Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RunedChozo

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: 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC).

RunedChozo (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

The talk page of this user shows a long history of trolling, insults, inflammatoiry statements and baseless accusations made by the user to other people. On top of that, following his tenth ban, he has been contacting editors via e-mail to continue harassment. Including editors who have had nothing to do with him previously. User has also been blocked from editing his own talk page due to abuse of the Unblock template and repeatedly tries to remove warnings. The Kinslayer 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

Based on his past conduct (10 bans remember) the conclusion can be reached that this user is here to troll, and is doing more damage to Wikipedia than he is good. I would therefore ideally like to see him banned permanently, but failing this, I would like to see his current 2 week ban extended significantly (6 months I feel.) The Kinslayer 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Firmware
User talk:RunedChozo

Applicable policies and guidelines

(provide diffs and links)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Talk:PlayStation_Portable#Firmware
User talk:RunedChozo

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

I endorse this summary of RunedChozo's behavior. I'm not sure that permanent ban is necessary yet, but I would certainly agree with a much longer ban than two weeks. However, this RfC may need to be deferred until his current ban expires so he has the opportunity to defend his actions. -- mattb @ 2007-02-02T14:41Z
I endorse this summary - simply looking at his talk page and the amazing quantity of blocks and continued rule-breaking there seems enough to justify a permanent block in my opinion, never mind his revert-warring and offensive edit summaries. As mattb has said, however, an RfC is probably best left until he can comment on the situation and mount some kind of defense. - Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I finally came back, after staying out for longer than the block. I never "started" a fight, contrary to what the liars posted about me.

Nobody bothered to inform me that this had been created. That is a major lack of good faith on the part of the harassers who created this page in the first place. "The Kinslayer" has never once left me a message on my talk page or otherwise.

I have officially protested The Epopt's harassment of me on the ANI page now.

I am working hard to stay within wikipedia's rules, even though they are obviously tilted towards stalkers and harassers who attack people but have priveleged friends.

I notice that my suggestion that firmware editions be added to the PSP page was done by another editor AFTER I was blocked, and no problem was made of it, even though ZakuSage made a big deal about picking a fight over trying to improve the article.

If you don't have ownership issues and don't decide to harass or lie about me, you'll have no problems with me. If you do, from now on I won't even respond to you, I'll just report you to the ANI page and that'll be that, because that is what the rules say to do. RunedChozo 16:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Ex-Nintendo Employee

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

From observing RunedChozo's behavior, it's obvious that he's got a serious lack of respect for the rules of Wikipedia and for others here on the project. The innumerable fights and arguments he's started reflect very badly on his time here, with edit summaries containing things like "you mindless retard", "Wonderful fucking place you've got here. Should we all just bow down to the pagan altar at Mecca" and such. Furthermore, that he would stoop to using sockpuppetry, from the very beginning of his time here on Wikipedia this user has been a frequent abuser of the basic rules here. Considering that he's been blocked no less than 10 times, it can only be concluded that nothing less than an indefinite block will cause him to cease his disruptive behavior. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

The Kinslayer 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Techni

From what I noticed on the PSP page, he was very offensive/rude, harassing certain users to the point that actually beneficial ones have left wikipedia to avoid him.

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

User has a history of bans and trolling (10 bans by my count). Following his latest incivility, he was banned for a fortnight. In itself I feel this should be reviwed due it being barely a slap on the wrist given his past conduct, but since his ban he has been contacting users who have never spoke to him before, insulting and provoking them, as can be seen by comments left on his talk page. I request he be reviewed with the view to increasing his block, or banning him altogether. He is doing more damage than good to wikipedia and repeats doing so. The Kinslayer 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in complete defiance of common sense, an admin has reduced RunedChozos ban to a week. What are you thinking? You really think reducing his ban is going to get message across that his disruptions and personal attacks wont be tolerated? The Kinslayer 12:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]