Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#RfC:_Wen_Wei_Po

(Initiated 1450 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done – as said above, this has been archived, and there is obvious consensus for one of the four options, so there is no need for a formal closure. Editor Amigao, feel free to close this if you want to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this should be closed either, but not because I think there is an obvious consensus. Four-year-old RfCs shouldn't be closed, particularly for an RSN discussion, where relevant facts regarding a source might have changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1948 Palestine war#RfC: Should we mention the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in the lede?

(Initiated 125 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 94 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 91 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 69 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 67 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 62 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 48 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 40 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as  Already done. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 35 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	12	5	17
TfD	0	0	5	5	10
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	4	0	4
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 2015 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Danny (2015) into 2015 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 166 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1986 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Newton (1986) into 1986 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 162 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2004 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Lester (2004) into 2004 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk: 2003 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) into 2003 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 138 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

(Initiated 68 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

(Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 36 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brighton_hotel_bombing#Requested_move_11_June_2024

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rallying#Requested move 12 June 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Six Flags (1961–2024)#Requested move 21 June 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Admin help needed at UTRS

I'm sending out an appeal for admins willing to lend a hand with unblock requests at UTRS. There are times recently when I log in after 24+ hours and the last unblock requests closed were mine, and a list of 20 or so new requests await. Right now there are requests that have been sitting in the queue for days that I can't close as I was the blocking admin, have already declined an unblock by the user, or am otherwise somehow involved. You can sign up for access here and most of the requests are simple to close as there are multiple response templates available with a single click. Any additional help would be appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Either need more admins or need to fix the UTRS system. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been doing less as I've now got a job - sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, your absence has been noted! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Applications for the UTRS interface do not get processed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Done! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Unable to proceed" creating redirection pages for national flag emoji

The Emoji article lists a lot of Unicode emoji picture characters, and many of these have been wiki-linked, usually to redirection pages that take you to an article discussing the picture's concept. Not all of the pictures had been so linked, and I tried to do a few more. But when I tried to create redirects for the national flags (🇯🇵 → Flag of Japan, 🇰🇷 → Flag of South Korea, 🇩🇪 → Flag of Germany, 🇨🇳 → Flag of China, 🇺🇸 → Flag of the United States, 🇫🇷 → Flag of France, 🇪🇸 → Flag of Spain, 🇮🇹 → Flag of Italy, 🇷🇺 → Flag of Russia, 🇬🇧 → Flag of the United Kingdom) I get an "unable to proceed" error with a message asking me to post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is the title blacklist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why they're needed - they're merely listed as examples with actual links afterwards dangerouspanda 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not amazingly useful, but we've long had redirects for other Unicode characters to the articles that talk about the items in the symbol; that's why ☂ and ✄ are redirects to Umbrella and Scissors, for example. Deleting them really wouldn't be helpful, and since we have a lot of them anyway, we might as well create the rest. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant rule seems to be

.*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles

(The comment says "very few", but that rule limits it to none.) Interesting that single-character titles outside the BMP are still allowed, but the flags are not, presumably because they are each coded using two Unicode characters. Perhaps the title blacklist is not supposed to apply to single-character articles. In that case this might be a bug in the software in that the flags are not recognised as single characters when they should be (it's a bit of a special case though). Silas S. Brown (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See Regional Indicator Symbol, maybe we should add U+1F1E6 through U+1F1FF to the list of allowed characters? Silas S. Brown (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a bug. These flags are two characters, not one, and only one-character titles are whitelisted. I'd recommend against a blanket whitelisting of these characters, but it might not be entirely out of place if someone wants to whitelist ^(Talk:)?[\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}][\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}]$ specifically.

Also note that the reasoning behind the rule blocking all of those characters with the comment "very few" is that the very few exceptions can be easily enough handled by asking an admin to create the article. Anomie⚔ 05:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created all of the links that Silas mentioned; let me know if you find others that need to be created. As I said above, I don't see these as being particularly useful, but it's definitely un-useful for some of them to exist and some not. Nyttend (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sysops can delete things from Special:FeedbackDashboard now

(Cross-posting from VPT) Per request from responders at Wikipedia talk:New editor feedback, we've added the ability to delete feedback permanently, and extended the 'hide/unhide' function to all autoconfirmed editors. May the force be with you, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to try deleting one to see what it's like, but I don't know what we consider abusive enough to delete (let alone to hide), and I don't want to get rid of som:eone else's valid comment. Is there a way to submit feedback as a test? Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to register a test account. Anyway, there isn't a policy about what to hide or delete, but generally delete was added because people do write abusive or vandalism-like comments ("My penis is huge" or "Editor who reverted me is a bitch") occasionally. I think people should just use their best judgement. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good; I've seen a few really bizarre rants and general asshattery that should be completely removed from view, so it's good to be able to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Also nice for removing spam links posted there....or personal info. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

....which brings me to the question (perhaps a silly one): can it also be oversighted? Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, there is no oversight. However, there is no undelete. So while this doesn't completely delete it from the database, it means that anything deleted is effectively gone forever. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• How does one delete it? The options I can see are Feature this post, Mark as resolved, Hide this post, Request oversight, View activity. GiantSnowman 11:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm....I can see delete feedback, hide feedback and respond. Are you talking about the article feedback? We are talking about the feedback dashboard I think. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• So we are - my bad! GiantSnowman 11:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of the hassle of creating/using a test account, an option is to submit your own feedback and then delete/hide your feedback. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 10:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NAC, supervote and vote counting

A non-admin did a NAC here Talk:Reincarnation_research#Extended_rationale, but their rationale appears to be a super-vote and vote counting. An uninvolved admin close was originally requested (by me) because it's a contentious topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See User_talk:Eraserhead1#About_closure_of_discussion_in_.22Talk:Reincarnation_research.22 for more examples of a vote counting mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have closed it the same way (don't know, didn't look closely enough to do that) but on the face of it the close is reasonable and not a supervote. The closer felt that major changes to the article since many of the !votes came in meant that those !votes were addressing a different article. I'm also unclear how something can be both vote counting and a supervote unless it's really really clear that policy/guidelines strongly force an outcome--something I don't see here. As far as the canvassing issue goes, there were problems on both sides (Maths, Science and Technology as the RfC home, really?). Given the nature of the close there is plenty of room for a new close (the closer made that clear I'd say). Hobit (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Half of it is a supervote, the other half is vote counting. Science makes the most sense for an article which is about parapsychology research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point I think you are just trying to make an unsubstantial complaint about a close that you didn't like. Given the number of disputes I have helped solve I am perfectly capable of handling and ignoring such complaints - however I don't think the same applies to the majority of our admin community.

There's a reason that many admins shy away from difficult closes and it is complaints like this which have little substance to them that prevent them from closing discussions. This actually prevents the project from moving forward and it is very disruptive if we can't get difficult discussions closed.

Of course it is reasonable to complain about closures if they are grossly bad, e.g. the closer was WP:INVOLVED or they grossly made the wrong decision, as would have happened in this case if the closure had occurred on the 23 August. The last closure I complained about involved the closing admins ignoring instructions from the arbitration committee on the method of closure, which is also at that sort of level. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have substantiated it exactly; you vote counted, you admit as much. You discounted the opinions of others, because only one person rebutted the "substantial" improvements to the article argument. "Since 23 August, when the article started to improve, of the three new people to comment one is in support of the merge, and two are against, which is substantially different from the overall numbers for the whole RFC (10 in support vs 6 against). It is certainly possible that the people who felt this article should be merged still hold that view, but while we could ask them to update their comments, we may as well start a brand new discussion as that will minimise any potential for loss of face should they change their minds." You didn't give the arguments any way, you just said that the editors didn't reconfirm their votes, clearly indicating you are counting votes as your reason.

"With regards to the scientific value of the research, perhaps that isn't made clear enough, but that should be resolvable with standard NPOV discussions and processes, and I don't think that is a compelling reason to ..." that is a supervote, I would expect editors to make that comment while voting. Noone made that argument in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable for the closer to say that some arguments aren't compelling. That is what consensus is all about. I am also not clear on how you can show a swing without looking at the numbers. I didn't require any specific count so argung vote counting is ridiculous. You can't insist that people close every discussion how you would as a partisan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In principle everything would be OK. That is, I can imagine an RFC that could be reasonably closed in a similar way. But, you see, if you count "swing" votes and miss some (as I am arguing in your talk page - [1]), getting a "swing" of 1:2 and later 2:3 instead of a contrary 6:4, then things become worse...

Also, it's OK to assign weight to arguments. But in this case it has been argued that you assigned them incorrectly, giving too much weight to the "improvement", the value of which has been questioned. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the swing given 3 people is such a small number it will have very large error bars on it. Including a couple more people and reducing the percentage from 67% to 60% doesn't seem to be a statistically significant change, especially given that existing posters are extremely unlikely to change their minds.

Fundamentally the improvement to the article is obvious. If you so partial about this subject that you cannot see that the article has improved significantly then you shouldn't be posting here to challenge the decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, I'll give a link to the diffs on the talk page where one relevant misunderstanding has just been cleared up: [2], [3]. That should explain some thing to the readers of this discussion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If Martynas had already addressed the point I was going to make there is no point me making it again because it's not a vote count. That I now see that you discounted my opinion because I didn't reiterate it, because you were vote counting, seems unfair. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the diff I linked (especially the places "It opens a pandora's box of other content that post-decision a closer is expected to read - this increases significantly the amount of work one has to do on a given close, and it opens the possibility for a lengthly series of appeals as one side and then the other brings up some other discussion thread which benefits their side." and "Closing discussions isn't easy at the best of times so we certainly need to have a coherently communicated section to close. If the discussion becomes too complex it strongly risks having to be closed as no-consensus or a closure never takes place."), I suspect that the closer does agree that his decision is not completely fair, but thinks that changing it would set a bad precedent, making closing discussions harder and discouraging closes... That might also be true (in this case 20 days passed between the "official" end of RFC - [4] - and closing - [5])... I wonder if there is anything we could do to make closing discussions (and doing so well) easier... Maybe a short optional checklist might help a little..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth reading up on WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. There are some significant differences between "NAC", which is a specific term used in XfD, and the closure of RFCs, which clearly states that any uninvolved editor can close and that contentious RFCs should be formally closed in this way. So Eraserhead1's lacking the admin bit is less important here than it would be in an XfD. That said, I can see why concerns have been raised that the close has connotations of both a head count and a supervote. Nonetheless, Eraserhead1 does not appear to have an iron in this fire and went to lengths to explain his close. It isn't egregious. Personally I reckon that if there are still concerns over the content here (specifically coatracking) it should just to go AfD: these days most AfD closing admins are smart enough to see through the old "merges are not appropriate at AfD" schtick that used to be employed to derail such discussions, and will consider a merge / redirect to be a valid outcome. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

GA ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi people. I got topic banned from reviewing Good Article nominations back in April 2011. Since then (just over one year ago, in fact) I got approved for one trial review to see if I could be let back in to the area. I held off for a while before taking the chance but in August this year reviewed Talk:Clifton Down railway station. I think that one has gone alright so I'm asking if I can be de-topic banned and allowed to continue with it now I have proved I can review properly. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You should cross-post to WT:GAN as well. --Rschen7754 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There are so many other things to do, why put yourself back in that situation? There are areas I don't dare tread because I don't want to put myself into a situation where I might not be able to look back on my actions approvingly. I could to a perfectly good job there, and I don't even have a track record one way or the other to indicate that my fears are well founded, but I still stay away. Can you give us some sort of reason why you want to get back into that area? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Is that even relevant? Except for blocks/bans to deal with disruption, we do not have the right to dictate to people where they should and should not edit. The only thing that matters is whether Rcsprinter is likely to repeat the behaviour that led to the topic ban. Just because he would like to work in an area you prefer not to work in, doesn't mean he has to justify that to you. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Aside from this business of citations in the lead, I see nothing much wrong with your GA review. I very much doubt that if the topic ban is lifted you'll do anything irresponsible or disruptive, so I support lifting it. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• A lot can change in eighteen months. Given that the issue was immaturity (which is one problem that some time off really does help with), it's reasonable to assume that it won't be a problem again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems a reasonable request. WP:GAN needs more hands on deck; why the hell not? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, need more reviewers that are at least willing to put effort into their reviews, even if they aren't perfect. Wizardman 15:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there's a perennial backlog at WP:GAN and you've followed exactly the right process, so I think it's safe to let you back on. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - you have adhered to your ban and have taken it slowly. If/when you are un-banned I'd advise you to continue to take it slowly for a while while you get back into the swing of things. GiantSnowman 15:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed community ban for Jack Merridew/Davenbelle/Br'er Rabbit/...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alarbus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tar Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(The above is for illustration purposes only and is nowhere close to an exhaustive list. See also User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew

This has gone on for long enough. This editor's got so many accounts that I'm not sure what he should be called, but I'm going to refer to this editor as Jack Merridew (JM) since that's what he's called when he was unbanned by ArbCom. Basically, he had a big sockfarm then, which is why arbcom included a single-account restriction in his unban motion. That restriction was kept (with an unrelated exception for a bot) in 2009 when his unban conditions were reviewed. Nonetheless, JM decided to create Gold Hat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which would later come back to bite him when JM then went to arbcom in 2011 to try to get his single-account restriction lifted. When it was clear that the restriction would stay, JM...threw a temper tantrum, deliberately compromised all of his accounts (creating lots of work for stewards who had to lock them all and oversighters who had to suppress his edits). In June 2011, an arbcom motion was passed directing him to edit only from a single account.

Instead, JM decided to sock and use IPs to evade the arbcom restriction. In this process, he deliberately compromised a number of his socks, again creating work for stewards and oversighters. Eventually he came back as Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), and edited in relative peace until he got blocked for edit warring on Template:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Instead of doing what most editors blocked for edit warring do (either sit the block out or make an unblock request), JM decided to evade the block using a sock created in late July, in violation of the arbcom restriction, and well-after his return as Br'er. When that account was blocked by a checkuser, he created a new sock, User:Br'er Bear, and proceeded to verbally abuse the blocking admin and Raul654, who I understand was not on the best of terms with him.

Enough is enough. The creation of Tar Baby (talk · contribs) is the breaking point for me. Even if we consider Br'er Bear as a heat of the moment thing, there's absolutely no excuse for creating a sock in July in violation of the arbcom restriction. We are talking about someone who had a sockfarm before the unban, who then created another sockfarm when his request to lift the single-account restriction was declined by arbcom, and now yet again started socking. I propose a full community ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - there are no third chances.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The Civility template warring is particularly ironic. This guy is poison, he cannot work within guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• By the letter of policy, I would lean to support your rationale. I have however seen where enforcing clear civility violations is furloughed when considering the valuable contributions of the offender. In keeping with such spirit, a ban is clearly over the top and obviously counterproductive. I haven't given a cursory look at the circumstances, but venture an odds on guess that when I do, culprits will be seen to have substantially provoked the matter. And they always seem immune for their actions. I say this can be handled with a block. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Civility violations are one thing, sockpuppetry is quite another. The latter involves actual deception, a much greater breach of community trust, and evidences a much more significant disregard of community norms. There's a reason why a first block for socking is usually at least one or two weeks. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  And where exactly was the deception in using a declared alternate account (Tar Baby) to vent some anger? Nobody is going to seriously tell me that they thought Br'er was being deceptive when he posted "Courcelles ¡ Fuck you, too ¡", are they? --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But it was a clearly unacceptable personal attack. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Where was Tar Baby declared before it was blocked? T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support You know, I used to be rather supportive of Jack Merridew; he had rather persuasive supporters and the narriative of ArbCom not following through with what it said it was going to do has been played out so many times that appling it to Jack's situation wasn't a stretch. However Jack's latest account has done a fair amount of trolling, and the Ba'er Bear account's actions are unarguably unacceptable. I wonder how many former supporters he's burned through. I, for one, won't be supportive of him getting a "third" chance. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No third chances. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support He seems to have burned all his bridges; no third chances. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:33, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No third chances and the poor treatment of other members of the community should have been stopped long ago. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I rarely vote on community bans, but I rarely see someone who so clearly deserves it. In my personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. -Philippe (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• This is part of a long-running, ongoing cycle that (presumably) started with his first ban as Moby Dick. Make a few accounts so he can do different things without attracting attention, then he gets into trouble with one or more users, storms off in a dramatic huff while the friends he made in the right places defend his name and try to (often successfully) argue that he is a net positive to Wikipedia despite his misbehavior. There have been so many socks - the list above is only a fraction. Some are created only as "jokes" (some people find them funny, some aren't laughing), and some of them are clearly created only to cause some kind of trouble. He has had so many chances to just fade into obscurity with a new account, but it always seems to come back to more controversy. A block is irrelevant, because he can and will (as evidenced by recent continued socking) create new accounts. A community ban, if that is the decision, will not stop him from creating new accounts either, but at least when that happens admins can just block them when they are found. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I think the "while the friends he made in the right places" bit reads as a bit too cynical. Jack is a genuinely nice guy and an interesting person to talk to, when he's not trolling or launching personal attacks. I don't think he went out of his way to curry favor with power brokers, as much as that he just had a good personality (usually). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No doubt there are things administrators can see that I can't, but why ban Merridew now for an alternate account created back in July? Using undeclared alternate accounts isn't forbidden, even administrators do it, so where has Merridew been sockpuppeting? Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Malleus, your very good work in pointing out where admins consistently protected their clique of friends regardless of what those friends did would be much more effective if you didn't, you know, consistently protect your clique of friends regardless of what those friends did.101.118.53.126 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Spot on. -Scottywong| gossip _ 20:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think you understood what was said above. User:Br'er Bear is the sock that was used today as a way to get around the civility block made yesterday, even if the sock account in question was made in July, but not used until today. If you look at the account's contributions, you'll see him cursing out Courcelles and Raul654. Silverseren^C 05:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ever so slight point of order, the recent block that was being evaded today was for edit warring on Template:Civility, not a block for incivility. Courcelles 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Tar Baby (talk · contribs) was made in July and used to evade the block today. When that got blocked, Br'er Bear (talk · contribs) was created today. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I had it reversed. Well, that makes it even worse then. Silverseren^C 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Those names (and "Br'er Rabbit") originated in the Uncle Remus stories, in which the "Tar-Baby" is a doll created as a means of deception (as Jack obviously is aware). Not only is he socking, but he's openly mocking the community in the process. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Surely "Jack Merridew" was the most evil of the characters in "Lord of the Flies"? LittleBen (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to the names "Br'er Rabbit", "Br'er Bear" and "Tar Baby". —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Using undeclared alternate accounts isn't forbidden" – using them to evade a block always is; and so is using them when under a sanction saying you cannot. Jack was specifically restricted to one account because this happens when he socks. — Coren ^(talk) 13:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support serial sockpuppetry to bypass retrictions has no place here. Bidgee (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I do not know or even understand all of Jack's history, but in almost every encounter I've had with him, I've been impressed with how clever, narcissistic, and untrustworthy he is. His outbursts (listed above) seem characteristic of the suave person unmasked. He must've done some awfully good work for the community to have put up with him for so long. Even without these personal observations and based purely on the evidence presented by T. Canens, he should be banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - with that many socks? for sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've been protesting against his little antics for /years/ (accused of "trolling", of course) and had recently promised to hold my tongue, in good faith, to some of his supporters since the latest incarnation of "Br'er Rabbit". Oh, well. He is here to play whimsical power games and mock the community's trust and judgement. He doesn't care what those who disagree with him want. He scoffs at consensus, bullies his preferred changes in by consistently edit-warring, rudely attacks other editors, positively radiates bad faith to those not in his corner, canvasses off-wiki to his supporters to influence things here (and inform them of his socks, whom they enable)... the list goes on. This isn't just about socking (which he unsurprisingly has been doing again). He's an extremely disruptive editor who consistently proves it. That's why he is here. The bad outweighs the good by far: and the "good" of his edits changes at his quirky whims anyway (see the shift in "proper" citation styles enforced by this editor). Doc talk 05:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. The above "sock farm" is misleading - most of the accounts are stale, were used serially rather than to abuse multiple accounts simultaneously, and they were retired by their owner. To bring them up without making it clear they are stale is likely to mislead people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why is one of the socks unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I've tried very hard to work with Jack, but this is how he reacts when he doesn't get his way. Enough is enough. No more chances. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can't support this. Jack is a good editor who made a stupid mistake. I've done that recently and I think a little time away should be given for circumventing a block definitely, but not an indef block. Maybe starting over the previous block and tacking on some extra time (a week total sounds good), but indef it's too permanent and hard as hell to get out of. Jack's work here is good and good outweighs bad here. A punishment is needed, but indef and the banhammer isn't the answer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Comment It appears (from past behaviour), Jack is going to keep editing Wikipedia, whether he's indeffed or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  How many mistakes should we be excusing here? And how can you excuse sockpuppeting? And not just sockpuppeting, but sockpuppeting after the sockpuppet was blocked, even. Silverseren^C 06:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think NH is excusing it here, just questioning the severity of the resulting sanctions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  ...questioning the severity when he's sockpuppeted twice in succession in the same day? For a user who has a past history of sockpuppeting and other violations, to the point of it going all the way to Arbcom and him getting sanctioned for it? Do you really think a measly week-long block matches that? Silverseren^C 06:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's for NH to answer - I was just pointing out that NH was not *excusing* it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I think being blocked is being blocked. You don't go get another account or an already known sock and sign in. You sit it out. He should be punished for that. I just think an indef block is overboard.

  @Silver seren: I just threw a week out there (I'm not an admin, so I don't know what the punishment is). Even two weeks to a month would be sufficient. Indef is just too much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jack was unbanned on the condition that he edit via a single account. Why should his violation of this restriction (made worse by the fact that the additional accounts were undisclosed and used to evade multiple blocks) not result in the ban's reinstatement? —David Levy 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  That I wasn't aware of. I don't go anywhere near ArbCom (gives me a headache), but I still think his good work outweighs a bad deed. I am not saying he shouldn't be let "off the hook" for it, I am saying he shouldn't be indef-blocked. Whatever length of time the community choses, just indef to me is too much. Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This all goes to prove that despite the widespread agreement that editors' good contributions should not excuse bad behavior, said widespread agreement only holds up in the abstract; once an actual editor is involved, we're back to letting good work get in the way of removing a problem editor from the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  That I wasn't aware of.
  Did you oppose this proposal without reading it?
  Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel.
  Again, Jack already was banned. His unbanning carries an explicit one-account editing restriction. Jack refuses to abide by this condition (which he's repeatedly violated in one of the worst ways possible), so why should he remain unbanned? —David Levy 06:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  NH has said what he had to say. He does not need to be questioned further about how or why he "voted" here, IMHO. Doc talk 07:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  When an editor expresses unawareness of information included in the proposal that he/she just opposed, follow-up is justified. —David Levy 07:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  NH is one of many friends of Merridew who are good editors, and are unlikely to change their opinion of him. I'm surprised more haven't come forth already. He's not going to vote to support the ban, so let's allow him a little consideration, is all I'm saying... Doc talk 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I respect Neutralhomer's opinion. I merely want to ensure that it's an informed one. It appears that Neutralhomer opposed the proposal without reading it or becoming acquainted with key facts. —David Levy 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  The most informed ones have yet to weigh in on this... Doc talk 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision. I don't go to ArbCom, it gives me a headache. Too much like politics (which also give me headaches). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision.
  It's mentioned several times in that post. —David Levy 07:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  If you are actually friends don't you have a conflict of interest? I'm not sure that friends posting in these threads is actually useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Ummm... no. There's certainly no COI, and anyone can comment on these threads. Doc talk 08:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  @Eraserhead1: No, Jack and I are not actual friends. I wouldn't know the guy if he knocked on my door right now. Just someone I have worked with here on Wikipedia and someone I think does good work. That's all. Sheesh, didn't think this would cause a shit storm. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Doc that there's no conflict of interest. Even if Jack and you were actual friends, that wouldn't bar you from commenting. —David Levy 08:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I can't agree. This isn't and wasn't meant as a personal attack on Neutalhomer, plenty of other people have done the same, I'm sure including myself. It is clearly the case that people support (and oppose) editors continued presence on Wikipedia above and beyond the level when they should do, and this leads to our ability to work out whether editors should stay on the project to be the most contentious and problem fraught aspect of the entire project - and almost certainly the part that drives editors away the most.

  It would be much healthier if people who know and collaborate with editors (both in agreement and disagreement) take a step back and let more neutral people make a judgement - ultimately if it goes wrong an appeal can be made to the Arbitration Committee and they are usually pretty competent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Input from those "who know and collaborate with editors (both in agreement and disagreement)" can be quite valuable, provided that we duly consider its source(s). —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think, at this point, it matters if I have a COI or not. The Yays outnumber the Nays 4 to 1 (maybe more). This is a snow support. Any further discussion of my possible COI is pretty much moot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No problem and that seems sensible, my point wasn't meant to criticise you individually :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support The irony is that many of Jack's recent article-related contributions have been very good. But this is totally unacceptable conduct, and clearly justifies a community ban. People who behave like this aren't welcome. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support the serial socking to evade a block shows a complete disregard for the "rulz" of the community. Add to that repeated trolling at WP:TFA/R where he keeps referring to "R[a]ulz", and where he changes the formatting of TFA without discussion (see User talk:Dabomb87. I have been considering either filing a user conduct RFC or a more focused arbitration request, and should one of his cohorts unblock him, I will file said focused request at ArbCom, with complete knowledge of what has been happening at TFAR that I did not have last time. --Rschen7754 06:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict) A person who knowingly and deliberately violates Wikipedia policies demonstrates a total contempt for rules and regulations and cannot be trusted with any Wikipedia policies - not even those that apply to content however good their edits might have been. There should be no 3rd chances for any sockpuppetry and most certainly not on such a blatant scale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support There was never a reason to unblock thinking his behavior pattern would change, since no there was no indication that it ever would, and this proves it. Regards, — Moe ε 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support how many chances, and how much community time are we supposed to waste on individual editors? The majority of users avoid being blocked at all, and the vast majority avoid Arbcom cases. While obviously a first time block shouldn't be indefinite, we don't need to offer chance after chance after chance once an initial block or two has passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know this will be unpopular, but a special case should be made here. An acknowledgement of the recent catastrophic failure (and its causes) that has led to these events should be made, and hopefully be sufficient reason for not issuing the requested ban (especially if the user were to acknowledge some remorse)? Just in the accounts listed above, the user in question has made over 56,000 edits, and in my experience has always been extraordinarily helpful, hard-working, and dedicated in building an encyclopaedia for our readers (and the user's technical expertise is second to none). Without this user's inspiration and assistance, Wikipedia will be a darker shade of grey. Give us a hundred Br'er Rabbits and we could finish Wikipedia. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  There already is a hundred Br'er Rabbits, that's the problem. Being a productive user in the article namespace and having some technical skills is great and all without blatantly violating his own terms of being here. Regards, — Moe ε 09:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm tempted to quote Henry IV Part I here, "Banish not him... banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." (And no doubt many people would quote Hal back at me: "I do. I will.") Has Jack given any explanation for why he has done this? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I know you all, and will awhile uphold

The unyoked humour of your idleness: Yet herein will I imitate the sun,

Who doth permit the base contagious clouds

To smother up his beauty from the world,

That, when he please again to be himself,

Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,

By breaking through the foul and ugly mists

Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.

If all the year were playing holidays,

To sport would be as tedious as to work;

But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,

And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.

So, when this loose behavior I throw off

And pay the debt I never promised,

By how much better than my word I am,

By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;

And like bright metal on a sullen ground,

My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,

Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes

Than that which hath no foil to set it off.

I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;

Redeeming time when men think least I will.(Henry IV Part I)

But I don't quite think this applies to a sock who needs to create 100 accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"Out, damned sock! out, I say! One; two, a hundred: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so many accounts in him?"--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not seven, but seventy and seven. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Request if someone has the time, could they provide some sort pretty table or graph of the overlap of all these sock puppet accounts? I seem to remember that an argument was put forward that he did hold himself to single accounts for long periods, and I'd like to see if that's true. If no one else can, I'll try when I have some time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This may help (it's also linked above): User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph. Rgrds. --64.85.214.195 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for that IP. I've been vaguely following the Jack case for years, though I don't believe I really have commented. From what I've seen, Jack has rubbed some people up the wrong way and they appear to be baying for his blood. This then compounds with the general community view that there is no smoke without fire, and sooner or later someone will reasonably put forward a request to have him banned. Clearly a large contingent of the community agree that a ban is right at this juncture, and it may be that it goes through, but all in all, I oppose community banning. Socking requires the abusive use of multiple accounts, and I do not see abusive use between May and this weekend. Yes, his actions this weekend were not acceptable and deserved a block. In fact, I expect he will be de-facto banned, as no one will be willing to unblock him, but community banned? No. Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have updated and transcluded it below for everyone's convenience. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Activity mostly before May 2011 (transclusion of User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph)

All data: 1 January 2004 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012- 1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 31 Dec 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - 31 Dec Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits No more edits No more edits No more edits Blocked1 Blocked Stalks My RFC RFAR 1 Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks No more edits Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Edits Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked * Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Stalks 57 Days 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Edits Edits Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Not registered Edits Blocked Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong No stalking in 2004 as I was not registered. In 2004 He was your average casual good user. One thing to point out his attention focused on Bali and Indonesia related articles which comes as no surprise. The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May 2007. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account. Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account. First contact with Jack Merridew was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) on 27 July 2007. The article series was also of interest to Davenbelle: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek 31 March 2008 blocks of accounts was per this edit Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked briefly between 2 and 4 May 2008 Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion on 9 December 2008. Data broken down by year 1 January - 31 December 2004 1 Jan - 30 Oct 31 Oct - Dec 31 Davenbelle (talk · contribs) Not registered Edits Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs) Not registered Moby Dick (talk · contribs) Not registered Diyarbakir (talk · contribs) * Not registered Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) Not registered Barong (talk · contribs) Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong No stalking in 2004 as I was not registered. In 2004 He was your average casual good user. One thing to point out his attention focused on Bali and Indonesia related articles which comes as no surprise. 1 January - 31 December 2005 1 Jan - 11 May May 12 - 30 Jun 1 Jul - 23 Jul 24 Jul - 11 Aug 12 Aug - 5 Oct 6 Oct - 6 Dec 7 - 22 Dec 23 - 31 Dec Davenbelle Edits Trey Stone & Davenbelle RFAR Stalks Stalks No more edits Stalks My RFC RFAR 1 Note to Cool Cat Not registered Moby Dick Not registered Edits Diyarbakir * Not registered Jack Merridew Not registered Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2006 1 - 25 Jan 26 - 30 Jan 31 Jan - 3 Feb 4 Feb - 15 Jun 16 Jun - 13 Aug 14 - 22 Aug 23 Aug - 12 Sep 13 Sep - 4 Nov 5 - 11 Nov 12 Nov - 18 Dec 19 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Note to Cool Cat Not registered Stalks No more edits Moby Dick Edits Stalks RFAR 2 Stalks 81 Days Stalks 13 days Diyarbakir * Not registered Stalks 57 Days Jack Merridew Not registered Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2007 1 - 11 Jan 13 Jan - 7 Mar 8 - 26 Mar 27 Mar 28 Mar - 8 Apr 9 - 10 Apr 11 - 19 Apr 20 - 22 Apr 23 Apr 24 - 25 Apr 26 Apr - 2 May 3 - 7 May 8 May - 21 Nov 22 Nov - 28 Dec 29 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick 86 days Edits 38 days Moby Dick block discussion Blocked Diyarbakir * 11 Days Stalks 41 days Stalks 12 days Stalks 2 days Jack Merridew Not registered Edits 18 days Edits E&C RFAR 1 Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong The above graph may fool you to think that Moby Dick had made edits between 26 April - 2 May 2007. However Moby Dick had made his last edit on 10 April from the account User:Diyarbakir. The marked time frame is community discussion which Moby Dick did not take part from a known account. Moby Dick did make a single edit from the account User:Moby Dick on 27 March 2007 which was the first one from that account since 18 December 2006 and that was the last one ever from that account. First contact with Jack Merridew was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral (Star Trek) on 27 July 2007. The article series was also of interest to Davenbelle: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek 1 January - 31 December 2008 1 - 18 Jan 19 Jan - 10 Mar 11 - 18 Mar 19 - 31 Mar 1 - 30 Apr 1 - 5 May 6 May - 22 Oct 23 Oct - 9 Dec 10 - 31 Dec Davenbelle No more edits Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Blocked Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits E&C RFAR 2 Edits RFCU & SSP & WP:AN Blocked WP:AN Blocked RFAR 3 Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 31 March 2008 blocks of accounts was per this edit Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked briefly between 2 and 4 May 2008 Users account (Jack Merridew) was unblocked as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion on 9 December 2008. 1 January - 31 December 2009 (incomplete) 1 Jan - 31 Dec Davenbelle Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January - 31 December 2010 (incomplete) 1 Jan - 31 Dec Davenbelle Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits Barong Not registered Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong 1 January 2011 - 1 Jan - 26 Mar 27 Mar - 7 May 8 - 15 May 16 May - 24 Jun 25 Jun - Davenbelle Blocked Blocked Note to Cool Cat Moby Dick Diyarbakir * Jack Merridew Edits SPI, RfAr/C(January 2011), Amend prior motion: JM & Clarification: JM Barong Not registered Edits Blocked Diyarbakir is a confirmed sockpuppet of Moby Dick per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir. Evidence based on the public logs: Contribs/Davenbelle, Contribs/Note to Cool Cat Contribs/Moby Dick, Contribs/Diyarbakir, Contribs/Jack Merridew, Contribs/Barong

Account overlaps, May 2011 to present

May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 Aug 2011 Sept 2011 Oct 2011 Nov 2011 Dec 2011 Jan 2012 Feb 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 Sept 2012 Oct 2012 Barong (talk · contribs) Edits 7–15 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Battle of Masada (talk · contribs) Edits 23 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits White-bellied Sea Eagle (talk · contribs) Edits 23–24 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Paperbark Flycatcher (talk · contribs) Edits 24 May No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Waterbuck (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 14–16, 19–23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Nantucket sleighride (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 16–17 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Il fugitivo (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 18, 20–21, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits 1942 Porsche (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 20 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Czolgosz (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 22 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Puputan (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Nyupat (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 23, 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits The Inheritance of Loss (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 24 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 25 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Stone Town (talk · contribs) No edits Edits 25–26 June No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Uncontroversial Obscurity (talk · contribs) No edits No edits Edits 18–24 July No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 7–9 April No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Sitti Noerbaja (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 13–15 August No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Victoria and Albert (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 19–26 August No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits The Call of the Wild (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits Edits 25–31 August Edits 1–3, 11–15, 22–23, 26, 29–30 Sept Edits 1, 6 Oct Edits 8, 15–17 Nov No edits No edits No edits Edits 19, 28, 30 March Edit 20 April No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Portuguese Man o' War (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 7–30 Sept Edits 1–4 Oct No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8–31 Oct Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 9, 17–19, 22–28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits One Ton Depot (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8–29 Oct Edits 1, 11 Nov No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Alarbus (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 1–28 March No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Blue-bottle (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 18–19 Nov No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 19–31 May Edits Edits Edits Edits Edits 1–12 Oct Br'er Rabbit bot (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 8 June Edit 20 July No edits No edits No edits Br'er Rabbi (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 15, 19 Sept No edits Br'er Bear (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 13 Oct Tar Baby (talk · contribs) No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits No edits Edits 31 July Edits 1–4 Aug Edits 15 Sept Edits 12–13 Oct

• Support The conditions of the unban request have been broken: "edit from one account only"; "avoid all disruptive editing". That ban should therefore be reinstated. Warden (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Appears to be an incurable case of ducktitis. WP:BLOCKEVASION and verbal abuse of admins are the last straw. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Frankly I've always been surprised he was allowed back in. Sockpuppetry is one thing, to delibrately to expose your accounts when you're fully aware of the implications of that and amount of time which you'd waste is quite another. (I read and saw that at around the time it was happening.) I would have fully supported it if arbcom or even the WMF had said enough is enough and told him not to come back for a very long period of time. But he was let back in, despite all the problems he's caused, I'd be fine with that if he abided by the conditions. It's clear he did not. I'm not aware of the entire history here (I've read bits and pieces thorough the years), I'm not even aware of what precisely lead to him creating the Br'er Bear account, I don't think it matters. Whatever others may have done that contributed to any messes he got in to, no one held a gun to his head and forced him to create and use all the accounts including the recent ones, behaviour which continued after the restriction. It seems clear whatever good work he does, in some areas he just can't abide by the communities expectations, he particularly has problems when things don't go his way. His repeated violations are severe enough that they warrant a community ban. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question: as this is a discussion is plausibly with ongoing much broader knock-on effects, should it be mentioned at the - like it or not - default en.wikipedia.org central notice board?--Shirt58 (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Has Jack been invited to make a statement on his behalf? I'm not pretending it is likely to change the outcome, but I'm not comfortable weighing in without hearing what he has to say, if he wants to say something.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He's been notified. On-wiki. I'm not sure if we're required to invite him off-wiki to this thread. Doc talk 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jack's talk page access is not revoked. He can communicate logged into Br'er Rabbit, or as demonstrated earlier today, he can communicate logged in as a sock ([6]). If he wants someone to say something here on his behalf, all he has to do is say so on his talk page. God knows he knows how to do this.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He added {{Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow}} to his talk page; interpret that as you will. Nobody Ent 15:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support; no editor should be allowed to consume so much community effort and time continually over the years – no matter how smart and funny they may be the rest of the time. Jack has had countless opportunities to let the past fade into obscurity, but it is clear that he enjoys being the center of the storm too much for that. Wikipedia could use fewer storms chasers. — Coren ^(talk) 13:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; I also agree with Malleus and a couple others but I doubt it will matter at this point since the end result seems clear. I might feel differently if he had abused someone other than Raul whom they have history with but I also think this user has been more good than harm. Kumioko (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why is it acceptable to abuse any editor? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Well its not but being familiar with the case between them Raul hasn't been very cordial either. They have both done and said something things at the other that weren't very gentlemenly. Also having a fair bit of knowledge on having a user constantly hound and harass I can understand where, at a certain point you just don't care about being nice or polite to them anymore. So if the issues are between the 2 of them then that's one thing but if he starts abusing others that's something different. Kumioko (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I understand that Br'er Rabbit was involved in the baiting and bullying of User:GoodDay (who was previously one of the 400 most active people on Wikipedia), and he has posted in this ANI that "the root of this mess is years of disruption by Kauffner. I've not been following this closely, but there are various archived threads about this", and "Kauffner has been hugely disruptive regarding diacritics for years and this is overdue". However, although he makes such statements about Kauffner, I believe that Br'er Rabbit has not been involved in Vietnamese diacritics at all. He deserves to be treated in the same way that he treats other people. Surely "Jack Merridew" was the most evil of the characters in "Lord of the Flies"?  LittleBen (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support for now, subject to Jack explaining why he created and used User:Tar Baby, after arbcom told him to edit from only one account. Maybe Jack a very good reason, but I look at the contributions and can't see any reason. They are not controversial topics or dangerous to edit or anything like that. I can understand the creation of User:Br'er Bear in a fit of anger after being blocked. But why was he using the Tar Baby account for months? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Post arbcom, and without getting their approval first, what reason could be enough? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  For example, harassment or legal threats in real life due to editing those articles. Or trying to edit calmly in some completely separated topic because of continued intrusions in his main account (although I see that he has done this before, and he ended creating trouble also in those accounts?). Or making a clean start (which he hasn't done, since he kept editing in his main account). There might be a reason we haven't thought of. If he has a really good reason for that account then we should at least hear it before locking and throwing the key to the bottom of the sea. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Full support The unban conditions were clear, and both of those key conditions have been clearly broken. It's a shame that the stupidity of actions overwhelms the usually positive contributions, but the bullshit has to stop, now. dangerouspanda 15:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Whatever mistakes and missteps he's made, Jack/Br'er does a lot of great work and is a clear net positive. Do I think he should stick to one account? Yes, absolutely, as that was (for right or wrong) a condition imposed by ArbCom. Do I think he should be blocked or banned if he doesn't stick to one account? Frankly, no. I have yet to see the case that he's actually doing anything nefarious with these additional usernames, like vote-stacking or any of the other behavior that our sock puppetry policy was designed to prevent. Looking at the contributions of these extra accounts, I see constructive edits. In the absence of some evidence that Jack is actually harming the encyclopedia with one of these extra usernames, I cannot possibly support a ban of any kind. 28bytes (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  So calling the administrator that blocked him a fucking asshole is a net positive contribution with his alternate account? Regards, — Moe ε 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  The single act you've cited is not the "net" of contributions. Regards -76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This is not the first, nor the last edit he has made like this, only the most recent. Regards, — Moe ε 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  He has been blocked in the past, as he will be whenever conduct warrants, just as he is now. Regards - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  So you support the limit to a single account, but oppose any attempt to enforce that limit? --Nouniquenames 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, I don't support a limit to a single account. I edit with multiple accounts (disclosed on my userpage); lots of other editors, admins and even arbs have disclosed and undisclosed accounts that they edit with. Like those folks, Jack's other accounts are completely harmless, with the obvious exception of Br'er Bear, which was created a couple of days ago for an unwise but brief bit of venting. I don't accept, however, the idea that the only way to enforce a limit on multiple accounts is a community ban. What we have here is a generally productive editor, who dislikes being forced to play by different rules than the rest of us because of mistakes he made many years ago, who had a bad weekend and lashed out. I get that he rubs many people the wrong way, and has accumulated many detractors over the years, but I don't think a community ban is the commensurate response to what he's done. Block the "extra" accounts if the single-account limit must be enforced, give his main account a time-limited block if it's necessary to "punish" him for lashing out at the admin who blocked him for edit warring, but again, I think a community ban is a disproportionate response to what's happened. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - in breach of his unban conditions, has wasted too many chances - enough is enough. GiantSnowman 15:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Anybody who has worked with Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs) or Alarbus (talk · contribs) or Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) will know that they are a major net benefit to the encyclopedia. Check their contributions if you don't believe me. I can understand anyone's annoyance at his actions yesterday, but those are the actions of someone who tries to improve the encyclopedia and is hurt when blocked. I told ArbCom last year that further extending a restriction that was imposed in 2008 was unjust and simply gave his detractors a stick to beat him with. Here he is being beaten with exactly that stick. Is edit-warring wrong? Yes. Is evading a 48-hour block wrong? Yes. Is it right to hold someone's mistakes from five years ago against them still? No. If you think it will benefit the encyclopedia to community ban him for edit-warring and evading a 48-hour block, then go ahead. But be clear about what you're doing, what you gain, and what you lose. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Comment - It's the trust factor. The community doesn't trust Jack, anymore. One must now wonder, how many 'socks' has he created, since this AN report was filed? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But continuing the restrictions is clearly valid when the editor has been continuing the same behavior for the last five years. --Rschen7754 18:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sure. But he hasn't been continuing the same behavior for the last five years. Jack Merridew edited constructively from a single account from when the ban was lifted in 2008 - being congratulated by ArbCom for a successful return from his ban in 2009 - until 2011 when ArbCom refused to lift the single-account-restriction merely because they wanted to show their muscle. They were warned that they were just painting a target on Jack's back, and it's no surprise to me that shots have now landed. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Rant. Sure, let's ban the indeffed editor cause he was "mean" to us once -- that helps Wikipedia how, exactly? Yea, he was "mean" to me due to the non-content nature of my contributions -- being older than 12 I ignored it. If he was such a problem to so many people while his was unblocked, where is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Br'er Rabbit? If Jack's interaction style has cause so much "drama," it's because non one knows what the damn rules are. Vandals, legal threats, and 3rr editors don't cause drama, they just get blocked because we know what the rules are. Rather than grave dancing an indef'd editor let's do something useful and put the work in at WP:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Oppose ban.Nobody Ent 15:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, but a substantial proportion of even the admin community is unable to handle their decisions being challenged as per the rules without getting incredibly upset about it - the situation is bad enough that my comment above saying that you shouldn't challenge admin decisions unless they are gross is probably reasonable. If that is the position we are in we cannot allow general incivility and expect people to "just deal with it" - I don't have to put up with people insulting me (in a non-clearly non-serious way) in the real world.

  Basically every time I have challenged an admin legitimately and within the rules they have clearly got upset about it - so much so that I made a statement above about only challenging gross violations of the rules to avoid conflict in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The rules were clear--he was unbanned on the condition that he use only one account. He was using two accounts since July, which is after the unblock date, and that's a direct violation of his unban conditions. Time to nuke from orbit for contempt of community. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC) ETA: On contemplation, probably wouldn't be a bad idea for a CU to check for any sleeper socks, too. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Continual abuse of multiple accounts. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:28bytes. Creating "playful" socks, which are not used contrary to WP:SOCK doesn't seem to me to be something we should ban someone for. That said, I think it's fairly clear that the editor has worn out the community's patience concerning the leeway we typically give editors regarding this. So with that in mind (and with keeping the arbcom restriction in mind), I would support unblocking from indef if, and only if the editor lists EVERY sock (stale, inactive, whatever)), accompanied by the diff of that sock being listed. (But not through using a category, because a blanked page would effectively remove the sock from the category.) This is merely following current sock policy/guidelines. Otherwise, the editor should remain indef blocked. - jc37 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  "Playful"? Is that how we're describing block evasion now? —David Levy 17:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's how we're describing the creation of the other accounts. Should I assume you actually read what Jc37's wrote, and then maliciously chose to misinterpret it? Gold Hat (talk · contribs) was created as a playful sock and I'm pretty sure Tar Baby (another character from the Br'er Rabbit stories) was created in the same vein. Do you really, honestly think Tar Baby was created just to evade a block? --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  RexxS, thank you for your comments. You're spot on what I was thinking of. Though I do think br'er bear was a block evading sock, it was done in such a way as to be very obvious who it is. Anyway, that said, I'm not reading DL's comments as "malicious", or misinterpreting my comments, but merely surprise (flabbergasted shock?), and requesting clarification.

  Hi David. Thanks for asking for clarification. My read of this proposal is that it hinges on socking AND block evasion. I don't support a ban for most of the types of socking that the editor engages in. We have editors creating alternate accounts all the time. The problem really is that, at this point, people shouldn't have to be "sleuthing" to try to figure out if it's him or not. That's just become a complete waste of the community's time. As for the block evasion, he absolutely should be (and is) blocked for it. And escalate the durations, to be sure. But I disagree with others in that I don't think it's reached the "indef" stage yet. - jc37 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the assumption of good faith and clarification.  :) —David Levy 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  See how much better comments like this make the discussion ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Jc37 referred to "creating 'playful' socks" (not to "playfully creating socks"). To me, "playful sock" means "sock used playfully", which doesn't accurately describe block evasion. (And I now know that Jc37 didn't intend to imply otherwise.)
  I don't know what Jack had in mind when creating the "Tar Baby" account, but I have a difficult time believing that it was for his personal amusement (particularly given the fact that he later used it to evade a block). And as Jc37 noted, Jack created the "Br'er Bear" account while blocked (and then used it to evade said block). —David Levy 19:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You know, when I wrote that, I wasn't actually thinking about the distinction between "creating 'playful' socks" (not to "playfully creating socks"). But in thinking about it now, to my mind it's more like: Someone creates a cricket bat to go have some fun. If later they use that cricket bat to assault someone, should we outlaw cricket bats? On the converse, it's not a great analogy, because I can already hear the response: "Maybe not, but that individual shouldn't be allowed to use cricket bats again." When in truth socking is more like: what number is on the player's jersey (such as in football). If the player notes that all the various jersey numbers he has used and is using are him, then who cares if they have a different number every time they play? Blocking the user (not allowing them to go on the field - to extend the analogy), when they use an alternate number to go on the field in violation of a current block, is always an option. But I just don't think that this is enough to ban him for life from cricket (or football). - jc37 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Are community bans "for life" or just until the community decides otherwise? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'll answer your question with a question: Are cricket or football bans "for life", or is that merely a euphemism for "...until/unless the relevant powers-that-be decide otherwise"? - jc37 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You did not answer my question but in sports "bans for life" are termed "bans for life." So, are you saying that community bans on Wikipedia are not for life? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I did respond, actually. I'm sorry that you appear to not have understood it. - jc37 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Really? You choose to give a simple question an overly complex analogy answer, and then innuendo insult the editor when they don't get your analogy. Do you have any basis for the assumption ASW is familiar with football or cricket bans? Nobody Ent 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Try again. No insult was made nor intended. But I will offer you a suggestion. You might want to dial back the accusations a bit. WP:AGF might go long way if you gave it a chance... - jc37 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  This analogy makes scant sense. First, we primarily know a player by their name, not by their jersey number. When we discuss something about, say, Jeremy Lin, we talk about "Jeremy Lin", not "that guy wearing jersey #XX". We usually know editors, however, by their username/jersey number. Second, data about a player is tracked under his name. Changing jersey numbers have little effect on how the data is tracked. Data about an editor is tracked under his username, and repeatedly switching accounts makes it difficult to track someone's editing history. A more apt analogy would be someone who changed their name every time they play. I doubt that the commentators would be too happy with such an athlete ("what's this guy's name today? John? Jack? Nick?"). T. Canens (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I personally get tired of trying to keep track of usernames myself. New accounts aside, people have their accounts renamed all the time. But happy or not, I don't think it's "ban-worthy". - jc37 22:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Until the community decides otherwise. Nobody Ent 23:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The amount of excuses being made for YEARS of sockpuppetry, block evasion, edit warring and attacks made by this user is, frankly, embarrassing for each person defending him. We've wasted far too much time on this editor, and it is clear that there is no other solution that will ever work. Resolute 17:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I wouldn't oppose a time-limited ban or block, because there really is no excuse for evading a block, and even less for doing so to abuse the blocking admin and attempt to settle a years-old grudge. However, Jack is an overwhelmingly constructive contributor—he goes round quietly making improvements to articles. Improvements that, in many case, may not be immediately obvious to most editors, but which greatly assist our readers and re-users. However, he needs to learn that sometimes it's best to just walk away, and this is what gets him into trouble. This has improved recently, as he has surrounded himself with wise editors who are able to give him good advice, and is likely to continue to improve if or when he returns from the current block. A site ban would achieve little. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Plenty of other people edit well without behaving badly. Why don't we encourage those editors? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Conversely, editorial mediocrity is too rarely and too softly admonished in "friendly" people. And also by "friendly" people, who are in part recognized as "friendly" precisely because they never tell anyone their editing sucks, no matter how much it sucks. A culture of overly rigid boundaries is itself a net detriment, since any transgression of the golden rule is considered negative. Innocuously looking over a fellow contributor's editing history now becomes "stalking" and "harassment". Telling someone in so many (true!) words that their editing "sucks" is a cardinal sin. Seems about right. --87.78.52.199 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Jack Merridew is a prolific contributor with both good and bad aspects. Considering both the good and the bad, is he a net positive contributor to the writing of a encyclopedia or a net negative? If he is a net negative, indeffing him makes sense. But, if he is a net positive, we should consider simply giving him a time out and then trying to retain him. Cardamon (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock masters aren't known for taking time outs. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Net negative. Even while he was being "productive" someone had to keep an eye on him because he kept pulling stunts at TFA. See User talk:Dabomb87. --Rschen7754 17:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Jack has wasted too many chances to be here and the community does not trust him anymore. This amount of sockpuppeteering is the final straw. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Suppoer, but with an outside note. There are way too many loopholes in the socking policy, and it needs to be tightened majorly. The fact that you can even argue that some of those socks were fine says that the policy is crap and has to be rewritten. Wizardman 18:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although, initially, his checking of new cite templates, Template:Fcite and Template:Cite_quick, had been helpful in pinpointing format differences (which were later fixed), on balance, it seems he pinpointed problems to prove himself "right" rather than to help improve templates for Wikipedia editors/readers. He really crossed the "bright line" of cite-template rules when he edited article "Taylor Swift" (edit-183) to axe fast {cite_quick} (designed to match wp:CS1 style) and inserted non-compatible {Vcite_web}, as a totally different format, which per WP:CITEVAR, requires prior consensus for use in an article. However, the final straw was when he also pulled {cite_quick}, with no discussion, from 9-time featured article "Barack Obama" to exceed the template limit and re-break the bottom 14 templates (3 navboxes, {Persondata}, Authority control, and the wp:FA/GA interwiki links to other-language wikipedias). Then, he tinkered with hopeless changes to "fix" the cratered article, and even tried "dropping a trivial template:okina" (see: edit-708), just tinkering with a frequently-viewed featured article. Those actions are just too reckless for the work on a 9-time featured article, and too risky for the WP community. FYI: To reduce bias, I avoided reading other comments, but will now.-Wikid77 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support In mine understanding, the Arbcom decision didn't allow "playful" socks, it allowed one account. They, or Jack, may not have done harm; indeed, some claim he is a net positive to the project; anyone who cannot abide by community rules, though, cannot be a net positive. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been thinking about how to respond here all day, and at the end of it, I have to oppose a community ban. Has Jack used sock accounts? Yes, but they were openly him and clearly no deception was intended. Does it look like he's hit the self-destruct button? Yes. But people have bad spells, and what has Jack actually done here that's so bad? He's openly insulted a couple of admins, but I really don't think that's a big deal - if we can't take an occasional angry outburst, we shouldn't be admins. Long term he's been a great contributor, and many of the most creative people can react emotionally to events. My view is that a major part of the job of admins is to assist our creative contributors, not to police them - technically it might be a subtle difference, but it's a big difference in terms of attitude. I certainly support a block until such a time as Jack has come down from his current anger, but I cannot support a community ban on an editor who has contributed far more than I am ever likely to. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agree. And thanks: I think you conveyed this better than I managed to : ) - jc37 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  What has he actually done lately? You seem to be overlooking the edit warring and the disruption of the Obama article which is subject to article probation. Warden (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Also see disruption at TFA. --Rschen7754 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I am aware of both those things -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per 28bytes and Boing said Zebedee. Any ban discussion should happen at arbcom, so that we can actually examine the evidence of Jack's disruption in detail, and determine if a ban is warranted or needed, without the pile-on/witch-hunt mentality of ANI. It seems to be that this all stemmed from a simple case of edit warring, which seems rather minor to spark an indef site ban. -Scottywong| spout _ 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  If this request is declined, I will strongly consider filing a second ArbCom request. --Rschen7754 18:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Arbcom is usually pretty level headed about these things, so that seems a good next step if this fails. That said it seems pretty bureaucratic if we have to go to Arbcom. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  No comment on banning or non-banning, but I don't understand your comment, Scotty. Ban discussions happen here at WP:AN all the time; why shouldn't this one? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  The user under discussion is currently under arbcom sanctions (to refrain from using multiple accounts), it seems appropriate to discuss his possible violations of those sanctions at arbcom, to determine if they were violated, and whether the violations warrant an outright ban. -Scottywong| express _ 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x3Oppose per Malleus and 28bytes. No question in my mind whether he is a net positive to the project.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I really don't think he deserves any more chances. He's already been Arbcom sanctioned in the past for using sockpuppets and twice violated that sanction. And now he's block evaded twice in succession on the same day. I don't really care how much material he adds to the encyclopedia, it's easy to see that he makes the editing environment disruptive because of his attitude toward others and his mood swings of vandalism. This is really the last straw. Silverseren^C 18:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support—this user has been abusive towards other editors, has socked in defiance of the restrictions placed upon him, and most recently, engaged in edit warring. No amount of good works can overcome the blatant disregard for our community's rules and values, and this user should be shown the door. He's exhausted a second chance, and a third is not likely. Imzadi 1979 → 18:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support  The editor is already site banned, this just restores the site ban.  But the list of sockpuppets posted today at 16:40 puts a new perspective on things.  JM has been openly challenging the admins, who on an ongoing basis have either lacked the skill, will, tools, or organization to control the situation.  Perhaps we should be negotiating for peace.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I have worked with Jack a few times and I agree that he can do some good editing. Unfortunately, I don't believe in the idea of a "net positive" here. That's like saying "it's ok to murder someone if you just gave 1.5 billion in donations to charity". That makes no sense to me. Just because you do good work does not give you the right to circumvent policies regarding how to edit, or how to handle blocks, or even worse in trying to get around sanctions that are placed on you with instruction not to do certain things (like create socks). There are only so many chances anyone gets, and it appears, sadly, that Jack has exhausted his chances with what appears to be a deliberate slap in the face of his fellow editors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing.--John (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This entire mess went down the tubes far too quickly IMO. I understand that others can make some sort of case here for sanctions, but I tend to think along the line that Malleus, Boing, and 28bytes are. My understanding is that the Br'er Bear post was to his TALK page of the Rabbit account which he had locked up. I think there's far too much value to be lost here, so I can't support a quick "ban this user" via. an AN thread. I'm also a bit unclear as to the sanctions that were in place, as I believe that many of those were to be lifted, and Br'er granted equal status. Some of us have alternate accounts, and it is permitted in policy. I would want to see some response from Br'er, some explanation from Burpelson, some discussion from Courcelles, and some clarification from Arbcom before I would even consider supporting such a ban. — ChedZILLA 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No editor is irreplaceable - WP is big enough so that other people, some of whom have not edited yet, will step up and take over what ever good work he's done. Look how much insane drama this has caused. I concur - no third chances. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support No need for the games, and there was really no reason for his original ban to be lifted. The important remaining question is whether we can effectively block him at the IP level, because his history shows that he will have no respect for our blocks.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons most people who support are providing. Long term troublemaker, good edits not an excuse, thumbing his nose at sockpuppetry policy, etc. McJEFF ^(talk) 20:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I say this somewhat hesitantly because as much as Jack pissed me off years ago, in the last few I've seen him as a generally net positive (if sometimes only by a bit). But his inability to play by the rules and behave civilly is just too problematic. Being a net positive doesn't excuse all the stupid stunts he pulls. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the years go by, he keeps getting away with things he knows he shouldn't be doing, and even flaunts it on his user pages at times. I see he had the history deleted as well as the page for his first known account at User:Jack Merridew. Used to brag about being a master of sockpuppets at places. He has 44 accounts listed at [7] which he admitted to at one point. There was also a lot of them listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jack Merridew earlier today, but I see someone went and emptied that. He kept breaking Arbcom rules. Even when he was blocked before, he just kept editing as different IP addresses. Dream Focus 21:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I restored all of the user pages that had been deleted: the categories have been repopulated.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - please forgive me that I am unable to read all of the above: I see great efforts there - in time and writing skill - to sink a scuttled ship. I fail to see how Wikipedia would be improved by a ban. - Dabomb was mentioned several times, was he notified? - TFA disruption was cited, the so-called disruption was documented recently, face the facts please. I wish more talk pages would look like this. Too late, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Again, this fails to address the numerous violations of policy. Notified Dabomb87 by talk page and email. --Rschen7754 21:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word scuttle? The whole thread doesn't look like it.

Do you understand the meaning of the word provocation?

If you understand that I care more about people and content than policy, you are quite right. The cleaning lady of TFA (see my user for more) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban. In spite of everything, I still believe he is a net positive to this project. He has taught me so much stuff, such as what's the best browser and why, how to use an external editor for things such as search and replace, how to use scripts, how to save tons of time editing. He has a really great memory and a lot of coding chops. He has to figure out a way to be nicer to people, even when they disagree with him. The socking has to stop, as that's what has destroyed the trust of the community, more than anything else that's happened. — Dianna (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The substance of most of the opposes seems to be a flat statement that the rules (which apply to all of us, as far as I know) and specific sanctions (which apply to Jack, according to Arbcom) don't apply to Jack. No one appears to be contesting that his behavior recently has involved edit warring, block evasion, and personal attacks; the people opposing the ban at this point just want to nullify the jury such that Jack won't be held responsible for what everyone agrees was his deliberate flouting of multiple policies and restrictions. As for me, I believe there has to be a line past which disruptive editors can't be allowed; if we decide that Jack needn't abide by WP:SOCK and all the other rules he's violated this week, why would he believe he needs to follow any of our rules in the future? Why would anyone believe they needed to follow any rules or restrictions, if all you need to do is break them long enough and loudly enough, and make enough "good edits" to cancel out anything up to (perhaps including?) murder, to get the community to publicly affirm your being above the rest of us? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Enough is enough. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC).
• Support - this has been a long time in coming --Nouniquenames 21:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Further comment Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3#Recidivism says that "Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions." --Rschen7754 22:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not comfortable wit the comments so far which seem to want to turn the editor's overall contributions into an equation. Net positive or Net negative seem beside the point to me. Michelangelo may be considered to create some of the greatest works of art. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be sanctioned if that be deemed necessary. This shouldn't be about piling things on a balance. If someone evades a block, then sure, ever increasing blocks is the typical way to go. But a community ban is a whole other thing. - jc37 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  But it isn't even an escalation; a ban already was imposed, and it was lifted on the explicit condition that Jack edit via a single account. He's continually violated that restriction (and other policies in the process), so I see no reason why the ban shouldn't be reinstated. —David Levy 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'd feel more comfortable with the re-placing of an arbcom ban being left to arbcom. I'll need to re-read the case, but my recollection is that the intent seems to have been that he shouldn't use socks in violation to WP:SOCK. And AFAIK, he didn't, until now when, I agree that it could be argued, he did when evading the block. Otherwise, I don't think the multiple socks violated WP:SOCK, and therefore, the editor didn't necessarily cross the spirit of the restriction. All that said, I would have been more comfortable if the editor had asked arbcom for clarification on this before creating the various socks. But anyway, I'd prefer that these questions were dealt with by arbcom in this case. - jc37 23:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You're kidding, right? Which part of "User:Barong [one of his numerous accounts] is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion" do you think leaves room for "playful socks"? Our intent was certainly not to allow him any alternate account whatsoever – and he most certainly knew that. — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Nope, not kidding. And your comments (and white cat's below) re-affirm to me that this is something that arbcom should deal with. - jc37 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, (with some regret) though Jack has made some useful contributions his methods, approach and attitude towards others are not usually in the community spirits. One who does good things through bad means is as bad as one who does bad things. Whilst the outcome of some of Jack's edits might be good, the way he achieves them isn't. Unfortunately he's created more work for others deliberately as a way of venting anger and the number of discussions and time and effort that's been used to resolve threads about Jack are beyond ridiculous. This is a message to others than editing goes much beyond the final outcome. Its the spirit of team work and observing the community views. The community has spoken, enough is enough. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a classic case of "popular user can't follow the rules that all of us are supposed to follow, his hangers-on and buddies all show up to inevitably argue that his contributions mean he should be above the rules." No, no, and no. Nobody around here's irreplaceable-- whatever he's been up to, someone just as useful will eventually come along to do it. When will the community learn? Jtrainor (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps when the entire community sees everything exactly as you do. Until then it would be nice to see a bit more good faith when assumptions are at core. No one has here argued that anyone should be above the rules. In fact the rules allow for civil discourse and the consideration of dissenting views. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Friends and hangers on always seem to find it difficult to accept how things really are in discussions like this - and they should make an effort not to participate with !voting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  Wrong. No civilized model would exclude supporting arguments, and "friends and hangers on" have just as much right to comment here as anyone else. We don't silence people because of some imagined COI. Doc talk 07:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) People who can't contribute without placing labels on participants who express an opposing view should be required to remove their head from their ass before posting a comment. But that is simply my opinion. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have made no implication that everyone who has opposed this is a friend of Jack. That said if people are friends or enemies, they generally don't offer any value to these discussions. If you can't get any support from someone who isn't your friend then you don't deserve support and vice versa. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose- per Dianaa. Despite everything that's happened, I still consider JM to be a net positive on this project. Reyk _YO! 02:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for clear violation of numerous policies and the disruption caused by his disputes with other editors. wctaiwan (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Weak support - The edit warring, personal attacks, and ArbCom motion violation each deserve escalating blocks, but not a site ban. JM has been an amazing contributor over the years. The only reason I'm leaning towards a support on this one is because the behaviour needs to stop. He created the Tar Baby account not for disruption, but it appears for the sake of violating the ArbCom ruling. The Br'er Bear account was made for the purpose of evading a block. It's not specifically because he did those things, but because this kind of behaviour shows no sign of stopping. Ishdarian 03:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, unfortunately. I had thought Jack Merridew had shown a vast degree of improvement since being unbanned, but lately in his edits as Br'er Rabbit, he has been behaving in such an immature manner that it's become more than just a distraction. I think a lengthy break from the project would help him reflect on how he could reconcile with the community in the event that he is unblocked, and will also allow us to continue sorting through drama without him serving as a frequent distraction. I'm sorry it had to come to this. Kurtis (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support—this person has made many useful edits and seems talented and knowledgeable, but has more importantly, and in my opinion, consistently contributed to degrading the quality of debate and conversation on Wikipedia. Is regularly sarcastic and dismissive towards editors s/he disagrees with ([8] a single random diff, lolz); I read the constant leet-speak edit summaries as a sign of disrespect towards others (maybe it's just me). It's one thing for anyone to be "uncivil" occasionally, with or without bad words. It's another thing for Wikipedia to put up with editors with patterned behavior that reduces the quality of discourse. I hate to admit this, but I have reduced editing Wikipedia and am currently leaning towards "retirement" (yawn) in part because running into these "types" destroys the enjoyment of the hobby. All me? apparently not. Been editing for years, first community ban discussion I've ever participated in, I think. Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, but "fucking asshole", mwah. An admin should be able to handle that. Jack, or whoever he was originally, is a net positive. Riggr Mortis, it's somewhat ironic that I post this just below your comment, only a few days after I was unexcusably rude to you; I hope you read my apology. I can't blame you if you think I fit right into that reduction of the quality of discourse; I can tell you I'll try to do better. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but many admins cannot handle per policy WP:ADMIN challenges, given that I really don't understand why anyone expects admins to be able to handle personal attacks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your comment. I'll tell you that I'm an admin and I expect myself to be able to handle personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • My point is that very frequently when you make a WP:ADMIN based challenge the admin in question fails to handle it in a remotely appropriate fashion. Often they ignore your complaint until escalation is threatened, or they clearly get extremely upset about it - and I've even seen ex-members of the arbitration committee in that position. That's why there's a whole bunch of stuff at the top of this page waiting to be closed. And that list is only as short as it is because I've spent a lot of time cleaning up the requests, as have tough admins like Beeblebrox.
      • If a substantial proportion of the admin community cannot accept legitimate per policy challenges, I don't understand why you think that those same people can handle being insulted over and over. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I can take somebody calling me an asshole on the chin, but if it goes unchallenged often enough, newcomers will see things unpunished and decide that calling other editors assholes is acceptable, and point to these examples as proof. Don't go there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Kindly refrain from using the imperative; thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't understand what you mean there. Let's put it another way, if a group of youths vandalise a building, and appear to get away with it when charged, other kids might think they can do it as well. Sooner or later, somebody needs to say "enough" and "set an example" to get the community back on track. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling me "don't go there" as if I'm some child. I also don't think Jack is a youth, though he might wish he were. I guess Jack and I do have something in common. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
          • No, I'm just saying that saying "I can take personal attacks, why can't you?" isn't likely to result in a constructive debate. Which, as we can see, is exactly what's happened here! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Riggr Mortis - I wrote this in August - [9] I think the bottom line is the character formally known as Davenbelle and dozens of other names like the rabbit he uses today - counter to all the rules on wikipedia - appears to have a vindictive side, runs rampant, and harasses certain editors like Raul and others and has a gallery of followers who pick up after him. What's the point of having rules - if this person continues to flaunt them?...Modernist (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• support: block, ban, tar, feather, just don't throw him into any briar patches yonder. Don't sock - it's clear enough. Why shouldn't this apply to Jack too? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This might be hopelessly naive, and please ignore it if it is. I don't really know much of him, other than what I've read here, but I'm impressed by the arguments made above by Moe, et al . Has he ever given his personal word not to create any more socks? How about he be allowed to continue editing if does that, and be instantly and permanently banned if he ever creates another one? 146.90.43.8 (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see the potential gain of it. He's a technical whiz and has done some good stuff on here. I consider myself a friend of his on here and he might not want to hear this but I try to always be honest. I must admit I have come to see him as something of a trouble magnet. I've seen him involved in a lot of disputes, some of them over trivial things such as infoboxes where there really seemed no point in edit warring and dispute. I quite like he fact he doesn't consider wiki policies as rules, I think there is a lot to be said about that, but I think he has the tendency to focus on a lot of trivial issues and seems attracted to conflict. I wish he'd knuckle down and focus on improving things like Indonesian regency articles and such as he did in the past or coding bots to produce lots of decent, sourced articles; I think he wastes a lot of time and in doing so the time of others, which if put to better use, he'd be an extremely valuable editor for wikipedia. He's a good guy and I'd hate to see him banned, but I do think he needs to consider a few things and try to avoid petty disputes and focus more on why we're here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Why has the sock Alarbus, not been blocked? GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  That account is locked which is effectively a global block, calm down. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think I've come across JM in some items on my watchlist some time ago, but actually operating as a sockmaster all the while is inexcusable. Telling off Courcelles or any other editor for calling BS on his work is not a good idea. Get him out of here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support What part of "don't sock" do you people not understand? As a disinterested observer, I notice a clear undercurrent of FAC politics among some of those opposing a ban. Brer Whomever seems to fulfill a useful role for this clique. Though personality politics have unfortunately become part and parcel of Wikipedia, I still find them distasteful and damaging. Skinwalker (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That was my impression too, namely that Br'er was basically groomed as an attack dog. I've avoided anything FA-related for a long time though; too much politicking going on there. So I could well be mistaken. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Argh. Argh argh argh argh argh. For his own sake, I genuinely hope JM has grown entirely bored of Wikipedia, because he's just dropped a grand piano on the camel's back. He's been an extraordinarily productive counter for all sorts of bad behaviour around the project over the years (yes, ironic indeed), but I can't really see how he can come back from self-destruction like this. A great pity, and more than a little awkward for those editors who firmly respect his contributions towards the Greater Good but who firmly oppose the double standards that still plague the way we treat our most charismatic editors. Still, some of the projection above is delicious, and I imagine if JM ever does read this he'll get a good chuckle out of it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I promised myself to stay out of this... First and foremost Davenbelle is already a community banned user. He was never pardoned. Jack Merridew was Davenbelles 8th account. This ban came over his abusive use of sockpuppets to continue the behavior he was sanctioned by four RfARs including harassment. Primarily through private discussions (community was not consulted) ArbCom overturned the community ban on several conditions with the most important restriction being that Davenbelle was to use a single account and to not continue his harassment campaign towards me (or anyone). Since that ruling until 6 May 2011 Davenbelle created 6 more accounts reaching a count of 14. Since 7 May 2011 he has created a total of 30 more accounts which reached the grand total of 44 accounts. How many users with a "net positive contribution" has 44 accounts? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I do share the sentiment that this is a mess ArbCom should handle. They revoked the community ban and hence this is their problem. Any community ban decided here could just as easily be revoked again by ArbCom. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 7)Neutral I really don't see the point of banning. First off, Boing! And 28bytes make good points. Also, why ban if he is going to continue to sock and continue his shannanigans? Then again, being banned before, his unban condition was one account. If ArbCom had been hinted that she wouldn't have followed through with his condition, the ban would never been lifted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Due to edit warring, abusing socks when restricted to one by ArbCom, making personal attacks with false accusations of gravedancing just for writing an essay about that subject, as well as assuming bad faith and poking bears. This ought to be logged at List of banned editors also, so in a year or so when someone decides he should be allowed to edit again "with just one account" they'll have access to the history. This all goes back years and years and looks like multiple chances have been given. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Largely per HJ Mitchell. Many, many constructive contributions. At the same, time, we cannot allow constructive contributions to be used as an excuse to ignore community rules. The flouting of restrictions is too egregious to be simply ignored. While I know in theory that indefinite bans always mean until we decide otherwise, I object, in principle to indefinite bans of editors. I could support a medium term ban, such as three months, to send the message we are serious, yet allow him to return without having to beg.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support this level of abuse always justifies a ban, no matter what the circumstances. Content contributions aren't free passes for breaching community norms, especially not on this scale. Hut 8.5 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the type of people who instinctively oppose community bans seem, in general, to be statistically less likely to be dicks than those who instinctively support community bans, and I want to maintain the illusion that I'm not a dick. Also, because community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create, and instead I'm getting my warm feeling by being sanctimonious about Jack's enemies crawling out of the woodwork to get their kicks in. Also, because I genuinely respect Jack's contributions to the encyclopedia, and even though I've grudgingly come to the conclusion that he and Wikipedia simply aren't made for each other, I would still like him to leave on as good terms as possible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A !vote that consists of personal attacks on those who disagree with you and dismissing anyone who votes to ban as "enemies" of Merridew doesn't seem especially meritorious. I could write another essay that covers how frequently people abuse this position as well. Merridew is up for a ban because he can't work with others without going silly buggers and violating policy, not because he has "enemies". - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You use the term "personal attacks" too freely, Balph, I daresay significantly more often than I say "enemies". You should stop; it makes you look foolish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

While obviously in real life people have friends, most people don't have substantial numbers of enemies, in the real world I don't hate anyone. The idea that gets raised every time we have such a discussion that people have substantial numbers of enemies always seems to be fairly absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"most people don't have substantial numbers of enemies"... You're new to the internet, I take it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No I'm not new to the internet. The point still stands. Anyone who goes around just hating on people for no reason would get banned pretty quickly here.

Sure it is true that celebrities on twitter take a certain amount of abuse, but those people make up a tiny minority of their twitter followers.

Maybe a tiny minority of the people who have voted in support actively hate the guy, but the rest of us just want our policies to actually get followed so there is a pleasant editing environment for the rest of us. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

But now you're just making my point for me (or you were, before you tweaked your original post, to which I was responding before the edit conflict: [10]). My guess would be higher than yours, as I'd say 10% would be a lower bound of the supports from people I would consider his "enemies"; that's who I'm talking about. If you re-read my post, I'm not saying everyone supporting a ban is an enemy, I'm saying his enemies are salivating at this opportunity and are crawling out of the woodwork. It's distasteful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence that the percentage of enemies is even 10% - that's why I changed it - if we were aiming at that sort of percentage we'd be arguing that 2.5 million people on Twitter actively hating on Rihanna - realistically it is probably a tenth of that, if not substantially lower.

This same argument about haters gets bought out each and every time we have one of these discussions - and other than being a sure-fire way of raising drama (and therefore making it harder for the individual concerned to return) I have never seen any evidence against any editor for actually being a so called "hater" in any of these discussions. If truly it is a real problem then that seems like something that causes a substantial amount of the problems with these discussions, and the evidence should be bought up for the community and/or arbcom to consider. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am curious... Do I count as one of his enemies or victims? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose per Floq and Boing - I don't care what name he edits under; he's been incredibly helpful to me and many others with his technical expertise. Banning him, especially for what seems to be a bad day or two, would be a huge net loss to the encyclopedia. We all have bad days and I'd rather we not descend into hypocrisy by banning him for what, in the big picture, amounts to a stupid indiscretion. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• If it was just one bad day, I don't think any of us would be here. Except the truth is that it was weeks and weeks of bad days that led to block after block, to Arbcom sanctioning for a period to years, and to 44 sockpuppets. This is about far more than just a bad day. Silverseren^C 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) One bad day may excuse an insult or two, it doesn't excuse socks created months ago. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think playful socks are a reason to ban. Silver, I agree, he's had trouble in the past, but the current issue has been precipitated by an edit war that looks to me to be the result of a bad day or two. That's the issue at hand. His old socks have already been dealt with by the community and, to me, are water under the bridge. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you talking about the edit warring block, whereupon he block evaded by using a secret sock he made back in July, which was then blocked, and he then block evaded again with a new sock he made just then? Silverseren^C 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • How on earth can "playful" socks not be a reason to ban when he was explicitly told he wasn't allowed to create them by the Arbitration committee? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Playful socks are fine for an ordinary user with good standing. I have one or two myself which I created over the course of 7+ years. Davenbelle however is not such a user. He is a community banned user whose community ban was removed (not pardoned) by ArbCom on the condition that he did not use more than one account to edit. Since then he has chosen to create 32 newer accounts. Someone in his situation would normally not get a second account for bot edits let alone a fleet of sockpuppets. Also please note that this user has chosen to deliberately compromise his accounts by publicly posting username passwords when ArbCom told him he would be editing from a single account. This is why a good chunk of his sock accounts are locked globally. All of this is on top of the negative legacy he had prior to the mentioned community ban. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• comment: is there a reason that User:Uncontroversial Obscurity and User:Alarbus have not been blocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been told that all socks have been blocked or locked on Meta. --Rschen7754 19:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Alarbus, at least, is global blocked, so it wouldn't show up on the normal block list here. I don't know about Uncontroversial Obscurity. Silverseren^C 19:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • They are; popups may be ancient, but they are still useful. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • All known accounts are either blocked and/or locked. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Floq. But xe said it so lovely I'm going to repeat it: because the type of people who instinctively oppose community bans seem, in general, to be statistically less likely to be dicks than those who instinctively support community bans, and I want to maintain the illusion that I'm not a dick. Also, because community bans are stupid, with no real benefit except the warm sanctimonious feeling they create, and instead I'm getting my warm feeling by being sanctimonious about Jack's enemies crawling out of the woodwork to get their kicks in. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence for the statistical point?
  • And frankly it seems pretty dickish to force the rest of us to continually put up with editors who are unable to behave themselves. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Per other comments above. We all have been guilty of the occasional edit war and we've all sometimes said intemperate things. Anyone want to throw the first stone? Br'er/Jack is a useful contributor who has a few "Malleus moments" (said with respect to Malleus who also has to periodically endure this nonsense because he says something that hurts someone's widdle fweewings) and, yes, Br'er/Jack, unlike Malleus, also has a penchant for socking. Wikipedia isn't a federal court, and while Br'er/Jack has committed a long series of "misdemeanors," but he has not threatened anyone, disrupted the project to a serious extent (just a few disagreements, we all have them), or done something like mass copy and paste that violates the sprit of wikipedia. He also is deliberately a court jester or master satirist of a sort who points out the absurdities and inconsistencies of WP, which is a role that is needed. I say he had a bad weekend. In the real world, we don't give life sentences to people who commit multiple misdemeanors, we just up the penalties, but usually the third or fourth offense is the max, and you never get the death penalty. (Indef community ban being the equivalent) I say he gets a good slap for socking while blocked, and we let him back with the same restrictions as before. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But we haven't all created sock accounts months ago that we use to throw that stone. Let alone sock accounts months ago after being explicitly blocked by Arbcom from creating secondary accounts.
  • If from time to time I'm uncivil it happens from my main account, and usually the incivility gets edited away or retracted and apologised for.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Sockpuppetry is not okay. — goethean ॐ 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the ineffable wisdom of Floquenbeam. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Community ban, until the Community sees fit to lift it. The evidence shows abusive behavior and breach of trust re socking. The few oppose comments above are so weak, that apparently they need to rely upon overstatement, generalized attacks, and odd analogies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And emotional appeals. --Rschen7754 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I buy that this whole business is because of JM's enemies. When I see arguments like that one, I'm reminded of other longstanding yet highly problematic editors who have been blocked or banned. Those arguments don't really address the problems that have brought this user here many times in the past. In looking back through the history of this user, I see a number of good edits interspersed by periods where he seems to become quite troublesome. Is it true that he once handed out the passwords for a bunch of his sockpuppet accounts? To me, that's enough reason to never allow someone to resume editing. It's a shame because he does some good work, but as was noted way above in a link to the Betacommand case, good edits don't nullify bad behavior. People disagree frequently, but once it becomes disruptive, that ought to be the end of it. The Garbage Skow (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Several editors have said Oppose because JM is a net benefit to Wikipedia or his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds. There are some rules where breaking a rule deserves "punishment" regardless of how great and wonderful a person is. There should be no 3rd chances for any sockpuppetry, especially not on such a blatant, deliberate scale. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I generally avoid supporting such measures, and being someone who's had run ins with Alarbus/Brer before, I thought I shouldn't register an !vote as it might not appear objective. But some of the comments of opponents of the ban creeped me out. "Aww, I was only kidding" and "Can't you take a joke", is the quintessential excuse of every bully, and only reinforces the negative impression and determination to not see this behavior rewarded. To remind: civility isn't demanded because people's feelings might be offended, it is demanded because it mars the productivity of Wikipedia. Insults and bad language drag down and derail discussions and have a chilling effect on participation by other editors. I have known editors who refrained from participating in discussions past simply because they did not wish their comments to be a target of Brer's insults. This "chilling effect", often overlooked, needs to be taken into account in weighing the productive worth of this editor. But this is not the basis of my support for this measure. I do not and would not support a ban on Brer, if it was being proposed here. I would prefer other measures to deal with his incivility and socks problem. But I don't see a ban being proposed here. I see merely a proposal to determine whether Brer violated the terms of an unban deal he himself agreed to. And the evidence points that he did. The status quo ante should be resumed. As to losing potentially productive edits he might make in the future, alas, that is regrettable. But to quote De Gaulle, "the world's graveyards are full of indispensible people". Walrasiad (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support the frequent trolling by Jack/Brer/whatever we should call him has gone on for far too long. There comes a point when a person's net benefit to the encyclopedia is outweighed by the negatives. It happened with Ottava Rima, and it's happened here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly; that's what comes to mind. Also, all of the members of the TFA clique at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement have commented here by now, with the exception of PumpkinSky. Seems that all his friends are coming out to support him and excusing the bad behavior (although they largely don't claim to, but it is clear that if he returns, he will be pulling these sort of stunts on a regular basis). --Rschen7754 00:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Most people who have clashed with him over the years have shown up as well--are you of the opinion that it's Ok for people who have disagreed with him to comment here, but not for people who worked amicably with him? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
      • This goes back to consensus and what a consensus discussion really is. I think that those particular comments should be taken in light of the bias that they have. That is why a straight vote count is never the sole determining factor in closing discussions like these. I also think that other voters should be aware of the QAI influence, as should anyone who participates at TFAR, for that matter. --Rschen7754 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
        • (Ironically, Jack doesn't even think Ottava should ever return - see User:Uncontroversial Obscurity.) --Rschen7754 00:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, I agree that if !votes were discounted due to hypocrisy one (or maybe both) side(s) of this argument would be in a world of hurt. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support – All the run-throughs I have had with this user have been unpleasant, particularly when he told me that my developing of television articles to featured status is unimportant. Jack is uncivil, and does not respect community guidelines—this ban should have been set in place long ago. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—Br'er Rabbit taught me how to do references right, with the {{r}}, {{sfn}} and <refn> templates. We are, first, about content quality. On that front my interaction with the editor has been too positive for me to support something as harsh-sounding as a community ban. Churn and change (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bishonen deleted Br'er Rabbit's sock userpages, Kww restored them

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please see Kww's short note above: "I restored all of the user pages that had been deleted: the categories have been repopulated."[11] Indeed he did, but what for? I deleted all Jack's userpages earlier today, per his own request and the long list of socks he posted on his page. I don't understand why Kww has reverted me. My understanding of categories is that they were invented to organize pages. Not that pages exist for the sake of populating categories. Kww told me what he had done on my page, which I appreciate. But I would have appreciated even more being consulted before my admin actions were undone (on such a large scale, too). Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I ask Kww to undo his reverts and re-delete the pages. If anybody finds it difficult to localize the alternate accounts without the categories, let me tell you the categories were hilariously inconvenient and convoluted anyway, because of the trouble they had deciding which was or wasn't the "main" account, the sockpuppeteer. It's a lot simpler to find all known socks (perhaps including some that were not known before? I'm not sure) from Jacks own list here, or from this list in my userspace, which has even got links, than it ever was from those categories. (Please feel free to post one or both of those links where you think they would do most good. My user subpage, at any rate, isn't going to go away or change.) And the contributions of an account, for those who wish to research Jack's actions, can be found just as easily at a deleted as an undeleted page. The familiar "User contributions" link is still right there, in its usual place. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I hope people will post their opinions on this issue here; in particular, I hope that people who want to ask some specific question of me personally will do it as soon as possible. I really need to go to bed. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

I initially commented at your talk page, but since it's now here:

Just because admins can see deleted history, doesn't mean all editors can. While I do agree that Kww should have dropped you a note first, I think I'll agree with Kww that transparency during a discussion of community banning sounds like a good idea. If anything this should help, not hinder the editor. Otherwise you'll likely have people wondering what the editor is hiding. - jc37 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You can still see the contributions of a user with a deleted userpage, which is what Bishonen was saying.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I understood that, but deleted pages don't appear in categories. And one cannot view the edit history of a deleted page. - jc37 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Deleting userpages is a courtesy afforded to users, and 99.9% of the time that courtesy should be extended to them because it is presumed they are acting in good faith. That presumption of good faith doesn't apply to a user that asks for deletion of all of his user pages and subpages during a discussion of whether his use of the alternate accounts associated with those pages was disruptive: it can only be assumed that the motivation is to make evidence against him more difficult to investigate.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  @Kww.Very far-fetched assumption of Jack's bad faith motives, if you don't mind my saying so. Jack has left the project. He's burnt-out and bitter. He doesn't care about the "evidence" aginst him. Indeed, why would he, since people obviously already feel they have enough and to spare? There's a quite different reason he wants them deleted, and he has shared it with me in e-mail, but I'm not going to publish it here. OK, that's it from me for tonight. Bishonen | talk 00:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

  If there's a privacy concern, then deleting a revision would presumably work, and wholesale deletion of multiple pages would seem unnecessary? That aside, wouldn't it make more sense to not bring scrutiny on this by the deletion? Security through obscurity and Streisand effect both come to mind... - jc37 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's far from obvious that Jack requested the deletions to conceal evidence, but given his behavior, the community cannot reasonably be expected to assume otherwise. He's lost that entitlement. —David Levy 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with jc37 that kww should have contacted Bishonen before restoring the user page. That said, I don't think that Bishonen should have honored Br'er Rabbit's request. Putting aside the issue of hiding evidence, procedurally, when an account is blocked, the user cannot edit any page but their talk page. Honoring a request to delete their user page is essentially permitting them to edit it, and in the extreme. Procedurally, it's almost like unblocking them temporarily just so they can tag their own user page for a speedy delete. One final note. The U1 criterion states: "In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page." I'm not sure what those "rare cases" are, but perhaps this is one (even assuming Br'er Rabbit were not blocked in the first instance).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there's been enough deletions, revisions, and oversighting of too many things over the years; there are some admin's early editor histories that make swiss cheese look whole by comparison. Pick a master, tag the rest as socks, and leave it all for public viewing. Enough with the games and chicanery. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Tarc. This is ultimately a distraction; lets let the loss lie where it falls. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If this was any other sockmaster, would we be going around deleting all the pages? --Rschen7754 00:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we would, if at some point the master really had left for good, or really had reformed. Neither is the case here, so even done in good faith, Bishonen's deletions ultimately served only to obfuscate Jack's history of socking, which is highly relevant to a ban discussion that centres around his history of socking. Resolute 00:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive the (sub-section heading) nitpicking, Bish, but those are Jack's socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of editors who have come out to support the ban, leaving the user pages as "evidence" seems unnecessary. Jack has [12] scuttled his fleet, it serves no purpose to try and keep it afloat. No, it's just the usual Wikipedia peevishness once an editor is determined to be "bad." Nobody Ent 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack has "scuttled" many accounts, and it's surprising he didn't post the password here like he has been known to do. He's also requested (and been granted) the deletion of his sock pages several times before, only to have them reinstated as many times by e-mailing his admin buddies after his triumphant returns. His requesting deletion of them yet again perpetuates this strange cycle. They are not his pages: they do not belong to him. Doc talk 03:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the pages. We don't normally do that for sockpuppet accounts. Just slap the usual sockpuppet template onto the pages and call it a day. Silverseren^C 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That gets the same treatment: tags go on, e-mails are sent to supporters later on down the road and the tags come off. It's all part of the same old game. I see Bishonen's above statements of: "He doesn't care about the "evidence" aginst him." and "There's a quite different reason he wants them deleted, and he has shared it with me in e-mail, but I'm not going to publish it here." as disturbing. What "secret" reason could he possibly have to delete these pages that cannot be shared here? Why should he dictate what we can and cannot do with our pages? Doc talk 05:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Doc's comment is an example of the paranoia that reigns where Jack Merridew and too many other indeffed users are concerned. It's all a "game", is it? No actual people involved? Jack's dehumanized, he doesn't deserve ordinary human consideration or courtesy (notice Kww italicizing courtesy above, as if to emphasize that there's no occasion for it in this case?), and everything Jack does or wants has to be for a sinister, game-playing reason. I'm not going to share information I got by e-mail without the explicit permission of the sender of the mail. That's "disturbing"? And here I thought it was best practice, or even mandated. I may say the reason Jack gave me for wanting the pages deleted was remarkably un-sinister, but it was human and personal, and no, his detractors aren't going to get to paw over it on AN. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

I... oh, boy. "Dehumanizing" is just an odd way of characterizing any of my comments. Like he's some sort of "animal" is how I'm portraying him? Seriously... Doc talk 09:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of dehumanizing? I was thinking your comments portray Jack as the devil incarnate or a character in a computer game. Are you going to respond in any meaningful way to any of the things I said? Well, never mind about that. Are you going to think about them? Please. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Jack (not his real name) is, I'm quite sure, a perfectly nice and upstanding citizen, wherever it is he lives. I'm confident that he doesn't worship the devil or kill baby seals in his spare time. And that he's not a character in a computer game. He's a real person, with real feelings. What does any of that have to do with his behavior here? Doc talk 10:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Gee, it's very hard to try to talk with you. Are you being deliberately slow? It has to do with your behaviour here — right here on the page. Our own actions are the only actions we can change. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

What on earth are you talking about? My behavior? In what way has my behavior been inappropriate in this discussion? Have I been uncivil? Doc talk 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have behaved badly.[13][14]. This is my last reply to you. I'm tired now. Feel free to re-read my specific criticism above. Bishonen | talk 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

That first diff is exactly what has happened every time - it's not behaving badly to point that out. Remembering the past is not a bad thing, necessarily. The second diff hasn't been addressed: but who really cares? This time the pages need to be deleted for personal reasons. Gotcha. Doc talk 12:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It should have a lot to do with our behavior. Nobody Ent 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of invoking you-know-what, Hitler didn't worship the devil or kill baby seals (well, at least not as reported significantly by multiple, independent, reliable sources) and his missus probably thought he was a real person with real feelings. Just sometimes one person's feelings are, to put it as mildly as possible, rather incompatible with others'. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are there monuments in North Africa, Normandy, London, Berlin, or Volgograd (Stalingrad) saying Adolf was a dick? Nobody Ent 15:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Bishonen, it is all a game. Especially for some of Jacks supporters, who above attempted to defend his block evading socks as his just being "playful". Now, I certainly would not ask you to reveal Jack's reason for requesting deletion without his permission, but frankly, if he himself is not willing to grant that permission, then no, the secret, non-sinister rationale for his request is invalid as far as Wikipedia should be concerned. I also have to say I find your response to Doc9871's comments curious. You certainly chose to take an extreme view on them that, frankly, is well beyond a reasonable interpretation. It becomes obvious that you are not objective on this front, and most certainly should not be using the tools in this situation. Resolute 13:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I dunno how I'm supposed to be considered one of "Jacks supporters" (I'm opposing a community ban, not supporting an individual or their actions), but I was who used the term "playful" above. I considered them to be such, as similar to the bishzilla socks and such. - jc37 18:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Would "defenders" be more accurate then? Resolute 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My italicization of "courtesy" was simply to emphasise that we aren't required to honour U1 requests. They can be denied just like any other speedy. As for these: even if Jack was a perfect citizen in every other respect, I would have refused that set. Any request to delete a user page that comes after multiple requests to delete and restore is game playing.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's fine to blank these pages except for the sockpuppetry tags; those should not be removed. The alternate account tags/statements should probably be kept as well, when they exist. Everything else can be deleted per the user's request. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Bish, deletion in this case wasn't appropriate. I oppose the ban above, and I'm not keen on all this tagging nonsense (as I'm never keen on tagging blocked users) - but given that Jack is one of your friends and currently subject to the above, I believe deletion of userpages by yourself was unwise. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Userpages can be deleted - and it's SOP to add the "sock" tag to them, but it's not necessarily a requirement - I wouldn't personally edit-war over it. Usertalk cannot be deleted, of course. dangerouspanda 12:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• If I understand all of this right, then the pages should be left alone until the ban discussion is concluded, and then, if Jack Merridew is banned, the pages should be deleted as a courtesy. We don't need to place scarlet letters on those who fail to adhere to our community standards, and more we should avoid even the perception of doing such a thing. Tagging user pages is meant to be informative, not punitive.--Tznkai (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I feel that there is no (medical) emergency requiring the mass deletion of userpages right away and conversly I also feel the individual userpages do not offer much of an evidence to this discussion. His userpages are just random images with random texts that automatically change every so often. It is a complex series of parser functions. If anything it is very weird but not a policy violation. I agree that this thread on the individual userpages acts as a distraction from the actual matter. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Awkward moment: I went through and tagged all of the socks listed in the first section with {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Jack Merridew}} and {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Davenbelle}} without seeing this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXITNobody Ent 02:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, since there was two categories of sockpuppets, I redirected all the sockpuppet taggings of Jack Merridew to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle so they are in one place instead of a few. Br'er Rabbit's userpage had a script on it, so I only added the category and not the tag. Regards, — Moe ε 07:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a specific reason for keeping the Jack category, so I just put all the post-Jack socks in that category. This works just as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Typical convention is first username which in this case is Davenbelle. I can bulk edit all userpages to circumvent any pre-existing script to include the tag on all of the userpages involved. I do not however want to do this if the pages are going to be deleted anyways. Per WP:DENY we could just link to the individual accounts rather than trying to mass tag them. I think this would be more productive rather than fighting over weather or not to keep the individual userpages. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

All userpages have been tagged to include the tag or the category, so they are all categorized now. I think whether the ban sticks or it becomes a non-issue, then they can be untagged, (soft)redirected or deleted outright. Right now, they shouldn't be deleted considering how recent the issue is, and he certainly doesn't retain the right to request their deletion. Regards, — Moe ε 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, he had a new sockpuppet today so I suspect this topic will remain active for a while. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bishonen should have consulted with the community before deleting. The pages should be restored to create a public record of the behaviour which may be important in the future. I can't think of a good reason why they should be deleted, and looking through m:Privacy policy and Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing I don't see any process by which the user can email Bishonen and have them deleted. I suggest the pages remain restored and the community use the procedure laid out at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing to determine if they should be deleted:

While user pages and subpages may be deleted, the deletion of user talk pages is invariably controversial, and is the rare exception, not the rule. This is because user talk pages, unlike other user pages, have largely been written by other editors. User talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. Whenever there is a request to delete a user talk page, a bureaucrat should be consulted. Community consensus is that bureaucrats should delete user talk pages only where there is a compelling reason to do so—related to serious privacy concerns and the potential for real-world harm. Otherwise, user talk pages should be deleted only at MfD. Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review. User talk pages should never be moved to become user subpages to facilitate deletion.

• That's the process, I'm unclear as to how Bishonen followed that process. Hiding T 07:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • What? You certainly are unclear. Of course I didn't delete any user talk pages. I deleted only userpages. And Jack didn't "e-mail me to have them deleted", he put a request for it publicly on User talk:Br'er Rabbit. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Could we remove the userpage and sub userpage content only leaving the sockpuppet tags/categories? Some of the sockpuppet subpages have quite offensive content it seems: User:Jack Merridew/Editnotice. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

White Cat, do you really think it's proper for you to involve yourself so eagerly in this matter? Hasn't enough time passed for you to let it go and leave it to people who don't have such an entrenched ancient grudge as you do? Bishonen | talk 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Why wouldn't I be welcome to comment as I see fit just like anyone else? What possible reason would I have a grudge against him? Also wouldn't it be more logical for me to wish the opposite of what Davenbelle wants? He asked his userspace to be deleted. What I propose partially complies with his wishes as well. I have made a point of not voting on the matter. I merely made an effort so that community reaches an informed decision and even then I have waited for over a day before commenting. My involvement if anything is minimal.

He was sanctioned for wiki-hounding me as you may remember. He has a complex parser functioned userpage that attributes random quotes calculated based on the time and date of the day which are than randmly signed by a list of random names which inclide "Note to Cool Cat". He mentions my username in his userspace on at least one more occasion. I do not actually know or care what the rest of his userspace contains as all this was relayed to me by people through email months (or possibly years) ago and I chose not to react.

Weather he gets blocked or not will not improve my wiki experience. Blocks are a preventative measure, not tools of punishment. If people are able to edit without disrupting the wiki they have no reason to be blocked or banned. Since the user is community banned already I do not quite see a problem of me making a suggestion.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion? You have posted eleven times to this thread. Yes, certainly I remember the Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Coolcat arbitration case. 2005, wasn't it? I'm well aware of how stressful and mortifying the whole affair was for you, not least Davenbelle's sock Moby Dick a little later. (I supported you wholeheartedly and tried to help you, if you remember.) I may say I was a little shocked a few years ago, when Giano's new friend Jack Merridew approached me and turned out to be the notorious Davenbelle. Shocked and rather standoffish. But I think the user has lived down the ancient history since then. Isn't it time you let go, Coolcat? (A name I use out of affection and nostalgia; I hope you don't object. It's nice to see you again, though I'm sorry for the context.) Bishonen | talk 18:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

• Policy comment/question. It looks like there was a long discussion about what tags and content is allowed on banned users' pages: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 6. There's no summary though, and I can't be bothered to read it all. Someone who participated could perhaps summarize it here? Tijfo098 (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• OMG Moe and Ed, Gravedancinggggg!! I'd like to note to Merridew, who is no doubt following this thread, that I didn't touch his userpages to place any templates or anything else. I guess I'm not quite Fred Astaire yet. Anyway, can anyone give an objective reason to not tag sockpuppeteer and sock accounts in this case that doesn't involve ad hominem attacks on the people who did it? Or mentions of "scarlet letters"? To this day, I have no idea why any of these templates exist if placing them is considered abusive. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm, not really. I'd just prefer to have one category of sockpuppets, not three. To answer your question, they are used to identify accounts who are the subject of current investigations for sockpuppetry. Once they have served their purpose, the editor has left the project so long that the old accounts are meaningless to compare using checkuser or they are unblocked, then they can be removed/deleted. Regards, — Moe ε 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave more of an objective reason to keep them tagged rather than not, but regardless, it provides my rationale for doing so. Regards, — Moe ε 14:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Moe, I know. My question wasn't directed at you, but at the hordes of people who scream "gravedancing" and "scarlet letter" whenever their friend is templated by some big meanie. But those same people can never seem to explain why the templates exist in the first place. Thanks for your well-considered explanation. I will drop the stick. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent sockpuppets

• Br'er Fox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A sockpuppet of Davenbelle was blocked today after confirmed by the checkuser User:DeltaQuad. User had a number of revert wars on the pages Battle of Chosin Reservoir and User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph/accounts. His presence on my userspace is particularly concerning. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

44 known socks & counting. I don't envy the task of CUs. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WoW lost to read here - took a long time - I have a question ... Its clear that regardless of any ban that this user will be back evading as demonstrated in the past. What preventive measures can be taken to prevent more socks? Is there some sort of detection system in place or will it just be a matter of a user looking for new socks?Moxy (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Several of the Checkusers monitor known sockmasters. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, as it appears that they are primarily motivated by recognition (they want us to know that it is them), it won't be hard to find them and block them. If they show up with an unknown sock, start editing previously unedited topics with unknown patterns, never draw attention to themselves, and do so from a different IP address and user agent then they've ever done before, well, we'd never catch them. But I'm not sure that improving Wikipedia for its own sake is a motivation anymore. Which makes checkuser's job easy. --Jayron32 21:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This "character" will continue to come back as long as his audience of supporters continues to pat him on the back and clap for an encore. The problem will inevitably continue until they stop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, enough is enough. At this point, wouldn't it be reasonable to have a CU run a check for sleepers and then to run periodic checks for new ones? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The $64,000 Question is: will his supporters honor the community's second ban of this individual, including the admin-types? Highly unlikely considering they feel the one-account restriction is as unessessary as he does. Socks will be sheltered like they were before. Look at the past year and draw your own conclusions. Doc talk 03:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are editors who enable a banned editor to continue editing, then they need to be sanctioned themselves. Regards, — Moe ε 03:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If a list is compiled of these "enabling editors", prepare to see your own user named included; and possibly mine. Just saying, - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack being provoked by this discussion is not enabling him; Jack is responsible for what he does, not anybody else. Enabling the evasion of a ban specifically consists of an editor knowing Jack is using a account on Wikipedia while being banned and not saying anything about it. Regards, — Moe ε 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's going to compile a list? Definitely not me. It wouldn't be a terribly long one, BTW. I hardly expect any of them to "snitch" on him, since a broken and flawed system made him a virtual martyr. Doc talk 04:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from intimate experience with a similar situation, knowingly refusing to disclose the identity of a banned user returning under a new identity will bite you in the ass. If anyone chooses to do so, learn from the experience of others who have gone down that road and bear the scars to prove it. --Jayron32 04:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke

In the page Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy and Sandra Fluke there has been an on going and long term problem between editors. Currently in Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy there is a fight about providing a wikilink to War on Women This is to the point that it is absurd. I would suggest that now is the time to start providing page bans to both articles so that more constructive editing can occur. I would suggest that we start out with myself and user:Anonymous209.6. At some point we should allow those who are actually willing to work together to edit the article do so. In neither page has this been really possible. I think it is clear that myself and Anonymous209 help to create a bad environment for continued progress on both pages. Casprings (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You are half right (sorry, couldn't resist)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're basically asking that you and Anonymous be topic banned? Note, by the way, that I've shortened the length of the section title; it had been "Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke and Sandra Fluke controversy long term problems between editors." Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a baffling request. We don't normally enforce self-ban requests, as the remedy is "stop being a knucklehead." Or are you kamikaze'ing yourself in order to take out the other editor? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if kamikaz'ing is the right word. I just took a look at the history, past attempts to resolve the issue and I think that both articles would be better served if both me and Anonymous209.6 were eliminated from editing both articles. I am not sure that either of us can "stop being a knucklehead". If you look at the months of conflict, I think that it pretty clear. It would be a far better editing environment if both of us were gone. Just my thoughts. Casprings (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You could always trout yourself [15], I suppose. Qworty (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@Casprings: Not sure I follow what you are asking for. If you are saying you have the self-awareness that you are 50% of the problem, why wouldn't you just walk away from the article? Or are you saying you can't trust yourself to stay away and you need to be "helped" to do so with a topic ban? DeCausa (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I would presume that the reason that User:Casprings does not want to unilaterally walk away from the article is that User:Anonymous209.6 has a clear history of extreme right-wing editing, and will undoubtedly unbalance the article in a partisan way in the absence of strong opposition. — goethean ॐ 14:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if I actually have to respond to this bizarre request; have the sense from the above admin comments that it would not be productive to discuss the request itself. I would note, however, two things. First, the question on the page of whether to use a quote or a wikilink is a simple MOS issue, and it has been pointed out by several editors (myself included) that yes, a choice has to be made. Second, the hallmark of a tendentious editor is the abuse of process, as evidenced by this filing and about a hundred others to avoid addressing issues on Talk. If you want a better example, see [[16]]. Please let me know if I have to continue posting here. I hope this is all the time I have to spend on this board on this issue (if there actually IS an issue - can't see it). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is the virtually inevitable result of some ill-considered closes at AfD. Sandra Fluke should have her own biography page, which includes coverage of the incident. Rush Limbaugh should have his own biography page, which includes coverage of the incident. There should be no page on the controversy (POV warrior magnet) nor on "War on Women" (unencyclopedic Election 2012 foolishness). But, hey, somebody didn't think this through, have fun with the resulting mess. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban for Alan Liefting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we please topic ban User:Alan Liefting from all category-related edits outside of mainspace? He has been warned, taken to AN or ANI (e.g. here from June and here from September, and blocked for this in the past, the last time in September for 72 hours. Now, he is again doing the kind of edits that lead to User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 16#Removing images from categories. He has removed all images from Category:Obama family, without moving them to a subcat or other useful category, leaving them basically stranded, for no good discernible reason at all. Edits: [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] He also removed one template from the cat for no obvious reason[27].

In the september discussion linked above, a topic ban was supported by a number of people, but not formally proposed and forgotten when the topic was auto-archived. Considering that he simply continues with the same kind of edits again and again, it seems to me to be time to now formalize the discussion of that topic ban, which will be more helpful for everyone involved than a series of escalating blocks. Fram (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I proposed a topic ban at the previous discussion in September; there was support, but the discussion fizzled out before it could be confirmed & implemented. He has continued his disruptive editing, so my support for a topic ban remains as strong as ever. GiantSnowman 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support seems to be stuck in a repetitive loop of behaviour. --Dweller (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as previously. Long overdue.

I would also suggest that the scope of this topic ban be potentially larger (ie mainspace cats too). Certainly I would be concerned that if AL is narrowly topic banned, he will simply edit outside that ban, but still causing just as much problem. The sanction of rapidly widening the scope of the ban, should it be needed, (still within cats though) should be a clear part part of the initial sanction. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Suppport as previously (August, I believe, on my part). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll wait for an explanation from Alan Liefting for the image removals (it is obviously not necessary to wait, or even ask, for explanations before a thread is started or !voting is commenced ..). Re: "He also removed one template from the cat for no obvious reason" (actually two if I see it correctly) - I can understand a case to be made for images being in 'mainspace' categories, but templates certainly do not belong there.(strike that, I see it is more common - looked strange to me to have templates categorised there, they are). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Adapted: --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do templates not belong there? This is {{Family of Michelle Robinson Obama}}, in the category Category:Obama family (with the sort key 'τ Michelle Robinson Obama', itself an interesting idea). If "templates can ever belong in categories", then this one belonged. Removed it is thus justified if and only if, we have a blanket policy that templates are never to be categorized in categories also used for content. I don't believe that we have, or that we should have, such a policy. Are we really "trying to hide the internal workings of MediaWiki" to that extent? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed that, it is actually more common than I expected. By the way, I am not sure why you say that we are 'trying to hide the internal workings of MediaWiki', but well. I'll await the explanation from Alan. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As an editor, it is useful to me to have templates categorised with their topics. For readers alone, then there is some argument for simplifying the presentation of a category but not including such templates and "workings", limiting our presentation to just the "published" content. We can't easily achieve both of these, so there must be some compromise. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

For me in the beginning it was 'why would you ever want to have templates categorised with main space material, they are already transcluded on (sometimes all) the articles in the category - but I can see that there are special cases (and I think we should be careful with 'they are handy for the editor' when they do not help the reader). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not exactly familiar with the history of this issue myself (let alone involved), but the presentation above has convinced me that Alan's behavior has been disruptive and repetitive, so a topic ban seems the only way to proceed here. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Unlike templates, images don't belong in content categories: either they're nonfree, in which case they're not allowed in categories (except for maintenance categories) because they display there, or they're free, in which case they should be moved to Commons and deleted here. Images properly tagged with {{Do not move to Commons}} are an exception, but I can't imagine how that would apply to any Obama family images. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Free images can be copied to Commons, but they don't have to be deleted from Wikipedia (see Template:Keep local), and so long as they exist here it makes sense to categorize them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)The category is tagged with __NOGALLERY__, hence the images were just categorised there, not displayed. NFCC does not allow the display of non-free images outside mainspace. I believe that most images de-categorised here are non-free. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin: that's why I said "should be copied and deleted", not "must" or "are". Dirk: I missed the fact that it had NOGALLERY. Do you know what images were there, or are you simply going by this edit summary? Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• The images that were in the Category:Obama family were File:Barack Obama's Kenyan relatives.jpg,File:Stanley Ann Dunham 1960 Mercer Island High School yearbook.jpg,File:MadelynDunham.jpg,File:Fraser Robinson, Sr.jpg,File:Family of Fraser and Marian Robinson.jpg,File:BarackStepdad.JPG, File:Barack Hussein Obama, Sr..jpg and File:Ann Dunham with father and children.jpg. There were also two files in the Category:Barack Obama, which is not tagged as "nogallery", but both files were correctly licensed to be displayed there anyway: File:Barack Obama's Presidential Job Approval Ratings, 2009-2012 (Gallup Poll).svg and File:Barack-Obama-long-form.jpg. Fram (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Nyttend: there are also images that are free in the US but not free in their country of origin, hence free for Wikipedia but not eligible for upload to Commons. So it's definitely not as simple as you describe. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Such images we tag with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template that I already mentioned. The birth certificate is not freely licensed: unless someone from President Kennedy's office happened to be assigned to work in the Hawaii Department of Health, it's purely a work of the Hawaiian state government, whose works are copyrighted and not freely licensed. The amount of discussion given to his birth and the certificate thereof means that it might be usable under fair use; I'll be happy to undelete if someone want to use it that way. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - anybody else concerned by Alan Liefting's silence? GiantSnowman 08:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Ironholds (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, it's really unacceptable that he continue to ignore clearly demonstrated consensus on this, particular when his own attempt to make his views policy in an RFC was soundly rejected. Alan does many constructive things here, but there are many things he does in which he is convinced he is right but doesn't feel obligated to justify or explain hkmself, discuss, or even acknowledge that others have voiced an opinion. This is one of those things. postdlf (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Per above; enough is enough. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass killings under Communist regimes

AmateurEditor wants an uninvolved admin to close a discussion, but he left the request at WP:ANI instead of here. Please read his comments (and reply if necessary) at that page, section "Determination of consensus for an edit at Mass killings under Communist regimes". Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Links are Mass killings under Communist regimes and Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, for convenience. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI

We are up to our eyeballs in socks. We really need some patrolling admin to come and help sniff out socks and compare a few diffs. Just the fun stuff. If we can get some admin to patrol a bit more and do the leg work, what few clerks we have will happily do all the paperwork and mop up the place afterwards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more admins are needed?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it but I'm not a sysop and unlikely to ever pass RFA. I don't know many people who would be willing to go through that torture chamber just so they can volunteer to fulfill additional tasks. : / The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as RFA's remain nothing more than a popularity contest, this problem will continue. Admins could fix that problem, but they'd rather complain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You know, one of the purposes of this board is to alert admins as to how they could help in some way at this particular moment. It's a useful tool for me, at least. But then, I tend to like to pitch in and help out, rather than merely lurk on some board and idly complain about the cobwebs : p - jc37 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, well, they could get plenty of help from me, if I had the authority. But until you all change the process, you will remain short of admins, and you have only yourselves to blame for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't have "authority", they merely have "responsibility". We're all Wikipedians here. - jc37 00:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

By authority, I think he means having the capable tools to do the backlog. All editors are (or should be) responsible, but a declining administrator population opens ourselves to administrators not being at the necessary noticeboards, which is part of a problem we are (going to be) facing . Regards, — Moe ε 02:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about "authority" strictly in the computer sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to run for admin Bugs. Go ahead, throw your hat in the ring. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

been done, didn't work out so well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Before getting too haughty, you should count the number of "No" voters in 2009 who have since been booted from wikipedia. I say again, as long as it remains a popularity contest, you will continue to have this problem. If you don't want to fix it, then don't whine about being short of help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, I noted CoM didn't really support you there, Bugs. You'd get my vote. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins can also be quite useful. Obvious childish petulance can be closed, bad reports can get additional diffs inserted to make them clear and easy for admins to act on, etc. Just having an independent observer sort through the evidence, draw a conclusion, an explain it can make wading through some of these things an order of magnitude faster. Obviously, being an admin helps even more. The thing that would help the most is for more admins to realize that it is within your power to block, tag, and revert a sockpuppet without filing an SPI report for others to wade through.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but those who are not "Non-admins" lack the technical tools to be truly as "useful" as they might be. Some of us wonder what the terms "usefulness" or "Non-admins" really mean when those terms are used by those who are not "Non-admins" to describe those who are, and why those who seem to have authority don't do more to fix a system that prevents access to those technical tools from those willing and able to use them. Steveozone (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• My, look at all these cobwebs. It's a shame that someone with a cobweb removing tools doesn't come through here and remove these. Maybe we need to start several discussions about the great need to hand out more cobweb cleaning tools. And if we all spend our time on that, then it could be argued that we'll need even more cobweb tools to be handed out, etc. ad infinitum... - jc37 02:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry. It's unlikely the problem will ever become "ad infinitum" when the whole place becomes choked by "cobwebs." Steveozone (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

By "cobwebs", I have to suppose that JC means the inactive admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's quite civil. I don't suppose that I have to suppose that; it's pretty clear that he's referring to more, including at least what "Dennis Brown" refers to as the "fun stuff." I'm sure that he'll clarify, anyway... Steveozone (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you interpreted cobwebs to be inactive admins, bugs.

I'm merely suggesting that it might be worth doing something about the cobwebs (whatever task at hand) than merely standing around in a coffee klatch, idly complaining and engaging in navel gazing pursuits. And note, I've definitely spent my fair share of time at WT:RfA, and probably will in the future. (Though I don't think anyone could honestly say that I haven't been trying to do something to fix the issues at RfA.) - jc37 04:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(now non-admin, non-CheckUser comment) As it stands, SPI is still too complicated for everyday users to depend upon. I have tried to make the process easier to go through, but I'm afraid I have failed in that part, as well.

All that being said, that is the tip of the iceberg. What I really think is going on is that most users generally disregard sockpuppetry as a major issue – especially with regards to editor retention – and that sockpuppetry is not important to most Wikipedians. To that effect, perhaps the sock puppetry policy should be toned down to allow more exceptions so that more editors are felt welcomed back here. The same applies to the banning policy. --MuZemike 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I found the removing of the transclusions off the SPI unhelpful - before, I could go through and look for the clear-cut cases to deal with; now I have to open up multiple tabs. --Rschen7754 04:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed earlier that SPI cases could be run in separate L2 threads (just as here at WP:AN) and then separated there into separate archive threads based on user, but those were all shot down. Again, I think the bigger issue is that the Wikipedia community is indifferent on sockpuppetry in general, and any changes to WP:SPI won't change any of that. --MuZemike 04:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)