User:RexxS/BringBackJack

Bring Back Jack "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.

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 &mdash; even if the individual violations are, in isolation, more ridiculous than harmful.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion"

This kind of thoughtless, petty, vindictiveness – based on a misguided assumption of "defiance" – is how we lose our best contributors.

Who can read the previous versions of User talk:Jack Merridew and not be struck by the number of times the word "thanks" appears on any of the revisions?

Who can fail to be impressed by the depth of technical understanding and remarkable skill-set that Jack employed to solve so many users' problem that landed on his page?

Who can doubt his sincere intentions that every single one of his contributions should be an improvement to the Wikimedia project?

Jack just asked to be no longer treated as a second-class editor. It wasn't the effect of the restrictions that bothered him. It was the fact that he still had restrictions after more than two years of very positive contributions. Those alternate accounts weren't defiance. They were an illustration that Jack was no danger to the wiki – so that even the blind could see that he could use alternative accounts without causing the problems that his admitted sock-puppetry did before. And yet, some still couldn't see. For shame.

So what lessons do we learn from this sorry story?
 * There's no way back: If you screw-up, there's no path to redemption. You're always going to carry the wiki-mark of Cain, no matter how constructive you have been; no matter for how long.


 * The standard offer is a lie: You can jump through the hoops, but even if you've fulfilled the expectations many times over, your fate still depends on arbitrary whim.

There are some who will insist that the system works, but deep down, in their heart-of-hearts, they know it's just bullshit.
 * There's a clear message for vandals: It's not worth trying to reform. Because no matter how hard you try, you'll still get kicked in the teeth.

And just in case you think none of this applies to you, remember: "For petty-mindedness to triumph, it is sufficient for nobler minds to do nothing". Shame on you.