User talk:Merecat

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for sockpuppetry (checkuser) to evade your arbcom decision not to edit John Kerry, and for other disruptive behavior. As you are aware, a request to reopen your case to consider this most recent behavior has been placed at WP:RFAr. You've had ample time to respond to it and have chosen not to; if you change your mind and wish to respond to the case you may email any arbitrator via the "E-mail this user" link. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat requests unblocking

Katefan0 has blocked me without a finding of fact and in excess of any sanctions which some contend might apply regarding John Kerry editing and for other invalid reasons. This is out of process and inappropriate. Merecat 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's strong consensus on WP:ANI for this block to stay in place. Unblock denied. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take MindSpillage's advice

Get a new IP from you IP service provider, get a new account and don't log into merecat account again (the IP blocking will automatically block it again). You're edits were obviously not disruptive until the anonymous IP AfD vote stacking by both sides. (BTW, the deletion of the article is vindication, if you hadn't alerted editors, only the keep side would have been stacking and I doubt anyone would have complained). --Tbeatty 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't he just edit from his Rex account and just respect the 4 arbcom decisions against him and just not edit John Kerry? He didn't get banned for unruly behavior, he got banned for sockpuppetry and violating the ban on JK. --kizzle 00:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kizzle, if you are so in love with Rex, why are you stting on the sidelines and letting me get tagged with the Rex name as a pejorative? You should be out there fighting for the good name of Rex. If not, please quit with the "we miss you, please come back" crap. Merecat is not Rex. Merecat 08:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one arbcom ruling still in force. Since he's been editing JK for 6 months without disruption, I would say that makes him a pretty good editor on JK and he should continue as a different user just as MindSpillage suggested. What makes the punishment not fit the crime is that Merecat has been editing for six months without incident. On an article not related to any ArbCom ruling he apparently uses an anon IP to alert other users about an AfD. This makes some users run a checkuser on the IP. It is "likely" Rex although there doesn't appear to be hard evidence. So the other editors use the other article ArbCom ruling (even though there was no disruption to the article) to get him banned. It's wikilawyering to the Nth degree and defeats the entire purpose of Wikipedia. It's like getting a lifetime sentence because your third strike was trespassing. The complaining editors have been out to get Merecat for a long time. They've finally succeeded (so they think). I just hope he comes back to fight this injustice. The irony is that his last act (getting the Bush article deleted) was upheld by the community. In the end, he was right.--Tbeatty 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tbeatty, you have been the best in your observations, thank you. But, as far as the Bush article goes, it's not deleted, only redirected. Please follow up and make sure the article actually gets deleted. If you don't, Nescio will eventually delete the redirect. As for Ryan, you would do better to not talk to him/her. He/she's trying to accuse you of being "Rex" and before you know it, you'll get banned too. Frankly, I am really laughing about this whole thing in that the phoniness of the entire banning process is a joke. If "likely" means "confirmed", why don't the accusers show their evidence? Personally, I think it's pretty clear that the "Rex071404" account is inactive and should be deleted. However, some here want to keep stoking the bogeyman of "rex" to tag conservative editors with. And if there is going to be blame for the Rex account placed on me, then my opinion on that point should be determinative. They can't have it both ways. They can't say "merecat = rex" and then refuse to abide merecat when merecat says "delete the rex account". Even so, I won't hold my breath waiting for this type of logical consistency on that point. Suffice it to say, he's the score: Merecat won the RfC, Merecat won Prometheuspan's RfA, Merecat won the AfD on the Bush article. Now, do you think that would have been possible, if "Rex" was the subject of those things? Likely not. The hypocrisy around this place reeks sometimes. Early on in this dispute, Nescio did a 5RR as an anon, then did a WP:ANI report against me, claiming it was me, but he then edited his own anon post with his user name, thereby revealing it was him. What happened to him for that? Nothing. Why? Because some here have both their eyes on the same side of their head and can only see in one direction - left. As for other user names, I won't comment, so those who hope for/resent the return of merecat, will just have to keep guessing. Ryan has a plan for that though - a complete and total user-based ban of whoever it was that was Rex (and is now contended to be merecat). However, if I am not mistaken, I am also being blamed for being Bigdaddy too! Har! What a hoot. Perhaps they want to say that I am also Michael and the Communist Vandal as well? What a crock. As for Ryan, since this is still my page, I took the liberty of striking his/her comments. Anyway, I am more than happy to answer any ArbCom case which is addressed to me - Merecat. However, since there is none underway, I have nothing to answer to. See if you can get me a hearing on my banishment with the arbcom. I am Merecat and am happy to answer for Merecat. Also, as for "Mindspillage", I see no comments from him. T, put a link here to anything you want me to read. Regards, Merecat 08:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tbeatty, please stop. Get another hobby (besides retroactively defending and advising trolls on circumventing process). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

What will you do now that Merecat is gone? --Tbeatty 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_{(Ryan will keep an obsessed lookout for any evil socks who may be "rex" Merecat 08:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC))}[reply]

~~Was about to ask you the same question. Me, I plan to edit encyclopedia articles. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Merecat requests unblocking 2

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please see my talk page

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please see my talk page |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please see my talk page |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please see my talk page |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Katefan0 has blocked me without a finding of fact and in excess of any sanctions which some contend might apply regarding John Kerry editing and for other invalid reasons. This is out of process and inappropriate. Merecat 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]