Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody

I don't know what more to do, but even after Casliber's talk page warning in March he still sees fit to comment to or about me at every turn. See, for example,

• Notice the "jeers": [1]
• At the top you see that he inaccurately assumes I was talking about him and he also edits my post: [2]
• Think of all the other supporters who do not see fit to mention me specifically: [3]
• Mischaracterization of my merges, which the closer ultimately agreed with: [4]

• I work on rescuing an article and his sole AFD contribution thus far today is to say to delete it (note I have avoided saying anything in the discussion).

• I tag an article for rescue, and his sole AfD comment for the day is also to delete it.

• Saying someone should be blocked for opposing, which even those who disagreed strongly with me thought not right (by the way, I have switched to neutral in that RfA anyway).

• I work to rescue articles on the 3rd through 5th of March (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and he shows up on the 5th with copy and paste WP:ITSCRUFT comments (see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]). Someone who makes those kind of "arguments" has the audacity to criticize my participation in AfDs (see below)?! Similarly, please note the edit history of this AfD, i.e. who came to the discussion first and second.

For background, Pixelface and I were among the few editors convinced by White Cat’s evidence that Merridew was indeed a sock and had to contend with the usual hyperbole about us assuming bad faith until it was confirmed and Merridew was blocked as a sock of Davenbelle who had several socks with which he used to harass various inclusionist editors FOR YEARS. And now, after arbcom unblocked him under strong conditions that he not antagonize anyone or cause any disruption of any kind, he is making a joke out of his being a sock account: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. The "lulz" is also consistent with the attack site Encyclopedia Dramatica. Given that he was blocked for long term use of socks as harassment, it is hardly "funny" about his being a sock and given what’s on ED about various editors, why use that site’s catchphrases? Would you think it would be a big slap in the face and insult if say I did the same thing? There is also this pointed use of the rescue template: [20]. I am increasingly seeing it as a bad idea having allowed him back as he has numerous instances of pointed or bad taste edits with limited good edits to boot, whether it's the above or other instances where he referred to me by my old username mockingly. Casliber has recently reverted an edit Merridew made to my talk page and then told him to leave me alone: [21], but… I comment in one AFD on one day and argue to delete and notice the post immediately after mine... [22]. That AfD is not an April Fools prank for one thing... Now see this. If you check, his so called apology is [23], i.e. a post by Pixelface.

This has been going on for quite sometime. Even a few months back, I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User_talk:Jack_Merridew/Archive_3#Less_than_civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see [24], for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this and as seen above, Casliber is even his arbcom agreed mentor even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that many are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions.

Even after that, I have had to endure his insults, while he makes swear-word laden joke "votes", or attempts at humor rather than approaching these things seriously and with policy/guideline based reasons.

I tried to welcome this user back, I tried to help him work on an article that became a DYK, and I have even tried avoiding replying to him given Casliber's warning. So, efforts to reconcile have apparently failed. And my efforts to ignore him and an admin's warning that he avoid me is not succeeding either. I want this user to leave me alone already. He harassed White Cat for years and I don't want to be his new target. As can be seen in several recent threads, I am avoiding responding to him. Given that after ArbCom allowed for a mentor who has outright told him to leave me alone and given that arbcom has told him not to do anything disruptive, this is entirely unacceptable. Once someone is told by an admin mentor to leave someone else alone and I am doing my best to avoid him and even reiterated as much at 17:14, 11 April 2009, it did not stop him from making no less than five times afterwards on the 12th still commenting to or about me in a confrontational manner. I am not asking for a request for comment on him or even for him to be blocked; just to not become the new White Cat for him. I don't know if this is revenge because I was right back in Episodes and characters 2 when I accurately believed White Cat or what, but Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told Jack about this thread; interesting that you didn't have the common courtesy to inform him yourself. Reyk _YO! 08:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to comment on everything else (I have to go do stuff) but his "swear-word laden joke 'votes'" appear to be just that; jokes. I hesitate to really use the plural since you've only provided evidence of one, but I thought it was worth mentioning that I, at least, see it as nothing more than an attempt at humour. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much those ones as it is making a joke out of being a sockpuppet. His account is a block evading sock that was used to harass another editor (White Cat) for years and when called out for it, those including myself were treated like massive assumers of bad faith. Thus, making a hoke of that is not really funny and I guarantee if I were to do the same thing it would insult some. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that JM has an abrasive attitude. However, your stalking seems unfounded: JM probably looks at your contribs the same way you keep a gander on other editors' (I imagine that's how you settled on spamming an ARS banner at astromech droid and something-something space navy). I also check out your recent contribs to amalgamate diffs for your bound-to-happen-eventually RFC, and occasionally this also prompts me to respond and follow-up -- that's why the link is there, after all. His "insults" at your editor review were not insulting at all -- although they ruffled your feathers by diverging from the complimentary stuff. The "swear-word laden joke 'vote'" included one word -- "shitty" -- to describe an article about poop -- lighten up. It's a crass sense of humor, but you're really grasping at straws and looking for a reason to be upset. Rather than digging up every single potential diff in an attempt to be exhaustive, how about instead confining yourself to examples that actually hold water (here, and in general). --EEMIV (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People should be here to edit Wikipedia, not follow around others contribs. I come upon fiction articles by going to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As I know I have had disputes with certain editors, such as yourself who has seen fit to laugh at me and others in your userspace, I deliberately avoid commenting in every AfD you start just so you don't feel overly hounded. He however is being deliberately antagonistic to me after being told by his arbcom approved mentor to not comment to or about me further. Ergo he is violating his agreement to return to editing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an answer as to why we're not coming to mutual terms as discussed on my talk page, it's that you continue stuff like this. Jack isn't stalking you, none of this stuff falls well short of WP:CIVIL, and you're only working to incite more drama on the subject by bringing it to ANI. The Jimbo Wales comments are jokes; there's nothing disruptive about them, especially since it was April Fools and intended to be jokes as such. The editor review comments are critical but not insulting, neither is his RfA comments, and there's absolutely nothing disruptive about "delete cruft" !votes in AfDs as much as it's against your inclusion philosophy. Also, as a general note, giant stream of consciousness posts make conversing with you extremely difficult, and you'd be better served by stating your points much more concisely. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I made jokes about sockpuppets how do you think people would act? You don't seriously think that would be received as a slap in the face? I am tired of being treated hypocritically. And as regards you, notice in Kww's RfA, for example, I did NOT reply to your specific support. You however see fit to reply to me there and in other RfAs. So, no matter what I do in good faith with regards to certain editors, they just won't give me a fair shake. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really this dense? I'm mean really, they're April Fools jokes. Good God. Go cry me a river. He was joking by being self-deprecating on day where you're supposed to act as such. Another reason why we're not on good terms: you can't differentiate between trivial and non-trivial slights to you to save your life and making comments like these only reinforces the notion that you're either incredibly biased or have no sense of humor whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're on bad terms it because you continue to unjustifiably treat me incivilly and hypocritically. Usually I support candidates, but when I do oppose, notice I don’t comment to Sephiroth’s supports, but he comments to my opposes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Seraphim_Whipp, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Anonymous Dissident (moved to talk page), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 (I deliberately avoid challenging his support, but he challenges my challenges to others’ supports in which they mentioned me directly or my oppose directly), Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S@bre (again moved to talk page), etc. It’s just curious that someone I consciously try to avoid going after in RfAs wants to accuse me of badgering by making it a point to comment to or about me in these discussions. It’s apparently only okay to bully those of a different viewpoint if those of his viewpoint are the ones doing it. And now here, I guarantee if I made a joke about sockpuppets people would indeed cry foul, whereas it is apparently okay if someone else does so. I don't know what more to say to you if you cannot see a problem in it not being funny for someone to make sockpuppet jokes when they were previously banned for using sockpuppets to harass another editor. That's not about having a sense of humor, it's about some stuff just not being funny. If you think someone who used sockpuppets to harass someone making a joke of it is funny, then I really don't know what more to say. And for the record, I have a sense a humor... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...it just boggles the mind that you don't get it. They're jokes on April Fools Day. Why on earth is this suddenly slanderous towards you of all people? Why the hell do you care? This is so ridiculously trivial. Also, how the hell is my RfA !votes suddenly relevant to the discussion? Another problem that you have: you bring in entirely irrelevant material on the person you're addressing rather than addressing the actual point itself. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't complain whilst you do things like badger people who don't agree with you and slander RfA candidates that you don't want to succeed, notably at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kww_2, and including this oppose on a different RfA which was a personal attack on both the RfA nominee and Kww. If you do things like that, what do you expect? 81.157.94.61 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The above is the IP's first edit... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this has been posted to this page before; last week re Pixelface. My editing is rather widely watched, and my older contributions have been well reviewed. Anyone who cares to, can check what they like.

So, I commented on A Nobody's actions at Foxy Loxy's RfA and suggested he should be blocked and that

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody was overdue.

There's more on all this at;

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A Nobody's oppose vote on Foxy Loxy's RFA

He gave this edit above, where I referenced his blocked sock in the edit summary. Note what I said to him:

• If Pixelface, and others such as yourself, don't want to be the subjects of my comments, be better editors.

G'day, Jack Merridew 11:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)made a slight redaction here Jack Merridew 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is this, his admin mentor has told him to leave me alone. It is absolutely unacceptable for someone who is arbcom sanctioned for long term harassment and stalking of another editor to resume his antics instead with me. He continues to mockingly refer to my old username as above and is disregarding Casliber's instructions. He continues to arrogantly critique my contributions, while most of his edits are just joke edits rather than being here to seriously edit Wikipedia. I am leaving him alone, he needs to do the same for me already. Any continued comments to or about me beyond this post will be blatant and obvious ongoing harassment and I hope that his mentors will see fit that it does not continue. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to game the system to avoid being held accountable for your bad faith, battleground mentality, and disruption. WP:DUCK. It's late here. G'Night, Jack Merridew 15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just stumbled into this thread, not read any links or looked into any past history. However, 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. As I say, I've not looked into, and cannot comment on, anything else. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is also seeking to avoid accountability for actions he engaged in using those prior accounts. Now after midnight — G'night, Jack Merridew 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet dreams!

However, for the morning... Surely the two most obvious means of accountability is a redirect from the old userpage. I don't see that WP:CHU requires anything else. Sure, the log seems to have been scrambled for some reason, but that's not anything that can be changed by anyone now. He seems to be perfectly open about the issue, and even if he wasn't, he clearly dislikes you using his old name, and there's no real practical reason to that I can see. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I explain my edit history at User:A Nobody/RfA#Comments regarding block log. Durova, DGG, and Randomran can all confirm that I have shared photographic evidence substantiating my claims of harassment that I would be foolish to post on wiki or to share with anyone of questionable trustworthiness. The facts are that as I am a strong inclusionist who does have success in keeping article histories at least as seen at User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions, I am a magnet for deletionist sock farms. Good faith deletionists get along with me fine. In many ways, I respect Collectonian, Stifle, and others. I have at times even regarded Reyk and EEMIV as reasonable and fair. I don't want enemies. But I have been the target of the following now indefinitely blocked account and their literally scores of associated accounts that have perpetuated a distorted version of my edits that some unfortunately continue to either believe or find convenient to also perpetuate for self-serving purposes: User:AndalusianNaugahyde, User:AnteaterZot, User:Lord Uniscorn, User:Eyrian, User:Graevemoore, User:Dannycali, User:Blueanode, User:Everyme, etc. These are so numerous as to not be isolated incidents, but rather what has dogged me in my whole time as an editor and some of these aforementioned users have sent me swear-word laden emails, posted stuff on Wikipedia Review, etc. Every time there has been any discussions on me here, it has been blown out proportion thanks to the hyperbole, lies, and mischaracterizations by these and their various associated accounts. When there's enough of them (I have been targeted by at least a half dozen differnet sock farms) it is usually after the fact when it is discovered that many of the comments in any given thread on me where made by one or more of the socks associated with the above. I am tired of it already. If I was such an evil person as they paint, I would not have User:A Nobody#List of editors who have agreed with my arguments or made other nice observations about my efforts and User:A Nobody#Barnstars, cookies, smiles, and thanks. Again, we know the subject of this discussion has done this stuff in the past as well. I really wish some of the above could put down their disdain for me and not be blinded by that. As I said recently in Kww's RfA, perhaps he was right and I was wrong when it came to undoing this user's indefinite block, because he is outright saying above that he still wants to follow me around and does so while still mocking me. I don't come here to drag him through the mud or to avoid scrutiny for myself. I am know I am not perfect. I know I have made mistakes. But no one here should have to put up with someone refusing to let them be when their arbcom sanctioned mentor has already told them to in fact leave that user alone. I am tired of faux and needless tensions and drama. And I am not going to be called out on my past when someone makes a joke of his being a sock. I am not going to be belittled for my AfD contributions by someone who uses copy and paste posts that cite no policies or guidelines or just let's have fun posts. As at Foxy Loxy's RfA, I am happy to reconsider my stances. I am not always right. I know that. I admit as much. I nor anyone else should have to be bullied beyond that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen no one state that they believe your off-wiki harassment assertion; a statement of belief of veracity by someone would serve you well here. I see the vanishing and return and admonishments to not refer to your quite contentious past as disingenuous at best.
• I don't know most of those sock accounts (exception being Everyme); they're certainly not me, if anyone is wondering.
• You frequently refer to my AfD comments as 'dishonest' — which is a personal attack.
• nb: I just reformatted some of your links as they were not line-wrapping well.

Jack Merridew 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that I've seen the evidence of ongoing harassment off-wiki. I think baiting someone in these circumstances is despicable. I've said elsewhere that if some of A nobody's comments are misguided, one can say so without descending to that. And, indeed, most people opposing him do so much more fairly. The deliberate use of a former name is, in my eyes, confirmation of continuing bad faith and the intent to persist in it. DGG (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your post is the first such confirmation that I've seen, and I'll accept it; I don't need details. I will refrain from refering to his prior username as much as is possible. He doesn't get a pass on concern about his past editing, though. FWIW, I'll assert that I'm not in anyway involved with him in an off-wiki sense; I've likely not been within 10.000km of him since I first encountered him on-wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way WP:TLDR

I understand that other users in the past have agreed to not edit the same pages. Is this something that may work for both parties?

It seems obvious to me that there is some stalking here....Ikip (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree generally with User:Sephiroth BCR. Folks reviewing this thread to determine the merits of the complaint are invited to look hard at the accusations and ascertain whatever meat they may have. It is my opinion that JM takes some measure of pride in being prickly when the inclusion/deletion debate comes up and that he is much less civil than I would like. However A Nobody is not blameless, most of the complaints made here are, in my opinion, without a strong basis in fact, and it would be improper to treat this as an "one the one hand" sort of dispute. I'm 'involved' as it were, so I won't fully express my opinions here, but admins and editors are asked to please avoid taking claims made here at face value. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are also invited to see that for someone who allegedly "don't want to have anything to do with you", you have a strange habit of continuously showing up in practically every AN/I thread I start, which is great because I don't see fit to comment in everything you do... As such, any objective admin would see that only those with past incivility and hypocrisy against me would not surprisingly come to the other editor's defense. Again, please don't be blinded by your own animosity towards me. But you can say that you said yourself you didn't want anything to do with me, so you're only going against your own words. JM, however, was sanctioned by ArbCom not to do anything disruptive and assigned mentors to see to it that doesn't happen. One of those mentors told him to not comment to or about me any further. While I have followed that advice even though I am not under the same restrictions, it has not stopped him. As such, he has violated the terms of his unblock. It's not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it is glaringly clear. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me and you. I'm sorry that you can't move past things and that you mistake disagreement and frustration for hypocrisy. I really do pity you. Protonk (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't and it's disappointing here, because we are talking about someone who used multiple accounts to harass another editor for years (by contrast, I had two confirmed accounts and one likely and I was never subject of using them by arbcom for long term harassment). When White Cat presented convincing evidence to that effect and I agreed with him, both he and I had the same hyperbolic denigration as if we were the ones assuming bad faith, i.e. the kind of stuff we were right about, but was used to damage our reputations. And now after I actually supported allowing him back and as his talk page shows welcomed him back, you would think he would be apologetic if anything. Instead, he treats me high-handedly and when an admin operating in the specific function as his own wiki mentor tells him to just avoid me, he blatantly disregards it. All I want from this thread is to not have someone who bullied another editor now take up the bullying and mocking against me instead. I already tried to proactively edit nicely with him. It was rebuffed. I tried avoidance, but it's not stopping him even after a warning from an admin. I am here to build a paperless encyclopedia, not to be bullied. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all you wanted why didn't you say that in your first response to me? why bother accusing me of hypocrisy and what-not and dredging up that archived conversation? Protonk (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you seem to be dismissing something I have had to put up with for long before you and I ever clashed, although way back to when he denigrated those his disagreed with as sinners whose day will come. It is remarkable frustrating given these past experiences to have it trivialized. Oddly enough, you were someone with whom I really hoped I'd eventually come to friendly terms with again and so when I see things like here, it's just a let down of sorts. Please review the editor we are discussing's history. What I am saying here is consistent with how he targetted another user and whether he's going about it more craftily or if I'm getting flak because of some's experiences with me, I don't know, but it's there and I don't want to be harangued by someone with such a history. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your primary problem. Somehow you have confused the fact that I question the veracity of your claims (I do) with the possibility of us coming to some friendly terms. It is not a requisite that I agree with you on certain issues for us to have some sort of mutual respect. I have serious concerns that you are misrepresenting JM's behavior in this report. The fact that I voice those concerns shouldn't impact a 'friendship'. That's why I feel sorry for you. Protonk (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then just go with the undeniable docuemntable facts: 1) he has been sanctioned by arbcom for long-term harassment; 2) he is unblocked per an arbcom agreement with multiple restrictions including mentoring by Casliber; 3) he has done unwelcome things with regards to me such as mocklingly referring to me by my old username; 4) after an escalation of tensions, he was warned by Casliber to not comment to or about me any further; 5) despite that warning he has continued to do so. Within there, I tried welcoming him back, I tried helping him get a DYK, etc. and in both instances was received high handedly. So, I tried avoidance even with his on-wiki mentor warning him and he still saw fit to comment to or about me. If he does so even after his arbcom appointed mentor says not to, I don't know what will prevent him from policing my edits, i.e. what else can I do? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's FINE. Going with the undeniable facts and making accusations based on concrete evidence is good. I was making the point that not all your claims were backed by such unimpeachable evidence and that we would be lead astray should we take them on face value. I think that when this all comes out in the wash, we will find that JM messed up in a big way and may be sanctioned. I just don't want to do so under a flimsy premise. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting that you have brought this edit of mine up again. That edit was presented as evidence in E&C 2. You called me a religious fanatic, which I most certainly am not. It seems to me that your reaction to me is due to a perception of irreverence on my part; you really, really, don't like my sense of humour, for example. Jack Merridew 06:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual topicban proposal

Proposed: A.Nobody and Jack Merridew are hereby completely forbidden for six months from:

1. Commenting to each other anywhere onwiki, including each others' talkpages, with the sole exception of formulaic community-mandated notifications;
2. Commenting about each other anywhere onwiki, with the sole exception of responding to AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases brought by the other;
3. Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin; (NB: I suggest a list of such admins be drawn up so there can be no shopping.)
4. Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other--e.g., A.Nobody tags an article for rescue, Jack Merridew must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. Likewise, Jack starts an AFD, A.Nobody must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion.

It should be emphasised that in light of points 1 and 2, any attempt by either of these two to game the proposed restrictions via baiting, veiled references, or any other type of wikilawyering end-run should be viewed extremely dimly by admins. Infractions to be met by the usual series of escalating blocks. ADDED: To put it in a much simpler way, I propose the two of them be told to stay the hell away from each other, permanently.

Thoughts? //roux   17:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would keep each other from accusations of gaming the system (although XfD would be more effective). I see no reason for them to continue going off on these fora unless their interactions in the past have produced something worthwhile to the project. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back I tried a proactive approach with regards to this editor as seen at User_talk:Casliber/Archive_23#Moon_of_Pejeng. On one hand, the article did become a DYK, but as you can see his reaction was once again mocking and unreceptive (I have Casliber's page watchlisted as he is someone with whom I interact frequently and my edits to my RfA criteria on my userspace are general and can apply to several editors--that's at least twice now that he assumed I am referring to him when I actually wasn't). Anyway, when the effort to help out was met poorly, I instead tried to avoid/ignore, which even with Casliber warning him to do the same just hasn't worked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So yes but really no. Is it agreeable that if this is the last thread either of you will need to directly communicate (or indirectly, as it were), we'll all be in a better place? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would be best not to comment to or about each other on user talk pages, in RfAs, on AN/I, in AfDs, or in RfCs as doing so in any capacity beyond this thread is detrimental to the project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to the above, but also suggest that it include: "Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If both of them are comfortable with it, I wouldn't mind being the contact for #3. So long as they understand that I'm usually only available for short periods twice a day. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell per this and this, you are indeed a neutral admin when it comes to us. So, fine by me. It may be wise having a few though. I think we both respect Casliber, so he seems a natural possibility. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many hands make light work. I'm volunteering because I've seen your names many times in many fora, and haven't the faintest idea what the problem is. So you two will need to fill me in, and I'll try to help you bring this to a mutually satisfying end. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to SB Johnny working as some sort of mediator here; please note that Cas has a {{busy}} tag displayed at the moment; I've not heard from him re this, and am obviously all for working with him, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • No.4 is impractical, because this could be used to pre-empt Jack from making comments to any of a wide range of AfDs, or similarly to prevent A Nobody from defending a wider range of Afds. Similarly for A Nobody's own suggestion. Let's see how 1, 2, and 3, work by themselves. DGG (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would rather not comment in some AfDs and have us avoid each other. AfDs won't suffer if either of us don't comment. The key is here is that he isn't given free reign to just go after every article I do try to defend just becasue I am the one defending it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's wait for Jack to weigh in before making any promises, OK? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice job roux, if both parties agree you deserve a peace barnstar. I think A Nobody's suggestion to add: "Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on." is fair. With 2 million articles, that leaves a lot of articles to delete which A nobody didn't signifigantly work on. Ikip (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the suggestion (#1) that they can only communicate with each other via templates. We don't need to be encouraging formletterspeak, especially not for users between whom personal relations are already strained. I also object to the last suggestion (#4) on the basis that improving articles and preventing bad deletions should supersede any kind of wiki-restraining order, at least in my mind. However, the others (#2) and (#3) are trivial things to sacrifice. — CharlotteWebb 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given how many articles we have and how many AFDs take place, I am willing in the interest in deescalation to avoid each other per #4 as well. There's always something else either can work on and given that Wikipedia has no deadline, if something is deleted that shouldn't have been, it can always be brought back and vice versa. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this appropriate; it isn't dispute resolution, it's fatigue. This is the sort of thing A Nobody and Pixelface have been seeking; to gag a critic and the removal of me from AfDs on less than stellar articles. I've commented on a fairly small number of AfDs in the last some months and have only ever started about 4. I comment on their actions because I believe their actions need commenting on and I'm far from the only editor with critical opinions of them. I've suggested a RFC/U re A Nobody several times, as have others; indeed it was being spoken of in Sept/Oct as a requirement for his return from faux-vanished status, but it was not followed up on. I have not started this myself because he has said several times that he would 'ignore' and/or 'not respect' an RFC/U started by myself or any of his opponents (sorry, no diffs handy, but it's out there; mebbe he'll clarify). His attitude re an RFC/U is itself of concern and while I could initiate this step in DR regardless of his stated stance, it would be best if someone else took the lead. See WP:DR; I'm going to review it, again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is apparent that he is unwilling to leave me alone per his ArbCom appointed mentor's advice. That someone would not be willing to leave someone alone when told by an admin to do so and when strongly requested on AN/I to do so demonstrates an unhealthy and inapproriate fixation. There is no reason why under such circumstances anyone would not be able to comply. It is clear that if he comments any further to or about me anywhere beyond this AN/I thread that it will indeed be ongoing harassment. I have tried being nice to him, I have tried avoiding him, he has been told by an admin to leave me alone. Rather than trying to build articles, he is devoting his efforts to hounding myself and Pixelface as the new White Cats in his sights. I am stating this outright and essentially reiterating Casliber's instructions, it is unacceptable for this editor to follow me around any further. There is absolutely no legitimate reason on a site with 2 million articles why he would have a need to cross paths with me. I have even avoided participating further in the WP:FICT discussions because I do not want to be harangued by this editor any further. Anything he does beyond this thread will be clear retaliation and clear refusal to leave an editor alone after being instructed by an admin/mentor to do just that. The only appropriate/acceptable solution is total and complete avoidance. There is no real valid reason why anyone could not agree to that unless if his intentions are indeed to maliciously go after someone and given this editor's history of harassment, I absolutely hope that community would not tolerate such a thing. I plan to go on break for a while to finish my dissertation, but please, please admins do not allow someone who has been restricted due to long-term harassment to be able to find new editors to pick on. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heaps of mere assertion here. To cast this as 'harassment' is a (fairly) transparent attempt to change the subject. You don't like my criticism of you and so seek to gag me rather than acknowledge it. See your editor review — many comments, in greater detail and harsher terms than mine, concerning you, your arguing to 'save' the indefensible, the bad faith at RfAs of anyone who would ever delete anything or support anyone who would delete anything (sure a few exception, like hoaxes). You seem to think that Every Edit Is Sacred when, in fact, there are thousands of articles about that by any reasonable criteria should be deleted. Your whole focus here is to confound the process of deletion; that's WP:DISRUPTive. Jack Merridew 08:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this comment of yours in response to my supporting Kevin's now-closed RfA, where you asked if I knew he was opposed to my unban; I'll answer here: yes, I recall that and gave the very same diff here where I stated that I supported wo/grudge. You contrasted this with your tentative support of my unban (note you were after an AfD ban there, too).

There is a reason I supported Kevin and am critical of you; he is here to do right and you are here with a battleground approach, heaps of bad faith, a clear intent to disrupt deletions, and to thwart anyone becoming an admin who does not meet your ridiculous standards. Jack Merridew 09:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

"I can agree to the above" A Nobody

"I am open to SB Johnny working as some sort of mediator here" Jack Merridew

Does this mean the two parties can agree to Roux's remedy? Since ignoring this is not an option, the only other option I see is a RfC against A Nobody or a report to arbitration enforcement for Jack.

I don't think either nuclear option will solve the problem as quickly and effectively as the voluntary sanctions suggested here. Ikip (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed this comment of mine; what you quote above is simply a willingness to talk with Johnny about this. I support the idea of an RFC/U re A Nobody. Almost 1:00am here, so G'night, all. Jack Merridew 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you support a RfC, do you support a Request for arbitration enforcement in turn? Guaranteed, arbitration enforcement will be much more punitive and swift than a RfC, because their is already a massive presumption of guilt in the arbitration, whereas you are starting from scratch in a RfC. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

• Support Mutual topicban I see Roux's remedy as a carrot and stick. Since all parties don't agree to the carrot, the next step is that, we, the Wikipedia community will bring out the stick, we will all !vote on Roux's remedy, and all parties will be forced to follow Roux's remedy. Ikip (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Apathetic about the first three, but oppose #4 - too many If A Then Bs to keep track of. Would it mean that if an article goes up for AfD, JM can prevent AN from ARS-tagging it simply by commenting in the AfD discussion? Can AN prevent JM from commenting in AfD by ARS tagging? I don't think their personal animosity should be grounds to avoid them working in the same sandbox. 1-3, at least, more emphatically relate to them engaging each other directly. --EEMIV (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first three (with a particular note that A-N's charming way of referring to some editors or a particular editor or the like should be included in this), oppose the fourth as leading to an obvious race condition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree but first mover advantage might be more what you mean, particularly as the "article rescue" template is typically used in response to an AFD nomination rather than to prevent one. Then there are the psychological aspects: I believe a deletionist can anticipate which articles his nemesis would be interested in rescuing more effectively than an inclusionist can anticipate which articles his nemesis would interested in deleting. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be more inclined to accept that if there weren't empirical evidence to suggest that A-N tags far more articles for rescue (and rather less discriminately) than JM takes to AfD (24 to zero over the month, assuming that all of A-N's helpful (added) summaries are rescue tags, and ignoring non-AfD deletes like prods). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the first three,, not the 4th--I do not like it for the same reason as given above. I however note A.n.'s willingness to accept it as a sign of good faith. there's a more radical solution, discussed further down, but it does not presently look as if it will pass. DGG (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Second Choice suport for the first 3. 4 sounds good in theory but could easily be gamed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #2 and #3 only, for reasons I have explained above. — CharlotteWebb 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Grudgingly support the first three, and I agree w/ Chris's comment. I would much prefer that JM just agree to this rather than have us impose it against his will. Protonk (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2 and 3 only - preferably a as a voluntary agreement between the two pablo_hablo. 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALL. Although I am trying to go on wikibreak for school reasons, I have been asked to comment here in order to resolve this situation. Wikipedia has over 2 million articles. At any given times we have scores of article under deletion discussion. There is absolutely NO legitimate reason why in such a big place anyone would not be able to avoid articles and AfDs for which one other editor has already worked. Similarly, I am not the only article rescuer. There is no reason why another member of the ARS couldn't handle articles I might normally tag. JM is hardly the only deletionist. There is no reason why he can't be silent in a handful of AfDs. If the article is really inappropriate, it will be deleted anyway. His one comment is hardly so crucial, just as God forbid if I don't comment in every AfD. AfDs don't need any one editor to participate in them. If I can and am willing to avoid AfDs associated with him (notice that I didn't rescue tag or comment in the Honorverse AfDs after he commented in them), there's no legitimate reason why he can't do the same. It's not as if this really prevents either of us from working on any of the other 2 million articles or scores of AfDs available. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you also found time to research 18 or 20 AfDs as "evidence" in the Dream Focus thread while you're back. You're aware that nobody takes your wikibreaks seriously by now, right? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that you engage in the same behavior as JM, what should one think? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep this up and someone will block you. Do not derail threads by making baseless accusations or by inveighing against anyone who happens to disagree with you or brings up some flaw in your reasoning. Equating someone's actions with the actions of a person whose indefinite ban from the site you happen to be agitating for is disruptive. Continue down this path or make things blatant enough and I will block you and seek comment in AN. Period. Behave in a civil and collegial fashion. That's not something that applies only to other editors and it is not something that only excludes things like swearing or sniping. Protonk (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • You don't seriously think his reply to my stance here was constructive? He elsewhere refers to me by names other than my current username and then comes here to give me a hard time and so how do you expect me to reply? I hope you similarly are willing to warn him to do not antagonize me any further as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • I didn't because he doesn't make responses like that his MO. If you want an honest answer, I expect you to respond to his criticism with something like this "that isn't relevant to the matter at hand", not to escalate and personalize the issue as you have for almost every single responand in this thread, including me and KWW, two folks who you discovered weren't out to lynch you after all. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • That is a reasonable suggestion for an alternate response that I will keep in mind. I encourage you, however, to similarly discourage anyone else from derailing this discussion as I really do want to log off again (I came back today after being emailed anonymously that I should say whether or not I agree with the mutual topic ban proposal, which I do); since I am logged in anyway, why not make a few more edits before I log back out for hopefully at least a week or more like I actually did do during my last break (earlier this year I actually did stop editing for a week). Plus, the break templates I put up on my talk page say, "though some editing may be done from time to time" and "Most likely, however, I won't be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and I'll probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every so often," so what the heck? I agree, I should resist taking the bait, but at the same time as I said elsewhere the hook shouldn't be baited either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1, 2, and 3. Oppose the final provision per EEMIV and DGG. They should be able to participate civilly in the same AfD with the first three provisions under effect. ThemFromSpace 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on the first three, definitely oppose #4. Reyk _YO! 22:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears like there overwhelming community support for this Mutual topicban proposal, at least for proposals 1 to 3-- what is the next step? Ikip (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support #1,2,3. They need to stay away from each other. #4 is a bit too restrictive, as there may be cases where both of them legitimately will want to contribute to the same AFD, but they should be able to state their opinion without referring to the other. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Topicbans are unwieldy, and rarely actually stop disputes as others enter in. I would support a voluntary ban on any personal noticeboard interactions, any personal userspace interactions but going further I would suggest just does not work. As for any AfD's -- I suggest anyone closing one would know enough to discount any personal jibes and rely solely on the weight of the arguments presented. I suspect this would be quite sufficient and be a much lower-key solution than the above. And if people do not accept that people closing discussions can discount personal jibes, then we need to change the entire XfD process. Collect (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — Look, all, I am for toning things down. I said I'd be open to Johnny as a mediator and have also run that idea by someone else who thought themselves not the right person. I have been critical of A Nobody, true. So have others; the issues are real. What is happening here (nb:user:Ikip FKA user:Inclusionist) is an attempt to extend my unban terms to cover others; it is E&C 2 dragging on, more than a year later. It won't stop here, either. Pixelface will want immunity from my criticism, too. A Nobody repeatedly tried to redact my comments from his editor review, claiming something to the effect that I'm a second class editor. This is in direct conflict with my unban, which says I'm unbanned. The partisans here have long tried to cast my block/ban as due to pop-culture. Nope — and it was discussed long ago up there. I believe A Nobody is being disruptive of the deletion process, of the RfA process and is significantly responsible for inflaming the situation; Pixelface, too; i.e. trying anything and everything to tear down policies and guidelines and to inflame and enrage. Note the Dream Focus thread; many of the same players; it's just the next battle over. The community needs to sort the issue of the surfeit of coverage of pop-culture ephemera, and do it peacefully. Sending disputants to opposite corners of the ring does not end anything; it merely creates an interlude. It is not dispute resolution, it is dispute prolongation (or Britain's "great pre-war joke").
  Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2 & 3 only 1 and 4 are innapropriate IMO.--Patton^t/c 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's hard to read the above as an expression of consensus on any particular point, and it looks to me like this isn't likely to yield a conclusion satisfactory to all parties (and/or onlookers). 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. I'm still open to listen, but strongly recommend email so my talk page doesn't start looking like AN/I. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, you'll have email shortly. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 04:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with 1-3. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

If Jack Merridew was indef-blocked as a sock of a banned user, but the account was subsequently unblocked with specific ArbCom admonishments, but has now returned to habits that led to the original scrutiny and blocking, then what is this discussion about? What were the admonishments that allowed the return of an banned user? Have they been violated? And if so, why not simply reinstate the block? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He appealed to ArbCom, and it was granted in part because of his good contributions. If it appears he's walking down this road again, the above proposal seems a particularly fine idea. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I'm sorry it seems this way. After asking my question, I went searching for the answer and found Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion, which ban was lifted BUT with SPECIFIC conditions... with condition #5 possibly being percieved as having been inadvertantly ignored. I trust that ArbCom gave long and careful consideration to the lifting of the ban... and I am worried that their best hopes inre the user's return might not have seen fruition, as good contributions do not condone any disruption of the project, real or perceieved, in the face of their stern admonishment to avoid such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are sufficient diffs above to invoke #5, though obviously I am not going to be the admin to do it, having had too much prior discussion , friendly and also critical, with both parties here. DGG (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block, if he doesn't agree to Roux's compromise solution. I didn't know about the Arbcom decision, but now I do. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa now. I'm not comfortable with that. Protonk (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, Roux's remedy is either a compromise or a compulsion. If it is a compromise that JM isn't comfortable agreeing to, I don't think that we get a free pass to turn it into something compulsive from the ARBCOM reading. IMO, we either determine that he is engaged in disruptive editing now, and block him accordingly, or we determine that he is not and we proceed through some process of negotiation to stop him from going down that road. We can't have insufficient evidence to accuse him of DE but sufficient evidence to enforce a proposed remedy and if we have sufficient evidence to accuse him of DE, then we don't need to propose a compromise. Protonk (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Protonk here. I've gone through the diffs, and, while I get an eerie feeling of deja vu, I can't describe any of them as "disruptive". A wikilink correction to turn a redlink into a bluelink is usually not thought of as disruptively modifying another's statement, and the AFDs are AFDs where I would normally expect Jack to comment in the way he has, even if A Nobody hadn't been involved at all. I've asked A Nobody to provide a single, well-described diff clearly showing disruptive editing, and he hasn't produced it. If he can, then Jack should be blocked immediately, with no need for a compromise ... Jack is on his last chance and on a very short leash. If he can't, then there's no basis for blocking Jack, and A Nobody deserves a little chastisement for bringing in a blizzard of diffs that don't stand up to scrutiny.—Kww(talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He replied, and 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.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree. I say so only because of the explicitly short leash that JM is on. I still prefer an actual remedy (i.e. blocking him for being disruptive) to using the threat of an indef block to bring him to agreement on the mutual avoiadance issue. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, please; I replied about that below. I really don't see that as in any way disruptive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While we are asking questions, where are the restrictions on A Nobody documented? I've tried a few times to find a discussion where people explicitly decided to allow him to edit despite having abused the right to vanish, but have never located where that occurred. I never thought bringing Jack or A Nobody back were very good ideas, and it may be time to re-examine both decisions.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Renamed user 19

Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find any, because there was no agreed upon restrictions a la JM. I did not harass another editor for years. The only thing people believe I did was create another account after abandoning my main account. Neither account edited in tandem with each other. Nor was this alleged new account used to harass anyone. I have over 30,000 edits and yet the "likely" account has edited all of 3 of the same pages. As such, once that account was blocked, if I agreed to anything, it was to only use my main account and any checkuser can see that I have done as much. If you actually think my history is the same as his then you are wildly mistaken. And I really hope you are not now seeking revenge for your RfA. You'd think instead of demonstrating the vindicative attitude I cited, you would actually instead try to be conciliatory rather than prove that particular argument correct. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody: now that you're on my radar, you need to avoid saying things like "And I really hope you are not now seeking revenge for your RfA.". JM isn't here (perhaps celebrating Easter?), so maybe you'd consider dropping this until tomorrow? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish this could be resolved promptly. I am in what seems to be the final phase of my doctorate (I am making revisions to the last couple chapters with an upcoming oral defense planned) and as such was hoping to take a break until the end of the quarter. I just want to be sure that when I come back, I'm not going to have to contend with being followed around and antagonized again. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I simply refrained from commenting while it was ongoing, in order to avoid accusations of attempting to draw attention to a losing RFA. I'm not going to step up efforts against you as a result, but I've maintained since your return that that your return should not have been permitted. There's no reason to expect that to stop.

I don't equate your behaviour to Jack's. Jack lied for years, and attempted to deceive us all, all to the detriment of another editor. I tend to agree with Jack on policy issues, don't care much for White Cat, either. In spite of that, I supported Jack's blocking and opposed his return. If you could show me concrete evidence of disruptive editing (not disagreeing with you at AFDs, not correcting wikilinks, but actual disruptive editing) I'll support blocking him again under point 5. To be honest, I find his behaviour towards you eerily familiar, and I have to work hard at not letting my personal opinion of you keep me from seeing his behaviour as upsetting. That said, I've gone through your links, and I can't find actual disruptive editing. The AFDs you point at were all AFDs that I would expect Jack to say those things during even if you weren't involved anywhere in the process.

But getting back to my original point: you specifically violated the language under RTV which states that The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave, and no discussion was made that specifically allowed you to create this new account and continue editing? No explicit discussion about the posthumous account linkage? Even after Elizabeth Rogan was blocked with the accusation being that it was you attempting a silent and anonymous return? I had always assumed that the discussion had gone on somewhere, and I had just missed it. You do fail to mention that Elizabeth Rogan edited essentially only AFDs, which means that an intersection on particular articles is unlikely to occur. You won't find many people that doubt that that was you, which explains the indefinite block on that account as being your improper sockpuppet.—Kww(talk) 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to derail a discussion on another user? Okay, say you think she was me, i.e. an account that never edited while my main account edited, you seem to conflate me with someone who by contrast had a couple times as many admitted sock accounts that were used to harass another editor and to evade a block. By contrast, I was not blocked at the time nor previously the subject of arbcom cases. And are you surprised that I did oppose so strongly when you keep denigrating me as an editor, even though since my return, I have dramatically cut back my participation in AfDs and everyone of them has had an acceptable conclusion (see User:A Nobody/Deletion discussions) as everyone I argued to keep still has its edit history and every one I argued to delete has been deleted. I also gained a few DYKs as seen at User:A_Nobody#Barnstars.2C_cookies.2C_smiles.2C_and_thanks, welcomed thousands of new users, and even colloborated on a Good Article. I seem to get along fine with people except for those from my old name who are unwilling to cut me any breaks. Do my net positive contributions mean nothing to you? I have been much more successful than I was before my rename; I have conciously and voluntarily tried to change how I do things and so now I absolutely am not okay with JM disrupting my efforts to improve Wikipedia. And anyway, the question here is not about me. If you want to iron out differences with me, drop me an email and as I said elsewhere if you want to reconcile our differences, I am open to that. If you think I would never give you another chance, you are mistaken, because I believe just about everyone can come to terms eventually. It would actually not have been impossible had you taken a different tact to have even persuaded me to weaken or strike my oppose regarding you. But anyway, right here and now, my concern is that someone who was blocked for harassment and put on clear editing restrictions was told by his arbcom appointed mentor to not comment to or about me any further and yet continued to do so anyway. That seems a pretty clear violation of his agreement and if he is not willing to do what his arbcom appointed mentors tell him to do, then what? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attempting to derail anything. Many editors have told you that your report was full of diffs that didn't support the accusations made. This is precisely the kind of report that has been the basis of my objection to you in the past. I reiterate: show me one diff of something that can truly be classed as disruptive editing on JM's part, and I will support reblocking him under point 5 of his arbcome restrictions. I agree, he's on a short leash, and his comments toward you give me concern. Cooperate by providing one, solid, accurately described diff showing disruptive editing, and you get help getting what you want. Go forth in the future making only reports with solid, accurately described diffs, and 90% of the difficulties between us will disappear.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on 24 March 2009, his arbcom appointed mentor told him “Please leave you know who alone, and leave off allusions to you know what. WP is a big place.” This edit coincided with this removal of text from my talk page and it is well understood that Casliber refers to me as JM’s subsequent reply acknowledged. Since then he has accused me as being part of a tag team, made it a point to in the only two RfAs he commented in since April 4th was on the 11th be a comment to me and in the only RfA he commented in on the 6th was yet again a comment about me. The last two RfAs he comments in and the only two for the past 8 or so days are in ones after me and about me. In addition to those two RfAs, I commented in I think every other one that is ongoing and I absolutely did not focus on any one user in all seven or eight of these RfAs. So, if he is instructed to not risk escalate things with a specific editor (me) and yet his sole RfA participation is to take an accusatory approach against me, he is blatantly ignoring his arbcom appointed mentor and as such disrupting the project by escalating tensions with someone he was instructed to avoid. It is not as if others (you, Reyk, Sephiroth, etc. could not adequately handle challenging my oppose in Foxy Roxy’s RfA, which I did indeed strike) or for others to critique my oppose in your RfA. Now, what about stuff unrelated to me… Revert warring ([25], [26], [27], [28], and [29], for which he was warned, but notice the times continued doing (April Fool’s or not, you would think once someone warns you, stopping might be a good idea). Then there’s mis/mocking use of the rescue template here, i.e. prods something and slaps on a rescue template before an AfD is even underway? Is that some kind of provocation the Article Rescue Squadron or to any editor in particular? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withhold judgment on the April Fool's stuff. I disagree with 90% of the crap pulled on April Fool's Day, and it's a day that I will take off if I ever have an admin bit. Casliber's role is specifically to mentor Jack in regards to White Cat, so I don't see violating his injunction as automatically disruptive (if Casliber blocked for disobeying, and people upheld it, I wouldn't kick up a fuss, though). That leaves [30], which is clearly an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. I registered a comment above, so I will repeat it there.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Way too-long. I've just made a first pass through this thread and would like to comment on this edit; I had proded that page after commenting to Cas and A Nobody about it. Rather than post to A Nobody's talk page about it (I believe the original thread was gone at that time), I tagged it, figuring he and any others would then notice it. I noticed after the fact that the rescue template was AfD-specific and generated a redlink; I also saw that it got the page onto the ARS list, and so I left it, figuring they would see it. Frankly, this was a good faith thing to do; I could have quietly proded it and it might have gone gently into that good night. As things went, it was de-proded and then redirected by others. And we now have an article on the real Oakdale, Texas. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) nb: I did give prod reason; non-notable Jack Merridew 14:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that your indef-block as the sock of a banned user was lifted only after very careful deliberations, and accompanied by very strict behavorial criteria. It is my thought that with the Sword of Damocles hanging over one's head, any editor would pay special heed to such caveats... and so tred very carefully in all dealings with any other editor. Keeping your distance from WC was definitely one of concern to ArbCom, but so was the admonishment to avoid disruption or even the perception of disruption. But if caveat #5 has been broken.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was considerable discussion prior to my unban; much of it I was party to and, I'm sure, more that I was not. I am quite mindful of every step I take. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise readers of this thread to go over the original post and observe how little of the "evidence" actually relates to the purported stalking and harassment, and how flimsy it is, and how much of it is just complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with Jack's dealings with A Nobody. I mean, what do the "lulz" have to do with A Nobody? It looks to me that A Nobody feels that, if he throws enough mud, some of it might stick. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say, but better said by someone else. Terima kasih.

The “for great justice and epic lulz″ bit on my userpage was about Grawp, whom I reverted mercilessly; note the edit summary. That was the day 4chan was on the mainpage and that very minute I was blocked for that edit; I was unblocked the same minute, too, with the summary shit my bad, and and apology a moment later on my talk page. A Nobody also gave a diff to the subsequent note I put in the corner of my userpage; note that my user page is in Category:Rogue sockpuppets. Ya, I make light of things on my user page; I see nothing wrong, or disruptive, about this — and it certainly has nothing to do with A Nobody other than that he doesn't like it. FWIW, his being offended comes months after this stuff went up, so I'm inclined to view him as mud-seeking.

G'day, mate! Jack Merridew 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb: if one visits the Encyclopædia Dramatica site and searches for my user name, one will find a lovely piece of malicious slander from those assholes (or is that an uncivil personal attack?); please note that I'm not one of them. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (who's not really from Oz, as Pixelface has asserted)[reply]

I agree that A Nobody's strategy of complaint is flawed to the point that I generally consider it disruptive. If you wade through the discussion between us above, you can see that. That's why I asked for one solid diff showing behaviour that could genuinely be described as disruptive. I asked for one, he still gave me ten, but, of those ten, I agreed with him on this one, which I see as an intentional misuse of a template with the intent of causing trouble. Since that is the one piece of rock in the sandstorm, I encourage people to examine it and determine whether it is sufficient to trigger a reban under point 5. If it is, go ahead. If it isn't, drop the discussion, because it was the only potentially actionable accusation in the pile.—Kww(talk) 12:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oakdale thing began with my noticing that the page then at Oakdale, Texas (now moved and redirected, but see the old page at Oakdale, Texas (Wishbone TV series)) was about a fictional town and that there was, in fact, a real one that we were not covering; I told Cas and A Nobody referring to "The problem with TV cruft". The problem, as I see it, is fictional shite getting into an encyclopædia at the expense of coverage of the real world. I have long seen this as a problem; long before A Nobody, or Pixelface registered — indeed before most users who are around today — I made this move with my original User:Davenbelle account. Today, Rakata is an article about the real island/volcano in Indonesia; it is a part of Krakatoa. However, back in the day, more than 4 years ago, it was an article about a race in Star Wars; Lucas et al hijacked the name for commercial purposes. Anyway, I moved it to a qualified name and started an article about the Real McCoy. The moved article was eventually merged and redirected into a list (and then into another list; have fun digging up the details). This is progress. There is a ton more of this sort of problem to sort and the pop-culture fans are exacerbating it and seeking to thwart many efforts at improving this project.

So, no, I don't believe the fictional Oakdale needed rescuing, but I acknowledge that others might and they had their shot at saving it; see the original source it sported; hardly what I'd call reliable. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb: See here there are still inbound links to Rakata that are about Star Wars; the problem with TV cruft is that much of it just snots up the project; this is a problem. Jack Merridew 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: I advise readers of this thread to go over the original post and observe how little of the "evidence" actually relates to the purported stalking and harassment, and how flimsy it is, and how much of it is just complaining about stuff that has nothing to do with Jack's dealings with A Nobody.

Obviously there is some contention here, and down playing its signifigance is not going to solve the problem. Michael is asking here: Should Jack be blocked? This is an issue which can be brought up on his arbitrtation enforcement page, not here. But I believe a better route for all parites involved is the voluntary sanctions that both Jack and A Nobody agreed to above. Can we all agree on this at least? Ikip (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that his arbcom appointed mentor Casliber already told him to leave me alone. It is clear that he has disregarded that warning to the point that he actively wants to continue to target me, which is inexcusable on a site with two million articles. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone to have to deal with anyone else and it is ridiculous for anyone to become the self-appointed policeman of anyone else. So the only thing further I have to say before I go on break to finish my dissertation is that I agree to Roux's suggstions above as well as my addition, i.e. JM and I totally and completely avoid each other. That is the only acceptable resolution here. He has already been told by an admin to leave me alone. Continuing to harass me beyond this discussion will be frowned upon by any neutral editor and hopefully whether it be Casliber or someone else neutral and objective, they will take action accordingly. I will neither say anything about JM any further and nor will I reply to him. If he can't do the same on a site with not just two million articles, but probably at least thousands of non-article pages (projects, policy discussions, etc.), then that is just downright baffling and absurd. I hope that no on else has to contend with this level of fixation and bullying. It is not right for anyone to continue to pursue someone else after being both instructed by an admin not do so and sternly told by the editor being pursued not to do so, especially given his past. And regardless of whatever some personally think of me, allowing someone to continue to hound another editor after an admin warning not to do so sets an extremely dangerous precedent. We are here to build a paperless encyclopedia, not perpetuate disputes. I do not want any further conflict with this editor; I want him to leave me alone. I am going to leave him alone. Thus, it falls on him if he wants to needlessly antagonize me further and violate an administrator's warning in the process. Thank you DGG, Michael, Ikip et al for being fair and reasonable in this discussion and Protonk and Kww for at least keeping an open-mind. With that good-bye for an indertiminate amount of time. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@A Nobody; more mischaracterisation. Jack Merridew 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikip; I outdented as you're replying to Reyk's post. You are hardly a neural party here. I did not agree to roux's proposal, as I said above. G'night, Jack Merridew 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Jack: The trouble is that you have probably exhausted reserves of good faith that might cause us to believe that you 'rescue' edit was innocuous. I would suggest that you tread very lightly around the whole deletion issue, given the explicit admonitions laid out in the unbanning. further, I would strongly suggest that you agree to and adhere to the spirit of Roux's compromise: stay the hell away from 'A Nobody'. Depending on how you look at it, I'm either a neutral party here or horribly biased, but I can say that the two of us don't have any unique dealings which might predispose me to be unfair to you. Whatever your opinion of 'A Nobody', I can assure you that you (specifically) attempting to "police" him will end poorly for you. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack has now placed an AfD vote on two separate articles which A Nobody had previously placed a rescue template. [31] then [32], and [33] then [34]. 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. I'm too involved with the parties to block, which at this point I would otherwise do. DGG (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did; and I didn't look at the edit histories of the pages, at least not at who placed whatever rescue templates; I worked on most of these 'Honorverse' pages more than a year ago and opined on every one of them currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Everyone please consider supporting the mutual topic ban proposal of Roux above. A nobody supported the mutual topic ban, but Jack refuses. The only other option is a arbitration enforcement. I believe (please correct me if I am wrong) that stalking and harrassment where one of the multiple complaints in the arbitration before too. I think at this point it is in Jack's best interest to support the #Mutual_topicban_proposal Ikip (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Community ban of Jack Merridew

His comments here show that he can't even see his behaviour as wrong. He was let back in, essentially, under the agreement that he not cause trouble again. He's causing trouble again.

Ergo, I suggest that we just cut the knot and get rid of him. Saves us all a lot of trouble and time months down the road if this picks up again. Jtrainor (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah — per WP:DEADHORSE. Jack Merridew 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This thread is practically dead already. There's not a whole lot of traction to do anything about Jack, let alone a ban proposal. I don't see this as a productive avenue in any fashion whatsoever. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, I will not support a ban, because I don't like bans in general, and the content of the edits is relatively mild, but I do feel that Jack Merridew is toeing the line, and he shouldn't do so. Adding sarcastic {{rescue}} templates on articles he prod-ed and has no intention of rescuing is certainly bad practice, and possibly a WP:POINT infringement. (The rescue squadron try to identify articles worth saving, so don't begin clogging up their lists with articles you don't think belong there.) I strongly support the sentiment by Protonk above that he avoid commenting on A Nobody. Indeed, I would think it wisest for Jack Merridew to avoid commenting on anyone's conduct here. Jack Merridew was up until a few months ago banned for sockpuppetry, stalking and harassment and it took a lot of effort to reveal this misconduct, and for him now to run around commenting on the behavior of other users seems very, very, ironic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose- Being the target of a large but insubstantial flood of irrelevant diffs does not count as "causing trouble". Reyk _YO! 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think JM brings a lot to the table. Further I think the statements here are a bit overblown... JM needs to turn the other cheek more often but that's about it I think. ObDisclose: I supported his unban here after working with him on other wikis... he's a good contributor and has learned from his past. ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but willing to change to oppose if Mutual_topicban_proposal is put into effect, by either Jack supporting the proposal or the community forcing him to support it. The effective place to put any ban forward, only after the Mutual_topicban_proposal fails is at Arbitration enforcement, not here. Ikip (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with respect to Lar It doesn't look like he'd learned from the past. With his prior offenses we have the right to expect a model citizen if he was let back in. That's not what I see.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is no other practical solution. It's not over the last two or three diffs but over continuing problems. if there was ever a measure that was preventative, it is this. The possibility of his learning to turn the other cheek, as Lar suggests, is now proven to be zero. Contra Reyk,This is not over the present issue, which I agree is not by itself banable, but the present issue added to all the prior ones. Contra Sephiroth, it is obviously not dead--I wish it were, but it's not. DGG (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I value Lar's opinion here (having waded though the verbiage). Collect (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose completely unnecessary and certainly not a one-sided issue. He is a good contributor, and not getting along with someone who obviously dislikes him as well is no reason to do a community ban, particularly with such overblown "evidence"-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously opposed due to the double standard being applied. The mutual proposal will work with a couple of amendments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I'd rather we didn't. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - rather obvious that Jack is headed back down the same old road. McJeff (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Here is an instance where Kww was right all along and I was wrong to have tried to assume good faith. Given that JM has a far worse history and problematic edits since being unblocked than say User:Dream Focus who is being jumped on below solely for having a different viewpoint as some of those who oppose above. If they think Dream Focus should be sanctioned, then absolutely JM should be. And to be blunt when I am willing to avoid him, that he is so determined to not avoid me as he expresses here and afain after admin Casliber told him to avoid me, after neutral editor Roux suggested above to "stay the hell away", and after admin Protonk who certainly is willing to be critical of me when he thinks necessary echoed Roux's sentiments, to coninue to fixate on me and to declare as much is both arrogant and disturbing. I refuse to become White Cat 2 and regardless of what anyone thinks personally of me, the community absolutely should not allow that to him. Please do not allow that. Now hopefully this will be suitably resolved so that I can resume my hopfully long break to focus on my real world career. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to the double standard being applied, and the one-sidedness of the situation. His behaviour doesn't seem all that bad compared some other dramas that goes on around here. This is overreacting. What he's doing isn't harrassment. Perhaps he's a bit of a dick sometimes, but most of his contributions help the encyclopedia and we'd be at a loss without him. I definitly don't think he's exhausted the community's patience, and I'd like to see how he contributes if and when the mutual topic ban above goes into effect. ThemFromSpace 20:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I might give more serious consideration to a proposal to get rid of the both of them, however. Deor (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - that would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would benefit the community more to prevent Jack and A from sniping at each other (and they have both been at it) via the topicban above. Aside from this squabble in a sock-drawer, Jack's unintentional[35] misuse of the {{rescue}} template may deserve a slapped wrist, but not a community ban. pablo_hablo. 20:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as this is clearly a two to tango situation, and between the two of them, jack does more good here. I can't begin to imagine what Dream Focus has to do with this at all (though DF did recently say "Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed." If Jack starts saying things like that, would reconsider my position).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Reyk. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Jack is a good editor. The "evidence" of disruption is a joke. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jack has not changed in the least since his return. How many second chances does he get before finally getting sent to the cornfield? Shemeska (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure if I support a re-ban at this point, but it does seem clear to me that JM seems intent on testing the limits of his probationary return. I strongly recommend that he direct his energies towards an area other than fiction deletion because right now, this pattern is starting to look eerily simiar to the one that got him banned in the first place. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Community ban of A Nobody

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – This pointless drama is not productive. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Stop it please. Not constructive.--Patton^t/c 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that A Nobody previously exercised his right to vanish several months ago. It's also no secret he was on thin ice just before he did so. RTV explicitly does not mean "you can come back under a new name". He seems to be using the relatively clean slate to antagonise people (although it may take two to tango). If he can't stay vanished under his old account, he should either disclose his old identity, or be forced to stay vanished. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as farcical. I have been renamed. I have all the old edits and block log of my old account; my talk page's edit history from the previous name still exists, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps A Nobody's failure to vanish having exercised the right to do so needs reviewing, but I suspect not here. pablo_hablo. 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recomendation Sceptre strike or colapse this.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, this is a serious proposal. A Nobody: RTV means RTV, not RTCBUANNASTA. Your account was renamed per RTV. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sceptre don't be an idiot. He's a great contributer. Who cares about his old pumpkin name? IAR. Go blabbing it to everyone if you like but I strongly advise against it.--Patton^t/c 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As LGR was renamed per RTV, he must not use the new name to contribute. If he is allowed to "unvanish", he can do so, but he must acknowledge his old name publicly as a matter of small-o oversight. Otherwise, he's deceiving people into thinking he's a new contributor. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a pile of bureacratic tosh. He's basically said "I got into drama with my old name and do not want to talk about it again". Rather than start drama on ANI about it you should just repect his wishes. I really can't understand your motivation for this.--Patton^t/c 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he exercised his right to vanish and got his account renamed. Again, Right to Vanish is not a right to start under a fresh identity. That isn't bureaucratic tosh. That's there to make sure people don't abuse RtV by constantly coming back under new names. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you? Because he came back under his new name, that means he didn't excersice his right to vanish. He is under no obligation to reveal his old name. I have never talked about my old name, even though I changed it because of personal preference, not drama.--Patton^t/c 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it either, do you? RTV is a commitment to vanish permanently. If he wanted to leave, he could just stop editing. But using RTV to get renamed, then coming back a few weeks later and starting editing is an abuse of the tool. It must be emphasised that RTV is a permanent commitment. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't exercise any right to vanish. There is prima facie evidence of this. He's still editing. It doesn't matter what anyone put in a rename summary. As far as we're concerned he requested rename due to hassle with his previous username, then politely asked peopel never to speak of his old name again.--Patton^t/c 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. "I have invoked my right to vanish due to off-wiki harassment". Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which DGG has confirmed was true. You are more concerned about going after me than about an editor's safety when an admin respected by inclusionists and deletionists alike has confirmed my claims. And you are derailing a discussion about another editor by trying to make it about someone else, which is beyond unacceptable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you were concerned about your own safety, you'd stop editing Wikipedia. Seriously. If something is causing you so much grief, it's foolish to keep doing that something. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same block log, same edit history, same talk page edit history and my old name redirects to my userspace. This is hardly a "new identity". And by the way, you do realize you have violated 3RR?

• Previous version reverted to: [36]
• 1st revert: [37]
• 2nd revert: [38]
• 3rd revert: [39]
• 4th revert: [40]
• Diff of 3RR warning: [41]

Three different editors User:Black Kite, User:Patton123, and I have reverted him and another User:Sephiroth BCR old him on his talk page advised against it, as did Cube Lurker at AN/I. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reversions two and three were reverting vandalism as you were removing my comments, when you know you know better. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the vanishing which is the problem (so much, although that should still have been cleaner); it's the (still-unrepentant) socking while he was vanished, and the return to old form which came with his unblock. Insomuch as he's spent most of the last day campaigning for JM to be banned for older, repentant socking, you'd rather think this would get more attention. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking that JM stop wikistalking and wikiharassing me; I did not initiate the ban request against him. My request is that he stop following me around and mocking me and given that an admin (Casliber) already warned him as much, since Casliber hasn't edited in a couple days someone else renew that warning. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Stop characterising every opposition to you as "harassment" and "stalking". It belittles and cheapens what people who have been really harassed and stalked. And if you really are having the depression and the panic attacks you'd get with people who have really been harassed, you honestly need to spend less time on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposal: Community ban of Sceptre

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – Stop it please. Not constructive. Black Kite 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked for harassment. Seems only interested in escalating tensions. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's just ridiculous. Sincerely. pablo_hablo. 20:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was similarly previously blocked for harassing inclusionist editors and given that the above suggests an effort to derail a discussion concerning an ally of his to instead go after me... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Recomendation A Nobody strike or colapse this.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggestion

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Mediation if possible, otherwise conduct RfC on any of the three parties here. Two things are apparent:

1. You're oil and water. Or more properly, oil and vinegar and lettuce in an unusually combustible salad.
2. Nothing is getting resolved at this venue.

I like and respect all three of you, in different ways. And all three of you have histories that merit a degree of modesty and circumspection. Please shake cyberhands, mutually declare this thread closed, and demonstrate that good faith well placed by taking your concerns to a venue that's more likely to resolve the matter productively. With best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Once it is clear that this thread is resolved today I will indeed go on a wikibreak to finish my dissertation as I intended to do. If anyone wants to discuss with me if/when I come back in good and constructive faith, I am happy to do so. I just want to be sure that if/when I come back I am not going to be followed around by anyone who has previously been sanctioned for harassment. In the meantime, I have set up User:A_Nobody/RfA#Suggestions and User_talk:A_Nobody/Deletion_discussions#Request_for_feedback for feedback from good faith editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In over two weeks time I have commented in only one AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Lewis (10th Kingdom). And so, what is the most recent edit to that article? See this.

• First off, you would think after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody, that editor would not make it a point to go after me in the lone AfD I have commented in the past couple of weeks, especially since I made no argument in the numerous AfDs he commented in or started.
• Now, as you can see at this, I am fourth in number of edits to that AfD and those in first and second place have 10 or more edits each, whereas I have a mere 3 edits). So, somehow my reply to ONE delete "vote" gets labelled as badgering when others have replied to a few times as many others in that discussion as I have?! Why single someone who is fourth in number of edits and who hasn't replied to anywhere near as many others in the discussion as those with the most edits? And again, especially given the recent ANI debate?
• On a second look, is this even meant as a serious contribution? Aside from the use of WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments, is using antagonistic phrasing like "this piece of shite article" really necessary? And what's with the "teh good reazons twoz delete; juz dooz-zit." Are we editing an encyclopedia as mature adults participating in a serious discussion or what?
• Now, I know some don't like me and probably don't care if someone goes after me, but there have been more disruptive/pointed edits beyond the above and thus beyond me:
  • See Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Proposed_Motto (even A Man In Black, hardly an inclusionist told him to “knock it off”)
  • See [42] (giving a suspected sock account a barnstar accomplishes what? Even if we aren't sympathetic towards sock accounts, how does mockingly giving one a barnstar improve the project? What is the point?)
  • See [43] (is this even meant to be a serious argument…note edit summary in addition to the WP:JNN argument to avoid?)
  • Not sure if the edit summaries here are supposed to be funny or what: [44], [45], [46], [47]
  • See [48] (accusing those who defend fiction articles of merely "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story"--that's a great way to look at our volunteers!)

I once again must appeal to point five at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Indefinite_block_lifted_with_editing_restrictions. I am absolutely baffled that after the recent ANI thread he would actually go after me in the one and only AfD I bother to comment in in the past couple of weeks. Unbelievable. I strongly urge the community to reconisder supporting at least Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, if not Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Proposal:_Community_ban_of_Jack_Merridew. How much more of the above are we as a community really going to put up with? You would have thought that after that last and recent ANI thread, he would have either totally disengaged from me as I made sure not to comment in or rescue tag the AfDs he started, but instead not only comments in the same AfD as me, but to me in a bizarre manner and then uses a swear-worded stance that is hardly conducive to a civil discussion. And as indicated above, there are indeed other examples of less than productive or non-pointed editing since that ANI thread. I am at my wits end. I don't know what more to do here. I limited my replies in the AfD to only one editor's comment that I thought weak; I avoided rescue templating or arguing in the Honorverse AfDs JM started and we still get the above. I hate posting on ANI again, but I'm not interested in seeing if it's going to continue. None of us should have to keep putting up with this. Please help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5,531 bytes. I'll admit that I didn't read a word of it. But as someone who is entirely uninvolved in this drama, I'll offer a suggestion. Perhaps your time is better served improving these articles you continually vote to keep rather than posting here? Just my two cents. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I do... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, do you have to bring every single case where Jack even playfully slights you to ANI? If you can't deal with that of all things, grow a skin. It's not harassment of any kind, and is even insulting to the spirit of the term harassment and the serious connotations it carries. If we're to have any proposal, is to ban both of you from reporting to ANI and restrict all complaints to Jack's mentors, whom I trust a lot more than you to know when to make a post to ANI when the situation is serious and needs outside comment. On top of all that, saying something is "not notable" in an AfD is not a bad thing no matter how much you think it is and certainly is not an offense of any sort. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is unwilling to leave me alone and to contribute constructively, the community should take action. I am not interested in just sitting passively by while someone who was unblocked under a strict condition to make NO disruptive edits sees fits to go after me in the only AfD I commented in two weeks time, to come at me in an accusatory manner when if anything at least two other editors replied to way more editors in the discussion, and to test the community's patience by making other unconstructive posts. Point 5 of the ArbCom either has meat and meaning or it doesn't. No, I don't want to just watch this go on and on. The community should have either endorsed the mutual avoidance last time or the reban proposal, because it is plainly obvious that things are not otherwise getting better. And I would hope you could look past any dislike of me of shooting the messenger as it were. I am here to contribute to what should be mature and academic discussions, not writing in "lulz", not calling our volunteers "prattlers", not calling their contributions "shite". It's not about me, but about adding to a needlessly antagonistic and unpleasant environment for our community as a whole. And we should do something now rather than just let things get worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you're so caught up in this perceived conflict that you can't differentiate between an innocuous and trivial comment and one that was genuinely harassment or disruptive. None of these are, although I'd like it if he didn't completely butcher the English language in the process. One would think that you'd learn what constitutes a proper ANI post at this point; you would have a lot more success in getting what you want if you were able to make a concise post that concentrated on significant disruption and not trivial stuff like this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was unblocked on the agreement to make NO disruptive edits, not even what you perceive as "trivial" disruptive edits. Ergo he has violated, once again, the arbcom unblock agreement. Seriously, if you were subject of a dispute thread, wouldn't you make it a point if you saw your opponent comment in only one AfD in a couple of weeks time after that ANI thread to say err on the side of avoiding that one discussion? Who wouldn't?! And again, do you really think his giving a sock account a barnstar, even for "humourous" purposes actually adds something to Wikipedia? I don't mind good faith editors calling me out and challenging me to be a better editor. I obviously disagree with Sgereuka in that AfD, but he made a comprehensive nomination and did try a redirect first per WP:BEFORE. Thus, I can engage with him as an academic. How can any of us have a serious discussion with a "article is shite", those who defend it are "prattlers"? A number of editors have this misconception that I simply dislike deletion based arguments when more so than anything else, it's how one argues. And writing in this strange manner as what I cited above, does not allow for the advancement of a productive, academic discussion. And making it a point to go after someone after a divisive ANI thread is just mind-boggling. Could you imagine if after that ANI thread, I made it a point to say mock him specifically in the various AfDs he started and commented in since? Are you sure no one would see that as problematic? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you didn't address anything in my post. I don't know why I bother any more. Also, are you really rehashing your old JNN/PERNOM arguments for AfDs as Verbal notes below? Do you really have a stalker problem? I mean, your userpage is now the same, all your old behavior is back, and whatnot. I'm strongly feeling that there's no need to honor anything you say about this anymore if you don't care about your own safety. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth, please stop trying to derail these discussions. We want this dispute resolved, right? It is clear and undeniable that 1) we recently had a rather divisive ANI thread about my and his interactions and in that discussion many suggested we avoid each other; as such, I commented in one AfD since and didn't comment in the many he commented in and certainly not to him; why then would he comment to me in the lone AfD I commented in since? 2) he agreed to be unblocked and to make NO disruptive edits, so then why have to be told by A Man In Black to "knock it off" in a discussion? Why see fit to give a sock account a barnstar? Why accuse good faith contributors of essentially arguings so that they can be part of fantasies? Why make an argument needlessly antagonistic by calling the article "shite"? Again, please look past whatever your opinion is of me, because I don't want this resolved just for my sake, but for the commmunity's sake. I wouldn't risk continuing to edit here, if I didn't seriously think Wikipedia was worth it. I believe in this project; I think it has a real potential to contribute to humanity's catalogging of human knowledge and it pains me to see the community being played in the above described manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not bothering to address my post, so I don't see it as necessary to address your points either. I haven't seen anything on why this is non-trivial and why this is suddenly a blockable offense or something violating his ArbCom restrictions. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom agreement says "no disruptive edits." It does not say, "okay, well, so long as some people think they are trivial disruptive edits." Making a point of going after someone fresh off of a big ANI thread that resulted in even a spinout ANI thread is NOT a way to resolve tensions, but rather an attempt at escalation. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the target of the comment from a nobody, I would appreciate it if he (and others) stopped this inane badgering at AfDs. The lack of good faith and civility is poisoning the atmosphere. Verbal chat 08:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot: Sincerely, Verbal chat

Afds are discussions and not votes. People interact in discussions. People's stances are challenged in discussions. But in any event, if you think they shouldn't be discussions, but rather votes, then that is a discussion for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion as here we are discussing an ongoing and long unresolved dispute and it is best that we not side track it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussions"is correct, but your haranguing, lack of good faith, incivility, and self-rigtiousness do you more harm than good. I have changed my mind on AfDs (in both directions) following improvements or arguments on the AfD, but when you badger someone with your soundbites that are only tangentially relevant you make it harder for me to agree with your view, as I have to overcome the intense dislike you're fostering with your behaviour. Make your point in your own !vote, and ask people to clarify or bring up a point if they are egregiously wrong, but to badger as your edits do is counter-productive and irritating. If anything comments like Jack's in response help to defuse and calm the situation - I know it calmed my initial reaction to your poorly thought through comment on my !vote. Interactions should be collegial. Stick to discussions, not dogma. Verbal chat 09:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my one reply to your one comment in one discussion is badgering then you do not know what badgering is. And if you think by contrast, his replying to me after an ANI thread in which many editors supported neither of us comment to each other at all in AfDs is helpful then I don't know what to tell you. And yes, when one such as I makes efforts to improve an article, it is indeed frustrating to see WP:PERNOM style comments that say nothing about the changes made since nomination, especially when they follow [49], i.e. you support a block for canvassing when as far as we can tell, no one actually commented in the AfD from the three pages where Ikip mentioned it, where by contrast it is likely that you and perhaps a couple others came across the AfD because of the ANi thread concerning that now undone block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfDs, plural. This is one example. I also didn't say canvassing, my understanding was that gaming was part of the problem; but this isn't related. It ceases to amaze me that people who file ANI notices of this kind are often the guilty party. Verbal chat 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I with much displeasure have started this thread now knowing some will likely jump on me raher than see the message, because it is clear that the previous ANI thread resolved nothing and as such, not for my sake, but for the community's sake, it is far better we definitively resolve this dispute now rather than let it escalate any further. I appeal to the three arbcom mentors to determine whther or not this should continue here for community resolution or if rather it should be discussed on arbitration enforcement. As my self-deprecating username suggests, I am not editing here for myself, but because I believe Wikipedia potentially serves humanity in general. As such, I am even willing to pledge to take a real break from this site for a time so as to help deescalate things and when/if I come back to focus on DYKs and the like as I've pretty much had my fill of AfDs, partially why I've only commented in one in two weeks' time and only rescued that one article. People should be able to edit this site without having their good faith contributions called a "&curid=22519824&diff=286395449&oldid=286384688 piece of shite", having their motivations for editing be described as "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story," etc. or for someone who has been blocked for sockpuppetry to somehow see it a worthwhile use of time here to give a suspected sock account a barnstar. It is unfortunate that I have my own perception by many of me here that I fear clouds the validity of my request. Please, don't put up with this stuff, because it's an opportunity to go against me, but because the diffs I cite above actually do create a poisonous and unwelcoming atmoshphere for others beyond me and because given the agreement to make NO (without exceptions) disruptive edits, that there would be even questionable disruptive edits makes a mockery of that good faith unblock request and those who supported it. You don't need to care if I feel insulted. I'm a nobody. But it's not just me who is being insulted by the above cited diffs. And it's not me who is effectively being slapped in the face by having them made. And I implore anyone who is neutral to sift beyond whatever partisanship comes up here. Surely, some impartial arbcom members can do that. Please resolve this dispute now. Please do not allow it to get derailed again. Thank you for your time and help. Respectfully, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the diff we are meant to see as harassment/disruption? Protonk (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted about a half dozen diffs of disruptive/unconstructive/escalatory edits in various places above and I am confident that no neutral editor with no past involvement with me will see the totality of them as anything but a collective violation of point 5 of the arbcom agreement. This time, even more so than the last time, it is fortunately obvious, and as such I am much more confident that neutral parties and/or the three arbcom appointed mentors will indeed do something to prevent this dispute from needlessly escalating any further. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well bringing ths here as disruption, harassment or both is certainly what I would call "escalating". pablo_hablo. 10:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want play games and wait and see to what degree this stuff is going to continue. I would much rather we put a stop to this dispute right here and now than just allow for swipes to continue and build over time. We can minimize the disruption by accomplishing what the first ANI thread failed to do. I have commented in one AFD since that last ANI thread and naturally he sees fit to comment to me in that lone AfD thread while in his delete "vote" saying the article is "shite" and saying it exists for the sake of "fans of a hottie prattling-online," which patently insults the various editors who worked in good faith on the article and who defended it in the AfD. Making a blanket assertion about our contributors is insulting. Seeing fit to go after me in first and only AfD I comment in since the last ANI thread is an ominous sign. We already had one ANI thread that was pretty massive and so, why allow things to build again? Why not just deal with it not, before it gets any further out of hand elsewhere? Let's iron it out here on ANI, rather then see AfDs or anywhere else be disrupted by a totally unnecessary dispute. He has three arbcom appointed mentors. He has an agreement not to make any disruptive edits. Doesn't that agreement have some teeth? And I don't want the precedent to be set that it's okay if I get bullied, because if we allow that, then it sets the stage the same happening to others. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've posted a half dozen...and just like last time, only one is relevant. What are we supposed to make of the 3-4 "is this edit summary supposed to be humorous?" diffs? What are we supposed to do with this? That's not him harassing you or him being disruptive. Remember our conversation last time? That you will gain more from honestly presenting a small number of issues than inflating them into something they are not? Protonk (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If even one you think is relevant, then it is still a violation of point 5. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. Multiple people have asked you not to come to AN/I with posts that are essentially throwing everything you have at a wall and seeing what sticks. I'm not particularly concerned about the diff you mentioned. I can't for the life of me see how it is the end of the world for you to be told that JNN/PERNOM copy/paste responses are badgering. People have been trying to tell you that for YEARS (literally). And don't respond with "but JNN/PERNOM votes are..." I don't want to get into that discussion. In my opinion, your one cited diff was fairly benign. So no, I don't agree that it was a violation of point 5. Protonk (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would think after such a discussion as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody#Mutual_topicban_proposal, in the only AFD I commented in since that thread, he would not comment directly to me in that discussion, while saying say nothing to anyone else there. Seriously now. How many editors commented in that AfD? Why would someone who earlier this month many editors supported he and I avoid each other or if we comment in the same AfDs not comment to each other see fit to of all the participants in the AfD to only comment to me? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only note that Jack refused to agree to that compromise mutual topic ban so it doesn't have any bearing on the subject. I have an alternative view. Jack is being impish. He intends to needle you up to the point of frustration, which unfortunately for you seems to be a relatively low threshold. What he's not doing is harassing you or disrupting the project. Making an offhand comment designed to rile you up isn't harassment (as you have noted in the past when people have accused YOU of harassment). Relentlessly following your contributions, stalking you (or whatever we call it now), reverting your edits, refactoring your comments, etc. THOSE are signs of harassment. Again, taking a comment like his and making a production out of it isn't going to win converts. Eventually, the list of people who will diligently read through each diff and judge it on its merits will dwindle and people will have heard you cry wolf enough. I'm not "neutral", so I can't say that definitively, but that's what it looks like from here. Protonk (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why antagonize someone by "needling them up to the point of frustration"? And as far as relentlessly following my contributions goes, as you can easily see, I haven't edited as much since that ANI blowout. There are a few days I didn't edit at all. Indeed, I only edited in one AfD since then and so, there really wasn't much to follow around since then, but the one thing that I did focus on, i.e. rescuing that one article, is where he did indeed see fit to comment to me and only to me and no one else. I would much rather this not be an ongoing trend when I by contrast didn't see fit to even rescue template all those Honorverse articles he AfDed. But again, I'm not sure why you don't see the other evidence above problematic. To take the Socratic approach... What is the point of giving a suspected sock a barnstar? How does that improve Wikipedia? What is the point of calling the article "a piece of shite" rather than criticizing it in a more articulate and less inflammatory way? What is the point of in two AfDs calling those who write/defend these articles "prattlers"? How does such a designation reach out to those volunteer contributors? How are these edits not unproductive? What do they actually do to improve Wikipedia? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows why? But it is a stretch to go from one diff to say that he's stalking your contributions. The fact that you have editing little since the last AN/I would make it easier for us to make that claim but it can't possibly make it so easy that one response is sufficient. As for your litany of questions--I DONT CARE. I suspect few others do as well. I can't imagine a smaller thing to get worked up about then whether or not Jack has given a barnstar to a sock or not. I also note AGAIN that you are bringing up tangential issues and presenting them as core problems. It is most certainly not harassment for Jack to have an intemperate opinion of an article which is at variance to yours. Likewise I should hope that you would be the first to defend someone's views of content being separated from their conduct, right? Either the sole new diff you provided was sufficient to present an incident requiring administrator action or it wasn't. Rehashing old issues or conflating non-issues with issues won't hold water. 11:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows that even after that ANI thread and even with me not commenting to him, he will indeed be sure that even if I comment in but one AfD, he too will not only comment in it, but to me, and only to me and as such, it is clear that barring an admin tells him to avoid me, he won't, but here's the fun part, an admin did tell him to leave me alone, and he didn't. In fact, even after the last ANI thread, I reduce my editing, only try rescuing one article and commenting in one AfD, but still there he is to go after me and in the process call the article I worked to rescue "a piece of shite" and those who defend it, which means not just me, "prattlers." And yes, I think the good faith editors who worked on the article and who argued to keep it don't much appreciate having the work and motivations dismissed in such a manner. You may not care, but perhaps they do. Perhaps our volunteers aren't going be encouraged to contribute if their just dismissed and insulted. So, if he's alreeady ignoring Casliber's warning to leave me alone, and further doing so after the previous ANI thread and with me not replying to him anywhere, I don't know what more it's going to take? Is he going to comment to me in every AfD I comment in? Does he not care if admins warn him about anything? And really, you can probably imagine, I certainly would have liked to say more in that AfD, but thought, no, you know what, this time, I will only reply to those who reply to me and maybe make one other reply to someone else. From here on out, I will reisist, as I did, replying to everyone of an opposing viewpoint. I try to change my approach and even then, I get singled out. Who would want to put up with that? Who would want to just ignore it and watch as it continues as Casliber's warning is just essentially laughed off and yeah, I would say accusing those who defend fiction articles as being mere "prattlers" is hardly tangential, because I defend such articles, and so it is indeed an insult to me as well as the other keeps in those AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that his view of an article is somehow a special slight to you. Most of what you said directly above has been said before and is so intertwined with the inclusion/deletion mess that I don't think a neutral person could reliably judge its relevance. And I've said in the past thread that I think he should avoid you. I'll go further. If he persists in antagonizing you, he should be blocked. However I still think you are misrepresenting the scope of the problem and in doing so damage your own case. Multiple people, in this thread, have asked you to stop conflating views on content with harassment and yet you persist. YOU have escaped sanction in past AN/I threads by the skin of your teeth because people have been willing to grant you a great deal of leeway in order to avoid punishing you for your views. You specifically should avoid characterizing his comments about articles as harassment directed at you or if not harassment something worthy of umbrage. All that was required here was 1-2 sentences noting that diff and asking for some relief. Protonk (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that in this ANI thread I did not use the word "harassment." As no, I am certainly not alleging he is doing anything off wiki against me. And as far as views goes, this is not merely inclusionism/deletionist. I don't think deletionists are "prattlers" and I wouldn't label them as much. I disagree with a deletionist philosophy, sure, but I see no need to comment on the editors in the AfD. Arguments, sure, but my umbrage is not with his believing the article should be deleted, but that those who worked on it or who think it should be kept are some kind of non-worthwhile entities which he labelled as "prattlers" in at least two different AfDs. And yeah, I am frustrated because an admin, Casliber, has already warned him to leave me alone and he didn't. So, I started one ANI thread and it devolved into I don't even know what to call it. And after that, I made no on wiki comments to him (nor on Wikipedia Review or anything). Yet, I comment in one AfD and sure enough he comments to no on else in it but only to me. And yes, after having already been warned by an admin to leave me alone. So, if someone has been warned by an admin to leave someone else alone and doesn't, then what the heck? If someone disregards an admin's warning, especially an arbcom appointed mentor admin, I don't if a firmer warning should be given or what, but in any event, as I propose below, after this thread is archived, hopefully, a much more sterner community agreement will be made that precludes him from hounding me any further and discourages me on the reverse from starting these threads. I hope that after two ANI threads now, you and everyone else will indeed look at any future antagonism by either party very sternly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shant review all of your pleasant commentary about deletionists. But if the heart of the matter is his refusal to abide by Casilber's warning, then ask Casilber to put some force behind it. I'm not willing to read a sentence with the word "please" in it as a dictum, so I won't interpret it and block accordingly. Only Casilber knows exactly what he wrote there. If he wants to block or propose blocking JM based on this issue, then ask him and have him propose it. Protonk (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr

A Nobody really needs to take User:SB Johnny up on his request to start an email dialogue; I did and we're waiting for his input. 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. And where's my ani notice about this? Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also: User:A Nobody/RfA#Suggestions — A Nobody's 'rules' for whom is welcome to offer suggestions and, more to the point, who is not. Seems he has about a half dozen allusions to me as someone unwelcome. Obviously I, and a hoard of others, will oppose any RfA. Duh. It seems to me that his rules amount to a series of digs at me and an offer of bait for a round of ani drama such as this one. I've focused on content since the last dust-up. Sure I took a few of the unworthy to the block, but I've also created new articles (and the pic) such as the water temple. I've been working my way across Africa building navigation templates for rivers. I also have done some interesting things to the non-notable 'Honorverese' dreck. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While A Nobody has brought one diff to the table, in the last 10 days Jack Merridew has 100 edits in the Wikipedia: namespace, mostly in the Fiction AFDs. When viewed from that perspective, 1% doesnt seem like grounds for complaint. If it was on an AFD topic that Jack Merridew doesnt often go to, I might see your point, but Jack does seem rather fond of voting delete on most Fiction related AFDs. I've tried to convincing him that he should vote keep on them, and maybe even clean them up, but he has yet to see the light. Has there been other diffs where the paths have crossed in that timeframe? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did tidy up Moby-Dick the other day and if anyone ever AfDs that, I'll be sure to work to rescue it. This isn't about 'fiction', it's about inappropriate articles and my new wikihounder.^{What harassment is not} — Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have avoided commenting in and obviously to him in the various AfDs he has started or commented in since the previous ANI thread. I comment in one thread and he not only comments in it, but to me as well and again, this follows on a thread in which a proposal that we avoid each other had more supports than not. You would think just as I refrained from commenting in the AfDs he commented in, he would not see fit to make it a point to comment to me in the one that I commented in. And again, I am not simply concerned here about this interest in me, but also in this bad faith accusing of editors who work on fiction articles. Look, all I want is for it to be clear that if I am not going to be going after him in AfDs, there is absolutely no need for him to go after me. And moreover, if there is an agreement that he should make no disruptive edits, then, he shouldn't be giving blocked socks barnstars, calling people's good faith contributions "shite" or calling those he disagrees with "prattlers". Why is it necessary to comment to NO ONE else in an AfD but me? Why say I am badgering when I replied to ONE other editor, yet the nominator and someone else replied to 10 editors a piece? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside question. Since you keep pointing to the topic ban proposal, what do you think about point 3, "Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other without the blessing and approval, onwiki, of a neutral admin"? Have you done that here or is it just Jack's conduct at issue? I know none were passed, but even under the particular language of point 4, "Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other", Jack hasn't violated that. Are we supposed to punish him for violating a requirement nobody suggested (under a proposal he wouldn't agree to) when you went against an explicit proposed requirement you supported? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that I have largely laid low since that ANI thread. There's a few days since that I even made no edits. So, in the time, I did rescue one article and defend it in an AfD. And I made sure to avoid any articles or AfDs he was in. Yet, of the dozen or so editors who commented in the one AfD I participated in since that ANI thread, he only sees fit to comment to me in that discussion and then makes a "vote" where he calls the article that I and others worked on a "piece of shite" and those who defended it are dismissed as "prattlers," a condescending term he used in another AfD as well. If in the only one article I tried to rescue since and the one AfD I comment in since the previous ANI thread, he sees me as the only person in that AFD worth commenting to, my concern is that it is a sign of things to come, i.e. even if I don't comment to him or even in the same AfDs as him, he will nevertheless still go after me and only me for that matter while making "votes" that essentially insult our contributors and their contributions. On as big a place as Wikipedia is and if I can resist commenting to him in AfDs or even slapping rescue templates on AfDs he nominates, then there's just no valid reason why of all the participants in the sole AfD I comment in in two weeks, I am the only one he must respond to. I don't want this to continue in any manner beyond this ANI thread and I'd rather not just sit back and watch the replies pile up in AfDs even if it would give me some kind of stronger case in the future, I'd rather it be nipped in the bud now and given the additional element of calling those who defend fiction articles mere "prattlers", that is something that should be addressed sooner rather than later. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, A Nobody, but I honestly can't see you have a case either for harassment or disruption, and the spatter of irrelevant diffs just weaken your position further. I think you are disposed to see any interaction with Jack as harassment. Have you e-mailed SBJohnny as suggested at the previous ANI? pablo_hablo. 11:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough was going on earlier this year that culminated in this talk page warning by his arbcom appointed mentor who is also an admin. Following that comment by his arbcom mentor to "leave me alone", he continued to see fit to not do so in various places (for example, [50], [51]--and no, I was not talking about him, [52], etc.), which resulted in the first unresolved ANI thread after which I greatly reduced my editing and only defended one article from deletion. In that lone AFD I comment in since, he comments to no one else but me, bearing in mind that enough was going on pre-April that he had already been advised to leave me alone. And then given, the first ANI thread and my avoiding saying anything after him in any AfDs, you'd think there'd be nothing else. Thus, I believe the below solution is the best way to avoid any further tensions. No playing games trading emails, no need for extensive mediation. Just plain and simple on a site with 2 million articles, we avoid each other. AfDs and RfAs thus will not be marred by any animosity between us that distracts from the article or candidate under discussion. No need for additional ANI, etc. And my concern is largely given what he did to White Cat that resulted in his sanctioning, there are signs of it starting with me. I do not want to take on that role. I can leave him alone, he should be able to do the same. Let's move on. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note, since I was mentioned. If I thought JM merited a block for his post at WP:ARS, I would have made that block. If someone feels that that comment crossed a line and feels that JM should be blocked for it, that's their business, but I don't want to see my comments misused further, thanks. Please do not involve me or my comments in this nonsense. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I am not sure if we can just do this here or if it requires arbitration, but to make it clear that this dispute ends in this thread, I propose and obviously endorse the following for the good of the community:

• 1. User:Jack Merridew and User:A Nobody agree to completely avoid each other on Wikipedia English pages. No confrontational editing the same pages (not a big deal if we happen uppon the same article without noticing the edit history and say make a lone grammar improvement), no comments about each other by name or innuendo. No harassment of each other in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
• 2. A Nobody and Jack Merridew are hereby completely forbidden from:
  • 2a. Commenting to each other anywhere onwiki, including each others' talkpages, with the sole exception of formulaic community-mandated notifications;
  • 2b. Commenting about each other anywhere onwiki, with the sole exception of responding to AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases brought by the other;
  • 2c. Starting any AN, AN/I, AN3, WQA, RFC, RFARB cases or threads about each other. )This time around, enough eyes should be on us, that I trust someone will take notice if either party goes after the other beyond this thread and as such let someone familiar with react accordingly).
  • 2d. Commenting on AFDs or article-rescues started by the other--e.g., A.Nobody tags an article for rescue, Jack Merridew must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. Likewise, Jack starts an AFD, A.Nobody must stay away from both the article and the AFD discussion. It should be emphasised that in light of the other above points, any attempt by either of these two to game the proposed restrictions via baiting, veiled references, or any other type of wikilawyering end-run should be viewed extremely dimly by admins. Infractions to be met by the usual series of escalating blocks. ADDED: To put it in a much simpler way, the two of them be told to stay away from each other, permanently.
  • 2e. Neither editor nominate articles for deletion for which the other editor created or significantly worked on.

Let's put a stop to this dispute here and now. No more antagonism in AfDs, no more ANI threads. Wikipedia has over 2 million articles. I avoided commenting in and trying to rescue his Honorverse AfDed articles, there's no urgent need for him to have to go after any ones I work on either. There is no real reason why any two editors on such a big project cannot agree to avoid each other. Clearly, the community is not interested in AfD antagnoism, and clearly it is not interested in any further ANI threads between us. Let's put a stop to all of this and get back to improving the project. And the above is far and away the best way forward. No need to play games trading emails, no need to discuss fine points. I tried reaching out to him in the past, was rebuffed. We tried with Casliber firmly saying to stay away. That didn't work either. So, let's just make it a clear and umabgiguous avoidance per the above and that's that. No more escalation, accusations, or anything else. The community will be far better for it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2c was proposed at point 3 last time, and you supported it then while ignoring it just now, how am I supposed to believe you'll do anything but support it again and ignore it again next time? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally support it but if you won't follow suggestions by others and won't follow promises you made before (let's not even get into the whole RTV thing about promises and allegations you've made before), the community is supposed to trust that this time, you are being serious and not just flailing accusations at everyone who disagrees with you until they leave? The last character doing that stuff I saw ended up with a one-year community ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said above, the previous proposal was not marked as "resolved", "approved," etc. So, even though I wanted them supported, I was hardly bound by them. By contrast, Jack did have a separate talk page warning from Casliber (arbcom mentor) to leave me alone, which was actually ignored and as such, that's why I am here, i.e. he was warned to leave me alone and isn't. Now, this time around, if all the points above are closed as "passed" by the community, whether any one party really wants to keep after the other for whatever unjustifiable reason, well, obviously both parties will have to abide by them or face being blocked. I am hoping that this time, with two ANI threads, enough editors will have seen them that if a pattern of going after me persists, there wouldn't be any need for me to ask for help as enough editors will be aware to take action themselves. Surely after this thread and when the above proposal is passed, someone will take notice if in AfDs they start seeing antagonistic replies to me. As I said previously, there is no legitimate reason why anyone would be so fixated on someone else on Wikipedia that they could not totally disengage from them. So, yeah, if the above is actually passed this time, you will not see any ANI threads from me, because I trust someone else will notice or keep an eye on our edits for any violations and will do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 11:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Or we could focus in the relentless drama-seeking and disruption on your part. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and that comment helped to resolve the issue how? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It puts the proper issue forward. The whole bit above is a rehash of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody. A Nobody is focused on extending my editing restrictions. I expect that this go-round, the concerns that many have about him will result in a rather stiffer proposal that adheres to him alone. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

• Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise. With your past, you don't get to behave like any other editor, you have to be a much better editor than most, with special attention to your interactions with other editors, to counterbalance your history.
• A Nobody, ignore Jack and his comments, spare the community the drama of making a molehill out of a single reply to an AfD post you made, and don't repeat proposals which were not agreed upon two weeks before and which you don't follow either. And stop posting essay links in AfD discussions as if they are policy, even when they are hardly relevant. Fram (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that if it is clear that anyone paying attention will take action if the above is ignored, i.e. yeah, okay, I won't start threads here, if after this thread is archived I'm not hounded any further by him and if I am anyone who notices, whether it's you, Protonk, Casliber, etc. does something about it. And I'd rather it be clear as well that not just me, but anyone who does defend these fiction articles are not denigrated as "this piece of shite article is about; fans of a hottie prattling-online" and "prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story." I think none of our contributors need be dismissed or insulted in such fashion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by slipping in that "hounded any further" clause you are claiming that it is self-evident you have been hounded. There is no evidence for this. As far as shite, prattling, doe-eyed hotties etc goes - this is certainly robust language and some may see it as uncivil but I don't think it harasses anyone nor is it particularly disruptive. pablo_hablo. 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did enough earlier this year to be told by his arbcom appointed mentor to leave me alone. Yet, he continued to make digs at me and only me in RfAs, AfDs, etc. In the only AfD I commented in since the last ANI, I am the ONLY editor he commented directly to. Why only comment to me and no one else? Why if told in March by Casliber to leave me alone, not do that? The bottom line is clear that if the community asserts we must avoid each other, the community will be better for it, because it precludes any room for the dispute to escalate beyond this thread. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As needed as the last sentence of A Nobody's half of the bargain is, I feel compelled to point out that it isn't terribly germane to the matter at hand. I should also note that apart from that last sentence, this proposal and the last one are identical (if you strip the faux legal jargon from the last proposal). Just figured I would point that out. Protonk (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to indicate that the less you needlessly annoy people (by being uncivil like Jack Merridew in some cases, or by responding with the same irrelevant essays as if they are policy like A Nobody in some cases), the less other people will feel the need to reply accordingly, and the more chance you have of a sympathetic ear when you are complaining about these replies. Fram (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Protonk (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Fram's proposal makes a lot of sense. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not very enforceable on A Nobody's end. A mutual topic ban is tricky to enforce, but compare that to coming to AN/I and being asked to block A Nobody for violating the last sentence of this little agreement. That will go down like a lead balloon, regardless of who agrees to it today. Though I will reverse my opinion if this proposal garners enough support to simply apply it to JM and not merely suggest it. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Fram hit the nail on the head. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as proposed by Fram, as an interim measure while they are working things out for the longer term via e-mail, mediated by User:SB Johnny (assuming he's still up for it) as recommended at the last AN/I. pablo_hablo. 15:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure if it will get A Nobody to the table. That's been understood all along. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3 :Lock the doors, walk away

Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. This is a dispute between two editors that don't enjoy the normal rights and privileges of a typical editor. Jack Merridew is here after being reinstated from a ban, where one of the primary reasons was the constant taunting of White Cat. I can sympathize with the argument that his treatment of A Nobody looks like that pattern could be starting again. A Nobody vanished ... he invoked his right to vanish, a process which entails actually leaving. A Nobody voluntarily abandoned his ability to edit Wikipedia when he did so. He edits only under the tolerance of others. The simplest and most effective way to keep the rest of us from having to deal with disruption caused by these enormous scattershot ANI reports generated by A Nobody over complaints about juvenile taunting by Jack Merridew is to indefinitely block both accounts and walk away.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that your post above is largely fair. I only have two quick notes...1) aside from items that were oversighted, I was essentially unvanished (my talk page history still exists, I have the same block log, etc.). 2) So long as the community makes it clear that neither of us are able to do anything whatsoever to each other that could possible enflame things beyond this ANI thread, really that should be enough to prevent anything further as if either party goes against that, enough eyes have been on this thread that surely someone would do something accordingly. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Nobody's unwillingness to abide by the editing restrictions he wants enforced, and his refusal to curtail the verbal diarrhea, I would support enforcement of his alleged vanishing. No comment on Jack. //roux   18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I absolutely agree to the proposal you suggested last time so long as it is clear that I will not be fixated on by this editor any further. Remember, I didn't comment to or about him since the previous ANI thread until he saw fit to reply to me and only me in the lone AfD I commented in since. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reinstate Jack's ban, enforce A Nobody's vanishment, and be done with it. Agreed. Both sides seem to want drama. Both have been in trouble before. They're fighting over a spinoff article about a minor TV mini-series. Just block both of them for a few months, so we can do something else. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

55 kilobytes, and counting

• One edit warrants all this? Right. This is disruption. It's all of a piece; A Nobody, E&C/E&C 2, Pixelface, Ikip, ARS, fancruft. In the E&C 2 case folks were told to not inflame the situation, and I feel that the defend-at-all-costs crowd has done an awful lot of flame-fanning. This is blowing up every few days now.
• I commented that A Nobody was, yet again, badgerring folk at AFD. See the reply from the badgered editor. No wonder Cas calls AfD the trenches; some are endlessly combative.
• It is time for the disruption, the bad faith, the off-topic TL;DRs from A Nobody to end. He had the chance to hash this out with SB_Johnny; still does, I expect. I'll talk. But he doesn't want that; he wants to rally the villagers, and their pitchforks and torches, and burn down the windmill. And he claims to be a 'mature adults participating in a serious discussion.' These little dramas on ANI are called 'clubbings'. Don't get too caught-up in the drama.
• I'm at UTC+8, which is pretty much day/night inverted from most here; close, at least. It gives one a different perspective. I'm off for the night soon, but many will pick at this while I sleep. Tomorrow, I'll read through all the noise, reverts, collapsing and uncollapsing. Don't have too much fun, ok? And don't reward disruption.
• Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Fram (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good advice in general, but Jack Merridew has to be allowed to comment freely here, if nowhere else, surely? This "incident" is after all, ostensibly about him. pablo_hablo. 14:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm off for the night anyway. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)He is free to comment here, and has done so a number of times. But how is his last comment helping in any way? It is obvious that noone is going to take any direct action against Jack Merridew for this last incident alone, but that most people are quite fed up with the disruption both cause through their actions or their responses to actions of the other. To drag in other editors and projects is not helpful in any way and will only serve to create more drama (and linking drama to Rwandan Genocide is not really helpful either, of course). If both editors back off, here and in general (from one another), then this may get resolved. If they don't, then both editors are risking lengthy blocks for just wasting everbodys time with their actions. And Jack's comment above was a step in the opposite direction, expanding this section into a larger dramafest instead of seeking a resolutionor quietly stepping away. Fram (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the way forward as w/SB_Johnny. I've a dozen emails with him seeking a resolution here. That's what came out of the last attempted lynching. G'night, Jack Merridew 15:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the Gordian knot

These threads are coming up too frequently, aren't going anywhere, and are taking up too much administrative time. Although I like and respect both A Nobody and Jack Merridew, we have a shortage of administrators at this site and have to solve this some other way. So proposing a 1-2-3 solution:

1. Encourage both Jack and A Nobody to enter mediation.
2. Offer to certify a conduct RfC on either of them.
3. If another thread like the current one appears on an admin board within two months (long and unactionable) and no other formal dispute resolution has been undertaken, I will open a formal mediation request for the two of them. If that works, wonderful. If it doesn't, the next stop will be RFAR.

Any objections? Durova^Charge! 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping-in, Durova.

1. I've said I'll talk this through; said so last time, too. I don't see any comment from SB_Johnny re this thread and feel that's the place to start. If that doesn't work out, or A Nobody won't agree to talk,^{but he did before} I'm not opposed to formal mediation. I've never done that; it seems a step often skipped.
2. I've said a number of times the A Nobody needs an RFC/U, as have others, including yourself. As he's said something to the effect that he wouldn't honor or respect one started by the likes of me, I've not gone there. If someone gets it rolling, I'll offer a view. If one is opened re myself, I'll listen, reply, and take the reasonable bits aboard.
3. Your point three could be moot, given my two comments above. I see a problem with your terms which basically invite stonewalling on A Nobody's part followed by another round of ANI Drama. A pity that shortcut was hijacked; it still applies. If he does not agree to any of this, you have my blessing to move sooner than two months.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relatively simple here that he and I should be able to just avoid each other. We have over two million articles. There's absolutely no reason why any two editors on such a large site must come into contact with each other. If I can refrain from replying to him in the multiple AfDs he started since the last ANI thread, why the need to reply to me and to no one else in the lone AfD I do comment in since? We don't need to go into mediation. The simplest thing would just be for this thread to be marked as resolved under the passage of either of the first two proposals above, i.e. "Both are editors are warned to avoid each other. Administrators familiar with this thread will block any attempt to escalate tensions again." We shouldn't need anything beyond that. Casliber has already basically said we should leave each other alone. Roux strongly proposed as much last time. Fram proposes as much here as well. There's no need for us to have to iron things out beyond that. We should be able to walk away from each other and work on some of the millions of articles the other isn't working on. And there's no reason why either of us must mention or reply to each other in any RfA or AfD. If after all this, when I want and am willing to not do anything further with regards to him, he still persists in having an interest in me, then I don't know what else to call that. And hopefully after this thread, the community will absolute not see me replying to or commenting to him and by contrast if he does to me, I hope those who participated in this discussion will do something. I don't have a need to start ANI threads if warnings that he leave me alone are followed up on. My hope is that this ANI thread is enough to resolve this here and now. Not take us anywhere else. Here and now the community says, "Enough you two! No more commenting to or about each other. Period." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both should be able to, but obviously are not. More to the point, the community is getting repeated requests for administrative assistance that it cannot really provide--so the groping attempts to provide it are taking up substantial time that would otherwise go into useful endeavors. There are three books on my desk atm about Latin American art and as soon as this post is done I intend to include content from them in article space hint hint. Can you believe the Peruvian muralist José Sabogal is a one sentence substub? He's the subject of a whole chapter in one of these books. Now there has to be a limit to how long the José Sabogals of the world remain underdeveloped in article space. This is more about time management than anything else. The lines need to be drawn somewhere and this seems like the most reasonable way. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not only did I not comment in any of the AFDs he started since the last ANI, I didn't even rescue template them. Why then the need to not only comment in the only AfD I posted in since that thread but to me and only to me? If he didn't do that, and listened to Casliber's talk page plea to "leave me alone", then there would be no ANI thread and I would continue avoiding him. As Kww hints at above, yeah, some may say, "Well, he it's just one AfD comment...", but we're talking about someone who was sanctioned for long-term going after another eidtor (White Cat). Given that, you would think once an admin tells him to leave me alone and he doesn't do so resulting in one ANI thread, why test the waters? My concern here is to stop this now before it goes any further. And all we need is as I say above whatever admin closes this thread to unambiguously state that we are to have nothing to do with each other and violating as much is blockable. I cannot imagine any legitimate reason why anyone could not under such circumstances indeed just walk away from his perceived opponent. We shouldn't need anything more and yes, I would much rather help work on articles than post here, but when someone who was sanctioned for fixating on an editor totally ignores an admin's call that he leaves me alone is incredibly disconcerting and hopefully not the start of a fixation on me. I am willing to take flak and scrutiny from many editors. I am willing to come to terms with many editors, but there is something unsettling with trying that with someone who had to be sanctioned to leave someone else alone. I want to help improve Wikipedia, not have to get into these discussions and I want to be sure that given that editors' history there is no chance that I am starting to become the latest target. I want to stop things now before they get any worse. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI lends itself to cut and dried situations, which this isn't. You can demonstrate that you have good faith by attempting dispute resolution. Maybe that'll work. If it doesn't, and if you've walked the straight and narrow, then you have nothing to fear from arbitration (which is designed to handle the situations that aren't cut and dried). José Sabogal has three whole sentences now. Pretty soon I'll have time to mention that he was a muralist. ;) Durova^Charge! 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I do not see any value or need in dispute resolution beyond this thread. I don't want someone who has a history of long-term fixation on another editor seeing a need to have to interact with me. There's nothing he and I need to work out, just to avoid each other. I would much rather spend time editing articles and not going back and forth in some dispute resolution thread when all we need is for us to leave each other be and for it to be clear that if either party doesn't indeed do that on-wiki then a neutral admin will indeed take action and I think enough neutral admins have seen this discussion that there should be no need for me to have to start any future ANI threads. It's stuff like this that actually does make me question how safe/good of an idea it is to edit here and what kind of environment it actually is. I am distressed that calling those who defend fiction articles as mere "prattlers" is being glossed over for one thing, but look, we know this editor had to be sanctioned by arbcom to leave one editor alone, he was told by one of his arbcom mentors to leave me alone, and yet continued to comment to/about me. We shouldn't put up that at all. And I shouldn't be expected to wait until things get really bad before seeking admin intervention. The seeds are clearly planted. I do not want this plant to grow. The community gains nothing from any further mediation, which realistically will devolve as that previous ANI thread into some kind of partisan wiki-philosophy debate. The simplest and best thing here is a clear admin warning that we have no further interaction beyond this thread and it be made clear that any breach of it be dealt with. Again, I wouldn't expect him to have to check the edit history to see if I edited an article just to make some grammar fix or to not comment in an RfA because I commented there. But there is absolutely no need for either of us to comment to or about each other in any edit summary, talk page, etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, just shut up already. Consensus is against your claims, so drop the stick and back away from the by-now fully decomposed remains of what was once a merely dead horse. //roux   17:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear that this dispute should end and as such I expect any further comments to or about me by him will be dealt with by any admin so as to prevent further escalation. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Note that if neither party initiates dispute resolution, I can attempt to initiate it. Thus if they refuse it this can trot over to RFAR without their cooperation. Either way, the admin community won't continue to be burdened with a dilemma it can't solve. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Casliber and now Fram, i.e. two admin warnings for him to leave me alone with the latter including a warning of a block, I consider my concerns addressed by admins and I hope that these warnings will be heeded and if ignored acted upon. I have nothing further to say and thank Fram for her fairness in this situation. I will not be the one to escalate this any further and hope that this is the end of the matter. Durova, I am starting to help you on that artist article instead. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that steps toward dispute resolution have been taken but there is, thus far, a vacant chair at the table. pablo_hablo. 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you must not realize the history of this dispute.

Jack Merridew-A Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

Two weeks ago, roux suggested and a SB_Johnny, was willing to arbitrate the two editors and came up with a solution that the majority of the community supported. But Jack refused to support this solution. Whereas A nobody immediately supported the solution.

Since Jack refused to support this proposal, the community discussed it, and the consensus was that we should follow this proposal.

Fram is a very involved editor in this dispute. His proposal requires four comprimises from A nobody, and a vague comprimise from Jack.

I don't see Jack rushing to support Durova's proposal either.

I suggest a neutral admin look over this past proposal, and make this binding on both parties, a proposal which has the overwhelming support of the community. Ikip (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding one, given that every single Wikipedian, including admins, can be so easily pigeonholed and compartmentalized. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, Jack Merridew has no real problems with my proposal ("I'll certainly agree to this sort of thing as an interim measure"), A Nobody considers his "concerns adressed by admins" (including me), but you start labelling me as "a very involved editor in this dispute"? Can you show me where I have previously acted in this dispute or taking sides with one against the other? And I don't see how "Jack Merridew, leave A Nobody alone, don't comment on him, reply to him, or try to needle him otherwise." is "a vague compromise". Please don't stir up more drama just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb: you did strongly oppose my unban and declined my offer to talk, so I'd consider you involved re myself. That said, I do see you as trying sort this issue, and offer my thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikip; I was asleep; UTC+8. Jack Merridew 08:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Nonsense - Archive Now

This is self-indulgent nonsense that brings Wikipedia into disrepute, reducing our "encyclopedia" to a Junior High Prom dispute. I vote this be archived at once and both parties blocked if they do this kind of crap again. I mean, honestly, *&^*&^ enough already. Eusebeus (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, how does 'badgering' work? Deletion discussions are exactly that -- discussions, not straight votes. — neuro^(talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's effective primarily because there's a psychological effect on other editors through seeing masses an masses of support for a position and relatively little against, much like people instinctively treat longer rationales as more thoughtful than shorter ones. This makes them more inclined to favour the position, which skews the debate. Furthermore, editors who aren't used to be endlessly pressured on their rationales might choose simply not to comment as they don't have the time to stick around for ten rounds of further questioning on their positions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Merridew's extraordinary history of harassing, i do not really know why he is still allowed to edit. However it seems he came back from being banned here - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion - and is now clearly being a silly bugger, despite that being a last last chance. Casliber, Jayvdb and Moreschi were assigned to deal with him, so perhaps concerns should be brought to them directly. Given the general nature of the response here i must be missing something. I recall mcdevit's comment "I think part of the problem here is that this troll is so persistent he has outlived most of our institutional memory." 86.44.29.76 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please – I really don't care what happens, but just end it, already. Or at the very least get this crap off here and reserve this space for stuff that requires immediate admin attention, which is what ANI is meant for in the first place. Go to RFC, RFAR, whatever; don't bring this stuff here again. I'm tired of it, and I'm sure many others are tired of it. MuZemike 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur – this is ridiculous and needs to stop. ANI isn't the right place for it, especially if neither party is capable of bringing forth a concise post that actually requires admin attention. Close this now. File a case for RFAR for all I care: all of these ANI threads aren't going anywhere. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement of mutual topic ban

Can an uninvolved administrator look over:

• Jack_Merridew-A_Nobody Mutual topicban proposal community !vote

And determine whether their is community consensus to put this mutual topicban proposal in effect? Ikip (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]