Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Martin2000

The behaviour of an inveterate revert warrior

In case anyone is interested in more evidence of this guy's incivility, here's the diff showing his response to my pointing out that his new userID User:Nitram0002 was a sock puppet he had created to avoid someone blocking him. I invited him, there, and on his talk page User talk:Martin2000 to use his energies more wisely, by actually discussing things on the talk pages of articles he wants to edit, and indeed here, at the RfC on his own behaviour rather than by attempting to find open proxies to administer "punishment edits" to people he didn't like, and creating a series of new identities (apparently Nitram0003 and Nitram0004 now exist) to avoid blocks by admins, and get another chance to call the people who blocked him stupid.

From [[Talk%3ABah%E1%27u%27ll%E1h]], it appears the editors he now thinks are stupid include Geni, Tony Sidaway, Gamaliel, Knowledge Seeker and of course violet/riga, who protected the Baha'i Faith page on March 10 as a result of this editor's continual edit warring on the Baha'i pages. PaulHammond 17:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

And me. Apparently I am not only of low IQ but a liar as well. Rick Boatright 18:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

martin currently blocked: so?

Tony notes that martin is currently blocked and that it is not reasonable to expect him to reply to the RFC. That would be true if he weren't up to Nitram0017, but he is, and has promised to keep creating sockpuppets through 2000 at which time he will change the alpha portion.

THEREFORE, it is perfectly reasonable to presume that he could respond to the RFC with one of those sockpuppets rather than continuing his revert war against all the Baha'i pages. And, of course, he could email a mod, several of whom have posted their email addresses. Rick Boatright 21:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But technically he could not respond on the page without further breaching policy. This should be taken into account. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I think Tony is basically referring to the fact that I noted he hadn't bothered to respond here, but instead has created a legion of sock-puppets to continue his revert war. Tony has a point that when I said that he was already blocked. But, of course, a good faith editor would have taken the RfC process seriously. He hasn't bothered to do that, just like he has never bothered to pay any attention whatsoever to article talk pages. His only attempt to say anything here was to use one of the early socks (Nitram0002, I think) to make a sarcastic comment about us in the top section.

Clearly, now that Martin2000 is blocked, it does create a difficulty for him if he decides he does want to come here and take the opportunity of putting his point of view. But whose fault is it that Martin is blocked? Exactly. And I'm sure that if Martin emailled Tony, or another admin, and said he was willing to take this seriously, and wanted to be unblocked so he could have his say here that Tony (or AdminX) would give him that chance. PaulHammond 11:19, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 unblocked

All of the pages Martin2000 was misbehaving on are currently protected, so I have unblocked him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 back and engaging in reverts

He's BAAACK and he's BAAAAD. Martin is now engaging in reverting Baha'i pages to versions WEEKS old without any engagement in discussion. In the course of that, he's deleted substantial amounts of CONTENT that has been added.Rick Boatright 14:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

we notice can it be conicerdence that his edits apeared above internet troll on my watchlist?Geni 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)