Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab/Case:User Greg park avenue

Start discussion

User:Greg park avenue has requested a form of mentorship. His current ban is for one year, of which six months have elapsed. I have been in contact with the editor, and believe he would make a good candidate for rehabilitation. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide more information and links. Who banned him, under what circumstances, etc. Please contact the banning admin(s), ArbCom, or whoever is relevant, and invite their comments here. We need to investigate/discuss the case before taking it on. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get comments from Greg himself. A form of limited unblock needs to be sought, and I suspect that can only happen after some discussion. If the blocking admin(s) and others don't think it's worth taking on the case, then an unblock wouldn't be considered. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was banned by the ArbCom as per the decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. He is also the editor Durova had mentioned was a strong candidate for consideration on the project's talk page. I am adding a message to the main ArbCom talk page regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful! Since this project is moving in uncharted waters, I believe that we should move cautiously and get all the advice we can get. We should also get the input of those who have been involved with the case. I envision that this project will involve public participation more than many unblocks which have occurred without much input. What happens in each case, especially this one and the next few cases, will likely set a precedent for how to do things and what works (and doesn't work). This will help us to refine our procedures. Right now we have a number of ideas and suggestions that need to be formalized into a procedure we will follow in each case, IOW we have to play it by ear in the beginning. It looks like you are very sensitive to these matters and I applaud the steps you are taking. Good work! Anymore suggestions will be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background information from case

Case Finding of fact

Proposed decision#Greg park avenue

13) Greg park avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect have included violations of the BLP policy ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) and incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks ([8]).

Comment: Anymore links related to blocks, complaints at AN/I and other noticeboards, etc., would be welcome here. Please remove this comment when they are provided.

Suggestion for editing restriction from case

These editing restricts were suggested during the case by an arb: [9]

(B) Should Greg park avenue resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

(C) Should Greg park avenue make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

(D) Greg park avenue is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.

(E) Should Greg park avenue engage in further acts of gross misbehavior, he may be banned from Wikipedia for up to one year, or indefinitely, by consensus including at least three uninvolved administrators on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement.

ArbCom Ban Appeal Subcommittee's suggested editing restrictions

(A) Greg park avenue shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practices. If Greg park avenue wishes to create articles that are biographies of living people, he shall do so in draft form in his userspace, under supervision of his mentor(s), using the NOINDEX tag.
(B) Greg park avenue is topic-banned from editing biographies of living people or the talk pages of such articles.
(C) Should Greg park avenue make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, an assumption of bad faith, or a violation of the BLP policy (including in talk page comments or comments made anywhere on Wikipedia), he may be blocked as provided in the enforcement ruling.
(D) Greg park avenue is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page.

ArbCom Ban appeal subcommittee's response

Discussion regarding User:Greg park avenue

Greg park avenue was in touch with the Ban Appeal Subcommittee and tentative editing restrictions were sent to him by the subcommittee. Waiting his reply. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. If he is going to get some limited editing rights back anyway by June 23, is it worth it to start a process here for him? OTOH, if it is considered advantageous to make his participation here a condition of his return to full editing rights, that would be another matter. Here he would be under a number of watchful eyes. His mentors could choose to use this project if they wish. If not, then his case would run separately from this project. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best not to vary the terms at this stage but this editor would very likely welcome offers of mentorship as it is often difficult for banned users to organise this themselves. In the meantime, the ball is very much in Greg park avenue's court and I do look forward to hearing from him. Roger Davies ^talk 12:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roger. What is needed is people to assist him by being a mentor. ArbCom has a relatively new system in place to review ArbCom bans and Community Bans. It is working well. His appeal is awaiting his response. Let's see what he has to say. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Let's AGF and give him an honest chance. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for more participation by admins and ArbCom members

We would very much appreciate the participation of more admins and ArbCom members, especially since this project intends to be dealing with banned editors. This may often require extra careful forms of mentoring. We also aren't interested in being gamed, as has been attempted by some banned users and socks. So far it's been relatively easy stuff to deal with, but we could risk that sneaky banned users will attempt to get back into Wikipedia through this process. We would like to AGF with everyone, but we know that AGF can only be stretched so far, and that editors with these types of serious problems may include those who will pretend anything in order to "get back in". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]