Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NukeBot (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 27 May 2011 (→‎Discussion: Noindexing Arbitration pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Request for clarification: Preliminary injunctions none none 22 May 2011
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Jack Merridew unban|Request for clarification: Jack Merridew unban]] Motion none 7 May 2011

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Preliminary injunctions

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Just a small clarification requested about preliminary injunctions passed before the start of a case, such as this one. If the Committee ultimately votes to not accept the case, does the injunction cease to have force like it would if a case were opened and closed? NW (Talk) 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

  • A case does not need to be opened to issue a motion, and arbitrators frequently explicitly reject opening a case if they believe that a motion is all that is required. Given this, I would expect that a preliminary injunction automatically becomes a motion if a case is rejected without it having expired or been explicitly withdrawn. An explicit statement would of course be preferable.
    In the specific case of the injunction relating to pending changes protection withdrawal, I think though that the most likely thing to happen is that the issue will be moot by the time the case is accepted or rejected as the injunction is self-limiting. By which I mean that it calls for an action that can only take place once per article, and so once it has taken place on every relevant article, whether it remains in force is an entirely academic question. There is a legal term that describes this situation but I can't remember what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see wiktionary

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't know what the legal term might be either, but Thryduulf's interpretation is pretty much exactly on the nose. If there is a case, then the injunction ends when it close (at which point it will either have been made part of the decision, or superseded by it).

    If the case ends up being declined, then it's a motion that — theorically — remains until overturned but that quickly becomes moot as no more articles are left to be moved out of flagged protection. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good...erm, "on the nose" in Australia would mean "smelly" but I think Coren meant something more along the lines of "astute" (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ad finem? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Thryduulf's interpretation is astute. The motion will become irrelevant once the articles are all moved out of pending changes protection, which will hopefully be fairly soon. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Jack Merridew unban

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

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

Statement by Skomorokh

The community ban on Jack Merridew was lifted by ArbCom in Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
SirFozzie; understood. Barong 03:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
@ 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 suggested 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)[reply]
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)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:POINT?
Anyone following this?
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.

— Scott Mac, cite
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)[reply]

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

re Scott MacDoc's comment:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AGK, someone not being allowed to make joke/alt accounts is a cruel restriction? I see that humor accounts are enshrined in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but is this all Barong was doing? 00:41, 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban 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 [•] 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [•] 13:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [•] 13:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [•] 11:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 [•] 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 requested by Brad 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)[reply]

it was Arbitration is Borked. same-same, but different ;) Barong 03:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 YO! 07:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Statement by Timotheus Canens

What a mess.

Back in January, I noticed Gold Hat (talk · contribs) 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#Request for clarification (January 2011). 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)[reply]

Statement by Diannaa

Here is a recent example where Jack makes clueful contributions to a discussion about seemingly inconsequential changes to info box parameters: Wikipedia:Ani#Yobot and inconsequential changes yet again. 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: {{House of Normandy}} 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 {{periodic table}} 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)[reply]

endorsed ;) Barong 05:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reminder

An hour after Coren's infamous "smackdown" remark, 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: Know your role and shut your mouth…Jack Merridew. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! darwinbish BITE 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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? pablo 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ 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.pablo/pedro (potato, patata)19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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? N419BH 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: He's taken the bad with the good for two years. What does he have left to prove? N419BH 19:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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). N419BH 20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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? N419BH 21:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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 YO! 08:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by Floquenbeam

Prisoner's dilemma. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Per my colleagues. Our patience is not without limits.  Roger Davies talk 06:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    • @Bish*: No, there isn't. Your various accounts are tolerated because you've never abused them. — Coren (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Recuse. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I have as well.. but I will post a motion 5. SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Motions

Motion 1

The existing formal restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) 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:
  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Second choice, as Kirill. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. Per Iridescent. Shell babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Iridescent and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Iridescent. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
Neutral:

Motion 2

The Arbitration Committee affirms that the existing restrictions against the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) 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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Progressive non-compliance is a poor basis from which to seek a removal of sanctions. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I strongly support the sentiment here though not entirely the wording.  Roger Davies talk 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Not really useful. Shell babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Kirill and my comments at Motion #4. Risker (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Useless. Cool Hand Luke 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:

Motion 3

Having considered the request to lift the existing restriction against the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) 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:
  1. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  2. Weak support, to be invoked only if nothing else is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice - stop the silly behavior, briefly even, and there ya go. Shell babelfish 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I really don't understand the point of this. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral:

Motion 4

The restrictions imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the user currently editing as Barong (talk · contribs), formerly Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) et al., are terminated, effective immediately.

As there are 13 active, non-recused arbitrators, a majority is 7.
Support:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. First choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Oppose:
  1.  — Coren (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. SirFozzie (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. Cool Hand Luke 03:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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. — Coren (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. Third choice. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 04:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. 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—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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's to be noted the unblock is mostly cosmetic given that the account is globally locked. — Coren (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=431099437"