk page.

TTN has continued to repeatedly revert articles with no discussion even after the committee's prior decision

While not violating the three-revert rule, TTN has participated in drawn-out revert wars on articles such as City of Bones [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207], Animal Farm (Oz) [208] [209] [210] [211] [212], and Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221]. TTN has continued to revert articles and has not discussed his edits on the talk pages of those articles [222] [223] [224] even after the arbitration committee's prior decision.

TTN has been redirecting episode articles under a mistaken belief

TTN has repeatedly referred to WP:EPISODE as the "notability guidelines for television episodes" [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231], but WP:EPISODE is not [232], and has never been, a notability guideline.

TTN redirects articles even when notability has been established

On October 18, 2007, I added a mention of 2 Emmy Award wins to the To Tell the Tooth article [233], about an episode of the television series Pee-wee's Playhouse. Two days later, TTN redirected the article anyway. [234]

Articles such as Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special have been subject to long revert wars, even though the episode was nominated for 3 Primetime Emmy Awards. The article was protected on January 23, 2008 [235] and TTN had reverted it twice that day [236] [237]

TTN removes much of the information establishing notability added by editors during AFDs

On December 20, 2007, TTN nominated the Nights (video game character) article for deletion. [238] On December 21, 2007, I added real-world information to the article such as developer interviews and coverage by videogame critics [239] [240]. It took me a few seconds to perform a Google search for "Takashi Iizuka interview." The article survived AFD because of my improvements. On January 3, 2008, TTN removed most of what I added [241] [242] [243], removing all but one small quote from the developer of the character. This removal was reverted by Geni [244], TTN then reverted that edit [245], and TTN's edit was reverted again [246]. Over 22 hours later, TTN removed it yet again [247].

TTN has also edit-warred on videogame character articles

On the article King Dedede, about a character in the Kirby videogame series, several involved parties performed reverts on the article and TTN edit-warred.

On the article Meta Knight, about a character in the Kirby videogame series, several involved parties performed reverts on the article and TTN edit-warred.

On December 17, 2007, the article was protected for edit warring.

On January 20, 2008, TTN nominated the article for deletion. [266] The AFD result was no consensus.

On January 29, 2008, TTN redirected the article. [267] This was reverted and TTN reverted that. [268] This was reverted and Sesshomaru reverted that. [269]

On January 31, 2008, the Meta Knight article was protected for edit warring. [270]

On February 14, 2008, Quickmythril reverted back to an article [271] "pending discussion at Talk:List of Kirby characters." Jack Merridew reverted back to a redirect. [272] Yair rand reverted back to an article. [273] Then DGG protected the article until March 6, 2008 ("expected time for arb case"). [274] DGG then restored the article to the February 3 version [275] per a discussion on DGG's talk page.

Doctor Wily
On November 22, 2007, TTN added a {{ merge}} tag to the article [276], with a discussion here. On December 15, 2007, TTN added some information (less than 250 words) from the article (over 1000 words) to List of Mega Man characters. [277]

Koopa Troopa
On October 16, 2007, TTN added a merge tag to the article. [296]

On October 31, 2007, TTN redirected the article [297] per a discussion at WikiProject Video games (not Talk:Koopa Troopa or Talk:List of Mario series enemies — where it currently redirects as of February 20, 2008).

On December 28, 2007, an anonymous editors reverted it back to an article [298]

On January 2, 2008, TTN reverted back to a redirect. [299] Indrian reverted back to an article. [300] TTN reverted back to a redirect. [301]

On February 14, 2008, an anonymous editors reverted back to an article. [302]

On February 15, 2008, TTN talks to Seresin and says "The Koopa Troopas have been featured in the cartoons of the series, so the injunction should technically apply there." [303] Seresin responds, "While, technically, they are "free game" under the letter of the injunction, they probably aren't under the spirit. I advise you to not begin redirecting videogame articles." [304] TTN replies, "I'm not going to go on any redirecting sprees, but I am going to make sure the above articles stay redirects, though while avoiding any wars. I just want to make sure that someone is able to back the edits just in case another person tries to use the arbitration enforcement again." [305]

On February 16, 2008, TTN reverted back to a redirect. [306]

In addition to appearing in several videogames, Koopa Troopa was a character on the television series The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!. TTN appears to have been aware that the injunction applied to the Koopa Troopa article, although Seresin's comments may have led TTN to believe the article did not fall under the injunction.

Edit-warring on the Frank West article

Eusebeus

Eusebeus has made inappropriate comments, "Why are you ruining Wikipedia for everyone? We are part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists, and the campaign to ruin Wikipedia is simply a first step toward the larger goal of Total World Domination." [349], "Bitching about it on the Scrubs talk page is not going to change what is a larger consensus-driven view of what does and does not belong here." [350], "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody." [351] that have inflamed the situation.

Rebuttal to Evidence presented by Seresin

I have not edit warred. On January 13, 2008, I removed the redirects on 99 Scrubs episode articles [352] because there appeared to me to be no consensus for the articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes.

On January 13, 2008 at 22:18 (UTC), Corvus cornix initiated an AN/I thread and said "Pixelface is reverting all of TTN's edits. I don't know who's right here, I just know this needs to stop." [353] That claim was false.

On January 13, 2008 at 22:22 (UTC), after I had removed 96 redirects, Corvus cornix left a {{ ANI-notice}} on my talk page [354]. Corvus cornix left no prior message on my talk page asking me to stop removing redirects from Scrubs episode articles. After I saw the ANI notice on my talk page, I removed 3 more redirects [355] [356] [357] and then stopped removing them.

Six minutes after I saw the ANI-notice, Eusebeus left a message on my talk page and said "We know what you are trying to prove, but our policies run the other way, so this is achieving very little." I replied on my talk page to that comment and said "There is no consensus to redirect the articles I've brought back." [358]

Later I noticed Eusebeus had left a comment on TTN's talk page [359] and I left a reply there that was a bit uncivil [360].

During the ANI thread, Black Kite threatened to block me [361], accused me of "stalking" at WP:ANI [362] and told [363] me, "Following another editor's contribs round and undoing them all is disruption unless those edits are vandalism." I was not following another editor's contribs and undoing them all. I was not stalking.

There may have been some kind of consensus for those episode articles to be redirects at one point in time, but I could see no consensus for the Scrubs episode articles to be redirects on Talk:List of Scrubs episodes when I started removing them. -- Pixelface ( talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by User: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.

Vandalism

Above is a quote from Wikipedia: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: Bulbasaur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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:
Featured? Yes, former.
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

Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick

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 [366]. 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 ( [367])... 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 ( [368]).

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 Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Characteristics of sock puppets.

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.

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 Wikipedia:Harassment and perhaps Wikipedia:What is a troll? as it may be applicable. Mind that this is consistent with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Moby Dick banned from certain articles

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. [369]

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. [370]

On 27 July 2007 Jack Merridew participated on Wikipedia: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:

All data: 1 January 2004 -

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012-
1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - 31 Dec
Davenbelle ( talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits No more edits No more edits No more edits Blocked1 Blocked
Stalks My RFC RFAR 1
Note to Cool Cat ( talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks No more edits
Moby Dick ( talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Edits Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
* Diyarbakir ( talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks 57 Days 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days
Jack Merridew ( talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Edits Edits Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM
Barong ( talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits Blocked

Data broken down by year

1 January - 31 December 2004
1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31
Davenbelle ( talk · contribs) Not registered Edits
Note to Cool Cat ( talk · contribs) Not registered
Moby Dick ( talk · contribs) Not registered
Diyarbakir ( talk · contribs) * Not registered
Jack Merridew ( talk · contribs) Not registered
Barong ( talk · contribs) Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2005
1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits
Stalks My RFC RFAR 1
Note to Cool Cat Not registered
Moby Dick Not registered Edits
Diyarbakir * Not registered
Jack Merridew Not registered
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2006
1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits
Note to Cool Cat Not registered Stalks No more edits
Moby Dick Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days
Diyarbakir * Not registered Stalks 57 Days
Jack Merridew Not registered
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2007
1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked
Diyarbakir * 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days
Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2008
1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec
Davenbelle No more edits Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick Blocked
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2009 (incomplete)
1 Jan - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January - 31 December 2010 (incomplete)
1 Jan - 31 Dec
Davenbelle Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits
Barong Not registered
1 January 2011 -
1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun -
Davenbelle Blocked Blocked
Note to Cool Cat
Moby Dick
Diyarbakir *
Jack Merridew Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM
Barong Not registered Edits Blocked

Statistical analysis

What are the odds of one person to...

  1. ...know English?
  2. ...be in Indonesia?
  3. ...be in Bali?
  4. ...be a foreigner in the country they are in?
    • Whats the average percentage of foreigners in a country? %1? Less? And by country I don't refer to the Vatican.
  5. ...have lowly opinion on pop culture?
  6. ...visit wikipedia?
    • 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)
    • 112,893,000(Number of people visiting wikipedia) / 6,500,000,000( World population) = %1.737
    ...regularly?
  7. ...edit wikipedia?
    ...regularly?
  8. ...come across White Cat on wikipedia
    ...regularly?
  9. ...get irritated by the most annoying White Cat <sarcasm>so much that they follow him around</sarcasm>?
    ...regularly?
  10. ...participate in Turkey related discussions in an inflammatory way? Something User:Moby Dick is sanctioned from.
  11. ...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.
  12. ...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.
  13. (a combination of any four items from the list above)
  14. (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".

Continuing harassment from Ned Scott

Some past behaviour

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: [393]
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop: [394], [395]
  3. User talk:Kirill Lokshin: [396], [397]

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.
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.
Evidence
Truth Be Told (Dexter episode)
Article: Truth Be Told (Dexter episode) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Total number of edits to the article since creation at 13:07 on 17 November 2006: 32
Involved users
Redirectifiers: TTN ( talk · contribs) (7), Jack Merridew ( talk · contribs) (1), Eusebeus ( talk · contribs) (1)
Redification reverters: 74.101.140.220 ( talk · contribs) (1), Clerks ( talk · contribs) (1), VivianDarkbloom ( talk · contribs) (5), Treygdor ( talk · contribs) (1)
AFD? No.
Edits since first redirectification. Reverts of redirectification are in italics and reredirectifications are bold
Command Decision (Dad's Army episode)
Article: Command Decision (Dad's Army episode) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Total number of edits to the article since creation at 12:19 on 7 September 2005: 70
Involved users
Taggers: TTN ( talk · contribs) (3), Jack Merridew ( talk · contribs) (7)
Tag removers: Tim! ( talk · contribs) (5), Catchpole ( talk · contribs) (4), Jerry ( talk · contribs) (1 - AFD closing admin)
AFD? Yes: Wikipedia: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.
Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode)
Article: Won't Get Fooled Again (Farscape episode) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Total number of edits to the article since creation at 15:01 on 16 January 2007: 42
Involved users
Redirectifiers/taggers: TTN ( talk · contribs) (1), Ned Scott ( talk · contribs) (1), Eusebeus ( talk · contribs) (3), Jack Merridew ( talk · contribs) (2)
Redification reverters/tag removers: Matthew ( talk · contribs) (5), Ckatz ( talk · contribs) (1), TTN ( talk · contribs) (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 Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets. 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


Evidence presented by geni

User:TTN is not even carring out a basic view of the articles he reverts

User:TTN has rejected further debate on the issues

Evidence presented by Pschemp

TTN continues to engage in unrepentant edit warring

While being careful to not go over 3RR, and indeed, even while this case is going on, TTN continues to edit war, bullying articles and editors into his preferred version here [399] and here [400] and here [401] for example, until the page was protected by an admin. This is just one article. Nothing seems to stop this behaviour.

TTN takes drastic action without consensus or discussion

On the talk page of Bulbasaur it can be seen that during and after the edit war about the most recent redirect, (diffs in above section) there was absolutely no attempt to gain consensus for the action, discussion about the action or attempt to notify editors of the article that the action was being contemplated. While it is true that the people who reverted TTN did not discuss either, TTN has shown a consistent pattern of doing this, to the point that because other editors know how he acts, I believe they feel it is useless to try to discuss. Already thousands of words were written about this case, it was shown that consensus to redirect was not gained, and instead TTN has lurked around, waiting for enough time to pass that he can get his way. Frankly, the discussions then required are exhausting to other editors and I believe this is part of his mode of operation, to wear everyone out until they are tired of getting the same consensus against him over and over. As DGG so recently and eloquently put it, "Fighting it out by stamina is an absurd way of decision."

(Note) - there is a discussion on the page currently but that was started by me, days after the edit warring. As can be seen here [402] and [403] here no one but TTN thought the article should be a redirect, even in the most recent discussion.

TTN tries to assert ownership over articles

Comments such as this edit summary, [404] written in a manner that neither facilitates or even allows for the possibility of discussion and appears to assert ownership of articles are made by TTN.

TTN uses projects dubiously to further his agenda and assert ownership over articles

One case is WP:POKE where TTN and a few others decided that all the character articles should be eliminated, including Bulbasaur. Then he claims he has consensus when such discussions are not even announced on the talk page of the actual articles. Even when the article editors complain en masse TTN asserts the project has precedence. [405] [406]

TTN and others use extreme and inflexible interpretations of guidelines and policy to get articles redirected

[407] [408] Academic and peer reviewed articles simply do not exists for many of the topics in this area. This doesn't mean that they aren't highly relevant and notable in culture however. In the case of Bulbasaur, there are many sources that can be (and are) quoted, no OR has taken place and cited things can be verified. To suggest that an article isn't notable because someone hasn't written a PhD thesis on it is detrimental to the mission of collecting the sum of human knowledge.

TTN disregards standard merge procedure for his own comfort

[409] "Merges can be done any way that we would like. There is no automatically correct procedure or anything like that. The normal way is to use the tags, but with close to 500 articles, that is a little annoying to do."

TTN has no grasp of WP:NOT Paper and the encyclopedia's purpose

In his constant crusade to eliminate episode and character articles (and a look through his history shows that he has done this for thousands), TTN has demonstrated that he does not understand that Wikipedia is here to gather the sum of human knowledge, not just the knowledge he deems fit for inclusion. It is my opinion that the reason this case has come up again, is mostly due to his stubborn and narrow minded view of what is fit for inclusion, and unceasing attempts to force this over consensus.

After edit warring to make the Bulbasaur article a redirect to the List, he then removed added information from the List article. The information has then been repeatedly removed by people who think the List article should be summaries only. (I re-added the information also, and found that was the consensus.) However, the redirection orphaned the information and left it with no home. TTN's edit warring and insistence on a redirect led to nearly all the information from a cited, former FA being removed from wikipedia. Obviously if there is too much information for a summary, and article should exist. However, TTN still believes the article should be redirected.

I believe his lack of grasp of this principle is contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia and as can be shown in the above example, results in good, cited information being removed from the project.

Editors in the "Get rid of episode/character articles" camp deride the editors of content they think is unfit for inclusion

While not everyone agrees on what is important, derision is not acceptable. These editors often and automatically assume that everyone is a "fan" if they disagree with them. This is hardly true, for example, I hate Pokemon, am not a fan in any way yet think that articles about it and the Bulbasaur article in particular should exist.

[410] "consenus in the policy-backed sense, not number of screaming fans" (Seresin)

[411] "For getting rid of all of these useless and uneeded episode guides and fancruft from this cite."

"Yeah, but there is no point if obsessive fans keep reverting" (TTN) [412]

"I have no interest in listening to fans ramble and misinterpret/wikilawyer policies and guidelines." (TTN) [413]

"It's a sad shame that there are obsessed fanboys who just can't let go," (Sesshomaru) [414]

"from dedicated fans who are apparently incapable of reading WP guidelines" (Eusebeus) [415]

TTN's Redirects are de facto deletions, which WP has no good process to deal with

As noted by DGG in the DRV discussion [416] "True, they (redirects) are not within Del Rev remit, and there is no real way to review them- . This is however a deficiency in WP which we should not treat lightly--a redirection is only technically an editing decision, it is in almost all cases a form of deletion. We do not have a process to make binding decisions on content, and thus there is this enormous loophole for deletion...

TTN has made thousands of episode article into redirects, often not merging (as in the Bulbasaur case) the lost content into the lists, thus creating what are de facto deletions without discussion or process. Since no process called Redirect Review exists, an editor like TTN is then able to use the lack of oversight to delete a massive amount of information. Neither DRV or AFD is technically set up to deal with redirects, but calling it a content dispute is absurd. Currently, the only way to dispute this is massive and repeated talk page discussion, or WP:RFC which honestly does not get a lot of attention from the community. Additionally, if an article that has been redirected by TTN doesn't get noticed or doesn't have a large contingent of vocal editors willing to battle it out with him for months, the redirect stands and the effect is the same thing as a deletion. Because TTN has redirected thousands of articles, listing each one on WP:RFC would be cumbersome to say the least. This has left him exploiting our procedures to cause hundreds of deletions, with many of them having no consensus from the community. Because he has repeatedly shown poor judgment in the area, every single one of his redirects needs to be reviewed, but there is no process or procedure to do this.

Redirects delete interwikilinks and broken connections are then ignored by TTN

When articles are redirected, interwiki links disappear and are not subsequently moved to the pages that redirected articles point to. TTN doesn't care about this a whit. [417]

Response to evidence presented by Seresin

While those listed may have edit warred, they generally only edit war with TTN. On the other hand, TTN edit wars with far more people, for example *anyone* who doesn't agree with him. Edit warring is not acceptable, however my opinion is that TTN provokes it with his "I am the final authority attitude" expressed in his edit summaries and opinions, shown by various editors above. Should the editors rise to his provocation? No, however it is difficult to ignore someone who makes such numerous changes, against and without consensus and for which (as I noted above) there isn't a good process to review. TTN is rarely willing to collaborate or discuss, so edit warring becomes the only way to deal with him. The shear number of redirects he does makes it ridiculous to leave a note on his talk page about everyone. Again, TTN is pushing his vision by overwhelming other editors.

Response to evidence presented by Jeske

While Jeske claims consensus was made to merge everything but Pikachu in the case of the Pokemon articles, this isn't true because consensus was only (and only sometimes) formed at the WP:POKE project, not on any of the article talk pages, no notification was put on the talk pages that any merge proposal was being considered and the merges were not done with any warning or templates, leading to de facto deletions again. Editors are not required to join projects so they need to put notification on the articles for non-members, and this is another case of a project overstepping its bounds after having gathered a bunch of like-minded editors that may not represent the community as a whole. In fact, it is clear from this discussion [418] and this [419]that there never was a consensus to merge Bulbasaur and others, even at WP:POKE. Torchic is a good example, another former FA. One can see here [420] that TTN simply redirected the article, no notification or discussion or single mention of the action appears on the talk page, no merge tags...nothing. When other editors who didn't agree un-redirected it, TTN edit warred to keep it a redirect. The first step after people protested should have been a revert to previous state and a discussion but as you can see....that didn't happen. This is a huge problem when a small group decides they have consensus, then ignores protest from the general community when their plans are disagreed with.

Evidence presented by Serpent's Choice

As a preface, I am not involved in this dispute in any meaningful sense. So far as I know, I haven't encountered TTN in any of my Wikipedia work, rarely touch television issues, and only occasionally touch this type of article during my AFD perusals (fair disclosure: I linked a possible source to a below-cited AFD, with a neutral comment, during the course of writing this evidence). However, the general issues at hand here -- the manner in which fictional topics should be spun out, or merged in -- is becoming heated in topics far outside those directly cited in this context. Thus, I don't have a horse in this race per se, but rather an interest in seeing that some clarity can be provided for how consensus in these extraordinarily broadly scoped disputes should be approached, discussed, and determined. Before things get a lot worse, in a lot more places.

The content and policy aspect of the dispute, fundamentally, is about how the concept of article spinouts interacts with notability requirements. Whether or not ArbCom chooses to speak on that regard, I hope that a decision can be reached which will better the quality and quantity of communication on these issues.

Questionable claims of discussion

TTN and others often refer to previous discussions citing consensus for these merge actions. However, in the AFDs that drew my attention to this case, I am utterly unable to locate these discussion. Without regard to the merit, or lack, of the articles under discussion:

TTN AFDed Whispy Woods, claiming it "already been merged as the result of a discussion." However, the previous AFD closed keep. The article's talk page has no discussion; it differs from the previous version in that TTN stripped it of Wikiproject affiliation. The putatitve merge target List of Kirby characters, has no applicable discussion on its talk page -- the merge discussion there relates to a different article.

Similarly, the AFD for Waddle Dee, also claimed it had "already been merged as the result of a discussion." This previous AFD closed keep but at least contemplated merger. This talk page does include a merger discussion, but with only one participant, in November 2007. Again, TTN had previous stripped Wikiproject templates, and, again, no discussion whatsoever at the talk page of the putative target.

Another AFD, a few days earlier, also concerned me, revealing the nature of the discussions that have been involved. TTN cites as part of the justification for deletion that: "All of the other episodes of this series, except for the first episode, have been redirected, so this one also doesn't need to exist." It should be noted that TTN was the editor who redirected the other articles ( [421] [422] [423] et al). As the AFD's overall tone degenerated, TTN commented that only "one editor that even touches these [articles]." Furthermore, TTN acknowledged that he had edit warred over this topic, claiming that others involved were acting in bad faith [424]. Continuing the theme of minimal discussion, Enter Magneto's talk page is still a redlink as of this posting! There is, again, no merger discussion at the target page, but instead indication that at least one editor is attempting article improvement. It bears note as at least a historical curiosity, that the version of the list page promoted to Featured List status included links to spun-out episode articles. [425]

Something I had noted previously, but not realized the scope of, is the removal of wikiproject tags on redirected articles. TTN has acknowledged this removal [426]. Like almost all actions discussion in evidence, there is nothing wrong with removing project tags from a redirected article in and of itself. However, many of these redirections are contentious, viewed as a soft-deletion that subverts AFD, and become the subject of edit wars, as other editors have noted here. Because the project tags are not generally restored (that is, no one revert-wars over the talk pages), these articles remain without their former project tags. For projects that use these tags to index and sort articles, this cuts them off from a source of potentially interested editors whose views may very well differ from the determined "consensus".

Anti-vandalism automation is used for rapid deletion nomination

Also on the 22nd, three AFD were created within a span of 5 seconds [427] [428] [429] using the anti-vandalism took Twinkle (per edit summaries on the AFD openings, and on the page tagging itself [430] [431] [432]), with boilerplate reasoning including the claim that "[t]here is no current assertion for improvement" and calling for a merger. Of course, AFD is not cleanup, and mergers are not deletions ("delete and merge" is not a valid closure). Like with all the TTN nominations that I have examined in my AFD browsing, there is no talk page discussion (only one of those 3 articles even had a talk page when nominated) and no discussion regarding merger at the target article [433]. As a largely uninvolved editor, the goal here seems to be redirection, but since redirection has proven contentious, these articles are now being offered -- sometimes quickly -- for outright deletion instead.

Evidence presented by Seresin

For transparency, I've been present in this debate peripherally (not the edit warring) under several names, so see that page for details. I'll probably add more evidence as it comes to me, or I feel like I need more diffs. For convenience, I have offset all of the logs to relevant dates and times.

Other parties have edit warred

Although this case is officially about everyone involved with the edit wars, I note that with one exception, no evidence has been presented about parties who edit war against TTN; it does take two to tango after all. Geni has edit warred, and even created a sock account purely to revert war with TTN. The sock account's contributions. Here is an example of edit warring with this sock. He has also edit warred under another sock, Genisock2. Here is an example of a protracted edit war with TTN. This is a good example of an edit war under his main account.

In addition, users Pixelface, Tim Q. Wells, and Catchpole have been party to this, such as this string of reverts by Pixelface, this set by Catchpole, and this by Tim Q. Wells. Here is a protracted edit war, with TTN doing only one revert of the seven that were done. There have been several other short revert sprees by several users, viz. VivianDarkbloom and Astronaut with Calton and Sceptre on "TTN's side", but none were as extensive as the aforementioned; Vivan, Astronaut, Calton, and Sceptre.

I note that administrators have also acted inappropriately, specifically in their use of administrator tools. I note this misuse of administrator rollback in a dispute by Anthony Appleyard ( t · c · b · p · d · m · r) (he was wholesale reverting dozens of TTN's edits using rollback). Casliber ( t · c · b · p · d · m · r) has also abused rollback here, with the first group of those his second revert on each article. Also, PeaceNT ( t · c · b · p · d · m · r) used her administrator tools to edit a page that had been fully protected due to an edit war and restore the version that was not protected, in blatant violation of the protection policy.

Response to response from pschemp

So it is okay to edit war, as long as it is with TTN, since he edit wars often already? It's okay since he edit wars a lot, and these people who have edit warred extensively (especially Geni) are ok, because, after all, they were provoked, and it's easier to edit war than discuss?

It only takes one person to initiate discussion on a talk page. If TTN refuses to discuss, as we keep hearing, then it should be easy to invoke the silence aspect of consensus, and get support for one's proposal. Then there would actually be consensus backing an editor, which almost no editor in these wars actually has.

As a side note, would someone care to show an example of where TTN has been asked in a calm and civil manner to discuss his changes, and refused to do so? Or where he revert warred against consensus that had formed (consenus in the policy-backed sense, not number of screaming fans)?

Evidence presented by Carcharoth

Some steps are being made to resolve the situation

Not really evidence as such, but more a note to indicate that {{ ER to list entry}} (created around the time the arbitration case was filed) is now being actively used to keep track of the redirects. Category:Episode redirects to lists now contains well over 200 episode redirects. Another attempt to manage the process is Template:Merged episode lists (which should only be used on talk pages!), which hasn't caught on as yet. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by sgeureka

Editors engage in edit-warring with TTN in ignorance of strong community consensus

After advertisement on three different Stargate pages and a reasonable discussion period, [434] [435] [436] consensus was reached in the Stargate WikiProject (no TTN) to transwiki all episode articles, then redirect unpromising episode articles. Such episodes were redirected with the edit summary Redirect after discussions in the SG wikiproject and the List of Episodes talkpage. Now transwikied to wikia. Please give significant real-world information when/if resurrecting this article (similar to TTN's edit summaries). Three weeks after the redirection, User:Catchpole, at the time reverting many of TTN's redirects, [437] started to undo Stargate SG-1 redirects without leaving comments anywhere [438] [439] [440] [441] [442] [443] [444] [445] [446] [447] [448] [449] [450] [451] [452] [453] (although one edit summary claimed no mandate for wp:episode inspired redirects), all of which TTN promptly undid. Both sides' behavior came up in an ANI/I thread. In the meantime, User:Geni and his sock User:Genisock2, and User:Galadree-el continued reverting TTN's reverts of the SG-1 episode The First Commandment.

Assertion: Editors critical of TTN's editing blanket-revert his edits without checking proper consensus, therefore participating in disruptive behavior while outnumbering him. (No comment about whether TTN's reverts outside of Stargate are disruptive or not).

Rebuttal of evidence presented by White Cat

Her evidence: Editors who wishes to purge wikipedia from episode and character articles 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, linking to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 24 as evidence.

Rebuttal: The fiction-related templates discussed on that date were {{ Wing Commander Craft}} (orphaned after successful AfD), {{ Stargate Planets}} (folded into {{ StargateTopics}} after nearly all linked planets were merged into other articles for WP:FICT concerns, now orphaned), and {{ Stargate SG-1}} (long-time orphaned template about in-universe team membership timescale). White Cat voted on the last one, stating Keep and revert episode blankings. Votestacking is ongoing here given I see similar dedicated faces.

Assertion: Blanket bad faith allegations in disruption of seemingly uncontroversial cleanup work, unfounded.

Deletion-minded/Cleanup-focused editors suffer harassment on a grand scale

See vandalism of User:TTN's userpage on January 25 by five unrelated/different IPs (resulting in page protection), TTN's talkpage on January 24-26 by a new account and 15 unrelated/different IPs (resulting in two page protections), and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man in relation to "harassed" User:Gavin.collins and User:Jack Merridew.

Evidence presented by Firsfron

I am an uninvolved editor who has never worked on a TV episode article, but I see this dispute as worrisome.

TTN's mass "merges" border on vandalism

TTN has spent a great deal of time "merging" articles on Wikipedia. The "merging" consists of page blanking (removing the entire contents of the page and adding a redirect) without discussion, and he reverts when he himself is reverted. The material is not merged into another page; it is removed in its entirety. This is a de facto deletion. Thus the word "merge" is incorrect here. TTN continues to "merge" in this manner as of today. [454]

These edits were originally made in good faith, but after many people objected, the behavior was never modified. TTN continues to "merge" articles by completely blanking them, despite many objections. TTN claims these "merges" are done with community consensus, but the community has never come to a consensus that thousands of articles should be "merged" by mass page blanking.

As correctly stated above by Yukichigai (with links), nearly all of TTN's thousands of contributions are dedicated to deleting content. Many of TTN's contributions have been reverted as vandalism. Rollback has even been used in several instances. Automated mass deletion of content without prior discussion has been viewed as "vandalism", disruptive, and unhelpful. A large number of "merges" have been performed by TTN which were conducted so quickly that it would not have been possible for TTN to read the articles before deciding whether or not to redirect: up to 10 per minute. All ten of these edits occurred during the same minute, at 17:28 on January 17th: redirect #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10. Such mass redirects of dozens of articles at the same time are common in his editing history: there are hundreds of them.

TTN's actions have caused other users to misinterpret WP:EPISODE

User:Sesshomaru has stated he is strongly in favor of WP:EPISODE, and uses it to justify edit warring, as he is "strongly in favor" of the guideline. [455] When reverted, he re-reverts, citing the WP:EPISODE guideline. [456]

But the guideline actually states "To start this [merging or deletion] process, tag the article(s) with {{notability|episode}} on the page." Neither Sesshomaru nor TTN have been doing this. redirect of an article which was never tagged for notability and even the talk page was never tagged, and there was no discussion about it. TTN [457], Eusebeus [458], and Sesshomaru [459] all redirected the article (TTN and Eusebeus twice) without discussion or tag. This happened on dozens, if not hundreds of articles.


Evidence presented by Hiding

Actions which breach behavioural policies and guidance at Slowpoke (Pokémon)

At 14:19-20, 27 January 2008, User:Colonel Warden edited the article on Slowpoke (Pokémon), bringing back content from the page's history that had been redirected to List of Pokémon (61-80)#Slowpoke over two months earlier. These were the first edits to the article in over two months. At 14:59, 27 January 2008 User:TTN restored the redirection with the edit summary [460] Do not bring this back without real world information. If you think it can possibly stand, use a split tag or start a discussion somewhere. At 18:06, 27 January 2008 User:Colonel Warden reverted User:TTN with the edit summary Add another cite to the real world. [461] At 23:04, 27 January 2008 User:TTN reverted back to the redirection with the edit summary If you want to bring this back, start a discussion somewhere. [462] At 05:01, 28 January 2008 User:Tim Q. Wells reverts User:TTN with the edit summary there is enough real-world information. The information about the name "Slowpoke" is a good example. [463] Two minutes later User:Tim Q. Wells adds an in-universe tag noting in the edit summary, since you think it needs more real-world information. [464] At 05:47, 28 January 2008 User:Sesshomaru restores the redirect with the edit summary Enough now. Find the information first, put it here, and then we'll see if it may warrant a page, also pointing to WP:NN and WP:WAF. [465] At 06:30, 28 January 2008 User:The Rogue Penguin reverts the redirect with the edit summary contested, tal;k stop edit warring, NOW. [466] Between 13:16 and 13:58, 28 January 2008 User:Hiding (me) edits the article noting in the edit summary the edits are made due to various policies and guidelines. [467] At 17:13, 28 January 2008 User:Sesshomaru removes a broken link. [468] At 20:21, 28 January 2008 User:TTN reverts the article back to a redirect with the edit summary Merge to the list. Work from there until there is enough content to warrant a split. That is unlikely, so I suggest just fixing the entry up.. [469] (the page is moved here as well, but that's not really relevant) At 22:12, 28 January 2008 User:Colonel Warden reverts the redirect. [470] At 22:15, 28 January 2008 User:TTN restores the redirect. [471]

During all of this, User:Colonel Warden makes the only edit to the article talk page, [472] and User:TTN and User:Colonel Warden also have a discussion [473] [474] [475] at User talk:Colonel Warden. No other discussion appears to occur.

Evidence presented by Jéské Couriano

Some of TTN's merges have the support of consensus

Not all of the redirecting/merging TTN is doing is unilateral. For example, the merger of all nearly-500 species of Pokémon (exc. Pikachu) into lists had consensus since about mid-2007. For history, see:

Of these, one article in particular, Bulbasaur, is still hotly contested and was initially spared from merging (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 18#Bulbasaur and its subthread and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 19#Bulbasaur merge and its subthreads). Currently, there is discussion on its talk page regarding the article's future (it is currently still seperate). - Jéské ( Blah v^_^v) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Evidence presented by Catchpole

Latest outbreak of reverts by Eusebeus

Four hours after the proposed injunction here [476] to stop any further edits on disputed articles, Eusebeus began redirecting episodes of Scrubs without any further discussion or acknowledgment of the discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes. 56 redirects took place (from [477] to [478]) in half an hour. Eusebeus had previously redirected these articles overriding discussion [479] circa January 13.

Subsequently Eusebeus was blocked for 24 hours by Cowman109. [480]


Laynethebangs

Laynethebangs reverted 5 of Eusebeus edits above. [481], [482], [483], [484], [485] and then started a discussion at Talk:List of Scrubs episodes.

Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas

A redirect war involving TTN [486] [487], Sceptre [488] , Everyking [489] [490] and Jack Merridew [491] over the Hannah Montana episode (me neither) Me and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas and Mr. Jonas.

The article was protected on January 27 for 2 days. [492] and later redirected by Jack Merridew shortly before the injunction preventing such edits took effect. See Talk:List_of_Hannah_Montana_episodes#Dispute_over_episode_article for discussion.

Son of Stimpy wheel-war

Earlier this year I recreated an article for an episode of the Ren and Stimpy show - Son of Stimpy using reliable sources after a discussion at articles for deletion was ended delete all - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Scooter for Yaksmas.

This article was deleted by User:Seicer on March 5 2008. He did not revert when informed this deletion was in breach of the temporary injunction regarding this case. After posting for administrator assistance, User:Jehochman restored the article and shortly afterwards User:Jesse Viviano deleted it again. [493].

Evidence presented by User:Neokamek

Use of the rollback tool

The rollback tool has been used in content disputes by both sides.

User:Sesshomaru: [494] [495] [496] [497] [498] [499] [500] [501] [502] [503] [504] [505] [506] [507] [508] [509]

User:Sceptre: [510] [511] [512] [513] [514] [515] [516] [517] [518] [519] [520] [521]

User:Casliber: [522] [523] [524] [525] [526] [527] [528] [529] [530] [531] [532] [533] [534]

User:Black Kite: [535] [536] [537] [538] [539] [540] [541] [542] [543] [544] [545] [546] [547] [548] [549] [550] [551] [552] [553] [554] [555] [556] [557] [558] [559] [560] [561] [562] [563] [564] [565] [566]

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by User:Krator

TTN engages in consensus building and discussion

During the actions described above in detail, TTN has on many separate occassions requested outside comments. This is contrary to much of the evidence above, which describe a total lack of discussion efforts by TTN. I seek to establish the existence and (limited) sucess of discussion and demonstrate this with examples that counter the one-sided approach in some of the pieces of evidence above. I recognise that discussion is absent in many places. He initiated numerous threads on the talk page of WikiProject Video games, always inviting other editors to discuss his proposals. Examples of this include:

Analysis of the broader discussion efforts

This section contains no diffs with bad behaviour, but primarily aims to provide Arbitrators with a "map" of the discussions that have been taking place in this case. Secondly, I seek to establish the fact that there have been many efforts at discussion, to counter User:White Cat and User:Serpent's Choice above. In an analysis, the discussions surrounding this case can be categorised into three main areas:

  1. Discussions on interpreting broad Wikipedia policies.
  2. Discussions that aim to codify the consensus achieved at #1 into concrete guidelines.
  3. Trying to enforce the guidelines written at #2.

Examples of the first kind of discussion include interpreting policies like WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability. This is done on pages like WT:Notability, but also on WT:Notability (fiction). From what I read, I think it is safe to write that this stage of the discussion is pretty much closed now. It is sometimes questioned, but these are usually fringe opinions. The second kind of discussion is ongoing, though a rough consensus is in place, and can be applied to unambiguous cases. These discussions are often detailed and long, as exemplified by the length of WT:Notability (fiction).

Finally, the third kind of discussion is more focused on actually making edits in the mainspace. This is where most of the edit warring etc. occurs, and where TTN makes most of his edits, as well as some of the other involved parties. There are several big problems in this third process, which TTN can describe best, so I will not do that here. My 'educated guess', and partial observation, is that he must be quite disillusioned by the whole discussion process; this can be observed in the tone and style, as well as the wording, in some of the diffs in the section above. Some attempts at organising this last part have been made, for example, the Video games project has a Cleanup department, see Video games archive 33, section "Characters".

Summary: At the risk of repeating myself, I want to stress that the point of the above is to provide evidence that TTN is not just a steamroller, and has made use of discussion pages and consensus building. This view was missing from this page. The extent to which he has and has not done that (discussing) is what the Arbitration committee should decide upon, and also whether it is needed to discuss at length every edit that is (evidently or supposedly, depending on side of the conflict) supported by a guideline that has consensus. The content under discussion, whether and when episodes and characters deserve their own articles, is being actively discussed as part of #2 (above), but in deciding what to do with the enforcement of existing consensus, a ruling is needed.

Please do not place comments on my talk page, but use the appropriate venue within the subpages of this RFAR. 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Durova

Bias against a medium?

Episodes of television series are viewed by hundreds of thousands of people at minimum, and usually rebroadcast. A given episiode of a successful syndicated show may be watched by tens of millions of people worldwide. Only the most successful books ever reach even the low end of that range, yet Wikipedia does not see comparable assaults against book articles.

Arguably, the assault on television episodes represents POV bias against television as a medium.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Evidence&oldid=1151039485"