Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rainbowwarrior1977

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 20:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

Rainbowwarrior1977 (talk · contribs) has engaged in a series of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. He has:

  • Engaged in personal attacks against other users
  • Engaged in RfA fraud
  • Engaged in article vandalism
  • Engaged in userpage vandalism
  • Engaged in misuse of CSD templates
  • Engaged in sockpuppetry
  • Engaged in disruption of VfD
  • Used insulting and/or attacking edit summaries
  • Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions
  • Lied repeatedly about himself, and attacked users who questioned his claims

This user appears to be a sockpuppet of Musachachado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). He confirms this himself in this edit. A large number of his edits are for the purpose of harassing/attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Engaged in personal attacks against other users:
  2. Engaged in RfA fraud
  3. Engaged in article vandalism
  4. Engaged in userpage vandalism
  5. Engaged in misuse of CSD templates
  6. Engaged in sockpuppetry
  7. Engaged in disruption of VfD
    • Fatherland (novel) - Nominated for VfD due to editorial debate, resorts to personal attacks against original editors
    • Ainu people - Nominated for VfD due to disagreement about use of EB 1911, resorts to personal attacks on article talk page
    • Anglo-saxon hunting - Valid VfD (original research) of an article he composed, unfortunately it also degrades into personal attacks on the article talk page
    • Túpac Amaru II - Nominated for VfD due to editorial dispute
  8. Used insulting and/or attacking edit summaries
  9. Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions
  10. Lied repeatedly about himself, and attacked users who questioned his claims

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:Vandalism
  3. WP:SOCK
  4. WP:BLOCK For evading a block with a sockpuppet. [1]
  5. WP:CIVIL
  6. WP:RFA
  7. WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Casito attempts to resolve the "legal threats" dispute
  2. Manning Bartlett warns about CSD violations. Twice.
  3. Linuxbeak warns about RfA. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbowwarrior1977&diff=20421991&oldid=20421434 And blocks for 30 mins.
  4. Uncle Ed warns about CSD abuse.
  5. Rusty2005 warns about civility.
  6. Soltak warns about deception. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbowwarrior1977&diff=20491255&oldid=20490172 Twice. And adds a note about NPA and civility.
  7. I raised the alarm on AN/I.
  8. Ryan tries to reason with him.
  9. Zscout370 also tries reasoning.
  10. Numerous editors commented at the RfA.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Essjay · Talk 23:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Soltak · Talk 00:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Thatdog 00:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ryan 00:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 02:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Manning 03:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Rusty2005 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Scimitar parley 19:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  10. Casito⇝Talk 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  11. This needs Arbitration. Redwolf24 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I will be glad to cancel my signature if Rainbowwarrior1977 will agree to any of the suggestions to try to cooperate with other Wikipedians. Robert McClenon 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. His response indicates to me a severe lack of non-contriteness and an unwillingness to cooperate. I'd be in favour of taking this right up to ArbCom. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 05:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other involved users

  1. I haven't given up resolving the dispute yet. I advised LinuxBeak (via IRC) to try a short block first. There have been no other blocks since that 30-minute block. Uncle Ed 00:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT HONORABLE MR. RAINBOWARRIOR1977. Please note that a Request for comment must be initiated when "two people . . . 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." (see above) The instant Request for Comment does not in any way state with particularity what "dispute" is being addressed. Rather this RfC is simply a hodgepode of different allegations grouped together. On the other RfC pages each and every one of them concerned ONE specific dispute to be discussed, not a scattershot panoply of varied issues, most of which in the instant case are simply mere snippets from the record taken out of context.

Therefore, I move to dismiss this Request for Comment on the grounds of non-specificity, to wit, the procedure for the initiation of said request was not followed.Rainbowwarrior1977 04:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Response to Response

User:Rainbowwarrior1977 has responded that this RfC is inappropriate because it covers multiple allegations. The essence of the arguement appears to be that RfC is not the place to handle users who engage in more than one form of disruption. While I deny that an RfC of this nature is outside the perview of RfC, if it is the consensus of the community that RfC is not equipped to handle multi-incident reports, I am willing to withdraw this RfC. If RfC is not equipped to handle the matter, it can easily be referred the Arbitration Committee, which is most certainly equipped and empowered to investigate allegations of "multi-incident disruption" and has a far broader spectrum of sanctions at its disposal.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Essjay · Talk 12:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rusty2005 18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soltak's Response to Response

User:Rainbowwarrior1977 asserts that this RfC covers multiple instances and is therefore not valid. I disagree. The primary assertion of this RfC is that User:Rainbowwarrior1977 has, and I quote, "engaged in a series of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia." All supporting statements are just that; they support the statement that User:Rainbowwarrior1977 has engaged in disruptive behavior. If User:Rainbowwarrior1977 refuses to respond to these allegations with anything better than "I committed so many offenses this doesn't count" I move that this case be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Soltak · Talk 19:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rusty2005 18:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Robert McClenon 02:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. In the strongest possible terms. -- Essjay · Talk 03:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Response to Response, perhaps a Rebuttal

This process is reminding me of a show trial in a totalitarian regime. For all the talk of "consensus" you are going to do what you want; It is obvious a "consensus" here will be whatever the dominant handful of admins want at any particular time, procedure be damned.

That being said, I still contend that you cannot ignore your own stated procedure for initiating a RfC, which is clearly and in plain language expressed at the top of this page. If you simply waive these requirements by "consenus" it would be akin to mob rule, as I'm sure you can understand.

These issues alluded to in the RfC need to be stated with more particularity, as per the directive. I would suggest 1) withdrawing this RfC and refiling each count separately (to lessen confusion and to promote a more concentrated discussion of the topic), or 2) withdrawing the RfC and refiling one with several related issues framed as more specific "disputes" we can discuss.

Furthermore, the RfC procedure requires that for a dispute to be certified, two members must sign off on it. Since the RfC was only made to handle one specific dispute at a time, it only makes sense that if you want to have an RfC with mulitiple topics you should have two users sign off for each particular issue to make them valid. To do otherwise would be grossly inequitable to the adverse party...say two users certify a bona fide dispute on a specific issue, then user #1 piggybacks a laundry-list of other non-certified "disputes" on the same RfC. I'm sure you can see how that would be unfair.

As for the second user "signing" the RfC, should there not be some "standing" requirement for that second user? As I see it now, there are several users who signed this RfC, but one cannot tell which of the many overbroad disputes they are endorsing, and even if they have any particular involvement in the dispute. Once again, it would be grossly inequitable if some of those endorsing this RfC were doing so as favors to friends and not out of any personal involvement in the dispute. I know Essjay has been bouncing around various user pages drumming up votes against me, but that's another matter entirely.

Unless these serious procedural objections are addressed and remedied, I cannot in good faith proceed to address any substantive allegations contained in this request. Thank you and Viva Peru!Rainbowwarrior1977 19:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zscout370's Response to Response to Response to Response

About the first comment, admins are not the only ones who can respond to this RfC and usually, the admins will try to show good faith and seeing if you, looking at what you have done, is willing to stop the behavoir and show effort to improve it.

The certification has already been done, we have 10 people signing it, well over the two we need to even have this RfC existing. If this was not certified, this page would not have existed. Plus, multiple problems have to have occured before people even wish to bring up an RfC against a user. When a user signs or endorses a RfC, they are endorsing the problems being raised: that is why we have the evidence and the recap of the issues being discussed here. And, if the users agree that this is a valid and waranted RfC, then they can sign. Those who are directly involved with one of the issues, they can endorse. Those who are not part of the dispute, but agree to what is being done, they go to the other's section. Others, who are also not involved with the dispute, can also state their issues and get comments. One more thing, even if this RfC fails, you have admitted in an edit (which is shown at the top and bottom of this page) to being a sockpuppet of a banned user. That, itself, can warrant a block without the use of a RfC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology?

I'm sure I speak for all of us, Rainbowwarrior1977, when I say that using flowery language is not going to hide the fact that you have launched personal attacks without any provocation, and that your editing history and RfA are not up to Wikipedia standards. I noticed a user below suggested that we should rehabilitate you if you could prove that you had "grown out" of this aggressive phase. So, how about an apology for your previous actions? You're clearly an intelligent and well-educated person, and despite your unprovoked attacks and increasingly bizarre lies, you could be a useful contributor in the future. So, how about a little word of apology? Rusty2005 19:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you're not impressing anyone by comparing Wikipedia to "a totalitarian regime".

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Soltak 20:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rusty2005 20:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Robert McClenon 11:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment.I cant understand why you persist in claiming that I made unprovoked attacks. It was your fried Soltak that, out of the blue mind you, began to berate me for "lies," etc on my own talk page. I was just defending myself against his vehemence. Secondly, what exactly are the "increasingly bizzare" lies that you mention? I mention that I dated whose mum teaches at Cambridge to you...do you think I would lie to someone that actually is in the history dept. of Cambridge himself about this? Next thing I know your buddy Soltak is jumping all over me in a "hissy fit." If anything, he is the one that owes US an apology. In any case, take a look at this here: Rule against perpetuities. Does this look like the work of a person whos edits aren't up to standards?Rainbowwarrior1977 20:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Response A couple of things to rebut there. First of all, the comments I made on your talk page are supplied as evidence above and they weren't attacks, they were facts. As far as this Cambridge professor you continue to allude to, she doesn't exist; I checked. With respect to the quality of your edits, that's hardly the issue. No one disputes that you have supplied quality articles, it's your, shall we say, extracurricular activities that are at issue here. -Soltak 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Reply. Oh, but she does exist. Ask your colleague Rusty. Besides, my original comment was about Larissa, not her. I see no need to get so excited about it. Rainbowwarrior1977 05:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Read the Cali talkpage, Rainbowwarrior. Read your comments there. Don't they deserve an explanation and apology? And I would like an apology for being called a "troll". And Soltak would like a reply for being called a "redneck". And we would all like an apology for your actions in requesting deletion over and over. I don't care about your involvement with this "Larissa" (assuming she even exists), just apologise for your actions in the aforementioned contexts, and then we can rehabilitate you and you can continue living in your little fantasy world Rusty2005 10:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Living in your little fantasy world" my dear boy? I say that talking to me like that is going to get you nowhere, especially in the context of asking for an apology. I am flabbergasted that you seem upended by this whole Larissa situation -- could it be that I accomplished more with Cambridge chicks in one summer studying abroad than you have even to this day . . . even though you live there? Based on your nervous attacks concerning this matter, aye, I believe that might be the case. Rainbowwarrior1977 18:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final request by Sasquatch

This is basically the rewording of my view below into a formal request
We all can agree the Rainbowwarrior1977 has some good edits and seems knowlegable in he law filed (see my view below). But most of also agree the user has been rather disruptive, rude and ignorant of other user's at their attempts to communicate with this user. Despite that, we can also agree there is some hope left for this user and if he becomes a good editor and adhere's to Wikipedia policy, he would be more than welcome in this community. That being said, I suggest we give this user one last chance. This RfC has definetly been a wake-up call to him that mudslinging is not acceptable on Wikipedia and disruption of the community along with ignoring the rules is also unacceptable here. I suggest the following remedies that he and the rest of the community endorse: 1) he apoligize everybody who he has offended on Wikipedia sincerely and with a nice tone 2) the community close this RfC and forgive and forget his previous edits 3) that he take a voluntary break from editing on Wikipedia for 2 weeks 4) that he chose 1 account for himself to use and only one 5) we unblock PamStar after his Wikibreak, giving him the benefit of the doubt but should anyone use that account for abuse, it will be reblocked 6) upon his return, he shall contact me about his return and I shall take a watch to his edits for at least 3 months and he shall not argue with my judgements of his behaviour, in essence, I will act as a wiki-mentor for his behaviour on Wikipedia. Should these terms be accepted by all parties involved, I would love to see Rainbowwarrior1977 get back to ediing after his wikibreak so that he is more calm and ready to co-operate with the community. Should he continue unacceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, I see no choice but to continue to block all accounts used by him for abuse of other members as that is clearly unacceptable on Wikipedia and in civilized society. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 21:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary/solution (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 21:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  2. -- BD2412 talk 21:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC). I agree, to the extent that this seems to be the alternative to a permanent ban. Mentoring would certainly help.
  3. I may be naive to think that any sort of interim solution will help, but I agree. Robert McClenon 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soltak's response to final request by Sasquatch

I'm afraid I can't find this to be an acceptable outcome. I disagree that this RfC has been a wake-up call. It appears to have simply been one more thing for Rainbowwarrior to respond to with a self-righteous, condescending attitude. Rather than even bother responding to the charges, he delivered a lecture on RfC procedure.

At this point, I really don't care if he could become a quality contributor to Wikipedia. His past actions show that he has no desire to do so. In addition, we must take into consideration the fact that it has been proven with complete certainty that Rainbowwarrior is Musachachado, a user who was previously banned for his abusive behavior. It's quite obvious to me that he hasn't changed.

The only acceptable outcome is his being blocked indefinitely, if for no other reason than he circumvented a previous block.

Just as a small note as I doubt it will make a difference on your opinions but the indefinite block was so that he could email User:David Gerard about which account he wanted see the block log entry. Again, I hardly expect sympathy for what he has done but if he does decide to turn it around, one more good contributor is better than a bitter alienated one. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 04:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary/solution (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Soltak 21:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Essjay · Talk 03:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rusty2005 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Soltak's response to final request by Sasquatch

1. It would be remiss to not try to rebut the charges procedurally before moving on to substantive debate. This does not show any lack of good faith on my part, is is just a standard method of operation in any adversarial situation. I did not mean it to offend anyone.

2. My positive substantive contributions to the articles far outweigh any negative feelings engendered on my comments on user pages. After all, Wikipedia is about the ARTICLES, not our vanity pages. People log onto this project to explore substantive topics, not to read our daily blogging.

3. It seems incongruous that you complain about any "attacks" I have made when you and your colleague Rusty2005 were the ones that started attacking me about Larissa, in ongoing posts such as [edit], and [talk page]. I understand how some of my posts on user pages were offensive, and I apologise for those, but regarding the comments about me initiated by Soltak and Rusty2005 over a girl I knew over 10 years ago, I cannot and should not apologise. If anything, those two owe me an apology for the snide commentary that they initiated.

4. I admitted that this account was created to replace that of "Musachachado," which was my very first experience on Wikipedia and an account that I admit I used primarily for childish pranks. What you are NOT telling the readers is that I admitted such because I NOTIFIED an administrator, "Pharos," that I was using this account since my first account got blocked within days of my creating it. Pharos said he was okay with it, since I was brand new, and that he would be accepting of "reformed vandals." Since then, the great majority of my substantive (article) edits on this service have been constructive. Therefore, blocking me simply because I was "Musachachado," while upholding the letter of your policy, would violate the spirit of it, since my behaviour on here as Rainbowwarrior1977 has been more productive than under Musachachado (who was wholly vandalistic). This is butressed in that I created this "sockpuppet" account with the tacit permission of an administrator, Pharos. Ask him.

5. This comment falls outside the scope of the statment that I am rebutting, but [this post] Essjay admits that "an RfC will be filed against him shortly as a preparatory step to having him permabanned." Thus, Essay filed this RfC only as a pretext for my eventual banishment. The administrator that filed this RfC therefore had already made up his mind about me -- even before giving me a chance to respond. Is that really fair? Is that really the way things are done?

Signed Rainbowwarrior1977 05:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casito's endorsement of Soltak's response

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig enjoys it." I wish someone could tell me where this proverb comes from, because it sure applies in this case. After a week of cleaning up after Musachachado and his sockpuppets (ie. Rainbowwarrior1977), it is my belief that he thrives on creating discord, and the attention that it brings; he no doubt even finds this RFC fun.

I was one of the first people to identify his vandalism streak. It was I who listed him on VIP, and identified several of his sockpuppets. I left warnings on his talk pages, to which he replied with as much vitriol and sarcasm as anyone can muster. This has continued for weeks, even after I told him he was to never post on my talk page again. Much of what he said about me on other pages, especially in edit summaries was very troubling.

While anyone could clean up his own act, this user shows no intention of doing so. He once left an edit summery that he was henceforth making only valuable edits and failed to follow through; I suspect it was a ploy of some kind. While he has made several indisputably good edits, I would argue that they were made for the sole purpose of appearing to be a good-faith user, rather than genuine contribution. The day we deem him rehabilitated will be the first day of his second vandalism streak.

Furthermore, every valid contribution he makes is counterbalanced many times over by the time we waste cleaning up after his maliciousness and arguing over his fate. I submit that the harm done by restricting his speech and ceasing his valid edits would be much less than the harm caused by his malevolence.

Finally, I feel that he has some sort of peculiar fascination with me, and causing me grief. I fully expect him to make trouble for me as long as he can.

Users who endorse this summary/solution (sign with ~~~~):

  1. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 00:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Soltak 00:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Essjay · Talk 03:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Rusty2005 10:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay's response to Rainbowwarrior1977

I've had enough of this. This project is about creating an ecyclopedia, and that is not accomplished when dozens of editors have to waste thier time fixing the disruption caused by a single user. You have made no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that the evidence presented above is anything but an accurate reflection of your actions. Instead, you have sought technicalities to avoid being held responsbile for your actions, while never failing to seize an opportunity to attack the individuals who are dedicated to this project. I believe that it is your intent to inflict as much damage and disruption upon this site as possible, and I have believed that since I begain the reserach for this RfC. I believed you should be banned then, and I belive you should be banned now. You're exactly right that RfC is the first step in having an individual blocked indefinately, and now I am going to take the second: I'm filing an RfAr with the Arbitration Committee. -- Essjay · Talk 11:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The deed is done: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rainbowwarrior1977. -- Essjay · Talk 12:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


  • You have my full support. He refuses to apologise and insteads tries (and fails) to hide behind flowery language. He's had his chance to reform, but has thrown it back in our faces. Get rid of him and let us get on with something useful. He's wasted enough of our time already.Rusty2005 12:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This RfC has not even gone on for 2 days. Any 3d party reading the text of this RfC will see I have made several defenses that you choose simply to ignore. I have also been attempting to apologise per Sasquatch's instructions; an attempt you choose to ignore. It is obvious that you are going to do what you already wanted to do and any overtures to procedure are mere pretext for your plotting.Rainbowwarrior1977 18:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I see you have no intention to live up to the note you placed on my talk page. Had I not seen this, I was going to suggest to the ArbCom that you be placed under the mentorship of Sasquatch. Given the posts here and elsewhere, however, I see no intent to change, and will continue with the RfAr. -- Essjay · Talk 02:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this sign with a ~~~~:

  1. Rusty2005 12:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section.

[edit] Zzyzx11's view

Musachachado was blocked indefinitely for being an abusive sockpuppet [2]. Therefore, since Rainbowwarrior1977 admits to being Musachachado [3], I think another indefinite block is warranted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (While I certified the debate, if he/she is clearly a sock puppet, then by all means do what we need to do.)
  2. Ryan 04:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC). I also endorsed this RFC, but it appears that an indefinite block is not only appropriate but warranted.
  4. Soltak 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC) I also endorsed the RfC but as Rainbowwarior1977 has admitted to being Musachachado that is all the evidence necessary for an indefinite block.
  5. Scimitar parley 19:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rusty2005 19:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Essjay · Talk 03:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  8. The Literate Engineer 04:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by McClenon

I have not signed the original RfC. That is only because I am waiting for an answer from Rainbowwarrior1977. It appears from what I have seen that there is a very strong case.

There are many statements listed that are said to be lies. They cannot all be true. Rainbowwarrior1977 claims to be a lawyer. He also claims to be 15 years old. He also claims to be married to a lady who says that she was born in 1990, and so is also 15. I know that occasionally child prodigies graduate from college when they are very young, but it was my understanding that only adults could be admitted to the legal practice of law.

I see a great deal of evidence that Rainbowwarrior1977 has been uncivil. I would overlook that, because many people make mistakes, and being civil is difficult. However, I also see a history of repeatedly requesting admin power and threatening people with it.

I will sign this RfC unless Rainbowwarrior1977 will provide a defense. Robert McClenon 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Response

Rainbowwarrior1977 says that he has not been charged with any one offense, but a scattering of various offenses. Many previous user conduct RfCs also involve multiple violations by the user in question.

I do not understand exactly how Rainbowwarrior1977 thinks that his response is a defense. Does he mean that if a user makes personal attacks, and also commits vandalism, there should be two RfCs? Robert McClenon 12:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sasquatch

Although this user has been disruptive in the past, he has recently asked me to come look at this RfC on my talk page. Although this user has been disruptive, he has made a few good edits relating to the law articles (see [4] and [5]). Although I do not defend his actions, I would suggest that a) he take a Wikibreak from editing for a couple of weeks and b) upon returning he agrees to be under some sort of mentorship agreement where his actions are carefully monitored (I would not mind doing something like this) and that he takes advice on how to act properly on Wikipedia inline with WP policy. Concerning the fact that he is creating sockpuppet accounts, all of those should remain banned and he will have have to remain under one and only username of his choice. I am willing to help, for lack of a better word, nurture this user into a better Wikipedian if he and the rest of the community are willing to give him one last chance. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 05:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by BD2412

I agree with Sasquatch on the point that this user has made some good contributions to law-related articles - for a while, I thought that two people with very different personalities must be employing this username! Clearly, this user is not 15 years old, although it's not our place to correct disinformation on his user page. I believe that his objectionable behavior may be (or may have been) a sort of newbie phase, and I suggest he be given the opportunity to show that he has outgrown it. His participation in this RfC (and his requests for assistance with it) evince a desire to continue the productive aspects of his relationship with Wikipedia. I agree that all sockpuppets of this user should be banned, and that his interactions will bear watching for a while. -- BD2412 talk 15:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.