User talk:Mirv/gzp

Even if there are similarities, so what? Gzp is a good copyeditor, along with the person to whom I suspect he is being compared. Even his most vocal opponents should be able to admit that the vast majority of his contributions are helpful.

Michael Snow has already has enough evidence in his arbitration case against Shorne, Gzp, and VeryVerily. So there's no need to investigate whether or not Shorne, Gzp, or VV have had different accounts in the past... While repeated reversions are often the only method of dealing with conflict for these three users, given the articles on their watchlists, each of these users is well-read, intelligent, and committed to Wiki... Yet, charges of usage of multiple accounts convey the impression that the legitimacy of an editor is being challenged. Gzp in particular (the one out of the three users in Michael Snow's case who does a fairly good job of following NPOV) should not be made to feel alienated. 172 19:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is true. However, if he is who he's suspected of being, there's a parole still in effect, and note that Gzornenplatz, while he's generally editing well, is doing exactly the same things that got the other user in trouble before. Repeat offenders generally get less leniency.


 * I will note two things: first, if Gzornenplatz is the reincarnation of you-know-who, then his behavior has improved significantly; in my sole interaction with him, he showed a willingness to accept compromise, though not the ability to suggest one; he's also stopped revert warring over miniscule matters of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Second, I'll note that none of this evidence is conclusive (which is why I wrote it up here rather than on the evidence page); this is just a place for interested parties to compare notes and see if a clear picture emerges. Me, I'm not convinced that Gzornenplatz is the other user, but the similarities are too numerous to dismiss outright. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 19:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I'd rather overlook the possibility that he might be you-know-who, whom I felt was treated unfairly. Granted you-know-who did get into scores of edit wars over spelling, punctuation, and grammar, but I don't recall when he wasn't right. 172 22:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the primary observation I could make off the top of my head (the timeline) has already been noted. To comment on the discussion here - I don't see this so much as evidence for an arbitration case as just noting possible connections. While there would be an existing parole if the connection is valid, the same thing is already being partially enforced by Jimbo personally, and is exactly the nature of the relief I requested from the Arbitration Committee anyway. If there was a case in which I wanted to present this evidence, the case would be of a different nature, and not lumped in with a bunch of other users.

I agree that if the connection is right, there has been some improvement from before in terms of dialogue and tactics. But there is also much residual bad feeling from the previous war to the point that many people think of it as a hard ban. Therefore I think it important to explore this question now, and in a more temperate way, rather than have somebody let loose an accusation that X is Y and therefore Z must be done and bring all of those feelings directly to the surface unmoderated. After all, with the passage of time, the statement should really be that "X has become Y", not simply "Y is now exactly what X once was", meaning that Z does not necessarily follow.

We try to rehabilitate even hard-banned users (Michael), and have in the past with reincarnations been willing to disregard obvious stylistic similarity iff the reincarnation avoids the problems that got the original incarnation banned (EntmootsOfTrolls was tolerated long after it became apparent that he had been banned before as 24 and again as 142.177.xxx.xxx; not until that particular account also went beyond the pale did it get banned). Similarly here, I would rather work to bring someone back into the community than throw them out. --Michael Snow 18:48, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems that the question is being broached a little more openly now (here). --Michael Snow 20:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have deleted this page to prevent any of it being added to the arbcom case, for the reasons above. If anyone cares to investigate they can find most of what I found by themselves, but I'd rather not air it openly. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 00:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)