Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Licorne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hi, I don't mean to interfere with an arbitrarion with which I am not involved, but may I suggest that an injunction is in order to prevent Licorne from editing David Hilbert, Henri Poincaré, Albert Einstein and Friedwardt Winterberg or their talk pages while the arbitration is ongoing? In light of [1], perhaps it would focus his attention on the arbitration proceedings. –Joke 16:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you think it is necessary to request the injunction? I'm not monitoring the situation very closely at the moment (don't have a lot of time this week), so I don't know if he's being a real pill about it. If he is, I'm happy to request an injunction. --Fastfission 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And honestly, I like the fact that he keeps editing in the same old fashion. He shows himself to be thoroughly unchangeable and unrepentant, which I think underscores the need to have him removed from here. --Fastfission 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein intro

I was informed of Licorne's statememts concerning me in this arbitration. As a matter of fact, I already slightly modified the intro on Einstein's page to become more factual, compatible with different POV's; and surely further improvement is possible. It should however be clear from the corresponding Talk page that my opinion on how to formulate those issues significantly differs from Licorne's - as also has been regularly the case on the Poincare page. Many of his contributions I regarded as "soapbox" presentations. Note that the Poincare Talk page may serve for finding more examples of verbal abuse by Licorne. Harald88 12:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's an appropriate decision?

I think the evidence phase is reasonably filled-in now; we could have 100 times more evidence, but it would not say anything new.

I wonder what an appropriate injunction would be?

  • Banning the "Licorne" uid from Wikipedia forever?
  • Blocking his IP addresses until someone claims they belong to someone else?
  • Injunction against Licorne editing or commenting on Einstein-related articles forever?
  • Something else?

I worry a bit about how hard/easy it is to get around some of the blocks - and how much attention is needed to watch the pages to enforce it.

After all, the point of an RfA ruling SHOULD (in my opinion) be that reasonable editors can go about their work not having to spend energy on irritation and on restoring PoV edits for the umpteenth time.....

(I also wonder how long "forever" is - my soft heart quails at not believing in giving pepople a second chance - but I haven't seen all that much hope for a change of heart on Licorne's side...)

Thoughts? --Alvestrand 06:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What does a ban imply for sock puppets?

Just wondering.... what does a ban on Licorne mean for his sock puppets/IP addresses? I can see some possibilities:

  • All IPs listed in the original injunction get blocked, but new ones aren't
  • All IPs and new accounts that an admin thinks is Licorne get blocked
  • The arbitrators have to reconsider every time he finds a new IP

The reason I worry is that if the first or last is true, I should introduce all the IP addresses I've observed Licorne using as evidence, and check carefully if there are more; if the middle one is true, we can deal with the problem when it arises. --Alvestrand 23:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Licorne_015c.html"