Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:10, 25 February 2011

Statements by non-parties

Question from Risker

I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that any deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? Risker (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.

Comment for FT2: I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? Risker (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pixelface

Oh dear God no. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Wow. What a horribly bad idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even considering this. Y'know, why don't you just really shit on White Cat *and* WP:HARASSMENT and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking.

Please, come to your senses and look at this graph, this thread on Jimbo's talk page, this AN thread, this AN thread and also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to this thread and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later admission of sockpuppetry. After I made a motion to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that really should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open E&C3 now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, a woman named Allison Sudradjat, AusAID's Minister Counsellor in Indonesia, who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 in Jakarta and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in Yogyakarta Indonesia at Adisucipto International Airport, it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from Bali (or a kampong near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the Senang Hati Foundation, and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was deleted. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with "Jimmy's other pocket"). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received death threats and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment.

At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew admitted to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under G5. Casliber took it to DRV in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the Senang Hati Foundation and Allison Sudradjat articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the editing process on Misplaced Pages. However, why should anyone trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the Senang Hati Foundation look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker.

What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there any? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that WP:HARASSMENT means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the 2008 elections. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --Pixelface (talk) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion

I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact:

1. Jack Merridew has harassed White cat
2. White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter.

That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--Tznkai (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections.

On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was removed from the community for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--Tznkai (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I.

As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable.

What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well.

We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--Tznkai (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by A Nobody

I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of WP:JNN style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --A Nobody 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them.

Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++Lar: t/c 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Pixelface: Wow. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question to whoever: Where do things stand? I see the main motion has apparently passed and none of the others are close, correct? Thanks for clarification. ++Lar: t/c 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—Kww(talk) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. Fram (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Browsing Misplaced Pages (still on holiday) I happened to spot this case. I've some history here, having witnessed the harassment of White Cat by Jack Merridew under his various socks for what amounts to White Cat's entire history of editing Misplaced Pages.

A last chance is deserved by someone who has come clean about matters he previously concealed, denied or equivocated about, and who wishes to do good work. But please, let it be the last chance. Merridew's persistent and malicious harassment of White Cat for more than three years shows that he has an obsessive streak, and White Cat was for too long almost alone in bearing the weight of this obsession. Let Misplaced Pages be clear: the slightest sign of a return to past form must be the end of Merridew's career. --TS 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Web Warlock

I find this action to be unfathomable and highly questionable. User:JackMerridew entered into a campaign of fraud and deception for the purposes of pushing his own point of view on various articles and to engaged in sockpuppetry of the highest order. He also, and far more disagreeable, engaged in a campaign to stalk and harass another editor. This is beyond the call of merely pushing a POV this is harassment. Had User:JackNerridew and User:WhiteCat been employees at the same company he would have been dismissed without a moment’s notice. Everyone deserves a second chance, JackMerridew however has demonstrated that he has used all of those chances. I urge this group to keep the ban on User:JackMerridew. Web Warlock (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions voting

The following voting is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this voting section.

1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following conditions:

• 1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done)
• 2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done).
• 3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
• 4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner.
• 5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
• 6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat.
• 7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts.
• 8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans

There are 12 active Arbitrators with respect to this motion, so a majority is 7 (assuming no abstentions).

Support:

1. After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2. If and only if 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken very seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. FT2  03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
5. bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
6. I find this to be an extremely difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Misplaced Pages experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Misplaced Pages. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Seven restrictions plus one dealing with any possible violation of the aformentioned ones are sufficient to make sure that JM (aka Davenbelle) has no single chance to get back to old tactics. -- fayssal - wiki up 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in the usual place.

Rationale

Unblock "gaming", or uninformed/low-clue unblocking, are unfortunately far more common these days. If a user is banned for serious harassment, unblocked on trial, and then behaves in a way that any administrator feels a reblock is necessary, then that is not a block I would condone being reversed without the committee having the opportunity to consider the behavior first, in light of what we know of the harassment case history, and any promises made.

Support:

1. FT2  03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2. I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support; I hope this procedure never happens. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. -- fayssal - wiki up 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.

   Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)

   Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.

   Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.

   Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.

   Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,

   1. I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.
   2. I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.
   3. If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place.
   4. (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.

   To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. FT2  23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2. I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
3. As FloNight, I don't think special cases are needed here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications:

"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."

"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."

Rationale
Clarification, anti-ambiguity, and anti-gaming on the main condition #4.

Support:

1. FT2  03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. FT2  23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

   The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Misplaced Pages has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2. Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Important but it is too circumstantial. -- fayssal - wiki up 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above voting is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this voting section.

Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the above conditions.

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

Vote

For this motion, there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 6 support votes are a majority.

Support

1. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Noting that the verbiage about open proxies is now standard boilerplate and should not be interpreted as indication that Jack Merridew abused proxies or that we expect that he would. — Coren  14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Per FloNight and Coren. Risker (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
7. I will support, but I would also emphasize that Jack Merridew should make a concerted effort to avoid unnecessary interaction with other editors with whom he has been in repeated conflict, not only White Cat, and should avoid any actions that could give a reasonable appearance of wikihounding such editors, whether or not that is his intent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Newyorkbrad's advice.  Roger Davies 11:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page.

• Comment: After review of the mentors and community comments on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page, I note: The one year mentorship ended on Dec 9th. The one year block sanction was intended to address stalking and harassment of White Cat if it occurred and is not applicable now. JM agrees to use informal mentors. Since the Committee had virtually no involvement in the mentorship last year, I see no reason for it to remain formal. The current conflict involving JM center around contentious areas of Misplaced Pages and are best resolved in a comprehensive case with all editors on equal footing. I propose amending the sanctions as above. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment:I tweaked the wording to add an exception for a bot account. Because the open proxies policy has been interpreted differently or can have the wording changed, ArbCom began adding this type of wording to cases. It gives a better result because it reassures that everyone understands the meaning of the policy. I think that it is best that it stays in. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• I note there's no restriction on interaction with White Cat here. That may not be an issue as White Cat is fairly inactive. But I wonder whether Jack would give an undertaking to minimise any future contact and, if there is contact, to seek advice from a mentor or arb BEFORE this became an issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald, this has already been discussed with JM, and he has already agreed to stay away from WC. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - his agreement is all I was asking about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note

Jack Merridew's agreement

• Agreed. I would like to request a minor tweak re User:Jack Merridew bot. This account was created earlier this year and never got going. I would like to revisit the idea of running a bot this coming year. I would also like to note that the 'open proxies' issue never was an issue and as WP:OPENPROXY applies to all editors, the new point three would seem to suffice and there is no real need to call this out. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Request for clarification (January 2011)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Gold Hat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (diff) aka Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

It has recently come to my attention that Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) has been operating, and editing from, the account Gold Hat (talk · contribs), in apparent contradiction with the terms of the 2009 amended unban motion ("User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process"). When I asked him about it, he claims that arbcom is aware of the Gold Hat (talk · contribs) account and has no issue with it. Can the committee confirm this, and if so, make suitable amendments to the restrictions? T. Canens (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Roger: The restriction at issue clearly does not distinguish between disclosed and undisclosed accounts (otherwise there would be no need for the special provision for a bot). IMO it's not very helpful to call the violation "technical" simply because no harm was done. By analogy, we routinely block users editing in violation of a ban (site or topic) even if the contributions are good.

My point is that, if the committee is okay with these accounts (and I certainly perceive no problem with the edits of Gold Hat et al.), then it should either lift the restriction entirely or amend it to only prohibit illegitimate uses (though isn't that covered by WP:SOCK anyway?). But it isn't healthy to silently ignore restrictions that are still on the books. How are administrators supposed to figure out what restrictions should be enforced and what should be ignored? T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Coren: Ah, the elusive "spirit" again. A nice pattern, indeed:

1. Arbcom, apparently intending to prohibit only X, passes a broadly-worded restriction whose wording prohibits X and Y.
2. The user does Y, and an admin takes enforcement action because, after all, the restriction does prohibit Y.
3. The enforcing admin gets dragged before arbcom and berated for "overreaction" or "ignoring the spirit" or whatever by arbs.
4. Rinse, repeat.

No wonder so few admins do AE work any more. They really have to be masochistic to participate in such a system. Any admin enforcing an arbcom decision has to start at the words in that decision. There is no other place they can start at. When those words become so malleable that "one account X only" can mean "any number of accounts, as long as they are all declared", would it be surprising that people refuse to take the speaker seriously?

AE cases are bad enough when admins are actually able to rely on what arbcom wrote, and even then we have protracted threads with massive amounts of wikilawyering which no admin wants to close; but at least you have the words, and they can only mean a small number of things. When even arbcom's words cannot be relied upon, all you will get is exponential amounts of wikilawyering over what the "spirit" of a restriction is. Is the "spirit" of a topic ban to get the editor to completely disengage from a topic, or is it to prevent unproductive/tendentious editing only? Is the "spirit" a one-way rachet, so that it will only curtail the wording of a restriction, and not expand it? When admins deviate from the terms of a restriction to better serve its "spirit", they will be "biased" and perhaps "involved"; when they adhere to the way a restriction is worded, they will be "overreacting", and "biased" too.

The perhaps inconvenient fact is that AE admins are not responsible for fixing arbcom's oversights. If you think Jack's restriction has outlived its purpose (and I tend to agree), then lift it. If you think it should remain but was unfortunately worded, then amend it. As far as I know, Special:ReadMind does not exist, or even the more specialized Special:ReadMindOfArbCom. Arbcom communicates its instructions to the admins enforcing its decision with its words. It is not too much to ask those words to be something that admins can actually rely upon. T. Canens (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Jack Merridew

{{sigh}} I said arbs, not all of ArbCom. This *has* been discussed with some arbs and last I was told, by John, was wait until mid-Feb. Guess not. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat's first edit was to an Arb's toy account, and that led to an email thread. Check your arb-list archives from late last July. I've also directly informed John via email. Look at Gold Hat's edits; he (ok, *I*) have had talks mostly with admins, 'crat's and admins with it. There are also assorted recent emails with a number of arbs about fulling lifting these restrictions. Also, I'm traveling, and am mostly focused off-wiki. Ask John and Cas about that. They know that story, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The recent email thread is named "Jack as the Beast". That one does not discuss Gold Hat, but is about what's next. It includes seven arbs and five non-arb admins, including a WMF-staffer ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm funny ;)

Cheers, Gold Hat aka david 04:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The ID Gold Hat has been rotating on my user page for a long time; it's also in User:Jack Merridew/Sock drawer, which is transcluded there, for all to see. It was created *by* my Jack account and appears in the usual log. Gotta go; off, Jack Merridew 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

@Roger, I'll email you, later today; I've already pinged Shell. And I'll work on being funnier, ok?

I'm fine with Tim having brought this here; the timing re my RL, is unfortunate, but he wouldn't have known that. His intent, methinks, is to clear this old mess up. I've said, many, many times, to earlier incarnations of this committee, to individual arbs, and to the wider community: More dispute resolution, less dispute prolongation. Obviously, I endorse Ralph's view; he understands me. I didn't canvas him or contact him over this, either.

So, another year of restrictions has passed, I've not been blocked, and I'm pretty well connected with many <del>of the Biguns</del><ins>appropriate advisers</ins> on this site. The point of the vids was illustrative; I know that piece very well, read it long ago; was *there* the night the barricade hydraulics locked-up (during the NYC previews). Restrictions in perpetuity are inappropriate; please lift them all. To not do so, makes me a target, a perpetual second-class editor, which is punitive, not preventative. <irony>The edit that seems to have brought this to Tim's attention, was me supporting the lifting of another reformed user's editing restrictions.</irony>

Cheers, Jack Merridew 17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note the stricken “Biguns”, above; my intent was to state that I've been actively seeking appropriate advisers per

  • User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.

    As RexxS comments, below, I do want to put the name Jack Merridew and all of that theme behind me. And I need this committee's leave to do so.

    Also, Gold Hat is not my intended new user name — it's a play on Stinkin' badges and the original version of Misplaced Pages:What adminship is not (It's been edit-out, since; it's a wiki)

    Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@Coren && Roger; we swapped Salmonidae of appropriate scale ;)

@Tim, I understand where you're coming from. This is ancient baggage. It's served as a honeypot, which has been useful. Enough. Happy New Year, Jack Merridew 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• *cough* still getting the ABF. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It gets better: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew \!/ Jack Merridew 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew/Archive#17 January 2011 — Gold Hat  (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
      • User talk:Spitfire#Jack Merridew case — Made my day ;) Jack Merridew  09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

Jack's ban was reviewed in November 2008 at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading the discussion as background.

The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

The motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed in December 2009, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he agreed on 11 December 2009):

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

Finally, that leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the restriction would strictly need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry, and the two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew have trivial contributions and are linked to Jack Merridew. Gold Hat has only made comments at places such as his own talk page, where the viewers are well aware that it's Jack – and who enjoy the mild humour resulting. If you like, it's a kind of echo of one of Jack's wiki-friends, Bishonen, who keeps a stable of humorous puppets to lighten people's wiki-lives.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user, drawing criticism for actions that would be considered harmless when done by another user. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it. --RexxS (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor clarification

@Shell – The initial restriction placed over two years ago (one of the 8 restrictions from December 2008). HTH. --RexxS (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Ohconfucius

• I endorse what was written by RexxS above to lift the remaining restrictions. My interactions with Jack have been nothing but pleasant. Let's go with the spirit of the revised restrictions (and not the strict wording) - the quaint Gold Hat account is strictly frivolous and provides welcome amusement. --Ohconfucius 06:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh... "quaint" and "frivolous". How about this: every registered editor is hereby allowed to create several "joke" accounts apiece, flooding the wiki with "fake" users that have to be redirected to the actual owners to avoid any "confusion". That would be awesome!: and oh so conducive to building the wiki in a productive manner. "Inside jokes" about how every admin has socks, and how "n00bs" have no clue. "Biguns" and "littluns": "Us vs. Them". Want to shed the "Lord of the Flies" imagery? Close this "fekkin" thread already. And anyone who remotely suggests that T.Canens should actually be chastised for bringing this up needs a serious trout walloping upside the head. Nothing is going to happen here, so end it. Have mercy... Doc talk 07:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• First I've heard of any such thing. Jack Merridew, could you clarify what you're referring to? Shell 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The mailing list is notoriously un-searchable, but I'll see what I can do there - it doesn't seem to have made it to the "list of alternate accounts we know about", but that does happen some times. Regardless though, we have a long history of allowing humorous alternate accounts - I believe the initial restriction was due to past inappropriate sockpuppetry, which doesn't appear to have reoccurred in the year since the restriction was put in place. Shell 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Follow up to Timotheus Canens: Working in any kind of dispute resolution can be frustrating at the best of times. Sometimes though too much insistence on following the letter of the law can cause someone to miss the point of a policy/guideline/restriction. While policies have been able to grow over the years to give examples of times where thoughtful application is important (exceptions to the 3RR for vandalism and later for BLP), ArbCom restrictions tend to be very brief and somewhat stuck in the moment; understanding that moment and what the restriction was meant to prevent tends to be an important part of enforcing the restriction. Restrictions limiting an editor to one account are about stopping a problem whether it's sneaky sockpuppetry or logging out to avoid scrutiny - an account that clearly indicates its origin and isn't used nefariously doesn't really fall into the realm of what the restriction is meant to prohibit.

      It is a lot of work to take an in depth look at cases and understand what the restrictions are and why they are there; I deeply respect the admins who work at AE because of the time and effort they choose to put in to the project. I certainly don't think we'd expect them to develop mind reading on top of everything; I'm sure that anyone on ArbCom would be happy to answer questions about any cases or restrictions when they come up whether it's a formal request here or simply catching on of us in email/IM/IRC. Shell 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• A couple of observations.

  First (mostly to Timotheus Canens), I see that the Gold Hat has been linked, via a soft redirect, to the main account since the day of the account's creation. So while there may be a technical breach of the restrictions, and while it may not have been appropriate to create the second account, it was clearly not created to deceive or evade sanctions or for a similar nefarious purpose (the intention of the restriction in this instance).

  Second (mostly to Jack Merridew), it seems to me an essential requirement of humorous accounts that the contributions are funny. Absent guidelines clarifying whether faintly droll fully meets this requirement, I am unable to recommend appropriate sizes and weights of applicable Salmonidae. However, as content issues such as this are essentially the community's bailiwick, not ArbCom's, I shall say no more.  Roger 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • @Timotheus Canens: thanks for the comments. I understand your frustration about the wording of sanctions and restrictions. Because it is difficult to foresee all the permutations, and to avoid decisions becoming too legalistic, the committee has traditionally written restrictions concisely and left interpretation down to the community. In the light of recent events, perhaps we need to review this. In any case, I would not criticse an administrator for acting on a good faith interpretation. All that said, I would probably support removal of the restrictions on Jack Merridew altogether at this point and will offer a motion if this view appears to have consensus.  Roger 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse John Vandenberg 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
• A clearly identified "joke" account almost certainly does not violate the spirit of the restriction, which is about sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how wise it might have been to create the account, but I certainly think that viewing it as a breach of the restriction is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction. — Coren  16:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Recuse. I'll add a statement later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Puzzled. I've not heard of this, but then, my tenure as an Arb is less than two weeks at this point, so I'm not commenting on the substance of the issue yet. T. Canens's point is well taken, however. At the very least, an enforcement action made in good faith based on the common-sense reading of a sanction should not result in any negative consequences for the admin making that call--the fault in such a disconnect probably lies with Arbcom, for one of several reasons, rather than the admin taking enforcement action. It's Arbcom's job to lift sanctions in a timely manner when they're no longer relevant or helping build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is suggesting that there be negative consequences for any administrators here, and your point about people who rely on our decisions in good faith is well-taken. In fact, we have a precedent principle on it: ""An administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend prior motion: Jack Merridew

Initiated by Jack Merridew at 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• sulutil:Jack Merridew
• X!'s Edit Counter

Motion affected

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion:

Dec 2009:

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• self-request

Amendment

• all restrictions lifted per bullet #2's reference to "unrestricted editing", all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts, freedom to rename primary account; to not be a second class editor.
  • request withdrawn. Jack Merridew 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Neutralhomer

I have worked with Jack recently and I think he has made a great comeback from his ban. I recommend all restrictions be lifted. I would recommend, also, that admins do keep an eye on Jack's edits for 3 more months while he is off restrictions. This was done with me after an unblock from an indef block (of course after my mentor gave me the green light). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS

I hope ArbCom will indulge my making a presentation so similar to my earlier one , but I'm unsure if the transition from previous to current ArbCom had fully taken place at that time.

Background

In November 2008, Jack's ban was reviewed at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading that discussion as background.

• The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

In December 2009, the motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he gave on 11 December 2009):

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

Commentary

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it – and I'd encourage arbitrators to read at least some of his talk page to get a flavour of how well he is regarded by other editors, as well as the generosity with which he gives his time them. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

That leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the third restriction would technically need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry. Jack has two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew which are linked to Jack Merridew and neither of these has made any remotely abusive edits.

Jack has a considerable quantity of edits on other wikimedia projects, although I'm not sure how relevant arbitrators will feel that is to this request. I believe that it is a further demonstration of his commitment to the betterment of our projects.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user. Jack's ban was lifted over two years ago. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it.

Disclaimer: I'd consider myself a "wiki-friend" of Jack's – and proud of it. Nevertheless, this statement is unsolicited, and is my own unaided analysis of the request. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

@Elen

I'm pretty sure that there is no limit set on the number of accounts that a user (except Jack and a few others) can operate. As long as these are transparently linked and are not simultaneously used in discussion to create false consensus, there is no problem. Many admins have a second account that they use when logged in at public terminals or when travelling to limit the potential damage if that account became compromised. I strongly recommend that to anyone who carries advanced permissions. Some editors have multiple accounts to divide up their work: content creation on one; gnoming, vandal-fighting on others – it helps to compartmentalise interactions with others and allows multiple watchlists (which is very useful if you participate in multiple areas). A few editors have multiple accounts because they can be a refuge from the sometimes humourless tasks that we take on when we contribute. Wouldn't you like to get away from your current wiki-persona once in a while and comment from the perspective of a gigantic reptile or an aggressive, ankle-fixated fish? Jack's no different. He'd like to be 'Gold Hat', the Texan/Mexican gunslinger, every so often. It's not going to break the wiki to let him. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question by Casliber

• Why do you feel the need to continue with multiple accounts, even if identified as such? Can you consider the fact that given the past, that it might be seen in poor taste by some? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question by Elen of the Roads

• Jack, if you're only supposed to have one account, how come you've got three? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions by BOZ

When I have observed Jack over the past couple of years, I have seen him on a road from outcast to accepted, and this can only be a good thing. It seems like he has been very helpful as a technical advisor, and as a general wikignome, so despite our mostly completely incompatible wikiphilosophies, I'd say Jack is currently a net positive to Misplaced Pages. However, his answers to Casliber and Elen's questions seem wholly unsatisfactory to me, so I'll follow up with a couple of my own:

• What is the purpose of continued use of the sockpuppet accounts (both those made before the ban, and those made after)? Why request the unblock of the Moby Dick account?
• What do you intend to do with these accounts if your restrictions are lifted? What do you intend to do with them if your user name is changed?

It looks like Jack has been using these accounts for a bit of levity recently, and I recall some sort of amendment request weeks ago where there was a very minor uproar about them, which was laughed off. While there is no specific prohibition from using alternate accounts in a non-disruptive way, nor is there any specific prohibition from having "joke" accounts, it doesn't especially benefit the project in any way to use these alternate accounts (except for a bit of comedy, and usually in-jokes at that), so it would be nice to hear a bit more of Jack's perspective before the Arbs decide whether to lift his restriction on using only one account at a time. BOZ (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Can the committee at least please figure out what exactly is the right way to view Gold Hat (talk · contribs) etc.? Last time I brought this here, Coren declared that viewing them as a violation "is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction". Now Risker is saying that the accounts should be blocked? Can we get some semblance of consistency in arb pronouncements that are barely a month apart? T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by N419BH

My first interaction with Jack was soon after joining the project in earnest in April 2010. Being a newbie editor Jack helped show me the ropes, guide me, and mentor me. I soon discovered he had a history, but unlike several other editors here he prominently links his history on his main account, along with revealing all his other accounts. A couple clicks on his userpage, some ...light... reading, and I knew the whole story. As others have mentioned, his talk page is an informal "village pump" for technical questions. He makes a habit of fixing the HTML code in signatures on his userpage. He reaches out to certain recently indef-blocked users who he feels can be mentored to productive editing. In short, Jack is a massive net positive to the project.

All Jack is asking here is for his restrictions to be removed. They serve no purpose anymore except to cause confusion as the "Gold Hat" question of last month indicates. His restrictions are no longer preventing damage to the encyclopedia. In actuality, they are becoming a punitive punishment by turning Jack into a "second-class" editor.

Jack has many talk page watchers, including me. He can be set loose on the wiki safely. He's an administrator on WikiSource for what that's worth here. Remove the stigma by unblocking his previous accounts and ending his arbcom restrictions. N419BH 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

• Lift the restriction on good ole Jack. He's been a great help recently with uploading regency maps from Indonesian wikipedia and helping with the regency articles. Certainly a net positive to wikipedia even if he can be a little cheeky at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rossrs

• User:RexxS made a comment above, describing Jack as a wiki-friend, and I would happily use the same term. At first glance that may look like bias, but people regard Jack as a friend because his presence and contributions are seen as positive. I've known Jack and interracted with him for about a year, and to be honest I did not much care for him to begin with. He has a direct approach that is sometimes blunt and lacking in tact, but I feel my initial impression of him was a little hasty. I believe that everything he does is ultimately with the aim of benefiting the project, and that every article edit is intended as an incremental improvement, and every talk comment as a step forward. I've noticed that he presents his opinions and arguments very lucidly and with reference to policies and protocols, and that he remains patient and focussed even when discussions veer off track. His talk page is full of requests for help, and he has always responded quickly, helpfully and with good humour, and I think he's helped quite a few editors find their feet. His range of knowledge and interest is expansive, and he has a lot to offer. The thing that impresses me most about him is that he is consistent, and that he speaks for what he believes is right, and when something requires participation, he participates. He holds strong opinions, and is willing to express them, and I've also seen him take on board the opinions of others and modify his stance. He is a collaborative editor, and in that regard, I don't think any more could be asked of any editor. I think he's made a substantial contribution to Misplaced Pages and to maintain these restrictions would serve no purpose. He is a "net positive", and that's something to be encouraged. Rossrs (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Okip

I see the same disruptive, abrasive, abusive edits which got him blocked originally, and which the Arbcom choose to dimiss last time. Okip 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Xxanthippe

In view of Jack Merridew's atrocious history on Misplaced Pages and flippant treatment of the sock issue, I think that sanctions should not be lifted. I am disturbed that an administrator should behave in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Statement by Protonk

I've never seen the point to additional accounts (I think I made one once), and I agree that Jack's history is quite egregious, but this is well in the past. The restrictions should be lifted. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Statement by Reaper Eternal

I haven't really paid much attention to Jack Merridew & co., since I have never run across him while editing. I have only seen his bizarre "street legal sockpuppet" signature, and glanced at his userpage to find out.

However, from what I have seen of him, the socking was a thing of the past. While I absolutely will not support him for adminship unless he is willing to be checkusered to prove the lack of puppets (like any other former sockmaster), I would support his return to normalcy. What are the restrictions doing? Besides making him a 2 class editor? Absolutely nothing! Additionally, there are other puppetmasters who are no longer restricted. Chzz (talk · contribs) comes to mind, as he works a lot with me on the account creation team. (See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz.) Finally, the socking was over two years ago. Thus I would strongly support removing the restrictions.

Statement by Bishonen, and.. er.. no, by Bishonen, that's right.

Little Risker, defiance is permitted on wiki! All editors are equal, though some (such as Jack Merridew) are more useful than most, as amply shown in many statements above. Punishing defiance or improving people's attitude is not the job of the ArbCom. Arbitrators are urged to retain a sense of perspective about this, and about their own power and dignity. Come back Jack! :-( (Defiant crowd signature:) bishzilla _ROARR!!, darwinbish , bishapod splash!, darwin, Little 'shonen | Talk, 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused as involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• While I personally don't see the need for other accounts either (I have enough trouble with one), I can't see a problem with them if they are all joined up. The other restrictions appear superfluous at this juncture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recused as involved and also because Jack Merridew is a sysop on English Wikisource. John Vandenberg 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Awaiting further statements, but I am minded to lift the restrictions: they no longer appear to be serving any useful purpose. –xeno 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  @Okip: including diffs with your statement would be appreciated, as would an explanation as to how your statement relates to the request to lift a restriction on alternate accounts. –xeno 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm actually surprised that nobody has blocked the additional accounts, which give the impression of thumbing one's nose at the relatively minimal restrictions that Jack Merridew has been under, a behavioural pattern that is in keeping with the escalation that was seen in the period before Jack required serious sanctions. Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions; however, at this point I'd say block the non-bot socks (acknowledged or not) and keep that restriction in place. Risker (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• As I've stated the last time one of those "joke" accounts came up: they are technical violations not worthy of rigid enforcement.

  But, as I've also stated the last time this came up, they are an unwise violation: they may not be worthy of a smackdown, but they certainly speak loud and clear against lifting the restriction. We're here to write a collaborative encyclopedia, not to experiment with the concepts of online identity or to horse around with collections of accounts. I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly — even if the individual violations are, in isolation, more ridiculous than harmful. — Coren  16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)