Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:24, 27 November 2009

Comments by others

Moved from Arbitration enforcement page:

Request concerning Jack Merridew

User requesting enforcement

Ikip (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages: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."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Currently working on a section showing how Jack Merridew's attacks against editors who question his disruptive editing, stalking, and harassment since his unblock, are identical in tone to the comments of his socks, Moby Dick, etc. before Jack Merridew's indefinite block.

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RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.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.

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)

Lar, your continued defense of Jack Merridew's personal attacks and stalking 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)

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)

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, 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 existance. 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 Misplaced Pages under some very strict conditions. If his actions have mitigation, it would be beter to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole, rather than be dismssive of Ikip's message simply because of its messenger. Schmidt, 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael, there is a rather large assumption contained in your phrase "it would be beter to show how he was justified in violating Arbcom's parole".   pablo_hablo. 09:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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, 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Ikip does tend to present his opinions as fact, and I read your comment as doing the same thing.   pablo_hablo. 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The diffs are the diffs... themselves niether 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, 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(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)

• 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)

One (or more) of my posts below continues this - you're missing the point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

Terima kasih ;) Jack Merridew aka david 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Most were very dated."

Admin: Fram, 15:36, 19 November 2009:

"So anyone still believes that is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing, the only RfA edits is one A Nobody opposes, and one of the five last articles edited is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..."

Regarding the similarities between the stalking and harrassment of White Cat and the stalking 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)

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""Support. A reasonable editor, nuff said. Nod at animate" 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)

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)

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; Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/A Nobody, which Ikip attempted to refocus on Merridew, and Ikip's diff blizzard "evidence" on this page.   pablo_hablo. 20:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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, 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.

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 or Merridew calling editors "little shite"? Since his unblock in December 2008, on twenty six occasions editors warned Jack to stop.

Ikip (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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.   pablo_hablo. 21:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Jack's full quote:

little shite like .

Ikip (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 perpetrates. Indeed, you and jack called me a little shit, nothing was mis-represented.— Dædαlus 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you can't even own up to your own comments.— Dædαlus 06:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 stalking and harrassment acceptable? This explanation does not take into account that there were three editors Mr. Merridew stalked (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)

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)

thank you for your comments. We will agree to disagree. Ikip (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages who I feel certain is acting in deliberate bad faith. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages (& some in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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)

He may believe that he is helping Misplaced Pages through his actions, but then his mentors or friends should step in and tell him that often, he is not helping Misplaced Pages at all. You don't help Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

(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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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. When he made clear that he would ignore my warning, I made it clear that I would block him if he continued. 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. 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)

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)

Perhaps you and Ikip have succeeded in hounding him off the wiki. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's a pseudonym, so you can drop the false gentility. Protonk (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

nice tool, bainer;

• , . Jack Merridew 08:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

My en:accounts:

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (doppelganger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Senang Hati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  User:Senang Hati was renamed to User:Jack Merridew. eUser:Senang Hati was later re-created as an impersonator; see BN archive. The second User:Senang Hati was renamed to User:Senang Hati (impersonator) by User:Redux; since deleted. log
• Wayang kulit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thomas Jerome Newton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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. —Jack Merridew 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

new articles

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

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
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

• Templates for most of those rivers, too; such as {{Rivers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo}}. —Jack Merridew 08:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The GodKing has opined

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 Wales

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.

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)

He's hardly talking about you. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Let it all out. Protonk (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

@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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Misplaced Pages: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. (emphasis my own) Ikip (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. Ikip (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolls everywhere

Some people strut around Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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". Durova 07:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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:

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51#Jack Merridew

Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"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)

If you're talking about you and I getting along, I wouldn't know — as you're not interested in even talking to me. Jack Merridew 07:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't know, but you erroneously claimed earlier that I find you despicable, 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", 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)

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 and declined to discuss things with me upon my return. 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)