Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * other sock accounts, see Requests for checkuser/Case/AL2TB
 * other sock accounts, see Requests for checkuser/Case/AL2TB
 * other sock accounts, see Requests for checkuser/Case/AL2TB
 * other sock accounts, see Requests for checkuser/Case/AL2TB

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.'' Gill Giller Gillerger becomes cooperative with other users, and makes edits productive to the encyclopedia rather than destroying other people's work.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Gill Giller Gillerger repeatedly edit wars and reverts to his own interpretation of ELG and of the CASH / USRD standards, regardless of what they actually are, and if his interpretation goes against FAC.

Yes, this is the same statement as presented in the first RFC (Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger). However, it is the same problem, just in a different incarnation. Gill Giller Gillerger is giving the minimum amount of cooperation necessary to not get indefinitely blocked, and nothing more. He continues to edit war over road articles when the consensus is against him. The primary implementation of this is his edits to the "Major junctions" section. He adds junctions only because they have what are known as "control cities", which do not indicate the "major" status of a junction. This is against the consensus of several editors.

A bit of background on this user: He is User:AL2TB. This user has had a history of abandoning accounts when facing criticism and starting new ones. Eventually he was indefinitely blocked and we started to block his sockpuppets. Therefore, he opened Mgillfr, and to avoid being immediately blocked, he said he would be more cooperative when he opened his current account (see below); but today he is the same old AL2TB. He has also had a history of harassment on my behalf (see User:Rschen and ).

This editor also does some inconsiderate things. Just after a user created a map for Sierra Highway, Gill Giller Gillerger decides to replace it entirely with his own map, which is of an inferior quality (no labels at all). Reasoning? It being "inconsistent" with the (inferior) CASH version.

Harrassment may be a possibility as well; this editor has edited my sole featured article California State Route 78 the most out of any article, and continues to revert to his preferred versions (and frequently incorrect ).

In your comments, if you agree that this continues to be a problem, please indicate what you believe the next step that we should undertake is should this RFC fail to accomplish anything.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

There are several of these such edit wars: here are a few. Others can be provided upon request.
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/AL2TB - the sockpuppetry information
 * He has edited California State Route 78 the most out of any article.
 * Adding junctions to get a complete set of control cities
 * Same as above
 * Going against consensus that was already forming against him, and being uncooperative
 * Reverting to his preferred version, against what the source says
 * 

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:CONSENSUS
 * WP:USSH
 * WP:ELG
 * WP:SOCK
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:HARASS

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Talk page discussions - both sections
 * Discussing several revert wars and other inconsiderate things he got into
 * More discussions
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * Adding random control cities to SR 78
 * And again
 * Blanking his user talk page (there are several more in his user talk page history)

Keep in mind that there were several attempts to resolve the dispute, so it is difficult to concretely separate this section and the main evidence section.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Rschen7754 (T C) 09:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitch 32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Outside view by Scott5114
This user is notorious for shifting accounts. The ALT2B account was followed by User:Dabby and User:Dabbydabby, which was followed by User:Splat5572, which was followed by User:Must eat worms. It is also possible that this user was responsible for the User:Artisol2345 series of accounts, which included User:Alittlegoo and User:Mo42. I cannot recall if a checkuser was ever conducted linking Artisol and ALT2B, but it seems likely due to edit style and the Artisol user page containing a mention of eating worms.

This user also shares a geographic area (but not ISPs) with User:I-210, which was recently banned. The checkuser shows that it is possible that AL2TB also controls the I-210 family of accounts.

Constantly nymshifting in this manner makes conversing with the user frustrating and makes it difficult to get an adequate picture of the user's complete edit history.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Not the whole problem, but this is true. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Cirt (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.