Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comments by others

Moved from Arbitration enforcement page:

Request concerning Jack Merridew

User requesting enforcement
Ikip (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."[225]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past.
RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Contacted Jack Merridew.[226]

Clerk note

I am asking that editors not use the word stalking as per WP:HOUND which says "To use the older term "Wikistalking" for this action is discouraged because it can confuse minor online annoyance with a real world crime." Ikip has already made the change requested, and although I am contacting editors it takes time, so if you have used the word 'stalking' and see this before I contact you I'd appreciate it if you would change it - and if you haven't edited yet, please follow my guidance here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; some have complied, some have partially revisited their edits, and some have outright refused. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber's assessment

Casliber: I think a great deal of you and your approaches in general, but I think you've seriously missed the mark here, and have been missing it in this matter for some time. In my view, David has been hounded and baited the entire year of his return by persons who do not wish him well, and who, in more than one case, exhibit serious problematic behaviors themselves. Your assessment that David hasn't shown he can be a productive member of this community and needs further mentoring seems wrong. David (Jack Merridew) is not perfect, none of us are, but he is by far not the problematic editor here. You cite Ikip's "summary" (quotation marks deliberate). No reasonable person should give Ikip any credence in this matter, and no reasonable person will. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, your continued defense of Jack Merridew's personal attacks and hounding has already been partially documented, and will be developed further for community wide discussion if necessary.
Keep in mind that the above compiled evidence, of the 26 warnings Jack has received since he was taken off of his indefenete block, 4 are warnings even from yourself, telling Jack to:
"stop trying to get a rise out of Dae",
"I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all",
"sparring with others with snarky removal summaries",
"You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate."
At the least, there was an issue with Daedalus969 which warranted such warnings?
I also note that you that you make no effort to refute the huge list of edit diffs from the past year.
Ikip (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of matters is so patently one sided, and therefore incomplete and inaccurate, that it's not worthy of further consideration. No reasonable person will give it any credence. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects Lar, "reasonable" is a very subjective term. That said, I consider myself to be reasonable and feel that the Ikip summary has enough credence as to show his real concerns. Pardon my comparison, but in a hearing, the prosecution presents their evidence and the defense presents theirs and tries to refutes that of the prosecution. And in a hearing, those bringing forth concerns are not mandated to refute their own evidences.... that's for the defense. And though noting that any such defense might itself appear to some to be one-sided in Jack's favor, as you feel the indictment against him appears, I am still interested in an actual refutation of the Ikip summary's many pieces of evidence... rather than just reading your suggestion that "no reasonable person will give it any credence." Reasonable is as reasonable does. Again, my respects... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assessment. This isn't a trial. It's not even a parole hearing. It is an evaluation of a mentorship. Ikip, in my view, gives every appearance of someone who has an axe to grind and is more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. I don't have to refute him line by line to form an evaluation of his one sided ness. Citing me pointing out that David is imperfect while glossing over the hounding and provocation that David himself receives is sufficient in itself to refute Ikip without my needing to do anything further. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Lar... this talk page is for evaluating the mentorship and whether it was successful or a failure. If it is determined that Jack did not benefit from mentorship, the provided diffs could shed light on how and where it failed. I note that the evidence as compiled by Ikip was first presented at Arbitration Request for Enforcement but was moved here when that discussion was closed without action... likely because a related discussion here was already in existence. That move does not invalidate Ikip's concerns, nor in any way indicate that they should somehow be automatically discounted. If they are not allowed to be discussed here, even with the light they might shed on a perceived failure or success at efforts at mentorship, that disallowment might then be seen as a reason to re-open Ikip's original Request for Enforcement and let it proceed. The provided diffs do not appear to be fabricated, and extending your metaphor... if Ikip is seen as having an axe to grind, it might be then be seen by some that Jack was the one supplying the whetstone and grinding wheel (again, only an extension of Lar's metaphor). If you do not feel this is the venue for discussion of Ikip's concerns, then perhaps his RFE should be reopened and his evidences moved back to what would then is the correct venue. And with respects, there are many editors in Ikip's diffs of Jack's edits. I find it hard to believe that they might all be involved in some sort of conspiracy to bait him. It takes two to tango... and Jack had been invited back to Wikipedia under some very strict conditions. If his actions have mitigation, it would be better to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole, rather than be dismissive of Ikip's message simply because of its messenger. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, there is a rather large assumption contained in your phrase "it would be better to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole".   pablohablo. 09:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that perception, but that assumptiom was borrowed from Lar and his stating "the hounding and provocation that David himself receives", with its implication that Jack's negative interactions with other editors as set out in the Ikip summary were either taken out of context or were somehow justified in their seeming violation of the ArbCom accords. And no, I have not personally had any negative interactions with Jack, and have seen some decent editing, yes, but I am also aware that he was unbanned only after a great deal of ArbCom discussion and with some serious behavorial restrictions. If the Ikip summary, however selective Lar feels it is, shows a pattern that is at odds with the ArbCom caveats, my thought here is that either the behavior pattern be disproven or it be discussed. And if it is not to be discussed here in relationship to a mentorship, then let it be taken back to the forum from whence it came. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Ikip does tend to present his opinions as fact, and I read your comment as doing the same thing.   pablohablo. 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs are the diffs... themselves neither fact nor fiction... simply existing as records of interaction between numerous editors. Dismissing all out of hand because thet were provided by Ikip does not address the possibility that they may show a unacceptable trend. A worry here is that when anyone is given specific conditions for being allowed back to edit, the returning editor might do his best to avoid any edit that might be perceived as a violation of that conditional return... and be specially mindful of advice, cautions, or warnings from his mentors or from other admins. I would be quite happy to see a refutation of the diffs in the Ikip summary... but not because of the messenger, but because the summary and diffs were incorrect. Casliber's comment below to Lar is quite sensible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Lar, the key piece(s) of evidence required then would be to link up the various dust-ups listed by Ikip above with immediate antecedents showing where Jack Merridew had been baited. This would be a big step forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we really have to go down that road. More importantly, do we have to go down that road and convince you of the proposition? I despair at that prospect, frankly. Protonk (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One (or more) of my posts below continues this - you're missing the point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're missing the point? ... You've been missing the point since at least August if not before... when A Nobody Ikip complains about Jack and tries to claim harassment, it's rebutted handily. When you blithely asked what the problem was "I just had a quick look at A Nobody's talk page and history - I don't recall hearing about anyone else unrelated to all this complaining about his conduct recently, unless I am missing something (?)" you got several respondents giving you plenty of diffs... your entire response was "noted.". I guess we should have realised then what a poor job of mentoring you were doing, but we let it slide. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'atta boy Lar, keep digging. Remember this is all on record. What the diffs that Ikip has provided above need is specific antecedents - anything else more distant looks like grudge-holding. You and Protonk derailing this and not considering that there is anything more specific to address the issue of (a) an editor banned for stalking, with (b) diffs suggesting similar behaviour above...well if you stand by that and think that some indignant bluster or deflection onto another editor is sufficient then so be it. I stand by my position, you stand by yours. You're right, I am not impartial, but then again, neither are you, so let's see what some impartial people think shall we? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At last you admit you're not impartial. Some progress anyway. When you admit you were a crappy mentor too, then we'll be getting somewhere. I can be Jack's friend and still give him feedback about what he needs to change. You, on the other hand, are apparently completely blind to Ikip and A Nobody, et al, and the hatchet job they've been doing. For shame. ++Lar: t/c 07:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really unseemly thread. I can't say I've ever seen a steward and a former arb having such a destructive and personal argument as this one. I hope both of you take wikibreaks tomorrow instead of continuing this quarrel.--chaser (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's destructive... Casliber has admitted he's not impartial, evidence has been presented of his repeated ignoring of his mentoree's pleas for assistance (and there is plenty more evidence out there than what I gave, as well as in my email, I got copied on a lot of notes) and it is pretty clear that as a mentor in this case, he was sadly lacking. That's constructive, as it puts his entire assessment in the proper context. It's not personal either, it just is what it is. We are all of us not perfect, we all have blind spots. This is one of his. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer, it's become about Casliber, instead of about JM.--chaser (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of, but unavoidably so. Casliber gave an assessment, as a mentor (as requested). I'm calling the assessment, and his execution of this mentorship in general, into question. That's a valid topic since this is a review of the mentorship. That includes mentors and mentorees. (When John, Durova and I mentored Privatemusings, we got some comments on our approach as well as our findings, which is perfectly normal. However, all modesty aside, I think we did a far better job there than Casliber did here. Even if the mentorship was a failure, it was not for lack of trying or lack of interest on our part)... again, I repeat I have a great deal of respect for Casliber, I have no doubt whatever as to his sincerity and good intentions, and usually I find myself in agreement with him on a wide range of matters, but his apparent friendship with Ikip and A Nobody has led him seriously astray here, and he doesn't realise it. When the mentorship started, before all the hounding of Jack that Ikip and A Nobody engaged in happened, that wasn't obvious, but it is now. I hope that helps clarify matters. ++Lar: t/c 18:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he hasn't shown he can be a productive member of this community - he has. For the most part he hasn't needed input into this. Intellectually David/Jack can run rings around alot of people here so the "pleas of assistance" two quotes up doesn't jell with my view of it at all. I am not thrilled of the idea of discussing content of emails here to defend myself given retrospective concern elicited elsewhere over email discussions elsewhere. I agree with chaser in that the tone of this conversation has gone pear-shaped and wished I had kept my word about unwatching. I see alot of people with fixed world views and alot of other matters enmeshed here. Signing off. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, you continue to repeat the same accusations over and over, with absolutely no supporting evidence. Maybe casual readers believe it? For the past three days, three editors, myself, Casliber, and Mr. Schmidt have asked you to provide supporting evidence of your claims of hounding. You have provided none. Unless you can provide edit differences for your claims, your empty claims about hounding should be disregarded.
The way you have attacked Casliber is not becoming of an admin, as the editor above basically said. Ikip (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do people keep picking on A Nobody? I can't see any comments from him about Jack for at least a couple of months now. We do however keep seeing Jack showing up in AfDs, RfAs, talk pages, etc. after A Nobody, even with A Nobody ignoring him, even with Fram, Casliber, John Vandenberg, and DGG all having warned Jack to avoid A Nobody. Obviously Jack is stalking A Nobody. Dream Focus 15:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, for pete's sake, you're like a broken record. Please see Durova's comments below. "Stalking" is an inappropriate word for you, or anyone to use in this context. - Josette (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Dream's first post here.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Moby_Dick_has_harassed_other_editors:
"Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence#User stalks and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop#Bicycle. Passed 8 to 0."
Ikip (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're like a broken record too. - Josette (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise my role in mentorship - I see Jack as intelligent and productive - he hardly needs me or anyone to tell him anything...apart from avoiding the flareups. Most of my advice in this matter was on record - I advised here, here, here, here, here, hinting here (well hoping everone would take the hint) and here. I am not sure how many of these were heeded, though we did get good content improvement. I didn't see too much of a role in participating in lengthy email discussions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a mistake to focus on Casliber's relations with Ikip or A Nobody as signs of impartiality, especially bringing private emails into this discussion (what are you guys thinking!?) I believe that Casliber did help in the mentoring, both in a public and private role. With Casliber and myself as mentors and also arbitrators, we have both wanted to reduce conflict rather than wade into them, due to time constraints, etc. This has understandably frustrated Jack, and friends, but this approach has served Jack well this first year. This particular conflict is an almighty shitstorm that has been brewing since before the Ed Poor solution was rejected. The mentors have not always answered the pleas from either camp, hoping that the camps will adopt a more positive approach to shaping the future of the project. Maybe next year we can hold a RFC. Moving forward, if Jack has been dissatisfied with Casliber, he should think hard about whether he can find a better mentor. I think he would be served better to have "inclusionists" fulfilling the mentor role, and user:Himalayan Explorer keeps coming to mind. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where I think this is going is a lifting of formal restrictions and indefinite, but informal, mentorship; really, it's just about engaging with good people. I like and respect Cas, but there are tensions. And Moreschi has said that he sees his mentorship role as done (paraphrasing; not looking at that email at the moment). I've a huge amount of counsel from John and Larry and will looking to them for guidance indefinitely, anyway. Our reincarnated Doctor Blofeld is a fine idea. I've a good relationship with him and support most of what he's doing, which would seems to be about including all sorts of encyclopaedic content. He does not seem the fly the 'Inclusionist' banner; just does good work all over. I'll ping him about this; he had a wikibreak notice up, last I looked, but expect he's about and will like this idea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC), who is an inclusionist where appropriate topics are concerned ;)[reply]
Re: John Vandenberg's comments about impartiality, I agree.
I am a little confused, maybe Lar, Josette, and Jack Merridew can clear things up for me. The three of you have continued to emphasize how much you are all friends, one of the many divergences here that doesn't address the evidence.
"I can be Jack's friend and still give him feedback about what he needs to change." Lar. 07:14, 27 November 2009.
"and I've come to consider [Jack Merridew] a friend, as has my wife." Lar. 09:52, 24 November 2009.
"You understand that my mentors are my friends?...It was from Pablo, who's a friend" Jack Merridew. 14:02, 27 November 2009.
"My husband and I rarely edit in the same areas as we have different interests, except when we see a friend being mistreated. Jack happens to be a friend of ours." Josette. 21:40, 27 November 2009
Now, when it comes to Casliber (who I actually hardly know at all, and would barely call an acquaintance), and any friendship with A Nobody or myself, friendship is an accusation:
"A Nobody's your friend, you find my participation in AFD infuriating" Jack Merridew. 01:25, 27 November 2009.
"but his apparent friendship with Ikip and A Nobody has led him seriously astray here." Lar. 18:46, 27 November 2009.
Jack Merridew: "Cas, you've had a COI all along, here."
Lar: "I can be Jack's friend and still give him feedback about what he needs to change."
I am confused. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say you are confused all right! ... and not about just this. But we knew that already. However, to explain it again, the difference is that I can be someone's friend, and still give them feedback about where they could improve. You, apparently, cannot. the A Nobody RfC provides ample evidence of that. Instead of counseling A Nobody on how to address the real issues raised and change his behavior, as a true friend would, your entire "contribution" was to go on the attack and to wiki-hound the participants in it by hurling one unfounded accusation after another at all and sundry, but especially at Jack. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting arb's comments one year later

Last year I made the decision to offer a motion that allowed JM to return to editing after I monitored his edits cross 2 or 3 wikis for several months for problematic conduct towards WC and general quality of contributions. The arbitration committee agreed to let him return with restrictions. Overall, I've been pleased with the outcome.

  • The editing restrictions I wrote were tough, the toughest ever given at the time. They were intended to prevent stalking of WC and yet allow JM to return as a contributor.
  • I looked through the diff provided on this page as evidence of stalking/hounding/harassment. Most were very dated. And I'm not seeing stalking similar to that that caused problems with WC. So I deem this aspect of the mentoring a success. IMO, he has never come close to having any conduct that was close to needing the one year block. I think that he has shown himself to be a reformed user and the one year block provision should not be applicable now.
  • It is true that JM can have a flair for expressing himself in a manner that bothers people that disagree with him. But that is the case for many users. Reminders and redacting comments have been effective so far this year. I see this as the path forward based on the evidence that I'm seeing now. So going forward, the disruptive editor clause would be dropped and JM would have the same expectation on him as all other editors.
  • Perhaps moving to an informal mentorship with suggested editing guidelines would be a good transition step back to editing without restrictions.
  • JM is one of many editors that disagree about article deletion. I think that issues related to this would be best addressed in a broader RFC or RFArb where all the involved parties are on equal footing instead of JM being singled out because of his history.

These are my observations based on my review so far. Subject to change if other information is provided that shows a better way to keep JM here as a productive editor. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih ;) Jack Merridew aka david 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Most were very dated."
Admin: Fram, 15:36, 19 November 2009:
"So anyone still believes that [Jack Merridew] is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD [Jack Merridew] comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing[227], the only RfA [Jack Merridew] edits is one A Nobody opposes[228], and one of the five last articles [Jack Merridew] edited[229] is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before[230]? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..."[231]
Regarding the similarities between the hounding and harrassment of White Cat and the hounding and harrassment of these current editors, I will post a table later. After all, it was White Cat's plea to Jimbo Wales, showing his extensive graph in 2008, which finally made Arbcom take notice. Ikip (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really true that he only edits RFA's and AFD's involving a nobody? That seems unlikely. Looking at your difs we have "Delete as synthesis per DGG and others, sincerely"[232]"Support. A reasonable editor, nuff said. Nod at animate" [233] and a removal of a reference to Count Chocula from the article Comparison of vampire traits (jack's edit summary did refer to the good count's addition as "trolling" however). I honestly don't see a problem here. Certainly no evidence of disruption or harassment.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my evaluation of JM edits, he does not come to WP to stalk and harass these users. An user's contribution are made public so that editors can look at/monitor the work of other editors. Doing this is not in and of itself a problem. It happens every day with the vast majority of editors occasionally checking up on the edits of other people. JM himself has been the subject of this type of monitoring by people that were not his mentors. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth bearing in mind the repeated attempts of A Nobody and Ikip to make the most of the Arbcom sanctions to re-apply Merridew's community ban. These include, but are not limited to this inconclusive timesink where A Nobody seemed to think that the restrictions viz White Cat also applied to him/her; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody, which Ikip attempted to refocus on Merridew, and Ikip's diff blizzard "evidence" on this page.   pablohablo. 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "where A Nobody seemed to think that the restrictions viz White Cat also applied to him/her"
"User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." Pablo, where in this sentence does this say White Cat?
Even during that ANI Pablo brings up, as DGG state,[234] Mr. Merridew continued to stalk A Nobody's edits. This behavior is exactly the same as when Mr. Merridew stalked White Cat's edits before, which the arbcom ruled unanimously was stalking and harrassment.[235]
Its a "blizzard" Pablomismo because Jack continues to stalk and harrass editors. Note how none of Mr. Merridew's supporters discuss any of the evidence presented, how can defend stalking like this[236] or Merridew calling editors "little shite"?[237] Since his unblock in December 2008, on twenty six occasions editors warned Jack to stop.
Ikip (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, Ikip - you are seeming to take the 'harrasment' as read. As far your comments on as A Man in Black go, I'm surprised, but I suggest you take that to my talk page, (or yours) as it would be an unnecessary diversion.   pablohablo. 21:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip, I was the one that used the words "little shit behavior", Jack toned down my comment by using the word "shite". I'm surprised you have a problem with that. You should be crying for sanctions against me not Jack. - Josette (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Merridew was actively stalking Dae, which even your husband warned him about 4 times. It seems you were feeding the fire, calling the editor a little shit, in which Jack called the editor a little shite. Not exactly something I would be proud of. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, you forgot the word 'behavior' after 'little shit'. That was an important word for you to leave out of my original statement. If you are going to insult me at least quote me correctly. - Josette (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack's full quote:
little shite like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&diff=prev&oldid=292480210 this].
Ikip (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was just Jack asking me if that's who I was referring to. At the time there were issues with that editor's behavior. That editor has since apologized and changed his ways. You obviously don't understand the history of that situation. You misrepresented the conversation and took things out of context. - Josette (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time, there were issues with my behavior, in regards to that notorious edit on one of Giano's userpages, not my behavior as a whole, as you wrongly construe. In fact, I believe it is impossible to misrepresent the conversation in such a regard. He referred to my altering of one of my own comments as little shite behavior. On an aside note, there is nothing wrong with doing what I did there. I did not make the comment on my user talk page, I made it on his, and changing his copy of my comment to reflect that is not out of line. Back on topic, using shite instead of shit does not tone down anything; It's the same damn word, but UK and Ireland's spelling, unless of course you were referring to the move performed in a particular martial arts style, but I very much doubt that. Now, commenting on behavior, and giving it a label, is still the same as directly calling an editor a little shit. It's in the way of saying, behavior that a [little shit] perpetrates. Indeed, you and jack called me a little shit, nothing was mis-represented.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, there were issues with your behavior as a whole... see your talk from that time: just a note and Frei Hans for examples, there is more out there. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that you can't even own up to your own comments.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I haven't been clear. I take full responsibility for all the comments on my talk page. It was me - not Jack - who called you that. I did feel your behavior at the time was quite bad. I remember you being warned many times to change your ways - at one point you acknowledged it and I feel you have changed. I'm not trying to dodge anything. If you have an issue with me please take it somewhere else. - Josette (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jo; you would be looking for this statement where he really was quite sorry that he got into one of teh wiki's major dramas. Ever posted to his talk page? Nope. His editnotice offers "Please also note that I have a problem with Perseveration" — which pretty much seems to mean he will be constantly leaving patches of equine hemoglobin soaked ground littered with shards of shattered fibrous plant material *everywhere*. I, for one, don't think Dae's changed much and I stand by my humour. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip, I drafted the motion so I know what it was intended to do. The clause about disruptive editing was a general reminder to edit with in policy guideline and not cause disruption on articles or their talk pages. For A Nobody to cause a fuss, and then complain about JM being disruptive was not what the clause was intended to cover. He is not someone doing pov pushing through edit wars. He is not someone that is adding copyright violations to articles. He is not someone that making problematic article content edits. He is not any more disruptive than dozens of people that frequent deletion discussion and regularly disagree with each other. I'm assuming good faith that you simple misunderstood and that this was not being use as a way to eliminate someone that disagrees with you. But now that I've told you, you need to drop these attempts to enforce the one year ban for conduct that is seen every day in many discussions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your statment "way to eliminate someone that disagrees with you" is a subtle way about how you feel my role is in this.
I also recognize your subtle comments about A Nobody. It is okay to stalk and harrass someone if they do "pov pushing through edit wars"? This makes Mr. Merridew hounding and harrassment acceptable? This explanation does not take into account that there were three editors Mr. Merridew hounded (the most grevious being Mr. Coleman).
FloNight, you have decided all of the evidence against Mr. Merridew does not warrant further action, and have instead made subtle deragatory comments at both A Nobody and I?
Since December 2008, Jack has been warned 26 times, and his mentors, beyond counseling him to stop, have not proceeded to act beyond this.
So now these same mentors and the arbcom who drafted the rules for him, allowing him to be unbanned will be the first to decide whether he is unbanned, heavily influencing the other arbcoms decision? Ikip (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of the editing restrictions was not to stop him from voicing his opinion about other editors. It seems to me that the mentors were being very cautious in their counseling and reminders to him. As well, as happened in several instances, the claims of harassment and stalking were shown to be exaggerated claims by the person making the complaint. Because of the situation that JM was in, he needed to bear these false reports with decorum to avoid the situation spiraling out of control and him ending up blocked for one year for disruption. As I've already said, the garden variety editing disputes should not be actioned with a one year ban. Several people disagreed with his return from the start and they have not made it easy for him. We need to acknowledge that he has done as well in staying out of trouble that was clearly an one sided problem. I have voted to reblock numerous returning users if it did not work out for them to return. And would do so with JM if there were serious concerns. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your comments. We will agree to disagree. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flo, I did not at the time think that "The clause about disruptive editing was a general reminder to edit with in policy guideline and not cause disruption on articles or their talk pages. " I saw it as others did, a warning that any repeat of similar behavior would be met with very strong action. There have been repeats of similar behavior--many of them. None of them is individually outrageous. He does not bait me or you--he baits those susceptible to it, and is, I must admit, very skilled at this. Put together, the various diffs are enough to show that the mentorship has failed and that Jack will continue to try to push the boundaries as far as he possibly can. They show enough of a pattern to indicate that he is playing games with the ruling. I think in fairness to the community that the pattern is a serious concern. I urge you to look at them again as a series of attempts to enjoy his games at others' expense as long as he can. They're not set against a background of previous good behavior. I don;t think I've ever spoken this way on or off wiki about an editor here, but I recognise the pattern of what I can only call deliberate delinquency. Others may be misguided or reckless, but he is the only editor active in Wikipedia who I feel certain is acting in deliberate bad faith. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One mans bad faith is another mans partisanship dgg. Unlike you, i feel that ikip is acting in deliberate bad faith. Maybe a few others. The "revert revert revert" guys. Or the guys who encourage deliberate "passive aggresiveness" guys. Or the guys who organize their behaviors off line to get their opponents to break the rulz guys. Or the ones who spend months (vergeing on years) to get their opponents. I'm probably talking about behaviors that don't exist. Or that you have never seen and never will. But I'm quite amazed that with all your wiki wizadry (you have a vorpal sword by now, right? If not, i know a good sweat shop in shenzen) you've only ever noticed one editor on all of wikipedia who acts in "deliberate bad faith." I mean, it could be we're seeing a group of organized partisans targeting a perceived opponent. In my fevered brain, it might be that it's a rather transparent attempt to purge the ideologically unsound. But you, you see only a group of righteous people defending the truth. You must be right. Nay. You are right. How could you be wrong? You are one of the heros. You are truly blessed. Forgive me for not seeing the right, the true, the way of the blessed. I am truly flawed. Peccavi.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG: I have worked with Jack closely since well before he was unbanned here at en:wp. We've communicated fairly extensively, and I've been counseling him behind the scenes for a long time, as has John Vandenberg. In that time, I've come to know Jack pretty well, about as well as you can know someone without meeting them face to face, and I've come to consider him a friend, as has my wife. I think your judgment of his character is very wrong. Judging character is not easy, and we are none of us perfect at it. In fact I've been played here on the wiki before, but I'll stake my judgment against yours. You have, I believe, severely misjudged him and done him a great disservice. ++Lar: t/c 09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, that clause is put into the motion to cover other types of disruptive editing besides the original problem. If JM came back and was uploading images with copy right violations, or began editing warring on article, or other similar serious types of problematic conduct then the arbitration committee would swiftly block him instead of letting the usual dispute resolutions process happen. As for the other, I see it as a 2 way street with other editors being aggressive in the way that they approach JM. Your statement is an example of this since your comment "Others may be misguided or reckless, but he is the only editor active in Wikipedia who I feel certain is acting in deliberate bad faith." is pretty far over the top. From my communication with JM, I'm certain that he believes that he is helping the wiki through his contributions. His reason for editing is as benevolent as yours is. I don't think you said this to deliberately bait JM, but consider how hard it to stay civil when someone is completely misrepresenting your contribution record. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack is sufficiently astute that i doubt he will be surprised or horrified at what I said. I've never seen the need to bait anyone; I just wait with my eyes open. I have no reason to doubt he is an excellent person in all respects outside Wikipedia (& some in Wikipedia also) He's clever enough that I might well like him in some other context--I like things interesting. And Ikip, I said he was the only one I was certain about. We are all saying, of course, that it is not we who are judging ideologically, but the person on Wikipedia (outside the NYC chapter) I personally like the most is what I'd consider an arrant deletionist. He doesn't try to trap the susceptible--he's just wrong about some things. I now go back to my corner in the background, convinced again that any arb page is one to avoid. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom NewYorkBrad, in voting for the unban stated:
"We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently."[238]
Is the concerns of MichaelQSchmidt, DGG, Fram, and others "unreasonable"?
Maybe NewYorkBrad read the condition #5 "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing." the same way several other editors have?
Flonight wrote:
"It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years."[239]
Is the concerns of MichaelQSchmidt, DGG, Fram, and others "understandable...worries"?
This unban was done with considerable controversy, for an editor who showed to be an incredibly disruptive for years. That is why "The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed."[240]
Ikip (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 129!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided numerous edit difference links supporting my position, you have provided none, despite repeated requests.
You have repeatedly accused me of "bad faith" and "hounding" with no evidence of either. What would happen if I posted a check user against you and say Jack Merridew, and provided the same amount of evidence you have provide Bali? It would justifiably be thrown out.
If the extent of your laughable evidence is my edit count, I think I am in a pretty good position. Ikip (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No my evidence is your persistent campaign to attack another editor. Every time the mud you fling is dispensed with (much of it two years old) you refactor, dredge up irrelevancies, throw a smokescreen, then revisit the originally dispensed with material again. You just shrilly shouting the same stuff over and over, all in an effort to a) confuse bystanders into believing your geshraying has some merit and, b) to get a rise out of Jack that you will then use to bolster your claims that he's a bad un. Your commitment to hounding another editor is toxic and you should be ashamed. I think you're at 132 edits on this page now.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He may believe that he is helping Wikipedia through his actions, but then his mentors or friends should step in and tell him that often, he is not helping Wikipedia at all. You don't help Wikipedia by baiting other potential problem editors, and the pattern of Jack Merridew following around some editors and editing against them (voting the opposite, removong things the other wants to keep, ...) is obvious for everyone not too close with Jack. While the individual edits are harmless or positive, the way they are performed (his choice of pages to edit) is not harmless or positive, but is a conscious or subconscious process of angering others. The ANI discussions earlier this year, while not reaching any final decision, where good evidence that many uninvolved editors felt that there was a serious problem. This does not mean that the other side (A Nobody, Ikip, ...) is an innocent victim, but the problems they may or may not cause are not the focus of the current discussion, unless it can be found that they are actively seeking out, baiting, tempting Jack Merridew. Signatures like the one he used today [241] are not really evidence of "helping the wiki through his contributions" or benevolent editing. Considering that he was not the subject of that talk page discussion makes his "contributions" even less helpful. I know tha he had edited that talk page before, so it is not evidence of following A Nobody or anyone else around, but it looks as if remarks by the A Nobody / Ikip tag team work on him as a red rag on a bull, and he just can't constrain himself. If you couple that with him actively looking for contribs by A Nobody, then you get a recipe for disaster. I believe that every editor would do well to avoid other editors if a number of uninvolved people have asked to do so (as had been asked of Jack Merridew wrt A Nobody in earlier ANI discussions). Fram (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated already, "JM is one of many editors that disagree about article deletion. I think that issues related to this would be best addressed in a broader RFC or RFArb where all the involved parties are on equal footing instead of JM being singled out because of his history." I see this as something much bigger that needs to be addressed in a more systemic way. I anticipate that this will be addressed through a broad case sometime because their is a limit to people's ability to tolerate this dispute. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for other people, but I'm not singling him out because of his past, I'm singling him out because of his current actions, and the fact that he has a past makes them just worse (because he should be well aware of the consequences of such actions). And his replies of yesterday on Pablo's talk page have very little to do with "disagreeing about article deletion", they are simply continuing a problem he has with some editors in an unrelated discussion. This is considered unacceptable for most other editors, so I don't see why it would be allright for Jack MLerridew to do so. I do notivce that your post was very general, avoiding even the discussion of individual edits. That makes it pretty useless to provide any diffs. Fram (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that JM necessarily needs to be re-banned. However, I'm also not convinced that there necessarily should be changes to the current applicable remedies. Of course, this is subject to change upon further review, but that's what I considered when reviewing it so far. In other words, Casliber's summary seems to voice my opinion more effectively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling from watching over the past year is that a course to a flareup runs as follows - Jack sees behaviour he disagrees with, gets annoyed and decides to take some form of action which flies a short distance under the radar. My recollection of the antecedents of the flareups listed by Ikip was (I believe) some AfD or RfA debates where A Nobody had expressed his opinion. We are all well aware that A Nobody's actions have annoyed some editors, thus Jack took it upon himself to make it personal. (i.e. this was not specific baiting by AN to JM). This is problematic. Bigtime. There are editors whose actions I find annoying at times, but it is not my place to go and start brushfires with them, and especially after lengthy sanctions for misconduct. Many here are commenting from a stance from where it is difficult to tease out other influences.
Ultimately wiping away explanations etc. look at what Ikip's evidence makes it out - an editor banned for stalking engages in periods of mini-stalking which upsets other editors during a period of probation. Regardless of reasons why, it doesn't look good as is above. Hence my request that for the record, those defending Jack need to put up the evidence to show baiting. This needs to be for the record so that someone reading this in a years' time can figure out why mentorship was dropped or whatever. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look I don't disagree w/ the merits of Cas's statement. JM has more problems than the average editor, and he has some exceptionally troubling habits wrt debate and discussion. I'm a little shocked that Cas can't extricate his feelings about AN in order to write his summary. That we are even considering evidence brought up by Ikip is on face evidence that baiting/retaliation exists in this stupid little war. Was the AN RfC not enough? The bulk of the talk page was devoted to how bad Jack was, despite Jack's notable absence until the very end, when some editors took it upon themselves to gather a great hue and cry about his mere participation. It appears that we have managed to drive Jack away. This bodes poorly for the fate of the standard offer in general. Protonk (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) my point was there were/are a number of other editors exasperated with AN, and that given Jack's history of stalking it was not his place to do anything about it. As far as I recall, none of ANs posts immediately preceding some of the above flare-ups were aimed specifically at Jack. if they were these need to be illustrated to amend the above for the claim of specific baiting. I am trying to keep this focussed on Jack. I too am sad that he has decided to go rather than rise above this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Jack has shown a tremendous willingness to eat bowl after bowl of shit. So he may well return. But if you require overall net positives to the project to wear scarlet letters indefinitely, and far more problematic users are allowed to run wild, then eventually editors like Jack will get fed up and leave. That's not the end of the world, but that's the reality. (Jack if you're paying attention still -- take the time to learn Indonesian, will ya?)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what merited the sigh. When Ikip turned AN's RfC talk page into an interminable rant about JM, Jack handn't participated in the RfC (Note the date in the deletion log for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jack Merridew, as a bright line measure). In fact, he only participated at the very end, leaving signatures on summaries he agreed with. For doing so he received an immediate and blustery block threat. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sigh echoes my exasperation with this whole process. Protonk, the unblock was highly controversial. Note that many many editors edit for years without warnings, arguments or whatever. We really needed to see something a little smoother than this. Note that I am not advocating a rebanning, just that the year to date resulted in a number of flare-ups, which needed others to cool things down. Agree with Bali Ultimate about Jack learning some bahasa :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk, if you are referring to another "immediate and blustery block threat" (not a post made by me), then you may ignore this. However, I have the feeling that you do refer to my actions, but that you recall the incident incorrectly. I have warned Jack to stop commenting on A Nobody after he did so in the KWW RfA[242]. When he made clear that he would ignore my warning, I made it clear that I would block him if he continued[243]. Moreschi was the first to think that the RfC had anything to do with my warning, but as I replied and as the editing times prove, I warned him before he edited the RfC, and he just happened to go to the RfC right after my warning to leave A Nobody alone[244]. So please retract the claim that an immediate and blustery block threat was issued for leaving signatures on summaries on an RfC: he received first a warning, then a block threat, and these were both not for the RfC endorsements, but for his comments at the RfA and for indicating that he would not head the warning. Fram (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of userpages

What is the sudden deletion of all his user pages about? Of course he has technically the right to do so, but why now? And shouldn't his socks be listed somewhere on his userpage, per the unblock restrictions #2? Deleting his user page and User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer is a violation of that restriction. Is he leaving? Fram (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you and Ikip have succeeded in hounding him off the wiki. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't hound him. If he can't stand the result of his own actions and the fact that the support of a few loyal defenders may not be sufficient, then that's his problem, not mine. I have not followed him to articles or discussions. I have proposed my solution in existing discussions on his behaviour (ANI), warned him of the problems with his actions, and discussed them with one of his mentors when people preferred that course of action over direct contact with him. I have not participated in the discussions about him on the A Nobody RfC or elsewhere (if any) apart from the cases I just mentioned. Fram (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that assessment. Your actions were not balanced, although to be fair you certainly didn't hound him the way Ikip has. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced in what way? If you mean that I didn't take the same actions about e.g. A Nobody and Ikip as I did about Jack Merridew, that's mainly because I am often an active opponent of them in all kinds of disputes (content related, but also policy discussions or ARS discussions), and I don't want any admin-related actions I take (like warning people that they I may block them for their actions) to be possibly tainted by such positions (being an "inbolved" admin). I have no such situation with Jack Merridew, with him and me most often being on the same side of a content dispute. Since I have problems with some of his conduct without being otherwise an "opponent" (on the contrary, most of his conduct issues, both past and current, are with people I very often disagree with), I am correctly placed to look solely at the conduct and see where it severely lacks. I don't have the same position when it comes to the conduct of Ikip, A Nobody, ... Ifyou meant something else by "not balanced", please clarify. Fram (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber's request remains unanswered:
"Hence my request that for the record, those defending Jack need to put up the evidence to show baiting. This needs to be for the record so that someone reading this in a years' time can figure out why mentorship was dropped or whatever."
I would be interested to see edit diffs showing how I hounded Mr. Merridew. 99% of my interactions with Mr. Merridew have been like Fram's and Casliber's, warning him to leave an editor alone. Ikip (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pseudonym, so you can drop the false gentility. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nice tool, bainer;

My en:accounts:

I would like the older user page histories deleted; tag and categorize the pages, Jack too, as needed. Some already are deleted, most are blocked. Only Jack, Davenbelle, Moby Dick and Diyarbakir have much in their history. Jack Merridew 06:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have failed to disclose an old account (this was not intentional, but feel free); I just noticed B9171457-dac8-4884-b393-15b471d5f07e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which I expect was me. It's long blocked and if it was me, the password was another GUID; anyway, I can't log into it. I created the Hasankeyf article and I edited it further with a sockpuppet, User:Moby Dick, who is blocked as having 'No useful contributions' — unless, of course, you're a Turkish woman who's been threatened by her relatives.Virgin Suicides, kamer.org, Snow (novel) —Jack Merridew 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Franamax

Since I'm mentioned in passing, I get to talk. :) My interaction with JM was in relation to his dealings with editor EHC. EHC at the time needed some monitoring and interaction as they weren't fully grasping all the wiki-concepts. Nevertheless I didn't feel that JM was the best person to be doing the explaining and I perceived a pattern of following rather than reviewing edits of. I cautioned JM and they acquiesced immediately. As far as I'm concerned, JM complied fully when notified (2 edits a month later and nothing since, whatever).

In the larger sense, Jack has done lots of good gnomish work since returning. Project-space comments and inter-editor relations seem to be on the sharp side of the scale and could use ongoing attention. Undue concentration on a single editor at times, seems to be an ongoing concern. With all due respect to Ikip and A Nobody, it's not like the two of you don't often get into arguments with others, so I am discounting a little bit. JM seems to be doing good work and netting out positive.

This all may be too late anyway, but it would be disappointing to see JM just disappear. I'd favour continuing but somewhat relaxed restrictions. Franamax (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new articles

Here is a list of articles created by Jack Merridew in the last 12 months. There may be more. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Puputan 1681 views in 200908, inc 750 in a single day. And yet someone in another camp tagged it to be merged.
  2. I Gusti Ngurah Rai
  3. Marga, Tabanan
  4. Padangtegal
  5. Padang Tegal
  6. Mamuju Regency
  7. Mamuju (disambiguation)
  8. Kerobokan
  9. Pejeng
  10. Batuan, Bali - rescued[247]
  11. W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp
  12. Musca vetustissima
  13. Elizabeth A. Widjaja
  14. List of rivers of Rwanda
  15. List of rivers of Burundi
  16. Rivers of Kenya
  17. List of lakes in Kenya
  18. List of rivers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
  19. List of rivers of the Republic of the Congo
  20. List of rivers of Gabon
  21. List of rivers of Mozambique
  22. List of rivers of Algeria
  23. List of rivers of Malawi
  24. List of rivers of Equatorial Guinea
  25. List of rivers of Angola
  26. List of rivers of the Central African Republic
  27. List of rivers of Cameroon
  28. Pura Ulun Danu Bratan
  29. Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich - 1300 pageviews; averages over 1000 pageviews per month
  30. At Play in the Fields of the Lord (novel)
  31. Pura Dalem Agung Padangtegal
  32. Bima Regency
  33. West Lombok Regency
  34. East Lombok Regency
  35. Central Lombok Regency
  36. Dompu Regency
  37. Sumbawa Regency
  38. West Sumbawa Regency

The GodKing has opined

not specifically on this, but it covers the whole ball game:

My position, which I have held for quite some time, is that when we are excessively tolerant of toxic behaviors, we poison the environment and push good people to join in the bad behaviors — they end up with no other choice.

— Jimbo Walesdiff

This was previously quoted by me ;)

I, of course, am one of the good people. Most of those I've had conflict with have been quite problematic, and have ended-up gone. The wiki is better for it. The wiki will be better off without those currently seeking to nail my hide to a boxcar door as it rolls off into the sunset. Their fate is not tied to mine; they are known issues, and their doom awaits them.

Jack Merridew 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...right. Can we drop the sabre-rattling now? I am sorry that I wasn't more sycophantic or glowing Jack. I think I will unwatch this page now as I'd rather go and do something more productive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's hardly talking about you. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, you reckon? I know that. I know who he means. As said above, there are plenty of others involved in that debate already. Jack's being involved there adds nothing and raises problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let it all out. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I get the sense that as a mentor to Jack, you've failed, utterly. More than once, you weren't there for him when he came to you seeking help, and now you're lashing out at others instead of facing up to your failings as a mentor. Wikipedia didn't need you to be sycophantic but it did need you to listen with an open mind, and get involved when your help was requested, instead of blessing destructive behaviors of others. You were an enabler of the hounding that Jack's received. I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, because there are examples aplenty right here on this page. And on your talk page. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
IF Jack can be convinced to discontinue this pointless storming about blanking pages and posting block buttons, and return here, which is very much in doubt, and IF the decision is taken that he should continue to have a mentorship, whether informal or formal, I think it's very clear that you have no place in any such arrangement. ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving ;) They're just user pages; and one mop-bit. The formal mentorship expires in, what, two weeks? I'm fine with an informal mentorship on an indefinite basis; I'll listen to those that make sense (as should all; meant to be read both ways;). As Moreschi said, you'll have my ear. I am, however, not willing to be tied to the fucking pillory beyond Dec 9. That's what I meant by a "designated target". That's what the block links mean, and what the 'doesn't care' means. I'm open to a variety of solutions to this shite, including battering their heads on the rock of RFAR. If there are other options, great, but this has to end. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, the community still waits for evidence of hounding that Jack has received. Jack provided my full edit diffs in a RFC, with no explanation, but you have provided nothing. Ikip (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provide evidence of hounding of Jack? You're doing a fine enough job of that yourself. ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like Ikip's sabre-rattling for a year-block? And sycophantic would more aptly apply to A Nobody's gang that can't !vote-keep straight. The plenty of others line has been tried on me before re White Cat (oops). And guess what? No one did anything, just as no one's doing anything about A Nobody and his horde of proxies harassing me. Cas, you've had a COI all along, here. A Nobody's your friend, you find my participation in AFD infuriating (guess you still hold that hot Sunday in your garage hunting for old D&D magazines against me). I'm going to write a longer statement, but I'm on handphone, ATM, and it's low on pulsa. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE:
And guess what? No one did anything, just as no one's doing anything about A Nobody and his horde of proxies harassing me.
User:Moby Dick (Sock puppet of Jack Merridew) to User:White Cat:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Statement_by_Moby
"...User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like....It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing..." 11:20, 6 June 2006.[248] Ikip (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ikip; have a Happy Thanksgiving? Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*. See you at RFAR. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. Ikip (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trolls everywhere

Some people strut around Wikipedia with big red buttons on their foreheads, labelled "Do Not Press". I have occasionally succumbed to temptation and pressed someone's button, just to watch the explosion. I guess that makes me a troll.

My impression of Jack is that he is a useful, constructive editor, whose resistance to the big red button is lower than mine. Flaunt your button at Jack for long enough, and he'll give it a jab for sure. I guess that makes Jack a troll too.

But what galls me reading this, is that no-one seems to have noticed that the biggest trolls of all are the people who strut around Wikipedia flaunting their buttons, yearning for explosion.

Cas's point is well-taken: all the evidence of this year's mentoring suggests that when Jack sees a button he just has to press it. But there's a counter-point: the evidence also shows that some people just have to explode every month or so, and will go to any length to get someone to set them off, and will continue to do so whether Jack is around or not.

Frankly, I see Jack as the lesser problem here. Jack has demonstrated that he can get along with most people most of the time. Some of Jack's opponents have demonstrated that they can't get along with anyone at all for very long, not even the most good-natured, benignly friendly contributors. If the only people who can't get along with Jack are people who can't get along with anyone, then Ockam's Razor suggests that Jack is not really the problem.

Hesperian 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's last year

Ya, this *other place* ;) Durova had a blog post a while ago that had a nod at us all having a bit of troll in us. She's a sharp woman with a peck of clue. Notice how the word 'stalker' has crept back into ambient usage here? She was the one who recast that whole bit of toxic terminology as wiki-hounding because it conflates wiki-pissing-matches with real-world criminality; its use is about poisoning the well and demonizing someone. It's all very Manichean and all should read Cyberchiefs. This is all toxic environment stuff and it *must* get sorted out because it's the biggest threat to the projects. My user page currently says 'This sockpuppet does not care' — and it means I will take the block, take another indef (and just go). I will *not* go meekly, I will not be broken on the wheel, and I will call users on their behavior if it is damaging to the project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May we have a clerk adjust the terminology, please? "Wikihounding" is much more appropriate. Stalking is a criminal offense and a small number of Wikimedians have actually gone to law enforcement to resolve problems that arose due to our volunteer work here. Metaphoric or figurative use of that word is not a good idea: in the past that use has generated confusion when someone opens an FBI case and other editors mistake the problem for passing onsite irritation. Please replace with "wikihounding". Durova369 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haz search and replace ;) — but will let someone else have a go; it would be best to be selective and not merely replace-all; nb: there's another copy of Ikip's “evidence” at:
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If the only people who can't get along with Jack are people who can't get along with anyone, then Ockam's Razor suggests that Jack is not really the problem." Since your "if" is incorrect, the rest becomes meaningless as well. Fram (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about you and I getting along, I wouldn't know — as you're not interesteddiff in even talking to me. Jack Merridew 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't know, but you erroneously claimed earlier that I find you despicable[249], and argued that the difference between "I find you despicable" and "how you treated him was despicable" is "hair-splitting" when I indicated your mistake. You also stated that "Fram, you don't like me; you've made that clear enough",[250] so what changed your opinion since then? I am indeed not interested in a one-on-one discussion with people who don't make the distinction between a comment on what you did in a specific situation and what you are, even after this has been pointed out to them. You should have convinced me with your actions, not with talking. Fram (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can throw diffs and oldids around all day, if you like; these are about me pointing out that you're quite involved re myself (I suggest that you view yourself as involved. You strongly opposed my return@motion and declined to discuss things with me upon my return.@your talk You're appalled, you find me despicable, and I guess there's not much I can do about that.), and John did comment to you in ways that essentially endorse that (scroll down a bit, his second paragraph). My comment about your constantly trying to stir-up shite without any effort to resolve the situation is problematic referred to your not being willing to engage in any dialogue with *me* other than to drop block-threats my way, not your efforts to shield A Nobody from spot-on comments concerning his highly inappropriate behavior. Anyway, you *are* hairsplitting, but I'll bite; do you like me? At least we're talking now, which is encouraged. I renew the offer of an email dialogue; I've found it works wonders. FYI, I bought a bunch of Hergé works such as Red Rackham's Treasure about 15 years ago; great stuff -- I read them originally when I was a kid. I am sincere when I say I'd like to talk with you; really. I'm no troll and I expect you'll like me if you'll get to know me. We probably have some mutual friends, or could ;)
Aside @DGG; email offer's good for you, too.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has my position as being involved or not to do with the previour posts? Quite a non sequitur. You repeat the "I find you despicable" line, and try to suggest that John Vandenberg endorsed that comment, when all he did was say "I can see why he views you as "involved"". I am more than willing to engage in dialogue with you, I Have done sone here, on my talk page, on your talk page, and on John Vandenberg's talk page. I am not interested in e-mail discussion with you, I prefer to conduct my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, and I am not interested to continue discussions where you continue to spread incorrect statements about me. If I have the impression that you are discussing things constructively, I am happy to reply (on Wikipedia). So far, I only see a willingness to discuss, but the constructive part is lacking completely. Fram (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to talk; on-wiki is fine, as you prefer. I am still nominally under restrictions that make discussing my past a circuitous exercise, which was a lot of why I was suggesting email. I did not mean to say that John endorsed anything re the word "despicable", only re "involved" as in WP:INVOLVED; you're not an appropriate person to be talking of blocking me. I copypasted the parenthetical quote in above and it did mess with how things read. I will accept that you see a significant semantic difference and will retract my statement that you find *me* despicable. Maaf, which is bahasa Indonesia for sorry. I suppose this same distinction would apply to the comments re Daedalus with Jo; Daedalus 'prefers' to have threads split between two talk pages. I had pasted his reply off my page back to his where I had first commented, and he undid it. He defends this somewhere above on this talk page; he really should read User:Lar/Pooh Policy and change his behaviour. It was his behaviour I was referring to as as shite. And no, I'm not impressed with him as an editor. As a person, I've no clue; I doubt Daedalus is really his name. He seems far too into the Granting-Recognition-to-the-Socks game; It's all Whac-A-Mole. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (whose real name is David)[reply]
As I said on my talk page, if you have a problem with how I prefer to communicate, you can take it up with Gogo Dodo as well, as that is how the habit formed. As you have replied, in that, you don't know him, why would you talk to him about it, well, you don't know me either, and yet you still feel the need to abolish me for it. Talk about hypocrisy.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, that's about how the discussion went (I've not checked). Thing is:
Get it? I've not encountered this problem with whomever Gogo Dodo is; I *have* encountered it with you. Have you read User:Lar/Pooh Policy? Please do, and please see the sense of it and quit deliberately fragmenting discussions. It's annoying, and you might want to go persuade Gogo Dodo on this point, too.
While I'm addressing you, I'll add that I never encountered you prior your raising a fuss over this:
which you yourself characterized as "a very, very, very, very weak form of POV pushing." (And I don't see it that way at all)
Anyway, that's how you got on my radar. Oh, I expect you mean "admonish", not "abolish"... unless you're being funny ;)
Regards, Jack Merridew 12:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, apology accepted. While I don't agree that I'm involved, I acknowledge that different people believe I am, so I have indicated that I would act as if I was involved. Since then, I have no longer acted as an admin (with block threats or whatever) in this situation, but as an editor with concerns about your conduct (not with your content related edits). I am free to express my belief that you have repeatedly edited against A Nobody, seeking out his contribs or discussions where he was involved, despite him not having discussed you or acted against you for a very long time, and despite the fact that many people asked you to refrain from such actions. I have still not seen a good explanation of why you made those edits, nor an indication that you would not repeat this. As long as these are lacking, I will continue, as editor, to be opposed to the lifting of your mentoring and restrictions. The manner in which you (over)reacted the previous days (not today) wrt this discussions only strengthens my opinion that despite your good content contributions, you remain a sometimes problematic editor conductwise. Fram (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for stepping back a bit. I've no issue with you commenting and having a view re me (besides not liking or agreeing;) A Nobody and I have a lot of overlap in our interests and our views are not aligned; as you've said, you and I are on the same page re much of the content views. I've not seen a whole lot of you during this last year, but the issues are there, and are unresolved. I have 4200-odd pages on my watchlist and I constantly see his user name popping up. It is inherent in how the wiki works that editors see what other editors are doing; checking each others contribs is utterly ordinary. I've looked at the contribs of most every editor on this page today; those who edited it today, at least.
I have had tons of dialogue with a lot of people this past 20 months, both on wiki, and email. Prior to that I was mostly a keep to myself guy; I didn't even have email enabled and did not 'chat' much. Seems this may be your approach. When I ran into conflict, no one knew much about me beyond the picture painted on-wiki. It didn't work out well.
A Nobody has quite explicitly sought to exclude me from the areas he runs roughshod over. For the last while, he's used Ikip as his proxy; or Ikip has counseled A Nobody to step back while he steps in. This page, for example. This is quite obvious to all who've been monitoring this for most of the last year. Do you know who I was chatting pleasantly with after I confessed my sockness March 31 2008? A Nobody, under teh other name. This dispute kicked into high gear this past March when I posted a comment in his Editor Review. It was critical, but others said far harsher stuff. He reverted my comment out; repeatedly, including all subsequent comments from me, too. Many commented on this, none favorably. The thrust of his stance was that I'm an illegitimate editor due to being a sock. My restriction said to use this account but he took the position that only Davenbelle could talk to him. That account's long scuttled. Since March A Nobody has repeatedly sought to usurp the restriction about my commenting on White Cat as his own. They are going flat-out to sabotage my return. We all know who they are; the ones who keep showing up.
If I see a problem with editing patterns, I will comment, I will discuss. It's not matter of setting brushfires. Seeking a proper resolution with serious people has been the core theme of the mentorship. You understand that my mentors are my friends? A fair number of serious people are. True, things are quite strained with regard to Cas at the moment, but I still respect him and see him as a good person. I have only met one serious wiki editor in real life; Revi. The rest of these friendships have been established on-wiki and via email. You commented to John about a few of my edits yesterday; I commented on Pablo's page not because I saw that A Nobody or Ikip had and not because the page was on my watchlist; I might have noticed that thread by one of those means, but a link to it appeared in my inbox before I'd even launched a browser. It was from Pablo, who's a friend. There's nothing wrong with the edits I made the last few days. The AMI page has an old post of mine from March 2005 still on it; too funny, so I signed up for lulz; great justice and epic lulz as it goes. Maybe you don't like my humour; maaf. I'm no fan of Grawp; I've tangled with him a lot. I defend my wiki. I love the title of this section; Hesperian's a friend of mine, too; from Wikisource, where I had my bit removed the other day.
I've done my penance, am a reformed user; time to move on. The issue with these guys has been allowed to drift *because* my year had to pass. You endorsed the RFC/U re A Nobody, as did a bunch of folks. Ikip may be taken there soon or we'll go straight to RFAR where he will fare poorly. I'm unconcerned about any RFC/U on me; hell, there would be good feedback out of it. Thanks for listening. I guess I do my longer summary tomorrow.
Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Merridew, in the past year, since you were unbanned for sock puppets and harrassment, how many Editor Reviews where you involved with? Wasn't A Nobody's the only one?

To echo DGG's comment above:

"He does not bait me or you--he baits those susceptible to it, and is, I must admit, very skilled at this."

Mr. Merridew's statment is 100% correct:

"This dispute kicked into high gear this past March when I posted a comment in his Editor Review."

Mr. Merridew, like White Cat before, has there been any dispute between you and A Nobody which didn't start with you? [Other than reports to ANI and mentors about your harrassment?]

DGG's, Mr. Schmidt, and my request for supporting evidence: "those defending Jack need to put up the evidence to show baiting" will never be answered. This is because there is no evidence of baiting or hounding. The only baiting has been by Mr. Merridew.Ikip (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John's assessment

Let the bashing begin. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I should be proposing — just an-off-the-cuff, wingnut idea — that A Nobody, Ikip, and I (and a few more;) should all recuse from *all* AfDs, articles *at* AfD, and all pop-culture articles and policies and related discussions and talk pages for... 3 months? With an option to renew. Oh; Ikip to like in *no* way canvas, either. Broadly construed. Too bad I missed the AC election deadline. The clerk idea might still work ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the whole issue of A Nobody's participation at RfA is problematic, consensus at his RFC/U, and he need to also cut that out. Jack Merridew 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing personal attacks in arbitration.
I am not very familar with the Arbcom process, when an editor is attacked by another editor, as Jack Merridew attacked me, "Have I called you a troll, lately? You *are*."[251] should a clerk handle it? Should I open up a wp:wikiquette case or an RFC, since this is not the first time he has called an editor a troll or launched into a personal attack. Or should I open of a Request for Arbitration?
John Vandenberg's statment.
John Vandenberg writes:
"The only "pattern" of edits which have caused concern has been Jack's interaction with a few of the ARS members...Jack has at times stepped across the lines with snide remarks and has led many to believe that he has been wikihounding the ARS members."
Mr. Coleman and Daedalus969 are not ARS members. All three editors who were harassed by Jack Merridew this year were completly independent of each other.
John Vandenberg writes:
" In order to reduce the negative interactions, I tried proposing a productive stalemate between Jack Merridew and A Nobody. Jack agreed[252] however A Nobody refused."
The very last posting in this section, A Nobody writes:
"Anyway, as I said, set a date, and I will gladly refrain from prodding, speedy delete templating, nominating, or even rescue templating any articles" 19:36, 8 August 2009.[253]
I am confused. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of wikihounding and harassing; do you have all these "Jack diffs" memorized or do you keep a list somewhere? - Josette (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of meatpuppets wikihounding, do you always join your husband in campaigns to support your friends and influence people? Isn't it fun to make irrelevant but utterly negative posts? A lot easier than responding to the actual issues of course... Can we stick to what's relevant please? Fram (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have earned the right to post anywhere I choose just as you have. Do you have more rights than me? I think my question about why diffs always appear so quickly is extremely relevant, as it supports the notion that Ikip is hounding Jack. My husband and I rarely edit in the same areas as we have different interests, except when we see a friend being mistreated. Jack happens to be a friend of ours. - Josette (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have the right to post almost anywhere. Just like Ikip has the right to keep any list of diffs on his harddisk somewhere if he so chooses. To question someone on his rapid access to diffs instead of discussing whether these diffs highlight a problem or not is just rather telling. To be called out on things that are only distracting from what is being discussed here can be annoying, apparently. Fram (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, back on topic - I agree with John's assessment. - Josette (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree John's is detailed and fair - the more I think about the nebulous 'disruptive', the more I feel it is not feasible unless specific. Either there is a specific sanction or not. Again, as far as heeding advice, I still am uneasy - I advised here, here, here, here, here, hinting here (well hoping everyone would take the hint) and here. I am not sure how many of these were heeded (well, we did get good content improvement) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip keeping extensive lists of "bad acts" to sling about later is pure battleground and bad faith; harassment, if you will. This was on display in A Nobody's RFC/U and A Nobody was dinged for it there, too. Ikip seems to do this rather a lot. Now, I've not even read that page, but see that the pattern repeats; note the same tag team at work. I don't know Collect; I vaguely recall one minor incident where I commented about him, but don't recall just what it was. Look for Ikip to offer something about that soon ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 07:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip, if you read through my proposal you will see it is quite different from what A Nobody agreed to. A Nobody had already "agreed" to those restrictions[254][255], but did not want to refrain from rescuing articles. My 'distilled proposal' came after this and, as you point out, he again would not refrain from rescuing articles at AFD.[256]
The fundamental element was for them both to refrain from editing articles at AfD - he did not want this restriction. That would only have achieved a cease-fire. The other element was for them both to work together rescuing specific articles that they could agree needed rescuing, with Cas and myself helping. This was intended to show them that they could achieve more by working together.
I think this was a missed opportunity for them both. The point I am making in my summary is that Jack Merridew was willing to give it a go. In the previous section of my talk page ('searching for common ground') I proposed an Editor Review, which he self-filed.
John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to post yet more diffs; it all there on John's talk page. Basically there were two proposals from John and I agreed to both and A Nobody would not agree to either; he offered light-weight stuff that would not much impact what he is intent on. The real sticking point was his unwillingness to step away from AfD and editing articles *at* AfD. His whole disruptive tactic of cross-merging stuff between articles currently at AfD kicked into high-gear after he rejected John's proposals.
So, above, I offered a proposal that *all* of the usual suspects get a clue and voluntarily step back from all of it. Make a list of about a dozen editors, and Ikip, and all should state that they will go do something else; broadly construed. Let's not make it a formal topic ban; the idea would be to see who can actually walk away from the battle for a longish time, a demonstration of any 'good faith'. John asked me to do this for a month sometime in September and mostly I have been out of AfD since then. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification John Vandenberg, that section only mentioned what A Nobody agreed too.
A Nobody wrote:
"I would agree to not nominating, not prodding, not commenting in, or rescue templating any articles under discussion. I am an admin on several other wikis, so I would still transwiki articles under discussion and we both should still be able to help reference and improve articles under deletion discussion without commenting in the AfDs and not the same articles, because improving articles is what we should be here for and hopefully someone in the discussions will notice any improvements."[257]
"John suggested neither of us start nor comment in any AfDs for a month. Actually that sounds like a good idea that should be enforced. If John says he will enforce that to prevent this unnecessary hounding of me from continuing, I will gladly agree."[258]
"Anyway, as I said, set a date, and I will gladly refrain from prodding, speedy delete templating, nominating, or even rescue templating any articles."[259]
A Nobody, after all, was the editor who was being hounded, and the hounding was happening at AFDs, not in the articles themselves. I wish these modified restrictions were put in place.
John Vandenberg why not put the full restrictions you proposed in place for the next 6 months to 1 year for AFDs? Based on Jack Merridew's five year behavioral patterns, he will find other ways to hound A Nobody, but this is a good start.
Jack Merridew, why should other editors be punished for your continued hounding? As shown in your hounding of Cool Cat, Mr. Coleman, Dae, and A Nobody, you hounded editors outside of AFD, your hounding will continue unabated. I wonder how long until the communities patience will run out Jack Merridew? What is this the fourth or fifth time you have been to Arbcom? How many other editors get so many chances?
Can someone let me know what I can do about Jack Merridew's personal attack?[260] Ikip (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ikip ;) Mostly we're ignoring you. If you want to not be tagged with that brush, stop trolling. Note: you might want to save this diff somewhere. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tell Jack to stop calling me a troll? Why is Jack Merridew allowed to call other editors names and bait them on the very page his behavior is supposed to be reviewed? Unfortunatly we are all here today, over five years after Jack Merridew began harassing editors because administrators with the power to stop this continued abuse, have been hesitant.
User White Cat:
"Why am I even having this conversation with arbcom? Jack Merridew is a sanctioned troll and sockpuppeter. He was convicted multiple times in harassing multiple users - of which at least three times by arbcom." 22:38, 29 October 2008.[261]
"Since arbcom is not willing to be the solution to [Jack Merridew]...I am tired of dealing with this issue which will soon celebrate its fifth anniversary as of 12 May 2009" 21:55, 29 October 2008.[262]
User MBisanz on John Vandenberg page:
"Jack Merridew has violated edit warring, civility, hounding policies. However, given that neither of them is associated with a powerful group of friends, no one really has cared enough to take it any further in the dispute resolution process, since there isn't a strategic goal and it would probably end up being a very boring and tedious arbcom case...[263]
Ikip (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the part of my statement which refers to A Nobody.[264]
In regards to editing restrictions, that is for the committee to decide. i.e. I am recused as an arbitrator on this matter.
As I have said in my statement, if it falls onto the mentors to craft restrictions, it will be done. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you raise Daedalus969 and the sock, lets take a look. Justme89 (talk · contribs) was delinking "USA" from the infobox on Cathy Scott. Daedalus969 called it vandalism. Justme89 did it again twice, with Daedalus969 & IP 96.240.9.26 reverting. This ended when Justme89 was indef blocked after moving their user talk page into mainspace.[265] Daedalus969 starts working through the users edits[266]
Justme89 then created a new account Thewiki289 (talk · contribs). Of the 67 edits by Thewiki289, 7 edits were to articles which Justme89 had previously edited.[267] Daedalus969 figured this out, and initiated an SPI and ANI, saying that he was going to "revert their edits", and seems to have done exactly that. (Daedalus969 and Thewiki289 share 39 edited pages.[268])
The result was bizarre, incorrect and non-MOS conforming edits.
  • [269] - fixed by CharlotteWebb after 16 hours
  • [270] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [271] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [272] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [273] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [274] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [275] - fixed by 96.240.9.26 on 28 May
  • [276] - fixed by Tinton5 on 2 July
  • [277] - fixed by SK8erT on 21 July[278]
Jack and Daedalus969 had a brief conversation about this. (archive)
Fast-forward a little and Daedalus969 is back at the Cathy Scott article[279], revertings two edits and relinking United States again :- this Daedalus969 "fix" included undoing a correct edit which was not fixed until months later.[280]
I think Daedalus969 was a bit too aggressive with this user (I suspect that the delinkers would have a fit if they learnt that there was an edit war to link "United States" in the name of MOS ), resulting in a contributor either being lost, or becoming more familiar with the sock policy. We live and learn.
So, Jack took over a good edit of a sock, did some paper-work on those AFDs, and was drawn into the Daedalus969/Giano/Bish/Jimbo mess.
That is hounding?! If so, you are devaluing "hounding" to the point that it is something that most of us do routinely, both when cleaning up a mess or trying to be helpful.
Daedalus969 asked Jack Merridew to back off in July[281] Is there any evidence that he has continued to enter Daedalus969's space afterwards ?
I wont analyse you evidence of the Coleman "hounding" in as much detail. Let me just point out one aspect which stands out. You say:
"User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Wikipedia:File namespace to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned."
If you look at Wikipedia:File namespace you will see that it is a redirect, and there is no reason why Jack would return to that redirect. He did however make a fairly radical change to Wikipedia:Namespace. He also went and edited Template:Namespaces. You present these as separate pieces of evidence of hounding. They are all one piece of doing the good work.
That said, I think Jack's approach to Coleman was a bit too aggressive. Like all of us, he isn't a saint all the time.
When Franamax asked him to back off, your evidence shows that he made one more batch of related edits and has backed off since then.
I dont see Coleman & Daedalus969 as part of a "pattern" of disruption. OTOH, I agree with Casliber in that your evidence is useful to identity ways that he can improve. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when John started this section with "Let the bashing begin", he meant that he would be bashed, not that Jack Merridew and Ikip would be hurling insults at one another. Both of you, stop it, before someone uninvolved steps in. Neither of you comes out of this any better. If you believe that some problems are not adressed here, then either accept that not enough people are convinced of the problem you believe exists, or move on (politely) to the next step of dispute resolution. Again, this goes for both of you. Fram (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excellent points. I will drop this. I have been called much worse :/ Ikip (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; Jack, your comments here will almost certainly affect the committee's decision making process. You have a statement to write. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I'll bite my tongue. I *was* writing my new statement about 4 hours ago and we lost power; this is quite frequent these days as there's just not enough power vs the demand. I'll review what's occurred in the last while but won't have my statement done until tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Jack has at times stepped across the lines with snide remarks and has led many to believe that he has been wikihounding the ARS members."
User:Daedalus969, one of the editors Jack Merridew hounded, just nominated Crasher Squirrel for deletion today.[282] On the 25th he nominated Kosvinsky Mountain.[283] On the 24th he nominated Evan Ratliff.[284] On the 17 November he !voted to delete Laura DiDio, with 8 posting supporting deletion.[285] On October 18 he nominated How now brown cow for deletion.[286]
White Cat would often put categories up for deletion which Jack Merridew sockpuppet would argue "keep".
There should be no plural in "ARS members". The only ARS member who Jack Merridew hounded has been A Nobody.
The only similarity that runs through these four diverse editors, is as DGG wrote:
"[Jack Merridew] does not bait me or you--he baits those susceptible to it, and is, I must admit, very skilled at this."
This is not, nor has ever been a ARS issue. This is simply a wikihouding issue.
Many editors who tend to not support ARS, and strongly supported Jack Merridew being rebanned, have remained unnamed in my "warnings" section because I have recently argued aggressively and bitterly over various issues. Just this summer Fram and I were arguing strongly about WP:ARS, it got very heated. When such a diverse group of editors are hounded, and such a diverse group of editors warn Jack Merridew how can this be a partisan ARS issue? When Jack Merridew continues to harass an editor with the exact same tactics which the arbcom unanimously voted was harassment, why hasn't he been blocked? Thanks. Ikip (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not, nor has it ever been, a wikihouding issue. This is simply a wikidefending issue. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bit ;) — opened the box. Thanks for all the diffs to me opining to 'keep' stuff; stuff that *was* kept. Appropriately. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion etiquette

Ikip, as a personal favor, would you please stop inserting stuff and then taking it out again? The history of this page shows a lot of this by you, as do many other discussion pages where you participate. It's very distracting, and it is poor form. I suggest instead that you think about what you want to say, then say it, and let it stand. Going back and editing things that you signed some time past is actually very much contrary to how discussion is supposed to be done here. If you must, use strikeouts. But it's better to just say "I didn't mean X where I said it above and instead I mean Y". Your way leaves the historical record very tangled and it's not goodness. Also, you run the risk of being quoted out of context. Just some thoughts. Thank you for your consideration. ++Lar: t/c 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? I strike my comment and he posts about it and then reverts it back out? Sheesh. G'night. Jack Merridew 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Lar, I will be more mindful of this.
Lar, a personal favor, can you provide evidence of your accusations that editors have hounded Jack Merridew? Casliber, Mr. Schmidt and myself, have asked and thus far, there have been no edits showing this.
Thank you for your consideration. Ikip (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No edits showing this" to your satisfaction, perhaps. However I'm not sure you are satisfiable. You get refuted on one point, and you just throw more mud elsewhere to see if it sticks. Very tiresome. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As my name is mentioned above, I will myself ask again, as I have not myself had any negative interactions with Jack, and can see that he can make some decent contributions to the project when he wishes. It is worth revisiting the original question if a satisfactory response has not yet resulted.
So Lar, and with respects, other than assertions that Jack's actions have only been in response to baiting by others, can such diffs actualy be provided? The question has been asked in various ways by various editors, and an answer has not been forthcoming. Please ignore that the question was diffs were first posted by Ikip. It is of a concern and must be addressed in some way other than simply denigrating the messager. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the A Nobody RfC. There's ample evidence there. ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That closed discussion is even longer than this... and with respects, this is one is about Jack and his interactions with editors other than A Nobody. Are you now requiring that I parse through that other discussion line by line? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I require nothing of you whatever. But you asked for evidence that Jack gets hounded. That discussion is full of Ikip hounding Jack. You don't have to read it line by line to see it. Besides, you were there. Sorry if you can't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. This isn't an arbitration case and diffs are not the only way to prove a point. Ikip dredges up diffs (amazingly quickly, but I digress) but they don't necessarily show what he thinks they do. Even if I DID provide you with diffs, it's still a matter of interpretation, isn't it? John provided diffs to show that Ikip's charge that Jack was hounding Daedalus was poppycock, but I'm not seeing any of you admitting that. This all is a massive waste of time. There are people out to get Jack, but you're not going to admit it. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any conspiracy "out to get Jack"... and again, as I have had no negative interactions with Jack and see that he does make productive contributions, please do not ask that I comment about the motivations of others. I do not read minds. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima's statement

I started an RfC against Bishonen. Moreschi deleted it. I put it back up as it was deleted out of process. I was immediately blocked and then it was overturned by the community's consensus. At an MfD of the page, I was met with many people claiming that I put up the RfC out of hate. I asked them to take down their comments and they didn't. I posted a WQA request in order to try and sort it out, and Jack repeatedly closed it with tags that said it was disruptive and forum shopping.

I must say, having Jack edit war on a WQA attempt seeking neutral, third party individuals to help sort of accusations against me that were distressing (discussed here), I find that Jack has done exactly opposite of what WQA is supposed to do. I also find it odd that Jack did such after Moreschi, one of his mentors, previously attempted to stop the RfC that I initiated. I also find it odd that Moreschi's statement on the other page makes it seem that Jack edit warring a WQA in such a way was appropriate.

WQA is the first step to settle problems between editors, and it must be treated with respect in order to ease any problems. Edit warring and accusations of such a nature, especially by people involved in the matter on either side, only cause more harm. I don't think a edit warring based disruption of an important dispute resolution process can be taken lightly and I am disappointed that many here wish to overlook such a thing. How can we begin to solve any of our conflicts if people can't even feel safe going to the appropriate processes to do so? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this comment wildly misses the mark. You were misusing WQA. That seems pretty well accepted, at least by everyone except you. Jack didn't do anything sanctionable there. However, to your point about solving conflicts... we ARE solving some of our conflicts. I have high hopes in that regard. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misusing WQA? No one made such a claim but involved people. Lar, your statement reveals exactly the problem here. Getting such people like you to ignore outright atrocious and unacceptable behavior is extremely problematic and I ask all Arbitrators to look at your statement above before considering -anything- you have to say here. I am disgusted that you would even dare claim that asking WQA to intervene in a situation where two people are claiming I -hate- someone is even slightly inappropriate. Then, to dare claim that everyone except me agrees with your claim when it is clearly not true?
1. "A third party mediation would have been helpful in this case. If an uninvolved user told Ottava that he was wrong, and that he should drop the matter, then either Ottava would have done so or looked like a complete fool by continuing. If an uninvolved user said that Ottava's statements had some merit, then there is no reason to close down the WQA thread. NW (Talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"
2. "What is with closing all these attempts at dispute resolution like it's a game of whack-a-mole? By all means provide links to relevant discussion, but involved parties closing dispute resolution always stinks. Now I propose a one week cooling off period on all discussion of anything related to this series of incidents. After that, RFC/U or whatever dispute resolution is necessary, not closed prematurely by anyone involved. How about that? Rd232 talk 15:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
3. "I think that part of the idea behind WQA is that a person is able to vent their frustrations. Closing the WQA one minute after it was created,[10] by the very editor who it is against, is an abuse of this process. "When to avoid filing an alert" states: "When your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere." SarekOfVulcan stated "really, we've got an ANI thread, an RFC, and MFD -- why do we need a WQA for the same issue?"[11] Is there an "ANI thread, an RFC, and MFD" on the issue of Jack's incivility? I see a lot of edit differences from Ottava Rima, but none from anyone else.Ikip (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)"
I am disappointed in your actions Lar, but your statements will be noted and will be provided as evidence later, especially in light of your previous comments to me. To make such inaccurate claims that are completely against what our processes are for and to provide a completely false testimony about the consensus about the action? There is a major problem, and I doubt you will even realize it let alone care. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please just drop this? I stand by my statement of a month and a half ago, but I don't think refighting old battles is a good idea. We have already done it once recently; a second time is unnecessary. Ottava has entered this discussion into evidence; the Arbitrators should be the one to analyze if it has any merit. NW (Talk) 19:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi is a fine Wikipedian in many regards. Was hoping this wouldn't need to be written onsite: when Moreschi posted his statement I was worried that it would backfire on Jack. Moreschi's description went farther than necessary; is not surprising that Ottava Rima took offense. A calm and focused discussion is the best way to decide whether or not Jack's restrictions ought to be lifted. Toward that goal, would Moreschi perhaps consider a refactor? Durova371 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova: are you confusing Moreschi and Lar? --SB_Johnny | talk 21:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Durova is not - Durova, you may have missed this, but "lamentably overactive sense of persecution" is currently supported by an entire pageful of evidence at RFAR, contributed by more editors than I would care to count offhand. It's not as if I couldn't supply tens of references if someone added {{fact}}. Moreschi (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No confusion on this end. All that's needed is "Ottava Rima has been in conflicts with many people" or something similar. Consider the type of assertion you posted. Its appropriateness really doesn't hinge upon how much evidence supports it: if you're right then waxing eloquent is likely to set him off, and if not--obvious problems then. A bland and simple summary could have avoided objections, and if Ottava had objected anyway then it would have demonstrated the matter empirically. There's an edge to the tone that doesn't sit well. Durova371 00:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's an edge to the tone. Myself and my close colleagues have had to put up with Ottava's bullying, wikistalking, harassment, and personal attacks (often via public IRC channels, where we can't respond) for far too long and we're beyond sick of it. We are supposed to treat Ottava with TLC (to avoid hurting his extremely tender feelings), while he swings around with his ice axe at literally anyone with range (see the workshop, where "in range" consists of, from memory, myself, Folantin, SarekofVulcan, Akhilleus, RegentsPark, Jack Merridew - oh, look, I forgot Fowler and Fowler and Ncmvocalist. Silly me!). It's bullshit, and I consider Ottava's take on JM disgustingly vindictive and utterly ludicrous. At least the views of Ikip, A Nobody and various others have some sort of argument based in rationality. Moreschi (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an artificial rationality. Oh, look — a Big Red Button; presses it. Sincerely, Sarah Connor 02:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find Moreschi's and Lar's statements to be extremely hurtful. I only wanted to get a neutral group to help me deal with what I considered a distressing and upsetting situation and it was met with edit warring and accusations which seem to be carried in the above. How horrible of a person am I where even my attempts to try and seek neutral mediation in a relaxed atmosphere are met with such attacks? Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do y'know, Ottava, I think we might have a lot more consideration for your sensitive feelings if you perhaps occasionally considered the feelings of others, and stopped to think before telling contributors with over 100k edits that they are out to "destroy Wikipedia and don't even have a defense", or if you hadn't wasted the time of professors of linguistics by telling them all they knew nothing of a subject of which you yourself know jack shit, to take the two most glaring examples from an entire evidence page full of them. Moreschi (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow a suggestion from someone who respects you, Ottava Rima, and Jack Merridew: the impulse to write "of which you yourself know jack shit" is a good indicator that it's time to recuse onself. The better part of you is above that. It doesn't help Jack to take this detour. Please reconsider. Durova371 02:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ottava clearly knows nothing of linguistics. I myself don't know much either, but then I don't go around telling professors of the subject they're cretins.
And, well, the better part of me is temporarily on holiday. He's taken so much abuse from Ottava he's decided to pack it in, and currently I'm in bite-back mode. Ottava's playing of the victim card - something of a recurrent meme - is going to get very short shrift. Of course, I will listen with due respect to Ikip, A Nobody etc the moment they produce some evidence that is actually evidence and that might display bad faith on Jack's part - and of course, acknowledging that A Nobody's editing has been highly problematic for a very long time might help. Of course, no one acknowledges now that Cool Cat's editing back then was far worse, but that Jack (in the form of Davenbelle) went way, way too far in trying to alert the community to that fact (to put it mildly). A bunch of the diffs shown below don't take into the account that Cool Cat is/was an extremely hardcore Turkish nationalist POV-pusher, and Jack had a legitimate interest in trying to counteract CC's efforts to remove the word "Kurdistan" or even just "Kurd" from literally every corner of Wikipedia. That he went wildly OTT in doing so is of course undisputed, but I've yet to see any convincing analysis that shows me this pattern is repeating itself. Moreschi (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to point out that (1) Cool Cat is now White Cat, (2) if things aren't looking up, maybe it's time to take a step back and relax rather than actually having to curse in a public thread? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously, but he was Cool Cat at the time. Oh, and believe me, I've just come back from a loong wikibreak - only to find Ottava spreading poisonous little rumours about the destructive effects of the "Moreschi cabal" in my absence, and viciously harassing my close colleagues here. I don't take kindly to such nonsense, and am certainly not taking my eye off the ball, at least not until the arbcom case is done and dusted. And yes, I'm angry. I have a right to be, the amount of abuse Ottava has hurled my way, a chunk of which seems to have fallen on Jack's unfortunate shoulders simply because I am his mentor (from memory, Ottava accused Jack on #wikipedia-en of "being disruptive for Moreschi" - of course, neither Jack nor I was around to defend ourselves) and hence he is obviously part of the all-powerful "Moreschi cabal". Jack is quite capable of defending his own actions, but the reasons behind this bullshit needs to be dragged into the light of day. Moreschi (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Moreschi in no way put me up to... whatever it is that I did that Ottava is so het up about. A box around some time-suck, wasn't it? That would be goodness, here, methinks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any Arbitrator wants proof of my background in linguistics, I can provide email addresses of various professors that I have studied under. Many of whom have Wiki pages (and no, I have not edited them). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These would be the same professors who taught you that Derrida was such a key figure in linguistics? Heaven help us. Moreschi (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derrida is an extremely famous critiquer of Saussure, and asking for Derrida to be mentioned in one line was based in NPOV stating that Saussure's understanding of linguistics was analyzed and claimed to be incorrect, which sparked a major movement within linguistics and criticism - Deconstructionism. Derrida is just as important in reference to Saussure as Lacan. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what linguistics is? I mean linguistics, not linguistics-based literary criticism. Perhaps not, if you really do think the primary application of linguistics is for use in literary theory. ROFL. Moreschi (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disconnecting sign from signifier has far greater consequences than in just "literary criticism". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? Moreschi (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you two bickering has anything to do with this page. Is this even the right page to talk about linguistics? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck off topic statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it simple...

Here's my proposal (as out of place as it might be here)

Jack doesn't edit at AfDs or DrVs and doesn't comment on ARS and a handful of editors (Ikip, AN, maybe a few others). A Nobody agrees to not edit AfDs or DrVs and doesn't comment on Jack or interact in any way. All of ARS and that handful of editors avoids Jack in the same way. A Nobody can still edit articles that are at AfD but my not place rescue templates or ask others to do so nor may he rewrite an article at AfD/DrV in a way that changes the topic or is otherwise found to be even a little disruptive (by say Casliber). Oh, and Jack and AN may not sock or invoke the right to disappear or otherwise edit from a different account at all. I honestly think all sides would be willing to do this and it would make Wikipedia a much better place. Hobit (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, we spent 2 months on John's talk page and, ya, that's pretty much what A Nobody wanted and what John seems to be seeing as inadequate; I certainly see it as off-base. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody and User talk:EdJohnston#Draft WT:AFD closing opinion on live merges. May not invoke the right to disappear? Ha! That's about *wanting* me on the breaking wheel indefinitely. Jack Merridew 05:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I followed the discussion on John's page. I think this would end the drama and ends a bunch of negative things (you, Ikip and AN bickering, AN being disruptive on deletion issues, etc.) while keeping the good (AN does improve articles in many cases, you've done quite a bit of good work on articles too.) If you don't mind summarizing that other debate, what is your objection? Hobit (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my proposal at #John's assessment; a bolder take on what must be twenty pages on John's talk. And how many DRVs have I ever participated in? I'd say maybe a dozen. I'm an ARS member, fyi. Jack Merridew 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I read that but I'm not sure I understood your objection. You'd be okay with it if AN stopped editing pages under discussion for deletion, is that right? Hobit (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I don't think this is the appropriate forum for proposing (much less deciding upon) restrictions for A Nobody or anyone else. This discussion is just for the evaluation of Jack's mentorship, and whether and how it should be continued. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents on the actual discussion is that Jack is a solid contributor when he isn't interacting with those that greatly annoy him. I'd suggest anything that reduces those interactions is good. And I don't think one-way restrictions on Jack are reasonable at this time. And I'm not the first to raise ideas like this here... Hobit (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The use of a Catherine wheel has been shown not to work. Vote-stacking and canvassing has been used on seeral editors now, and works far too often, frequently dragging in good-faith editors. Practitioners of canvassing, vote-stacking and unfounded charges are far more a problem than Merridew has been, and it is time to simply drop all actions against him (frankly, this sort of page is torture in itself). Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor. Collect (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment by SB_Johnny

I'm weighing in because I briefly got involved with Jack this past April, responding to a request on an ANI thread, where there was something approaching consensus for some sort of mediation between A Nobody and Jack Merridew (see also here).

Jack seemed eager to give communication a try, but A Nobody was reticent [310]. I did eventually receive an email from A Nobody, where he made it quite clear that he was not willing to take part.

My general impression is that Jack does want to see things reconciled, but has trouble remembering to bite his tongue when a snarky comment is on the tip of it. I also get the impression that the people who wanted him banned in the first place have been very unhappy that he was unbanned, and have been actively seeking opportunities to get it reinstated.

From what I can see of it, I think continuing the mentorship is probably a good idea, though Calisber should probably be replaced given the discussion above. I also think it would be better to remove the Sword of Damocles and take the "automatic 1 year ban" out of the conditions, since it doesn't appear to me that Jack's behavior is any worse than the behavior of those he's gotten into tussles with. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A one month or one week block instead should probably be more reasonable. I feel that John's and Casliber's unwillingness to intervene in the problem I had with Jack was partly to blame on a one year ban taking effect if there was indeed a problem. A smaller block period would probably have made things much less volatile and solved the matter quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think just the same length of block anyone else would get for the same behavior would be more appropriate (if necessary, which hopefully it wouldn't be). I don't think there really needs to be any formal restrictions per se, except that when he thinks someone is trying to get a rise out of him, he should contact one of his mentors first before responding. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no standard block time for any of these actions, and the sock puppetting and following of editors about normally results in a full ban. Look at Peter Damian for such an instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I missed something, but has he done either of those things during the past year? --SB_Johnny | talk 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has done quite a bit of edit warring and following editors. I don't know about sock puppets. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I *have* been a sockpuppet; *all* year. Street-legal, of course ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SB Johnny's assessment is basically correct about the April ANI discussion. It was A Nobody who was unwilling to mediate, although his reasons were understandable. Both editors stepped back and reached an informal truce of sorts, which is probably the best resolution. After seven months I regard that dispute as basically resolved, unless either of them renews it. No comment regarding the remainder of Johnny's post. Durova371 05:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "where there was something approaching consensus for some sort of mediation between A Nobody and Jack Merridew"
It was a mutual topic ban, the mediation was only one of four proposals.
SB_Johnny explanation of this agreement partially correct, yes, this editor did not agree to SB_Johnny's mentorship. But this mentorship was part of a larger package, which Jack Merridew opposed.
The full context is this:
  • Roux recommended a comprehensive topic ban.[311] Which, if enacted would have stopped Jack Merridew's repeated hounding of A Nobody.
  • SB_Johnny volunteers to be the contact in condition #3, "If both of them are comfortable with it, I wouldn't mind being the contact for #3."[312]
  • A Nobody agreed to the comprehensive topic ban.[313]
  • Jack Merridew refused to the comprehensive topic ban, stating: "Oppose — Look, all, I am for toning things down. I said I'd be open to Johnny as a mediator and have also run that idea by someone else who thought themselves not the right person..."[314] You seem to have missed this comment of mine; what you quote above is simply a willingness to talk with Johnny about this. I support the idea of an RFC/U re...[315]
So SB_Johnny is mentioning Jack Merridew's terms (mentorship with SB_Jonny only), but did not mention the three other conditions which Jack Merridew strongly opposed. Ikip (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the part 3 was the only one I was involved with. Yes, A Nobody has his reasons for not wanting to participate, but Jack had the same reasons and decided to give it a shot anyway (remember, they each thought the other was hounding them). Again, A Nobody is not the issue here, Jack is, and Jack did try to reconcile through discussion. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My direct question to Flonight, Casliber, John Vandenberg, and Moreschi about Jack Merridew's continued "hounding"

During this Arbcom review, Jack Merridew's "hounding" continues.

A Nobody comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 25. 16:58, 26 November 2009.[316]

Jack Merridew comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 25. 03:29, 29 November 2009.[317]

The last time Jack Merridew commented at a deletion review was on August 23, 2009.[318]

I don't know about Jack's socks but the last time Jack Merridew commented at a deletion review before that was on 09:32, 10 December 2007.[319]

More edit diffs of Jack Merridew repeatedly hounding A Nobody in deletion discussions are above, which are identical to the Cool Cat hounding. #Hounding_of_A_Nobody

Please note admin Fram's assessment on 19 November 2009 also, post on John Vandenberg's talk page:

So anyone still believes that [Jack Merridew] is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD [Jack Merridew] comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing[320], the only RfA [Jack Merridew] edits is one A Nobody opposes[321], and one of the five last articles [Jack Merridew] edited[322] is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before[323]? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..."[324]
 Note: this evidence was used by White Cat in one of the two arbcoms which the arbcom unanimously found the sock puppet of Jack Merridew guilty of wikihounding.[325]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_27#Category:Kurdish_inhabited_regions

  1. User:Cool Cat !votes to delete a category for discussion. 06:22, 28 May 2006.[326]
    User:Moby Dick (Sockpuppet of Jack Merridew) !votes to keep. 10:16, 1 June 2006. [327]

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 3

  1. User:White Cat !votes to delete. 13:27, 3 March 2006.[328]
  2. User:Moby Dick (Sockpuppet of Jack Merridew) !votes to keep. 10:58, 11 March 2006.[329]

As of the date of the checkuser,[330] User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) had participated in only 3 Categories for discussion, all initiated by White Cat.

  1. User:White Cat nominates a category for discussion. 18:00, 8 April 2007.[331]
    User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) !votes to keep. 08:58, 10 April 2007.[332]
  2. User:White Cat nominates a category for discussion. 08:07, 9 February 2007.[333]
    49th edit of User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) !votes to keep. 07:50, 10 February 2007.[334]
  3. User:White Cat nominates a category for discussion. 10:19, 11 January 2007.[335]
    8th edit of User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) !votes to keep. 03:50, 12 January 2007.[336]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kurdistan

  1. User:White Cat creates a rename nomination. 20:02, 3 April 2007.[337]
    User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) !votes against User:White Cat's rename nomination, stating: "biased nom". This was Mr. Merridew as Diyarbakir first and last edit on "Wikipedia talk" namespace. 07:56, 9 April 2007.[338]
  2. User:White Cat creates Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal:Kurdistan 13:53, 6 April 2007.[339]
    User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) !votes on Portal:Kurdistan "This seems to be bordering on harassment of all things Kurdish". 08:00, 9 April 2007. [340]
  3. User:White Cat removes template. 18:58, 21 April 2007.[341]
    User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) restores template. 07:27, 23 April 2007.[342]
  4. User:White Cat removes map. 14:31, 4 April 2007.[343]
    User:Diyarbakir (Sock of Jack Merridew) adds a similar map. 08:13, 9 April 2007.[344]

My direct question to Flonight, Casliber, John Vandenberg, and Moreschi is:

  1. How is Jack Merridew's hounding any different now than it is from Jack Merridew's sock puppets (Moby Dick, Davenbelle) hounding of White Cat/Cool Cat, which resulted in a unanimous finding in two arbcoms of:
    "Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or Megaman Zero."[345]
    "Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year."[346]
    "Davenbelle....monitored Cool Cat...with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions."[347]
    "Davenbelle...[is] counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat...If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed."[348]

Ikip (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is what you are doing acceptable? When exactly do you let stuff go? ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, if Jack Merridew would stop hounding other editors, I would drop this. But even 15 hours ago, Jack Merridew is hounding an editor, in the exact same way that Jack Merridew's socks hounded White Cat/Cool Cat, which two arbcoms found was hounding. After 6 days, I still await those edit diffs showing that Jack Merridew has been hounded. Ikip (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asserting Jack's hounding others, but the diffs you provide don't actually show what you think they do. On the other hand, my assertion that you are hounding Jack doesn't need diffs, because anyone who isn't blind can read what you yourself write, right here on this page, for example, and see it. You just keep attacking and attacking and attacking, and when you're rebutted in one area (as John did regarding Daedalus) you just change areas... I guess you hope that some of the mud you throw sticks. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, Ikip sees a huge problem here and is walking the boundary of reasonable behavior in an attempt to remedy the situation. Sound familiar? We are all obsessed about something. Ikip on stuff like this, you on BLP, probably me on inclusionism. The trick is to realize that our viewpoint isn't the only one and to set reasonable behavioral bounds no matter how upset we get. Certainly some outrages require immoderate responses, but those are darn rare and identifying them is perhaps one of the hardest things we need to do as adults. I know *I* suck at it at least. Best of luck, Hobit (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any bounds of behavior being applied to Ikip. So I'm not sure I agree with that analogy. ++Lar: t/c 19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both you an he have been pushing those bounds pretty hard. In both cases for reasons you think are acceptable because the issue is so important. No one has really placed bounds on either of you because neither of you have crossed so far over any line to require they be placed. If you want to continue this discussion I'd be happy to do so at my or your talk page. I think we are too off topic for here. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You or anyone else are always welcome at my talk, but I think you tar with too broad a brush. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my frustration and this repeated question stems from no one actually answering it directly. But this is not about me... its about the question. Simply put, in the light of the conditions set forth by ArbCom for Jack's conditional return, how can what many perceive to be a years-long pattern of behavior be condoned?" Ikip (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different question and one that admits of an answer. Jack, by and large, fulfilled the conditions of his mentorship, all the mentors have for the most part said so. There were slippages, yes. but not an egregious breach. Next, there may be "many" (i.e. more than 3) people who see the pattern you allege but I doubt that there is a consensus that such a pattern exists. I think far more people see through your allegations than give them credence. So, given that the pattern doesn't actually exist, there isn't any condoning going on. Jack isn't perfect and he needs counseling from time to time when those hounding him get through his defenses, so that he bites his tongue instead of taking the bait. That's never been disputed. But who among us IS perfect? This is the same advice I gave A Nobody... and a lot of other folk: grow a thicker skin. Because rising to bait, real or perceived, is not goodness. But I think if you would stop hounding him, maybe things would go better. Are you prepared to do that, Ikip? If the outcome here is not as you would wish it are you going to dredge this stuff up over and over and over? Or are you going to finally let it go? I think at some point, if you don't let it go after this matter is closed out, you may find yourself considered disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lar. At worst, the above diffs show that Jack is going to A Nobody's contribs page every now and then, and clicking on a few links to see if there are any remarks that he feels the need to counter. (I'll make no comment on whether this is acceptable under the circumstances, except to note that I do the same for several editors myself.) But those diffs also show that Ikip is investing hours and hours of his time, trawling through Jack's edits, working to document what he finds so as to make out an incriminating case. It is impossible to argue that Jack's behaviour is "hounding" and Ikip's is not, and I don't buy the argument that Ikip's "hounding" is excused by the context but Jack's "hounding" is not. Ikip feels he is addressing a problem, sure; so does Jack. Ikip is persistent in addressing it; so is Jack. Ikip feels he has the right to address his issue; ditto Jack. Ikip isn't going to stop just because some people see his efforts as "hounding"; nor Jack. At the end of the day, the only material difference between the two cases of "hounding" are an order of magnitude of difference in the time and effect invested. Hesperian 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What tosh, Ikip. This edit at that DRV? Note the edit I made three prior to that and the edit I made subsequent to it; both on Dream Focus's talk page The first is a thread where Dream Focus states 'You Jack, are a stalker, by every definition of the word' and Dougweller is clarifying that Dream Focus intends this to include calling me a criminal. The thread immediately above concerns the DRV and would seem to be typical ARS coordination. Anyways, it was on Dream Focus's page that I became aware of the DRV and what drew my eye to it with the malformed link Michael had left, and which I fixed. Glossing over the DRV again I see the usual suspects and arguing/badgering; I was barked at and may be excommunicated from the ARS for my sins. Damn, Jack Merridew 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merrdew, ouch, my apologies for that error, and thank you for catching it. I have gone through the above discussions and struck every diff or comment I made about the DRV. I would not want editors to be distracted away from the other dozens of other instances of "hounding" that were not preceded by your focus on Dream Focus's talk page. I am very happy you have examined this evidence, and I warmly welcome more investigation. Ikip (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using socks is (as far as I know) not a live issue, nor are the circa 2007 diffs you've given above. Lar's got a point or two about your evidence and your behavior, quite frankly: your contributions to this page say a bit more about you than they do about Jack and/or the progress or lack thereof of Jack's mentorship over the past year. --SB_Johnny | talk 20:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar states there is no pattern here, but never explains why.
Lar, for the past 6 days you have attacked me with unfounded allegations of hounding, which you have not supported with edit differences despite three editors asking you too.
WP:HOUND
"Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor...The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
When have I or any other editors "join[ed] discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work" Lar? Six days, no edit differences, this is because there is none. Can we both finally agree that by the definition of hounding there has been no hounding of Jack Merridew?
Lar is the remedy you propose to have other editors continue to be baited by Jack Merridew's continued "slippages" "grow a thicker skin"? Other editors should stop reporting Jack Merridew's hounding, because despite the definition, reporting Jack Merridew's "slippages" is itself hounding?
As User:Tony Sideway wrote in the unban:
"Let Wikipedia be clear: the slightest sign of a return to past form must be the end of Merridew's career"[349]
Would "slippages" be a "slight sign of return"?
And John Vandenberg:
"It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse."[350]
John Vandenberg doesn't the exact same hounding qualify as "slightest appearance of relapse"? What Lar calls "slippage"?
I addressed this to the admins in this case, because Lar's so far some of the editors who disagree with Lar's assessment are either "hounding" Jack or is a "crappy mentor".Ikip (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Ikip, this is some scary s%*t. You need to find something more productive to do. Eusebeus (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd like to point out that some people's definition of productive is very different. (during different stretches of time I edited nothing but pages related to Arbitration Requests and case pages... and that is scarier if you think about it.) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:White Cat, the only other involved party

As always people fail to even notify me of something of this magnitude. Imagine letting me know of the issue that relates to me most... After all I was the only other involved party.

First of, Moreschi has no clue what he is talking about. Moreschi please pick on someone else. It is kind of lame to pick on users whom are not active and are unable to defend themselves from your slander. However such slander may make users turn active. I stated this before, in no ways is Moreschi a neutral party in any issue concerning me in any way. He has decided to declare me public enemy on his own and is pursuing that avenue. This should be obvious by now. If not, then just how much are you in the know of the issue you are commenting on? See how much Moreschi is willing to let Jack Merridew off the loop for something as severe as stalking for a total of four years (or more)? Why isn't he considering to do the same for me? It isn't like I have touched the said topics in years nor was I ever prohibited from editing them. Honestly Moreschi knock it off.

I am rather surprised to see Jack Merridew "commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban" below. I have stopped editing. It was not possible for Jack Merridew to stalk me when I stopped editing. I should be the one commended I suppose. Sarcasm aside, how is that a good behavior on his end? This is the lowest standard editors are required to follow. No wikistalking.

Also do we now commend people for not dedicating their time in wikistalking another? Shouldn't other people get a dozen medalas for not stalking anyone then? Jack Merridew, how can you ask people not to use the term Stalking/Wikistalking when your arbitration cases (yes, there are multiple) helped determine the very boundaries we are handling cases in general now?

"I, of course, am one of the good people. Most of those I've had conflict with have been quite problematic, and have ended-up gone. The wiki is better for it. The wiki will be better off without those currently seeking to nail my hide to a boxcar door as it rolls off into the sunset. Their fate is not tied to mine; they are known issues, and their doom awaits them. Jack Merridew 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To reply to Jack Merridew... No you are not. You have been found unanimously to be disruptive by arcom multiple times. You have multiple blocked accounts. You are the antonym of a good user. Consider how much you have been running into problems since I ceased making edits as a sign to this end. You have ran into conflicts with others. And not just one or two users. Now you brag about alienating others from the site with your behavior? A key question is how many good users or possible good users have been alienated from the site by Jack Merridew. List is pretty long even if you remove me from that list. I am just one user with one account. The way to deal with "problematic users" supposed to be through dispute resolution not through alienating them.

People consider the maintenance cost of Jack Merridew. Every once in a while Jack Merridew's case requires arbitration or some other means of dispute resolution. He was constantly in conflict and old habits die hard. Don't believe me? See this user dipped in conflict in a month or three. How about this. List the number of conflicts he has been involved with. How many of those are still editing regularly?

Should Jack Merridew be indef banned for the 13th time? Probably not, because I am sure he would be unblocked a 13th time just months later.

I may have more to say on the matter.

-- Cat chi? 11:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As for evidence of wikihounding/wikistalking for the specific case look no further than this very page... Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Discussion_etiquette:
Lar writes a comment addressed to a user Ikip on 12:47, 28 November 2009... Normally such a remark would merely need an acknowledgment of a mistake. But whats that? Jack Merridew makes a completely unproductive remark on 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC) a mere 3 hours 5 minutes after it was posted. Ikip acknowledges a mistake on 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC) just 17 mintes after Jack Merridew.
It isn't unusual for someone to reply to another three hours later. It had taken Ikip about 3.5 hours to reply to Lar on a comment addressed to him. The problem here is Jack Merridew replying to a post addressed to the person accusing Jack Merridew of stalking. Would this be normal for some other users? Probably not. Good users avoid such situations. After all Lar is more than qualified to get the word across to Ikip without the "help" of Jack Merridew in this case. Would such a thing be problematic for a typical users - it would be overlooked despite being frowned up on unless they do not have a history of such behavior. By that I mean sanctions and Jack Merridew is a shrine of wikistalking sanctions.
One such edit is a mild irritation. Repeats start to get more than annoying. Soon it becomes unbearable.
-- Cat chi? 12:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Note to SB_Johnny

Please catch me on IRC. -- Cat chi? 12:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Other problematic editors

So, I've commented that I seek solutions to problematic editing and editors. I've noticed another strident voice in the wrong.

and it seems to me that the problematic edits go further:

I've not looked any further, but see a need for it; someone want to go have a looksee?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why is this here? Wouldn't it be better on ANI? Ikip (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to recheck my maths but I believe Ikip has just gone over 100 edits to this page in his hounding of heroic attempt to save wikipedia from Jack. Congratulations!Bali ultimate (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
113, according to this[351], which is of course way too much. However, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have a point with this specific post: what is this section doing here? To highlight Jack Merridew's use of a very poor signature (content and format, overlapping text)? I don't see any other problems at Talk:Duct tape#Duct vs duct; article needs changes or at "Duct tape — see the recent history". A content dispute, that's all. At Gaffer tape, you are edit warring over a fact tag, and you are both at 3RR. Jack, if you want to remove a fact tag, provide a reliable source in the article instead. So far, all this section has shown to me is that you are often not good at interacting with other people on Wikipedia, and ndon't know when to stop. You start reverting on one page (Gaffer tape), where you may have a point, but act upon it in a less than optimal way. You then follow the editor to Duct tape, where you start oppsoing him without good reason. You make claims about a factual content dispute, but don't back it up. The claims you make are at least disputable[352]. So if you wanted to highlight your own shortcomings in communicating with other editors and following them around to other discussions, bravo. If you had another intention with posting this here, I fail to see why it is relevant for this page. Fram (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, while you are here, maybe you can provide those edit diffs of me WP:HOUNDING Jack Merridew. Because in 7 days, no one else has (because they don't exist). Instead of providing those edit diffs Jack Merridew has tweaked flies on s**t photos here, [353] which was thankfully deleted by the clerk.[354] after my request.[355]Ikip (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip, I think what they're saying (without resorting to WP:ACRONYMS), is that your very large number of edits to this page rather give one the impression that you are perhaps a bit overenthusiastic in your desire to shine a bad light on Jack. I'm pretty sure you've gotten your point across adequately, so dewatching for a while to let things wrap up might be in good decorum at this point.
Otherwise completely agree that there's no particular reason for this section to exist, but why worry about it? --SB_Johnny | talk 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip - I think your relentless campaign of harrassment against Jack is more than amply proven by this 113 and this [356]. Your blizzard of diffs on jack are in fact a blizzard of bullshit, as has long been your style. You coordinate on and off wikipedia to "get" your perceived enemies, council passive aggression and game playing, and this is what you are doing on this page now. I'm sure there'll be lots of umbrage from you in response to me (for extra credit, charge off in a huff to AN/I and bring pitchforks and fire back). But i guarantee no one is going to read your next barely coherent screed compose of 2 year old, out of context diffs, and the like. At 114 edits and counting, you've had more than enough of a chance to convince others of your view here. All your additions at this point amount to shouting and handwaving, which is making you look a little hysterical. If you don't like being viewed this way, I advise you to stop hounding Jack here and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, as mentioned above, participating in RFCs and Arbcoms is not hounding, following editors from page to page for years, as the arbcom unanimously found in Jack Merridew's case, and which he repeated with other editors since then, is. Seven days on, myself, Casliber, and Mr. Schmidt still await the evidence of hounding that other editors have personally caused towards Jack Merridew. Unfortunately, attempts to repeat a completely fabricated allegations over and over,often works in convincing other editors, so those allegations should be rebuted. Bali, your RFC/Arbcom edit diffs are the same edit diffs that other editors have given, you are providing absolutly nothing new to support allegations of hounding. If you cannot refrain from uncivil attacks and fabricated allegations, take Johnny's advice and "dewatch...for a while to let things wrap up might be in good decorum at this point". Or join the others in calling me a troll, and my edits s**t, which only makes the editor saying it look bad. Ikip (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip - You've now made 120 edits to this page in an effort to get a user you don't like banned with what, to my eyes, looks like misleading diffs and exaggerated conflicts. I consider the massive number of edits on this page by you to be hounding. Like you I believe that "attempts to repeat completely fabricated allegations over and over" is going on here. I believe that you are in fact the culprit of this practice. You're pursuing a personal vendetta at this point, that much is clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, then insted of attacking me, discredit the edit differences I provide. I am awaiting that evidence of hounding per our policies guidelines, I am awaiting evidence to discredit my edit diffs. I am going to disengage from talking to you, because you are providing no evidence supporting what you state. Ikip (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit 121 (in part -- the obsessive refactoring also happened, but whatever). "You are providing no evidence supporting what you state" Ikip. Yet you keep repeating yourself. Maybe try writing in all caps. That will get your point across.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved here, but I've got to agree with Bali about Ikip hounding Jack here. A quick look through Ikip's contributions shows that he has made less than 50 edits in article space this month. You've more than doubled that total on this page in a week. So, are we here to build an encyclopedia or not? If this kind of dedication and thoroughness was shown in article building, I doubt we would see as many blowups at AfDs. AniMate 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Animate, I could have predicted your opinion before you wrote it. I don't want to repeat myself, see above. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note to all editors Keep the profanity down and please maintain a suitable level of decorum here. I believe that you all have a suitable grasp of the english language without having to use expletives every other syllable. Arbcom pages arn't exempt from the standard wikipedia civility policies. It makes a more conducive atmosphere to rational discussion. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 18:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this was lost in the following off-topic discussion, a repeat: what is this section doing here? To highlight Jack Merridew's use of a very poor signature (content and format, overlapping text)? I don't see any other problems at Talk:Duct tape#Duct vs duct; article needs changes or at "Duct tape — see the recent history". A content dispute, that's all. At Gaffer tape, you are edit warring over a fact tag, and you are both at 3RR. Jack, if you want to remove a fact tag, provide a reliable source in the article instead. So far, all this section has shown to me is that you are often not good at interacting with other people on Wikipedia, and ndon't know when to stop. You start reverting on one page (Gaffer tape), where you may have a point, but act upon it in a less than optimal way. You then follow the editor to Duct tape, where you start oppsoing him without good reason. You make claims about a factual content dispute, but don't back it up. The claims you make are at least disputable[357]. So if you wanted to highlight your own shortcomings in communicating with other editors and following them around to other discussions, bravo. If you had another intention with posting this here, I fail to see why it is relevant for this page. Fram (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I just notified the editor about this discussion. Ikip (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laudable. However, despite waving the bloody shirt of Emmette Hernandez Coleman vigorously, you do not seem to have notified him of this discussion. Odd.
FYI. I have, couple of e-mails (as he's not been very active lately) and a ping on his talk page.
Franamax's summary of that situation is pretty reasonable. Your assertion that it is "hounding" is not, however. It would be nice to get some input from Emmette.   pablohablo. 23:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Ikip for letting me know about this discussion. I don't understand Pablo's comment just above. However, Fram is wrong in claiming that I'm at 3RR. I put the fact tag on, and then reverted its removal twice; that puts me two reverts away from a 3RR violation, which is not even close.
But that leads me to ask: suppose someone were to revert the removal of a fact tag four times; would that really be a 3RR violation? Or would the unjustified removal of the tag (without replacing it with a source) count as vandalism, and therefore the reversions as justified? -- Zsero (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might help if some misconceptions are cleared up for the record as it were:
  • First, putting a "needs sources" tag on an article or section is fine. It's a good and needful thing to do, one of the ways articles get improved. And removing it unwarrantedly is not acceptable. But not every removal of a tag is unwarranted, or unacceptable, much less "vandalism". If someone adds sources, and then removes the tag because they added sources, that's fine, it wasn't wrong, much less "vandalism" to remove the tag, it's normal. You may not agree that the sources are adequate, but the thing to do then is to take it to talk, rather than revert warring. Because, while "this lacks sources" is a matter of fact, "this lacks adequate sources" (your assertion in reverting the removal) is a matter of opinion and all of a sudden, your claim that it's not edit warring to revert removals turns out to be incorrect.
  • Second, WP:3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. That means that you can be blocked for revert warring before you've "used up your 4 reverts" because you don't get 4 reverts. If you have a history of edit warring, (as you have) a warning can be given to you, or even a block, on the very first unwarranted reversion. It's best that you internalize that rather than saying "but I get 4 reverts", it will save you trouble going forward.
  • Third, I suspect you know this already anyway. Looking at your talk page, it's been explained to you already, and you were given ample references to policy before. So you had no business revert warring. Nor did Jack, you both know better than to do that, you both should have went to talk much sooner. You're both lucky you weren't blocked for it.
Whether Jack was warranted in characterizing you as a problematic editor (Based on your block record and talk page, I can see why he may have felt that way) or not, is a different matter. I'm not sure it was helpful to raise it here, actually. But I did want to set you right about a few things. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, replacing a fact tag with sources is one thing, but Jack didn't do so. He just removed the fact tag. So why are you dragging in irrelevant hypotheticals? Why was I not justified in replacing the tag as many times as he removed it without either supplying a source or convincing me not to replace it? Second, bright line or not, there is no way that a total of two reverts can be considered edit warring, absent special circumstances; the warning was completely unwarranted. -- Zsero (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can a clerk move this discussion somewhere? It was a mistake for me to notify the editor about this, not because an editor should know when they are being discussed, they should, it was just that this is completly irrelevant. I realize notification was a mistake right after I posted it.
Pablo, I never contacted Mr. Coleman because I didn't want to be accused of canvassing. In some cases it is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Since you have, I have emailed him too.
Can we all agree with Franamax's assesment that Jack Merridew was "following" Mr. Coleman?
Along those same lines, can we all agree that Jack Merridew was following A Nobody? How about White Cat?
John Vandenberg says "Jack's approach to Coleman was a bit too aggressive"*
Ikip (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think we can all agree to any of that, Ikip, no matter how many times you repeat it. So, you brought someone here only to find out that it didn't really support your thesis after all, and now you want it brushed under the rug? Another fine example of you hounding Jack, I'd say. Best. ++Lar: t/c 19:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* Reread WP:HOUND Lar, quoted above #Hound. I didn't know you could read my thoughts.
Lar, by your own broad definition of "hounding", which is not supported by the definition, anyone here, and anyone in any dispute resolution process (including yourself), could be accused of hounding. For example, by your definition, I could say, "Lar, is hounding me by making comments on this Arbcom or any RFC" Last month Casliber asked you to support your allegations of hounding, the community is still waiting.
You disagree with with Franamax, who was overseeing Jack Merridew's behavior that he was "following" Mr. Coleman, you disagree with the two arbcoms that Socks of Jack Merridew were "following" White Cat.
Can we at least agree that Jack Merridew was trying to get a rise out of Daedalus969? Ikip (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has trended into the absurd. It literally transcends mockery. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

I rather get the impression that everything constructive that could be said has been said. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and a lot more too. Seconded.   pablohablo. 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If ArbCom wants to change anything in regards to Jack's restrictions, they have more than enough information to do so. Actually, they have much more than enough. AniMate 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the morass of words and opinions on this page means that the only way forward is some top-down decision making (i.e. arb motions, preferably quick ones), so yeah, I support a close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
per above. close. Ikip (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it open! Ikip is only 64 edits shy of a double century! Don't declare now. Think of justice and Sir Don. Bali ultimate (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my following of this, I would suggest the following as a motion:
Whereas,
  • JM has made many and valuable article contributions in the last year;
  • JM is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban;
however,
  • Concern has been expressed about JM's expressions on-wiki during periods of frustration;
  • Concern has been expressed about JM's focussing unduly at times on activities of other particular editors,
Therefore,
  • The mentorship is continued for a period of nine months with mentor(s) <your names here>;
  • If JM is concerned with behaviour of an editor beyond vandalism, BLP and other unambiguous policy violations, they will discuss first with their mentor(s) and wait for advice before interacting further;
  • Editors concerned with JM's editing behaviour beyond vandalism, BLP and other unambiguous policy violations are strongly encouraged to contact his mentors for assistance;
  • JM and A Nobody are to avoid commenting on each other and may only comment once in response to each other's posts in deletion-related discussions [so you get either the first word or the last word, and one rebuttal each].
There's enough here for continuing but much-relaxed restrictions IMO. Nothing more to be gained at this page though, so close. Franamax (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page"