Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SPUI

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

text: #: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)

text: # —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: # seriously people... stop intentionally provoking SPUI.  ALKIVAR™ 10:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: #Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: #atanamir 23:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: #Likewise. He's edited more than everyone testifying on this meaningless page combined. Karmafist Save Wikipedia 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

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

text: #*Sounds like someone's got a case of editcountitis. --phh 00:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: # 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)

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

text: #Chick Bowen 04:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: # Grue  20:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: #— Apr. 4, '06 [10:06] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
===Users who do not endorse this summary===
this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC: "Do not create disendorsement sections."
# 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)
thread_title: May I call your attention to [[WP:RFC]]

message: this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC: "Do not create disendorsement sections."
# 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)
thread_title: Users who do not endorse this summary

message: this was moved from the project page per WP:RFC
=====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  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)
replies: text: The blocking admin was not aware of the context of the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  10:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Indeed we will. I've noted several times we've posted at the same time or nearly the same time. For instance  and  or  and . 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)

text: *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  and  or  and . 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)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Sections removed from freakofnurture's summary 

message: *"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  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)
thread_title: Response

message: Not so. I point to this diff, where his sock User:Sockenpuppe reports me for "3RR" (which was reverting vandalism, by the way , , , , ). 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)
replies: text: The blocking admin was not aware of the context of the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  10:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response

message: My edits were not vandalism, and your 3RR block was proper. 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)
replies: text: The blocking admin was not aware of the context of the situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  10:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response to response

message: 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": [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []
*"Johnny": [], [], [], [], []
**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 [], [].
**Note .
*Additionally, Gateman and Johnny obviously occupy the same time zone, as shown by their edit graphs , , 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  and  or  and . 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)
replies: text: *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  and  or  and . 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)
thread_title: Response

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Response

message: Trying to make sure that everyone is aware of the page move restrictions, I edited all of the state highway WikiProejct templates () 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)
thread_title: Trying to prevent another page move block

message: 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)
replies: text: That's interesting. I thought this was a request for comment on his actions. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Page moves aren't drastic... —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Unless it's controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The purpose of this dispute

message: Editing policy pages to suit yourself? See . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't see that template... but that's still not Wikiquette. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Assume bad faith]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: While We Were Doing This

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikibreak

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I already did.  Read my statement above.  --Nlu (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, this is the edit that got me:   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You were already unblocked at the time.  The edit summary was a taunt.  --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Real demonstrative of your pattern behavior: User:MONGO's rather nicely worded request to you  and your response .  --Nlu (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point. —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just testing :) —  Rickyrab | Talk 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: \ JohnnyBGood 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion under SPUI's surreply moved from project page