Comment by uninvolved Idont Havaname
I am not very aware of the dispute between Deltabeignet and SebastianHelm; if I have the time, I will look into it further and perhaps make additional comments about it. However, I do know that
User:Leyasu, a
community-banned user who has gone through two arbcom cases, is in on this as well and continues to edit war with me
[1], Deltabeignet
[2], and SebastianHelm. He now calls himself the "rogue bandit" who can keep getting back on Wikipedia despite what the community says about him
[3], consistently
cries admin abuse, and refers editors who don't agree with him to policies, while all the while breaking
WP:BAN. If any case in which Leyasu is involved, directly or indirectly, is accepted, I would like the arbcom to formalize his ban and make it permanent. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- SebastianHelm just clarified a few things on my talk page. I do intend to look into the Deltabeignet case further. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment from Uninvolved Newyorkbrad
As reflected at User_talk:Deltabeignet#Two_more_unexplained_reverts_to_vandalism and User_talk:Deltabeignet#WP:RFAR.23Deltabeignet, Deltabeignet conducted an "experiment" by editing anonymously to test a hypothesis that IP edits would be treated differently from a recognized user's or administrator's edits. This scenario parallels the recent Konstable case, although in this case the "experiment" seems to have taken place on-and-off over a couple of months rather than just a day or two, and greater use of admin powers was involved. There appears to have been no malicious intent, although significant user time was spent investigating, and Deltabeignet has agreed to discontinue this behavior. Whether this situation rises to the level of requiring an ArbCom case is a judgment call, as is the question whether the community should revise the paragraph of the sockpuppet policy that presently seems to encourage this type of experiments. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- My view is he should be treated very lenintly as befits the "crime", and be given at worst a warning (or alternatively slap his wrists with a wet bus ticket). Mathmo Talk 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I plan to post them in about 2-3 days (certainly by the end of the weekend), when I will be able to return to my normal editing schedule. I certainly will have things to say; please take them into account, even though they'll be coming a little bit late. I've been traveling over Christmas and haven't been able to do much work on WP while I've been away. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think I've posted all the evidence that I need to post for this case now. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Idont Havaname
I am not very aware of the dispute between Deltabeignet and SebastianHelm; if I have the time, I will look into it further and perhaps make additional comments about it. However, I do know that
User:Leyasu, a
community-banned user who has gone through two arbcom cases, is in on this as well and continues to edit war with me
[1], Deltabeignet
[2], and SebastianHelm. He now calls himself the "rogue bandit" who can keep getting back on Wikipedia despite what the community says about him
[3], consistently
cries admin abuse, and refers editors who don't agree with him to policies, while all the while breaking
WP:BAN. If any case in which Leyasu is involved, directly or indirectly, is accepted, I would like the arbcom to formalize his ban and make it permanent. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- SebastianHelm just clarified a few things on my talk page. I do intend to look into the Deltabeignet case further. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment from Uninvolved Newyorkbrad
As reflected at User_talk:Deltabeignet#Two_more_unexplained_reverts_to_vandalism and User_talk:Deltabeignet#WP:RFAR.23Deltabeignet, Deltabeignet conducted an "experiment" by editing anonymously to test a hypothesis that IP edits would be treated differently from a recognized user's or administrator's edits. This scenario parallels the recent Konstable case, although in this case the "experiment" seems to have taken place on-and-off over a couple of months rather than just a day or two, and greater use of admin powers was involved. There appears to have been no malicious intent, although significant user time was spent investigating, and Deltabeignet has agreed to discontinue this behavior. Whether this situation rises to the level of requiring an ArbCom case is a judgment call, as is the question whether the community should revise the paragraph of the sockpuppet policy that presently seems to encourage this type of experiments. Newyorkbrad 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- My view is he should be treated very lenintly as befits the "crime", and be given at worst a warning (or alternatively slap his wrists with a wet bus ticket). Mathmo Talk 08:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I plan to post them in about 2-3 days (certainly by the end of the weekend), when I will be able to return to my normal editing schedule. I certainly will have things to say; please take them into account, even though they'll be coming a little bit late. I've been traveling over Christmas and haven't been able to do much work on WP while I've been away. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 03:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think I've posted all the evidence that I need to post for this case now. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)