Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bramlet Abercrombie

Moved from case page

 * determinedly tries to always edit and revert to make Jimmy wales the co-founder of wikipedia?? He is the co-founder, what is wrong with sticking to that fact?? And no I am not Bramlet but I do think the "co-founder issue" is very important to this projects credibility. Why do you feel its so important to remove references to Wales being co-founder from this project? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What is important is that if you are Bramlet then the block should be extended for block evasion, this is not the place to engage in content dispute, and your recent reverts make it extremely unlikely you are not Bramlet. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat. I'm not Bramlet. can you please answer the question I asked above? WHY is it so important to you to remove all "co-founder" references from this project??? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have explained that elsewhere, I am not willing to explain again here except to say he is known as the founder and there was clear evidence of trolling ion certain of the co-founder entries, enough IMO to make a good arbcom case, but only necessary if Bramlet does not lose his editing rights completely. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not willing to explain?? Do you want to link to past discussions? It seems that you are unhappy that you haven't gotten your way so you continue to remove ANY reference to Wales being co-founder from this project. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is more past discussion. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not here though though the discussion was at Talk:Jimmy Wales/Archive 9. And no, what I am unhappy with is the behaviour of Bramlet, and especially if he is trying to evade his block. Though when somebody refs Jimbo as co-founder in articles that have nothing to do with Jimbo such as at Mark Fletcher and Mark Taylor (politician) then we have a serious problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am STILL not Bramlet for what its worth. My take is that if Wales is referred to as founder, it should be co-founder. If Wales is mentioned in passing without reference to Wikipedia, then fine, whatever, we don't need to labor or hammer the point. It seems that this discussion has been going on for well over a year and that you have been in the minority opinion but you keep on trying to remove ANY reference to Wales as co-founder. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the two articles you referneced above. Is Wales better known as an Internet entrapenuer or as the co-founder of wikipedia? To me, that is sort of a secondary issue and one I guess I would not battle tooth and nail over. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a compromise, actually he is best known as the founder of wikipedia. That may not have been the case 5 or 6 years ago when he was likely best known as the co-founder and Sanger was better known than now but right now Sanger is not well known and I thus argue that we should call him the founder but as others, and particularly Bramlet, strongly disagree, Jossie recommended this Internet entrepreneur compromise. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving this to talk. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)