I blocked an IP of Gibraltarian, 212.120.226.168 (talk · contribs), for 3 hours for editing WP:RFA ([1]), per the message in ((gibraltarian)). I don't think it's enough to justify adding it to the list of blocks on the main case page, but I thought I would post it here to let the ArbCom decide. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I need to explain this, but the majority of Gibtelecom users connect to the internet using a dynamic IP pool, therefore by the time you have blocked a particular address any malicious user may be using another address and the block one may impact a totally innocent party.

Regretably there is a genuine campaign by the Government of the Kingdom of Spain to engage in suppression of anything factual to do with Gibraltar. This manifests itself in the non recognition of the ITU allocated telephone codes to blocking EU directives affecting the disabled because they include Gibraltar.

They would need to engage in real ethnic cleansing rather than trying to wipe any trace of Gibraltarians virtually, given the chance we do not doubt they would.

Some here tend to get enraged about the issue rather than coldly confronting continued Spanish persecution. The user formerly known as 'Gibraltarian' seems to have been one one these. --Gibnews 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for modification of remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

Gibraltarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian, which ended in January 2006. Since then, despite being blocked, he has persisted on a virtually daily basis to commit further abuses of the kind for which the committee ruled against him: edit warring, POV editing, vandalism, sock-puppeteering, posting abusive comments against other editors and so on, across a range of articles. He has shown absolutely no sign of changing his behaviour over the past 17 months and shows no sign of any willingness to do so.

I would like to request a modification of the terms of his remedy. Although the committee agreed unanimously that "Disruptive editors may be banned", it did not actually ban him, instead allowing an earlier indefinite block by User:Woohookitty to stand. The block is therefore endorsed by the committee but was not actually imposed on its instructions or with any reference to the January 2006 arbitration proceedings. To clarify this, I request that the committee endorse the motion: "Gibraltarian is banned indefinitely." I will then re-block Gibraltarian with a reference to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian. -- ChrisO 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need arbitrator action on this. From the case:

Gibraltarian is placed on indefinite Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Just get three administrators to agree that he's banned, and he'll be banned. --Tony Sidaway 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, Tony. Can I count you as one of the three? -- ChrisO 18:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony isnt an admin any more, SqueakBox 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was under the impression that he was. -- ChrisO 18:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen repeated evidence of continued misconduct by this user, in my capacity as an administrator, I endorse a ban as stated. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, endorse an indefinite ban. So, there you go. Picaroon (Talk) 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. -- ChrisO 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more to do here? If not, this can be archived to the talkpage of the Gibraltarian case, and someone can update the log of blocks and bans in that case and the user's block log. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing else to do. The problem has been resolved by the community without the need for additional measures by the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- ChrisO 11:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]