Strangely Carrite (self-identified at Wikipediocracy as Randy from Boise) has added himself as an involved party, but I'm not clear at all what his connection is. Maybe he just wants some personalized attention.thekohser wrote:Do I have to? I'm not even an "involved party" to what is purportedly "my" case!Randy from Boise wrote:You have until September 16 to present your evidence here, Mr. Kohs. The limit on testimony is 1,000 words and 100 diffs, which should be used to support your various assertions.thekohser wrote:The case is all clerked up and ready to go.
As for you Kohser, well the idea is that it's your IP comments at Jimbo Talk that the terrible trio have been edit-warring back and forth. Well, maybe "edit war" is the wrong word. They're not arguing about the configuration or content of an article, it's rather over the proposition that the IPs in question may be allowed to speak at all. It's a "delete war."
Thing is, I don't actually know those IPs are you. They're unsigned. Having seen them now and then over the last year plus, it has seemed to me on occasion that "yeah, Greg Kohs prob. wrote that one" but then on other occasion it was more "can't really guess who wrote that."
Tarc is now extremely on the "let the IP speak" side but in the not-distant past he has been among the "delete the IP" side. Change of heart?
Jimbo says he has an open door policy, but in the past I've definitely seen him supporting those that watchdog and delete others from his page. He said basically, "please, continue to do so." He's inconsistent. The Jimbo talkpage watchdogs are the most idiotic and hyperactive administrative types, like Bwilkins and Tarc and "Hell in a Bucket." I know some of them aren't administrators, they are still administrative types, homebased at WP:AN/ANI and scurrying like hungry little rats hither and yon to gobble up and regurgitate the latest drama.
A couple years ago, I believe there was a general reluctance even among the administrative crowd to run around deleting block-evading communication on editor talkpages. They felt, hey, leave it to whomever's talkpage it is. But spearheaded by the hyper-aggressive types like Kww, the prevailing attitude has become more "I will chase you and delete you wherever you go, and no you may not talk to anybody on his or her talkpage, not even if he or she wants to. You are a non-person and you are banned, bAnNeD, BANNED!"
The answer to the case as far as policy (WP:EVADE) goes is that a banned or blocked editor's edits *may* be deleted, without regard to 3RR or anything. But if a user in good standing sees fit to restore the edits, they must be left alone, barring some problem other than evasion. Hell in a Bucket knows the WP:EVADE policy but mendaciously misstates it in his statement, asserting not that he *may* delete but that he *must* delete. As if any Wikipedia editor must do anything.