Page for Jack Merridew and mentors Casliber (talk · contribs), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs) to review current editing restrictions and develop new ones if needed. (No one else edit this page.)

Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions

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.
2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks.
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 Casliber (talk · contribs), John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs), 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans

Passed 7 to 0 (with one conditional support discounted as conditions not met), 09:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Mentors' Summary of previous year

• Casliber's summary:

I note that I have received emails from both sides (A Nobody and Jack Merridew) who have been frustrated with each other and required some flame-dousing by other parties. Jack Merridew is an intelligent person who has alot to offer, but has a sense of justice to the extent that he can be (and has been) disruptive to prove a point, and can be distracted by (and gravitate to) negative interactions (such as confrontations at AfD) instead of constructive ones elsewhere (Jack has the potential to write Good and Featured content readily). Ikip provides a summary here, which shows a fair degree of controversy over the past year. My prediction is this - we have two courses. If we lift restrictions, I predict Jack will continue being helpful to many but will at some stage have a run in with another editor who he disagrees with. Turbulence will ensue and a block may result. if we keep mentorship, we may have some chance of dousing flames before major disruption happens. Then again, maybe I am overrating mentorship, I don't know. I know Jack will hate me saying this but my feeling is that keeping mentorship, and keeping the clause on disruption might maximise chance of continued editing. My timeline would be nine months with no further close calls and we lift mentorship. I really want to see an end to the pattern of behaviour outlined above.

• John Vandenberg's summary:

It is important to note that Jack is not a single-issue editor. He has created about 40 articles in the last twelve months, and has assisted user:Himalayan Explorer/user:Dr. Blofeld create many more. A significant portion of his 4000 mainspace edits in the last year are gnoming and content improvement unrelated to the AFD battles. He does however have a strong bent towards excluding FICTION/PLOT/FAN, and countering systematic bias. He cares deeply about Wikipedia quality. He has crossed the floor to defend articles about topic which he thinks belong in this encyclopedia such as here. He has also "rescued" an id.wp 'crat who found himself in hot water with en.wp admins.

But we are here to talk about the restrictions. The only restriction that has been a cause for concern has been the "avoid all disruptive editing" clause. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is the behavioral guideline for this. The only "pattern" of edits which have caused concern has been Jack's interaction with a few of the ARS members, and especially his focus on their methods at AfD which have aroused the ire of a sizable segment of the community. Who is being disruptive and who is protecting the encyclopedia? The jury is still out on that one.

This clause has served its purpose; Jack has demonstrated that he is not here to disrupt the project. He is here to build and shape it. As a result, Jack has participated in the trench warfare that is the AFD system as we know it, of which WP:ARS has become the self-selected front-line. Jack has at times stepped across the lines with snide remarks and has led many to believe that he has been wikihounding the ARS members. However it has all been above board, and he has been quite willing to accept ad-hoc restrictions from his mentors where necessary to keep in the good will of the community at large. In order to reduce the negative interactions, I tried proposing a productive stalemate between Jack Merridew and A Nobody. Jack agreed; A Nobody did not (A Nobody was willing to reduce his involvement, but wanted to continue editing articles at AFD). Subsequently, A Nobody ended up being the subject of an RFC/U. I suggested that Jack open an editor review, and he did. Sadly the only feedback there was from Casliber.

Looking forward, I believe that the disruptive editing clause needs to go if Jack is to have a decent chance of making it through another year without being dragged in front of arbcom. If the conflict continues to escalate, an RFAR is the most likely outcome, and that will happen whether or not Jack Merridew is a party. If the committee feels that restrictions are needed, that clause should be replaced with a more targeted behavioural restriction, or a restriction from AFD (for his own good). If the committee doesn't restrict him next year, I am confident that Jack Merridew and the mentors can work on different approaches to this meta debate in order to reduce conflict over the next year.

• Moreschi's summary:

This will not be terribly helpful, as I have been on wikibreak due to wikiburnout for most of the year, but I'm back now. Having gone through the last year or so of Jack's contribs, there seems to be an awful lot of bland and inoffensive wikignoming, which is all to the good and highly commendable. A few minor scuffles, of course, but in this project in these times that is unavoidable. The brief rows with Daedaelus969 and Ottava Rima can in the first case be dismissed as trivial and in the second as the result of Ottava's lamentably overactive sense of persecution, and we can find no fault in Jack's actions (Ottava's proposal at the current RFAR to have Jack blocked can be take just about as seriously as his proposals to have myself and others desysopped). The scuffle with A Nobody, however, was rather more serious. I was around for Part 2 of this, which flared up briefly when, I think, Jack left a slightly unpolitic comment at A Nobody's RFC, after back in April A Nobody had accused Jack of wikistalking. Now, Jack has not, I think, genuinely wikistalked anyone, but could perhaps have been rather more careful to avoid creating the perception of doing so. I recognise his frustration at being treated as a "second-class user" in this regard, but that, unfortunately, is the price he has to pay for his history. So long, however, as he continues to be careful, the future looks bright. Moreschi (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as restrictions are concerned - shrug. White Cat has been a long-term absentee since April and I'm sure Jack knows not to go near him should be return. In the last year of editing there would seem to be little requiring further restriction. Moreschi (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew's summary of previous year

The last year — 20 months, really — has been a waste of time. There is no road back; it's a lie.

—Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridew 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the sappers have been clearing the road ;)