Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tedescoboy22

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: 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
User:Tedescoboy22 seems to have a personal vendetta against articles about Transformers characters. He has nominated many of them for deletion with invalid deletion rationales, such as "No coverage on CNN, Fox News, etc." or simply "Cruft". He has made callous comments on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers, suggesting that all articles about Transformers characters be summarily deleted just because of their subject. User:Mathewignash has accused Tedescoboy22 of stalking him, nominating every Transformers character article Mathewignash edits for deletion.

Desired outcome
Tedescoboy22 should stop creating AfD nominations and comments with invalid deletion rationales. He should also stop making callous comments on talk pages of WikiProjects and other Wikipedia users.

Description
Tedescoboy22 has only been on Wikipedia for about a month, since late September 2010. In this time, the vast majority of his work has been blatantly attacking articles about individual Transformers characters. His first Transformers-related edit was to the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers, where he immediately suggested that Wikipedia editors should nominate all articles about Transformers characters for deletion. He has since nominated several such articles for deletion, and commented on nominations by other editors, usually with: "No coverage on CNN, Fox News, etc." or a minor variation thereof (only changing the TV network names). This is an invalid deletion rationale, because one can't really expect toys or fictional characters to be covered on TV news in order to be notable, especially ones that were created two and a half decades ago. Tedescoboy22 has grown more callous in his comments, even proposing that a Wikipedia admin should delete all Transformers character articles on sight, just because they are about Transformers characters. I am a Wikipedia admin myself and I think that if I did that, I would be immediately de-admined. Tedescoboy22 has made flippant comments like "Stop Hatin'" or "Chill out. I am trying to enjoy my Sunday." on User:Divebomb's talk page. User:Mathewignash has accused Tedescoboy22 of nominating every Transformers character article Mathewignash edits for deletion.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Tedescoboy22 suggests all Transformers character articles be nominated for deletion.
 * Tedescoboy22 uses an invalid rationale to delete Landshark (Transformers).
 * The same, on Ransack.
 * The same, on Windburn (Transformers).
 * Tedescoboy22 nominates Shrapnel (Transformers) for deletion with an invalid rationale.
 * Tedescoboy22 tells User:Divebomb to "Stop Hatin'".
 * Tedescoboy22 uses an invalid rationale to delete Megaplex (Transformers).
 * Tedescoboy22 nominates Dirge (Transformers) for deletion with an invalid rationale.
 * Tedescoboy22 uses an invalid rationale to delete Hailstorm (Transformers).
 * The same, on Omega Sentinel.
 * Tedescoboy22 suggests all Transformers character articles be immediately deleted.
 * Tedescoboy22 uses an invalid rationale to delete Laser Rods.
 * Tedescoboy22 tells User:Divebomb to "Chill".
 * Tedescoboy22 nominates Lugnut (Transformers) for deletion, with a rationale stating simply "Thug cruft".
 * Tedescoboy22 nominates Rage (Transformers) for deletion, with a rationale stating simply "Cruft".
 * Tedescoboy22 uses an invalid rationale to delete Yoketron.

Applicable policies and guidelines
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly "It's cruft".

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * User:Divebomb asks Tedescoboy22 to stop nominating Transformers character articles for deletion.
 * User:Malkinann does the same.
 * User:Mathewignash accuses Tedescoboy22 of stalking him.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers Many editors reject Tedescoboy22's suggestion on sight. I and User:Divebomb agree on opening an RFC about him after an SPI has concluded he is not a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:Claritas.

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


 * --Divebomb (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * J I P &#124; Talk 06:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --Divebomb (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NotARealWord (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tarc (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is unaccaptable behaviour. Given the user's strange behaviour on Articles for deletion/Muhammad Mustafa Khalil Muhammad Ibrahim el-Hasani el-Makki el-Baghdadi, claiming a hoax article should be kept and made a featured article, I think it's likely Tedescoboy22 is just a troll who found a convenient vector to trolling an easy target (Mathewignash) by AFDing his Transformer articles with inane nomination statements and appears to have moved on to other more obvious things.  Regardless, Tedescoboy22 clearly isn't here to help us build an encylopedia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problems go back further than the RFC originator described. This user's 3rd and 4th  edits are also calls for indiscriminate AFD creation.  Combined with the explicit Nazi references used in the first diff cited in the evidence above, the reservoir of good faith for this SPA seems likely to be exhausted. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this user's conduct as well, and it's been ridiculously point-y. I agree that the facetious rationales presented above are highly inappropriate.--hkr Laozi speak  20:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I go with Serpent's Choice's assessment - the problematic behaviour started sooner than JIP described. Despite the replies he has received that say that mass nominating/bot nominating etc. are not appropriate, he continued to advocate this in a way that seems to me like a refusal to "get the point".--Malkinann (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of Claritas, but worse. BOZ (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I originally thought his deletion rationales were curious, but probably due to lack of experience. Observing his continued behavior and refusal to take advice and criticism, I agree that this user is just here to be annoying. --Khajidha (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2010 (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.'' ''


 * Procedural Note. is currently blocked. They have been given an opportunity to participate here, however, and may do so by posting a response on their talk page. I or another editor will then post the response in this section. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * has been indefinitely blocked and can no longer edit his talk page, after making it clear he did not wish to engage in further discussion. --Stephen 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

{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
''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.''

Outside view by Sven Manguard
Call a troll a troll. Do not feed the trolls.

What we have here is a formula of abuse that works almost every time at riling people up, and has worked here as well. He took a popular subject and starting trying to delete parts of it. He uses the proper channels and procedures, but mixes in mind boggling stupidity and hate speech. It is likely that he is smarter that he makes himself appear, isn't a Nazi sympathizer, and has nothing against Transformers, this is simply a means to an end. That end is becoming a nuisance and attracting negative attention. The user follows policy just enough to prevent an outright block, and dances on the line of civility without going far enough to warrant an immediate block for that either. The user has succeeded in drawing out the problem this far, and is likely to enjoy the additional negitive attention he receives as the process drags on.

Abusers of this type will not go away easily, they thrive on the attention we are giving them. I recommend a month long block. In that time, expect sockpuppetry, as attention seeking vandals are much more likely to create them than impulse vandals are. The sockpuppetry will give you a justification for an indef block of the main account, but I recommend against that, it will just cause him to go to additional socks. Just keep blocking the socks, with as little contact with the user as possible, going as far as to ignore uncivil remarks and personal attacks completely. Oversighting any vandalism he creates will be effective at convincing him that his vandalism has no impact, but I do believe Oversight cannot be used in this way. ''Remember, the key here is to starve him of the negative attention he is seeking. Responding to his baiting will only increase activity.''

TLDR The user is seeking negitive attention, and based on the beheavior I have witnessed, is an expert at getting it. The key here is to starve him of the attention he is craving. Block the main account, block his socks, oversight if possible, but do not engage. The only way to get rid of this type of vandal is to ignore him until he grows bored.

This is my assessment of the matter. Sven Manguard Talk  04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As poster. Sven Manguard  Talk  04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Given that the user seems to know the jargon, I suppose he already is the sockpuppet of a previous editor. I would guess that Checkuser does not go far enough back to figurte out which one, but I may be wrong there if anyone wishes to follow up that side of things.   DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Seconded on User:DGG's assessment. I think I could name the SP based on the targets and the way they are being nominated.  Block and watch for new editors coming in with the same vector for a confirmed SP kill. Hasteur (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) --hkr Laozi speak   15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{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:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.