Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Merecat (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

On Rationales to impeach George W. Bush there is a dispute over contents and alleged POV. Despite repeated requests to discuss his edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents, all this in a very disruptive way. Nomen Nescio 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: Merecat has been blocked indefinitely as for violating an ArbCom ruling.[1] Nomen Nescio 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Update 2: Following confirmation Mereact/Rex is using multiple socks[2] he admits his only goal on Wikipedia is to be a disruptive editor:

.. now that my sockpuppets have been killed off and because I am being relocated and because I think I've made my point, and because we all have to grow up someday, I am content to quit for the indefinite future.

and

I needed to test, measure, test, measure, before I could conclude my views about Wikipedia.[3]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

He claims the article is POV and deletes and adds information, but refuses to explain his edits. He added verify tag when in fact he is also complaining about the numerous references. He keeps objecting to the style of references while that is the current policy on wikipedia. He has now started making personal attacks on my person. Nomen Nescio 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Update, my response to Merecat suggestion below in the box that this RFC is no longer needed, since ONE article he disrupted and vote-stacked has been merged, was deleted by Merecat for oportunistic reasons, and conveniently he forgot to relocate it:

What the Honourable Merecat is not telling the readers of this RFC, is that this RfC is about his behaviour on several articles, for which a Requests for arbitration has been filed, and not about a content dispute on any single one. He also fails to mention that he was engaged in massive spamming to disrupt the 3rd AfD he refers to. An act for which he got blocked, after the 2nd AfD was stopped because of massive spamming by him and another user to influence the outcome. Also, to state there was "overwhelming" consensus is not entirely correct. Not in the last place because several users where caught commenting with sockpuppets, even the nominator was a sockpuppeteer. This AfD was inherently flawed. Clearly, this RfC is not about any AfD but about Merecat's failure to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Nomen Nescio 07:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The evidence of disputed behavior is the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Read the talk page. That's where the evidence is.

Here's a fun example: Brainstorming for a new article title, in attempt to satisfy POV objections, these were Merecat's suggestions (correct me, merecat, if i misattributed any of them):

• Bullet list of anti-Bush arguments
• Bullet list of pro-impeachment rationales
• List of anti-Bush, pro-impeachment rationales
• Anti-Bush, pro-impeachment, rationales
• WP:OR WP:POV anti-Bush screed

this was after he slapped POV dispute and fact dispute on the article (before simply trying to fix what he percieved to be broken), and did not bring up any specific issues. it took me and nescio a while to get him to say (paraphrasing) "just look at the VfD for this article", which i decided is close enough to bringing the specific content issues to the talk page. looking at the VfD page, we were able to find one specific issue: the title of the article. so we tried to come up with a new one. this was all done to appease merecat, and those suggestions are how he "cooperates", when we go out of our way to try to satify his objections. he has yet to point out a factual inaccuracy.

And nescio left out:

• bad faith

persistent bad faith, after being reminded multiple times of good faith, and being assured multiple times in words and actions that we are assuming good faith. he has yet to assume good faith.

And on a self-referential note: it is considered bad form to stack votes, because the result is meaningless on account that the sample is statistically biased (see selection bias). Both Merecat and Nescio have informed ppl of this rfc, but their efforts appear different in quality. Nomen's puts the same tag on each user's talk page:

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. SincerelyHolland Nomen Nescio 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And it seems that he is going about it the right way: randomly (no selection bias). Merecat wrote this as one:

am being attacked by Nescio with a punative RFC regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, which I feel is unwarranted. Please go there right away and comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat. Thanks. Merecat 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all, but this gives me the impression that not only was their suggestion, but there was also selection bias. Kevin Baas^talk 22:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Uncivil behaviour, accusations and personal attacks.I noticed this edit of yours today. I will not quickly forget some of your recent edits and actions, including this one.[4] "Nescio reverted this article more than anyone on April 11th, several times while hiding as an IP editor"[5]"Also, I might add that Nescio recently made a "vandal" report regarding this page in which he alleged that I (merecat) am one and the same at User:80.220.222.68. I submit to the others here that this is a false allegation by Nescio and I am happy to challenge Nescio to agree that a "checkuser" be performed solely to see if "80.220.222.68" is me or rather, someone else, perhaps Nescio himself...?"[6]"Your edit to the date portion of that tag is evidence that you are trying to provoke trouble."[7][8] His response below is another example of making highly uncivil remarks at other editors.
2. Add clean-up tag to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush,[9] but then fails to explain why, and refuses to even discuss how to improve the perceived POV. And later he again tags it [10] without any explanation.
3. Started edit war redirecting pages on Rationales to impeach George W. Bush[11] [12] [13] [14] corrected here [15] and on Plame affair.[16]
4. Adding verify tag to well-sourced article.[17][18] Update Oddly enough this "unverified" article has too many references (interestingly enough part of the deleted references are the WaPo, FinLaw, et cetera, hardly a fair edit IMHO).[19] [20][21]
5. Added tag complaining about reference style, although the article uses the new style adopted by wikipedia.[22][23]Although the subject had already been dismissed by other on other pages: (User talk:Merecat, Talk:Killian documents, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia:Village pump (all), Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35)
6. Added tag alleging factual inaccuracy while the multitude of references show otherwise.[24]
7. Makes edit contrary to historical facts.[25]
8. Trying to insert "partisan" as his way of NPOV.[26][27][28][29]
9. Deletes reference to Center for Constitutional Rights without substantiating his claims of POV.[30][31]
10. Deletes on sight without realizing that although the page is from commondreams, the original articles were from The Nation, FindLaw, Associated Press and The Progressive.[32]
11. After agreeing to mediation I retracted the initial RFC.[33] However, in stead of awaiting mediation Merecat has again started his edit war.[34][35][36][37] And now this has resulted in page protection.[38]
12. Update In light of recent developements, we should judge these actions with the recent outbreak of the sock-puppet virus in mind.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL for making uncalled for remarks and accusations
2. WP:DISRUPT refusing to discuss disputed edits, moving pages without or contrary to consensus, for adding unwarranted tags and failing to explain why, objecting to official cite style, engaging in edit warring, deleting sourced material and inserting POV.
3. WP:NPA making personal attacks
4. WP:VAND for adding unwarranted tags, moving pages without or contrary to consensus, objecting to official cite style, engaging in edit warring, deleting sourced material and inserting POV.
5. WP:DR failing to discuss disputed edits, and then following a request for mediation continues wuith his edit war, after already having turned that into a violation of WP:3RR.
6. WP:NPOV deleting facts and inserting clearly POV words like "partisan."
7. WP:Good_faith^{added by Kevin Baas, 2006.04.13.17:34}
8. WP:CITE deleting perfectly reliable sources^{added by Nomen Nescio, 2006.05.10.13:06}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. See entire talk page below End Notes
2. Asked about tag, no response.[39][40][41]
3. Asked about edit, no response.[42][43]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Nomen Nescio 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Kevin Baas^talk 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

   I have to reluctantly endorse this RfC. My first interaction with this editor was when he moved the Plame Affair article to 'Wilson-Plame Scandal', without any discussion whatsoever. That in and of itself was aggressive, so two users tried to discuss and resolve the disagreement in good faith. However, Merecat just ignored us - he first deleted my comment (I'd forgotten to sign it), and after I recommented and added my signature, Merecat never felt it necessary to respond. Eventually an admin moved the page back to the name that consensus had earlier established.

   During another dispute, during which he challenged me to respond to an 11-point list (which I promptly did), he used a rather uncivil phrase, belittling me by asking "Don't you get it yet?" during another political disagreement. When I asked him to be civil, he denied the phrase was uncivil - attempting to avoid responsibility with a blatant, transparent and false evasion, claiming the phrase was a ' rhetorical device, imploring the reader to pay careful attention'. Needless to say, rhetoric is one thing and belittlement is another.

   Merecat is certainly welcome to edit Wikipedia, but some of his behavior, like the page move and feigning offense, is very anticollaborative and disrespectful (and unabashedly political). More troubling, Merecat seems to respond to any criticism by escalating his incivility ([44], [45], [46]), and parroting whatever complaints the complainant has made back upon the complainant - which I've come to recognize as classic trolling. It is now become clear thru Checkuser that Merecat was actually a troll (meaning a user that is here to disrupt).

   He has also, quite troublingly, threatened in the 'Response' section below to simply quit and resume editing under a new ID, the strongest indication to me yet that Merecat intends to violate the remedies regardless.

   Checkuser has confirmed that this user is a troll/sockpuppeteer of anon Texan and also Rex071404: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

   "The anon Texan has posted from several IP addresses resolving to two Texas ISPs; Republican POV but nothing disruptive enough to block. Stbalbach was tracking a banned user called Shran and mistakenly rolled the anon Texans contributions into his accusation, but that got sorted out eventually. Last night 3 users including Merecat were blocked for for disrupting AfD by spamming talk pages to recruit voters to their side (see User talk:Cyde and WP:ANI). Two of the users were unblocked by a different admin. Immediately after the block, 2 of the anon Texans IPs cranked back up with the talk page spamming and a third posted a complaint about Merecat's block to the admin who had unblocked the other two spammers. So Merecat basically outed himself as the anon Texan. A checkuser request was made and Mackensen confirmed that Merecat was the anon Texan and also Rex071404 (but was not the banned user BigDaddy, as was also suggested) and that Merecat was using the Texas ISPs to avoid his block and continue spamming talk pages about the AfD. Thatcher131 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC) [47], [48]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

If you read this you will see that Nescio is up to no good in that he is trying to use this RFC to beat me into silence. Please take note that my position is supported by admin User:Spangineer (read this for details) or see this for the diff. Also, more than 4 days ago, on the talk page of the disputed article, I asked Nescio for mediation to solve some of our interpersonal differences. See my offer here. He has not responded yet. I ask that this complaint by Nescio be remanded to mediation. I also ask that a checkuser be performed against Nescio to see if he was the one who posted this false allegation against me. I have asked him four times if these edits were done by him, but he refuses to answer.

As for Nescio's allegation that I do not respond on talk, I categorically deny that and offer this proof: As of just now (05:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)), I have 69 edits to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here) and 139 edits to Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here). This is almost 2 to 1 talk page edits to article edits on the page in dispute. On the other hand, Nescio himself has 122 edits to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here) but only 115 edits to Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (see edit tool stats here). I strongly object to Nescio's action with this RFC and suggest that he is the one doing wrong here. Merecat 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Additional information pending when I get home from work today. Merecat 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the aditional comments I stated I would add: I see now that Ryan, Kevin and Nescio have all jumped on the bandwagon and are posting all those things that bother them. While this is their perogative, I don't see how Ryan's comments bear on the central thesis of this RFC against me which was posted by Nescio as follows "On Rationales to impeach George W. Bush there is a dispute over contents and alleged POV. Despite repeated requests to discuss [Merecat's] edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents, all this in a very disruptive way". Suffice it to say, I see nothing in Ryan's comments which indicate that he and I tussled at the article page in question. Also, I see nothing from Kevin or Ryan which states they had problems with me - that they tried to resolve - short of piling on here. Also, Nescio keeps posting comments in my section here (since deleted by someone else), turning this section into an argument. I am not interested in arguing with Kevin, Nescio or Ryan. Rather, I am interested in removing POV from certain articles as well as otherwise improving the wiki. The question I would ask Ryan, Nescio and Kevin is, other than encouraging editors to quit and resume editing under a new ID, how does your tack so far with me, accomplish the wiki goal of improving the articles? In other words, I see here that each of you are complaining about process - 'He did this briskly', 'He did that without my agreement', but what I don't see here is a legitimate explanation as to why we should simply accept as the status quo (Kevin's words) articles with hideous POV things like Alternet links for allegations against the President. And while my comments here paint broadly, they get to the gist of it: Either let these fellows dictate the terms of editing which they advance at articles where the have camped out (See Nescio's article contribution tree for an example) or it seems, get the star chamber treatment. Frankly, had I known this page would be a grab-bag of every gripe those three have about whatever regarding me, I would not have participated. Beyond this point, I stand mute. Merecat 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

1. This RfC is a clear attempt at intimidation. BlueGoose 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) It is suspected that this user is the puppet master of one or more abusive sock puppets. Nomen Nescio 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree that this is a clear attempt to intimidate. Freisling is particularly disgusting in her attempts to intimidate those who disagree with her.--Mr j galt 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --Zer0faults 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I endorse this summary as well as a clear attempt to intimidate.

Merecat amends his response

Earlier, I had stated I would stand mute regarding the original basis of this RfC as it was posted by Nescio ("On Rationales to impeach George W. Bush there is a dispute over contents and alleged POV. Despite repeated requests to discuss his edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents, all this in a very disruptive way") and regarding that, I have said all I intend to say. However, this morning, I took the time to disagree with Sholom's comment because I felt it was a particularly good example of the sheer pettines and one-sidedness of the piling-on that the aggrieved are engaging in here. Suffice it to say, based on the types of complaints I am receiving here, it almost makes sense to never try dialog with any of these complainers, because regardless of if you try to talk with them or not, they just complain and complain. That said, the remainder of my amendment here consists of a verbatim cut & paste of Sholom's comment, my reply to it and Nescio's attempt to make me shut up. Also, please take note that I am pasting it here - in my comment section - because Kevin Baas (one fo the complainers of this RfC) twice deleted it from this page today already and Nescio deleted it once also. What follows below the line is my comment material that Kevin and Nescio deleted:

(mnerecat's comments, in the form of this cut & paste - May 1 06 - start here)

Sholom (talk · contribs)

I reluctantly agree with csloat above. Moving the Plame affair page without discussing it first caused havok for a while. Then came NOPV tags and disrputive editing on the Katherine Harris article. (Some of these complaints were justified, some were not, but the manner in which they were done were not). Then, he jumped into the Russ Feingold and simply massively cut -- again with no prior discussion. After the section was restored, he defaced the article with the insertion of dozen's of {{fact}}'s. The fact that he did not do that to paragraphs laudatory to candidates he presumably supports (e.g., Mel Martinez), shows a bias and inconsistent application. A number of 3RR problems. Disruptive edits and uncivil language at Template:Abramoff. Quite a record in a short time.

As clsoat wrote: "I don't know if any of this is worth a conduct RfC, but I do think there are sufficient questions about Merecat's conduct that he should at least be taking a closer look at WP policies and his actions." More civility and more discussion would go a long way. I'm not sure how to achieve that -- Sholom 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who disagree with this summary:

1. Merecat 13:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) - Sholom, perhaps by staying on topic, we could achieve "more civility and more discussion"... This RfC is supposed to be about editing concerns between Nescio and myself at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. But some, who follow me around the wiki complaining, have turned it into a grab-bag of piled-on gripes. If this is your idea of "civility", then I suggest you consider that one will "catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Is this how you reward me for dialoging with you on my talk page this morning? You complain about me here, when I don't agree with you there? Thanks "Sholom" and peace to you too.

Can somebody move this to talk page? And please, remind Merecat of "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page." Nomen Nescio 15:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, are you so obesessed with "winning" here that you again simply have to butt in over and over again? Give it a rest will you. If disagreement with a View is not "related to an endorsement", then nothing is. Merecat 15:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember your objection to this edit? Strangely enough the same situation now results in a different conclusion. Double standard? Nomen Nescio 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, frankly I must say this: You are are being obtuse. The link you added just now, which I fully expected you would, is to an edit which you interjected into the middle of my reply to the RfC you initiated. In fact, your intejection was so intrusive and clumsy, that it truncated the date "13 April 2006 (UTC)" from my response to you! The format of this page allowed you carte blanche to say what you want at the beginning. Indeed, I was the very first person to post to this RfC and you deleted my comments as being in your section by mistake. After we got that sorted out, your section has been your section and your comments your comments. But interestingly enough, it seems that you simply cannot stand the idea that I might disagree with you anywhere and simply have to go on and on interjecting arguments to every point I raise everywhere. As I see it, this is the precise reason our dialog at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush broke down and it's the same reason that this section is now turning in to a squabble. Nescio, you might get away with droning on and on and bullying others, but you won't easily prevail in that with me. Please butt out; my disagreement in this section was with Sholom and you had no business butting in. Merecat 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(merecat's comments, the form of this cut & paste - May 1 06 - end here)

(edit by Nescio removed from Merecat's section 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Jossi (talk • contribs)

I see no evidence of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL violations by Merecat. As for the other alleged violations, I do not see these either. The article attracts controversy, obviously, and both editors can do with a cool off period, that I enforced by a page protection. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Thatcher131 02:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Joe 04:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
3. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Tbeatty 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
5. 172 | Talk 03:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Aeon 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
7. --Zer0faults 18:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Johnleemk (talk • contribs)

I do not see any problems with civility here. There have been no personal attacks, nor any major violations of civility. (Although Merecat could chill out a little bit.) However, some of Merecat's actions appear questionable, such as adding the {{verify}} tag to what was obviously one of our better-sourced articles. The references may be web-based, but appear to conform to WP:RS. I would advise both sides to calm down and perhaps make use of an article RfC to gain outside and probably more objective views of the article. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Joe 04:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
2. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Bletch 12:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Aeon 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

WilliamThweatt (talk · contribs)

First off, I want to say that I have not been asked by either party involved to comment nor have even been contacted by either party concerning this dispute. I happened upon this page another way. I subsequently have looked at the article and the talk pages.

I do not see any problems with civility here by Merecat. However, I have had trouble with Nescio before at articles such as NSA warrantless surveillance controversy and Terrorist surveillance program.

Nescio is very partisan in his edits and very aggressive toward those who disagree with his POV to the point of baiting them and leaving no choice but edit war or mediation. He constantly inserts liberally biased "facts" into controversial articles backing them up with references to left-wing journals and blogs (which include commentary and edited quotes) instead of linking to the source material directly. When questioned or challenged on talk pages he often answers with non-sequitors or accuses the challenger of being POV by trying to neutralize his POV. It's my opinion that, now that somebody is matching his heavy-handed tactics, he is whining about it here. (Sorry, Nescio, you invited comment by bringing the discussion here).

That having been said, I actually do respect Nescio and his right to his opinion (just wish he'd keep it out of the articles). He and I have been able to compromise and work out our differences. I think he is intelligent (or clever), well read, and a necessary foil to people like Merecat and myself here on Wikipedia and I look forward to working with him again in the future.

This step was not necessary and if the two users can not work things out, it should go to mediation as Merecat had suggested. I see no violation of policies or guidelines by either party other than maybe an unwillingness to compromise by Nescio.--WilliamThweatt 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --RWR8189 13:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Joe 04:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
3. thewolfstar 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
4. RonCram 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Mr j galt 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
6. Bletch 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Aeon 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (talk · contribs)

I don't really have too much of an opinion on this situation, but thought I'd look into it a bit. Some of Nescio's complaints are not based in fact, IMO. The main point of contention is the unexplained tag placements and edits. It appears Merecat did try and explain.Multiple edits by Mercat. Plus I thought there need to be two editors filing an RfC to have it remain open. All of this has happened in less than about 17 hours. I think Jossi did the right thing by protecting the page and allowing the two to calm down a bit. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I endorse this summary, with a further stipulation that Nescio needs to abide by the WP:3RR. I know both editors have violated it, but Nescio seems to have been much worse with it.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. TheronJ 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury (talk · contribs)

Nescio has invited me to comment on this action because I have met Merecat. However, my only recent contact with Merecat was to respond to a comment of his on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). While I did not agree that what Merecat was complaining about was a problem, there was no dispute, no incivility, and no other grounds for me to complain about his behavior. As I've had only this one, neutral encounter with Merecat in recent memory, I don't understand why Nescio left the message on my talk page. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Johnleemk | Talk 07:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Me too.

EricR (talk · contribs)

I have edited the article in question, and attempted to start a discussion on the talk page. This is the first time I have been involved with either editor. I was asked by Merecat to comment on this RFC.

In my opinion Merecat's actions have served to escalate the conflict in a controversial article. He has made a number of ill-considered edits while discussion was occurring on the talk page and his accusations probably fall under examples of petty incivility. Nescio has shown a willingness to discuss the article and make changes based on objections to the content. The option of discussing changes and trying to reach consensus, while requiring more effort, was available and should have been used.

While I would not endorse Nescio's summary above, I do beleive Merecat's behavior needs to change before any productive editing of the article can be accomplished. EricR 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Based on my experience after the extensive nuking of verified facts in the Katherine Harris article. Significant pre-existing contributions were simply excised and attempts to discuss were met with a demand that editors actively seek out mitigating facts to offset the verified and admittedly negative facts present in the article even though they don't exist. See the lengthy and often combative talk page discussion pertaining to the edits. Flawiki 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spangineer (talk · contribs)

I blocked both of these editors for breaking 3RR yesterday a couple days ago, in addition to two others. I see no WP:NPA ("personal attacks" is thrown around way to quickly around here these days; please read the policy). Furthermore, if there are any WP:CIVIL violations, both sides are committing them. Guys, turn off your computers, take a walk, think about how insignificant this article really is in the grand scheme of things, and come back willing to discuss. Not yell and carry on about how "he did this" and "he did that". When you come back with the right attitude, we can make head way by examining whether or not certain sources deserve to be included, and by extension, what facts should be included. Until then, we're all wasting our time. If you want a mediator (which I strongly recommend), I suggest you both agree to ask one or two people to do it, and both promise that you will not make any edits without waiting at least say 24 hours after suggesting them on the talk page and getting the agreement of the other. Those are the kind of ground rules that, in addition to better attitudes, are going to get this issue worked out. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Thatcher131 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Yes, obviously. Cooler heads need to prevail. This thing just blew up way too fast. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Both editors need to be aware that reverting each other will not help solve the conflict. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Joe 05:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mhking (talk · contribs)

I was invited by Merecat to comment here, most likely given my past history with the same article. I have had the impression in the past that the article in question is driven by opinion, as opposed to empirical fact. I have pointed out several items in the past, and have, through a back-and-forth process (and conversation) with Nescio, come to some compromise on some items. I have not had the time nor the patience to continue with that process, and have generally removed myself from the conversation on that article.

In my opinion, Merecat's actions have not done anything to escalate the overall conflict involved; I get the distinct impression that both sides are at an impasse, and both do not wish to move any further toward a compromise in either direction. Nescio has presented what appears to be an anti-Bush article that is supported by self-described liberal or progressive sources, as opposed to empirical, non-opinion-driven sources. When challenged, one of Nescio's first retorts to me was a slam suggesting that I only subscribe to opinions expressed on Fox News Channel.

(full disclosure -- I have appeared as a black conservative analyst in the past on both "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes" in my position as national advisory board member of Project 21; I have sinced stepped away from that role, as I am presently employed by WXIA-TV Atlanta)

Merecat has been trying to counter those opinions, and while at times, can be caustic, I feel that he means well. I truly would like to see both sides here move toward a concensus that is free of opinion-based sources. For each truly valid position posed in the article, there are empirical sources that truly provide an unbiased (from either side) statement of the facts.

I cannot, in good conscience, endorse this petition. Both sides have some compromise to do, and in my opinion, this discussion should never have come to this stage. Both sides have some work to do. --Mhking 01:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 01:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Endorse. " Nescio has presented what appears to be an anti-Bush article that is supported by self-described liberal or progressive sources, as opposed to empirical, non-opinion-driven sources. " Thatcher131 02:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Per Thatcher131. 172 | Talk 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)

I was asked by Nescio to comment on this RfC. However, I do not agree with his position.

Reference style

My direct contact with Merecat is in relation to the style of references used in the article Killian documents, which I have recently cleaned up, verified, and converted to Cite.php footnotes. Merecat does not like Cite.php, and has complained to Jimbo, at the Village Pump and elsewhere, including Talk:Killian documents. He has not found any support. Nevertheless he tagged Killian documents with the cleanup citation tag, which was irritating at least, and against consensus. However, our discussion on the talk page was civil, although he is stubborn. An uninvolved editor removed the tag because the talk consensus was against it; he has not replaced it.

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush, although I have never edited this article, I am on record as thinking it should be deleted [49] [50]; it is an example of how a group of clever editors can follow the "letter of the law" and still use Wikipedia as their soapbox. Generally, it appears that Nescio (whatever his personal political beliefs) edits to introduce subtle or overt POV, while Merecat (whatever his political beliefs) tries to steer the article to a more neutral stance. Consider this sequence of edits.

• Merecat edits to remove mention of the Center for Constitutional Rights from the intro with the summary this sentence siply does not belong in the opening paragrpahs. The characterization of the center's work is POV and the link goes to an offering of a book for sale. OK for ref.'s section, but not here. The CCR is in fact a partisan organization and the reference was to a book review on Alternet.
• Next Merecat edits the introduction to include the words (bolded here for emphasis)

This article is a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators and others, including some political partisans.

The edit summary is comprehensive and directly on point, to omit the fact that much of the anti-Bush invective calling for impeachment is partisan drive, is to ingore the Dem donkey in the living room.

• Nescio reverts both edits with the summary let's keep it NPOV and please observe 3RR, discuss

I did not check to see that each edit was discussed first on the talk page, but the edit summaries are clear and accurate and, to my view, Merecat's edits are more in keeping with NPOV. (I'm not sure in what universe adding including some political partisans makes that sentence less neutral.)

There are several examples where Merecat has made a series of edits to article sections to change headers to less leading verbiage, to add {{fact}} tags, and to add words like allegedly in front of Democratic claims, only to be reverted by Nescio to one of his previous versions without consideration that some of the edits may have had merit. It also seems that Nescio has ownership issues, reverting to his versions rather than editing over Merecat's edits to arrive at a compromise.

The discussion on the talk page seems especially pointless. There is, for example, a long discussion on what SCOTUS has or has not ruled regarding detainees. This points out why this entire article is a bad idea in the first place. Because SCOTUS has not ruled definitively, and because no one in the US House has even offered a draft Articles of Impeachment, editors to this article are reduced to arguing over which partisan interpretation of events to include on the page. Nescio's frequent reversions of Merecat are usually accompanied by a demand to discuss edits on the talk page, but I see no evidence that Nescio has ever given an inch in response to one of Merecat's arguments, which makes me think Nescio's demand for talk is a stalling tactic. Nescio's actions are all to a greater or lesser extent duplicated by Kevin Baas, who shares his view of the article.

In summary, Nescio and Kevin Bass are trying to steer the article one way and Merecat is trying to steer it back. Merecat's edits are blanket reverted without discussion or consideration of whether some of them have any merit. Nothing is ever decided on the talk page unless it is an agreement between editors who already agree with each other. I do not see evidence of policy violations, personal attacks, or truly uncivil behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Thatcher131 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
2. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
3. --WilliamThweatt 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
   • it is an example of how a group of clever editors can follow the "letter of the law" and still use Wikipedia as their soapbox. Generally, it appears that Nescio (whatever his personal political beliefs) edits to introduce subtle or overt POV, while Merecat (whatever his political beliefs) tries to steer the article to a more neutral stance. Consider this sequence of edits.
   • It also seems that Nescio has ownership issues, reverting to his versions rather than editing over Merecat's edits to arrive at a compromise.
   • Merecat's edits are blanket reverted without discussion or consideration of whether some of them have any merit.
4. Endorse. I've been following Nomen Nescio's edits for months, on this article and on other similar articles he edits, and Nescio behaves as if he owns the articles he edits, pervasively inserts political-POV, and has zero tolerance for any edits that don't adhere to his political doctrine. Because of these behaviors, I won't edit an article where he resides. Morton devonshire 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Endorse. I hope I can say this without too much offense to Nomen, who I like and think has a lot to contribute, but I agree that he has a habit of blanket reverting any edits with which he disagrees, then complaining that there is not enough discussion on the talk page. The end result is that it is very difficult to make edits on pages that he follows until Nomen agrees on the talk page that the edits are acceptable to him. With that said, neither he nor Merecat have been handling this well, and they should both take a step back.TheronJ 18:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Endorse. 172 | Talk 03:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
7. --Zer0faults 18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

TCPWIKI (talk · contribs)

I agree 100% with WilliamThweatt as far as the action of the indivudals. Nither seems to have violated any rules. I believe that in light of this situation a cooling down period is warranted for both parties. Perhaps protecting the page may be in order. Arbitration should be a last resort.TCPWIKI 16:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs)

I first learned of Merecat when he moved the Plame affair page without cause and then steadfastly refused to defend the radical change in name. Several people asked him to defend the change but the only thing he could do is complain about civility, while never once suggesting a reason for the name change. The move was unanimously rejected, but I thought the behavior was that of a troll.

My second interaction with Merecat was on the page Michael Scheuer, where he made a claim on the talk page that seemed ignorant of the preceding discussion. I spent some time responding to the claims there, and again he stopped responding to the discussion. I did not feel this behavior was particularly problematic, but it does seem trollish given the behavior on other pages.

Finally, Merecat went back to the Plame affair page today and inserted the NPOV tag without adding anything to the discussion. WP policy is pretty clear that the person inserting the NPOV tag must justify its use. While normally such a move might be considered an oversight, in this case Merecat ignored several days of discussion with an anonymous user about the NPOV tag, with seven different users demanding an explanation and the anonymous user providing none. I don't object to the tag being used when necessary, but the person using it should state clearly what the NPOV problem is and what should be done to satisfy the NPOV requirements; otherwise, every page in wikipedia could have an NPOV tag. In this particular case, the anon user entered into a brief revert war but still would not justify the use of the tag in any concrete way. Merecat's action was to add to the revert war without saying anything on the discussion page. Again, this may have been an oversight, but its effect is trollish -- hit-and-run on an article using the NPOV tag, causing disruption and consternation for other editors of the page. (Note - since I wrote the above, Merecat just commented on the talk page, but made no specific NPOV claims that can be addressed in the article).

I don't know if any of this is worth a conduct RfC, but I do think there are sufficient questions about Merecat's conduct that he should at least be taking a closer look at WP policies and his actions; as I said, the overall effect of such actions combined with a refusal to participate in open dialogue is indistinguishable from outright trolling.--csloat 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sholom (talk · contribs)

I reluctantly agree with csloat above. Moving the Plame affair page without discussing it first caused havok for a while. Then came NOPV tags and disrputive editing on the Katherine Harris article. (Some of these complaints were justified, some were not, but the manner in which they were done were not). Then, he jumped into the Russ Feingold and simply massively cut -- again with no prior discussion. After the section was restored, he defaced the article with the insertion of dozen's of {{fact}}'s. The fact that he did not do that to paragraphs laudatory to candidates he presumably supports (e.g., Mel Martinez), shows a bias and inconsistent application. A number of 3RR problems. Disruptive edits and uncivil language at Template:Abramoff. Quite a record in a short time.

As clsoat wrote: "I don't know if any of this is worth a conduct RfC, but I do think there are sufficient questions about Merecat's conduct that he should at least be taking a closer look at WP policies and his actions." More civility and more discussion would go a long way. I'm not sure how to achieve that -- Sholom 13:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Gorgonzilla (talk · contribs)

There is a similar pattern of behavior on Katherine Harris. Merecat keeps attempting to erase or bury all information detrimental to the Harris campaign in a highly POV fashion. If it was not for the similar pattern elsewhere I would strongly suspect he is a Harris staffer paid to scrub Wikipedia of inconvenient data.

For example this morning Ed Rollins, currently THE top GOP strategist and a former consultant to the Harris campaign made a high profile attack on Harris in the Orlando Sentinel. In particular accusing her of lying over a $2800 meal paid for by corrupt defense contractor Mitchell Wade. Merecat deleted the reference to the meal as 'well poisoning'. It is nothing of the kind, every junior staffer in Washington knows that you do not accept free meals costing more than $50. Harris must have known that the entrees at the place cost more than $85.

Merecat deleted this information with the comment line "there is nothing in that article which indicates that an expensive meal is controversial enough to be notable enough to mention - delete as being irrelevant well poisoning)". NO, the article itself states that accepting the meal was a breach of house ethics rules', and made it pretty clear that there was no possibility of confusion or accident. It is pretty hard to have a $50 meal in a DC restaurant.

Merecat has also deleted all reference to the MZM scandal from the introduction despite Harris admitting having received $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions and having been caught lying on the issue of requesting a $10 million favor for Wade (she denied having done so until it was proved that she did).

The people dumping on Harris are all Republicans. There are no Democrats trying to push Harris out of the race as Ed Rollins, Jeb Bush and co are so clearly and conspicuously attempting to do. The Democrats want to keep Harris in the race because she is currently trailing 60:30 against Nelson. They will doubtless agree with the sentiments being expressed by Republicans the minute that the primaries close.

Keeping this information out of the article as Merecat attempts to do is highly partisan and POV. We see the same tactics referred to above: reverts without explanation, fact tagging points that could be verified with minimal background reading of already cited material, demoting inconvenient facts to make them attract as little attention as possible. --Gorgonzilla 15:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thewolfstar (talk · contribs) "In Defense of Merecat"

This rfc on Merecat is mean, petty and just plain dumb. I looked at some of the complaints made by these people against Merecat and this is what I see. What they are accusing Merecat of doing, is in fact, what they are doing, themselves eg they accused Merecat of not responding after they waited long times to respond themselves. How can a bunch of people who call themselves adults act so childishly? The best all around person I know on Wikipedia so far is Merecat and you people have an rfc on him. Merecat is kind. He is helpful and fair to all. He has defended me in the face of strong opposition against a bullying gang of editors who shamelessly harass newcomers, who lie, use ruthless control, scare tactics and gather others to help them in their harassment campaign. He is a person, from all I can see, who is not afraid to stand up to a group of nasty, mean, controlling people. He is an intelligent and able contributor to Wikipedia. He is patient. thewolfstar 00:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Mr j galt 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

tbeatty (talk · contribs) - Comments by tbeatty

It has been my experience that two of the three endorsers are interested only establishing a certain POV. Merecat doesn't agree with this POV and he is being singled out for it. NPOV is policy. Editors who oppose POV edits and descriptions are trying in good faith to enforce the values and policies of Wikipedia. They should not be subject to the punishment or sanction for this good faith attempt. Merecat is being unjustly accused of violating Wikipedia policy and guidelines when he should be commended for tirelessly fighting POV edits and characterizations. --Tbeatty 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tbeatty 03:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Commodore Sloat might have some good points. At any rate I haven't followed these disputes closely enought to make firm judgments. My impression is that this RfC is pretty unfairly slanted against Merecat. 172 | Talk 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Tbeatty speaks the truth. Morton devonshire 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
4. RonCram 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Mr j galt 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
6. --Zer0faults 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley (talk · contribs)

As stated above, the people behind this most certainly have an axe to grind. I have personally debated with them and dealt with their POV edits to articles, and they are hardly unbiased and have used political reasons to justify their edits. Merecat has worked extensively to combat this, and has done so through the rules of NPOV. Not only is he doing no wrong, but Wikipedia can benefit from more people that are working as extensively against agressive editors who intend to insert a POV. I can see why they are angry at Merecat, he stands in the way. But standing in the way of biased editors is no crime. Rangeley 23:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Mr j galt 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. 172 | Talk 11:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --Zer0faults 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr_j_galt (talk · contribs)

Merecat deserves a commendation for standing up to the POV garbage spewed by Nomen Nescio and csloat. Nescio and CSloat are POV pushers to the extreme and a disgrace to wikipedia. People can read csloats' political blog here and judge for themselves: http://www.shockandblog.com/ Merecat should wear this bogus RFC like a badge of honor. I stand firmly in Merecat's corner and against this attempt to intimidate someone with the courage to stand up to POV pushers.--Mr j galt 04:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

moved from csloat area italics are by Tbeatty 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat is a personal attack deleted. He comments on the same topics he writes about in his political blog. People can read csloats' political blog here and judge for themselves: http://www.shockandblog.com/ --Mr j galt 04:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Aeon1006 (talk · contribs)

I only know Mercat in passing (having only seen edits done by him), but looking into this situation I agree that Mercat was NOT going against any policy. For the most part Mercat's edits have been good and necessary. Mercat can be a bit stubborn looking at some of the talk pages but he usually tries to support his edits. This RfC is more or less an personnel attack in my opinion Aeon 15:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Stifle

This RFC is in violation of WP:POINT and should be peremptorily closed.

Users who endorse this outside view:

1. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Thatcher131 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. The RFC is a shield, not a sword. Evensong 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Mhking 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Zer0faults 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Second outside view by Thatcher131

There seems to be an ongoing campaign to gang up on Merecat. First, this RfC files by Nescio over essentially a content dispute. Second, an RFAR filed by Prometheuspan over talk page deletions. (As Prometheuspan demonstrated in the second AfD on Rationales to impeach George Bush, his style of debate is to post extremely long arguments containing large quotations from wikipedia policies or outside sources. This could fairly be seen as an attempt to drown out counter arguments and moving them to a subpage was reasonable under the circumstances.) Third, Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were blocked for violating an unwritten rule against "vote stacking" without being warned first; the blocks on Nescio and Morton were reverted but not the block on Merecat. These actions are lopsided, stacked against Merecat, and do not take into account the poor behavior of the other parties, including edit warring and making personal attacks.

To further complicate matters, a checkuser request found that Merecat was posting from anonymous IP accounts to evade his block for disrupting Afd, and also found it was likely he was the user Rex071404, who has been banned by Arbcom from editing the John Kerry article. RyanFreisling, who has edit-warred with Merecat on various articles, has posted a request on AN/I to have Merecat permanently banned from wikipedia for violating his ban on editing John Kerry, even though Ryan admits that none of Merecat's John Kerry edits have been disruptive.

This RFC and the RFAR should be dismissed, and a case brought before Arbcom to consider the behavior of all the parties involved.

Users who endorse this outside view:

1. Thatcher131 16:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Aeon 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --Tbeatty 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC) - I'd also add that the ArbCom penalty for Rex editing Kerry article was a 1 week block, not a ban.
4. Mhking 13:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. --Zer0faults 18:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction of this fallacious statement

This RFC is based upon disruptive behaviour by Merecat, and not on any content dispute. Read the presented case before continuing misrepresenting the facts.

As to his block, again you are rewriting history! Morton and myself were blocked based upon the 2nd AFD. Merecat got away. However, although he was aware of the mess surrounding the entire AFD, he started another recruitment procedure in the 3rd AFD. For this, and not the 2nd, he was blocked.

To suggest that violating a ban should be allowed because he is such a good fellow is ludicrous. As to the attempt at creating a forest fire by implicating as much editors as possible in the current debacle, this is a good example of what is wrong with this RFC. Nomen Nescio 10:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.