Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 11:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

I request a community ban review for my case, as I think the bans on both accounts and my IP are unfair and over-strict.

• Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azmoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.70.5.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Involved parties are me (usernames and IP above) and the blocking admins. I am unable to notify them about this because I was granted a conditional unblock only to edit ArbCom pages and I don't want to breach this in any way. (I posted notifications for you. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [1]
• Mark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2]
• Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]

I would like to ask the arbitrators to consider JzG's and Geni's requests to accept the review. JzG is the administrator I had most contact with, I sincerely hope he wouldn't be requesting you to accept the case if he thought it's a mere waste of your time.

I started editing wikipedia like in March 2006. I was quite busy at that time, that's why I actually started contributing more around June, I created some articles (that were well-researched and I spent a lot of time on them), also uploaded some self-made illustrations (which actually ment a lot of work to me), I joined the wikiproject medicine and took part in its collaborations. I was blocked for 3 days as a result of a heated discussion on AfD or something. Whatever lead to this block, I decided I wouldn't contribute to wikipedia anymore, used the right to vanish, as I felt that my efforts here weren't fully appreciated. I came back as an IP editor to check how the vote on Caron goes, and re-registered so that my vote would be counted. I chose a new username, Azmoc, and I admit that I did some trolling on wp talk pages since then. I would, however, like to be unblocked so I can edit articles, especially medicine-related ones from time to time. If I get unblocked, I will not post on WP project talk pages, other than wikiproject medicine. I already said this on IRC to Centrx as I requested unblock for my IP, his reaction was however extending the block from Azmoc to Ackoz, replacing the userpages with "sockpuppet warning" and changing the lenght of the IP block to 6 months. He also warned the other admins about my "clever or annoying" reasons for getting unblocked. But my reasons are clear - I would like to have the access to editing wikipedia articles, not project talk, and I think my contributions or the articles I created (Abdominal_aortic_aneurysm, Antyllus, Transfusion-associated_graft_versus_host_disease etc.) or the other edits I made could convince you that I can be beneficial to the project, if I restrain from discussing the functioning of WP. The last two trolling things I did as the IP was that I posted "I concur" and "I second that" on ANI, that's why I was blocked. I think that 1/2 admins-issued 6 months ban is too much of a punishment for something like this. I would also accept probation or something similar.PS: I would like 1 account, preferably Ackoz, to be unblocked.

As long as the user agrees to stop the behaviour that got him blocked and agrees to stick to one account I have no objection to and unblock (would probably have done it myself if contacted).Geni 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered this person after he complained on IRC for about an hour asking to be unblocked. Seeing that he had repeatedly made disruptive comments, had made no actual contributions for two months, and had previously been blocked by 8 different administrators ([4], [5], [6]) for various disruptive behavior, I extended the block to username Ackoz (talk • contribs). The latest blocks by other admins were indefinite for Azmoc (talk • contribs) and 1 month for the IP, the short block for the IP being under the impression that it was not static, as he had falsely placed a "dynamic IP" notice on the IP talk page [7] right after the first IP block, when it has been this person and only this person since April, as clearly indicated by its interest in Caron, Expulsion of Germans after World War II, and User:Ackoz; there was also "archiving" of the IP talk page. In addition to the long history of blocks culminating in a ban, he has made no contributions to Wikipedia for 2 months. Aside from his lengthy complaints on ANI and proposals to change the blocking policy, he has been attacking other users, spamming talk pages encouraging people to leave Wikipedia, and threatening vandalism (e.g.: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). I am not inclined to believe that this person being away from Wikipedia would be a bad thing, and his red-herring comments here do not lead me to think that he recognizes why he was blocked all these times. If Ackoz (talk · contribs) were to be unblocked, the IP should be blocked anon. only & account creation blocked to ensure confinement to one account, and the user should be confined to articles and article-related activities, prohibited from commenting on administrative actions and policy, in general and specifically on administrative, policy, and user talk pages. —Centrx→talk • 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can recall, my only involvement with this user was to temporarily block him/her for personal attacks and trollish, offensive behaviour. That block (had it not been lengthened by other administrators) would have long expired by now, so my opinion as to whether this user should continue to be blocked is mostly irrelevant. Obviously, I encourage ArbCom to accept and review this block.

If he or she is to be unblocked, however, then I strongly encourage some form of probation or mentorship be instituted. - Mark 03:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be happy to accept probation or mentorship. Ackoz 08:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I had some dealings with Ackoz/Azmoc/whatever. Given a willingness to undergo mentorship, and provided that a suitable mentor can be found, I see no reason why we should not accept at face value Ackoz's stated desire to contribute in a more contructive way. This would not be the first instance where a culture of immediacy (and here I freely acknowledge my own complicity) has caused a situation to escalate beyond what might have be result if a more measured approach had been used, and it is not unreasonable to allow a second chance. Indefinite does not, after all, mean forever, and there is a clear implication that a credible commitment to do better next time should be sufficient grounds to lift an indefinite block, especially where mentorship is available. This is not to dispute Mark's analysis; if mentorship cannot fix those issues then the community ban can be re-imposed. Just zis Guy you know? 09:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this going to be another review of a sensible community ban that ends in us reaffirming the ban 2 months later? Tentatively reject, until I see a reason the review is necessary and worth our time. Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, righteous block Fred Bauder 14:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. - SimonP 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 23:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. James F. (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)