Jack Merridew

Jack Merridew (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date February 21 2010, 18:34 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by RoboHomo

His signiture, user and user talk pages admit that he is a sockpuppet of some kind and therefore he requires a CheckUser to find out about what he has done recently. RoboHomo (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by RoboHomo (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: In a tangentially-related note, the filer RoboHomo has been  Confirmed by CU as a sock of GEORGIEGIBBONS. –MuZemike 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


17 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

He has a long history of harassing A Nobody, who he drove from Wikipedia. He has a long history of making sock puppets and bragging about it. He has been sanctioned for this, and I believe blocked at times. He is rather confident he has found a way to get away with it. [1] Will someone familiar with this person's long history of using socks and going after user:A Nobody look into this please? Dream Focus 08:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can plainly see on the userpage, it is a confirmed sock of User:Editor XXV. --Bsadowski1 08:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
01 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I'm not quite sure exactly what is going on here and whether it is indeed Jack or not. The first obvious suspicions came from this, but if User:69.134.244.65 is actually I/Okip, then i'm not so sure how trustworthy he is. I would have just then let all of that pass over and not trust the words of either IP, if I had not found this edit. Again, i'm not sure exactly what is going on here, but it deserves looking into and a checkuser run. SilverserenC 04:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

(Groan). It's not a question of whether it is or isn't Jack, but whether he's allowed to operate under an IP when his main account is blocked indefinitely. It appears that he is. As far as I know (and I brought this issue up over a week ago with the blocking admin), the operator of the Jack/Gold Hat accounts is not blocked as an individual, and the Gold Hat account is not blocked anyway. The Jack Merridew account was blocked for its being "compromised", but the editor has not been blocked as a user per se. It's really not for SPI as such, as he's made no secret of who it is and is not currently blocked for disruption as an editor. Doc talk 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sock puppetry as he is not using the IP with the intention to deceive anyone, and he notified Arbcom on the 22nd that he was editing with this IP. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 04:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver and Doc should be indef'd for hounding and for doing their best to create a hostile editing environment. Tehy make teh wiki suxs.

Um, I just helped defend you. Your page is on my watchlist (obviously) and I saw this thread and clarified that you weren't a blocked user, just had a blocked account. Good luck with the hounding indefs... Doc talk 05:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the info. I suppose ANI would be the place to go to in the future if he continues with the incivility. Thanks. SilverserenC 05:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
another “anyone” hauling out one of the usual wiki-weapons. all part of teh toxic-wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think that everything is quid pro quo? I don't care if you "defend me". Your input is not helpful, to pretty much everything I've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I urge you to look harder. I'm pretty certain a jury of our peers would not agree with your characterization of me as generally unhelpful to this project. You're certainly free to open any report on any admin board concerning me. Cheers... Doc talk 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you're not trying hard enough; you should be asking me to assume good faith, pointing out some of teh diffs on your list-of-bad-acts, that I call you a troll and an asshole. that's the wiki's core problem; it's open to all and fails to remove the likes of you.
I came here to close a SPI report that was unnecessary. The filer agreed to withdraw it. This case is closed as far as this board should be concerned. Doc talk 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wp:boomerang 4 teh trolls ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am making allegations of disruptive editing from this IP. If this IP is an existing user, that implicitly means abusive of multiple accounts. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Withdrawn by filer, marking for close. TNXMan 13:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's at ANI ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
06 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Check his recent edits. He even admits who he is, after others already figured it out. Jack Merridew and all of his socks were already banned. [2] Dream Focus 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

He's still subject to an arbcom restriction, but attempted to unilaterally withdraw from it [3], which isn't permitted. Merridew has also been highly uncivil in recent comments and edit summaries, for example [4] [5] [6]. Chester Markel (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be checkusered, obviously. Chester Markel (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last IP the Jack Merridew account edited from isn't this one, and is geographically *way* not in Bali. @CUs; the single anon edit on that IP was me, too. Jack 09:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
no one is blocking the trolls, so tehy keep it up; moar, moar, moar. This has led to project failure. 125.162.150.88 (talk) (Jack) 03:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=prev&oldid=433858547 user has posted welcome back message and signed it from blocked user Jack Merridew and claimed that they are that user?

Requesting checkuser to see if these accounts are from the person and to see if there are any sleeping accounts if they are. 5 albert square (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result as a I suspected. So, shall I re-post this at AIV? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jack Merridew is not blocked. 222.124.91.230 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

OK well locked then but we've still received a report saying that the IP is avoiding arb com sanctions so still a sock puppet. From what I can make out that appears to be true.--5 albert square (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's locked as self-compromised; "scuttled". 222.124.91.230 (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was echoing what Doc9871 said here.[7] I have no direct knowledge of Merridew's situation. I'll ask him to comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He'll prolly be able to find:
Gist is that they want me to register a new account, not edit as an IP. (yesterday's). Bzzt.
nb: This is not a static IP ;> 222.124.91.230 (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also check 114.79.60.59. They have been rude and poking their nose into a dispute that I've been trying to difuse. Take note of the lovely comment the IP made to me. Also you can see this IP comment at Diannaa talk page. This needs to stop already. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same old crap. There's no need for a SPI because it's in ArbComm's hands. He's been shedding IPs like fur recently, and many of his recent edits are obviously true to form. RfC/U time? But who's going to draft it? I make break my promise, Jack... Doc talk 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
an rfc/u is actually a most appropriate step, although you're certainly not the littlun to do it. Better would be a serious user ;> nb: it would get an awful lot of supportive comments. 222.124.91.51 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm a serious user alright. A 9-2 consensus could indicate your need for a more "esteemed" place. A bot could make changes like changing "Image" to "File" or formatting references with none of the disruptive headache that you demand. Quite right about the supportive comments, I'd wager. Doc talk 06:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((citation needed)). 222.124.91.51 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

First, checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. Secondly, this looks like a arbcom matter, given their recent announcement. TNXMan 14:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, however, if Jack is clearly evading his block, then any administrator has the prerogative to block any and all IPs and accounts, per the ArbCom motions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion (June 2011), until they say differently. –MuZemike 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, per above. While investigations of named accounts can still be initiated here, IPs self-proclaiming to be Jack Merridew are best handled at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Barong (which has already happened for the IP at hand, at least for a brief time). Amalthea 10:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Apparent sockpuppet of this user, edited one of the previously blocked socks userpages earlier today. Puppeteer and socks should also be tagged appropriately. Sleepers are likely. Night Ranger (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Night Ranger (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
14 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
04 November 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Blocked by User:Rschen7754 due to loud quacking. Nno further socks as yet, give me a moment to check. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was definitely another one too. --Rschen7754 23:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Lange (talk · contribs). Also noticed that it appears user edited vi wikipedia and then used SUL to get onto enwp. --Rschen7754 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
That gives me a /19, which overloads the tool. I have found a pair accounts created by the same person, User:Dohardthings and User:Informationbuddy1 which I blocked in passing (persecuting a camel indeed!) and would appreciate the clerks tagging and separating out from here, as they are nothing to do with Br'er Rabbit. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tagged User:Dohardthings and User:Informationbuddy1 per Elen's request.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


See discussion at WP:ANI#Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring. User:Gimmetoo (Gimmetrow) claims to have noticed some similarities, in particular a strong interest in Bond girls. He then also felt that the style of reporting him to ANI was similar -- he later retracted this with a link to a specific ANI report by Jack Merridew, which was in a different style. In SCIA's defence against the accusation, they mentioned a dispute about infoboxes with Br'er Rabbit, who has since been blocked as a Jack Merridew sock. SCIA also claims that he edits from the UK while Jack Merridew edits from the US. This was enough to make Gimmetoo apologise for the accusation.

However, this dispute ended in consent after a claimed exchange of emails between the two, and the claim that Jack Merridew edits from the US is inconsistent with observable (for me) facts. According to en.wikichecker.com, the temporal editing patterns of SCIA and the original Jack Merridew account are precisely the same. Both point to an editor in the UK who occasionally travels across time zones (or is sufficiently obsessed with Wikipedia to occasionally edit long before normal breakfast hours) and has a daily period of relative inactivity roughly 16:00-18:00 GMT, even on weekends. Note that Br'er Rabbit, on the other hand, has a very different temporal pattern of edits (almost homogeneous, but with core activity roughly 18:00-11:00 GMT). Hans Adler 09:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If others who unlike me are familiar with Merridew think there is nothing to this report, then I guess it's sufficient to close it and leave it in the archive as a reminder of some weirdness that may make sense later with additional information. E.g. it might theoretically turn out that Br'er Rabbit and the other associated accounts were decoys rather than genuine Merridew socks. I haven't researched things very thoroughly, but what I have seen would be consistent with a dispute between SCIA and Br'er Rabbit which ended in a friendly agreement and maybe even a friendship. I am in no position to claim that something like this has happened here, but it would make sense for two sockmasters to confuse everybody by claiming each other's socks.
Of course, if SCIA is a content producer and Merridew never was one, then any suspicion in this direction doesn't even make much sense. Either way I guess this report can be closed. Sorry if it was in any way inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, making a formal request here is never inappropriate when multiple account abuse concerns are discussed at any noticeboard. Amalthea 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Having witnessed some unpleasantness at Peter Sellers a while back regarding the infobox there (see this), I find it extremely unlikely that these two editors are the same user. Doc talk 12:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He could've switched his proxies between two accounts to argue, something that would amuse him greatly. His socks have been banned over the years, so he knows how people find them, and perhaps wants to throw everyone off guard. So you can't really tell by that. Dream Focus 12:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen two Merridew socks accuse each other of bad faith, or of derailing FAC's. SCIA clearly hates infoboxes and Merridew likes them and wanted to get his mitts on another FA - I can't see why these two accounts would edit war and disagree with each other so vehemently for an elaborate ruse. There's also this failed FAC, where SCIA blames Br'er Rabbit as the reason for withdrawing it (hence the "derailing" stuff). If they are found to be the same user: I owe you a Coke! Doc talk 14:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour Dream Focus describes has never been something this user has done. And unlike Schrodinger's cat is alive, he never edited the prose or added prose to articles; he exclusively edited structural elements such as tables, citations, and templates. While there's a lack of temporal overlap between Schrodinger's cat and Br'er Rabbit, and between Schrodinger's cat and Jack Merridew, I think this can be explained by the difference in geographic locations. Br'er Rabbit was blocked on October 12 and again on October 14, which would have re-set the autoblock on the IP, but Schrodinger edited continuously throughout that period. Elen did a thorough look-see for sleepers in early November. -- Dianna (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even more proof they are not the same. Those familiar with Merridew (on both sides) agree there is no logical connection. This should be closed as a wild goose chase. No way is SCIA the same user as the editor behind the Merridew accounts. Doc talk
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


More