looking at the fact the user is relatively new to Wikipedia, I would like to see how many of his edits are actually constructive. I feel that if the majority of his edits are bad, as it looks, a stern warning won't be enough, especially considering his consistent ignorance of concensus and sources. 12:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

the latest of his edits on the Shakira article are after this RfC was started and he was notified of it. As far as I'm concerned a harsh warning isn't enough and he needs to be banned (and if you see my previous discussions regarding blocks, I'm very much against blocking users) chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't go ban-happy quite yet. I want to make it clearly known to the community about the conduct from the user in question is unnacceptable, and, if continued, can lead to blocks and/or a ban. That is, if the user persists after the RFC is closed and done, point here (from somewhere such as ANI or even AN) and suggest a block. That is how RFC/Us are designed, and that is what Mediators as well as ArbCom are going to look at if this gets further escalated to those levels. Hopefully, it won't be necessary. MuZemike ( talk) 03:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

looking at his edit history, all but a minuscule amount of his edits have either been directly reverted or indirectly reverted if its a busy article. i don't know how we can show this on the main page but its probably worth mentioning. to be honest I don't want to be accused of personal attacks, wikistalking or whatever so i need to take a backwards step, but obviously if his edits come up i will add them here, i just won't comment to him any more chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

so it looks like he's going to refuse to comment on the RfC, with it being over a week active, and editing since then, even commenting on talks where there are notifications regarding the RfC, so, what happens now? I don't want this to have been for nothing. theres surely enough evidence to proceed either with a formal warning or block, considering he's been editing after this is in progress. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 23:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

We wait. An RFC/U lasts for a total of 30 days. It is possible that the user may cease said questionable editing by then. If not, and the user does not provide any acceptable explanation as to why such editing has occurred, then we escalate up the dispute resolution ladder and request informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal. MuZemike ( talk) 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Saying "Australia is better than the US" can technically be borderline racism, so I have asked for an immediate block on article editing until the end of the process chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 19:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

He has been reverted and warned. MuZemike ( talk) 21:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

This has gone long enough. I am calling for a discussion for formally ban the user at WP:AN. Any further ban discussion should go there. MuZemike ( talk) 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC) reply

after another edit war, ironically this time arguing that Smash Bros was purely a fighter, I arv'd him and he has been blocked 'indefinitely' (or at least until he discusses his edits) chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 01:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply

We'll see what happens. I had a feeling this would eventually happen. Watch out for socks. MuZemike ( talk) 03:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply

anyone able 2 close n conclude it for good? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no magic 30-day timer for RfC/User. This RfC/U can stay open for as long as necessary. Given that the user has been blocked, however, I suspect that it will get cleaned up the next time an admin reviews the open cases. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Usually an admin comes around and closes it. MuZemike ( talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply