User talk:Fnagaton/RfCUThunderbird2

To be posted to user conduct RFC

Statement of the dispute
Since the edits by User:Thunderbird2 on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. The user is repeatedly making false claims in violation of WP:POINT and WP:PARENT. Therefore this RfC/U is being posted.

Evidence
Context (Please read this or you will lose your mind trying to figure what the hell is going on): (Click "show" on the hide-box entitled "Is there consensus for the promotion or deprecation of IEC units?"))

Thunderbird2 is doing the following:
 * Misrepresenting other editors instead of tackling their actual arguments (using ad hominem)., A warning, Another warning "Indeed it's a gross misrepresentation...", ad hominem against Greg, more ad hominem (refuted again by another editor) ...
 * Refuses to engage in constructive discussion by refusing to answer valid questions. (See, , , , , , , , and ] amongst others)
 * Repeatedly posting content from his talk page onto a guideline talk page, making it appear on the surface they are posting a new argument when actually his point of view has already been discussed and rejected many times on the same talk page. See, , , ...
 * Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't exist when there is a large talk archive demonstrating the consensus which the user is well aware of, having been told where the link is multiple times and the link being included in the guideline text. When asked to provide substantive arguments the user refuses to do so then goes quiet for a few weeks only to repeat the whole process again. This is demonstrative of forum shopping the same issue repeatedly on the same talk page. See, , , , , , ,  ...
 * Using their talk page to make false accusations of harassment, especially using misrepresentative and personal attack edit summaries and page titles, when actually the user has been reported and blocked for edit warring on this subject. The user then misrepresents the comments of the admins on the same "harassment" talk page.
 * The user tried to get mediation, by again posting the same refuted point of view from his talk page, but this was rejected by the mediator when it became apparent there was nothing to mediate.
 * The user is also demonstrating obsessive behaviour related to certain editors by his talk page to archive the edits of other editors and then misrepresenting the edits of other editors.
 * The user became nothing more than a single purpose account (See Special:Contributions/Thunderbird2).
 * Tries to weasel his way out of things (For example, see, which got him stern responses ([]), encouraging him to quit this fanatical behaviour . See also the whole discussion).
 * Editing RfC case pages after they have been moved to the archive (i.e. attempting to present a false view of what really happened after the fact). The RfC in question was moved to the archive at 13:29, 15 September 2008 but Thunderbird2 then tried to add extra text in November, two months after the RfC was moved to the archive. This can also be seen as an example of WP:DEADHORSE violation. Fnagaton 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
Thunderbird2 will:
 * Stop being disruptive. An objective reading of Thunderbird2’s contributions shows that his edits bear all the hallmarks of a tendentious, single-purpose editor. His benefits (zero as of late) to Wikipedia are wildly offset by the disruption he causes.
 * Stop trying to use ad hominem, this means Thunderbird2 will only tackle the substance of arguments and not refer to how Thunderbird2 thinks other editors are "bad people" or "bullies" or other such irrelevant personal issues.
 * Stop repeating the claims there there is no consensus because the consensus is demonstrated in the talk archive.
 * Remove (i.e. get the pages permanently deleted) all user talk and user sand box material related to other editors, especially those pages with false claims of harassment.

Failing that, a block/ban.