Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:39, 18 June 2012

If I've misunderstood what was expected, people should feel free to reverse my block.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The account has been globally locked by a steward. Risker (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sory Risker, I can'r be doing with all this; you are just going to have to go and find him, I need him to sort out my IT problems. No imediate hurry, first thing tomorrow morning will be fine. One despairs, one really does. Giacomo Returned 21:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, whaa? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this really sucks. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Help

Need help with my User Page. I see you're blocked. Contact me off wiki if you get this Minor4th 01:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Jack Merridew unban

• +missing notification ;)

Barong 03:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

trolling

trolling: 1 2 3 4

Byte me, grawp/b-tards. Barong 05:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

unblock

Jack Merridew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account was scuttled (email-blanked, the password scrambled). The password that was exposed in now-oversighted edits is not what I finally scrambled it to, so there is no danger of it being taken control of via that exposed password. The account is now sul:locked, thus the blocks here, and on commons, are not necessary.

What purpose does this block thus serve? hint: it's fostering confusion and amounts to a badge of shame. This is all part of the toxicity that besets this site. It's score keeping.

Decline reason:

You're not the blocked user and as such unblock requests will be ignored. Sorry.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  09:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Barong 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Merridew (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I am. Ask any arb or CU. This is not in doubt.

Accept reason:

Since everyone knows you're you, and the SUL lock prevents editing from this account, and unblocking a scrambled account does no harm anyway, and the block seems to be causing you distress, I've unblocked this account. Floquenbeam (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

--Barong 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You say that any checkuser should be able to verify it, but I've not had any emails in 2011 that contain the string "Jack Merridew" and checkuser indicates that you appear to have moved across the world since you lasted edited through this account. However, based on the other technical data that's available, it does seem quite likely that you are who you say you are. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The CU-list should have gotten a clarification from the CU on the other end of that trip (a 24h flight;) Anyway, see wp:A/R/CL for a bunch of folks not doubting this. This was not an ac-level block and so an unblock should not need to be at that level, either. And from a tech data level, I'm using a few more user agents but the same laptop. Iz me ;) Barong 10:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Both the strings "Merridew" and "Barong" return no results for this year, with the latter returning no results at all. I'm subscribed to both the checkuser and functionaries lists so if something was sent to them, I would have got it. But no matter, as my opinion is that the technical evidence supports your claim. Someone else will have to evaluate your unblock request though, as I prefer not to act as both an admin and a checkuser in the same case where possible. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the CU-list was not notified. But thanks for asserting that you believe me. This account is only days old. Mentioned on arbcom-l, tho. Terima Kasih

I suggest that any admin not familiar with all this mess leave it be for one who is. Fox is unknown to me, and is presumably unfamiliar with the years long history, so I'm not surprised at the above decline.

Barong 10:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (see also Barong (mythology)

Thank you, Floquenbeam. One less stinking badge ;) I'm going to point at this for a commons unblock request. Barong 10:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. My mitzvah for the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

;) have a read of The Source (novel) sometime; it clarifies things. I've made the requests on Commons, btw. Barong 11:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Barong, just to get this straight: you posted the supposed password to the Jack Merridew account with the intention to get it blocked a while back, and now you start this unblock request with the complaint that this block is "part of the toxicity that besets this site"? You can't have it both ways. Amalthea 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity here; the account needed unblocking as trollish people were using the fact that the account was blocked as ammunition against Barong: "Oh, it's that fucking Jack Merridew; isn't he blocked? isn't he banned?" That sort of thing. Please read this post for more information. --Diannaa 18:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the unblock. My point was: This block was triggered by Barong, intentionally and deliberately. Barong wanted the account blocked. I do not approve the wording in the unblock request claiming that the block existed as a badge of shame, score keeping, or to fuel a toxic environment – assuming I didn't miss prior discussion about the block, none of this is true. Amalthea 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I really can't explain it any better than the link I already provided, in which the user explains it himself, and the brief statement I already made. There have been volumes of material written about this matter lately, and it would not surprise me to learn you had indeed not read all the discussions, as your perception of what is true differs from Barong's. --Diannaa 20:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)