Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

message: ===Statement by Cool Cat===
#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 ,  (Google earth images). 
#*:Latest false report was: #en.wikipedia [06/06/2006, 14:44:41] <rc> Midgard   * 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.
#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 
#*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. 
#*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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Outside comments

message: #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 ,  (Google earth images). 
#*:Latest false report was: #en.wikipedia [06/06/2006, 14:44:41] <rc> Midgard   * 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.
#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 
#*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. 
#*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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Karl Meier|Karl Meier]]

message: :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":
:#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
:#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
:#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 talkcontribs 19:18, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection to this Block

message: === Request for additional remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick ===
* 
* 
* 
* 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)
thread_title:  Request for clarification and indefinite block of Moby Dick, April-May 2007 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 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)
thread_title:  Request for additional remedy in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick]] 

message: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
*
**
**
**
**
** <-
**
==== Statement by White Cat ====
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 . 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)
replies: text: *Note to arbcom and the clerks, this case should include User:Ryan_Postlethwaite as a participant.
==== Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ====
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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Request to amend prior case: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek|/Davenbelle]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick|/Moby Dick]] as well as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=203467356#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F5.2F0.2F0.29 most recent case]

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:White Cat|White Cat]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] 

message: 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] ([[User talk:R. Baley|talk]])

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|Ryan Postlethwaite]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Chunky Rice|Chunky Rice]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]]

message: * 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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion