This account is banned from editing this Wiki due to long-term problematic edits on wikis, including but not limited to the following:

• Blocked for checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry and edit-warring.

• Attitude incompatible with building a paperless encyclopedia: "mission" to delete and pledge to never "vote" to keep in a deletion discussion.

• Lack of serious purpose for being on the site: [1].

• Poor language in edit summaries: [2], [3], [4], [5]

• No idea what to make of this one: [6]

• Assumptions of bad faith: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

• Incivility: [12], [13]

• Telling others what to do: [14], [15]

• WP:HOPELESS “votes“ in AfDs: [16]

• WP:PERNOM “votes“ in AfDs:

[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]

• Not notable “votes” in AfDs:

[84], [85], [86], [87], [88]

• Use of “cruft”: [89], [90]

• Copy and paste assertions that articles “fail” some policy with no evidence or actual argument of how the articles allegedly fail the policy in question: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]

• Incredibly rapid copy and paste posts in multiple AfDs (some in under a minute):
  • 15:32, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Tarawa (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Tarawa: del)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Confederation (2nd nomination)‎ (delete)
  • 15:31, 5 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TCS Concordia (2nd nomination)‎ (→TCS Concordia: delete)

• We did not identify ANY instances in which he (editor who called another editor a “fanatical inclusionist,” even though that editor has argued to delete well over a dozen times) argued to keep in his edit history; it’s possible we missed one, but it is unlikely.

• No evidence of article improvement efforts.

Calls our volunteers’ contributions “crap”: [110], [111], [112]

Could someone make any more overt WP:IDONTLIKEIT remarks?

Use of WP:PERNOM style non-arguments: [113]