Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 25 February 2011

What happened? Why the sudden blanking?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume this has something to do with it. Wish I had known about it, I would have made a statement. SnottyWong  19:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain it has a lot to do with it. You can of course still make your statement, and I'd urge any of the talk page watchers who has any thoughts on the matter of Jack's restrictions to make them clear at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FAmendment&action=historysubmit&diff=415718996&oldid=415705845 is the specific edit which shows that Jack has withdrawn the request SatuSuro 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

RexxS, Jack's ban review has been moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion; pretty unfindable, I'm afraid. Anyway, see also some socks somewhat daringly weighing in. All the fault of your friend the bitey fish. Come back Jack! Bishonen | talk 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, this is a major bummer. Jack was a good guy and a good editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go Jack. N419BH 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Miss you :( --Diannaa 02:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell, Jack? I hope you'll be back in a few days. Otherwise I'll have to follow John Vandenberg's lead and delete my user page as well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope to see you around. Don't give them the satisfaction. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What they all said above, Jack. I hope you do come back. This strikes me as a very wrong outcome, and one I hadn't contemplated. Rossrs (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This sucks. Your contributions and technical know-how are more appreciated around here than you probably know. I hope you reconsider your retirement. Reyk _YO! 09:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame to see this: I think you're a fine editor, and will miss having you around. I do hope you'll return. Best. Acalamari 15:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The countless hours that Jack (with the help of Rossrs and RexxS) has put into the project, establishing a fairly global understanding of WP:ACCESS (despite some people refusing to understand), is greatly appreciated. In many cases, we've gone from this to clean, semantic, accessible tables. Nymf _hideliho! 15:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a loss for the project. I am genuinely sorry to see you go, Jack, and I hope you'll consider returning at some point very soon. AGK 21:34, 25 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. As I've stated the last time one of those "joke" accounts came up: they are technical violations not worthy of rigid enforcement.

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

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

So what lessons do we learn from this sorry story?

There's no way back

If you screw-up, there's no path to redemption. You're always going to carry the wiki-mark of Cain, no matter how constructive you have been; no matter for how long.

The standard offer is a lie

You can jump through the hoops, but even if you've fulfilled the expectations many times over, your fate still depends on arbitrary whim.

There's a clear message for vandals

It's not worth trying to reform. Because no matter how hard you try, you'll still get kicked in the teeth.

There are some who will insist that the system works, but deep down, in their heart-of-hearts, they know it's just bullshit.

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

I don't have any weight or leverage to reverse that injustice, but I can withdraw from work on Misplaced Pages if I choose. If anybody else feels the same, you can transclude the above anywhere by just using {{User:RexxS/BringBackJack}}, or make your own feelings known in your own way. As Jack would say: Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)