| Revision as of 22:13, 12 June 2009 editFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits tag and note← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:13, 12 June 2009 edit undoFT2 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 edits headerNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Blocked== | ==Blocked== | ||
| You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Sock identification == | |||
| {{CheckedSockpuppet|Jossi}} | {{CheckedSockpuppet|Jossi}} | ||
| : I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong. | |||
| I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong. | |||
| The ] contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "]" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or ], as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind. | |||
| You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor. | |||
| : ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | : ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:13, 12 June 2009
Blocked
You have been blocked indef as a sock of Jossi. Onwiki evidence was confirmed by CU. Contact arbcom if you have questions. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sock identification
 | This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Jossi (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |  |
I wish I did not have to write this note. But evading an Arbcom decision of this kind is completely unacceptable; as an ex-admin who has been highly regarded by many and greatly involved in the development of editing norms and the community, you know that better than most. This was a deliberate attempt to evade a dispute resolution. The evidence was passed to myself too, and while I am still reviewing it, it already appears to be quite strong.
The Arbcom remedy contemplates ordinary return to the dispute area and editing there. It does not even begin to contemplate socking for the purpose. Since your main account "Jossi" is not editing, there is no benefit or purpose in blocking that account per the remedy or blocking policy, as it would not prevent or deter any disruption or breach. Instead I warn that if another attempt is made to edit the disputed areas by a sock-puppet account or similar gross breach of trust, then it is very likely to lead to communal discussion and quite possibly a proposal for a community ban or similar strong remedy. I would ask you not to do this any more, and if you use other sock accounts in this area then to quietly set them aside. If you do wish to edit these areas, then do so after resolving the disputes as directed in the remedy. If you do not wish to, then I ask you not to put yourself other editors in the invidious position of having to consider action of this kind.
You've been a good contributor for a long time at project level and in many content areas. You built up a reputation in those areas for good, stable, thoughtful editing. Please do continue, and don't break that habit. This is both a first and only formal warning from me, and a personal plea from a co-editor.
Category: