Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roberttheman2008

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. 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: 15:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC).

Roberttheman2008 (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

Roberttheman2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has responded to a proposed deletion of an article in which he currently involved with, The SNES Game Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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 trying to give orders in an AfD discussion [1].
Evidence of improper canvassing [2].
Evidence of trying to give orders and admitting to having a conflict of interest [3].
Evidence of bellicose attitude, incivility, and giving more orders [4]
Evidence of further incivility [5]

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:TROLL — User fits the definition of an Internet troll.

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 [6]
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)[reply]

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 [7]
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 [8]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

JuJube (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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. Roberttheman2008 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

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:

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.