Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence

Are events on the Swedish Wikipedia any business of the English arbcom? Doesn't sv: have its own methods of dealing with troublesome users? Can any of the English arbitrators even read Swedish? I'd imagine that the Swedish community might be irritated if a committee they had no voice in selecting were to make decisions about their internal affairs. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's correct; we have no jurisdiction over sv:. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 21:06, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

That said, evidence from outside of en.wikipedia can be submitted and may give us a wider insight into the actions of a user. But, as Grunt says, we have no jurisdiction over actions not on en. -- sannse (talk) 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the evidence submitted, I have a query about formatting. The sv evidence is not via individual edits one day at a time, the history shows lots of days for that anonymous user. Do the arbitrators want evidence in a specific format? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edit by edit is ideal - clearer and less arguable, and stuff falls further back on a history page with time. Though I found that history page reasonably obvious myself - David Gerard 19:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does the AC need someone to officially introduce into evidence the rejected arbitration requests made by CD in the last few days, or should it be assumed that you have access to them and are considering them as you make your decision? If you would prefer to have them introduced as evidence, I will happily oblige. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My view, as an interested observer who is not an ArbCom member is that it would be useful to explicitly introduce it as evidence. From a historical view, particularly for any possible precedents this case might produce, it will be much clearer to have diffs and summaries with the rest of the evidence rather than someone who was not involved searching through ~~potentially thousands~~* of RFAr page edits to find those dating from February 2005. Having found the relevant edits they will then have to make sense of them, possibly at several years distance. Thryduulf 01:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*The number of edits is going to number in the many hundreds of thousands after a few years - by my count there have been 542 edits to the main RFAr page in the past calendar month alone. Thryduulf 02:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think the links on the evidence page are useful. As Thryduulf says, this is sensible for future reference if nothing else -- sannse (talk) 11:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved from the main page

Comments moved here should be restored only by contributors to their own evidence section. Please do not edit other contributors evidence sections.

[In response to evidence by Sandor]

Context - Sandor is a sock puppet of banned user Rienzo. Technically all edits by Sandor should be reverted - including the above. CheeseDreams 14:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correction: CheeseDreams cannot possibly know that for certain as she is not a developer. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

[In response to evidence by Ta bu shi da yu (heading "1 February - harassing Ta bu shi da yu")]

(response to above evidence by CheeseDreams) - correction of FACT - I can't have recieved an unsatisfactory reply from Dante Alighieri BEFORE I asked him - check the times, TBSDY

So in other words, you accused me of being a sockpuppet before asking to have this verified. That only makes this worse! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

[In response to evidence by Ta bu shi da yu (heading "Katoomba Christian Convention")]

No, I did not remove a copyvio. The link was red, TBSDY.

In that case CheeseDreams, you had no right to add text that was not about the article to the main namespace. You've been here long enough to know that, and what you did was deliberately disruptive and a personal attack. I'm not sure what you think in your reply is actually meant to show you in a good light! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

[In response to evidence by Ta bu shi da yu (heading "1 February - harasses Bacchiad")]

(Response to the above by CheeseDreams) - Correction of CONTEXT - Bacchiad had just asked CheeseDreams to edit Osiris-Dionysus, then immediately CheeseDreams did so, Bacchiad asked for CheeseDreams to be banned for allegedly violating an ArbCom order, i.e. behaving as if Bacchiad had deliberately set CheeseDreams up (which is odd for a neutral editor to do, and more likely the action of someone CheeseDreams has encountered previously).

End of text moves

Regarding the remaining dialogue on the evidence page

To CheeseDreams and Thryduulf: At the moment your evidence is a dialogue rather than separate sections presenting the facts as you see them. It's difficult for me to refactor without loosing too much information. I considered moving the whole section here, but I'll leave it for a while to give you a chance to correct this to give the required information in separate evidence sections of your own. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Thryduulf moved from evidence page by Thryduulf

Following Sannse's comment above, I have refactored my comments on the main page. This has included moving some here:

first response to accusations of being User:Rienzo's sockpuppet from User:CheeseDreams

I am not Rienzo. I have these pages on my watchlist (I follow many Arbritration cases), and when I saw Curps' edit summary "(Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Sandor)" I decided to take a look. I saw that nobody had yet presented the reversions as evidence, I decided to do so. My edit to this page was at 08:07, over 30 minutes late than the reversion [1]

detailed responses to additional accusations

I am not User:Rienzo, and I explicitly invite the arbitration committee to investigate this. my contribution history, Rienzo's contribution history. It can be noted that we have never both edited the same page (with the singular exception of one edit each to RickK's user talk page Rienzo's edit (July 2004 - 6 months before my first ever edit), my edit (Jan 2005)).

Taking the points separately (and in no particular order):

username

My user name is Anglo-Saxon rather than Scandinavian and has the following story behind it: Ages (years) ago a new forum was set up for fans of history and archaeology, because some members of an existing forum were sick of all the off-topic postings (this site is now sadly defunct). For some reason the regulars all chose historical names, prinicpally Roman. The Romans have never been a particular interest of mine, and wanting to be a bit different I decided to go with an Anglo-Saxon name (I'm English, btw). I searched the net for Anglo-Saxon names, and found a site (I've not been able to find this online now) with a huge list of them, I browsed the list and decided I liked the look of the name Thryduulf, and so I chose that as my username. I've used it intermittently since. My other (more regular) username is Awkward42 (because I am awkward, and as Awkward was taken at hotmail, I chose Awkward42 (42 being The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything). User:Awkward42 on here is also me, as I have clearly explained on both user pages.

timing of first edit (boxing day 2004)

pure coincidence. Truly there is nothing more to it than this. I have been browsing Wikipedia for some time, and that was the time that I came accross something I wanted to respond to (the Self desctructive sub-cultures section of the Internet article), and decided to register then.

IP address

my IP Address is currently 80.46.169.211 (as reported by http://www.whatismyip.net). I am currently editing from my home computer, which is connected to Tiscali's broadband network in the UK. I don't know if that IP is static, dynamic or a proxy.

Now you play that like you don't know what static/dynamic/proxy means, but yet you know about IP lookup websites, which imply contradictory levels of IT knowledge. Rienzo has enough IT knowledge to find open/anonymous proxies. I am currently editing from China, which is not close to where I am working. user:218.22.44.244

I do know what static/dynamic/proxy mean. I just don't know which my connection is. I found the IP address lookup website with a very simple google search for "what is my ip" or words to that effect (I don't keep a history of my searches and so I can't look it up). I know what open and anonymous proxies, and I could probably find one if I tried - I have just never needed to use one. Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for my level of IT knowledge, I have a moderate-high technical knowledge and ability, depending on the area. I have GCSEs and A-levels in Computing, lived with computer scientists at university and am an active life member of the computer society of the university I attended (Swansea). Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have also eddited from work (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). I don't know what my IP address is there, but a ping to defra.gov.uk gives the ip 148.252.1.40 so I assume it will be something similar to that. Next week I will be staying with my uncle, and may do some editing from there. I don't know what his internet connection is, but that will be a different IP (one I've never edited wikipedia from before).

You see, the thing about that is its a complete lie. Although DEFRA use the IP 148.252.1.40 for their website, which happens to have some open proxy issues, all UK government outgoing connections use the GSN (Secure network). But you wouldn't know that if you were Rienzo. user:218.22.44.244

I know about the Government Secure Intranet and Government Secure Network. I don't know what their IP range is or whether their outgoing is different from their internal. I have never needed to know (my job doesn't involve IT issues), and other than when I am at work, I have no way of finding out. 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

immediacy of response

When the message on my talk page was posted, I was editing the proposed re-working of List of songs whose title includes geographical names at user:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs. Doing this involves looking up lots of place name articles, and so I saw the orange 'You have new messages' banner very soon after you posted. When I finished the section I was working on (English Ph-Pz) I read the message and responded. After this afternoon I will only have intermittent access to the internet unitl Thursday evening (all GMT) and so I needed to get it done.

I was referring to the editing elsewhere - i.e. immediacy of response to pages other than your talk page. Most people take a while. user:218.22.44.244

I react to things when I see them, whenever that happens to be. You are from the UK, I am from the UK, it follows therefore it is not unlikely we will be editing WP at similar times. Also, every page I edit is in my watchlist, which is always the first page I view when begining a WP session, and I refresh it many times during a session (yes, I'm a Wikipediaholic). Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

similarity of behaviour to Rienzo

I don't know what Rienzo's edits are like or what his or her behaviour has been, outside of comments in this RFAr. The check of contribution histories shows we've never been involved with the same article (see below) so I've never come accross them previously.

Contribution histories being different is what I would expect from a planned sock puppet - throws people off the scent. Rienzo's contributions are quite different from sv:User:LouiseR, yet they are the same person. What is important in matching identity is behaviour.user:218.22.44.244

By that logic I could accuse you of being a planned sockpuppet of me, or user:JeffQ of being a sockpuppet of user:Nickj. You cannot claim that both similarity of edits and differences in edits as being inidcators of the same thing. You have failed to give any examples of when my behviour has been alledgly similar/the same as user:Rienzo. Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

persuit of CheeseDreams

I deny that I have been persuing you. I follow many RFAr cases, and if I can provide any evidence to the committee I do so (as is specifically asked). Previous to this case I had no interaction with you at all.

Previous to this case you had no interaction with RFAr at all. Secondly, Rienzo had no interaction with me prior to his abrupt appearance on WP:RFC, so that is hardly proof at all, quite the contrary. user:218.22.44.244

Your first point is not backed up by facts. See [2]

[3] [4] and other edits. I cannot comment on your interactions with Rienzo as I have no involvement with them (outside of this Arbitration request). Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

14th feb edit to RFAr page

You asked for opinions from non-admin and non-arbcom members. I fit the criteria, and so gave mine.

So does Rienzo. user:218.22.44.244

So do >99.99% of the registered users of wikipedia. Thryduulf 00:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

top-level comments by Thryduulf 11:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)