Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Lapsed Pacifist

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Lapsed Pacifist

User requesting enforcement:
2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Lapsed Pacifist restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

1. [1] First revert on John Adams Project, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
2. [2] Second revert (see below for extended commentary as to why this is a revert in my opinion), made in less than a week which is a breach of the remedy, and again made without discussion on the talk page which is required
3. [3] Revert without discussion on the talk page. Although a talk page post was made, it would require extreme amounts of wikilawyering to argue that "I agree, we need an Indochina section" is actually discussing the revert being made and the merits or otherwise of it
4. [4] Revert to his own version, made without discussion on the talk page which is required
5. [5] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required
6. [6] Another revert made without discussion on the talk page which is required

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Admin discretion

Additional comments by 2 lines of K₃₀₃:
Brief explanation of why I believe the second revert on John Adams Project qualifies. The edit is an attempt to claim that the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are internees. This is basically the same as the first edit and first revert, regardless of the fact it's being added to a different sentence. Adding that they were internees is still a revert in my opinion, especially as claiming they are resulted in the first two edits being reverted.

There are more diffs which show Lapsed Pacifist is ignoring his editing restrictions, but I believe the above should be sufficient. Lapsed Pacifist has a long history of ignoring such restrictions, as evidenced by the four blocks he received for violating his topic ban from the first arbitration case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[7]

Discussion concerning Lapsed Pacifist

Comments by other editors

I have already left LP a gentle reminder about their conduct as part of this post. This went unanswered. From the last RfAR LP was restricted to a 1RR which they have been technically keeping to but may not been honoring the spirit of the sanction. This diff shows a second revert just barely outside the 7 day restriction period. The RfAR also required a discussion of reversions which as can be seen from LPs contribution hasn't happened with the exception of one revert where they reintroduced a picture back into the lead of article, that was designed to show an anti-US POV and had no context (ie pic is of My Lai Massacre and there was no section on Vietnam in article). Coming from RfAR:-

• LP was encouraged to use edit summaries, there has been no change of behaviour in this area. LP used confrontational edit summaries in the past and has done so again since this being raised as an issue.
• Personal attacks were also raised and LP was reminded to comment on content and not the contributor but has breached that here.
• LP was topic banned from for introduction of POV material, Original research, and soapboxing in support of a campaign group they are involved with. They have been petitioning on talk pages of related articles for introduction of material [8], [9]. In this example they have named a Garda Siochana Superintendent as being subject of a disciplinary procedure on a talk page, despite them not being named in the ref supplied. This was advocating a breach of WP:V and was OR. I also considered the comment to be a BLP breach and renamed the thread.
• LP was subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist which had an outcome of a topic ban on articles relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The Irish section of this diff contains edits which I believe is again pushing the bounds of what is acceptable under the previous RfAR. LP admits on their userpage that at least one of the articles which is linked would be an article that Admins could interpret them being topic banned on. Their last block was related this sort of behaviour and was the fourth for violation of sanctions.

It should be noted that during their last RfAR, LP didn't make much input. Despite editing actively throughout the time it was open LP neglected to enter a statement or to contribute in any meaningful way apart from rebuttal of one set of evidence. LP made no response at all to the last RfE. LPs behaviour has shown they have scant regard for wikipedias process. One Night in Hackney has asked for enforcement to be at admins discretion which I agree with. I would also ask that LP be required to make much better use of edit summaries and for clarification of what is or isn't acceptable on talk pages of topic banned articles. GainLine ♠ _♥ 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thoughts (and it may not be supported by the AE stuff, since that is 1 week, up to the 5th, which can be 1 year, but I consider it discretionary, since he has a history of violating topic restriction, having violated the OTHER topic restriction he is under four times so far), that Lapsed Pacifist is a strong net negative to this project, not interested in collaborative encyclopedia building. Two ArbCom cases against him (with repeated findings that he was an edit warrior, etcetera). No participation in his most recent ArbCom, indeed edit warring his way into a two week block during it. If I had the decision here, it would to block him for a month or so as a result of the AE report, and possibly open an AN/ANI report into an indefinite block and/or community ban. I will not take action due to appearances of bias (being the person who handled the LAST AE report for him), but will support any such items per above. SirFozzie (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While I share Fozzie's sense of frustration with LP, I'm leaning towards a 1-week block, partially because of the ArbCom ruling, and partially because the 2nd revert is borderline. PhilKnight (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that LP was required by ArbCom to discuss any content reversions on the talk page. I'm not seeing that from him either. 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Although I acknowledge myself the 1RR breach is somewhat borderline, the lack of discussion of reverts isn't. The restriction says "Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", so that seems pretty clear cut to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note, this was auto-archived. Can someone take care of this, please? Sad to see it fall off the table. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems this may be left because of the time lapse but before this is closed could we have clarification as what is acceptable on the talk pages of topic banned articles? LP is continuing to try and push their agenda on talk pages. Also this edit made today is another example of pushing the limits of what may or may not acceptable from the remedy at their first RfAR. I would really appreciate input an the talk page matter. Thanks GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits GainLine has pointed out, as well as his unxplained revert here, I think that these are new violations of his restrictions (not just the revert one, but the requirement that he fully discuss all content reversions before doing them. Tznkai, would you take a hard look at these? (My thoughts is until such time as he responds to the community's concerns, that he be indefblocked) SirFozzie (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC) SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the situation, I would urge some consideration of past behaviour, and not just behaviour at this point in time. Simply stopping editing for a short period of time and expecting to avoid consequences doesn't and shouldn't work. It's not that easy, and it doesn't work that way in the real world. Lapsed Pacifist has repeatedly tried to game the system, and is pushing the boundaries as far as he can. This situation needs to be looked at and appropriate sanctions may need to be looked at, though perhaps ANI might be a better option? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Steve and SirFozzies sentiments. Its not like the current behaviour is something new here and its not even a gradual slip back into old ways. LP has resumed from where they have left off from before their last RfAR. Despite remedies designed to help them steer clear of trouble, they have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable and indeed past it in not discussing reversions as well as continuing to seek the razors edge of acceptability from their first RfAR. If anything behaviour has deteriorated even further in failing to engage in any meaningful with communication attempts. GainLine ♠ _♥ 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow up - Lapsed Pacifist has violated his topic ban here, right after his block expired, and has clearly a) Edited an article related to Corrib gas, which he is indefinitely topic banned from. He also made this revert without discussing issues on the talk page. There have been other incidents which will be elaborated on by another editor. Perhaps further measures need to be taken? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity about this, the article in question is part of the Category:Corrib gas controversy. There's no way at all this could be construed as taking "broadly defined" to its limits. The edit itself is a prime example of problems LP created during the height of the dispute on Corrib gas articles. I.E, a straight revert citing POV as the reason.

LP returned from their block to create this article: Afri (organisation). On the face of it, not a problem but a quick google search reveals they are involved in campaigning against the Corrib gas project. Its even on the front page of their website to which a link is provided. IMO it was created in the hope another editor will come along in the future to add details on the Corrib gas controversy and is in effect soapboxing by proxy. Next up LP picks up where they left off in this edit war. This edit while not in breach of any remedies, is pushing the boundaries again and considering they have been topic banned for conducting a campaign against a gas pipeline, its certainly against the spirit of the remedy. Its incredible that all this has come on the day they have returned from a block.

The actions of this user aren't those of someone trying to reform their behaviour and it seems the the remedies of the last RfAR are not working in modifying LPs approach. Instead LP is gaming the injunction and continuing to push the limits of what they can get away with. The frustration that comes from being involved with LP is making itself apparent. I'd ask Tznkai to have a closer look at LPs history here. 2 blocks in 3 days and a number of other edits that push the limits of acceptability show a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour that as both Steve and SirFozzie have alluded to, needs something more to address. GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Lapsed Pacifist

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Going to lean towards declining as stale, LP doesn't seem to be editing all that much, and I had been under the impression that someone had handled this several days ago. I'll act immediately next time, presuming I'm online.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a huge fan of the sanction structure here, but LP has ignored a point blank request to follow the very reasonable requests of his remedy, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I will note for the record that while ignoring communications and reports will delay my actions, it will also encourage me to do them in the end. Will log tomorrow.--Tznkai (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hrs following unambiguous topic ban violation. This is getting irritating.--Tznkai (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hudavendigar

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Hudavendigar

User requesting enforcement

Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hudavendigar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, violation of 1RR

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

First revert, [10]; Second revert, [11], of this edit [12]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

[13] Warning by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

High time for a permanent topic ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The edits I have highlighted here are just the tip of the iceberg. Hudavendigar is not only engaged in edit-warring but also Original Research. On the Niles and Sutherland Report article, he not only presents sources which fail verification but synthesizes them to provide a narrative which is completely independent of the argument of any actual historian. After editor Kansas Bear correctly identified this problem and removed the problematic text, he was reverted by Hudavendigar, who promised that he would introduce the correct page numbers/sources. Once more, the sources failed to back up the claims in the text and Kansas Bear removed it once more, only to be reverted by Hudavendigar again, violating 1RR.

But the issue itself transcends just ordinary edit-warring. Hudavendigar approaches these articles with the notion that anything related to Armenian Genocide is inherently false or biased and that a cabal of certain editors are concertedly working to ruin the image of the Republic of Turkey. For some reason, he goes to extreme pains to disprove the evidence of Armenians living in the lands of what is now Turkey during the ancient and medieval periods. Even after highly reliable sources are provided, he still ventures onto the talk page of certain articles (see, e.g. Bitlis' talk page) to make inflammatory statements such as "It is a mystery how people even come with these so-called historic names...It was an Ottoman, Selcuk, Roman and Greek city all through history. These forced namings seem to be driven solely by nationlaistic agendas and emotions." On the article on historian Justin McCarthy, a notorious denier of the Armenian Genocide, he attempts to whitewash his statements and disingenuously adds that "Armenian nationalists" have criticized the historian, a statement which is completely at odds with the cited sources.

He already has been blocked 4-5 times now (the most lengthy one being the most recent one, for one month [14]; see his talk page), but the warnings are simply ineffective. I believe that he has been give enough chances for to improve his editing habits but his arguments have not changed one bit since he began editing on Wikipedia. He sees everything as white and black, and believes that a conspiracy exists to besmirch the reputation of Turkey. The arguments of neutral editors are spurned and disregarded without so much as a blink of an eye. An indefinite topic ban on all articles relating to Armenia and Turkey seems to be in order.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Hudavendigar

Statement by Hudavendigar

The subject of this specific complaint is the Niles and Sutherland Report Article. This very modest article has drawn ther ire of a number of well known Armenian nationalist edit warriors for some reason.

• Another well known editor, Kansas Bear, who has engaged in edit warring often, had removed a referenced paragraph wholesale on 18th. He did not bother to bring it up on the discussion page first. He had complained that the reference did not support the paragraph.

• He was partly right. There were confusing page numbers and reference actually contained two seperate book references. So I cleaned it up, kept one book that is most commonly referenced by Armenians, included page numbers, and placed in the article again.

• Kansas Bear again deleted the whole paragraph within minutes and left derisive remarks in the discussion page. He again claimed the reference was insufficient. Apparently this individual is able to freely engage in edit warring.

• This time I dug out a second reference, easily available on line and verifiable, included specific section and page numbers, and added another explanatory note and wrote in the paragraph in its new and improved version. As of this writing, it was still there. I have complained about this individual numerous times but his destructive activities continue.

Note that during this process neither Kansas Bear nor the individual launching the complaint presented any arguments concerning the content of the paragraph itself. Only the reference quality was questioned.

As the record clearly shows, I did not blindly revert any edits in this article. In fact, I did not remove any material. Each time a section was removed by Kansas Bear who also indicated why he was deleting them, I tried to address the complaints. In each edit I made, I included more and detailed references as Kansas Bear had demanded.

I fail to see how this contradicts any of the Wikipedia rules or any restrictions put on me.

I will not even comment on the other rather long list of grievences and complaints which all seem to be unrelated to the specifics here but betray the real reason for this action.

There seems to be no basis for this complaint in fact.

Comments by others about the request concerning Hudavendigar

I have also worked on the Niles and Sutherland Report article. Hudavendigar doesn't seem capable of editing in an appropriate way: he ignores what others have written, and does not seem to understand the concept of no original research. The "referenced paragraph" that he has just accused Kansas Bear of removing "wholesale" and of not bringing "it up on the discussion page first" has been discussed in the article's talk page, and not just by Kansas Bear in the "More attempts at giving opinion" section. I had fact tagged Kansas Bear had fact tagged the sentence "This was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War by the Armenians and the missionaries in the area friendly to them" in October [16], after Hudavendigar had added it to the article. On the 5th November Hudavendigar removed the fact tag and added a spurious reference. [17]. The reference was spurious because it is a book published in 1917 and it was being cited as a source to characterise a report published in 1919. I explained on the talk page why that particular reference could not be valid, and that I would be justified in removing the sentence unless a source for its claim could be produced. I removed the invalid citation and reinserted the fact tag. However, a few days later, rather than removing the whole sentence, I tried to rewrite it to make it less POV. In response, Hudavenger simply restored the old sentence, moved it down a paragraph, and reinserted the invalid citation: [18].

The same editing attitude is seen on many articles he has worked on: Here, for example, he is adding additional words, his own words, to a quote: [19]. Here [20] he has removed a photograph that had been extensively discussed in the article's talk page [21]. He simply refuses to take note of what other editors have written on that talk page. And in his very next edit he agressively inserts an uncited photograph from an unknown source and with an OR caption. [22]. Meowy 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments about Tznkai's conclusion

In what way have I been "edit warring" on the Niles and Sutherland Report article? Give me some diffs, Tznkai. But you will not, because you cannot. You claim you "glanced at the article history". If that is true, it should have shown that I made one edit on the 9th August to insert a POV tag, and justified its insertion in the article's talk page. Then I made a series of tidying-up edits on the 3rd November that were all uncontroversial and which were not objected to by anyone, or reverted by Hudavendigar in his 5th November edits. Finally, on the 15th November, I made an edit that attempted to rewrite a sentence that had been citation required tagged since the 11th October. That is the extent of my edits to this article, and I have not made any reverts. Is that edit warring? I wonder if the real reason behind my name being mentioned is revenge, revenge for a comment I made relating to another of Tznkai's arbitrary decisions: [23]. And just like that earlier decision, this decision of Tznkai is made showing an indifference to what other editors have taken the time to carefully write - an indifference reflected by his inconsiderate "I don't care who is right" comment. Meowy 16:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you have, below, weasily accused me of not following the "most basic Wikipedia conduct and content policies" and have also accused me of being part of a group that "repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Yet you still refuse to give any specific examples related to me. Show me even one example in that article where I have overrid anyone's contribution? I have not made A SINGLE REVERT. On the contrary, I've made numerous contributions to the talk page that were aimed at resolving things. For example, sentences that are fact tagged (especially if tagged for 5 weeks) can be removed (or are you denying that is in Wikipedia content policies?) However, rather than just remove the offending sentence, I repeatedly tried to explain to Hudavendigar that a source from 1917 could not be used as a citation for a description of a report from 1919, and suggesting to him that he rewrite it. You make empty complaints that you are "no way impressed with the end product", but have done FA yourself to make the article better, and have made completely unjustified attacks on an editor who has been doing his best to improve the article (see here for example [24] - edits that were uncontested by everyone). Meowy 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said a thing about reverting, merely edit warring, like when you change huge swaths of text with a snarky edit summary like "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias". I said a fair amount about conduct that does not help collaboration. Things like "This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases.". It certainly does appear you have improved the article some. It does not appear you've improved it any way that is fairly called "collaborative." The aggressiveness and hostile attitude has a lot to do with why the there is a POV tag slapped on the top of the article.

Now, don't get me wrong. It is entirely possible, even likley, that I've misread the contribution you've had on the unpleasantness of the editing environment. Thats why we're still talking about this. A bit of free advice though, either find the gumption to discuss this with me levelly and cordially, or find someone else who can speak on your behalf who can, 'cause your stone casting isn't going to get us anywhere.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not take the time to file this ArbCom report all so that an administrator can take a cursory glance at the article and hand out an arbitrary ruling by banning all three users from editing it. Meowy and Kansas Bear have taken extreme pains to fix the quality of the article and to ban them, the two editors who actually sought to improve the quality of the article by way of the talk page, is an astonishing lapse in reasoning. What is wrong here is not the lack of a "collaborative approach" but Hudavendigar's approach to these articles. To anyone who even has a rudimentary understanding of the Armenian-Turkish issues, his sole purpose is to muddy the waters and distort reality. Does it not concern you that he has been inserting his own unsupported research into the article? Banning him from this page will simply mean that he will focus his energies elsewhere. Despite 5 previous blocks and calls for rectifying his behavior and editing habits, he still continues as if some conspiracy exists to ruin the good name of all Turks. It's this mindset which is proving so difficult for all editors to deal with. If after all these blocks and after all this time an editor refuses to change his habits, I cannot see any other viable course to elect but a permanent topic ban.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the law of unintended consequences and the law of admins-don't-follow-directions-blindly. At least I don't. Whack-a-mole has not been working, and if I was inclined to topic ban anyone who appeared to have been motivated by partisan loyalties of any particular stripe, I probably would start with everyone listed in the case log here. There are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia, and I have found without exception that all the disagreements follow the same patterns, with the same excuses and same posturing. Again, though, I do a fair amount of this stuff. Inevitably, I will get it wrong from time to time. So find someone else. Say, this guy who does a lot of work in the area, or some of these folks. Not this guy though. I hear he's busy.--Tznkai (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you are wrong to claim "I never said a thing about reverting". You used these words to me: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion". Override means revert. But if you prefer to use the word "override", where in the article did I "repeatedly override" another editor's contributions?

Tznkai, you snipe at my use of a phrase like ""This article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases", yet you have already described the article as something that you are "in no way impressed with". Tell me Tznkai, if you think the article is encyclopaedic, is free from POV bias, and is free from weasel words, why are are you still "in no way impressed with" it?

There is "a POV tag slapped on the top of the article" because I put it there, and in the required talk-page explanation about why I put it there I used the words "is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases" and then gave examples illustrating why the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases. So, WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "the article is full of unencyclopaedic, POV, and weasel-worded phrases"? Why do you claim that pointing out examples of unencyclopaedic or POV or weasel-worded phrases "does not help collaboration"?

Tznkai, you describe as "snarky" my "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias" edit summary. Did you bother reading the actual edit? Are you claiming that I did not rewrite the problematic sentence that had a 1917 source being cited for a description of a 1919 report? Are you claiming that I did not remove some bias? If not, I assume that you are accepting that my edit summary was correct. If you are accepting that, then WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PHRASE "Rewriting the cited information, removing the bias"? Or do you think there is no bias in claiming as a fact that "Van's Armenians who were approximately a quarter of the city population were gone" (in spite of the fact that that population claim contradicting the population figures in the article about Van) and are saying I was wrong in my changing it to the factually correct "In their report they wrote that Van's Armenians (which they stated was approximately a quarter of the city's pre-war population) were all gone". Is that what you call changing "huge swaths of text"? I think you should be more accurate in your own huge swaths of text. Meowy 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Hudavendigar

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I've glanced at the article history, and then I dug around a bit, and I have come to the following conclusion: 3 way edit war.

So you are all topic banned from the Niles and Sutherland Report article page indefinitely, but not its associated talk page (this is a hint), and by "you" I mean Kansas Bear, Hudavendigar and Meowy, since none of you seem to be able to work together yet.

This thread will remain open for appeal and the opinions of other administrators. I am particularly interested in what Kansas Bear has to say.

And seriously - I don't care who is right, I only care if you're edit warring.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are free to speculate as to my motivations and how vile they are, but its better done away from here, and by here, I mean Wikipedia in general. We really don't have time for that. I think now is a good time to explain what the basic thinking that underlies my action, even before approaching the specific incident. Discretionary sanctions are applied in areas where editors have a lot of trouble following even the most basic Wikipedia conduct and content policies, all supposedly in pursuit of "neutral, accurate" content. All this talk about who is "right" is really partisan bickering, which would be fine, if the end product was any good. This would be unpleasant enough in the abstract, but I actually really care when it is getting in the way of content. As we can see in the short history of Niles and Sutherland Report, we have plenty of bickering, and I am in no way impressed with the end product. The talk page doesn't give much hope either. I have no reason at this point to believe the end product will get any better.

Edit warring is easiest to see when there are direct reversions - the tug of war over a particular phrase or paragraph. That however, is not the definition. "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Wikipedia isn't a game, it isn't a sport, and it isn't a battlefield. Its a collaborative encyclopedia project, and its high time you all show that you can work together reasonably well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Having dug into this, Murat does seem to have been engaging in original research, and that's assuming good faith. Being more cynical, he is quite possibly falsifying sources, as the page numbers he originally cited weren't at all relevant, and even now his use of sources seems to be skating on rather thin ice (see the talkpage for more detailed discussion of this). I am inclined to revoke the sanctions and let discussion run its course and put the page on 1RR, with a stern warning to Murat not to fiddle around with sources and to Meowy for going OTT with the rhetoric (not the first time). Indeed, per Tznkai, some work on improving the end product might be nice. At the same time, however, I am deeply unsympathetic to attempts to downplay the magnitude of the Armenian Genocide. This may not, of course, be what Murat is doing (I assume good faith, again), but as general rule that's rather the counterpart in crankiness of Ararat arev's antiquity frenzy. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

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

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Jack Merridew

User requesting enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Stalking

Three editors who have accused Jack Merridew of stalking since Jack Merridew's unban (banned because of numerous sock puppets). Jack's behavior below is identical, and in the case of Mr. Coleman and A Nobody worse than the stalking evidence that Cool Cat presented, in which arbitration unanimously found: "Davenbelle...monitored Cool Cat with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions." Passed 6-0.[25] "Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence#User stalks and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop#Bicycle. Passed 8 to 0.[26] Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman Stalking of A Nobody Stalking of Daedalus969 Stalking of Emmette Hernandez Coleman Origin of stalking: Mr. Merridew's twelve page, 3 month stalking, began because of User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman's minor edit on Jimbo Wales talk page, adding <span class="plainlinks"> </span> around another editors link.[27][28] Jack's response on User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: "...I've undone some dubious edits you've made..." 14:38, 26 May 2009. [29] 2009 North Korean nuclear test: User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 12:27, 28 May 2009. [30] User:Jack Merridew, first edit to page: "Undid revision 292866724 by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) bypass redirect" 15:40, 28 May 2009.[31] User:Jack Merridew makes a total of four edits on 2009 North Korean nuclear test, last one, 15:52, 28 May 2009 and has not returned.[32] 3rd Rock from the Sun: User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 21:10, 29 May 2009.[33] User:Jack Merridew: "bypass redirectes, tidy". 06:17, 30 May 2009.[34] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to 3rd Rock from the Sun, and has not returned.[35] Memory hole User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Removing unnecessary invisible text, per WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. This makes reading the edit page easier." 06:25, 9 June 2009.[36] User:Jack Merridew: "tidy" 06:25, 9 June 2009.[37] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to the page. Mr. Merridew has not yet returned.[38] Talk:Sun User:Jack Merridew: Adds "see also: Talk:Moon#Should the title be "Moon" or "Earth's Moon"" to the User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman's section "Should the title be "Sun" of "Earth's Sun". 06:33, 30 May 2009.[39] Only one edit ever done on Talk:Sun.[40] Talk:Moon STALKING AND HARASSMENT User:Jack Merridew: First edit to Talk:Moon, mocking User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "<joke>Well there's the possibility of Earth's Atlantic Ocean</joke> 06:30, 30 May 2009"[41] User:Jack Merridew: Second edit to Talk:Moon, "They must have a ’pedia, too; there are puppeteers involved! Please note that I've noticed a fair number of such AGF-testing fun-seeking debates initiated by Emmette. You might want to visit his talk page. 11:43, 30 May 2009.[42] User:Jack Merridew: Last edit on Talk:Moon, directed to User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "User:SheffieldSteel/AGFAFAIR", (Assume Good Faith - as far as is reasonable) 14:09, 30 May 2009.[43] Wikipedia:Be bold User:Jack Merridew "Reverted good faith edits by Emmette Hernandez Coleman; Direct link is best ;. (TW)" 06:21, 30 May 2009. [44] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Wikipedia:Be bold to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned. Colgate Clock (New Jersey) User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "Adding source. I am new at adding sources. I apologise if I did if incorrectly." 15:41, 30 May 2009[45] User:Jack Merridew: "Added {{nofootnotes}} tag to article. using Friendly"13:24, 31 May 2009.[46] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edit to the page, and has not returned. [47] User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman writes on User_talk:Jack_Merridew: Thanks again for your improvement to Colgate Clock (New Jersey). I have added sources for 3 previously un-sourced articles...but probably not that good of a job. They could probably use a template similar to the one you put on Colgate Clock (New Jersey) so someone will turn my not that good of a job into a good job... 11:02, 17 June 2009. User:Jack Merridew response: "please don't be so obvious." 11:36, 17 June 2009 [48] Wikipedia:File namespace User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Redirected page to Wikipedia:Namespace#File" 20:50, 10 June 2009.[49] User:Jack Merridew "better to match Wikipedia:Image namespace, methinks". 05:50, 15 June 2009.[50] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Wikipedia:File namespace to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned. Template:Namespaces User:Jack Merridew first edit, reverting User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman changes 22:09, 9 June 2009 [51], 20:58, 10 June 2009 [52]: "restore linking via 'namespace' targets as bypassing them is not helpful here (encapsulation); tidy table, too" 05:22, 15 June 2009.[53] User:Jack Merridew makes only two edits to the page, and has not returned.[54] Talk:Main Page: STALKING AND HARASSMENT User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: First edit, 09:21, 20 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here [...] see number sign".[55] User:Jack Merridew: First edit, 11:11, 21 Jun 2009, section: "Should we add "For technical reasons, # redirects here [...] see number sign".[56] Mr. Meriddew's first edit on this page directly addresses Mr. Coleman, bringing up an argument with Mr. Coleman on Mr. Coleman's talk page that has nothing to do with the Main space page: "See here: %s, Emmette. [[User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman#Whales|Are you having fun, yet]]? 11:11, 21 June 2009.[57] Mr. Merriddew's second edit mocks Mr. Coleman, mentioning another page which Mr. Merriddew stalked Mr. Coleman too. You're missing that Emmette *likes* parodies of debates. Think we should move Moon to The Moon. 13:37, 21 June 2009.[58] User:Franamax: Jack, can you please back off User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about? 20:06, 21 June 2009.[59] User:Jack Merridew: I have taken an interest in main pages of projects recently that has nothing to do with Emmette...It seems to me that Emmette *wants* my attention; he keeps that thread on his talk page rolling and has repeatedly pinged me on mine. 05:00, 22 June 2009. Stalking after User:Franamax's warning. Wikipedia:Dick User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Redirected page to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick" 10:56, 31 July 2009.[60] User:Jack Merridew 04:47, 4 August 2009 "traditional; change this and you'll be referred to it ;"[61] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Wikipedia:Dick to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned. Wikipedia:Don't be a dick User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "Updateing shortcut box, removeing WP:PENIS, adding M:DICK and M:DBAD" 11:00, 31 July 2009.[62] User:Jack Merridew reverts User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "tidy" 04:41, 4 August 2009.[63] User:Jack Merridew makes only one edits to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick to revert User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and has not yet returned. Stalking of A Nobody Origin of stalking of A Nobody: A Nobody was an avid supporter of the ban of Jack Merridew and his several sock puppets in 2008. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fences and windows A Nobody votes to oppose. 13:43, 17 November 2009.[64] Mr. Merridew votes to support. 01:03, 18 November 2009. Last Requests for adminship Jack Merridew partipated in, 03:43, 17 October 2009.[65] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination) A Nobody comments at 15:06, 19 November 2009.[66] 3 minutes later, Jack Merridew votes delete. 15:09, 19 November 2009.[67] Last AFD comment Jack made was on 13 November 2009.[68] Talk:Comparison of vampire traits A Nobody comments. 00:16, 16 November 2009. [69] Comparison of Vampire Traits "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009. [70] A Nobody writes on Wikipedia talk:Articles for Deletion the section "Some ideas for reform" 17 September 2009.[71] Mr. Merridew writes this in A Nobody's section: "How about if an extremely disruptive editor who has involved himself in a great many AfDs for the last three years with the intent of precluding as many delete outcomes as he possibly can and who is the editor primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism currently gridlocking the entire process were to permanently recuse from commenting in deletion discussions and from editing articles being discussed there by others? This would be a great improvement." 18 September 2009.[72] User:Chillum deletes comments by Jack, stating: "some disagreement between users has nothing to do with AfD. Removing off topic discussion, revert and talk to me on my talk page if you disagree" 18 September 2009. [73] Final warning to Jack Merridew by Fram: "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009.[74] AfD | A Nobody | Jack Merridew Alien Shaplay | 20:23, 12 August 2009 | 05:37, 13 August 2009 Hapes Consortium | 17:11, 10 August 2009 05:32, 13 August 2009 Todd Williams | 15:39, 12 August 2009 | 05:26, 13 August 2009 In each case, Merridew is specifically responding to A Nobody's comment directly below A Nobody: "Non-notable" is not a compelling reason for deletion on a paperless encyclopedia. By writing: Non-Notable — delete. A Nobody argues that a series of articles should be kept in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin. 17:59, 7 July 2009. [75][76][77] Jack Merridew puts Tom Nash, one of the Hugo Austin articles up for deletion. 12:09, 9 July 2009.[78] Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, "fix shitty template" 14:13, 12 July 2009.[79] Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin articles, Chloe Cammeniti in the summary he states "Articles for Ridicule" Unknown time. [80] Jack Merridew modifies one of the Hugo Austin series templates, in the summary he states: "be nice if editors knew how to edit" 15:02, 12 July 2009. [81] Jack Merridew writes on A Nobody's page, the first posting Merridew had made on A Nobody's page since 10:33, 27 April 2009, on 04:26, 13 July 2009.[82]: == attention-seeking == You should not make such attention-seeking posts — you'll get it. Personally, I think your username is appropriate.[83] Mr. Merridew was refering to what A Nobody added to his user page: For example, anyone who has ever referred to me as something other than my username or by some insulting play on my username is not welcome here, barring they apologized and made good faith amends[84] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom) A nobody comments in AFD.[85] Jack Merridew responds: "U can haz Badger-ring…" 07:35, 27 April 2009 [86] Note: As A Nobody wrote in the ANI which was going on at the same time: The last two RfAs (Foxy_Loxy_3 and Kww) [Jack Merridew] comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after [A Nobody] and about [A Nobody]. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3 A nobody opposes, 02:54, 11 April 2009. [87] Jack Merridew's first post on RFA: "re A Nobody; Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers"[88] 09:41, 11 April 2009.[89] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2 A nobody opposes. 01:49, 6 April 2009. [90] Jack Merridew supports three hours later:"I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND...Advancing hypothetical concerns as cause for opposition, is bad faith." 04:47, 6 April 2009. [91] A Nobody makes 9 edits to List of Buffyverse objects. 03:31, 9 April 2009 to 03:57, 9 April 2009.[92] Jack Merridew !votes delete in AFD, "Delete — An indiscriminate list of trivia; besides, her tits didn't make teh list" 06:10, 12 April 2009.[93] A Nobody makes 4 edits to Battle of Mars. 07:45, 5 March 2009.[94] A Nobody !votes delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chihuahua heights. 02:36, 2 April 2009.[95] Jack Merridew !votes keep, 40 minutes later. 03:16, 2 April 2009.[96] Jack_Merridew writes a review of A Nobody on Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody This is the only editor review which Jack Merridew ever responded to in all of 2009, possibly ever: "Disruptive user. Previously (Sept '08) got into trouble for disruptive and badgering behaviour at AfDs, was facing an imminent User RfC, and invoked a right to vanish and promptly resumed editing with another account and as an anon. Blocked. A month later, returned under a new name (this one). User continues disruptive participation in AfD and policy discussion ever-seeking to lower inclusion standards and demonize those who do not share his extreme views. Long history of bad faith at RFA." 09:04, 8 March 2009. [97] A Nobody reverts the edits and an edit war ensues. Jack Merridew writes on Casliber's page to A Nobody: "I am open to working with you in the future, but for the moment, I (and others) believe disengaging is best." 06:30, 10 March 2009. [98] Arbcom Casliber writes to Jack Merridew, refering to A Nobody: Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place. 20:11, 24 March 2009. [99] Seven minutes after A Nobody's fourth edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.[100] A Nobody makes 3 edits to Battle of Saturn's Rings. 07:46, 5 March 2009.[101] Seven minutes after A Nobody's third edit, Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:53, 5 March 2009.[102] A nobody makes an edit to First Robotech War. 22:03, 3 March 2009.[103] Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:52, 5 March 2009.[104] A nobody makes an edit to Second Robotech War. 22:03, 3 March 2009. [105] Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. 07:54, 5 March 2009.[106] A nobody makes an edit to Third Robotech War. 22:01, 3 March 2009. [107] Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD. "Delete Cruft..." 07:54, 5 March 2009. [108] A Nobody !votes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray. 21:15, 6 February 2009. [109] Jack Merridew !votes delete in the AFD, "loved the 'In-story information' section of the infobox; amounts to breadcrumbs to follow to find more cruft." 08:34, 7 February 2009.[110] Stalking Daedalus969 First edit on Carol Kane and Jack Merridew reverts the edit of User talk:Daedalus969.[111] 8:13, 25 May 2009, restoring the edit of an indefinetly blocked sock. Blocked at 04:25, 25 May 2009.[112] Messages User talk:Daedalus969: See this, by me, and this, by someone else. Which is more important, whacking the naughty, or valid edits? 08:13, 25 May 2009.[113] Daedalus969 withdraws Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clash_of_Arms. 01:58, 27 June 2009.[114] Jack Merridew closes AFD.[115] Edit: {{afd top}} '''nomination withdrawn''' 27 June 2009 Jack Merridew closes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Chirinos AFD, after User:Daedalus969 closes it withdrawn. 05:54, 19 June 2009.[116] User talk:Daedalus969: Jack Merridew joins conversation about what is wrong with User:Daedalus969's talk page: "Not surprising; there are a fair number of issues in there."[117] Relevant page:[118] User:Daedalus969 at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll: "Stop stalking me. You've been following me around [everywhere], and now you're just trying to get me in trouble by drawing lines where none exist. I like hummingbirds, and no one knows this because I usually don't share the things I like. The humming bird is there because I like it. If you have a problem with my behavior, then quit the accusations, and open up some thread somewhere, not here. Either ANI or RFC, otherwise, stay the hell away from me." 5 July 2009.[119] Relevant sections: [120][121] User:Daedalus969 at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll: "Seriously, what the hell? It's a hummingbird. Get over it. Get over this that little thing you have about me, and leave me alone. This is harassment, there is absolutely nothing wrong with placing that bird on my page. I like birds, I'm a bird lover. Would you like to see pictures of my four cockatiels? What the hell is it going to take to get you to leave me alone? An ANI thread, a block?" 08:41, 5 July 2009.[122] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents which Daedalus969 created, Jack Merridew wrote: "WP:DEADHORSE, anyone? Mebbe you need to let this go? 23 May 2009.[123]

Personal attacks, WP:BATTLE, harassment, bad faith

Against A Nobody Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman Against Daedalus969 Jack Merridew's other personal attacks Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior Against A Nobody At User_talk:A_Nobody: "You should not make such attention-seeking — you'll get it. Personally, I think your username is appropriate." 13 July 2009 [124] (Empahsis my own) User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "troll elsewhere" erasing A Nobody's comment. 5 March 2009 [125] User_talk:Protonk: [A nobody] wasted a day of my life yesterday. 14 April 2009.[126] Regarding A Nobody at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3: "I just looked up WP:HYPOCRISY and found that it is another shortcut to there, which I had not noticed before. He has gone well beyond the pale here." 12 April 2009.[127] At A Nobody at User_talk:John_Vandenberg: Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia 3 August 2009.[128] To A Nobody at WP:ANI: "This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new [[Wikipedia:Harassment#wikihounding|wikihounder]]".[129] To A Nobody at Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Virginia Lewis_(10th_Kingdom): "U can haz Badger-ring… I'll go find it sometime." 27 April 2009.[130] About A Nobody at User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "I'll have to find the Badger-ring image/award Will made." 27 April 2009.[131] User_talk:John_Vandenberg: "Waa! John, he's stalking me. @[A Nobody]; grow up. You've failed to agree to any of the proposals John has put forward. You also made lame comments in those "discussions" — you troll AfD discussions and this is why you need to be removed from the AfD realm (including the editing of articles at AfD)...." 02:26, 14 August 2009. To A Nobody at WP:ANI: "Seems that he's only interested in kicking-up more drama, which needs to stop. At this point I'd be on solid ground making a harassment case against him."[132] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Foxy_Loxy_3 "comment on bad faith and battleground-mode re A Nobody"; re A Nobody: "Bad Faith and Battleground. Jeers" 11 April 2009.[133] Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2: "I note the usual argument from A Nobody, below; this is pure WP:BATTLEGROUND." 6 April 2009.[134] User_talk:Jack_Merridew ...the barriers to editing here are quite low. If Pixelface, and others such as yourself, don't want to be the subjects of my comments, be better editors... 14 January 2009.[135] Jack Merridew's repeated use of A Nobody's previous user names User_talk:Jack_Merridew, Using A Nobody's alleged old user name: "reply to Liz" 14 January 2009.[136] WP:ANI Regarding A Nobody: "I will refrain from refering to his prior username as much as is possible." 13 April 2009.[137] WP:ANI: So, I commented on Le Grand Nobody's actions at Foxy Loxy's RfA and suggested he should be blocked and that * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody was due. 12 April 2009.[138] Le Grand Nobody is way overdue for a User RFC, methinks. 10:13, 23 March 2009.[139] "Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; see?"04:59, 10 December 2008.[140] Refering to User:Pumpkin King Jack Merridew's bad faith and abusive tone against A Nobody User_talk:Casliber/Archive_23#Moon_of_Pejeng: A Nobody starts the article Moon of Pejeng after Jack's recommendation to create it to Calisber.[141] on User_talk:Casliber, A Nobody writes: "As seen by the blue links above, I have started the article." Jack responds: "Seems A Someone is monitoring my posts and assuming bad faith." Link is to User:A Nobody: "Serious editors never say to delete something because it is "cruft."… "A good way to determine who is here for the good of the project and who is trying to adhere to a biased agenda is to see who still wants to delete something when sources are presented to them." 6 March 2009.[142] A Nobody, welcoming back Jack at User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "...Also, as Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Learn from the mistakes of others, life's too short to make them all yourself," i.e. I have found that editing in new areas that I did not previously edit in seems to get positive feedback, whereas old whatever you want to call them have a tendency to be well you know in the areas I used to focus on. 16:54, 9 December 2008.[143] Jack's response to A Nobody: "Pumpkin, I am focused on editing in a wider range of areas; see? I have not been 'gone', I have better than 10,000 edits while on holiday from en:wp; see?" 04:59, 10 December 2008. [144] User:A Nobody: "Jack, please do not use any variation or allusion to my old username (please see the note on the top of my talk page why). Anyway, yes, I see that you have been doing some other good stuff and I believe that is why you are back. I am hoping to help Durova bring some rock articles out of stub status and maybe even get some good article contributions as well as my usual welcoming and rescue efforts. All the best! 00:51, 11 December 2008"[145] "I've not missed your history of late; let me offer a bit of advice: read WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPT. You really need to accept that your approach to AfDs and RfAs is problematic. The wiki does discriminate against WP:NOT#INFO all the time. Judging an admin candidate solely on your perception of their views on inclusion criteria is a colossal assumption of bad faith." 11 December 2008.[146] Bad faith accusation: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 3, Jack Merridew suggests that A Nobody should be blocked for opposing Admin candidates: "Note that he has basically admitted that much of his reason for opposing is his interactions with third parties, his "opponents". Kevin is not being judged here, an entire block of "editors" is being cast as demons. Time to block for cause." 06:29, 12 April 2009.[147] Against Emmette Hernandez Coleman User_talk:Jack_Merridew: "rm trlng." 29 May 2009.[148] User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: "You’ve touched the root issue here; taken too far, that is trolling. See: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass."[149] User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman writes: I am not a troll, what makes you think I am? 15:51, 27 May 2009 Jack Merridew's response: Oh, gosh; threads like this? 16:05, 27 May 2009.[150] User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman: minnow "Like t0tal fa1L." 28 May 2009 [151] Removed comments from User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman "rm noise" 30 May 2009.[152] Wikipedia_talk:External_links: "The larger issue here is what User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman is up to. I noticed him a few days ago having an inappropriate interest in Jimbo’s userpage, followed by this plainlinks nonsense — which he may have picked-up from me, as I do use it in some of my posts. Looking over his talk page and past contribs, I see a long pattern of mildly disruptive editing, and the regular admonishment of those who raise concerns with him as being “too harsh”. So, Emmette seem to be [[WP:DENY|seeking some attention]] here and folks might want to step back and review the bigger picture, including our chat on his talk page. Emmette, [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|can you hear me now?]]" 04:36, 27 May 2009.[153] User:Jack Merridew regarding User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman mistakenly asking another editor to sign his comments: "and cutting-in like that is disruptive and just plain rude" 03:47, 28 May 2009.[154] User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman: "When debating, it it usually best to attack the argument, not the arguer." 17:28, 27 May 2009.[155] User:Jack Merridew: Think of it as a holistic approach. 03:47, 28 May 2009.[156] Against Daedalus969 On User Talk:Josette: "little shite like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&diff=prev&oldid=292480210 this]." 27 May 2009.[157] To User:Daedalus969 on User talk:Jack Merridew: "rm trolling; take a hint, I already achived that to history" 31 May 2009.[158] On Wikipedia:Civility/Poll asking editors to click and watch Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Daedalus969: "Another subtle form of baiting: see here, by User:Daedalus969...Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I [User:Daedalus969] don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about context. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see here." 5 July 2009.[159] User:Rockpock at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll: Some might interpret making an example of Daedalus969, here, as "baiting" him. The problem with "baiting" vs. discussion is that it involves a serious lack of good faith. Even if Daedalus969 was "baiting" with his hummingbird picture, so what? What harm is he doing in adding a picture to his own user page? If you or Bishonen or Giano infer some grievous insult in this, then just ignore it and no harm has been done... 18:16, 5 July 2009.[160] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech: "Bad Idea — others, and now I are attempting to sort the mess out. Have a minnow." 31 May 2009.[161] Re: what Daedalus969 did: "I have reformatted the oppose and support sections to display numbers instead of bullets, so that the number of opposes and supports can be easily viewed."[162] Daedalus969 wrote: "attempt at formatting so one can see how many opposes there are, feel free to revert, I won't argue"[163] Mr. Merridew himself characteristically reformatted several editors comments in the WP:ANI several times himself during this edit and before this edit: [164][165][166] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech RE: WP:TROUT: "if you *want* the big fish, you have to impress me more...You want the full-sized fish? You started this mess by refatoring in a inappropriate manner. You don't get to tromp all over Tokyo. Sneers" 31 May 2009.[167] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech referring to WP:DEADHORSE: "Ya, you refactored the formatting: bad idea, disruptive; all the rest follows from that. Please don't get the idea that I consider you much of a problem; you only warranted a minnow, after all. I already offered you a link about all the shrill cries for Good Faith — which seems to be the core argument for keeping Doug underfoot. AGF has limits. There's another essay you need to grok; it concerns patches of ground that contain traces of equine DNA and fragments of sticks. There's surely a handy shortcut for it. Try typing a few of the obvious ones into the search box. Jeers" 31 May 2009.[168] Bad faith accusation:: "Anyone seriously believe “A humming bird on my back porch, balancing perfectly on a hook” isn’t baiting? “I User:Daedalus969 don't bait people”? As Lar says, it's often subjective, and I'll add that it's all about context. It stretches credulity to assume that you added a hummingbird to your user page shortly after your dispute with the two others in good faith; the caption ices it. For future reference, see here" 5 July 2009.[169] Jack Merridew's other personal attacks Jack Merridew warned about calling other editors trolls by Ikip 21:10, 15 August 2009.[170] Jack Merridew warned about signing with "Sneers" by Lar 16:45, 31 May 2009.[171] Comparison of Vampire Traits "cut Count Chocula as pure trolling; no, I didn't look to see who put it in" 03:38, 16 November 2009. [172] Comparison of Vampire Traits "rm, again; it's still trolling for lulz -- *unencyclopaedic*, like the rest of this 'article' -- Sneers" 05:04, 16 November 2009. [173] RE: User:JarlaxleArtemis "I will vigorously oppose D&D's Notable Dick, if necessary..." 10 December 2008.[174] ...Those who seek to disrupt by simply being vandals are straightforward to deal with. Even dick-less wonders like Grawp are easy enough to deal with and serve to force wiki to mature in order to deal with them...[175] To User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: "Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and m:Don't be a dick." 14:33, 7 August 2009. [176] Resulting in: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive69#Jack_Merridew List_of_fictional_cats "tidy; the anons doing the 'it' cat thang are really here to mess with such tidying; likely related to Treecats and List of Treecats being deleted. i.e. the troll with the very small, penis"[177] "Too many DougsTechs currently".[178] To User:Shemeska: "troll somewhere else" 8 January 2009.[179] On User_talk:Collectonian to User:Craverguy: "I really have no idea why someone would spend two years of their life on such an [daily] endeavor; that is beyond the fanaticism at the root of the word 'fan' and I expect there's a large dollop of hyperbole included. This is a great project, but it is discriminating. My suggestion is to redirect your efforts into areas that have long term value. 4 April 2009.[180] RE: Now desoyped User:A Man in Black's arbcom which mentioned the "Let's tape Ikip up in a box and mail him to the moon." attack page. Mr. Merridew writes on User:A Man in Black's page: "Got stamps? I had these laying about from last year" Referring to the "Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch" stamps. 24 May 2009[181] Previous edit mentions the "mail Ikip to the moon" edit. 24 May 2009[182] Previous edit, adds: "Stamps, lots of stamps" to user page. 24 May 2009[183] User_talk:Drew_R._Smith "Jeers". 27 May 2009[184] The_Little_Prince: "rv absurdity"[185] To Debresser: "Get over yourself" 20 April 2009. [186] "please do something useful" 20 April 2009.[187] Refering to User:JarlaxleArtemis at User talk:Jack Merridew: "The [naughty boy] needs to get laid. If he thinks he's annoyed me, he's way off; he's kinda fun to beat-up on ;)...The D&D crowd needs to quite clearly disown their patron vandal. this one ("Giving him [Gavin] the Grawp treatment seems to be the only way to get anything done") amount to an endorsement of such disruptive behavior. As the meme goes, he's got over 9,000 cockpuppets;" 11 December 2008.[188] WP:ANI: "Possible Featured Article issue. WP run out of FAs? Seriously, pick something else. The m:dicks are going to run amok; so can this per WP:DENY. Ruin their fun. OK, I know this will go ahead, so I'll watch the shit hit the fan tomorrow. Someone keep count of the sleepers flushed out; bonus points for any admin sleepers found." 13 January 2009.[189] User:Dream Focus: "This, however, is an encyclopedia, not a porn site or fan site. Wikipedia discriminates against content all the time per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; deal with it." 21 March 2009.[190] Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) : "Alas, poor Yorick… now needs watching for the pointy-minded. Oddjob certainly seem well covered in that list, so I see no issue with that redirect. Figwit is an excellant example of fanwank — an EILF, it would seem." 12 January 2009.[191] On indefinitely banned User_talk:Frei_Hans's page: This unblock request has been reviewed by a sockpuppet who found it hilarious. ...Jack Merridew, sockpuppet First Class. 10 July 2009[192] To User: SatuSuro at User_talk:Jack_Merridew "Speak in a less obscure voice or I'll simply ignore you." 7 January 2009.[193] Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) RE: Fiction survey 2009: "lulz" Move to User:Pixelface/Fiction Survey 2009 draft and ignore. 12 January 2009.[194] "Well, Pixelface's byzantine survey is being ignored, which is what I suggested. He's trucked that beast before and gotten the same result. I really don't see where I've commented on his character; I certainly have commented on his behavior and ideas (both poor)." 14 January 2009.[195] User_talk:Pixelface: "trout" template. 21 February 2009 [196] Jack Merridew's other disruptive behavior Giving suspected sock User:JoãoMiguel a barnstar, "for great justice and epic lulz" "For this amazing feat." referring to what Connolley wrote: "JM is to be congratulated. On only his 8th edit, he makes a near perfectly formed AN3 report (something, alas, that many more experienced editors fail to do)."[197]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

Warnings

ANI and Wikiquette alerts Warnings regarding A Nobody Warnings regarding Pixelface Warning regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman Warnings regarding Daedalus969 ANI and Wikiquette alerts A Nobody Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive530#Wikistalking_and_harassment_by_User:Jack_Merridew Daedalus969 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#User:Jack_Merridew_and_User:Daedalus969 created by User:Daedalus969. 5 July 2009.[198] Diffs history:[199] Mr. Merridew's unapologetic response: "Daedalus is a rather central figure in the whole Giano/Bishonen/Civility issue of the last — what? — six-weeks? He should not be surprised that he is getting some attention and given the circumstances that much of it is negative." 5 July 2009.[200] Other editors Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Jack_Merridew Warnings regarding A Nobody User:John Vandenberg after Jack called Fram a stalker and hounder: "Jack, your last few comments and edit summaries on this page are not helpful; you should avoid commenting on other users, especially people who you don't like." 10:17, 20 November 2009.[201] User:Fram at User talk:John Vandenberg: "So anyone still believes that [Jack Merridew] is not following A Nobody around, when the only AfD [Jack Merridew] comments in is one A Nobody is heavily editing[202], the only RfA [Jack Merridew] edits is one A Nobody opposes[203], and one of the five last articles [Jack Merridew] edited[204] is one where A Nobody had commented on the talk page only 3 hours before[205]? That's three out of Jack Merridew's last eight visited pages where he commented very shortly after A Nobody had edited them..." 15:36, 19 November 2009.[206] Final warning to Jack Merridew by admin Fram: "How about you don't ever comment on A Nobody again or get indefinitely blocked again? With your past, you have absolutely zero authority to suggest that someone else is "extremely disruptive" and "primarily responsible for creating the polarized I/D schism". You have been warned before to stay away from A Nobody. Consider this a last warning." 18 September 2009 [207] "Jack Merridew, stop commenting on A Nobody, just leave him completely and utterly alone. There are more than enough editors around who will comment on him or his actions when he goes too far. But you are definitely not the one to be doing this. Drop the comments, drop the attitude, or risk a lengthy block for disruption. A Nobody needs a thicker skin, but there's no need for you to put needles in it anyway." 27 April 2009 [208] User:DGG in WP:ANI Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew subsection: "Jack has now placed an AfD vote on two separate articles which A Nobody had previously placed a rescue template."[209] then [210], and [211] then [212] I see he's right when he said he had no intention of abiding by editing restrictions suggested here. Given the context and timing, he seems to be ignoring Kww's very sensible advice." 09:26, 14 April 2009.[213] User:SB_Johnny: "I think the best way to go is for the two of you to just try to avoid each other for a while without making a big statement about how you want to avoid each other." 15 April 2009.[214] "You know the best course of action is to stay away from [A Nobody], even if that means only avoiding him in face to face (as it were) encounters. ...Another thing that you have to realize is that you really are operating on a short leash. An unbanning w/ conditions kind up puts you in a very specific set of restrictions that most editors don't have to deal with. You know that, so I won't belabor the point. Just steer clear of trouble, don't try to make jokes with or about him and things will come out ok." 14 April 2009.[215] User:Kww in WP:ANI Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew subsection: Referring to Jack Merridew Pointedly tagging Oakdale,_Texas_(Wishbone_TV_series) with the rescue tag and adding a message to A Nobody's talk page[216], which mediator Casliber removed,[217], then warned Jack Merridew, "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what."[218] User:Kww: "I agree that this is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I'd have no objection to reinstating Jack's ban on that basis." 02:39, 13 April 2009.[219] User:Treasury tag: "...one thing that is obvious from the last three comments alone, is that A Nobody doesn't like you referring to him by his old username. And you still seem to be doing it. There's no reason to; he's perfectly accountable, with redirects and rename logs etc. - and if it upsets him, please just don't." 15:55, 12 April 2009.[220] "JM isn't blameless here, I've contemplating blocking or waring him for goading PF a few times, but this needs to stop." 22:39, 30 March 2009. User:Casliber: "Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place." 24 March 2009 [221] User:Hiding at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction): (L)et us recognise that [[WP:5P|Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers]], and ignore hyperbole which at worst can be seen as disruptive, against which certain users are [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions|proscribed]]. 10 February 2009. Response from Mr. Merridew: "Ya, right; defending the project against a flood of worthless articles is not disruptive." 10 February 2009.[222] User:Hiding at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)/Archive_48#This_isn.27t_about_fiction: The ends have never justified the means on Wikipedia. Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper, repeatedly disregarding other editors' explanations for their edits, campaigning to drive away productive contributors and generally creating an atmosphere of hostility are considered disruptive. Please tone your language down and respect other people and their opinions even if you disagree with them. 10 February 2009.[223] Response from Mr. Merridew: "Balderdash. My tone is just fine. I respect reasonable people and reasonable arguments. 12:31, 11 February 2009.[224] Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pixelface, Mr. Merridew wrote: "A lack of response amounts to contempt for the community." 10 January 2009 [225] At User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility warning by User:Randomran in response to contempt comment: "It's bad to bring criticisms of an editor into discussions about content or guidelines, because it turns Wikipedia into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. What's done is done. Moving forward, just try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ad hominem criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. Leave the editor's character off the table -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 14 January 2009.[226] User:Randomran: "Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain WP:civil with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making snippy remarks towards him." 14 January 2009. [227] User:Randomran: "Two wrongs don't make a right. Pixelface is being dealt with, and hopefully he'll learn his lesson. If he doesn't learn his lesson, sniping back at him isn't the appropriate response, even if he started it. If he should start up again, everything you need to know is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#For_incivility. Otherwise, try to focus on content rather than editors." 14 January 2009.[228] At User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility warning by User:A Nobody: "Jack, this is Wikipedia, a volunteer project, not a court of law. Volunteers are not required to comment anywhere. Neither Randomran nor I excuse incivility by anyone...If you dislike someone and think they are "ignorable" than you can do that without actually saying something, which is what ignoring actually is. Commenting in a mocking fashion just raises tensions and it distracts from the hard work efforts several editors are undertaking on that WP:FICTION talk page to try to come to a compromise after litterally years of disputes." User:A Nobody: "Jack, such comments and edit summaries as what you have here are rather unhelpful if not mocking of another user. It is unseemly to allege someone has "contempt for the community" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion. Look at how say Masem and Drilnoth replied, i.e. there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 14 January 2009.[229][230] Mr. Merridew's response User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility: "Pixelface certainly does have Bad Ideas® — that's a fact. If I ever see good faith from him, I'll acknowledge it. He is largely ignorable and definitely risible." 14 January 2009.[231] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface: "While it is abundantly clear that repeatedly reverting policy pages against consensus is disruptive and constitutes edit warring, it is NOT VANDALISM. Please, please, please do not revert his changes w/ no edit summary or with a summary like "rvv" or "vandalism" or anything like that. See WP:VAND#NOT for more information. No matter how pernicious he is, so long as he is an editor in relatively good standing with a good faith belief that the policy doesn't read the way it should, his edits aren't vandalism. That doesn't mean don't revert them. It means revert them with an informative edit summary that doesn't mischaracterize the edit. Thanks. 05:32, 31 December 2008.[232] User:Jack Merridew's response: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pixelface: "Yes, I should have used a better edit summary." Maaf. 31 December 2008.[233] User:Lar: "Hi... I strongly suggest you leave reverting Moulton to others...at least for now anyway. Your best course of action (after coming off a recent indef block) is to stay away from all drama as much as possible. Being involved with Giano is a high drama activity regardless of what "side" you are on... it's MAD in there if you ask me." 16:29, 14 December 2008.[234] User:Casliber: "Yep, I can vouch for that". 14 December 2008.[235] User:Casliber about Wikipedia:Plot: This sort of fun and games doesn't look so good so soon after an unban. 31 December 2008.[236] Mr. Merridew's response: " Basically they popped up on my watchlist and it seemed my duty to undo the disruption. This isn't 'fun and games' — he's disruptive." 31 December 2008.[237] Warnings regarding Pixelface Jack Merridew writes: "[Pixelface's] lack of response [to the RFC] amounts to contempt for the community." 14:37, 10 January 2009.[238] A Nobody: "It is unseemly to allege someone has "contempt for the community" and to then go ahead and dismiss that editor when he makes what looks like a good faith and constructive suggestion...there are ways to acknowledge a good faith effort to contribute and say you don't think it's a good idea without resorting to a more mocking tone that only escalates disputes and that again is out of place if at the same time you are trying to criticize that particular editor for his own behavior." 19:06, 13 January 2009.[239] Randomran: "Contempt for one editor is only slightly better than contempt for the community. If you think Pixelface has bad ideas, then just say so as a matter of fact. And in general, if you can't remain WP:civil with those you disagree with, then don't respond at all. The RFC/U with Pixelface is in progress, so let's not turn other discussions into a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making snippy remarks towards him." 22:40, 13 January 2009.[240] Jack Merridew's response in edit summary: "O RLY?"[241] From O RLY?: "The phrase "O RLY?" ("Oh, really?") is typically used in a sarcastic or sardonic manner, often in response to a statement that the speaker feels is obvious, or blatantly false and/or self-contradictory." Randomran: "...try to avoid making talk page discussion into an ad hominem criticism or mockery. If somebody has a bad idea, criticize the idea itself. Leave the editor's character off the table -- even if the community has sanctioned them for their behavior." 07:34, 14 January 2009.[242] Warning regarding Emmette Hernandez Coleman User:Franamax: "Jack, can you please back off User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman? Do you regularly edit this talk page, or are you following the editor about?" 20:06, 21 June 2009.[243] User:Franamax: "Hi Jack, can you please back off this user for a while? I've noted that of the last 5000 edits to Talk:Main Page, you have precisely two. Combine that with your statement/threat to [Emmette Hernandez Coleman] that they would "go on your watchlist", the fact that your comments appeared in response to a thread EHC started, and the unproductive tenor of your comments - well, I'm sure there's no need for me to start using any alphagettis I can pick out of the soup...Please don't continue in a course which appears to be application of "one man justice" 20:22, 21 June 2009.[244] Warnings regarding Daedalus969 User:Lar: "The upshot here in my view is that everyone ought to try to get along better. Jack, stop trying to get a rise out of Dae. Dae, continue to work on being more collegial, more mellow, and not overreacting to input [R]emember what I told you to say: "Thanks for the input, I will carefully consider it..." 15:59, 5 July 2009.[245] On User_talk:Lar Lar says to Jack: "I see you offering to give Jay pointers. Is that wise? I think you need to not interact with Daedalus969 at all... best to steer clear of situations that are high drama." 16:36, 3 June 2009[246] User:Lar: Jack... Just some advice. While you may well be within policy to remove things from your talk page, it's not really a very friendly way to handle messages... you may find it better to neutrally say "thanks for the input, I will consider it carefully" and leave the message, instead of sparring with others with snarky removal summaries as you've been doing with Dae. Try not to let people get your goat. In some cases that is exactly what they want. Don't give them the satisfaction (or the ammo to use later). I've suggested to Dae that their approach isn't likely to be effective. Hope that helps. 16:20, 31 May 2009.[247] User:Lar: Ok, digging around to try to find the backstory, I got a chance to read some of the posts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech around (before and after) this one. You both leave the impression that you need to grow up. "Sneers", "Jeers", "What the hell is your problem" ???? Completely inappropriate. You both know better. Knock it off. 16:45, 31 May 2009.[248]

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

One year block per "User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing...Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator."[249]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

A more minor issue, is how Jack Merridew has repeatedly glamorized his sockpuppet past.

RE:Superseded concern, see talk page link.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Contacted Jack Merridew.[250]

Discussion concerning Jack Merridew

Statement by Jack Merridew

Comments by others about the request concerning Jack Merridew

• I believe this request is superseded by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page#Summary of previous year. MBisanz ^talk 06:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing that the heading of that page says that the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute, it seems this request would throw a fork into that process. MBisanz ^talk 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how cute, the "inclusionists" have gone back to trying to get the "deletionists" banned. Can we all sing When you're a Jet your a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dying day! Hipocrite (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  Assume good faith. I just read through some of the closed bits. He has been warned on many occasions, and does seem to be doing harassing and stalking behavior. If that many administrators have warned him in the past, but he keeps on acting up time and again, doing the things he was specifically warned against, then I don't really see the point of continuing to just warn him. Ban him already. Dream Focus 01:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And please, please... let's not make this an inclusionist/delitionist wikidrama, as what is being questioned is whether or not Jack has violated any of the provisional conditions that were placed upon him as part of his ban being lifted... not almost-violated or violated-only-a-little... but whether the very real concerns and caveats set by arbcom have been breached in any way. If they have been, the call would be for enforcement of the arbcom decision. If they have not been breached in any way, then there will be no need to proceed further. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jack Merridew

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I believe ArbCom is taking this one head on.--Tznkai (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have spoken with a member of ArbCom, who will comment shortly. With their permission, I am re-archiving this request. SirFozzie (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirming that this thread should be closed at this time. Jack Merridew's contributions over the past year of mentorship are currently under review. Comments by non-mentors can go here. Risker (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

appeal against the restriction by Future Perfect

A couple of days ago I was put on restrictions by admin Future Perfect who in my humble opinion acted in controversial fashion. The story is as follows: I made a good faith edit in which I reverted some edit made by admin Future Perfect: [251] The revert was a minor one but I honestly didn't know you can't change name of city inside some quotes. It was a completely good faith mistake. But Future Perfect reacted by writing this long intimidatory rant on my talk page: [252] I was shocked by his tone and even more by the assumption of bad faith. Nevetheless I went to his talk and explained all those other edits he mentioned on my talk page and self-reverted the error I made. To my dismay the next day I arrived on wikipedia I see that apparently he followed me around and he put me on restrictions because of this, in my opinion perfectly valid, edit: [253] Apparently the big problem according to Future Perfect is I don't use edit summaries, well most editors in the area I edit don't use them too much either and singling me out seems weird to me.. but ok.

The problem is the restrictions itself:
"1. a 1R/24h on any page, with the following additional restrictions:
2. You must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary.
3. You may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion."

I find this problematic because:
1) I don't understand at all why I have to be put on 1R/24H since both times I have made only one single edit one of which I even self-reverted. This is like as if a policeman would give a guy a speeding ticket for going over 50mph and then say well you haven't crossed the 50mph but I give a ticket anyway so you won't speed in the future.
2) I admit I did not use edit summaries enough and I have to improve there. However imposing me that I have to always use edit summaries seems really harsh because I make tons of edits and many are totally self-explanatory
3) That one is completely problematic. I almost never edit for 3 hours in row, so basically he's condemning me to have to make a comment on talk page and wait for the next day to revert. In the mean time the page might have 3 or 4 others edits so doing the revert I wanted to do is really complicated for me. I have also examined some of the sanctions Future Perfect issues to other editors and I have not seen this 3 hours thing applied even to most crazy edit warriors and I completely don't get why I have to be treated worse than them. (in comparison with them my block log is clean). Loosmark (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to DGG

I have not reverted more than once why the hell have I to be put on 1RR for 6 months ???? This is surreal. Loosmark (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to Heimstern

"and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that" hear, hear. anyway I will state once again that I have not reverted more than once thus the 1RR imposed on me was and is totally unnecesary and I can't help but to think it was designed with the sole purpose to make me look like a problematic user. thus now the talk is that "I have to stay out of trouble" (even if there was no trouble - I did revert not more than once, and nobody complained about the lack of edit summary, nobody even noticed). Admin Future Perfect simply invented that there were problems. To make the whole story look worse the whole thing started with the reverting of German name of Polish city into Polish and dispute on German-Polish names cities where German admin Future Perfect shares the same POV as the German users. Many German users editing in the same area as me don't edit summaries, just like I didn't, and they don't even get a warning (why not?). Can I prepare a list of them and Future Perfect will put them on same restrictions as myself? He also accused me of "falsifying a source" even if I made a completely good faith error. Given that he was recently desyoped for 3 months, because of, among things, failure to asume good faith, it is all the more amazing that he's doing it again and fellow Admins pretend this didn't happen. Was I really trying to "falsify the source"? I have not falsified anything in my entire life. Was I reverting more than once? I wasn't, I made two single reverts one of each I even self-reverted. The is 1RR unnecesary and has to go. Loosmark (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Loosmark

Please use the correct format to make your request in the future, the instructions are in the bright red box at the top of this page.

These restrictions are relatively mild, they are formalization of good editing practices every editor should follow, especially in contentious areas. From looking into your history, this is not coming totally out of the blue, you've been given ample warning that some sort of editing restriction would follow unless you changed behavior. I would suggest you abide by them for a reasonable amount of time, then ask Fut.Perf to remove them on the grounds of being unnecessary.

I'm not finding fault with Fut.Perf's actions in this case. henrik•talk 15:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me why do I have to be put on 1RR if I have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem Fut.Perf tries to solve is lack of communication, the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. Also, this is not the place for extended discussions. Should another admin feel that Fut.Perf has behaved unreasonably and that I am mistaken, they will post that here. henrik•talk 15:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

the 1RR remedy is a manner of trying to get you to discuss changes rather than doing unexplained reverts. That doesn't make any sense. How can preventing me doing something I have not done encourage me to do anything? Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps if you edit within these restrictions without any problems for a couple of months, the editors here would be inclined to consider modifying or lifting them. If, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under.

I presume that the 3-hour restriction is meanwhile designed to discourage the slow-motion edit warring that a one-revert-per-day restriction would otherwise allow. Further, it will ecnourage you to explain your edits and wait for input before reverting — an area where the diffs provided seem to suggest you do need improvement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

if, as you say, you never revert more than once in 24 hours anyway, you shouldn't find that a difficult or onerous condition to continue to edit under. If I have not reverted more than once in 24 hours I simply should be put on 1RR in first place. Going by this logic we could for example put everybody who didn't revert more than once on 1RR and then say well you won't have problem being inside 1RR. Loosmark (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Henrik's advice, and would also propose a fixed term, for example six months. I wonder if there was any reason for FP to restrict Loosmark on *all* articles, not just those subject to Digwuren. In my opinion, Loosmark should be able to appeal here to have the restriction lifted after three months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, could you please explain why I have to be put on a 1RR? Because I still don't get it. Loosmark (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

re to Henrik bellow: Again what problems? There were no problems. You are trying to me paint me as a problematic user when clearly I am not. The only one who saw problems was Admin Future Perfect who "beat me down" with restriction awhile after I reverted him. (and that is a clear case of conflict of interests, since we both edited the article he should have called another admin to warn me and deal with me). I also have not reverted more than once and yet am I put on a 1 RR. I have now repeatedly asked Future Perfect why I need to be put on 1RR and he gives me no answer. I bet because there is no answer. Loosmark (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem, to quote from Fut.Perf.: I have now repeatedly seen you making contentious reverts without even the common courtesy of a minimally informative edit summary (e.g. [254], [255], [256], [257]. This, in itself, is disruptive, and I am therefore now officially warning you (again) to be more careful when making reverts, as you were already close to being sanctioned for disruptive revert-warring a few weeks ago.

Most areas of Wikipedia are not very contentious, but when you chose to edit areas which has longstanding historical problems you must meet a higher standard of conduct. The things that are merely good ideas elsewhere become essential to avoid unnecessary conflicts. One important aspect of that is to always explain your actions thoroughly. Reverting without discussing essentially says to the other editor "your edit was worthless, and not only was it worthless - it was so bad I can't be bothered to explain why". This leads to tons of unnecessary strife and bad blood, and can poison the atmosphere so that collaboration becomes impossible. That is why edit summaries and restricting reverts are essential. I hope I've both explained what the problem was and why (I think) Fut.Perf. chose these remedies. (Had you simply included edit summaries explaining why you did those reverts, I doubt you'd be here today) henrik•talk 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Henrik are you even aware that the last time I tried to interect with the editor whom I reverted he told me to "go somewhere else"?[258]. As such don't you think that maybe I understandbly wasn't to motivated to explain him my revert? And another thing is that there are tons of German users who doesn't use edit summaries either but since they share Future Perfect's same POV he doesn't care to restric them. The reality of the matter is the following: my not using edit summaries caused no disruption and caused no other problems, nobody reported me anywhere, nobody even complained. It all of a sudden became a big problem moments after I reverted admin Future Perfect for which he accused me of "falsifying the source" no less, which is a colossal failure to asume good faith. Since somewhere bellow he mentioned his work in the Balkan area I think he forgot to mention this [259]. Seems sort of a deja-vu. And with all due respect you still haven't explained why I need to be put on 1RR, you only explained the edit summaries part. Loosmark (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

Just two notes: the thing about the three-hours waiting period may sound uncommon to some, but I've previously done the same thing in Balkans cases under WP:ARBMAC, and I find it works quite well in some cases. Second thing: as I already said on the ANI thread, it appears I forgot to place a fixed expiry date on this sanction. I'm quite open to have this modified: if other admins would prefer to limit this restriction to a fixed duration (like, 6 months or whatever), we can fix it here; otherwise, I intend to let it run for a few months and then lift it if Loosmark stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What trouble? There was no trouble, nobody even complained about me. I didn't reverted more than once and you put me on a 1RR, you still haven't explained that one. Loosmark (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on the emerging consensus here, I'll set an expiry date of 6 months and add a clarification that the limitation extends only to Eastern-Europe-related topics. My offer of lifting it earlier than that in case of good conduct stands, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have you put me on a 1RR if have not reverted more than once? Loosmark (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning appeal

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• I find no reason to overrule Fut.Perf. in this matter. We'll leave it open for a while longer to allow others to chime in though. (side note: Setting an expiration time of, say, 6 months might not be a bad idea - it's a more definite and easier to understand restriction. If any problems reoccur at that time, it can always be reinstated. If the only reason was that is was forgotten originally, we might as well take care of it here) henrik•talk 16:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with setting a time limit. An indefinite 1RR is rarely justified. 6 months seems OK; so would 3. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this since Loosmark considers me to be FutPerf's "buddy" and won't accept me as neutral (and to be fair, there's probably some truth to that), but just a reminder that he said himself that he'd be willing to lift it earlier for good behaviour. So if indeed you don't revert more than once, you should be able to get off your restriction fairly soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008

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

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Xenos2008

User requesting enforcement

Anothroskon (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Xenos2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

ARBMAC#Final_decision

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

#[260] Racist comments violate the Decorum principle.

1. [261] All caps entry, uncivil, inflamatory edit summary violates the Decorum principle.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

#[262] Warning by Michael IX the White (talk · contribs)

1. [263] Warning by Alexikoua (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban on Greek and Balkan related articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ARBMAC is sufficiently broad in scope to deal with this case and apply to all Balkan and Greek related topics.

User has been notified here.

Discussion concerning Xenos2008

User:Xenos2008 has made exactly one edit in the last month and does not appear to be active. I fail to see the need for imposing restrictions in the absence of ongoing problems. henrik•talk 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not preclude the possibility that the user will return to past editing habits in future, still labouring under the misapprehension that WP tolerates the kind of racism exhibited in above diffs.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If and when the user does return to problematic editing, feel free to submit a new request at that time. henrik•talk 17:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree to closing this. But what about the comments above? Should they be taken to ANI or is the point that one can make racist comments and face no consequences if they take a wikibreak being made? Thanks. --Anothroskon (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally ANI is only interested in ongoing problems. The specific diffs you pointed out were dealt with at the time, one resulted in a block, the other in a caution not to engage in the same behavior he accused his opponents of. henrik•talk 17:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xenos2008

Comments by others about the request concerning Xenos2008

Result concerning Xenos2008

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

• User not active, no action required. henrik•talk 17:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sander Säde

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Sander Säde

User requesting enforcement

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sander Säde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [264] - Sander Säde makes his customary personal attack of WP:CENSORED and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in a content dispute.
2. [265] - Accusing me of ethnic prejudice in a loaded edit summary.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy)

1. Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Sander Säde: Warning by Arbitration Committe specifically in WP:DIGWUREN.
2. Subsequent warning about discretionary sanctions from Thatcher [266] after rebuke by the Arbs.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Any appropriate action suitable for eradication of battleground behavior and egregious incivility towards content opponents, which has persisted (ex.: [267], [268], [269], etc.) long after ArbCom expressed its concerns for this very type of behavior in WP:DIGWUREN–notice however, his hypocritical loaded attack here: [270]. Despite ArbCom's statement, as early as December of 2007, he was already once again entirely back at it, and, on account of his personal attacks, was blocked by El C for calling a user a "liar and hate-monger." Sander Säde's battleground behavior in the last instance is just his latest step over the line.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sander Säde is a noted Eastern European disputes edit warrior, having been sanctioned together with Digwuren and other hostile and aggressive Estonian editors for their conduct in 2007 (see WP:DIGWUREN). Sander Säde is presently involved in the about-to-close WP:EEML AbrCom case as a member of a closed mailing list which engaged in disrupting the project through edit warring, canvassing, and harrassing opponents of the mailing list team.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[271].

Discussion concerning Sander Säde

Statement by Sander Säde

Anti-Nationalist (talk · contribs) (previously PasswordUsername (talk · contribs)) is well known for his attempts to censor Wikipedia by removing text he doesn't like - as well as his inserts of ethnically prejudiced material into the articles.

This "content dispute", as he calls it, started when he removed section sourced in a scientific monography with an edit summary "Poorly cited dubious claim from non-academic press, apparently not mentioned in scholarly literature. Find page #, verify." Not "{{verify}}" or discussing on the talk page, he just flat out removes a section that displeases him, despite it being well-sourced. This is a very clear case of censoring article based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His reaction to my revert and source insert edit summary, neither of which mentions him in any way... In Estonian, there is a saying that can be roughly translated as "That dog yelps who gets hit", I guess comparable saying in English is "If the shoe fits.."

The whole "content dispute" or edit warring was in total one removal of well-sourced material by him and me reinstating it - and adding second source to a very well-known fact. No more, no less. This report is nothing more then an attempt to get rid of what he perceives as content opponent.

Now, let's see other activities by PU/AN:

• Children are often molested. to Crime in Estonia (that edit tells you absolutely everything about his views and his goals). And I beg you, please go and see his other edits to that article. Never have I seen attempts so blatantly insert one-sided material, absolutely irregardless of quality or even relevance of the material - absolutely everything goes, as long as Estonia can be made to look worse.
• Edit-warring in a very high-visibility BLP article (Jaak Aaviksoo, Estonian Minister of Defense). Together with his team-mates, PasswordUsername attempts to insert material describing Jaak Aaviksoo as being dressed in Nazi symbols - a claim that was not present in any source, and as it came out, Jaak Aaviksoo didn't even participate in that event. Only his reverts/edits: [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277].
• Edit-warring with his associates in another BLP article, Mark Siryk, to include health material sourced in a web forum and remove well-sourced material how the subject paid for people to participate in a demonstration. Overall, 18 edits, including at least four attempts to reinstate BLP-violating health information: [278], [279],

[280], [281].

• Kaitsepolitsei: [282], [283] - PasswordUsername attempts to insert material equating Estonian Security Police with Nazi Political Police, based on the similarities of a translated name. That despite the fact that all Kaitsepolitsei members were murdered by Soviet forces during their occupation before the Nazi occupation - and that Republic of Estonia did not de facto exist.
• Prejudiced editing and edit warring in Monument of Lihula (among others, attempts to change dedication into completely false "pro-Nazi" and "collaborationist"): [284] (edit summary "lol, Estonia wasn't independent."), [285], [286] ("Reasonable? It obviously honors collaboration fighters."), [287], [288], [289], [290], [291],

[292], [293]

• His recent activities include calling other editors nationalists whenever they don't agree with him: [294], [295] and more. In fact, there were recently two lengthy AN/I threads about his insulting behavior ([296], [297]) and an username policy thread about his use of the new username as a blank ticket to attack others.

I could go on and on, showing his prejudiced edit warring, even found to be so by an analysis of an uninvolved administrator (here). Lengthier analysis of his activities can be found in evidence of an ongoing ArbCom case.

--Sander Säde 11:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Sander Säde

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.