This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 11:21, 14 December 2009 (→Vote: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:21, 14 December 2009 by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) (→Vote: Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
] | 10 December 2009 |
Jack Merridew's agreement | 11 December 2009 |
Comments | No date given |
Motions
Shortcuts
This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion
After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the Arbitration Committee agreed to unblock his account on December 9th, 2008 with the following conditions:
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account.
- User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages 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.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing.
- 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.
- It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages 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.
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Log of blocks and bans
Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:
- User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
- User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
- User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
- User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.
Vote
For this motion, there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 6 support votes are a majority.
- Support
-
- FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Noting that the verbiage about open proxies is now standard boilerplate and should not be interpreted as indication that Jack Merridew abused proxies or that we expect that he would. — Coren 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per FloNight and Coren. Risker (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 16:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I will support, but I would also emphasize that Jack Merridew should make a concerted effort to avoid unnecessary interaction with other editors with whom he has been in repeated conflict, not only White Cat, and should avoid any actions that could give a reasonable appearance of wikihounding such editors, whether or not that is his intent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per Newyorkbrad's advice. Roger Davies 11:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Discussion
See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page.
- Comment: After review of the mentors and community comments on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack Merridew one year unban review/mentors page, I note: The one year mentorship ended on Dec 9th. The one year block sanction was intended to address stalking and harassment of White Cat if it occurred and is not applicable now. JM agrees to use informal mentors. Since the Committee had virtually no involvement in the mentorship last year, I see no reason for it to remain formal. The current conflict involving JM center around contentious areas of Misplaced Pages and are best resolved in a comprehensive case with all editors on equal footing. I propose amending the sanctions as above. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment:I tweaked the wording to add an exception for a bot account. Because the open proxies policy has been interpreted differently or can have the wording changed, ArbCom began adding this type of wording to cases. It gives a better result because it reassures that everyone understands the meaning of the policy. I think that it is best that it stays in. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I note there's no restriction on interaction with White Cat here. That may not be an issue as White Cat is fairly inactive. But I wonder whether Jack would give an undertaking to minimise any future contact and, if there is contact, to seek advice from a mentor or arb BEFORE this became an issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Scott MacDonald, this has already been discussed with JM, and he has already agreed to stay away from WC. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK - his agreement is all I was asking about.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Scott MacDonald, this has already been discussed with JM, and he has already agreed to stay away from WC. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk note
Jack Merridew's agreement
- Agreed. I would like to request a minor tweak re User:Jack Merridew bot. This account was created earlier this year and never got going. I would like to revisit the idea of running a bot this coming year. I would also like to note that the 'open proxies' issue never was an issue and as WP:OPENPROXY applies to all editors, the new point three would seem to suffice and there is no real need to call this out. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)