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

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 &mdash; 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 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 Wikipedia. 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 &mdash; 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 NobodyMy talk 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.&mdash;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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion


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

Support:
 * 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 (Talk 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * bainer (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.
 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | 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:
 * FT2 (Talk 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support; I hope this procedure never happens. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,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.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.If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place.  (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 (Talk 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * As FloNight, I don't think special cases are needed here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:
 * 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 Wikipedia 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."
 * {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rationale Support:
 * Clarification, anti-ambiguity, and anti-gaming on the main condition #4.
 * }
 * }
 * FT2 (Talk 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deskana (talk) 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 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 (Talk 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 Wikipedia 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:
 * Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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
 * FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per FloNight and Coren. Risker (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 *  — Rlevse • Talk  • 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Per Newyorkbrad's advice.  Roger Davies  talk 11:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion

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


 * Comment: After review of the mentors and community comments on 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 Wikipedia 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 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&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 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)

Request for clarification (January 2011)
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:
 * (initiator)
 * aka  aka

Statement by Timotheus Canens
It has recently come to my attention that has been operating, and editing from, the account, 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 that arbcom is aware of the  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:
 * Arbcom, apparently intending to prohibit only X, passes a broadly-worded restriction whose wording prohibits X and Y.
 * The user does Y, and an admin takes enforcement action because, after all, the restriction does prohibit Y.
 * The enforcing admin gets dragged before arbcom and berated for "overreaction" or "ignoring the spirit" or whatever by arbs.
 * 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
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 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 ;)
 * 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, 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 of the Biguns  appropriate advisers 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, a perpetual second-class editor, which is punitive, not preventative. The that seems to have brought this to Tim's attention, was me supporting the lifting of another reformed user's editing restrictions.

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(and I'm not fixed on a specific one, yet) — it's a play on Stinkin' badges and the  of 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* . Sincerely, Jack Merridew 08:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It gets better: Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew \!/ Jack Merridew 08:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew/Archive — Gold Hat&thinsp;undefined (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * User talk:Spitfire — Made my day ;) Jack Merridew&thinsp;undefined 09:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
Jack's ban was reviewed in November 2008 at 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): 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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.

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 ¡digame! 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)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * First I've heard of any such thing. Jack Merridew, could you clarify what you're referring to? Shell   babelfish 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   babelfish 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   babelfish 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  talk 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  talk 04:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse John Vandenberg (chat) 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 &mdash; at best &mdash; an unwarranted overreaction.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 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)


 * Jack Merridew
 * X!'s Edit Counter


 * Motion affected:


 * Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review 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:


 * 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.
 * User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
 * User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia 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.
 * 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
 * (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.undefined Jack Merridew 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew
Hi. I would like all my restrictions lifted, please. This is all water under the bridge. Something to talk about this week. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is my view that these restrictions have served their purpose, and are no longer helpful. I would not, for example, be eligible to serve as a Town sheriff, as I'm 'under restriction' ("sheriff candidates must be in good standing (no outstanding topic bans or other remedies)"). The vestigial restrictions would also be mentioned in an RfA. I've a few humour accounts, as discussed last month.
 * I've recast the other accounts as mirrors of 'Jack'. The user pages are transcluded from that. We're all one editor, as has been long understood.
 * I have reached out to many editors since the above was passed. I was given autopatrolled, today. I've not been blocked. When disputes have arisen, I've talked appropriately.
 * In the 2009 discussions there was an expectation, at least on my part, that those remaining 4 restriction were for a limited time; there was even a mention of for four months, somewhere.
 * Jack Merridew 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Cas && Elen: I have, I believe, fourteen accounts, ten of which I have control of. The oldest I have control of is Thomas Jerome Newton, with a total of four edits. These are all me. For three years, my 'Jack' account has stood in the middle of a crowd of blocked accounts whose user pages sported blocked-sock boxes and served to 'mark' me. More than a year ago, this committee commended me, yet I'm still a second-class editor, and have my past used against me. Gold Hat was a joke account I used to try and get some traction with last year's committee, to move things along. I was told no one cared. Merridew was for me [ by xeno], after a comment about a , which I assume was some sort of check for ac:objections.
 * It is not my intent to make significant edits with other than my primary account. I am thinking of a rename, which I'll not state publicly (some know from emails). I want the transition to unrestricted editing. These accounts are my history, and I'm not seeking to walk away from them. A return through the front door has long been about transparency and honesty. Have I not been straight with folks for years, now? Elen, my issues are from before you joined this project; Cas, Davenbelle and Thomas Jerome Newton are older than your account. There is no poor taste here, it's about owning my past.
 * I have sought to return by the proper route for years. Does the committee not see that the project needs some route back that involves moving beyond a past? Am I to be forever damned?
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The old accounts have only at CUs a few times; asked to be unblocked. Gold Hat's  was to an arb's alt account; I  the user page. This led to an email dialogue. This has not been about disrespect; as BOZ says, it's.
 * After last month's discussion, I was told to wait a bit more, which I'm ok with. All through the last three years has been a theme of returning to unrestricted editing; I'm just asking for the last step, here. I'm not intending to use any of these accounts for other than a bit of . If I rename, and that might be too messy w/193 SUL:Accounts, 'Jack' would just become another of the of the old accounts. I've no problem tossing one of these accounts in the, if that's a concern. I posted unblock on a few of the old accounts to try and get the last step of my return in gear, again. I see it as just a matter of tapping a tin cup against the cell bars.
 * When I was talking with Neutralhomer, I was trying to see if things looked right in different browsers, and I ended up talking to him with whatever browser I was looking at his page with at the moment. I have different browsers typically signed-in to some of the accounts. NH didn't seem much bothered by it. In the last few days, I've been using the Gold Hat account to edit the user spaces, so it's got over a hundred edits.
 * I've made useful edits with all the accounts that have more than a few edits. I want them back as 'mine'. Some may think I should be distancing myself from these old accounts, but I see that as incompatible with the expectation that I be transparent and honest about things. I'm not trying to erase my history, but to put it behind, to put paid to it. It will all be part of my history, but at this point, it's ancient history. Three years ago, when I acknowledged my prior accounts, blocks dropped, and off I went, up to WMF's other projects. After a while, I returned w/restrictions, have had my restrictions eased, and now I want closure. The next step is no restrictions and no blocks, just some alt-accounts and reasonable linkages to things such is all the motions.
 * Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ralph; Gold Hat is a Mexican bandito, not a Texan Rhinestone Cowboy. And 'Jack' is an admin on, so I should be taking care when editing from unsecure machines. Multiple watchlists can be useful. I'll occasionally paste large lists of pages into some old account for a focused view of things in some area. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @I/Okip: I was not blocked for *alleged* "disruptive, abrasive, abusive edits", I was [ blocked] for "Abusing multiple accounts". This [ same block] landed on my other [ accounts] . I had  this, apologizedemail to the AC for evading their prior remedies, and have acknowledged the humour accounts. [ [ Gold Hat], [ Merridew] ] You're , you , you ,'' are in pure WP:BATTLEGROUND-mode. Of course, I'm not surprised to see you here; and you did say you'd  . Jack Merridew 21:03, 23 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. In November 2008, Jack's ban was reviewed at Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading that discussion as background.
 * 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): 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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:

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 Wikipedia. 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: 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)
 * 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?

Statement by Timotheus Canens
Can the committee at least please figure out what exactly is the right way to view 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. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 2nd class editor? Absolutely nothing! Additionally, there are other puppetmasters who are no longer restricted. comes to mind, as he works a lot with me on the account creation team. (See 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     ROA R R! !   ,  darwin bish  BITE,   bish a pod   splash! ,  darwin'  fish, Little 'shonen | Talk,  00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC). [Entire crowd meekly holds out their hands (those that have them) for the handcuffs.'']

Statement by WFCforLife
In relation to this case, Arbcom's role is not to dish out punishment, but to take measures deemed necessary to safeguard the project. Decisions whether to add, retain or remove motions should be taken on an objective basis, while redundant statements that apply to all editors probably ought not to be listed at all. My judgement would be as follows:

1. It is clear that Jack has technically broken this motion on a number of occasions. It is equally clear that these were done harmlessly, in protest at what Jack perceives as the punitive nature of the measure. I personally believe this is no longer necessary. Should it be extended, it should be clear that it is being extended due to a risk to the encyclopaedia, rather than bureaucratic insistence of punishing Jack for not obeying this to the letter.

2. Should be removed, although Jack should bear in mind that standard policies and guidelines on alternative accounts apply to all editors, and that given his past, pushing them (especially now that there is nothing to protest anymore) would be a bad idea.

3. Was pointless from the start. Jack is a highly watched editor; it can be assumed that Jack will be subject to the site's normal behavioral policies and guidelines without the need for arbcom to place the restriction.

—WFC— 10:57, 26 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 (chat) 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 talk  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 talk  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 &mdash; even if the individual violations are, in isolation, more ridiculous than harmful.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New discussion
To make a point I've made to a couple of other people - we have not been fair to Jack by turning a blind eye/the other cheek or whatever when he started editing as Gold Hat. Since no-one jumped up and down on him when he did it, he has naturally assumed that if he asked for the restriction to be lifted, they would be lifted. Instead, some members of the committee are now arguing that editing with these socks is reason not to lift the restriction, and the socks should be blocked. It's no wonder really that he's stamped off in a snit. Can we reach a compromise - if he comes back (which I hope he does), he can edit with the bot account and a couple of play socks (do they have cute little animals on them, one wonders), but he agrees (1) that all his socks say clearly somewhere on them that they belong to Jack Merridew and (2)the accounts that were blocked back in the day must stay blocked. No unblock requests, no garnishing the page, regard them strictly as long dead relatives - one may know the location of their grave, but no-one goes there any more.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems perfectly reasonable, and probably what should have been happening from the start. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is already fractured, so I have replied to Elen on my talk, as has little Gold Hat. Sorry for the mess, and move it all here if you like. Or there... or to a separate page... or wherever! Bishonen | talk 14:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

Request for clarification: Jack Merridew unban
Permanent link

Initiated by   Skomorokh   at 12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * [account abandoned]
 * notification

Statement by Skomorokh
The community ban on Jack Merridew was lifted by ArbCom in Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion. Community discussion as to whether the terms of the unban have been violated has been inconclusive, and does not look to be going anywhere productive.

There's been quite a bit of disruption, bad blood and wasting of the community's time caused by Merridew-related matters recently, with questions of open proxies, civility violations, outing, hounding, admin abuse and a litany of other drama-fueling issues. This request is not about that.

I'd like to ask the Committee simply to clarify their reading on this narrow point, whether their unban is valid in light of Jack Merridew's apparent withdrawal of agreement to its terms. A yes/no will suffice, but if you want to address the broader issue by motion I'm sure that would be welcome. Thank you for your consideration,  Skomorokh   12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Barong, fka Jack
The ball has been in the ac's court since January, really. fwiw, I consider Risker involved. She's been feeding the sharks at ani, wadded into the indef of Gimme last August, and seems pissed about my comments re GregJackP. I did create another account and disclose it to John, yesterday.

is xeno back? count him as supporting me, as he said as much before. prolly more I need to go read.


 * Brad, this is the account I created at John's urging, yesterday. cf Barong (mythology). you have your answer; always have, really.
 * what I want is the old restrictions removed; they're an unwarranted tarring, at this point. I've agreed w/John to disclose any alternate accounts I create (atm, there are none) . deal? Barong 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie; understood. Barong 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger, I have been patiently living under restrictions for more than 3 years (I'm counting the BANTIME). From my perspective, and many have said much the same, these restrictions are vestiges of long ago. They only serve to pass ammo to detractors from old disputes and are unhelpful. It's all scarlet letter, yellow ticket of leave, badge of shame, branded, &c. See, for example, the feeding frenzy on ANI. If this clarification is limited in scope to this account, I intend to take the above to /Motions. I will not participate in this project under indefinite restriction. Barong 06:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. There certainly has been controversy. We're supposed to be bold. That doesn't mean I've been wrong about most of it. It is my view that these restrictions are only serving as wiki-weapons to detractors, that they serve to keep me on a pillory, from moving forward. I think everyone knows I could have gone socking, again, with a serious intent to cover my tracks and simply get on with things like becoming an admin. But I sought to return via the front door and find myself with an indefinite leg iron leading back out the door. It was always understood that it was 'a road back'. It really should have been over at the end of a year of mentorship, but no, the sharks were going to have none of that. The remaining restrictions really amount to a sop to that crowd, and have lingered far too long. Even meataxe bans are typically limited to a year. I'm still bound by stuff that centers on 2005–2006. Barong 07:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Coren; see Jack's user page. People here *never* forget, never forgive. Time to figure that one out. Barong 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * lol; it's not like you folks are that goes on here. Barong 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * George; restrictions to protect me from the mob? No, thank you; not my style and not going to work that way. By my count of the ani mess, there's a strong consensus for me. Of course, I use a harsher ruler than Reyk is, and discount rather more than one participant.
 * Anthony; spot-on ;) Barong 08:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests for comment/Jack Merridew
 * Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew


 * Requests for comment/Barong
 * Requests for arbitration/Barong

wtf? Barong 11:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

meet teh ACE2011 wannabes. Barong 05:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will not be participating in WMF under either of the (first) two motions below; someone add a simple lifting of the restrictions (or I will). Barong 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Coren; if your motion passes, there will be *no* on-wiki conduct for the three months, and likely beyond or beyond, for that matter. (fixed;)
 * Thank you, Kirill. That's the ticket; you won't be disappointed (assuming this passes).
 * Barong 13:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Roger, re my future intentions:
 * At this point I may not participate even if motion 4 passes. Why should I? I would ask all to ask themselves why they continue to participate in a project that is so obviously fucked-up.
 * re Roger's specific querry about: "all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts."
 * I've a request at meta about the sul:locks. I can get them removed if I find a dev willing to reset the email so I may invoke the password reset function. I would like this done for all the non-sul:en:wp accounts, too. Why? Because they're me, they made my edits. 28bytes has picked up on my badges of shame comments and that's exactly what all the blocks, locks, sockboxes, and restrictions in perpetuity are. As he also says, it's about maintaining "leverage". It's about there not ever really being a road back, about being a permanent second-class editor.
 * It all loops back to this place having become the toxic-wiki. Am I illustrating a point with my 'disruption'? If so, it would be that the toxicity has saturated this committee. This whole page looks quite like a typical ANI thread, with the bickering mostly down in the bottom sections. Seems to me the upper sections have a consensus.
 * If I'm to bother here, I also want all of my prior accounts let out of gaol. I want no blocks, no locks, no formal restrictions. Get off me.
 * What would I do with them? Prolly not much; a few funny comments, gnome their user spaces. I was offered a return to unrestricted editing (see last motion). Why would I bother with trying for the front door for *years*. Because I was offered a lie; there isn't a road back, your committee as an institution has no honor.


 * @Phil; Thanks. I've demonstrated for years that I could abide by a one account restriction. Except for a bit w/Gold Hat, all my accounts have been sequential incarnations, not multiple voices in the same thread (a sock on the left hand and another on the right to create a false consensus). Gold Hat made only a very few edits until a year after the 2009 motion passed, and that was six months after Rlevse told me no one cared.


 * @Motion 5: Bzzzt.


 * Motion 'n': Ban reinstated; meh ;) teh xfd link up-top is looking more apt every day.


 * Q: Who's getting fed by this stupidity? Grawp, a whole slew of disruptive littluns that infest ANI, those with years of history nipping at my heels, the toxic-ones, those who make this place suck.


 * AGK that I offer you "Old Jack" back. OK. Just learn to let the old shite go, to show a little good-faith. It's not like I'm asking for a block-exempt bit. I'm asking for a reason to bother continuing with this place.


 * Barong 09:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick
 * Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues.


 * On the talk it says that the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces.
 * Does this five-year-old restriction still apply? ('cause I'm ignoring it;). I've never gotten an answer from teh committee about this (and I've asked).


 * Barong 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Barong account was compromised by posting the password. It has also been sul:locked per my request on meta. The email has been blanked and another (unsaved) GUID pasted in as the password, and browsers and OS have had all recollection purged.


 * There has still been little reason offered for maintaining any restriction on me other than a galling failure on my part to hew to arbitry restrictions that long ago ceased being appropriate. About half the committee seems het up by my failure to respect their authoritah. You want my respect? Earn it.


 * 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am copying this post from the talk page of 125.162.150.88 at the user's request. -- Diannaa (Talk) 05:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT?


 * Anyone following this?
 * Deletion review/Log/2011 May 16?
 * It's all connected; same-wiki-channel.


 * In that, Scott MacDonald offers this comment:

"Our "rules" do not exist to keep things that serve no current purpose (whatever the original motivation in creating them) other than to disrupt. If the "rules" do point in that direction - then insisting they be followed is by definition "disruption to prove a point" and ignoring the letter of them is explicitly within the IAR policy."


 * That's what's wrong with the view that my ignoring outdated restrictions is grounds for extending them. About half of the arbs are effectively disrupting teh wiki to prove the point that teh ac's authority must be respected.
 * 125.162.150.88 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from 125.162.150.88's Talk page at user's request.... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC))


 * re :
 * Slightly out of context, since the essence of IAR is only ignoring rules where they "prevent you improving the encyclopedia" not just where they piss you off and restrict you from having more accounts.
 * The 'prevent' aspect would be the maintenance of a target on my back that emboldens many detractors to wage unrestricted wiki-war on Merridew. These restrictions create a loophole in most other policies and site norms re myself; they have made it impossible for me to effectively participate in this project. My objection is not to the specifics of any restrictions but to being restricted. Restrictions on me are unhelpful to this project; they concentrate negative attention on me and deter positive contributions. They abet harassment and feed trolls. Maintaining them in this context is bad faith.
 * 125.162.150.88 (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tijfo098
Since this appears to be a case of Bishzilla envy (hi!), could the committee grant him the use of, say, 5 accounts? I'm not aware of an editor here using more concurrently for non-nefarious purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

AGK, someone not being allowed to make joke/alt accounts is a cruel restriction? I see that humor accounts are enshrined in WP:SOCK, but is this all Barong was doing? 00:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * please, ask another question! The replies are pure gold. Barong 13:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Restrictions are completely pointless". They were indeed ineffective for their intended purpose, but are not pointless. Had they been pointless, we would not be here. They serve the following dramatic purpose: Barong ignores them as an act of "civil disobedience" against the oppressive ArbCom, while at the same time asking for them to be removed as unfair, to "clear his name". So, you see, they now serve to keep the "cold war" going. ArbCom can't spite itself by removing the restriction after they've been ignored, and Barong storms off once in while because of them. I'm sure a sociologist could write an essay on this. 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS". Yes, we need more MOS warriors! 03:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Coren, you are so wrong. Take cue from Diannaa. The right question is "Barong: great editor or the greatest editor?" It's that simple! 03:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
Having ignored all of the unban and ANI drama, the volume of bad blood present within this whole sorry mess takes me rather by surprise. The purpose of Jack's recent actions seems to me to have been the removal of the archaic indefinite restrictions placed on him in his unban at Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion in late 2009.

I am in agreement with Jack. Since he made his return to the English Wikipedia some time ago, he has been an exceptional and productive editor. I for one am confused as to why the Committee do not simply resolve by motion that all restrictions on Jack are lifted; he has proven his worth as a contributor a long time ago. If his conduct is regressing, it is out of frustration at the unnecessary (and therefore cruel) continued existence of these restrictions. Lift them all, as should have been done many months ago, and let him and the community move on. There is no reason not to. AGK [</nowikI>• ] 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tijfo098: No, that's not what I said. My thinking is that unnecessarily restricting the activities of an editor is unfair. Jack is making the point with these joke accounts that the restrictions are completely pointless. Whilst I do not agree with his methods, I do agree with his argument, and accordingly ask that the Committee resolve by motion that all restrictions are immediately lifted. As I said: there is no reason not to. AGK  [</nowikI>• ] 13:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Coren: I would not quite concur that your position is based on an ability to "let this go", but I whole-heartedly agree with everything else that RexxS says. I would encourage you and the other arbitrators to reflect very carefully on his well-written statement, because it perfectly summarises this whole sorry situation. AGK  [</nowikI>• ] 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Coren again: Okay, show me precisely where he has misbehaved. No, really, go on. I see lots of generalisations that "Jack/Barong hasn't earned a lifting of the restrictions", but, funnily enough, I don't see anything to substantiate those vague impressions. AGK  [</nowikI>• ] 11:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad: Thank you for your proposals. We need a resolution to this, even if it is a deferral of action until a later date. For the record, that is what I asked the Committee to do in my e-mail to them, and that is a proposal that would have my support. AGK  [</nowikI>• ] 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by RexxS
"Arbcom is borked". Am I allowed to repeat that here? A response to Jimbo's comment that "RfA is broken" and one which Jack insisted should not be removed. Jack was right, and I feel hugely disappointed that I have to explain again why.

Jack was sanctioned over four years ago. Following a considerable amount of productive work on other wikimedia projects, he was eventually unblocked subject to eight conditions in December 2008 – that's approaching two and a half years ago. Since then he has edited very productively, displaying technical skill and offering help to all who asked for it, and I defy anybody to read the history of Jack's talk page or his contributions and reach any other conclusion. In December 2009, the conditions were revised, leaving effectively only a restriction on editing from a single named account. That restriction was actually on 27 April 2007 for the stated purpose of preventing "further attempts at evading the remedies against Moby Dick" (i.e. harassing Cool Cat), and has been in place now for four years. Since Jack's unblock two and a half years ago, he has not engaged in any of the behaviour that caused his original sanctions. That's not to say his editing has been without conflict. This is a wiki and differences of opinion are part of how articles are built, but Jack has tried to improve wikipedia by improving functionality, by increasing consistency, by encouraging references to be defined outside of main text, and many other innovations — see short footnotes sfn for an obvious example.

But when he recently asked to be allowed to be considered as a normal editor, he was met with blank incomprehension. You just didn't get it. He wasn't asking to be allowed to edit from more than one account so that he could make socks and go back to harassing Cool Cat – for heaven's sake, if that's what he wanted, he'd have done it, not asked for your permission. So Coren, you're quite wrong: ALL of this is about ancient misbehaviour. Because you can't let it go. Jack's behaviour over the last weeks has been born of frustration that his ancient misbehaviour has to be hung around his neck like an albatross. And frankly, when you say "paint within the lines for a while and people will forgive and forget", I just don't believe you, and I don't expect anyone else will either. Jack was painting within the lines throughout 2009 and 2010, and that wasn't enough for you, so what are you suggesting will be any different now?

Let's face it: ArbCom made a collective hash of Jack's request in February. Even now you have the chance to say, "Ok, you've served your time; we want to encourage you to contribute in the way we know you can, so we'll vacate your sanctions. Welcome back to the ranks of normal editors." But you can't manage that. You're still insisting on a further unspecified period of good behaviour with the promise of rehabilitation at the end. You ever played Portal? The cake's a lie, you know.

And that's why ArbCom is borked. --RexxS (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * it was . same-same, but different ;) Barong 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to Coren: If you disagree with the premise that Jack's behaviour was good during the years of 2009 and 2010, then let's see the diffs or it didn't happen. The fact is that in those twenty-four months you'll find nothing more than the usual differences that most active editors are engaged in. Except because he is branded as a second-class editor, his detractors have an extra stick to beat him with. In that period, Jack was not experimenting on behavioural gulfs, he was diligently working to improve this encyclopedia. In doing so, he put out of joint the noses of a number of folks who OWN some articles, by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS. And his uncompromising response to those OWNers is the source of the current complaints. And as for that nonsense about "right to sock" – you still don't get it. He doesn't want a "right to sock"; he wants the right to have exactly the same number of accounts as any other editor can have. I really can't understand how you can't grasp the point: the nature of the sanction is utterly immaterial; Jack is upset and frustrated because a sanction of some form still exists after such a ridiculously long time. Ask yourself "what outcome do I want from this?", and if the answer is "I want Jack editing productively", then I assure you the best way to achieve that is to vacate this long-outdated and thoroughly useless remaining sanction. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Response to Tijfo098: "by changing their cherished tables and infoboxes to improve the accessibility and compliance with MOS". No, we don't need more MOS warriors. What we need is fewer crayoners who think because we can make 16,777,216 different colours, we have to have at least 16,777,215 of them on the same page. What we need more of is editors who take the time to understand how their choices affect the ability of other editors to access wikipedia, currently "the encyclopedia anyone can write, but only the unimpaired can read". Had you forgotten that accessibility is part of the MOS as well? --RexxS (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments on motions: It would be ungracious of me not to thank Brad for making proposals to move us forward, and I think everyone would accept that the intentions are good. However, it is in the nature of Wikipedia that protest is frowned upon; and Jack has certainly been protesting loudly of late. I believe he's fully cognisant of the potential consequences of going too far in making a POINT, so I don't see the need to reinforce that. Nevertheless, Brad is fully entitled to see that differently, and I respect that. Kiril has it right in my humble opinion. Leaving Jack with threats over his head for some more months is akin to painting a bullseye on him for his detractors to aim at, particularly if there's a deadline. I think that it would become an invitation for everybody who has a grievance against Jack to rush to ANI at the slightest opportunity, or for the trolls to have a field-day baiting him for a response. Let's avoid that sort of drama: give Jack a chance to prove himself a good editor on a level playing field, where he can see he's held in the same esteem as any other contributor. You can now give him that chance. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * On rights: the only "rights" to which participants are entitled are the right to leave and the right to fork - No, Coren, you're a long way short of enumerating the rights that contributors to this project enjoy. The fourth Pillar tells us that we can expect to be treated in a collegial manner, with a degree of respect and consideration by our fellow contributors. I have extended that courtesy to all of you and will continue to do so, but I honestly have found it difficult, observing the shameful way in which sanctions have been dragged out for such an extended length of time. Is there any other case of a currently active editor who still has a restriction hanging over him which dates back to 2007? Particularly one whose contributions for two years have been the subject of so much praise? We all know that Jack has been under stress IRL since last year, and that should help you to understand his recent protests – born of frustration. The key point you miss is that those protests are not disruptive in the manner described in WP:POINT. Ask yourself "Just whom or what did Jack disrupt when he scuttled his old accounts?" Himself – and that's about it. What heinous crime is Jack guilty of that he has not served his time for? Defiance? Really? It is surely time to get some perspective here: Jack has proved his worth to the project many times over since December 2008, and his current reactions can be directly traced to the treatment he received from ArbCom in February. Jack's a person, an adult, with feelings – not some abstract cypher on the internet – and deserves to be treated no worse than any of us deserve to be. You really don't lose face, you know, when you show some mercy. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
I agree with RexxS that a hash has been made, but I strongly dispute the revisionist claims made that Jack/Barong is behaving just fine now. There have been multiple disruptive actions in the last week, though Jack seems to have at least temporarily gotten the message to stop that.

There have also been numerous positive edits. Hence the community indecision and frustration.

The ANI ban thread is still running 2:1 in favor of re-community-banning. Our normal threshold for consenus is somewhat higher (75–80%) but the fact remains that this is viewed negatively by a supermajority of the community who have weighed in.

I am personally in favor of vacating the account name restriction, with the proviso that there be a linkage clearly established on a permanent basis etc.

It is not clear that permanently behaving himself has sunk in. Jack will be subject to enhanced scrutiny no matter what happens here; if he is freed of restrictions and then maneuvers himself into a long-term block next week, no good cause is served. If Arbcom can figure out a way through the giordian knot of doing Jack's good editing right, and discouraging both Jack and others from misbehavior that might lead to another block, that would be a most excellent outcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By my count the support/oppose ratio is 14:11. Of those supports one is a troll and another is an editor whose only four edits in the last few years have been to attack Jack. I'm not sure where you're getting 2:1 from. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are 4 opposes that came in after I had last counted, the last 4 entries on the proposed ban subsection. 2 of those were after I posted.  The ratio last I'd counted (an hour or so before posting) was 14:7.  I believe that you are correct as to the current count.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of the Supports should not be included, as User:Okip and User:Shemeska have returned after long periods of inactivity pretty much solely to post to this thread. That makes the current tally 12:12. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not attempting to justify an edge case consensus determination here, and I am certainly not going to close the proposal personally as I blocked Jack for disruption earlier, but the closing administrator should take comments and motivations and activity into account for all participants expressing an opinion on both sides, not just count the numbers on either side. "reducing the count" as you have done is improper.
 * We have no threshold for activity for eligibility to comment on issues or !vote on community sanctions, but that should be taken into account by the closing admin. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware of these facts. Doing a count just gives a quick off-the-cuff summary of the direction the discussion may be going. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by GiacomoReturned
I have hesitated to involve myself in yet another of Coren's crusades and persecutions against editors that he does not like, preferring to keep as much distance between him and myself as possible. However, this continued persecution of Jack is ridiculous, everyone can see it — what precisely is Coren's real problem here. I can see it quite clearly — is it something that we really need to spell out even more clearly — or will the arbcom be wise and just abandon this over prolonged persecution of Jack? I very much hope it will be the latter. Giacomo Returned 22:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [ ;)] Barong 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Timotheus Canens
What a mess. Back in January, I noticed and the fact that Jack/Barong/whatever is under a single-account restriction. So I talked to him, and then asked arbcom to clarify what's going on: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion. I noted 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." One arbitrator commented, "I certainly think that viewing it as a breach of the restriction is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction". Other comments were pretty similar. So arbcom didn't really mean what it said. Odd, but fair enough. A little less than two months later, Jack asked for the restriction to be fully lifted. All out of a sudden the extra accounts become the central issue. According to the same arbitrator, "they certainly speak loud and clear against lifting the restriction." Wait, what? Honestly, that was not the response I expected at all from the committee; I'm fairly sure that's not what Jack expected as well. And it's not his fault. From a process prospective, moreover, the combination of the two separate requests created this anomaly: a sanction which is still on the books, which the committee recently reviewed and declined to lift because of violations, nonetheless will not be enforced against said violations. It's like saying "you are topic banned, and we won't lift the ban because you have violated it, but we won't block you either". T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Diannaa
Here is a recent example where Jack makes clueful contributions to a discussion about seemingly inconsequential changes to info box parameters: Ani. The change that the bot is doing is preliminary work needed in advance of site-wide changes to the way we do our collection of infoboxes. This is the kind of behind-the scenes technical stuff that he is good at, and that is beyond the comprehension of many of us on the site. Another matter he has been working on recently is helping me pursue some much needed changes to accessibility in our collection of succession templates. Here is what is happening with that project: BrownEyedGirl is the one who came up with an elegant solution to the problem, but it was Jack who encouraged me to pursue the matter in the first place. I am presently working on converting some garbage-y templates from outdated HTML to wiki mark-up that will be easier for people to edit and uses a lot less code. Example: is the first in a series of templates that are about the kings and queens of England since the Norman invasion. That one I could manage on my own, but I don't think I could make comply with accessibility guidelines or make it comprehensible to someone looking at it with a screen reader. How 'bout you? Could you do it? There is stuff like this all over the wiki that needs to be dealt with and if talented, even brilliant, people like Jack are willing to pursue these improvements in their leisure time, we need to encourage that. There is no reason to believe that at this point in his career he would resume the activity that led to the arbcom restrictions, and I think the last of those restrictions should be removed, making him once again a full citizen of the community. Thanks for your time. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Barong 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on the motions

Motion #4 is the best way forward, in my opinion. David/Barong will remain at the forefront of some controversy, with the work he intends to tackle. People don't like change and he hopes to make some. So there will be some dramas for sure, but there won't be any further problematic socking. Waiting won't change that, and admonishments like proposed in alternative #1 are unnecessary. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reminder

An hour after, David requested all his user pages be deleted and walked away from the Jack Merridew account. David is not a child, his photograph proves that, and you should not be treating him like a rebellious teenager who needs to be taught his place. Grawp was onto something with his rant:. Is that the kind of place you want this to be? Know your place and shut your mouth, indefinitely, or for another six months, or another year, and then if you're good we'll see? -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Another reminder

He had the Gold Hat account since June 2010. He communicated at various times with four different admins using the Gold Hat account—Shell Kinney, T. Canens, Bish, and myself—before he posted to Arbcom asking for a lifting of his final restriction. He likely felt that under these circumstances asking for official permission to carry on with it was merely a formality. So I imagine it was quite a shock to find that the last arbcom restriction would not be lifted, in spite of the years of productive editing, and the tacit agreement of at least four admins that the Gold Hat account was OK. I would encourage you to re-think your stance on this. -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Other administrators were aware of the Gold Hat account though they were not contacted directly. The strong consensus here on this page is that the user deserves restoration of full rights in equal standing to other editors on this site. The notable exception is Beyond By Ken, who is not ignorant of David's work as he claims, but was actually a member of Wildhartlivie's coterie during the filmography tables dispute, and is thus quite familiar with the user formerly known as Jack Merridew and thus definitely has a dog in this hunt. The on-wiki activity since his arrival in Bali has been an attempt by David (a very successful attempt) to create a shitstorm to draw attention to his cause and the bad decision making that is happening in this case. I know it's a bit of a leap of faith here to ignore this behaviour and restore his rights, but Option 5 is no longer viable anyway as the Barong account has ceased to exist. The type of stand-alone decision making that was necessary in the dire emergency of the Rodandhullemu case is not appropriate here. By ignoring the will of the community and insisting on a paternalistic "Arbcom knows best" ruling means you yourselves are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. -- Diannaa (Talk) 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg
@Coren, there is a right to create alternative accounts, both disclosed and undisclosed. Do I need to use latin in order for you to believe this?? Just tonight I advised someone on managing an undisclosed sock in order to create an article where they have legitimate fears of state reprisal. Whether or not Barong/Jack Merridew needs alternative accounts is not the point — ArbCom needs to justify continued sanctions and/or reduce them where possible.

@Roger, are people who reform expected to abstain from all controversy and be seen and not heard? He isnt a saint. He is pretty helpful tho.

This is turning into another Everyking vs ArbCom. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by.. er.. Bishonen!
Coren: There is no putative "right to sock" to be unjustly deprived of. Wait, what? [Darwinbish bites Coren decisively on the ass.] O RLY? There is!  darwin bish  BITE 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment to Coren: Coren, I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but I'm rather surprised that you reply to darwinbish below (grudgingly), while you don't reply to the exact same point — about the right to create alternative accounts — as made by John Vandenberg. Don't you think intra-AC comments would be at least as interesting to the community, even allowing for the fact that John is recused? Darwinbish is only a small greatgrandsock of mine, and I'm only a modest admin. John on the other hand is an arb, and he has spoken directly, and sharply, to you just above ("@Coren, there is a right to create alternative accounts, both disclosed and undisclosed. Do I need to use latin in order for you to believe this??"). I understand that darwinbish caught your attention by biting you on the ass, which John didn't. But really that's just different cultures. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Heim says stuff
Arbs who are opposing all motions: Are you then saying "stay with the status quo"? Because the status quo here is "Barong is prohibited from using any additional accounts, but who's going to enforce that, least of all us?". If you really want that, I've got to question why we're even going to have a committee. If you believe the restrictions should not be lifted, at least support a motion saying so and making it clear that admins should enforce it if Barong edits anonymously or makes any more accounts. I would not agree with this, but at least the committee would be bothering to do its basic job. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @iridescent: I saw Fozzie opposing them all, not noticing who else had. As for any other arb who did and "explained in detail why": quite bluntly, explaining is not going to cut it in this case. T. Canens has already shown quite clearly that the committee muffed this one up badly by changing its story from one incident to another. We've got to have clarity here, so no amount of explaining what's unsatisfactory about existing motions is going to work: There must be a new motion to clarify (Roger Davies seems to acknowledge this). Fozzie, to his credit, has at least supported something by this point (even though I disagree with it). I'm really hoping the other arbs will all find some clarification they can support so we can eventually have an answer, even if it's not one I support. (For the record, I'm in support of either lifting the restrictions or at least providing a pathway to their lifting.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @All: Got to agree with Roux here. Not one of the committee's better moments. The committee needs to get its stories straight and not send the community mixed signals about how to enforce its decisions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pablo says other stuff
It doesn't seem to be clear what the desired outcome is here. I thought it was clarification of the AC's intentions re past decisions, and the signals they have sent to this user do seem to have been somewhat mixed. Re Motion 1 - is the stipulation to abide by guidelines necessary? No other editor is obliged to do so. Re Motion 5 - is there any time limit on this restriction, or is this some more indefinite baggage? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @ SirFozzie - the problem as I see it with "causing issues" is that the user formerly known as Jack Merridew is held to a higher standard of, well, everything than other users. Over the last year or so, ANI and ban discussions have been the first port of call for anyone with whom he has been in dispute, whether over content, style, civility or whatever.<tt>pablo/pedro</tt> (potato, patata)19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from N419BH
@SirFozzie: Are you completely discounting the previous two years of stellar editing? Hasn't the guy waited long enough? What more does he have to prove? <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: He's taken the bad with the good for two years. What does he have left to prove? <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: The guy couldn't edit under any of his accounts because he scrambled all of them after the last request for amendment went south. He contributed under an IP in an attempt to meet the spirit of the restriction, edit warred over the inclusion of his name on what I'd call a veiled attack page, was fairly quickly noticed as "Jack Merridew" and dragged before ANI for banning due to violation of the restriction. An arb then told him to make an account, thereby meeting the spirit of the restriction. Furthermore, the previous Gold Hat incident proved that while the current "Barong" is de jure restricted to one account, that restriction is not being enforced, so therefore he is de facto unrestricted already. Continuing with the restrictions after two years is akin to telling every indeffed user, "Don't bother trying to come back legitimately, no matter what good work you do, you will always have your past held over your head." I'm not saying Barong et al is a saint, but there are highly experienced contributors here with far worse WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL problems who remain unrestricted to this day. Continuing with the restrictions amounts to nothing more than persecution for one's past. I think Barong has made his intentions clear. He wants to move on from his past as a "Street Legal Sockpuppet" and become just a regular editor like the rest of us. It looks like he wants to have a go at adminship. He wants control over his accounts so he can link userpages and continue to own his past. He probably wants to use Gold Hat a la DarwinBish, a humorous sock poking people who know the account name. His days as a disruptive user are over, and have been for two years. He will remain under intense scrutiny but it's time to move on, if that's even possible (I certainly hope it is). <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@All: It's kind of a moot point as Barong will be gone if any motion besides 4 passes, but would proposal 5 remove the other restrictions or simply modify the existing "Jack Merridew" restriction? <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by 28bytes
I'm encouraged to see five (so far) members supporting Motion 4, and I urge the members opposing it to reconsider. Clearly Jack/Barong has pissed people off over the years, got into fights he shouldn't have, and made other errors of judgment, including (as the most relevant example) the decision to protest the editing restriction "badge of shame" via the creation of the Gold Hat account rather than first lodging a formal appeal with the committee.

But I'm very sympathetic to his frustration at being tagged with these "badges" long after the original incidents that brought them into being, and I hope that the committee will consider the fact that simply lifting the restrictions, as Motion 4 would do, does not provide him any sort of immunity against administrative action should he violate WP:SOCK or otherwise act badly in the future. I sense that the committee does not want to lose any "leverage" against Barong for any future bad behavior that he may engage in, but I think it should be clear that the committee is still well within its rights to later reinstate the restrictions if it's obvious that the good faith extended by lifting them is not well-placed.

Let's give Barong a chance to contribute as a "normal" editor. Either he will reciprocate this gesture of good will by editing in accordance with the site policies as all editors are expected to do – in which case the lifting of the restrictions will be clearly seen to have been a wise decision – or he will not, in which case the committee can truthfully say that he was given every opportunity to become a "first-class editor" and failed to do so. Enough people are watching this editor that if the latter turns out to be the case, the committee will quickly know about it and have the opportunity to act. 28bytes (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved 81.164.215.61
Jack Merridew/Barong's recent behaviour has been unacceptable: one need only look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/RIP (2nd nomination) and the history of User:Colonel Warden/RIP itself to see so. A person who violates policy so blatantly should not be released from his restrictions: instead, they should be restricted further. 81.164.215.61 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved roux
Well done, Arbcom. See what happens when you treat adults like rebellious thirteen year olds? Good show, really, great job all around. This seems particularly appropriate. → ROUX   ₪  19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
@Roux: Actually, if Jack behaved like an adult, there might be some bite to your comment, but that's really not the case. He's behaved much more like a spoiled teenager than a responsible adult, slamming the door of his room and pouting on his bed when his parents tell him he can't have that new video game he wants. His message has been clear throughout this affair: "I will only accept my terms, and I'm willing to extend the conflict as long as necessary in order to get them." As a negotiating tactic, that's hardly calculated to induce a compromise, and the predictable result when it became clear that he wasn't going to get his way was yet another tantrum by Jack. I've never examined his contributions for their value to the project, but I do have to ask those members of ArbCom who appear to be bending over backwards to accomodate him: "Why?" Is it really the case that the harm to the project of not having his contributions will be so great that it's worth putting up with his incivility, uncollegial attitude and childish behavior? Do will really want to create yet another "untouchable" editor who can't be controlled or disciplined? The message that sends to other content creators is hardly calculated to induce them to behave within acceptable limits. At this point, Jack has, once again, put himself beyond the pale, and I suggest to ArbCom that it would be best to just leave him there. Six months to a year of exile might be useful in bringing him to understand his place in the scheme of things, and impress upon him the value of editing Wikipedia to him, as opposed to his perhaps somewhat overblown estimation of his value to the project. That's not a call for his head, as characterized below, just for cutting him down to size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Rossrs: You know I've always had the utmost respect for you, and you make a good point that I should examine Jack's contributions, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your characterization of his behavior. He was restricted for good reason, and he has no right to have those restictions lifted.  If he hasn't been able to convince various permutations of ArbCom that he deserves to edit free of restrictions, that's perhaps a blow to his ego, but does not in any serious way restrict his ability to contribute here.  That he chose to act out, behaving as if some inherent human right was being denied him, scrambling accounts and attempting to dictate terms to ArbCom, is a good indication that this is no well-considered protest, it's just a temper tantrum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Reyk
@Beyond My Ken: What planet are you living on? Why would anyone believe Jack will be treated decently after six months or a year on the sidelines? He's lived under restrictions for two years already, done a lot of good work on this site without making a pest of himself, and been treated like shit for it. I don't think he's doing himself any favours by throwing his toys out of the cot but let's have a bit of perspective here. Since he applied for the restrictions to be lifted Jack has been trolled, impersonated, dragged to ANI by someone who considers sortable tables a personal affront, hassled and insulted. And his request was denied because he acted on ArbCom's advice, which was then held against him when ArbCom changed the tiny chunk of ossified cartilage that passes for its mind. Newsflash: being treated like shit makes people angry. If I were in Jack's shoes I would be livid too. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rossrs
Jack does two things that a lot of editors don't do. One, he treats Wikipedia as an entire project and rather than edit within a small sphere, he takes a broader view and implements site-wide policies/styles into a range of articles. In doing so, he often falls foul of wikiproject ownership issues. Two, when he sees that the bar is set low, he attempts to raise it, so he'll change the format of a table so that it is more accessible, rather than just "pretty", and he'll defend his viewpoint when challenged. All things considered, he's patient and willing to discuss, but he doesn't pretend to be wrong, when he believes he's right. I don't think he seeks out controversy, rather I think he doesn't avoid it. And why should he? Several of the disputes he has with editors can be traced back to that type of initial interraction. The problem is that he has a target on his back, which is a result of bad behaviour of a few years ago, which he has admitted and sought to rise above, and after spending a couple of years working within the lines - but not avoiding controversy - he reached what he thought was the end of the road, only to discover that it wasn't the end of the road at all. I think that realization must have been pretty dreadful for him. I agree with RexxS's comments, with Diannaa's, and with others.... I agree with Reyk's comment that he's not currently doing himself any favours, but it's true that Jack "has been trolled, impersonated, dragged to ANI by someone who considers sortable tables a personal affront, hassled and insulted". Jack hasn't asked to be allowed to sock or to misbehave or any of the other red herrings that have been thrown at him. He's only asked that the target be taken off him, and that he be allowed to edit like the rest of us, given that he's "done his time". I used the word "allowed" very deliberately. There are trolls and bad-faith editors who will not allow Jack to do this. How else do you explain "retired" editors who only show up to attack Jack when he's down?

@Beyond My Ken: If you haven't looked at the value of his contributions, in fairness you should. The support that many editors have for him is not spontaneous. It's been earned, and it reflects a considerable amount of effort and time Jack has put into improving the project, by working with and educating its editors. It's as much a part of his history as the things you disapprove of. Can Wikipedia survive without him? Of course it can. Would his absence be a loss or a gain for the project? In my view, a loss. Jack is only willing to accept "his" terms, because they were the terms he believed in good faith he was working towards over these last few years. He was given an expectation, so in that sense, they're not "his" terms. Meeting those terms would not make him untouchable, but it may elevate him from his current status as a second-class editor and ultimately that seems like a fair objective. Rossrs (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, when you describe Jack's behaviour as that of a spoiled teenager, I think you trivialise the substance of his grievance. I see his actions as a protest rather than a tantrum. Whether it helps or hinders him is another story, and we'll have to wait and see, but his grievance is valid, in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Boing! said Zebedee
I've not been involved in the back story here, but I think I have a fair enough understanding of it now. My real feeling in all of this is of sadness, as I think the worst possible outcome has been achieved - a lose/lose result. I think it comes down to intransigence on both sides, an unwillingness to put aside years-old disputes, and lawyering over meaningless detail. As I say, sad -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Floquenbeam
Prisoner's dilemma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse. AGK  [</nowikI>• ] 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If Jack Merridew wants to edit Wikipedia properly, then as far as I'm concerned he is still welcome to do it (and I don't care which account he does it from, although he needs to stay in one place for awhile). If Jack Merridew wants to be disruptive and annoying and to waste people's time, he should go away, and if he doesn't go away on his own then someone will have to send him away. I expect within the next few days it will become obvious which of these paths he wants to take. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to address this situation one way or another; the current impasse, coupled with Jack Merridew/Barong's truculence, is wasting too many people's time. I've proposed two alternative motions below, taking different approaches and indicating my preference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that Jack Merridew has come very close to, if not already over the line of WP:POINT. This needs to stop now, or he should be made to stop. SirFozzie (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Giano, you are incorrect. This is nothing like what you are insinuating. SirFozzie (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my colleagues. Our patience is not without limits.  Roger Davies  talk 06:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Barong: is it your suggestion that you have played no part whatsover in providing ammunition to your detractors? That you have spent the past three years in uncontroversial obscurity?  Roger Davies  talk 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Heimstern. I agree that the current motions are not particularly satisfactory, failing to find consensus and perhaps leaving questions unanswered. I am thinking of offering a new one to try to resolve this. It would help considerably if Jack made his future intentions clear on this page as at least one of my concerns is his earlier requst to have "all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts".  Roger Davies  talk 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Barong, you're not "bound by stuff that centers on 2005–2006" — you are bound by your own inability to control your apparent desires to make points disruptively as early as days ago. Stick to that new account you made and paint within the lines for a while and people will forgive and forget. If you keep on stretching everybody's patience like you have recently, you might be able to deftly avoid being banned by keeping just barely within the lines — but you'll never get people to move on.  — Coren (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding about my (and, I expect, many other arbitrators') rationale for not lifting the one-account restriction. Some people make the argument that given Barong's good behavior, the restriction should have been lifted and that the current incidents are just expression of frustration at this injustice.  I simply disagree with the premice that his behavior was good to begin with. There is a vast gulf between "has not misbehaved egregiously enough to be further sanctioned" and "well-behaved"; and Barong has been very diligent in experimenting on exactly how wide that gulf could be made.  Has he made positive contributions to the project?  Yes.  This is why he is welcome to contribute from exactly one account.  There is no putative "right to sock" to be unjustly deprived of.  — Coren (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bish*: No, there isn't. Your various accounts are tolerated because you've never abused them.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly concerned about the change of account name, provided there's a link from the old account. However, I agree Brad that it would be wise to stay in one place for a while. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

@Heimstern Läufer—who is your comment aimed at? There's only one arb who's opposed all four motions, and she's explained why at great length. – iridescent  16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have as well.. but I will post a motion 5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@Pablo: No time limt, but if Barong has six months or so of productive encyclopedia work without causing issues, I wouldn't mind another request then. Considering the history here, I don't think automatically dropping them is a good idea. SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH: The fact that Barong has good edits is the reason they have not been removed from this project. But to go with the good edits is an extremely checkered history. If we as arbitrators have to take the good with the bad, they have to take the bad with the good. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@N419BH2: That he can edit Wikipedia without disrupting it to make a point? SirFozzie (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg: No, there is no "right" to create alternate accounts on Wikipedia. Nor, for that matter, does this project purport to guarantee "rights" to due process, or equality before the law, or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; the only "rights" to which participants are entitled are the right to leave and the right to fork. Now, what you may mean is that, as a matter of policy and practice, the community generally allows participants to use multiple accounts; and I agree with you that this is the case, and has been since the founding of the project. This does not mean, however, that the use of multiple accounts cannot ever be prohibited, whether in particular settings or for particular participants. The question here is not whether Jack may be restricted to a single account, but rather whether he should be. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Motion 1
The existing formal restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as, formerly et al., are terminated, effective immediately. However, this user is cautioned that some of his recent conduct has been unacceptable, and that like all other users, he is required to abide by all applicable site policies and guidelines—including but not limited to the admonition against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point—and is subject to sanctions should he fail to comply.
 * As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Frankly, I do not see this as an essential step as Barong does, but I am prepared to AGF for a last time here and give Barong a chance to prove that if the restrictions he sees as so onerous are removed, he will contribute only in a positive fashion. I can remember at least one previous instance in which removing vestigial restrictions seemed ultimately to resolve a perennial problem, after one last completely unnecessary flare-up; perhaps this will be a second. Barong will probably object to the second sentence of the motion, but I regard it as necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per discussion on my talk, I could see a case for removing the words "and guidelines" here. (Incidentally, Barong's comment does not belong in this section, and he knows it, but meh.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. I don't really see the need to beat the general policy reminders to death at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice, as Kirill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. After seeing all five(!) motions for the first time, I'm surprised that the first is the best. Would support the copyedit NYB refers to above, or as written. (No doubt this means I'm part of the NYB mafia.) Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The previous instance Brad remembers didn't play out quite that way; there was indeed a motion made that removed the restriction, but only after a period of time has passed without problems. I'd support something along those lines, however.  — Coren (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Either the restrictions remain in place and the warning is moot, or the restrictions are lifted and the warning is implicit. There's no need to spell out something with which all editors agree to abide. – iridescent  16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Iridescent. Shell  babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Iridescent and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Iridescent. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that the second sentence will likely go in one ear and out of the other.  Roger Davies  talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Motion 2
The Arbitration Committee affirms that the existing restrictions against the user currently editing as, formerly et al., remain in effect. The Committee will consider an appeal seeking to lift these restrictions in three months; Barong's user conduct in the interim will be taken into account in deciding on any such appeal.
 * As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.


 * Support:
 * As a second choice to Motion 3 below. I'd rather be preemptive that repeat past performance with another editor and revisit the issue ad nauseam twice a year or more.  — Coren (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Progressive non-compliance is a poor basis from which to seek a removal of sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly support the sentiment here though not entirely the wording.  Roger Davies  talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Proposed as alternative. I am opposed, but let's have a decision here one way or the other, as administrators are understandably confused about how to handle the current situation. Of course, any of my colleagues is free to propose another alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be merely dilatory. If the restrictions are to be permanent, then we should say so and avoid going through appeals every few months. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Roughly per Kirill. Either the restrictions should stay in place or they shouldn't; there's no reason to think anything will change in three months. – iridescent  15:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really useful. Shell  babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Kirill and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Useless. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Motion 3
Having considered the request to lift the existing restriction against the user currently editing as, formerly et al., the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire three months after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date will be reset to one year following any future infraction or unsuccessful appeals of this restriction.


 * Support:
 * First choice. In other words, stick to that one account for three months and the restriction will expire on its own.  — Coren (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To make things extra crispy clear: an "infraction" is simply making edits not from the account he currently uses (Barong), nothing more complicated than that. Not making any edits for three months is unnecessary and regrettable, but also wouldn't be an infraction and would see the restriction expire just as uneventfully.  — Coren (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support, to be invoked only if nothing else is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice - stop the silly behavior, briefly even, and there ya go. Shell  babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the best route under the circumstances though it might need some tightening up/wordsmithing if it looks like it's going to pass.  Roger Davies  talk 07:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Unless we very clearly define what an infraction is with regard to these restrictions, this is only going to confuse the matter. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on motion 2. Given the timescales so far, there's no reason to think anything will change in three months; either the restrictions should be permanent, or they should be lifted. – iridescent  16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unclear what activities would result in the reinstatement of the restriction. Also per Iridescent and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand the point of this. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Motion 4
The restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as, formerly et al., are terminated, effective immediately.
 * As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.


 * Support:
 * First choice. It should go without saying, of course, that any future disruption will be dealt with harshly. If Jack can move on from this and maintain an acceptable level of conduct, that's great; if it winds up simply being rope handed to him, that's also acceptable, albeit disappointingly so. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice for me, prefer 1 (possibly with a copyedit), but let's get this resolved one way or another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First and only choice. I have a suspicion that this will go badly—Jack will be under scrutiny from a lot of people looking to jump on any slip-up—but he deserves the chance to prove them wrong. If this does go wrong, reblocks are cheap and at least we'll have given the chance. I oppose 1; "abide by all policies" is implicit for every account, and "abide by all guidelines" is unfair since many guidelines are contradictory and/or widely disregarded. In this case I don't think the "in three months" proposals are worthwhile, since it's unlikely the situation will substantially change. I do think there's a good case for drastically tightening the rules on multiple accounts, but this isn't the place to be having that conversation, and as long as they're permitted there's no compelling need to continue singling one editor out. – iridescent  15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Actually, strike this. His recent behavior does deserve a note. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * — Coren (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Joke accounts I don't care about (and said this in earlier requests here), but recent bothering of other editors with anon or "alternate" accounts leads me to believe that this is a poor idea. "I didn't get my way so you can't blame me for misbehaving" just doesn't wash. Shell  babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A major aspect of Barong's/Jack Merridew's/Davenbelle's/Moby Dick's initial ban was the abusive use of alternate accounts. On the rare occasions when the Arbitration Committee and/or the community agrees to permit an editor to return despite such a history, the conditions invariably include a restriction to editing with a single,identified account with no logged-out editing (with rare exceptions for approved bot accounts). To my knowledge, neither the Arbitration Committee nor the community has ever removed those restrictions, and certainly never when the editor has already violated the restrictions. I do not see a broadly based community support for acquiescing to the use of multiple accounts in this specific case and note in addition that the community has become ever more conservative in its views about the acceptability and appropriate use of alternate accounts. Note that this comment applies to all of my !votes in this area. Risker (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great believer in removing restrictions from someone who is playing up, in the hope that it will encourage them to stop.  Roger Davies  talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Motion 5
The restriction on using multiple/alternate accounts on User:Barong, formerly known as User:Jack Merridew is modified as follows:

User:Barong is directed to edit solely from that account. Should Barong edit from another account or log out to edit in a deliberate attempt to violate this restriction, any uninvolved administrator may block Barong for a reasonable amount of time at their discretion.


 * Support:
 * The community doesn't mind (to a point) alternate accounts used in a humorous fashion. They can be a good tension breaker if used properly. That's why they are tolerated (grudgingly in some cases). However, considering Barong's contentious history, I have no confidence that they would be used properly. As Roger says above in Option 4, violating a restriction deliberately and in a forcing manner is not a good way to convince others that lifting the restriction is a good idea. Considering that there was a recent ANI request to ban Barong for those violations (amongst other things), I see no reason to lift the sanction. I'd also like to note that I'm not setting a mininum or maximum in the restriction above, the reason for that is: That if Barong truly makes a mistake and accidentally makes one/few edit(s) as an IP, we shouldn't be screaming "off with his head".However, should Barong take further actions (for example, deliberately compromising his account to claim that he should be allowed to post from another account, or just flat-out ignoring the restriction and posting from multiple accounts/logging out to continue actions that could be construed as WP:POINT, an administrator will be able to take appropriate action as they deem fit. SirFozzie (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Third choice. I'm concerned the problem has shifted from the original reason for this restriction to a personal dispute with ArbCom, where Barong is being defiant instead of demonstrating the restriction is no longer necessary. In this context, I think it would be in the best interests of the project to completely remove the restriction, and to rely on admins enforcing policy in the normal manner. However, if that isn't the consensus view of the committee, this at least clarifies the present situation. PhilKnight (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As a last resort (if nothing else passes), and with some regret. I think having some way of phasing out the restriction would have been best; but that even the committee is divided on how that can best be done is indicative of how insidiously disruptive this has been.  I remain open to a request to lift that restriction in a while.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Grudgingly as a last resort if nothing else passes. I think both Wikipedia and Barong would be much better served by lifting the restrictions and letting him sink or swim. The only merit to this proposal is that it clarifies the situation, but at least a clarification of the situation (even if it's something neither Barong and his supporters, nor those calling for his head, actually want). I concur entirely with Kirill below that the time and effort involved both in people enforcing this, and in Barong testing the limits of the restriction, would be much better spent elsewhere. – iridescent  18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pragmatic first choice. Like iri I'd rather try the "sink or swim" approach, but as that doesn't have a chance at passing I think this is a better approach. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Quite honestly, I don't think the putative disruption prevented by continuing this restriction warrants the time and effort that will be spent enforcing it. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings about all of this, and still think the best approach would resemble my original motion 1 (minus the words "and guidelines," which I acknowledge could add too much subjectivity&mdash;although I've used it in a dozen prior motions and case remedies and no one ever questioned them before and I don't believe they've ever caused any problem). At this point, though, my view is probably closest to Kirill's and (above) Iridescent's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral:

Discussion

 * Note: Barong has deliberately compromised this account as well, both here and on Meta, and is currently indefblocked. The motions are still active for voting, however. SirFozzie (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked and unblocked within 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's to be noted the unblock is mostly cosmetic given that the account is globally locked. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Motion 5 enacted. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)