Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

1. I have a script that allows me to automaticaly watch articles I edit (primarily for vandalism), on occasions I manualy add articles to this watchlist such as various political parties and other potential vandalism targets. If Moby Dick edits articles on my list (whether it is an article talking about Oh My Goddess! or Nationalist Movement Party) I would have a way of knowing about it.
   • I generaly look for large removals/additions and review them. I actualy would not have noticed Moby's edit on Nationalist Movement Party if he had not been revert waring with some other person. Moby had placed the kurdish flag on the talk page of the "ultra nationalist turkish" party, something tells me that is not the ideal way to cool off a heated debate. I'd like to remind, Davenbelle was banned from politics for a year.
   • Same script also looks for flag words in edits, one of such is the flag word "My Goddess" (to keep track of articles, templates, categories and lists related to Oh My Goddess!. Another flagword I have is "Kurd" which allowed me to detect and remove pictures of corpses from Kurdistan Workers Party. For that edit (removing corpse image), I was declared a "Kurdish terrorist".
   • On occasions the same script creates 'false reports' generated by edits to articles such as Oh My Goddess, Pt 1 (Charmed episode) or North Kurdufan (Province in sudan). These articles are of no interest to me. I also monitor these 'false reports' which allowed me to detect a persistant copy vio on commons commons:Image:Kurdwanow-satelita.jpg, commons:Image:Kurdwanowsatelitaa.jpg (Google earth images).

     Latest false report was: #en.wikipedia [06/06/2006, 14:44:41] <rc> Midgard [1] * 67.49.135.184 * (-13) /* Popular culture */ Took out "There is a" in Line 21. (There is a Japanese anime, Ah My Goddess! that uses this name to refer to the Earth's protector.

   • In other words I monitor articles, not Moby. The fact that Moby Dick's edits range from opposing sub-talk page copy vio notices to informing a problematic user (Aucaman, a user baned by arbcom) about my rfar still stand out. Only a sock would conviniantly detect such 'forgery' (for an award Davenbelle gave out) as well.
2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is an intresting article. Unlike what moby claims I actualy particiapted in that AFD. All of the faces on previous RfAr are present on the AFD. We have:
   • User:Karl Meier (my former stalker) who voted 4 minutes after nom. Karl is currently revert waring on the article [2]
   • User:Moby Dick (a suspected Davenbelle sock) who voted 10 hours after my vote on same day. Moby was reverting to Kral's version on a number of occasions. [3]
   • User:Fadix (my former stalker) who voted after me on the same day (10 hours after Moby).

   I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.

3. Here is a complete list of the deletion votes I participated involving kurds. You'll see over a half are red links as the concensus was over half of the time: delete.
   • I'd also like to point out that some of these categories were created by User:Diyako and/or his other aliases, a user arbcom banned for a year.
   • As for Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, my views are still the same. It should be deleted for the same reasons as Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted. I am not going to bring a content dispute here but I believe I have very good reasons from my stand point which I can discuss if arbcom requests.
4. It is irrational for someone interested in the novel featuring Moby Dick (so much that he choses it to be his nick), to make minimal edits to that area (hardly any edits, in fact none to article Moby Dick) and make majority of his edits to issues regarding Turkey and Kurds.
   • I would not be suprised if a checkuser placed Moby into the same geographic region as Davenbelle who said he was in bali.
   • The more I look at Moby's contributions the more evidence I can come up with...

--Cat out 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to be a part of this ArbCom case if I can avoid it, because I haven't really been involved in the conflict between Moby and Cool Cat, and I have followed (and intend to continue to follow) the ArbCom's advice to let other editors, and especially his mentors, take the lead in dealing with any POV editing or other violations by Cool Cat. However, I noticed that Cool Cat has mentioned me in his statement, and I feel that I should respond to it, as what he says is very inaccurate. First, it must be made clear that Cool Cat followed me to the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. As the history of the article clearly show, he had never made a single edit to the article or the talkpage when I started editing the article. Also, I don't know why he find it interesting or relevant to his latest ArbCom case that I made my first comment on the vote for deletion page a few minutes after it was nominated, but perhaps Cool Cat could explain in more details exactly why he find it relevant to mention that? For the record I was discussing what should happend with the article on the talkpage at the time when it was nominated, and as mentioned, Cool Cat had never edited that article or it's talkpage. Anyway, Cool Cat followed me to the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict article a few days later, and his comments on talk and edits to the article, makes it obvious to me that his behavior haven't improved since my last contact with him, which was more than half a year ago. His edits and comments on talk, makes it clear he is still editing and acting according to his pro-Turkish government POV. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I find the time I will investigate Cool Cat's continued violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policies and add these findings to the evidence section of this ArbCom case. -- Karl Meier 21:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megaman Zero (aka User:Randall Brackett) has added himself and User:Cool Cat as parties to this case; is this acceptable to the AC? If so I would be pleased to add evidence concerning them; I did not before because it seemed that this was a case deliberately constructed in a one sided manner. --Moby 04:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: he states in his edit summary I find it difficult to swallow we are not considering this fellow never harrassed [sic] Tony... which would seem to imply that he believes that I have harassed User:Tony Sidaway. I'm quite curious as to what he's referring to as I've hardly encountered Tony before this and don't think we've edited any of the same articles. --Moby 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is incomprehensible about it. I found it utterly confusing Tony was the member of the case when he was not exposed to your disruptive habbits. On that vein, I knew it was inapropriate in this context for merely Tony to a party when we were the harrassed editors in question. This can be verified over at the evidence subpage.

"I did not before because it seemed that this was a case deliberately constructed in a one sided manner." You mean to imply you have evidence in defense of your actions and you haven't provided any yet....? -Randall Brackett 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [4] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.

The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.

--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he needs to just leave the subject alone. Fred Bauder 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.

While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).

--Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? --Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint is filed mostly against Karl not you. Though, the short timespan for an inactive wikipedian such as yourself to notice it is of course also curious. Your last edit was on 3 July...

--Cat out 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it really so remarkable that someone might login to read (including checking one's own talk page and watchlist) even when not editing for a while? I'd think it as normal as checking one's email inbox even when not sending email for a while. Asking as a relative newbie, passing by. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:35, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

He ONLY had 3 edits prior to the incident. Reverting my edit to his userpage was his 4th edit. Unlike a wikipedia, on commons there really is nothing to read. I seriously doubt he was just browsing images in the time being... Needless to say he was convicted of stalking me twice in the past as linked above.

However, my complaint is for a different reason. The remarkable thing is that an uninvolved and also relatively inactive party (User:Igiveup) filing the complaint practically behalf of Moby and Him being another convicted stalker. His complaint just one hour and 30 minutes after my edit - that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

--Cat out 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my newbie question; I appreciate it. Looking at the edit history with your seven edits to his user page, I see you'd not only added a sockpuppet warning but blanked out the prior content of that page (until the revert); I just don't see why. I also don't see how his complaining about what you did to his user page makes him a harasser. As to his only making four edits (the 4th being his revert), I see the first two were creating his user page and the picture for it, and the third was a vote opposing your promotion. After that, doing what you did to his user page could be interpreted as a reprisal — please notice, I'm not saying it was, I'm just pointing out the risk inherent in making that kind of edit in that situation. Under the circumstances, are you sure you want to follow up that interaction by bringing accusations here, given the risk of reinforcing that interpretation? I'm certainly not on ArbCom, it's just another question from a newbie. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:36, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick, it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek). Who has a history of personal attacks and harassment here on en.wiki.

I am really tired of dealing with Davenbelle/Moby Dick and Stereotek/Karl Meier/Igiveup. They had been stalking me with intervals (overall non-stop) for nearly two years now.

If harassment is indeed prohibited behavior why am I still dealing with it?

--Cat out 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick".... In that case, you might want to strike through some text above, e.g. "It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick)"....

..."it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek)." Whose "harassment", according to the link you provide, consists of filing a complaint — about your twice blanking out Moby's user page, and on the second occasion using your brand-new Commons admin power to protect the blanking against Moby's restore. So anyone who refers to that as abuse of power is "harassing" you? Is it also "harassment" for anyone else to point to the same edit history and draw the same conclusion?

Cool Cat, you initiated the interaction there, carried your grudge from Wikipedia to Commons, and when you were simply and formally called on it, you reported that back to Wikipedia as "harassment" against you, to get those who complained of your harassment blocked. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:30, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from commons for "exhaust[ing] the patience of the community" ^link. --Cat out 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the actual reason given is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others". How curious.   What threats? Specifically? Is there a quote, a cite, a diff, anything to substantiate exactly what threats were made, when or where? "Making threats" is a crime. Alleging that is a very serious accusation. And it is false. Does NPA not apply on Commons? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:02, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

This block was appealed at Bastique's talk page, with link to reasons at Moby Dick's talk page. Bastique has replied that he will not lift the block unless ArbCom tells him to. I request ArbCom consider this appeal speedily so as not to prolong an unjustified block.

Bastique cites as "harrassment of Cool Cat":

1. Moby's remark "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to Moby's RfAr (but note the consensus at ANI, Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.

I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.

No neutral admin chose to declare any of the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique did, but he is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.

It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope everyone on ArbCom agrees with that much.

If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:18, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).

• Davenbelle (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Moby Dick (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Diyarbakir (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
• Commons block rationale of Pfctdayelise ^{(Moby Dick block log at commmons)}
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir

In its decision of August 13, 2006 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick, the Arbitration Committee found that Moby Dick had harassed Cool Cat. The remedies included a prohibition of further harassment as well as topic-ban of Moby Dick from editing articles concerning Turkey or Kurdish issues. Reference was made to a prior case finding that Davenbelle also harassed Cool Cat, and the decision implies a finding that Davenbelle and Moby Dick were the same user.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir finds that Diyarbakir is a sockpuppet of Moby Dick. WP:AE#User:MobyDick finds that Diyarbakir (i.e., Moby Dick) has harassed Cool Cat by repeatedly stalking and reverting his edits and has edited Kurdish-related articles in violation of the topic ban. As a result, Thatcher131 blocked Moby Dick for two weeks.

To prevent further attempts at evading the remedies against Moby Dick, I request that ArbCom enact an additional remedy requiring Moby Dick to edit from only one account. This type of remedy has been used several times in the past and I believe it is appropriate here. Newyorkbrad 16:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that editor doing something useful that outweighs his evident inability to keep from harassing Cool Cat? This has been going on for over two years now. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to second what Tony says...enough is enough.--MONGO 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it has to be spelled out that sockpuppetry isn't allowed to break rules (much less harassing others), then so be it. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To summarise the cases, Davenbelle made a nuisance of himself on the political articles and got banned from those, then he harassed Cool Cat and was told that "If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." So he turns up a while later as Moby Dick, harasses Cool Cat again, as well as Megaman Zero, then gets identified as Davenbelle and is banned from Turkey and Kurdish issues and banned from harassing Cool Cat, Megaman Zero, and other users in general. Now he's back and socking again, breaking his topic ban and harassing Cool Cat. At this stage it's obvious that he's determined to circumvent any sanction, so the ultimate, an arbitration committee one year ban followed permanent general probation, would be merited in my opinion. The arbitration committee's promise of "substantial penalties", made nearly two years ago now, must be made good. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added links to the individual debates over Davenbelle's behavior. Davenbelle/Moby Dick was also "active" on commons which he was blocked for. While commons is beyond the scope of arbcom, Commons:User:Moby Dick's contribution there should be seen as a mirror of Davenbelle's continuing behavior. I also feel User:Moby Dick should be treated as a sockpuppet of Davenbelle unless Davenbelle declares it as his primary username. -- Cat ^chi? 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the most recent block indefinite. Moby Dick really has no useful contributions outside of an impressive amount of stalking, and there is no reason not to consider him banned. Dmcdevit·t 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Thomas Jerome Newton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <-
  • Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Considering how many times arbcom and the community gave me a second chance (never), I am rather baffled... Community could at least pretend to care what I have to say... :(

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew a discussion to community unblock this user has recently started and Jack Merridew was unblocked and unbanned almost instantly after the case was filed. Jack Merridew was later indef blocked per the same WP:AN discussion a little while later. Most relevant past discussions are linked at User:White Cat/RFAR/graph although I would expect all arbitrators to be rather familiar with the case by now.

I think Arbcom should decide on this case per arbcoms past decline rationale [5]. Arbcom should not be completely bypassed and ignored like how the community is doing right now.

It is important to note that some of the people commenting on WP:AN share the same opinion as Jack Merridew on the matter of E&C articles which may be a coi.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it mildly I am tired of the charade Davenbelle had put me through. He has only wasted community time and still does. The signal-to-noise ratio is just too intense. -- Cat ^chi? 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to @echo the #Statement by Chunky Rice and thank Chunky Rice for the decent observation. -- Cat ^chi? 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Since arbcom is discussing the possible lifting of sanctions from Jack Merridew, maybe arbcom would be interested to also look into lifting my mediation restriction form the ancient case which was passed 4-3.

It is not that I am very interested in mediation, the remedy has done its job and successfully alienated me from the mediation related tasks. The remedy only exists as an eyesore that will stay there forever. The self termination of "officially appointed to the Mediation Committee" is an impossible case scenario. Mediation Committee will not officially appoint a person sanctioned from participating in mediation.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

White Cat states; "It is important to note that some of the people commenting on WP:AN share the same opinion as Jack Merridew on the matter of E&C articles which may be a coi.". I am probably one of those he is referring to, in which case I feel it is equally important to note that a higher number of editors who commented against Merridew's unblocking are those who are on precisely the opposite side of the E&C ArbCom, and therefore this issue is irrelevant. Black Kite 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition edit in response to Casliber below; I do not understand why restriction from AfD is required - all AfD comments should be backed up by policy - if they aren't, they are required to be ignored by the closing admin. Therefore a suggestion that an editor should be barred from AfD is effectively pointless. Black Kite 00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that arbcom should at least review what is going on, given the length of problems having occurred thus far, to validate that consensus has indeed occurred. The central issue is what is a net positive to wikipedia and to that end much of the AfD debates have been highly contentious and draining on alot of editors. I agree David (Jack) has alot to contribute but ongoing trench warfare would reinforce tendentious behaviour previously seen in the stalking and harassment. I note I am on 'the opposite side' yet I am prepared to work with and mentor if need be. The fact that votes are stacking along the same old lines shows it is not irrelevant. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence my proposal for a 6 or 12 month moratorium on participation in AfD debates. David/Jack has a strong opinion on Systemic Bias which I fully support, I just feel it would be of huge benefit to W'pedia to be addressed with carrots instead of sticks. I fully believe he could be producing Good or Featured Articles as I think he has considerable talent in this area and I will do my utmost to keep interactions positive and looking forward rather than becoming enmired in past conflicts. I am hoping this can be achieved collaboratively but admit I am concerned over past history. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, no, Black Kite, this is not a normal situation. This is an editor with a pretty serious past record (which I am sure he will agree with), thus the circumstances should dictate some form of significant consensus conditional upon their return. A significant number of editors found his edits contentious and thus would not support an unblock. The only reason the editor should be allowed to return is if their return is an unequivocal net positive - the last thing we need is yet more drama at AfD. Your position on AfD is not unilateral and the divergence is consensus enough to make it a factor to take into consideration here. Policy at AfD is liberal enough to be interpreted and gamed by many editors. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the unblock thread this unblock was outrageous. The discusion took place while the entire US was in darkness. The fact that an abussive sockuppeteer and liar recieved only a 1 month cool off was despicable. This case needs to be accepeted not only to reinforce the discipline to the sockpupeteer but to send a message to admins that unblocks in the dark of night are unaccaptable in a consensus driven environment.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to arbcom and the clerks, this case should include User:Ryan_Postlethwaite as a participant.

I have had some pleasant discussions with Jack on my talk page (see here and here), so I think there is a potential for article improvement from this editor and I am more than willing to renew those discussions and efforts to work to improve those and other articles. My concern is AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hand of Doom in which Jack said "Not notable, no significant coverage," when editors were able to argue the exact opposite and thus the article was kept. Similar examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boalisk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. In other words, time could have been more constructively spent in the effort to help build those articles or if he just didn't like them for whatever reason to instead work on improving articles he does like. My other concern is this thread. Those who supported a block there based on evidence that turned out to be accurate, but was dismissed at the time, were essentially mocked for it. What would have been the results of that proposal if the circumstances that did lead up to the idefinite block had occurred during the arbcom case? If then it was confirmed as was alleged that it was a resurrected user, would the arbs have indeed voted to sanction? Thus, the deceit and fact that those with suspicions were accused of assuming bad faith are a concern, not to mention that the case may have been incorrectly influenced as a result. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After doing the worst bunch of sock puppeting and wiki stalking I've ever heard of, Davenbelle made a bunch of friends (some admins) with his latest sock. The current precedent is sock and stalk all you want, as long as you make the right friends with your last sock. The correct precedent is that if you sock and stalk past a certain point (way past in this case) you will be banned forever. Imagine the amount of hours of White Cats life that have been effected by this. Imagine if White Cat had been a woman or child. It's completely unacceptable. No amount of good editing can make up for what Davenbelle did. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock is appalling. The Arbitration Committee only refused the case in April because they considered this editor banned. An unblock after a month off, gives a green-light to sock and stalk/harass as long as you make a few friends to back you up. This smells, R. Baley (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ryan has re-blocked for the time being (thanks Ryan), but he is also of the opinion that the Arbitration Committeee still needs to hear this (because admin(s?) are willing to unblock). On this I agree. As it appears that: (1) several administrators are in disagreement as to what should be done here, and (2) Ryan is uncomfortable with having his name on the blocking record, I urge the Arbitration Committee to provide some finality for this situation. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think R. Baley has done a good job at putting my thoughts across in his second statement, but I'd like to elaborate. I first had an email off Jack stating that he had discussed a ban appeal with Newyorkbrad and he asked me if I would consider mentoring him. I personally think this is key to any unblock request he makes. Mentorship in this situation would allow Jacks constructive edits to continue, whilst making sure no disruptive behaviour continues.

White Cat has been here for a long time, he's done a lot of good work here in the face of adversity. It's important we recognise this here and make sure that we put a process in place (should Jack be unblocked) to stop any future problems that White Cat could face. As a possible mentor, I'd like to state clearly that should anything come to my attention of Jack stalking, or even attempting to engage White Cat, I would block right away, no questions asked. White Cat doesn't deserve any more problems from this user. This thing is however, I can see in Jacks account that he does care a lot about the project and has learnt a lot from his previous accounts. He's been sincere about his previous editing problems in private email with me, and I've been assured that there won't be any lapses in the future.

I think my unblock was premature - The consensus was towards unblocking and I really wasn't happy with my original block so I removed it. In hindsight, it would have been better to wait a little longer, but I really wanted Jack to offer his ideas on the AN thread as to editing restrictions because in discussion, he's been very open to a few that haven't been mentioned yet. I get the impression that he really wants to edit constructively. I would appreciate ArbComs thoughts here as there seem to be some admins who are willing to unblock (myself included) and there is clearly no longer a consensus for a community ban. There's people willing to watch like a hawk and offer advice/mentorship. I think we should give him a chance. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock was extremely inappropriate. The block was not Ryan's to undo in the face of opposition, especially as arbcom has chosen to decline cases based on the fact that the account was blocked.

This is White Cat's home wiki, and there should be no allowance for Jack Merridew to continue to harass White Cat.

Poetlister (talk · contribs) is an example of a reformed user. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is not (yet). I encourage Jack Merridew to follow the example of Poetlister - get involved in another Wikimedia project, make it your "home" wiki, and then appeal to arbcom in 12 months or more.

I'm somewhat concerned that much of the support/opposition for Jack Merridew's unblock splits along ideological lines. Many of the people supporting his unblock share his views regarding his efforts merge and remove fiction content. Similary, many of those who most strongly oppose his unblock are those that advocate strongly for keeping separate articles on fictional subjects and related trivia. I don't mean to suggest that every opinion has a bias of this nature, but simply that enough of it exists that determining a true consensus based on policy and not personal feelings is difficult. Therefore, it is my opinion, that if this user is to be unblocked, it should be done by ArbCom. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can see a third way, following the various statements above. It may be possible for Jack Merridew to contribute to Wikipedia in a limited fashion, with strong supervision. Rather than topic ban the editor should he return, might it be possible to agree which topics the editor may edit in advance - ensuring that there is little likelihood of antagonising other editors - on a repeating basis. Any person indicating that they do not wish to share article space with the editor should confirm their acceptance of the proposed topics; they then know not to edit those articles also. In this manner the editor can prove that they are able to constructively contribute without causing further disruption or getting involved in disputes with other editors. Should this trial be succesful then there could be considered moving a more general topic ban on articles where there is remaining distrust only. Those persons who had previously volunteered to mentor Jack Merridew would be appropriate supervisors, since they may consider themselves as having more to lose should the trial prove disasterous, and they are also editors in general good standing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Ryan for recognizing your mistake. :-) As an arbitrator, I did not review the situation when WhiteCat requested it because the block had already happened. Since there were pre-existing issues, I think that input is needed from the Committee before this editor is allowed to contribute. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Committee is discussing the issue on the arbcom mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---