User talk:Br'er Rabbit

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Template:Civility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Courcelles 21:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, Br'er Rabbit. To put it bluntly: your contributions are too important to the project for you to get ticked off about something minor and storm off in a huff.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Edit: added Barong to watch over your talkpage while you're on your unrequested long weekend.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Der Geist hilft unser Schwachheit auf --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the anklebiter to guard the page also. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, and Violating several other community policies while doing so, plus your previous block reason. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a little vague; do you mean abusing multiple accounts since yesterday or more generally? Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former, at least. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody and their brother knows that Jack has multiple accounts. He makes no secret of it. Hell, it's right on his user page: "This user is a sock puppet". I'm confused here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not that he has them, it's that he's abusing them to circumvent a block. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, OK, see that's where I was confused. I didn't know he was using another account while blocked. Now I understand. Yeah, definitely something one should not do. That said, I don't think this constitutes an indef block. Maybe starting over the previous block and tacking on some extra time (a week total sounds good), but indef it's too permanent and hard as hell to get out of. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It being hard as hell to get out of is kind of the point. Seriously, you want to give him an extra week of block time for verbally abusing admins, sockpuppeting, edit-warring, and doing all of that after he's already come back from a ban, on the condition he use a single account? There are no contributions that justify being that much of a contrarian ass. Ironholds (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Verbally abusing admins" is no more a crime than verbally abusing anyone - and it's the mindset that seems to think that admins are somehow due extra respect which drives a wedge between decent editors and admins. Some admins are obviously just too full of themselves. Sensible admins understand an outburst from someone they've just blocked as venting - people do that when you hurt them.
2. Br'er was already on a 48 hour block for the editwarring, and you are complaining that he should be given extra time for the same editwarring? How many times do you want to punish someone for the same offence?
3. Sockpuppeting is the abuse of multiple accounts. Br'er was never editing from more than one at a time. You're confusing it with block evasion.

So that leaves "doing all of that after he's already come back from a ban, on the condition he use a single account" - he successfully returned from the ban four years ago. How long are you going to hold a grudge for? I think a week would be excessive just for something that can only be described as "doing all that". Incidentally what are your wonderful contributions that justify your attitude here? --RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)--RexxS (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion is an abuse of multiple accounts, see WP:ILLEGIT. And yes, illegit alternate accounts are routinely blocked, and repeat offenders generally get their main account blocked. There may be a lot of history, but standard community norms were applied here.
He was doing fine, and a policy against block evasion is sensible and doesn't warrant civil disobedience. I'm back to not understanding why Jack Merridew insists on ignoring this particular community norm.
Amalthea 16:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wouldn't be arguing with Ironholds if standard community norms were applied here, but he's telling me that this is far beyond what a week's block is needed for. Br'er has had a bad couple of days and reacted both intemperately and against his own best interests. This is all stress/heat of the moment stuff by an otherwise productive editor; it requires application of large trout, not something we need indefinite blocks and community bans to solve. Believe me, I'm with you all on perma-banning vandals like Grawp who was never here to do anything good, but Jack/Alarbus/Br'er isn't the same thing at all and doesn't deserve to be treated in that way. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, except this is the Nth time he's done so ;p. And, yes, the ban was four years ago: the single account restriction existed for a lot longer. Agreed on point 1, by the way - as someone who blocks admins, I agree they deserve no more respect than anyone else. matterofact, for some things I block longer because they're admins. People who are tasked with enforcing the rules are expected to know em Ironholds (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Proposed community ban for Jack Merridew/Davenbelle/Br'er Rabbit/...". Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got some work for ya

<del> every user page and sub page of these:

• Davenbelle
• Thomas Jerome Newton
• Moby Dick
• B9171457-dac8-4884-b393-15b471d5f07e
• D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5
• Note to Cool Cat
• Diyarbakir
• Senang Hati
• Jack Merridew
• Wayang kulit
• Jack Merridew (doppelganger)
• Jack Merridew bot
• Gold Hat
• Merridew
• Barong
• Battle of Masada
• White-bellied Sea Eagle
• Paperbark Flycatcher
• Waterbuck
• Nantucket sleighride
• Il fugitivo
• 1942 Porsche
• Czolgosz
• Puputan
• Nyupat
• The Inheritance of Loss
• Hullabaloo in the Guava Orchard
• Stone Town
• Uncontroversial Obscurity
• Sitti Noerbaja
• Victoria and Albert
• The Call of the Wild
• Portuguese Man o' War
• Garrafa-azul
• Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1
• One Ton Depot
• Alarbus
• Blue-bottle
• Mads Lange
• Br'er Rabbit
• Ogoh-ogoh
• Br'er Rabbit bot
• Tar Baby
• Br'er Rabbi
• Br'er Bear
• Br'er Fox
• Jack Rabbit

—Br'er Bear (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reinstating the above edit by "Br'er Bear", which was reverted by Gogo Dodo. Yes, Br'er Bear is a sock of a blocked user, but I don't see the need to be formalistic about that on this page. (I'm on board with reverting the Br'er Bear edits on other pages, naturally.) That was obviously Br'er Rabbit editing his own talkpage, which is not something he has been blocked from. He wasn't abusing or attacking anybody, he was making a request. (And sort of making a point/saying goodbye after all these years, but why shouldn't he, on his own page?) I'm assuming he has scuttled the Br'er Rabbit account, along with the German fleet, so that he wasn't able to use that to make the request.

@Jack: I'll have to think about your request, since all those user talkpages are a problem. Most of them will probably just be undeleted again if I do delete them. I can blank them, of course.

Br'er Bear's edit originally appeared immediately below my own post above, so I take his request as made to me, but I guess it's better to move it down here in order to start a new thread. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. I don't really see anything wrong with a blocked sock declaring other sock accounts on their own talk page and requesting deletion (I don't think the community would support deletion, but that's beside the point). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the section header says. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. You know or should know you've got a host of editors you've irritated looking to pounce --as indicated by the banfest going on at AN -- and you go to war over the inclusion of a lame essay in a template? I don't know if you are just set on a Sinatra like My Way approach to WP, or feeling burnt and committing the wiki equivalent of Suicide by cop. In any event, I appreciate your contributions to WP (could've lived without the snark, obviously). I haven't quite figured out how to say this without it appearing to be some snarky "With all due respect" thing but I sincerely you wish the best. Nobody Ent 15:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you go like this, but I do with you the best in whatever it is you choose to do. I do appreciate your help in the many times I asked for it. Going to miss having you as my "go-to guy" for coding problems. :) Take care of yourself. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Gerda. I had some problems initially with Br'er Rabbit's suggested citation style when we clashed on The Coral Island, but after RexxS explained what the issue was I could see where he was coming from, and ever since I've tried to keep to that cleaner citation style. Sad that we as a community seem unable to tolerate alternative points of view. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to community consensus in a discussion here, you are now subject to a full community ban. Since this was the most frequent account you recently used, as well as where the initial notification of the discussion was made, I am leaving this here. Appeals may be made via an unblock request here, or via ArbCom as described at WP:BASC. --Jayron32 03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings Br'er Rabbit. Pursuant to the same community consensus, a stringent minority of thoughtful editors dissented this outcome. In dissent, the following extenuates from the perfunctory regards posted above: At minimum, the record is clear that you are a skillful editor, a technical asset, and thoroughly squandered resource. You have earned my respect and thanks; and deserve the best at your fore. I will be wishing this for you. And I will echo sentiments I've learned from you, with courage. As I circumvent your ban, in protest; by manifesting reminders of your person, with edits; and mentions of your name. Be well my friend. - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with My76Strat. Wikipedia got a little bit worse today. Thanks Br'er Rabbit for your guidance about referencing strategy and practise. All the best. GFHandel ♬  04:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My condolences, Jack. Another example of the jealous little ones foresaking good content-contribution for the opportunity to play hall monitor. I hope you don't stay away too long. --Joefromrandb (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Bah. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A sad day for Wikipedia.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Frustrating that there is an inability to distinguish from the people who beard the lion and the people who are actually a real problem. Jack/Br'er is the former, not the latter. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eesh, I can't say I'm surprised. "Perfect behaviour" is more important that anything of course. But you did have a couple of chances I guess. Maybe you're better off without wikipedia after all. Still, somebody to expand those regencies is needed.. Thanks for all of your assistance on technical issues, including my evil page design. Have a good one. Adios.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I go away for a week and *this* happens? This sucks skunk balls. All the best, Jack. pablo 07:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though I opined in support of a community ban at AN, I really hope this is not a permanent measure. I'm just of the belief that it might be best for you to take a break from the site for a while, so that the bad blood between yourself and the community can be given some time to scab over. For what it's worth, I think you're an incredibly valuable contributor here, and I feel awful about everything that transpired over the past week. Please return in a few months, as you will be missed. Kurtis (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately there are people who get sucked into the 'encyclopedia' bullshit instead of realizing that the 'encyclopedia' is nothing more than the virtual world that gives context to the MMORPG. But I can't really complain, because I was one of them before I wised up. Go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sorry to hear about this too. I know a couple of editors that know you, and I've always been impressed by your editing skill, even what little I observed of it, and in particular I enjoyed that colorful blue ribbon signature of yours. Unfortunate that this all happened. I wish you all the best my friend. • Jesse V.^(talk) 22:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jack, you're better off leaving Wikipedia. There is no helping this sinking ship. --78.35.245.203 (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is like the Titanic; it can not sink! 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  God himself couldn't sink it. --87.79.226.156 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Gosh, I just saw this, and I'm really bummed out. Wondering what caused it..? my doors open if you want to chat via email. (I haven't read the latest AN discussion.) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 years, 5 months and 16 days

• http://wikipediocracy.com/
• http://wikipediocracy.com/2012/10/31/tis-the-season-to-be-banning-at-wikipedia/
• http://en.wikipedia.org
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture&diff=prev&oldid=7002955

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have already stated that I am not Davenbelle's sockpuppet."

"He does not seek a consensus, he seeks his way."[1] - Moby Dick (talk) 3:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• How is the wiki better off by sending all that goodness out the door that shuts and does not open? I'll tell you how; it is not!^[1] :) John Cline (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

precious support

dancing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

continued with thanks --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Behind Jack walked the twins, carrying a great stake on their shoulders." darwintwins ^BITE 20:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This user helped promote Columbian half dollar to good article status.

This user helped promote Columbian half dollar to featured article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Columbian half dollar, which has recently become a GA and then an FA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To do good and to communicate forget not

Did you know ... that John Eliot Gardiner (pictured), conductor of the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage, noted the "immensity, vigour, flexibility and imagination of the opening chorus" of Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

signature on today's featured articles
Thank you for leaving your signature of quality on TFAs, improving pictures with care for details and introducing references that are easy to maintain and thus reduce the ownership of articles, and for teaching a new generation of authors to do the same, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (20 October 2010 Jack Merridew and 18 February 2012 Alarbus)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 247th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, we do not enshrine editors that have been banned by the community here. Stop doing this, please. It's annoying and not remotely productive. Doc talk 10:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tell everyone Precious a year later, and see no need for an exception. I made an exception, though, not speaking of style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not coming back, certainly not with this account. Send him an e-mail or something. We do not give awards to banned users as a general rule. Most admins agree with this. Doc talk 11:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not punitive. There supposedly are no punishments. Editors make mistakes, sometime they don't make mistakes and are banned anyway. No one should be treated as if they are criminals here. I do not find this annoying, but a recognition of this editor as a human being who did a lot of good work. How can that be non productive? With more kindness like this Wikipedia might be a lot easier place to work(olive (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Chill pills are needed for most admins apparently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse (Little olive oil's post entirely. Let's try to keep matters in proportion. Gerda is quite entitled to follow her pattern of behaviour in her one year later commendation.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 20:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling Gerda's behavior into question. She's only doing what many others have done. The community banned him; and we usually just redirect the talk pages of banned users. I am well aware that he is a "very special" banned user. The shrine will continue to grow. Doc talk 05:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ten year treats --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For being an awesome contributor under you countless identities even today Br'er is back! (jokes, he never left) (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated School for Creative and Performing Arts for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]