Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roberttheman2008

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: 15:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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.''

has responded to a proposed deletion of an article in which he currently involved with, in a very bellicose manner, in trying to give what is seems to be "orders," canvassing, and what it seems to be bribery.

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.''

This user has blatant disregard for any Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it is clear that he plans to use Wikipedia for his own personal improvement. I recommend that he be indefinitely blocked from editing.

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.}''

The user has violated WP:CIVIL, insists on spamming Wikipedia, trying to bribe Wikipedia into keeping the article by barking out orders, and making blanket threats to the community by posting the statement to wit Every single user that deletes one of my articles, I will post their names for everyone to see so that all users and staff will know.

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.)


 * Evidence of improper canvassing
 * I am calling for every single active member to be contacted in an attempt to find any imformation that I can't find as I intend to repost the articale if deleted.
 * Evidence of trying to give orders and admitting to having a conflict of interest
 * From Roberttheman2008: I had perfectly legitimate reasons to repost the articale, Jordan William Johnson had not been contacted or a beta version has not shown up. Repost the original aricale now.
 * Give him or her until 10/10 6pm EST for Johnson to show up and make himself known.
 * Evidence of bellicose attitude, incivility, giving orders, and not assuming good faith
 * wikipedia had orders for wikipedia not to delete it…Do not play favors with the bigger man over the smaller man in allowing this articale to be deleted.
 * (Read entire post on bottom of the diff)
 * You say you got rules, we have rules to and one is this "We do not support those who slander or blackmail those who work for us or ourselfs."
 * You hipicrite! I had valid information on that page.
 * Also "Last Chance" I always see that in the subject line everytime. Can't you think of something more original?
 * either way, you loose…A sign of unfairness is when information that is deleted ir altered by the people in charge say for example the authors of the encyclopedia bratanica said that a pig is a small winged animal with the ability to fly or something like that.
 * Get it straight dude, if you say that the administration are the editors then you should just log out right now and never log back in again.
 * Evidence of making false legal threats
 * This page is not to be deleted by orders of the copyright owner, Andrew McGee. Unknown Creature's copyright certificate number is PAu2-984-041
 * You violated the order of Copyright owner, Andrew McGee. If you want proof of it's existance call up the US copyright and ask them to refrence certificate number PAu2-984-041 and after it is confirmed. Repost it yourself.
 * Give me a break. Legal threats? Yeah I know a good lawyer. Abused my privilages? I was robbed from the privlage of having an articale about my movie, even after my brother gave me a message saying not to delete when it was up for deletion and they did it anyway. No faith in other editors? Re-phrase that, boy I got more faith with these dudes now then I did yesturday.
 * Blanket threats on user page
 * If an articale has inaccuate information, then I count on their staff to edit the information on the articale until it is correct…Every single user that deletes one of my articales, I will post their names for everyone to see so that all users and staff will know.
 * Evidence of admitting to creating inappropriate hoax articles
 * I think the reason why that no one has given me information about the original author of the SNES game maker articale is because it was a hoax.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL – as shown by the bellicose attitude and barking of orders.
 * WP:SPAM – the user's intent on creating the article in question seems to be to spam Wikipedia.
 * WP:COI – user has direct knowledge of some person named "Johnson," in which I think is the person who made the software; this was already reported to WP:COIN.
 * WP:NOT – user is complicit with (nor does he seem to care) about Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
 * WP:SIGN – failure to sign comments with the standard four tildes ~ in ANY of his comments.
 * WP:CANVASS — Campaigning and votestacking during an AfD discussion.
 * WP:NLT — Making false legal threats regarding copyright.
 * WP:HOAX — Creating hoax articles.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Evidence that the user was warned about not assuming good faith as well as potential conflict of interest
 * After this started, I've left a fairly blunt note on his user page, concerning our concerns. Has not edited since, that I know of.  Dloh  cierekim  03:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * User persisted after a Level 2 warning (not assuming good faith) and notification of a conflict of interest
 * After the warning, user !voted a second time in the article's AfD (votestacking) and attempted to campaign which is not appropriate per WP:CANVASS
 * Two users (one regular user and one admin) has left messages on the user in question's talk page

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


 * MuZemike (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * JuJube (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * gnfnrf (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dloh cierekim  03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rbanzai (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Endorse JuJube (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also of note that he tries to "bribe" Wikipedia with donations if his article is kept here (admin view only). JuJube (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse view, but not remedy. Agree with all of above, but let's give one more chance. This editor has been vexatious, but is also new. Sometime new editors understand only WP:BOLD, with no understanding of anything else.  From sentence structure and frequent misspellings, he may not be fluent in Endlish. His actions may simply be out of ignorance rather than malicious. I've left a fairly blunt note on his user page, which he may not have seen as yet. Let's give him the opportunity to read and heed my note. If he does so, great. If not, then he's leaving us no choice.   Dloh  cierekim  18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to below
 * Endorse - support long or indef block - Reviewing his contributions I see that this user has been threatening other editors from the start, including poorly spelled legal threats. This is not just defensive behavior of a new user but persistent hostility from the beginning. This editor has already heartily abused his privileges here, assuming bad faith in all actions of other editors. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. MER-C 08:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse — If not an indef block, then possibly a longer-than-normal block or a possible community ban on articles related to computing. The user still persists on the current course of behavior, despite many users trying nearly every method to try to stop, ranging from using the talk page in a non-biting way, template warnings, rational comments from regular users, and stern messages from admin. Just recently, the user just admitted that the article which sent us to this RfC in the first place was indeed a hoax and intends on continuing that hoax as well as blatant crystalballing. Combine that with the numerous bad faith assumptions on established editors and admin, legal threats, blanket community threats, and spamming, some action needs to be taken here. MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

 * Endorse view, but not remedy. Agree with all of above, but let's give one more chance. This editor has been vexatious, but is also new. Sometime new editors understand only WP:BOLD, with no understanding of anything else.  From sentence structure and frequent misspellings, he may not be fluent in Endlish. His actions may simply be out of ignorance rather than malicious. I've left a fairly blunt note on his user page, which he may not have seen as yet. Let's give him the opportunity to read and heed my note. If he does so, great. If not, then he's leaving us no choice.
 * On reflection, I feel even more that this user needs coaching and guidance, rather than blocking or banning. People sometimes get overly excited, on both sides of a dispute. I would urge the user to become more familiar with our policies and guidelines, and to refrain from writing things that inflame other users. No more barking instructions. No more silliness about threatening to try to boycott Wikipedia. No more quasi legal threats, no more talking about buying articles into Wikipedia. And no more shrill diatribes against other users who have a greater understanding of notability, reliable sources and verifiable sources. Editor is claiming newness as the reason for problematic editing. OK. Try learning from us instead of railing against us. Dloh  cierekim  14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits I and other editors find troubling, in hopes that specific examples of problems will lead to improvement. I need Robert to not do things like these. "either way, you lose", diatribe assuming bad faith. Though claims no connection with subject, it certainly sounds like it here. How else would he know about Mr. Jouhson's itinerary, another vexing, assumption of bad faith, and again. Boycott threat, AKA "I don't care what the rules are". Ordering others about. And again.  Dloh  cierekim  14:33, 12 September 2008 (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.'' ''

{A summary? I got a lot more then a summary for you guys, I got big problems with how I am being treated. 1. I am a new member 2. I have edited articales before I was a full member and no one objected. 3. The impression I got when my articale about the film I made was deleted was a sign of favoring the bigger man over the smaller man as I have stated before. 4. You making me sound as if I don't belong here and neither do my articales and you don't want me here. 5. I don't have any personal against wikipedia itself. 6. I am not using this site for personal gain, when I saw that the articale for the SNES game maker was deleted for no reason, I signed up to repost it. I don't know how long it had been there when I first found it. I don't think it violates any rules, I just believe that somebody doesn't want anyone to know about it. 7. I have tried to be nice, and now you want to banned for doing what I believe is right? Have you guys ever heard of the bill of rights? 8. I had no entintion on making good on whatever threats I may have made but you are just giving me more reasons to make good on them. That would mean that any future members would see your names and they might say "Unfair administration" 9. "Neutral point of view Or no Neutral point of view" There is an articale about Neutral point of view which is a message from the administration to the users, did you guys really mean that or where you jerking me around? 10. The users themselves, the ones that have been hounding me ever since I signed up. I'm pretty sure that others in your posision would look at your actions. 11. I know I mentioned threats but I also mentioned rewards well, from my point of view I can't donate to this site if you are not going to treat me fair, it would be like giving my money to the American Red Cross so they could use the money for things other then what they say it's used for, or Donating money to the Make a Wish foundation and instead of forfilling the wish of a dying child, they use it to get stuff on their own wish lists."To hell with what the children want." 12. Aside from violating your rules, I have not violated any laws here. 13. Some problems I do have with the users are how they have spoken about me. Dlohcierekim I don't speak Endlish; I speak English!!! I didn't start off threatening other editors, I never sent a single a direct threat. So don't say I that I said that was going to come to your house and beat your wife and children because those are the kind lies I've been reading about in this very articale. Gnfnrf You said that their was no proof that Unknown Creature was ever released. Say that to the people who bought and paid for their copies. L%5EBPub When I reposted The SNES game maker the first time, you where the one to have it nominated for deletion, now administration siting Neutral point of view, it's now been allowed to say and it is still up thanks to them. 14. When someone goes on to a blog and ends up posting "spam" that was not their entions. I am a co-addinistrator of a a blog site myself, and me and my partner don't have rules against spam. It is well tolorated there but what would be considered spam would be like taking about sex in one section when your suppose to be talking about The Legend of Zelda. Unless the disscution was like Link and Zelda having sex then we would only object to the adult subject matter in the post. 15. A bribe for donations, you guys would have gotton donations from me anyway I didn't even have to tell you that, it's was odvious. 16. The administration has favored me, much more then the rest of you have. If they wanted to they could have banned you all for life just for messing around with me or they could have banned me long ago. Since administration have shown me good courtesy, then even if you guys still have problems with me, then go to my talk page and tell me all about it. 17. Rob Banzai? Give me a break. Legal threats? Yeah I know a good lawyer. Abused my privilages? I was robbed from the privlage of having an articale about my movie, even after my brother gave me a message saying not to delete when it was up for deletion and they did it anyway. No faith in other editors? Re-phrase that, boy I got more faith with these dudes now then I did yesturday.

In closing then is what I propose, no ban, no future hasty deletions of any new articales that I write. And if there is someone out there who understands what a neutral point of view is, step foward cause I want to hear from ya.

UPDATE: I got the information needed to varify Unknown Creature's copyright right hereRoberttheman2008 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by MER-C
What the original statement of dispute omits is that this is a rather extreme case of article ownership. (For the benefit of Roberttheman2008, you cannot control what happens to the text you submit.) I strongly advise that Roberttheman2008 avoid editing anything to do with "SNES Game Maker" or any other topic where he has a conflict of interest.

And since it hasn't been noted elsewhere, there is a rebuttal of the response on the talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Naturally. MER-C 08:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) MuZemike (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by PhilKnight
In his response, Roberttheman2008 says: 7. I have tried to be nice, and now you want to banned for doing what I believe is right? Have you guys ever heard of the bill of rights?

Based on this statement, and the other evidence, I agree that Roberttheman2008 is a disruptive editor.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) MuZemike (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Cyclopia (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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.

Conclusion
Roberttheman2008 has not edited in a month, and as a result I am closing this with the following conclusion: Should this user return to editing, he is hereby warned not to be disruptive and not to edit in a way that caused this RfC to begin. If he starts up any trouble, any administrator may indefinitely block him. Wizardman 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)