|
——————————————— Archive, June 2011 ———————————————
Hi, you participated in a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is to notify you that you are named in the above-linked SPI. I filed this further to your extensive history with Davenbelle/Merridew/Barong, but apologise in advance if this is simply a coincidence. Regards, AGK [•] 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- The heck? So let me get this straight, there are people following where I live despite not making any edits for over two years? How was my country of residence revealed? This needs to be explained first. How did you acquire this information of my whereabouts?
- Secondly, please tell me why this guy (Davenbelle/Jack Merridew/Et all) is this critical to this project? I have been away from the project for two years and my inbox has countless examples of different people complaining about him emailing me to comment on RFCs and RFARs. Not a soul (not even arbitrators) was out there to even read the evidence I collected to prove that he indeed was stalking me through the use of sockpuppets. I was the VICTIM he was the AGGRESSOR. What is wrong with you people?
- A fake apology is in essence fake. I am not amused.
- -- Cat chi? 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I just read some of what is going on and I for one would like to apologize to you. I'm not sure why I feel I need to, but I do since I am a member of this community, also in good standing. I guess in part I feel embarrassed by all of this. I hope things get straightened out to your satisfactions. Oh, yea one more thing, I hope to see you around. Have a good day, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. I was feeling wiki lynched and feeling very uncomfortable. You cannot imagine the positive effect a simple two line post under such circumstances. -- Cat chi? 19:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just to let you know I commented to you at my talk page. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 19:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Reply
- Yes, actually I do. I hope I did make you feel a little better. I hate seeing this kind of stuff in the community that I am proud to be a member of, but I am also slowly starting to see too much of this negative stuff I think. The best advice I can give is for you to ignore it as best you can. To me it looks like someone is pulling strings via emails or something to all of a sudden get you involved in this mess. Just answer the questions they ask and ask the questions you need to even if it means going to an administrator via email to ask them. I am curious as to what triggered the spi report to begin with. I do have my own suspicion but that's all they are, suspicion. Have a good night, need to go for now. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, I am not sure what prompted the SPI, time and time again people forget to simply ask me if I am that person or not. Asking me first and then going SPI is still possible. This happened before with arbitration cases where I was the only other involved party whom wasn't worth notifying. :/ I too am curious how things went so wrong. -- Cat chi? 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not a vandal. Stop calling me one. --VanishedUser99 14:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanishedUser99 (talk • contribs)
- I do not know who you are and have no quarrel with you. I only care about the person stalking me (unless that is you) and the fact that I have been accused of being a vandal which I take great offense. -- Cat chi? 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am assuming it was a mistake since you immediately reverted it but I had to deal with the autoblocker. I'd like to kindly ask you to be more careful in the future. Also please delete the revisions in my talk page identifying my IP address to the general public. -- Cat chi? 16:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done Sincere apologies. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Also I want to keep this thread on both talk pages. -- Cat chi? 17:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what thread you mean. Can you clarify? JamesBWatson (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Copying the discussion on both places so it is archived properly in both talk page archives. Thanks for the deletion of personal info. -- Cat chi? 19:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
My post at WP:SPI is connecting the evidence I have seen. Perhaps I was too fast on the trigger. It is of course possible that some troll is impersonating you via proxies. Also, as I joined the wiki long after all of the shite between you and Jack went down I am perhaps unaware of some other player involved who might be inclined to show up in a Jack-sock-tagging WP:SPA manner. As additional checkusers have now stated that you and SilentBlues are unrelated I will strike out my WP:DUCK assertion at WP:SPI. Ah, the pitfalls of the wiki.
I would suggest that you possibly tone down the rhetoric however. Perhaps acting in a more collected and collaborative manner you will find yourself more allies and fewer critics here on the wiki. Take care. N419BH 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, I wish it was that easy, over half a decade I have been forced to deal with this person time and time again as a result I get a little carried away when being forced to deal with him again because people (*COUGH* Arbcom *COUGH*) keep unblocking him. I apologize if you were hit by some of the flak but I was feeling wiki-lynched for the third or fourth time because of this individual. Not that I am trying to make excuses but just trying to elaborate on the reasons of my actions. Each time I have to present evidence trying to prove my innocence when in fact I am the victim. I will however take your advice from now on though I do not know how I can work in a collaborative manner after all that happened in the years accumulating to this day. -- Cat chi? 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to express my agreement with N419BH. I do understand that you must find the situation frustrating, but remember that the people you are trying to persuade in the SPI are not the person who you reckon has been harassing you. I was never convinced by the sockpuppet case against you, which is why I closed the investigation without taking action against you. (The case has since been reopened, but that is another matter.) Frankly, I don't know whether the charges were justified or not, but in the absence of clear evidence I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, your angry and belligerent response to the investigation is far more likely to turn people against you than to win you support. I was once the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I thought (and still think) was completely malicious, and which had no basis. However, I did not express anger and indignation. Instead, I simply stated in two short sentences what I thought, and left it to others to judge the case. Naturally I would have returned and said more if the case had turned against me, but I believe that starting by expressing myself in a minimal way was more likely to succeed in conveying my view than being angry, and if you are subject to similar accusations in the future I suggest thinking very carefully about how to respond. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- My advice would be to bury the hatchet, and do that by moving User:White Cat/RFAR/graph to your own computer and off of public view. It's too likely to be seen as scorekeeping. If Jack does return to the behavior documented by that timeline you can always e-mail it to arbcom or publicly post it again. I don't think Jack's contacted you since his unban, so he's either being very careful, you haven't been around so he hasn't had the ability to contact you, or it's truly a stale issue that no longer applies present day. I truly do not know which one it is. I consider Jack a wikifriend, but I find his present behavior unacceptable. The guy has done a lot of good work but has a habit of getting himself in trouble. Right now he should be indef-blocked for his and the community's good. I am one to believe there are no truly bad apples here (except Grawp and 4chan raids...maybe a couple others, mostly in the WP:LTA category) and everyone has good work that they can do. Some of the stuff Jack's done in the past especially with regard to you are totally unacceptable. Some things he has done in the present (which have nothing to do with you) are also totally unacceptable. I do not think any editor should have their past hung over their head for all time. Doing that will destroy the wiki. For you, continuing to keep past matters in the present is likely to make you a target for trolls as has probably happened with this SilentBlues person. N419BH 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Well to all of you talking to White Cat, I'd like to remind you of assuming good faith in a long term editor who is in fact is in good standing with the community. This whole thing had to be stressful with all the nasty history involved. Just my opinion, but I was so sad to see how this all got started and the rest of it. I'm very happy though that things finally got resolved. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hey White Cat, I've made an additional comment at the SPI requesting it be closed. Thanks for your patience, and I apologize for my strongly worded evidence statement in that location. N419BH 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
- That is fine I think. I did a little digging myself I noticed these: [1] which trails to [2] (User:81.164.215.61) which trails to User:Access Denied. I think this is what is going on. I do not know who this person is but fair chance he may be User:Access Denied. Since he chose to vanish, there isn't much to discuss but this is what I think. -- Cat chi? 03:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- The IPs connected to Access Denied locate to Mexico City and Nevada, and his standard modus operadi doesn't seem to match up to this type of behavior. He'd have to either be in Brussels on vacation or that IP has to be an open proxy. I'd have a hard time believing it's AD based on those links and AD's known behavior. I of course could be wrong. It would be interesting to know whether that IP connected to SilentBlues is a proxy or not. The behavioral connection between the IP and SilentBlues is pretty easy to make though only the checkusers know whether it truly is SilentBlues for sure. N419BH 03:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Or he may be visiting Brussels :p. I cannot be sure about anything without data from checkuser tools. Even if I had the data from the tools I do not know how conclusive IP data would be since it matches at least two users (one being me and other being Fram) as well as countless other Belgians... The ISP I use distributes the dynamic IPs to the entire Brussels region which is most of the population of Belgium probably. I think this will remain a mystery forever - at least until I preform lexical analysis through machine learning. -- Cat chi? 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
|
