User talk:Br'er Rabbit: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:09, 19 October 2012

October 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Template:Civility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 21:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not again

Damn it, Br'er Rabbit. To put it bluntly: your contributions are too important to the project for you to get ticked off about something minor and storm off in a huff.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Edit: added Barong to watch over your talkpage while you're on your unrequested long weekend.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Der Geist hilft unser Schwachheit auf --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the anklebiter to guard the page also. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, and Violating several other community policies while doing so, plus your previous block reason. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little vague; do you mean abusing multiple accounts since yesterday or more generally? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody and their brother knows that Jack has multiple accounts. He makes no secret of it. Hell, it's right on his user page: "This user is a sock puppet". I'm confused here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that he has them, it's that he's abusing them to circumvent a block. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, OK, see that's where I was confused. I didn't know he was using another account while blocked. Now I understand. Yeah, definitely something one should not do. That said, I don't think this constitutes 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. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It being hard as hell to get out of is kind of the point. Seriously, you want to give him an extra week of block time for verbally abusing admins, sockpuppeting, edit-warring, and doing all of that after he's already come back from a ban, on the condition he use a single account? There are no contributions that justify being that much of a contrarian ass. Ironholds (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Verbally abusing admins" is no more a crime than verbally abusing anyone - and it's the mindset that seems to think that admins are somehow due extra respect which drives a wedge between decent editors and admins. Some admins are obviously just too full of themselves. Sensible admins understand an outburst from someone they've just blocked as venting - people do that when you hurt them.
Br'er was already on a 48 hour block for the editwarring, and you are complaining that he should be given extra time for the same editwarring? How many times do you want to punish someone for the same offence?
Sockpuppeting is the abuse of multiple accounts. Br'er was never editing from more than one at a time. You're confusing it with block evasion.

So that leaves "doing all of that after he's already come back from a ban, on the condition he use a single account" - he successfully returned from the ban four years ago. How long are you going to hold a grudge for? I think a week would be excessive just for something that can only be described as "doing all that". Incidentally what are your wonderful contributions that justify your attitude here? --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion is an abuse of multiple accounts, see WP:ILLEGIT. And yes, illegit alternate accounts are routinely blocked, and repeat offenders generally get their main account blocked. There may be a lot of history, but standard community norms were applied here.
He was doing fine, and a policy against block evasion is sensible and doesn't warrant civil disobedience. I'm back to not understanding why Jack Merridew insists on ignoring this particular community norm.
Amalthea 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't be arguing with Ironholds if standard community norms were applied here, but he's telling me that this is far beyond what a week's block is needed for. Br'er has had a bad couple of days and reacted both intemperately and against his own best interests. This is all stress/heat of the moment stuff by an otherwise productive editor; it requires application of large trout, not something we need indefinite blocks and community bans to solve. Believe me, I'm with you all on perma-banning vandals like Grawp who was never here to do anything good, but Jack/Alarbus/Br'er isn't the same thing at all and doesn't deserve to be treated in that way. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except this is the Nth time he's done so ;p. And, yes, the ban was four years ago: the single account restriction existed for a lot longer. Agreed on point 1, by the way - as someone who blocks admins, I agree they deserve no more respect than anyone else. matterofact, for some things I block longer because they're admins. People who are tasked with enforcing the rules are expected to know em Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed community ban for Jack Merridew/Davenbelle/Br'er Rabbit/...". Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating deleted edit

Got some work for ya: <del> every user page and sub page of these:

Davenbelle
Thomas Jerome Newton
Moby Dick
B9171457-dac8-4884-b393-15b471d5f07e
D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5
Note to Cool Cat
Diyarbakir
Senang Hati
Jack Merridew
Wayang kulit
Jack Merridew (doppelganger)
Jack Merridew bot
Gold Hat
Merridew
Barong
Battle of Masada
White-bellied Sea Eagle
Paperbark Flycatcher
Waterbuck
Nantucket sleighride
Il fugitivo
1942 Porsche
Czolgosz
Puputan
Nyupat
The Inheritance of Loss
Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard
Stone Town
Uncontroversial Obscurity
Sitti Noerbaja
Victoria and Albert
The Call of the Wild
Portuguese Man o' War
Garrafa-azul
Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1
One Ton Depot
Alarbus
Blue-bottle
Br'er Rabbit
Ogoh-ogoh
Br'er Rabbit bot
Tar Baby
Br'er Rabbi
Br'er Bear

—Br'er Bear (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstating the above edit by "Br'er Bear", which was reverted by Gogo Dodo. Yes, Br'er Bear is a sock of a blocked user, but I don't see the need to be formalistic about that on this page. (I'm on board with reverting the Br'er Bear edits on other pages, naturally.) That was obviously Br'er Rabbit editing his own talkpage, which is not something he has been blocked from. He wasn't abusing or attacking anybody, he was making a request. (And sort of making a point/saying goodbye after all these years, but why shouldn't he, on his own page?) I'm assuming he has scuttled the Br'er Rabbit account, along with the German fleet, so that he wasn't able to use that to make the request.

@Jack: I'll have to think about your request, since all those user talkpages are a problem. Most of them will probably just be undeleted again if I do delete them. I can blank them, of course.

Br'er Bear's edit originally appeared immediately below my own post above, so I take his request as made to me, but I guess it's better to move it down here in order to start a new thread. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. I don't really see anything wrong with a blocked sock declaring other sock accounts on their own talk page and requesting deletion (I don't think the community would support deletion, but that's beside the point). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fuxake, Merridew, stop socking

Exactly what the section header says. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point?

I don't get it. You know or should know you've got a host of editors you've irritated looking to pounce --as indicated by the banfest going on at AN -- and you go to war over the inclusion of a lame essay in a template? I don't know if you are just set on a Sinatra like My Way approach to WP, or feeling burnt and committing the wiki equivalent of Suicide by cop. In any event, I appreciate your contributions to WP (could've lived without the snark, obviously). I haven't quite figured out how to say this without it appearing to be some snarky "With all due respect" thing but I sincerely you wish the best. Nobody Ent 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Winds and Following Seas

I am sorry to see you go like this, but I do with you the best in whatever it is you choose to do. I do appreciate your help in the many times I asked for it. Going to miss having you as my "go-to guy" for coding problems. :) Take care of yourself. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dona nobis pacem

Brother, I thank you for your services to the project. You gave us visions, of clean, easy to maintain referencing, and of an attractive Main page to show quality articles, selected in a collaborative effort, - paying attention to details, such as that the picture placement should follow the manual of style.

I dedicate to you my part of Mass in B minor structure, an article in progress that is not wanted.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban enacted

Pursuant to community consensus in a discussion here, you are now subject to a full community ban. Since this was the most frequent account you recently used, as well as where the initial notification of the discussion was made, I am leaving this here. Appeals may be made via an unblock request here, or via ArbCom as described at WP:BASC. --Jayron32 03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Br'er Rabbit. Pursuant to the same community consensus, a stringent minority of thoughtful editors dissented this outcome. In dissent, the following extenuates from the perfunctory regards posted above: At minimum, the record is clear that you are a skillful editor, a technical asset, and thoroughly squandered resource. You have earned my respect and thanks; and deserve the best at your fore. I will be wishing this for you. And I will echo sentiments I've learned from you, with courage. As I circumvent your ban, in protest; by manifesting reminders of your person, with edits; and mentions of your name. Be well my friend. - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with My76Strat. Wikipedia got a little bit worse today. Thanks Br'er Rabbit for your guidance about referencing strategy and practise. All the best. GFHandel ♬ 04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Jack Rabbit was unblocked this past summer on the condition that he stick with one account. If he did start socking again, in defiance of that agreement, then he must really not have wanted to edit wikipedia any more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you learn to get even a rough approximation of the facts before you shoot your mouth off, Bugs? Jack/Br'er was not blocked this past summer, so there could have been no condition imposed for an unblock. He certainly wanted to edit Wikipedia articles, which is rather more than could be said about you. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your implied support of sockpuppetry is most distressing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your puerile heckling of those who are actually here to write the encyclopedia is most distressing. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is heckling, it's very bad heckling. And it assumes Baseball Bugs is a hypocrite. I prefer assuming good faith, and this suggests that Baseball Bugs is wholly misinformed; and functionally illiterate. I've offered to help him understand things, so his reluctance indicates that heckling is strongly possible. If it truly is ignorance, please learn the concept of "sockpupptry", and "abusing multiple accounts". Then we can have further dialog; but mentoring you is off-topic in this thread, so lets avoid further disruption here. Thanks - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My condolences, Jack. Another example of the jealous little ones foresaking good content-contribution for the opportunity to play hall monitor. I hope you don't stay away too long. --Joefromrandb (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A sad day for Wikipedia.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating that there is an inability to distinguish from the people who beard the lion and the people who are actually a real problem. Jack/Br'er is the former, not the latter. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eesh, I can't say I'm surprised. "Perfect behaviour" is more important that anything of course. But you did have a couple of chances I guess. Maybe you're better off without wikipedia after all. Still, somebody to expand those regencies is needed.. Thanks for all of your assistance on technical issues, including my evil page design. Have a good one. Adios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I go away for a week and *this* happens? This sucks skunk balls. All the best, Jack. pablo 07:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I opined in support of a community ban at AN, I really hope this is not a permanent measure. I'm just of the belief that it might be best for you to take a break from the site for a while, so that the bad blood between yourself and the community can be given some time to scab over. For what it's worth, I think you're an incredibly valuable contributor here, and I feel awful about everything that transpired over the past week. Please return in a few months, as you will be missed. Kurtis (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there are people who get sucked into the 'encyclopedia' bullshit instead of realizing that the 'encyclopedia' is nothing more than the virtual world that gives context to the MMORPG. But I can't really complain, because I was one of them before I wised up. Go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear about this too. I know a couple of editors that know you, and I've always been impressed by your editing skill, even what little I observed of it, and in particular I enjoyed that colorful blue ribbon signature of yours. Unfortunate that this all happened. I wish you all the best my friend. • Jesse V.^(talk) 22:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, you're better off leaving Wikipedia. There is no helping this sinking ship. --78.35.245.203 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is like the Titanic; it can not sink! 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 *I'm sorry to hear about this too. I know a couple of editors that know you, and I've always been impressed by your editing skill, even what little I observed of it, and in particular I enjoyed that colorful blue ribbon signature of yours. Unfortunate that this all happened. I wish you all the best my friend. &bull; [[User:Jesse V.|Jesse V.]][[User talk:Jesse V.|<sup>''(talk)''</sup>]] 22:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 *Jack, you're better off leaving Wikipedia. There is no helping this sinking ship. --[[Special:Contributions/78.35.245.203|78.35.245.203]] ([[User talk:78.35.245.203|talk]]) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
+*:Wikipedia is like the Titanic; it can not sink! <font color="#FF4500;"><i>76</i></font><u>Strat</u>&nbsp;<small><sup>[[User:My76Strat|String]]</sup>&nbsp;da&nbsp;<sub>[[Special:Contributions/My76Strat|Broke]]</sub>&nbsp;da</small>&nbsp;([[User talk:My76Strat|talk]]) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)