Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WritersCramp

message: This user has been a source of problems since he showed up.  As WritersCramp he has repeatedly ignored attempts to stop his destructive behaviour and repeated blocks of increasing length have done nothing to deter him.  Polite, helpful comments by a range of users have been ignored at best and responded to with insults and vandalism of talk pages at worst.  This user has been given every tool and resource and every opportunity to improve his behaviour, to no avail.
Other admins and I have taken a fairly lenient approach to blocking him, beginning with very short blocks and increasing to 24, then 48 hours, then a week.  The latest block is for one month, but past experience and current evidence suggests that the only way to deal with this user is to block him for a significant length of time, such as one year.  It should be noted that, following his latest block, WC posted this image on his talk page, with the caption "Nazi's Interrogating Homo [sic]."  Exploding Boy 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How much longer is this page going to stay open?  It's been over a month now.  Exploding Boy 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user is continuing the same hostile behavior using two new accounts. I recommend an indefinite block and archiving this RfC. —Guanaco 05:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as I've had bad encounters with this user, in fact they were primarily under the aliases of WritersCramp and Elf-Masher. In the dog article area, at least, SirIsaacBrock has been civil and under good behavior. All the info I posted last night is from previous user names. So if people have examples from current username of unacceptable behavior, please post.  Elf | Talk 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WritersCramp is back as of today, and up to his old tricks again.  I removed the categories "Adolf Hitler" and "Nazi" from his user page this morning, noted that he's made several inflammatory edit summaries and blanked another user's talk page, and has also restored the offensive image (see my first post, above) to his own talk page.  I've left him yet another warning, not that I think it will do any good at all, but am wondering what's going on with this RFC.  Isn't it time to take a further step?  After all, WC has refused to respond here and has not modified his behaviour one iota.  Shouldn 't this be referred to ArbCom?  Exploding Boy 17:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt anyone (other than his sockpuppets) would seriously object if you blocked him indefinitely. —Guanaco 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

message: WC continues to replace inappropriate tables on his user page -- they are not categories, as I mistakenly said above, but article tables such as "Nazism" and "Adolf Hitler."  I have pointed out to him that these tables are meant to be placed in article space, not user space, but to no avail.
In addition, WC falsely (and in offensive terms) accused several users, including some admins, of vandalism, and placed them on the WP: Vandalism in Progress page (where they were immediately removed by another, uninvolved admin).  
The latest event is that WC has been blocked for 48 hours by someone until now uninvolved.  WC has apparently created sockpuppet user:BionicBoner to circumvent this latest block, so I have blocked that account indefinitely.
To that end, I have placed a  tag on his talk page, and intend to block him indefinitely if he continues this behaviour.
Exploding Boy 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: It appears that SirIsaacBrock has put himself up on the nomination for adminship page - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination cabal/SirIsaacBrock.  I thought that I would mention this, as he is listed as sockpuppet here.  - Trysha (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I responded on his user page that he's not ready yet for adminship. If he is a WC sockpuppet, he has managed to restrain himself (at least among the many hundreds of dog articles) fairly well. I'm still not convinced one way or the other.  Elf | Talk 19:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have re-added SirIsaacBrock as a sockpuppet of WritersCramp (after he removed himself from this list without comment on this talk page).  I'm not an Admin, but I have no doubt based on my recent exchange with him on List of conflicts in Canada that he is the latest (and slightly less offensive) incarnation of WritersCramp.  Notably, his comment style is virtually identical (down to signing insulting comments "Cordially"), and on the List of conflicts in Canada page LaLa (a WritersCramp sockpuppet) was active and making edit decisions identical to those now being espoused by SirIsaacBrock.  The edits are not vandalism per se, but they reflect a fundamental inability to accept differing viewpoints (i.e. reversions rather than further edits).  I shudder at the thought of him getting an Adminship. Geoff NoNick 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As he denies this, why not request a checkuser. - Trysha (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SirIsaacBrock RfA