User talk:125.162.150.88

May 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Template talk:Rescue. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

you're an idiot. you fed a whole horde of trolls by blocking this IP for removing trolling. see below, for example; see the last IP's other trolling of me: [1] [2] [3]. The project is going down the toilet and you're not helpful. *most* people are useless and that explains a lot. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack Merridew) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

stupid accusations

RE: [4]

this is asinine accusing me of posting this. Why drag a retired editor like myself into your latest piety drama?

The reason why people have nasty web blogs about you off wiki is simply karma: you treat everyone so badly so of course there is going to be blow back. You reap what you sow.Okip 18:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

fuck you, too, Ikip; you're not a retired 'editor', you're a run-off troll. you're prolly behind the smear. begone. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack Merridew) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continuation of Editing from 125.162.150.88 (Jack Merridew). Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:

Check your e-mail. N419BH 09:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fries with that? ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Milkshake would be better ;). N419BH 09:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Dude, is this really how you want this to go down? If you're pissed at Wikipedia's process, governance or even the whole damn thing, fine; I've been there too, but what on earth are you going to accomplish by edit warring and cussing up a storm? Is a ban what you want? And if so, why? Just to get your point across? Is it worth that? Going back to my question if you want to be banned, if not, why are you doing this? Surely you can see where it will lead? I know practically nothing about you and your contribs, but I've seen enough people I respect speak of their respect for your work that I'd really rather not see you self-immolate here. If you want nothing more to do with Wikipedia, you'd maintain a lot more of your dignity by leaving without this angry campaign, and you'd leave yourself the option of return if you want to someday (that may seem impossible now, but I've seen so many users who leave in an angry huff later decide to return). Really, take a long (or even permanent, if that's what you desire) Wikibreak, but I implore you to not do what you're doing now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen you around, although I don't know much about you, have not even looked at your user page before posting.

Why? What do I want? I'd like to see this project get its shit together; it's not. I've been here since 2004, seen most everything. I used to think that things were on the mend, but have been disabused of this notion. The project has been overrun by a swarm of really poor editors. It's a problem with the anyone-can-edit model. That could work if there were actually genuine dispute resolution, but there's not, disputes rage for years and people address the symptoms and not the problem. There are on the order of a thousand long-term editors here that shouldn't be; mebbe a hundred bad admins that enable endless shite. I've done a lot to fix this site, gone outside the lines to do it, too. I've sorted many problems here that no one else could, and fixed thousands of articles. I've pissed a lot of unimpressive 'editors' off. I got tarred with the 'stalker' moniker long ago. Who've I given shite to? POV warriors, disruptive editors, twits of all sorts who damage the project. Look at ANI, at who the detractors really are. Wouldn't the project be better off without most of them?

Look at the dysfunctional arbitration committee. I was banned, I was unbanned, then declared to have made a clean return. I remain restricted, tied to a whipping post for the torch and pitchfork crowd. This project is absolutely toxic; assholes abound, endless IPs engage in all sorts of mischief, throwaway accounts by the million do the next level shite, the moves and autoconfirmed stuff. The project needs to whack the real problems, but it doesn't. Seen the sort of shite out there about my primary account? A few on the AC seek to tie me to that forever. They do it for high-level wiki-political reasons. I was dissed by Risker and Coren in January when most of the other arbs were prepared to lift the restrictions. I had a few toy accounts that everyone knew about. When Elen made a bad block on one of them, I scuttled every account. My vestigial restriction says I may only use the one named account, so I'm left with anon editing. And what happens when I plainly edit as myself as this IP? The usual detractors are all over me? Doc9871 made this comment: "This was inspired by this, BTW."^cite This guy's analysed every edit I ever made; boasts of all the diffs he has in cold storage. He's on this project for the hunt (cf: s:The Most Dangerous Game). Gimme's targetting huge swaths of my editing and it's all well discussed. And Ikip, above, has been after me for *years*.

What's the real effect of NPA? It restrains a lot of spot-on criticism which in turn enables more poor behavior that should cease. How about AGF? Far too many of those crying that one are seeking to slide by with whatever inappropriate thing they're up to.

the above is all off-the-cuff and abetted by a large beer. G'night, and thanks for your input. 125.162.150.88 (talk) Jack 14:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You say you want Wikipedia to "get its shit together". How is what you're doing going to achieve that? You say the atmosphere is toxic and that there are lots of assholes around. Then why act in a way that increases the toxicity and assholery? (Pardon my bluntness, but I think it gets across the point better than the phony language some use to dodge around the civility policy.) Tit for tat may grant you emotional satisfaction for the time being, but it's not going to solve any problems. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Risker has been calling me pointy, although pointed would be more apt. You have any idea how much abuse has been heaped on me, by far from stellar users, and over years? If I was making, admittedly caustic, comments that didn't have an awful lot of truth to them, I'd simply be smacked, indef'd and talk page and account creation locked. A lot of people believe I'm right with my criticisms. See inbox ;) I think you partially answered your own question with your parenthetical; bluntness is effective. I did just start to look at your user page, and see some pieces that I need to read. I rather expect I'll like your essays. As you must realize, it's late here and ANI will role along for the American day while I sleep. It's interesting to edit the wiki from the far side of the planet than most of the toxic participants. You must experience this yourself.

I don't expect to solve the wiki's problems myself, and ragging on a few isn't directly about solution-seeking. But it focuses things. It's not like I flamed people without thought; note the three day pause. Life in Bali is about being relaxed, thoughtful. I'm pretty busy tomorrow, so, I'll see where the zoo has gotten to in about 18 hours (although it might be more like 36 depending on other plans. Pleased to meet you, 125.162.150.88 (talk) David 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, 125.162.150.88. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indefinitely blocked

Jack - It pains me to do this but you clearly have decided to turn away from participating here in a constructive manner. Not every one of your recent contributions is problematic, but you've grossly ignored existing restrictions on your editing, attacked Sarek in a clear personal attack, and there's an active permanent user ban proposal currently trending towards passing on ANI.

You are blocked indefinitely - Until the situation is clarified with regards to a community ban, Arbcom decides to do something, or another administrator decides to override based on their review of the situation.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)