Case Opened on 21:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Redwolf24 has blocked this editor indefinitely for attacks and other misbehavior. The case should still be ran to make the ban official and to stop any sockpuppets he will undoubtedly use. Furthermore, if the arbcom finds him innocent from any misdoings, then feel free to unblock him. -- R e dwolf24 ( talk) 03:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

• Essjay ( talk · contribs)
• Rainbowwarrior1977 ( talk · contribs) a.k.a Musachachado ( talk · contribs) a.k.a SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem ( talk · contribs) a.k.a. CelineDionFan82 ( talk · contribs) a.k.a. Pamstar ( talk · contribs) a.k.a 4.174.3.171 ( talk · contribs) and many other IPs.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Essjay · Talk 12:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Left message on Rainbowwarrior1977's talk page and at the RfC -- Essjay · Talk 12:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Numerous editors have tried to informally resolve the matter. I filed an RfC, which Rainbowwarrior1977 attempted to have dismissed on the grounds that it covered more than one type of activity. He has refused to acknowledge his behavior, and shows no intention of acting in good faith during the RfC process, even when it was clearly noted that a failure to resolve the issues through RfC would lead to an arbitration case.

Rainbowwarrior1977 (together with his sockpuppets) has engaged in an extended and continuing campaign of disruption of Wikipedia, and he shows no intention of changing his behavior. Disruptive activities include personal attacks against other users, RfA fraud, article vandalism, userpage vandalism, misuse of CSD templates, sockpuppetry, disruption of VfD, insulting and/or attacking edit summaries, attacks on other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions, repeated lies and disinformation about himself in tandem with attacks on users who question his claims.

He claims to be a well-credentialed contributor ( an attorney with a JD from NYU) with exhaustive contributions to Wikipedia; however, his edit count is 129, with only 43 edits to the articlespace. In the less than one month this account has been active on Wikipedia, he has managed to rack up an extensive body of evidence against himself, much of which is set out at the RfC. Rather than attempting to cooperate with other contributors and abide by site policy, he has attacked editors who have opposed his disruption and denounced them as abusive. (I personally have been accused of enjoying the opportunity to beat up on newcomers; I will let my hundreds of new member welcomes, including a welcome at User talk:Musachachado, and my reputation as an advocate of new members speak for itself on that one.) He shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy and for the standards of this community; despite repeated admonishments and the resulting promises to change, his behavior has not improved since his arrival.

I believe this user has no other goal than to disrupt Wikipedia and that he will continue to do so unless the Arbitration Committee acts quickly to stop him. Other editors have suggested that he is indeed an attorney, as he claims; that his edits to law-related topics are evidence of this; and that his vandalism was a phase from which he has now emerged. I (and others) reject this claim, as I do not believe it likely that a respected attorney would be vandalizing Wikipedia and claiming to be a fifteen year old. I also do not believe that one can be a full-blown vandal (at RfA) on Saturday and be completely rehabilitated and committed to making only positive contributions by Monday. I submit that what positive edits have been made are a smokescreen designed to provide him cover in the event of disciplinary proceedings, and I suspect that he will make every effort to abuse and threaten others and game the system in order to avoid disciplinary action. He is an abusive vandal who should be told in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia will not allow this conduct, and that should be reinforced by quick and decisive action by this committee.

I have indicated a willingness to apologise for my disruptive behaviour on talk pages. I have already personally apologised to a handful of users with whom I was trading barbed posts, such as User:Rusty2005 and User:Essjay.

I have been using Wikipedia for several months previously for researching geographic, cultural, and demographic information on various locales in the Carribean and South America that I had been visiting (I primarly live in Miami with my wife), but upon learning earlier this summer that "anyone could edit" the articles, my juvenile side got the better of me initially.

I freely admit that almost all of my early posts were disruptive. However, as with many vandalistic newbies, I soon realised the satisfaction that comes from legitimate contribution to Wikipedia. As time progessed I found that I was making mostly legitimate edits to the articles and restricting my juvenile antics to user pages. And now, having more fully interacted with many of the users, I realise that you mostly are a bunch of good guys; I think one of the things that really hit home with me is that many of the fellow users with whom I was arguing were actually Professors and other professional people, and not just a bunch of the proverbial "computer dorks."

Therefore, based on these sentiments, I apologise. If you note from my "Request for Comment" page, several users were taking my side even before I expressed my contrition. And I see they are right. I'm sorry.

And as much as Casito would like to imply I'm a pervert of some kind, the only reason I noticed "Purplefeltangel" was because she was listed directly above me at the WP:VIP page. [ in this edit] And I didn't know she was a girl at the time either -- that's why I kept calling her "gentleman."

I first dealt with the user that is the subject of this request at his RFA. When it was removed, because it clearly failed, he just kept adding it back wanting to let the process through. I let him know on that RFA that it can be removed if the nomination clearly fails because we want to prevent people to pile on opposition votes and some have assumed the nominaion itself was in bad faith. Some time later, I got pulled into the RFC mentioned above. I agree with the person filing the complaint, instead of Rainbowwarrior trying to explain what he is doing, he is trying to avoid the situation by Wikilawyering the process down. Another issues, which was brought up, is that Rainbowwarrior said he was a banned user evidence. Though some others have been nice at the RFC and at the RFA to help this user and try to explain what is going on, but all of our attempts have been squashed with the Wikilawyering and it needs to stop, now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I uncovered a number of Musachachado's early edits, most of which were sneaky vandalism, bogus translations, bogus sources, and misuse of templates with the intent of wasting others' time. I warned him about his actions on several accounts and IP's, and eventually listed him on WP:VIP and later on WP:RCP. He responded with a flood of vitriol, accusing me of legal threats on my talk page, and posting personal attacks on article talk pages, project pages, and in edit summaries. After instructing him never to post on my talk page again, he marked that page with a speedy delete tag, and accused me of policy violations. He continued to post on my page for some time even after being warned by administrators, leading me to believe that he has some peculiar fascination with me.

I suspect that he honestly thought he could be made an administrator, and his nomination at WP:VFA was an attempt to seek that power for malevolent uses, especially against me. I speculate that his interaction with User:Purplefeltangel has something to do with her being a 14 year old girl, as he posted on his user page that he was 15 around that time.

Musachachado is intelligent and clearly has some legal education. Ordinarily, this would result in a valued contributor. Unfortunately, he has a pathological narcissistic streak which prevents him from following the advice of more experienced editors as well as the rules in general.

I can say with near certainty that he will continue in his ways and create another sock puppet for the same purposes if his account is banned, so I recommend that his IP be extracted from the server logs and his Internet Service Provider notified.

⇝ Casito⇝ Talk 20:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC) reply

I have stated my opinions at the RfC and will summarize it here for clairty. First, I agree that Rainbowwarrior1977 has been abusive/disruptive and does not follow many Wikipedia policies either through not understanding them or otherwise. That being said, I also have to say he has made some surprisingly good edits to law related articles which suggests he is not always so disruptive. This Jekyll and Hyde personality has been hard on some users and should not be taken lightly. However, my Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rainbowwarrior1977#Final_request_by_Sasquatch still remains valid for now should the ArbCom see fit to give this problem user one last chance (as that is pretty much all I am willing to give as well). Sasquatch↔ 讲↔ 看 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

First of all I think it necessary to read Rainbow's RfC. There's some evidence there that has not surfaced yet at this RfAr. This user has caused dismay at RfA, first by nominating his (then un)blocked account, Musachachado with a sockpuppet. The RfA was delisted and later he was blocked (for Personal Attacks, etc.). Now Rainbow has admitted to being Musachachado. Later he would have another RfA (nominated by a sock AGAIN) and was delisted by either Essjay or Linuxbeak... I think he was delisted by both of them as he kept relisting his RfA, yelling at and attacking Essjay and Linuxbeak. In my opinion, arbitration is necessary. Redwolf24 01:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Accept Fred Bauder 19:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept ➥the Epopt 22:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) reply

1) All good-faith contributors, even anonymous ones, are welcome to edit and become involved in the community. However, all users are expected not to misrepresent themselves or their edits, especially as they pertain to claiming to have qualifications that one does not have.

Passed 5-0

2) Vandalism of Wikipedia in any form will not be tolerated and will be dealt with severely. "Sneaky" vandalism in particular is regarded as the worst form of vandalism and will by handled with immediate long-term blocks. Administrators are free to block IP addresses and users for vandalism according to their best judgment and the policies outlined in the blocking policy.

Passed 5-0

3) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile enviroment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encylopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion and encouraging a "bunker mentality").

Name-calling in particular is dealt with severely. False claims aganist another user (such as an untrue claim of legal threats) are considered deception and are also dealt with severely.

Passed 5-0

4) Articles for deletion, speedy deletion tags, and requests for adminship should be used appropriately within set guidelines and community norms. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes, and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Passed 5-0

5.1) The use of multiple accounts by one person, though discouraged, is not forbidden. However, when using multiple accounts in an abusive manner, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden; this is called " sockpuppeting".

Passed 4-0

5) User talk pages should are used for discussions that further Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or a wiki community. Ideally, conversations should be friendly and open. Posting on a user's user talk page aganist his or her express wishes is generally considered improper, and may under certain circumstances be considered harassment.

Passed 5-0

1) Rainbowwarrior1977 ( talk · contribs) and associated sockpuppets have engaged in unacceptable editing practices, including misrepresentation of qualifications, personal attacks, abuse of Wikipedia process, and even overt vandalism, as shown by the evidence. All of these activities are unacceptable.

Passed 5-0

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) The official sanction of the Arbitration Committee is given to the indefinite block of Rainbowwarrior1977 ( talk · contribs). The Committee reaffirms that simple vandals and others who engage in overt, easily demonstrable vandalism can be blocked immediately. Neutrality ^talk 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Passed 5-0