Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SightWatcher (talk | contribs) at 00:23, 20 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Misplaced Pages's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

WT:AC Archives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – present

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Jack Merridew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jack Merridew, who has a long history of sockpuppeting and harassing others, was previously limited by the arbitration committee to editing with one account.

During the last Merridew sockpuppet roundup a few weeks back, Amalthea said that user:Uncontroversial Obscurity was being used in complaince with the arbitration committee, e.g, that he had notified the arbitration committee about its existance and that was the one account he was permitted to use.

Yet recently, he started editing using the account Br'er Rabbit. His user page there claims he has notified the Arbitration Committee about its existence.

So, my questions are:

1. Did he notify the arbitration committee that he was editing as Uncontroversial Obscurity?
2. Did he notify the arbitration committee that he was editing as Br'er Rabbit?
3. If both 1 and 2 are true, did anyone on the committee tell him it was not permitted? If not, why not?
4. If either 1 and 2 are true, why was the community not notified that someone with a long history of harassing others was again being permitted to edit? Raul654 (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for a more detailed response, but here's a prompt one: 1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) Not to my knowledge, 4) He was never banned in the first place, to the best of my knowledge. I'll let other arbitrators who followed the case more closely (I don't work in the ban appeals space unless something needs the entire committee's input) comment further. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight -- he decided he was going to ignore the arbitration committee remedy, explicitly emailed you to tell you that he was doing so, and none of you did anything to stop or dissuade him? Raul654 (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

His actions have, technically, complied with the remedy; he has only edited with a single account at any time, and has informed the Committee prior to changing accounts.

This is not to say that what has taken place is desirable, and we are looking at how we might amend the remedy; but, obviously, we cannot enforce something that we didn't actually impose. Kirill  19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

His actions have, technically, complied with the remedy; he has only edited with a single account at any time, and has informed the Committee prior to changing accounts. - the arbitration remedy makes no mention of "at a time". It says one account. period.

If you meant to say 'at a time', you should have specified as much. It also rather defeats the purpose of sanctioning him for sockpuppetry if he's allowed to duck out and re-appear with a new account at will and with no notification from the committee. Which is why nobody in their right mind would think that the text of the remedy would imply it. Raul654 (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So if someone edits from account A, then account B, then account A, then account B, then account C, then account A, and then account B, that's just editing from "a single account at any time"? Under the interpretation that a user can switch back and forth between accounts successively, what sort of editing would even be socking, let alone violate the so-called "restriction"? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• No, he's not banned, Yes, he is allowed to edit from one account at a time. No, that doesn't prevent him from changing account on a weekly basis if he likes, Yes, he informs us when he changed to the Br'er Rabbit account, no he is not editing from the Jack Merridew account, yes it probably is a windup to pipe the name, no there's no need to slap socktags over the Alarbus account, yes he may not edit from it while he's editing as Br'er Rabbit. Anyone got any other questions.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, the plain text reading of the one-account limit not withstanding, it was the original intent of the arbitration committee when writing that remedy that Jack would be permitted to serially sockpuppet? That is to say, he would be permitted to create a new account, notify the arbitration committee about it, abandon it when his misbehavior comes home to roost, and repeat again ad infinitum? Raul654 (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, am I the only one who thinks that all of this sounds patently insane? The "remedy" for years of harassment and sockpuppetting is that he's allowed to keep doing it, as long as he does it one-at-a-time? Was he given a lollipop for his troubles too? Raul654 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear here Raul. The person behind the Jack Merridew account was banned for serial socking to harrass another user. Eventually,after at least a year out, he was allowed back under strict mentorship for a year, and required to stick to the Jack Merridew account only. He did his time for his behaviour. Please stop trying him again for that offence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) You didn't answer my first question. I want to know if the committee, when writing that remedy, intended that Jack should be able to sockpuppet, or if this newfound interpretation a case of retroactive CYA.

(2) I will stop bringing up his past misbehavior when he stops repeating it. His actions over the last few months, such as during the FA RFC, and this morning's intentionally provocative way of letting Gimmetoo know he has returned. I'm sure Sandy Georgia would have a lot more to say on this subject.

(3) Two weeks ago, Gimmetoo opened an ANI discussion two weeks ago about Jack and demonstrated that he has violated the one-account limit numerous times, including using several accounts simultaneously as recently as March of this year (User:Tycho Magnetic Anomaly-1 and User:The Call of the Wild). That is a violation of the arbitration committee remedy, even under your own insane interpretation. Was the committee notified about the existance of those accounts? Was anything done about them?

(4) The creation of his newest account happened two days after Gimmetoo's ANI discussion was closed because nobody knew if Jack had resumed editing. That is fishy in-and-of itself.

(5) Please point me to where the committee repealed the one account limit. If that remedy is not still in effect, then by all means I will end the discussion here. Otherwise, it's full relevant to the current discussion. Raul654 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What is provocative about correcting the spelling of the name, which is the only thing that edit does. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to explain to you why it is provocative for Jack to use his newest sockpuppet to go and edit the talk page of someone he spent years harassing? And no less to edit a comment explaining to Gimmetoo that he had returned? Ok, here goes: Gimmetoo probably doesn't want much to do with Jack. Jack seeking him out is provactive. It's a stick-in-the-eye to Gimmetoo, who just two weeks ago was asking for him to be community banned. I'd like a response to my above points, please. Raul654 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that noise; Gimme was harassing me. One of the most unfit admins on the project (and I'm looking at you, too). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who doesn't follow all the wikidrama going on and has no idea what evil you did that got you into trouble in the first place: Is there any particular reason you had to create this account and abandon the other one (which apparently was perfectly valid)? Just curious. --Conti|✉ 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course; AC knows. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also new to this case and not familiar with it prior to a couple weeks ago. I am willing to let the past be the past provided the user will quite the repeated account hopping (get it rabbit and hopping, sorry couldn't resist). It sounds like there was some discussion between the user and Arbcom in confidence and I am willing to let that be but please for heavens sake Br'er Rabbit stay to one account for a while. Given the past it doesn't look good and isn't helping your case. Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, would you be willing to stick to your current account for now? Assuming there's no new, important reason to create a new one, that is (and I cannot come up with any right now, admittedly). --Conti|✉ 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll shouldn't feed the drama-monger; this has been on arbcom-l for long time. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the drama on either side. In fact, as I said, I barely know about it. It just seems like a sensible request to a sensible user to ask him to stick to one user name, regardless of who he is. So that's why I'm making this request to you. :) --Conti|✉ 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather hard to out someone who makes it a point to out himself. The section header is there because it is the name by which he is best known, which is particularly important in a case like this where he goes through accounts like used tissues. The reason this thread was started is because, while he does do some good editing, he's never really stopped the harassment for which he was originally sanctioned. He just changes targets. And welcoming him back is one thing I have no intention of doing, ever. Raul654 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to poke at you and from that perspective my comment above was excessive, and harsh. I apologize for that. I have formed an opinion that you are more strict than I feel necessary, but you do seem consistent to that end; and it's not the worst of things! Thank you for extending comments to my regards; in calm; calming fashion. My76Strat (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if I fix the crappy FA Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima? It's got 10 {{citation needed}} on it and, uh, needs work... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone watching who doesn't know what's going on, a short while ago Jack made another series of procavative edits to featured articles I have written - articles he'd never previously edited - to "fix" a bunch of non-mistakes like HTML ndashes and whatnot. This goes to what I was saying elsewhere in this thread about him never really stopping the harassment, just changing targets. (And, in the process, Jack managed to bury a factually mistaken edit to the intro that would have otherwise been caught on my or someone else's watchlist. That's sort-of like running over grandma with your car and then getting out and offering to help carry her groceries) Raul654 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Raul I don't mean to seem like a jerk here but is all this fussing really necessary for what seems to amount to minor edits. I don't know the history and really don't need to but it seems that you are just upset that he was meddling in articles you were working on. Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ya think Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima and Operation Downfall would pass WP:FAR? I don't. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I definately think they need some work but I don't know that the problems couldn't be fixed if it went through FAR. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the section header were a naive apparition, what would it contain? How does one distinguish naive apparitions from wise ones? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Teh point of this thread iz battleground. Alarbus 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup; did lots of useful work. Kewl user page, too (try the extra scrollbar). And Don't Feed Teh Raul. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I can attest to that. He fixed a lot of referencing mistakes, that would affect reader experience, in my FAs, and taught me a system to avoid them so I don't make them anymore. Even when he was between Alarbus and Br'er Rabbit, he was feeding me revised versions of my articles with cleaned up references. All of which I appropriately credited him for in edit summaries, of course, you can check my contributions. (note: there is nothing improper in doing that).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, he has been a lot of help on several of my featured articles, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Demiurge1000 - I missed your comment at first. Thanks for asking that I clarify my comment. I say it is not a naive apparition because it was appended by a user of abundant clue; to know better. How one would distinguish reflects upon their own clue; of which I have in small measure; yet sufficient. My76Strat (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just would like to put in my 2 cents as a non-ArbCom editor. I have worked with Jack Merridew/Br'er Rabbit on numerous occasions and haven't seen him do anything remotely requiring banning, blocking, or even this thread. Jack is a competant editor who does some very good work, work that is up there with User:Wehwalt's (which is pretty good in it's own right). The constant threads about Jack/Br'er aren't helping any, are unconstructive and are borderline harrassment. Let Jack edit in peace. I believe that Raul654 has become drunk on his own power and maybe it is time for him, not Jack, to have a turn as the subject of an ArbCom thread. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To provide a little bit of balance here, my view is that the above comment goes too far. I know this won't be popular with some, but it needs saying. Everyone involved in this needs to put the sticks down and back off for a bit. And saying that someone does good work somewhere is no indication of how they act in other contexts. Raul does excellent work in many areas. So does Br'er Rabbit (or whatever the name is now). But that doesn't mean they are not both capable of going over the top in other areas. And saying someone is 'drunk on own power' borders on being a personal attack, and should be withdrawn or substantiated in some way (which would likely be difficult to do). I've pointed this out on Neutralhomer's user talk page and asked them to tone down what they said here, rather than escalating matters. Carcharoth (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree fully with Carcharoth. I've had positive interactions with both parties (I've even forgiven Raul for nominating me for admin) but think everyone involved should tone it down. My one substantive suggestion is that the business of hopping from one account to another (hopping.. Br'er Rabbit... get it?) isn't really helpful even if it does stay within the letter of arbcom's terms. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll endorse drunk on power. How about blocking while involved? How about wheel-warring over user pages? How about being King of The House of FA for life? He's a disengaged autocrat who delegated his arrogated authority years ago; he's not done any real work here in years; he even delegates most of his bullying. Bzzt, time to pick teh TFA! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (SMS Goeben, SMS Moltke, Moltke class battlecruiser, Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit, The Red Flag)

Br'er.. Maybe it's time to let it drop and walk away? On both sides? SirFozzie (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You've no business telling me to drop the stick. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he does is quite irrelevant to the fact that his suggestion is endorsed by others, and one which you should seriously reconsider. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is true that someone must start a thread. It is also true that someone will be the last to post regards. If we are men; demonstrate the strength to let mine be last. And by all means women are as welcome to be strong here. I have my doubts. My76Strat (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Jack's continuing attempts to drive a wedge between editors he believes to be worthy vs. "everyone else" flies in the face of the community decision-making process. Why? Perhaps because he includes long-term, good-faith editors among his perceived obstacles to achieving a better wiki. And not just those that do anything to harm the wiki, but those he just doesn't happen to like or agree with. That's a serious attitude problem that just doesn't "jive" with a number of policies. It's not going away, either. It's actually a "battleground" mentality, if you look at it honestly. That his recent personal attacks are openly tolerated (and ignored) is quite curious. Is it open season on "trolls" like Raul? Shameful. Doc talk 09:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

still trolling me? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC) (SMS Von der Tann)

Keeping the facts out there for those who might not know the full scenario. We all love your good work, and no one denies that - but your ability to play well with others needs a ton of work. Abusing the NPA policy with edit summaries - meh. Doc talk 10:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Doc, I've called you a troll, and worse, before. So have others. Have another copy for your files. This is not a game, however much you play it. Thanks for acknowledging the good work; you should try doing some yourself, someday. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dang. So... I've never done anything good here? Ever? Okay. I guess I'll just go off and die someplace now... 10:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc9871 (talk • contribs)

I will give BR one thing. He is good at being annoying. Correcting indent levels and using edit summaries to take digs at people, and jumping on unsigned comments. It reminds me of someone who turned up at an article I was editing and made edit summaries directed not at the content of the article, but bemoaning why I had not done certain things. i.e. the editing of the article was intended to make a point about me, rather than trying to improve things. The same sort of attitude is seen when comments are made that taken at face-value are to help 'improve' an article, but are really a way to take a dig at someone's editing in relation to an article. It is very easy to do that. It is less easy to be more collaborative than that and actually work with people, rather than poking at them while claiming to be working with them. It's the difference between approaching someone in good faith and discussing something with them, and changing something and tut-tutting over why they failed to do something 'so obvious'. It can be difficult to avoid the latter sometimes, but understanding that is one of the ways to de-escalate things around here, rather than rub people up the wrong way. There is probably also a hint of 'it shouldn't matter who does the edits, just look at the edits and see if you agree with them'. That is actually a philosophy I agree with, but the key is to use calm and dispassionate edit summaries, and not use edit summaries to say things about other editors that are better said on user talk pages (if at all). Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But snarky edit summaries are hardly unique to BR; indeed I could refer you to someone famous for them, but I don't think she's editing at present. I suppose the question arises whether his edit summaries are escalating matters or not. I don't think that is the case, because of action already underway against Br'er that he is simply reacting to. For example, it strikes me that at present, there are editors who are, on-wiki, trying to plan out how to get Br'er Rabbit blocked. These are, for the most part, the editors towards whom BR is being sarcastic.They have gone to several noticeboards, including this one, the talk pages of arbs, and plotted on their own talk pages. This strikes me as unfortunate, and BR has every right to call them on the carpet if he did not desire to keep the peace, but as yet there seems to be little specific comment warning those editors, well, the little I guess is the vague "everyone play nice" comment of SirFozzie after specifically admonishing Br'er. Being told to drop a stick that you've been beaten with and are using to hold off your tormenters seems unjust. At worst, Br'er is being a bit snarky, but it's not in the same ballpark as trying to get someone kicked off the encyclopedia. Why, do you contend that it is?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Meh...nothing much has changed...not even after 6 plus years! ...odd anyone would think anything has changed.--MONGO 15:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The really hard thing about Misplaced Pages is not improving articles, or learning how the technical stuff works, but to work out how to get along with other people. Which shouldn't really be that surprising, as life is like that as well. This is why I've sometimes floated the idea of people who don't get on being asked to work together on an article of their (joint) choice, on the theory that sometimes such things work out. The trouble being when something like that doesn't work out. There are some people I've not got on with, who I've considered asking if they were willing to work with me on an article, but I've realised that the end result might be nothing more than a dismissive brush-off, so I shelved the idea.

I do still think, though, that working closely with someone on an article (best to pick a completely new article neither have worked on before) can be the best way to really show how collaboration should work around here. Would any of the people here consider working with others they are in 'conflict' with, or is that too idealistic? If such a system, to pair off potential editors for such collaboration efforts, was set up as an precursor and alternative to mediation or arbitration, would it have any chance of success? Or would too many people, too heavily invested in their 'view' of others and how the wiki works, and too 'busy' with other things, just ignore that option? Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept that challenge. I'll happily work with anybody on any article where I can do something to improve it. But if everybody is going to be collaborative, the persecution of Jack has got to stop as well.

Glance at Raul's recent edit history - and note this one in particular which replaced Alarbus's user page with a sock puppet template.

Inserting for clarity: he did so with this edit (after Alarbus placed "retired" on his user page) which I reverted, then he reverted again with the edit mentioned above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Which he did (the first one) over the full protection I had extended over that page, and without any consultation. I then unprotected, because there was obviously nothing left to protect.history.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Raul's tagging of the Alarbus account, and the others, when announced as socks of Jack Merridew is 100% in line with policy. How is it not? It's a routine practice with socks of any user, per WP:SOCK and WP:SPI/AI. Its removal for reasons of "politeness" was almost two months later, and its ultimate removal by Br'er Rabbit was based on the strange claim of "wheel-warring". And why was Alarbus' page even fully protected to begin with before the tagging? That he should get some sort of special treatment for his multiple undeclared socks (known only to a select few) as "alternate accounts", and that tagging his socks should earn claims of "harassment" against the tagger, is ridiculous. Doc talk 05:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It was not, as at least one arb has opined. Tagging is appropriate, blanking is not. And I think the technical term for what was done was "grave dancing"; also a question there of a highly involved block. To respond to your question on the protection, was protected in an attempt to prevent vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To prevent vandalism on a page that had never actually been vandalized... ever? What is the purpose of using full protection when that is the case? Lots of pages could face vandalism, but those that have a history of it usually get that protection. Doc talk 09:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"at least one arb"? Who? And Wehwalt, is it standard practice to immediately given returning sockmasters the IP block exemption? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Elen. Regarding the ipblock exempt, there was good cause shown for that by Br'er but due to privacy I can only discuss that with an arb.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you discuss it with an arb? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have civilly stated, to the extent that I can, my reasons for the administrative action, assuming userrights fall into that category. You put your nickel in the slot, and you've gotten what you are going to get.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He made good contributions with the Tycho and Alarbus accounts, but as soon as it was discovered that it was Jack, the usual suspects arrive on the scene to call for his head - but for what? He made no abusive edits, and their editing never overlapped. Raul may well have not liked Alarbus' support for an alternate candidate for FA Director, but as much as he would like it to be otherwise, that's not a sanctionable offence.

Jack's tried to edit anonymously to avoid the hounding, and we can see that's not possible. He's now trying it Arbcom's way: one account disclosed for all to see (just as Jack Merridew was of course), and how long did it take for a conspiracy to get him to develop?

So Carcharoth, take a moment to work out how this thread came about in the first place, and then make use of your undoubted powers of persuasion on those who are seemingly not here to build an encyclopedia. I'll link to Br'er Rabbit's recent contributions just in case you need to make the comparison. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings RexxS, I am glad to see your comments here. Except that someone might have cried "canvassing", I would have posted to you days ago asking that you append regards. Yes, it's true I would have been seeking a comment exactly as you appended it here; but not for a conflicted knowledge of you, but rather that I know you to be of impeccable reason and unblemished integrity. When traits like these conjoin; truth is the only possible expression; and yes, I would have been canvassing on a premeditated quest for truth. As an aside, must I call you an ass; that we should collaborate? I certainly hope not. But I too, will work with anyone from this thread; to the entire project; even if in the absence of conflict. My76Strat (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll work with anyone willing to do enough work to justify the article being a conom.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for the comments. The history is complicated, as you say. I have read some of the more recent threads elsewhere on this matter (though I haven't checked all user talk pages so see what offshoot threads emerged elsewhere), not just this one, but if you are referring to history going all the way back to the original arbitration case (I'm hazy on that part of the history myself), that is a bit too long to unpack here. I'll follow up on something else on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

RexxS' claims are questionable. "...their editing never overlapped"? Editing from the Alarbus and Tycho accounts alternated in time. Nor were either account disclosed as an alternate. Wehwalt - would you have any issue with someone using "snarky" edit summaries referring to you, while, for instance, fixing copyright issues in one of your articles? Gimmetoo (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always happy to discuss whatever questions you raise, as you know. I apologise for my lack of clarity in the use of the word "overlap", which I intended to be taken in a spatial sense, rather than a temporal one. As you can see, in the context of "abuse" that I was considering, two accounts are only abusive when they contribute at the same place thus giving a false sense of consensus. TMA and Alarbus never did that. Your two accounts overlap in time, but are you suggesting that you are a sockmaster/sockupuppet by that analogy? No, of course not. I told Arbcom at the time that they reimposed a four-year old sanction that they were making a mistake, and merely giving others a stick to continue beating him with. Plenty of editors have multiple alternate accounts for all sorts of reasons, and I expect you already know what WP:SOCK says: "The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry." Just try to figure out what improper purpose the TMA or Alarbus or Br'er Rabbit accounts have been put to. None. The purpose of all of the accounts from Jack Merridew onwards has been to improve the encyclopedia. And the only purpose of this particular circus show is to persecute Jack for offences that occurred over six years ago. It's time for you, and for Arbcom, to drop the stick. --RexxS (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tycho's and Alarbus's article edits would probably not be taken as a "consensus". I'm sure in some sense everyone intends to "improve the encyclopedia", but 1) some of these "improvements" are - at best - arbitrary style changes, and 2) even if they were clear improvements, why would they require so many undisclosed "alternate" accounts, especially when under an arbcom sanction to edit from one account only? Some of Jack's undisclosed accounts were only identified a few weeks ago. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, indeed, it's hard to fathom why Jack compartmentalises his editing into different accounts, but surely you see the point that none of them, per se, are harmful? If he were vote-stacking at RfA, or similar, I'd be right there with you clamouring for his head. But that's the genuine tragedy of his career: since he agreed to the WP:standard offer in 2008, he's done a lot of good work - even if many edits only looks to you like minor adjustments, they all add up, and many editors are grateful; and yet he is still hamstrung with a sanction that outlived its usefulness three years ago, and does nothing other than nurture drama and ill-feeling. Jack's other accounts don't actually damage the encylopedia, they improve it. If arbitrators are reading this, I sincerely hope they will take what I've said to heart: let's draw a line now and see if Carcharoth's suggestions can gain traction. I'm going to look for something to collaborate with him on - I'd love for you, Raul and any of the other participants to join us in what we're supposed to be here for. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Amusing. I avoided all Jack's arb stuff for a year. Jack keeps going back to old conflicts, over and over again - the same behaviour that got him to arbcom at least a couple times years ago. Regarding collaboration, I know despite our disagreements that you, RexxS, and I could collaborate, because we are capable of compromise. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, User:Gimmetoo/User:Gimmetrow has been fighting this war for a long time. . You guys are funny.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Before someone hats this up, I'd like to point out that Jack did not go back to old conflicts or repeat the same behaviour that got him into trouble in the long-ago. If he had done, he would have been detected almost immediately. And he has not been "harassing" people; let's put that meme to bed right now. He has edited in completely new topic areas, with a specialization in featured articles, mostly working on structure and citations, working (with some exceptions) with a completely new group of people, several of whom are administrators, and taking advice on board from same. He worked very hard to get WP:HLIST implemented. Sure he has been involved in some conflicts, but the community has repeatedly come to the conclusion that this editor's pluses outweigh the minuses. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with that. I would go so far as to say that the community seems to feel he's not the one digging up old stuff. The project is large. There is no need for this conflict. I suggest that those who do not care to see Br'er here, avert their eyes. Can someone close this please?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean both Diannaa and Wehwalt vouch and promise that Jack will never be involved in any topics or articles edited by Raul or me? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Good lord of course not. I'm not his mentor, neither is Dianna, nor is he subject to our physical control. Why would you even ask such a thing anyway? We are still the encyclopedia anyone can edit, haven'tcha heard. I imagine it has something to do with your finding yourself on the short end of consensus at Talk:Sean Combs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The only one who can control him is Rangda. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is ready for hatting when there are so many unanswered questions still lingering. And I don't think that there's anything "old" about Alarbus, an undeclared sock that was used until a couple of months ago. If Alarbus was such a harmless and benevolent account with only good edits, why was the SPI even filed to begin with? Why did the reporter note a "condescending and antagonistic attitude towards other editors" as a behavioral tie? Because of... good edits? Why was the original block on December 11th for "disruptive and deceptive use of multiple accounts + harrassment"? Truthkeeper88 asked Alarbus to stop following her around and perpetuating a months old feud: this is not a repetition of an old pattern? As for "Tech": well, I hope the others in this thread have better communication skills than Tech did. I hope none of you seasoned editors use "fuck off, please" as a custom vandalism warning, even if you revert it a minute later. And then utterly dismiss the editors who call you on that edit. These undeclared accounts were operating concurrently, sometimes three socks editing within hours of each other (see Nov. 17, 2011). I don't believe that anyone is allowed to do that. Doc talk 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why was the SPI even filed to begin with?" Because Maunus had the presence of mind to file the SPI, when he perceived grounds, at the proper place. A good question is: why should questions and allegations of "sock-puppetry" be asked and or levied here? Showing that a user used an alternate account is not sock-puppetry! you must show the abusive use. Did the alternate account !vote at some consensus?, Did the alternate account overlap with the main account within the same thread or article to misrepresent levels of support? The burden at SPI is on you when you file to show the abuse; Not simply that one might have used an alt, or even that they did. Also, the past transgressions were remedied in the past. When you attempt to show abuse, you have to show how it relates to BR's conduct now, when it was suggested through hyperbole that correcting his misspelled name equivocates harassment. Look at Elen's comment here and tell me that BR is some abusive sock-puppet that ought to be banned. What are the grounds? My76Strat (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If "past transgressions" are six years ago, and not three months ago, that's one thing. But equating them as the same: meh. Doc talk 05:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And as far as what the community actually wants: well, I've never seen that the original community ban for sockpuppetry and harassment of other users was officially vacated. Can someone link me to that, in case I'm missing it? I've similarly never seen that the arbitration agreement(s) (that only exist in order to allow him to edit here in lieu of that ban) were officially vacated to allow what he's been doing for so long. And I've never seen that this editor is officially exempt from the sock policy. Throwing the yoke off yourself doesn't count. How many of you have been repeatedly sanctioned in this manner? Do you think there's any good reason for the sanctions in general? It's not some ancient mistake, and this is not all some sort of misunderstanding or witch hunt. Doc talk 05:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd enjoy that. You could rehash everything in it, and say "Well, I don't think he's addressed so and so" and legitimize the attacks on Br'er, at least by dragging him into the mud some more. From your point of view, win win. From the project's, not so much.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What attacks on Br'er? Personal attacks? Please. You are urging a speedy closure of this thread when it's not been duly processed. Doc talk 10:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

If this is the wrong page to raise this, would someone please paste it into the right one?

Any guidance or advice any of you cares to offer at Talk:Muhammad/images#Query would be very much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Could an arbitrator please tell me if it is forbidden to discuss the curation of images at Talk:Muhammad/images? I attempted to initiate such a conversation but had no takers, and so I dropped it. But the mere attempt to initiate a discussion on that topic triggered an extremely uncivil response from seven editors telling me to shut up. Now it's been brought up on my talk page in the context of possible AE action. I would very much appreciate clarification of this point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. If you want clarification of a specific finding or remedy in the Muhammad images case, feel free to ask/file such a request for clarification over here. It will likely garner more attention from arbs. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My Email

Did ArbCom receive the Email that I've sent to them on Saturday? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Since today is the last day to present evidence, I would appreciate receiving an answer as soon as possible. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It was received.Risker (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Off With His Head?

Some months ago, iridescent was booted from the Committee, ostensibly for "inactivity." Now I notice that Xeno has been on vacation for many months... Is he next to go? If not, what is the threshold? 174.233.132.252 (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Mailing list response time

When someone requests arbitration on the mailing list, how long does it take for ArbCom to decide if they're going to accept the request? Is it unusual for them to have not gotten back to the person yet after a week?-SightWatcher (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press