Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gill Giller Gillerger 2

Gill Giller Gillerger blanking the RFC notice
. I take it he is just going to ignore the RFC? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for quick resolution
I arrived here via the notice at the top of ANI. Looking through the history of the various problems with this editor, I'm frankly amazed they're still here. Per Rschen7754 above, I also saw that they blanked their page immediately following notice of this RfC, and apparently haven't edited since. Given that, and their Wikibreak notice on their userpage (another way of deflecting criticism per WP:IDHT?) I doubt this RfC will achieve very much. I admire the good faith and tolerance of those editors who've tried and tried again to work with this person, but would anyone object to me simply reinstating their indefblock? EyeSerene talk 14:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also arrived here via ANI.


 * This is the most pertinent parts of the complaint as a see it. Editing the original complaint:

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.

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.

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 ). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay. Darn finals. He did edit again after the post above, but still has not responded to the RFC. That all being said... I'd say go for it. It's clear he doesn't have any desire to work with us. Be warned that he may decide to evade his block. (Perhaps this is more merciful than an ANI community ban discussion, or RFAR). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reblocked the editor indefinitely (note that this is the first block on the account, the previous indefblock was for their  incarnation). With their failure to respond to this RfC I see little point in further process for process's sake; we can't engage with someone who doesn't want to listen. However, if anyone feels my application of WP:IAR is mistaken, I'll be happy to explain myself more fully :) I think socking is likely, given their history, but we can deal with that as and when necessary. Hope this helps,  EyeSerene talk 10:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Move to close
User has been indef'ed. Move to close. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)