From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 May I call your attention to WP:RFC 1.1 Other users who do not endorse this summary 1.2 Users who do not endorse this summary 2 Sections removed from freakofnurture's summary 2.1 Response 2.2 Response 2.2.1 Response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response 2.3 Response 2.4 Response 3 Another removed section 3.1 Response to response to response to response to response to response... 4 More removals 4.1 Trying to prevent another page move block 4.2 More infobox mayhem 4.3 The purpose of this dispute 4.4 Wikipedia:Assume bad faith 4.5 References 4.6 While We Were Doing This 4.7 Wikibreak 4.8 GNAA affiliation 4.9 Discussion under SPUI's surreply moved from project page

[edit] May I call your attention to WP:RFC

"Specifically, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement discussing how you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends be a confrontational act and usually creates more heat than light."

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I concur, and take this time to plug Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Improvement drive. The current structure is too devisive. This is also why I'm opposed to stopping mediation per the notes I'm about to place on the page. - brenneman^{L} 06:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment are not much more than "bash this editor" pages. They rarely have a positive outcome. But they're not much hurt by having "you are well out of order" sections. Whether someone expresses that as a disendorsement or as an outside view, it amounts to the same thing. You just don't like it because you think a "request for comment" is a "request for pile-on". Try a bit harder to sort out your problem with SPUI. He's not entirely deranged. Grace Note 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We've tried. We get "snide comments" for our efforts. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

May I assume that you did not bother to look at any, not even one, of the diffs provided? Because otherwise it's difficult to see how you could come to believe that, gosh, all ya gotta do is try a little harder with the irrepressible li'l scamp. Any positive suggestions you can offer regarding what we can try that we haven't already tried, other than bending over and shouting "Thank you sir may I have another!" are of course welcome. --phh 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. We've tried ALL other avenues, made concessions, and tried to be cordial... it hasn't done any good. He'll do what he wants to do and doesn't give a damn what the rest of us think. JohnnyBGood 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you guys call it vandalism if I put a {{Portal US Roads}} on the RFC? :) --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the contex of how and where you place it. If it's put on as part of an expose then no. If it's put on just for the sake of putting it on and you write "Fuck you all" in the edits summary... then yes.JohnnyBGood 00:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just a box in the upper right corner. Just like other road-related pages. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a disruptive contex. JohnnyBGood 22:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who do not endorse this summary

this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC: "Do not create disendorsement sections."

1. Oh for Christ's sake, stop harassing this person already. Silensor 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   I hate to be like this, but that's probably not very helpful. There are real issues here, though whether this is the right venue, or whether all the issues listed above are valid, is unclear. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

2. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
3. seriously people... stop intentionally provoking SPUI.  ALKIVAR™ 10:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

   Same as for Silensor, I guess. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

4. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
5. atanamir 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Likewise. He's edited more than everyone testifying on this meaningless page combined. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Aren't we supposed to all be equal here? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   • Sounds like someone's got a case of editcountitis. --phh 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
7. The proper title for an article (or form of title for a class of articles) is essentially a content dispute. Being involved in a content dispute, or making a disputed edit, is not grounds for disciplinary action. Kurt Weber 03:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

   Except for when things get out of hand, as they have here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

8. Chick Bowen 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
9.  Grue  20:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
10. — Apr. 4, '06 [10:06] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

[edit] Users who do not endorse this summary

this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC: "Do not create disendorsement sections."

1. Don't distract the issue that is at hand. And for the record I was proven not to be a sockpuppet by a checkuser but left blocked anyway by several admins anyway. Seems like an abuse of power if you ask me. Rschen was the only one curteous enough to even respond to me which the blocking admin didnt' do after over 48 hours. Also any editing of redirects was done to protect them from ill concieved and non-consensus mass page moves by the user whose RFC we are currently engaged in as he would not respond to any other method or discussion or prevention. Also lest we not forget your seeming... attachment to jumping to SPUIs defense the moment someone has a conflict with him, engaging in wheel warring, etc... Also on a seperate note, WTF does me archiving my usertalk page have to do with anything? It's still readily accessible via links at the top of my talk page. I did respond to you on your talk page if you'd be so kind as to remember. Gateman1997 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

   Comment: CheckUser can never prove someone to not be a sockpuppet; it can only find certain types of evidence that someone is a sockpuppet. If CheckUser finds no evidence, that says nothing one way or the other. Phr 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

   I disagree. Checkuser is one of the most solid pieces of evidence to support a sock claim. Failure of a checkuser to find anything supporting such a claim is implicit support of the opposite from IMO. Innocent until proven guilty is the term I believe. And since someone or someones who pass checkuser are unable to be proven guilty... they are innocent. Gateman1997 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Disagree. See my comments above. And yes this seems hypocritical to disendorse a viewpoint (for the talk page readers) but noone's doing anything about it so I do not see the harm... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
3. In three years editing at Wikipedia I have never, ever seen a case where so many admins, people who have been given a considerable amount of trust by the community, have been so intent on not only excusing and enabling a user who is clearly and knowingly acting in a disruptive manner while on probation, but also on abusing and being dismissive toward anyone who suggests that, maybe, something ought to be done about the situation. There are a lot of people here, and I trust I don't need to name any names, who really need to take a long hard look at themselves. --phh 23:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections removed from freakofnurture's summary

this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC

[edit] Response

• "These blocks were quickly recognized as inappropriate and were undone by Brian0918, MarkGallagher, and FCYTravis." And yourself. Don't forget the three times that you unblocked SPUI when you were requested not to.^{[citation needed]} SPUI's block log. And the other unblocking admins expressed some reservations about their unblocks. (diff coming)
• The Locke Cole incident was where a decision was handed down by a few admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84 to block anyone who mass page moved roads pages. Locke Cole mass moved many pages [7] and I warned then blocked when the moves continued. However, Locke Cole claimed that he/she did not receive the warning until the block came. When this user said that they would not mass move any more pages, I unblocked after 15 minutes. Locke Cole's block log
  • First off, you and "a few admins" don't arbitrarily expand the blocking policy on AN/I. There's a reason policies are hard to change, afterall, and deciding off in some smoke filled room that you're going to block people for something not covered in WP:BLOCK is ridiculous. Further, your block was in direct violation of WP:BLOCKs provision for "when not to block". You were then, at that very moment, involved in the dispute with me. It was highly inappropriate to block, and then demand that I stop the activities you disagreed with if I expected to be unblocked (see my talk page for evidence of this). Further, when the pages were mass moved back by another editor who should have been aware of your so-called page-move ban, you opted to do nothing (demonstrating the double standard you're using when applying blocks). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • We decided that the mass 300+ page moves were disrupting Wikipedia. That does fall under WP:BLOCK. I was only carrying out the policy. Just as in if AFD has already decided to delete something, does it matter who does the deleting? I chose not to block PHenry because I unblocked you, and he probably did this in good faith. I don't find it worthwhile to block him for 15 minutes (length of time that you were blocked). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Look, I'm trying not to be rude about this: you and a few sysops do not arbitrarily create new policy. Got it? You don't. No matter what you think in your head convinces you that you do, you don't. WP:BLOCK does not support expanding it on a whim as you (and the other sysops) seem to think it does. Further, nothing you say justifies blocking someone you are involved in the dispute with (and further, insisting that the blocked editor agree not to continue in order to be unblocked). Nothing justifies it, ever. BTW: Your AFD example is also wrong. If you voted in an AFD, then closed the debate and deleted the page (especially if that was your preferred choice) it is totally inappropriate. I don't know that deletion policy codifies that it's inappropriate, but WP:BLOCK does (under "when not to block"). You only made it worse by insisting I stop in order to be unblocked. If you really believed it was a blockable offense, the appropriate action was to ask an uninvolved 3rd party sysop to intervene. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • No, but we can interpret policy. SPUI said it himself at {{Project U.S. Roads}}- the edit wars are disruption. Moving 200-300 pages is disruption. Also, my AFD example did not include closing it. Suppose an article is closed with consensus to delete already- does it matter who hits the delete button? No. And was I supposed to wait for another admin to respond? Meanwhile, while you continued to move all 150ish Washington State Route pages and created a larger mess? And disrupted Wikipedia more? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Who was edit warring? The pages had only ever been moved by me. The last revert on List of Washington State Routes complained that the page I preferred was linking to redirects, so I tried to fix that. Moving 200-300 pages is not disruption; every non-sysop action can generally be undone by another editor. I like how you paint my good faith editing as "disruption" though; could you assume bad faith more please? Finally, back to the AFD example: if someone closes it with a result of delete it's presumably a sysop (since regular editors should only be closing obvious keep results). And if a sysop is closing a debate as delete but not actually deleting it, as someone who has a vested interest in the result you should seek another sysops assistance in finalizing the close. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
            • You were furthering the edit war already going on. I know that you were aware of the dispute before you staarted mass moving pages, and that you knew you were only furthering the dispute. From Wikipedia:Disruption: "Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially." Mass page moves disrupt Wiki technically because of the double redirects formed and the mess of the edit histories. They disrupt Wiki socially because of the strife that ensues when edit warring. Such as this RFC. Administratively? I could be editing more articles right now and stuff. But lately about 75-80% of my Wikipedia time has been taken up by fixing SPUI's moves and infoboxes and stuff. How do mass page moves not disrupt Wikipedia? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Mass page moves, on their own, do not disrupt Wikipedia. And FYI: you're not "fixing" anything. You're undoing SPUI's good work. Back to my page moves: my page moves did not hinder "Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially". It's your choice whether or not you get riled up and turn this mole hill into a mountain. (Congratulations for creating Wiki-K2). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
                • How do your mass page moves relate to SPUI? This is SPUI's RFC, not yours or mine. And I unblocked you after 15 minutes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • It's a further example of your behavior that likely lead to SPUI going about on his own. And again, I was unblocked after 15 minutes only when I agreed not to perform edits you disagreed with. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
                    • Because they were against the WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
                      • Stop citing WP:AN/I. You and a 2-3 other sysops did not arbitrarily create a new policy on Wikipedia. Further, per WP:BLOCK (which is policy) you should not have blocked someone you were in a dispute with. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
                        • • a) I did not create the policy, b) this is not a new policy, it is interpretation of policy, c) what is the point of this mini-discussion? If you do request, I won't enforce the Archive84 ruling, I'll refer it to another admin. Happy now? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• My block of SPUI came after he started mass moving pages, and was simply an enforcement of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive84.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Not so. I point to this diff, where his sock User:Sockenpuppe reports me for "3RR" (which was reverting vandalism, by the way ^[1]). WP:3RR Couldn't SPUI have waited until he was unblocked to do this? In this way he was evading his block. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response

My edits were not vandalism, and your 3RR block was proper.^[2] Take it up with the blocking admin if you have issues with it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The blocking admin was not aware of the context of the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Context" is irrelevant to 3RR, except as it relates to whether the specific edits you were reverting were vandalism (which any 3RR-enforcing admin checks). You reverted four times, you got blocked. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

a) this was at WP:ANI by then, and some admins did term this as vandalism; b) why is this relevant to your RFC? And now I think I will go to bed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I respond to these points one by one:

• Voted alike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination) (JohnnyBGood's first edit was to this page)
  • If you look, JohnnyBGood voted before Gateman1997. Isn't this against the logic that if JohnnyBGood was a sock of Gateman1997, the reverse would have happened? Also, JohnnyBGood did not seem to understand why his vote was being tossed.
• Voted alike in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Martinez
  • Which was your typical non-notable biography, which won deletion by a landslide.
• Posted nearly identical votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity guests on the Howard Stern show
  • Or one just quoted the other. People do that all the time at AFD.
• Voted alike in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2#Template:Routeboxca
  • Many people did. Since they are both WP:CASH members, this would be logical that they would both vote for keep.
• Both edited Image:JohnThurman.JPG
  • But if you look at the diff, JohnnyBGood totally retagged the image, leaving just the original image untouched.
• Both clashed with User:Zzyzx11 on the AT&T Park article in a dispute regarding the naming status of the venue.
  • From their road edits, I've deduced that they both live in the San Francisco area. AT&T Park is in the San Francisco area...
• Both have reverted SPUI's edits and page moves innumerable times.
  • Many have. Including myself, Gentgreen, and PHenry.

In addition to roadcruft, baseball, and Harry Potter, both share an apparent interest in topics relating to Macintosh computers:

• "Gateman": [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]
• "Johnny": [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]
  • Apple is a San Francisco area company too. Also, with nearly a million registered users, isn't it logical that some will share the same interests? In fact, I am a Mac user as well who does like Left Behind.
• Despite the fact that Gateman1997 and JohnnyBGood appear to collaborate so frequently and share so many interests, each has edited the other's talk page exactly one time [26], [27].
  • Note [28].
• Additionally, Gateman and Johnny obviously occupy the same time zone, as shown by their edit graphs [29], [30], yet there is curiously no overlap in their posting times. One user will make several dozen edits, then stop, then an hour later, the other will start editing. Furthermore, they share unusual formatting quirks which I will explain in greater detail upon request.
  • We'll have to see those quirks.

• Indeed we will. I've noted several times we've posted at the same time or nearly the same time. For instance [31] and [32] or [33] and [34]. Unless one or us has sprouted wings and learned to stick a rocket up my ass then how do you explain that? Or we also have posted on completely different days. I noted several days I've posted and he has not or vice versa. I'm sorry but your accusations don't track, especially when you add that checkuser found nothing. JohnnyBGood 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Also let me post some evidence of my own against the sock accusations: here, where David Gerard practically admits that the CheckUser came up blank, and here even SPUI himself admits that the evidence is flawed.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed. In my own defense and Gateman's defense let me add that I've noted several times we've posted at the same time or nearly the same time. For instance [35] and [36] or [37] and [38]. Unless one or us has sprouted wings and learned to stick a rocket up our asses then how do you explain that? Or we also have posted on completely different days. I noted several days I've posted and he has not or vice versa. I'm sorry but your accusations don't track, especially when you add that checkuser found nothing. The reason I'm always popping up where Rschen, SPUI, Freakofnurture and Gateman post is because I peruse their "user contribution" pages from time to time. Now let's get back to where this RFC should be directing its attention, SPUI. JohnnyBGood 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Point by point, here we go:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#AndriyK banned- please link to the page you're copying from.
• And the context of the quote above: "1) Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest." This case appears to have started because AndriyK started mass moving pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what's going on here.
• I do not support Gateman1997's editing redirects. But in his defense, suppose that you are Gateman1997. Someone is mass moving 200 pages. You have no way to stop him. You complain, but noone listens. What are you supposed to do?
• "We really need to ask ourselves who is actually misbehaving here. Hint, it's not SPUI." Have you read the diffs? And if you really think that we're misbehaving, then why don't you file a RFC? This is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI here. This is supposed to remain pertinent to SPUI, not attack everyone else. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 09:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• If he wants to start talking sockpuppets too, I find it very odd that suddenly he's unblocked SPUIs admitted sock that was used for circumvention of a block.Gateman1997 09:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another removed section

[edit] Response to response to response to response to response to response...

The fiat issued was very limited - it only related to repeated move warring, not to simply going and moving a page that was not involved in a move war. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The ANI page was pretty clear- since we all know that it is your intent to spread the wars and/or mass moves to the whole country. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I also note that Rschen7754 is arbitrarily applying this arbitrary rule to state highways but not to Gateman1997's moves of county highways (which are shockingly to correct names), and justifying it by stating that the rule applies to all state highways but nothing else. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

a) it's a smaller WikiProject with himself as probably the only devoted contributor, b) he noted it on the WP talk page, c) the ban applies only to state routes and not to these uncontroversial moves. Such is not the case with state highways... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus fucking christ. Since when did this RFC become a license to attack me? You know full well county routes aren't covered under the highway "state highways" SPUI. Now stop trying to redirect attention. Gateman1997 16:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus "disruption" christ. I'm not attacking you - I think you're correct in making those moves. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 17:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, but why bring it up? Gateman1997 18:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As a possible double standard that Rschen7754 has. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

County routes are not state routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I'm not bringing down a block on you, SPUI for your I-295 move- Interstates are (for these purposes) not state routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious - you would have blocked me for moving Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey-Pennsylvania) to Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) if it was a state route? They decided that I-295 will not be extended into Pennsylvania, so the old page name made no sense. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If it had been a move similar to the state routes and had been a state route. And I think you went against a WP:RM. But I disagree that that's blockable at this stage. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But I will be restoring the warnings on the WikiProject templates. Just now Colorado got mass moved. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And you harrassed Atanamir into moving them back. While you may have justification for calling California moves disruption, that is in no way true for Colorado. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

a) that is not harassment, b) I never asked that he move them back, c) it is disruption because... it incites edit warring, and when there is no consensus for these moves., that is disruption, d) when the consensus goes against these moves then we have to move it back right? Let's wait to do all the moving until after we have a solid and firm consensus for either way. That's the main spirit of the RFC. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You threatened with a block for something that's not blockable. That's harrassment. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It is blockable. It's disruption.^{[citation needed]} --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So what happens if no consensus is reached, as what seems to be happening at WP:NC/NH? No page moves allowed at all? For how long? Polaron 00:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We wait until consensus is reached, as narrow as it may be. But if like months go by then it would default to "keep by default," which means staying at the current standard. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, productive discussion there ended the day SPUI went cowboy and started moving everything on his own. I doubt it's possible to

pick it up and resume it again in the midst of all this hard feeling, and with all that's gone on in the interim it wouldn't be a fair assessment of community sentiment anyway.

What I'd really like to see is to have the policymaking process restart, with two proposals on the table. Let the proponents of both proposals make their best arguments, open the floor for debate, and then at an agreed-upon time allow people to vote for the one they prefer or for none of the above. Have an impartial and uninvolved admin examine the debate and the vote and determine which proposal, if any, has consensus. Ask people to affirm that by voting they agree to abide by whatever the consensus is determined to be, even if they don't like it. I don't see any other way out. --phh 00:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The main contention seems to be the disambiguation method. Instead of trying to apply a single method to all state highway systems, maybe we should just select the disambiguation method on a state by state basis as well. Just a thought. Polaron 06:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's probably what it will come down to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More removals

[edit] Trying to prevent another page move block

Trying to make sure that everyone is aware of the page move restrictions, I edited all of the state highway WikiProejct templates ({{California State Highway WikiProject}}) and added a notice saying that page moving was a blockable offense. Now SPUI comes and reverts my edits, because he belives that these moves are "to the correct names." How messed up is that? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 10:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More infobox mayhem

I point out that SPUI has created {{Infobox NH Route}} and {{Infobox NY Route}} as part of his campaign to change the infoboxes to his liking. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Or at least the pieces for it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also been bold and merged several articles into Route 8 (New England). BLOCK ME NOW! --SPUI (talk - RFC) 20:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

But there's no controversy over that. However there is with CA and WA since there's established precedent and consensus there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Groupthink. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 20:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the consensus on the Washington state naming? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is nationwide- WP:NC/NH. And it may be tied right now, but that is not consensus for SPUI's naming convention. There is no consensus for us to change over to his. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First, people don't need to get consensus before making a change. Only if that change is disputed do they need to do that. Now if you're saying you're disputing this change everywhere, then I'd argue that you're the one being disruptive... —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Before getting a major change that is controversial, yes. Why do you think WP:RM exists? And yes this change was disputed. If you look at Talk:State Route 15 (California), SPUI asked first before moving. We disagreed, but SPUI performed the move anyway. That's how this whole thing started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, reread the page. SPUI moved the page. He was reverted. We discussed at the talk page. He lost. He moved it back regardless. That's how it all started. And yes of course these changes are disputed and he needs to gain consensus- why do you think that people keep reverting him? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

m:Voting is evil. And this response from you doesn't address the problem with the Washington routes.. where was the consensus for the current naming convention? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC/NH. You may decide that there is no consensus for our position, but then there isn't any for SPUI's either. Thus there is no consensus to move to SPUI's naming convention. Also your "Polls are evil" quote is out of context- we have to use polls since there is no other way to show consensus otherwise. Why do you think AFD uses polls? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC/NH, in the straw polls on the talk page, seemed to indicate that people believe every state should be handled separately. This is exactly what SPUI is doing. Consensus is not just about numbers, BTW, which is the whole point of m:Voting is evil. Have you read the page? It explains how polls encourage groupthink and don't encourage discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But then you need consensus for each state then. Which SPUI is not obtaining. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No he doesn't. You don't need to ask permission before every edit as you seem to think you do. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not for every edit, but for major edits such as deleting pages and moving pages. Why do you think WP:RM exists? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

To handle moves where a regular editor can't make the move themselves (for example, to a page that already exists and has an edit history). That is WP:RMs primary purpose IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not what you said at WP:ANI- when moves are disputed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I specifically said WP:RM emphasizes moves where sysop intervention is necessary. Yes disputed moves can be taken there, but that's not necessary unless the move can only be performed by a sysop. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

But there should be discussion before a controversial move takes place. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The purpose of this dispute

The purpose of this RFC is not to block SPUI from Wikipedia indefinitely. The purpose is to get him to stop taking drastic actions without obtaining consensus first. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I thought this was a request for comment on his actions. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is involved in the process of getting him to stop taking these drastic actions... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Page moves aren't drastic... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That goes against be bold in updating pages. No editor needs to ask permission first, and requiring that someone do so would be contrary to the way Wikipedia works. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So every highway edit he makes is "controversial"? C'mon, it sounds like ownership to me, a "you-need-to-get-our-permission-before-doing-that" kind of thing. You know that's not right. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's major things. Like mass page moves. Like mass infobox changes. We're talking about hundreds of articles here. Look at List of California State Routes- see how many articles there are? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So? I imposed a new infobox on about a hundred Prime Ministers a while back. Nothing wrong with that. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

When you did, did anyone say "Hey, wait a minute!" (It doesn't look like anyone did.) If they had, would you have made an effort to discuss the matter with them, or would you have just bulled ahead on your own because you don't care what anyone else thinks? --phh 18:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends if they had a valid reason or not. If they'd just screamed consensus at me I suspect I would have been unimpressed. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

Editing policy pages to suit yourself? See [39]. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is intended as humor. It is not, nor will it ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

This page is intended as humor. It is not, nor will it ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

This page is intended as humor. It is not, nor will it ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

This page is intended as humor. It is not, nor will it ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

This page is intended as humor. It is not, nor will it ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.

I rest my case. --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see that template... but that's still not Wikiquette. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, give it a rest. It was added as a clear example of assuming bad faith; which you did right there. 86.133.241.100 00:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
2. ^ [6]

[edit] While We Were Doing This

SPUI would have probably added a thousand edits about some long lost highway somewhere, enriching this project far more than the people who oppose him could ever dream of doing. Of course, we're soon going to lose more knowledge like this from him forever at this rate. SPUI has alot to offer, but apparently that's not enough. He has to conform to some paradoxical conformist paper thin double standard as well. This website makes me sick because of pages like this one, but I can't leave it because of people like SPUI who always show me its potential. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 00:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

We respect SPUI, but he does not own the roads pages. He can't just change them all to his liking. Please read the evidence above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of figured I was over my head when editing Minnesota State Highway 149, Minnesota State Highway 13, and especially Minnesota State Highway 62 (the Crosstown) anyway. Maybe someone a little better qualified than me can spend their time putting together routeboxes, especially for cruft like Minnesota State Highway 60 (or State Highway 60 (Minnesota) or Minnesota Trunk Highway 60 or the aggregation of Constitutional Route 16 (Minnesota) and Constitutional Route 60 (Minnesota) and Constitutional Route 21 (Minnesota), plus Legislative Routes 85, 73, and 214). Whatever we're going to call it. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak

I'm taking a Wikibreak. I might be back late tomorrow for a little though. But I would advise you to think about how you respond if someone else was carrying out these actions. Why should it be different for SPUI? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA affiliation

It should be noted that SPUI is a member of the GNAA, and although many of his contributions to Wikipedia have been sane and helpful, his affiliation and his spotty behavioral record make it uncertain where his true loyalty lies. Also his block log is about to hit 100 entries, probably the longest of any single account. 4.89.240.109 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith. As you said, many of his edits have been highly beneficial of Wikipedia, the only problem is that he's pushing the limit with being bold. We all came to Wikipedia with different intentions, but eventually we all come to the same reason to stay: We have a certain amount of knowlege and interest and a subject, and we want to share it. Also out of the 100 entries on his block log, many of them are unblocks. Which can prove how disputed his behavior is. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is no longer a member of that organization. Even if he was, it would not be relevant to road-related articles on Wikipedia. — Apr. 4, '06 [23:49] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Do you have any proof he's left this troll organization? Also I'd like to see the evidence that he IS a member of it as well if the anon wouldn't mind. JohnnyBGood 00:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

causing much mayhem, dropping drama --SPUI (talk - RFC) 00:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if that was their only evidence then I'd classify it as hersay at best for both the identification with and claim of leaving. So in the end they nix one another out and WP:FAITH prevails. JohnnyBGood 00:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've known about SPUI's GNAA membership for about a year and a half. He had an identical cycle of behavior on DDRUK.com's IRC channels #DDRUK and #DDRUK.serv on EFNet. He ran a very useful and respected fserv and contributed to a lot of projects, but at seemingly random intervals he would flood the channel with gibberish for no reason or engage in generally destructive or insulting behavior. He had a fondness for inserting comments about penises, erections, and "gayniggers" everywhere. He admitted his affiliation and hosted the movie on his fserv. He went through cycles of helpfulness and then would flood and get kick/banned, and when/if the ban was eventually lifted he'd go back to being helpful (if somewhat eccentric and perverse) for a while. After one of his bannings that I witnessed, he got the GNAA to invade and do a full-scale attack against the channels to avenge him. I'm worried that I'll be attacked by them now, but I thought this should be on the table. I'm not suggesting any action, just providing information; I hope his helpful edits continue but it's frustrating to see this helpful/destructive/ban/unban/repeat cycle looping through so many times in multiple places. 4.89.243.163 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. However we should assume good faith for now I think as it is the only fair thing to do. But this is good information to have incase good faith doesn't prove to be enough. JohnnyBGood 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion under SPUI's surreply moved from project page

The block was put back into place because you went right back to the same behavior after the unblock.^{[citation needed]} Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you? --Nlu (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And the unblocking admins disputed that such behaviors warranted a block. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I already did. Read my statement above. --Nlu (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, this is the edit that got me: [40] Making such an edit when you had already been unblocked, with an edit summary like that, was a violation of WP:POINT, fully deserving of yet another block. --Nlu (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? ASKING TO BE UNBLOCKED WAS A VIOLATION OF WP:POINT? WHAT THE FUCK? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You were already unblocked at the time. The edit summary was a taunt. --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I hadn't realized I was unblocked, as no one had let me know. Read WP:AGF until its meaning sinks in. I still don't get how it's a violation of WP:POINT. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Real demonstrative of your pattern behavior: User:MONGO's rather nicely worded request to you [41] and your response [42]. --Nlu (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it somewhat offensive when people are offended over silly things like usage of the word fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Nonetheless, the revert war over state highways is more serious, and THAT'S what we oughta be discussing - not the F word, and not joke edits to some project page. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it's the use of the F-word per se. It's the choice of using it on articles he's making controversial or disputed edits too. Frankly if he wants to say "fuck" in the edit description on an edit to his talk page or a new article he's created or a non controversial edit... I doubt we'd even be talking about it. But in the middle of an edit war it does nothing but destroy any WP:FAITH about him, brings his motives into question, and is downright uncalled for.JohnnyBGood 22:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just testing :) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

\ JohnnyBGood 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I've been blocked by Tony Sidaway for using "fuck" in edit summaries, under the claim that it's disruptive. You guys win. Move the pages back. Change the infoboxes back. Your campaign of harassment was successful. --SPUI (The only edit I'll make under this sockpuppet, so don't bother blocking it, because the autoblocker won't kick in)