Pages need protecting from him, acknowledged by many. [1].
Please also consider the Arthur Farnsworth massacre [2]
please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reithy and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Reithy for intial problems with Reithy, he has since stopped his overt vandlism of Wikipedia and made it much more subtle while stalking and harrasing me.
For sure, I initially was foolish with some of my edits. Now, under various different accounts (to avoid being trolled by Chuck), I am contributing usefully. I hope so anyway. As I have proved elsewhere on the Libertarian Party page he actually deleted my entry before reading it, later read it and realised it was positive to his POV and restored it. Very disappointing. Reithy 13:53, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Why some of his trolls are interesting, obvious humerous flamebait he sure does like to troll. Which makes it kinda difficult to deal with him and impossible to use talk: Examples: [ [3]] [ [4]] - heh, he really likes trying to piss people off.
This Arthur Farnsworth page Reithy created is obviously a pov trying to use wikipedia as a tool to defame libertarians (this is his old edit, notice how he mentions libertarians three times in one sentence, his series of articles where he stresses the libertarian connection then goes and tells you about the awful things person has done) [ [5]] Rhobite has some more down there and I will add more up here later
Reithy has been posting my personal information over Wikipedia in a way that could only be called threatening and stalking. At first he mistakenly believed I was in Australia(asia pacfic domain's resolve to apnic in australia) [ [6]]. He then used that information to try and seemingly intimidate me on my user page[ [7]]. He then found out how to properly use whois services and posted this [ [8]] on the requests for comment page. and this on my user page [ [9]], there was absoluty no reason to post anything like that besides to try and frighten me/troll me.(especially as he spends time in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Roppongi_Hills&diff=6805371&oldid=6805127).
He then went and posted My personal information on a variety of other pages that there was utterly no reason to post it at [ [10]] and even after an admin told him to stop [ [11]], he still continues posting personal information to this day [ [12]]. and continued posting it on my user page even after I told him to stop vandalizing my user page(and removing the personal information), and the admin told him to stop. [ [13]] [ [14]].
Addition: even after I added this section and he responded to it, he continues to engage in posting of personal information to try and troll me more: [ [15]], [ [16]] and still more he continues [ [17]]
This is merely just the stalking problem.. I will add more to the harassment problem and his gutting of articles just to try and troll/harass me later..
Note: Reithy continued to delete things from the above section and put his responses in there, please check edit history, I'm moving his responses to down here, so that I won't be deleting them.
Reithy and his legal defense team will provide links and background information.
[ Demonstrates adding useful data to article]
I'm still writing out my evidence here, arbitrators please give me time.. but let me just respond to this. I love that you use that article as a history of your good edits... Let's just take a look and show that Reithy is trying inserting pov, insert inaccurate info(some of which I belive might be vandalizism out-right lies), spin the truth and generally what he considering is best edits to be:
Here is one of his edits [ [18]], and then [ [19]] (which is factually inaccurate info)
Reithy after these edits then added in info that even the most basic fact checking should have caught, [ [20]] (notice Reithy didn't add anything in after these edits were proven untrue, about the fact he Ron Paul was running unopposed and cite something like the lp saying this is because they believe it is too expensive to mount a campaign against Ron Paul).
After these edits Reithy went and added in this [ [21]] Using a quote by his staff members taken out of context and putting it under a subheading Ron Paul's views on race.
Here is the quote: he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." that is the full quote from the article.
Reithy only put this part of that quote in: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." and said that ron Paul wrote. (and keep in mind the article he refrenced the quote from actually states that this wasn't even writen by him):
Also the page Reiyh used as a reference was filled up with far more interesting facts about Paul, but I notice Reithy only put in the negative.
Again, Arbitrators This is nowhere near the more grevious of Reithy's actions, I'm just responding here and showing that this is what Reithy belives is one of the good examples of his work.
Posted by Chuck_F, who didn't put his name to it. Reithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or to use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Stung by criticism, Rhobite is now on a rampage of "evidence" collection with bizarre concocted claims against me, including:
Rhobite is guilty of:
Reithy 15:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Due to the edit-warring on this very page, I have no choice but to put evidence in my own section. Please don't revert this. Rhobite
Why a section against myself? It's because I'm confident my actions will be viewed as reasonable, and I have nothing to hide here.
Rhobite believes in hanging a lantern on his own PR problem. Great tactics though do not disguise venal conduct and blatant abuse of power. As he reiterates his Personal Attack that he at one stage withdrew we can see his own sarcasm and insincerity are unimpeachable.
FACT: Rhobite THREATENED to use his administrator's powers in order to force a win about the content of his Talk page.
FACT: Rhobite EDITED my comments on his Talk page.
FACT: While Chuck and I have occasional revert wars, we do not pretend to be anything other than two dudes having some fun and contributing hopefully something useful.
There is nothing preachy about Chuck's approach, he is just a little stubborn. I think a serious analysis of my History shows I've contributed quite a lot of useful material, including insights into an article written by User:Rhobite who mistakenly assumed Dick_Morris was in business as a campaign consultant in the US. Chuck has added an unusual and useful piece on placentagraphy. But neither of us have pretended to be superior in tone, as Rhobite has. Rhobite's whole attitude has been arrogant in the extreme and contemptuous of the contributions of others. Appointing someone who contributes nothing but nit-picking edits as an administrator has clearly been a mistake. We get to see that play out here. As time goes on you can be sure Rhobite will have many other victims.
It is appropriate to point out the following:
Reithy 00:18, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Temple University [ [105]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Personal attacks. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of sourced material. Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. Requests for page protection.
Roppongi Hills [ [106]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Failure to use Talk. Large scale repeated deletions of sourced material. Page protection requested.
General Motors [ [107]] Breaches of 3 revert rule. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of several relevant and sourced paras on GM's finances. Disagreements with other users. Page protected.
Michael Badnarik
Libertarian Party
Libertarianism
Placentophagy
Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit
Reithy's people that he is saying I'm having disagreements with besides him, are him!
Might I show you one [ [108]] which I quote him from up there as saying "Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. " This is obviously reithy, Considering later: [ [109]]
Reithy is claiming that i'm having disagreements with other users, but he is creating tons of sockpuppets to make it seem like there is a large concenus against me, and then one other user might come and revert saying they are following the concenus, when it's all just lone reithy and his sockpuppets. Chuck F 13:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and if you look at the edit historys for all the page Reithy is listed, you can see that he breaks every rule(and more) that he claims I break
Reithy's insanely unacceptable behavior has obscured the fact that Chuck has a constant habit of removing material he doesn't like with little or no explanation. He often presents this as a revert of Reithy, even if he's removing material added by others. He also makes limited-to-no use of talk, and rarely gives actual justifications in edit summaries (often just "revert to last version by me"). Much of this is well-documented on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F; here's a few more instances (generally I've taken just one edit, though he rarely stops there). Some of these don't involve Reithy at all, but ArbCom seems to have decided to deal with Chuck's behavior here.
Liberal theory of economics: [111]
Ron Paul: [113] (particularly outrageous: a consensus/compromise version of the text was fairly well-developed. Reithy sweeps in to vandalize the page: Rhobite reverts him, at which point Chuck uses it as an excuse to remove agreed-upon material which might portray Paul in an unfavorable light), [114], [115], [116], [117]
United States Libertarian Party: [122]
That's Because I've provided my reasons on the talk page. Okay so many of these things you've pointed out now, I've provided long-winded rants on the talk pages of thoese particular pages as to the reason for my changes. Chuck F 11:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Appendum: Radical - some of that evidence is unfair... You say it was a concenus - I just reverted back to the last non-reithy edit Before the page was protected(the page had only been protected for a day, I re-added the edits done on that day). Also you listed things that both me and Rhobite had problems with your edits as being somehow that I didn't use talk Chuck F 08:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Citoyens, I rise before you on this day with defiance whirling around us.
And the motion will become a movement.
And the movement shall verily change the entire world.
Some say I indulge in insane ranting, well now is the time.
Now is the time to tell it how it is, regardless of consequences.
This is the time to declare Wikipedia the last, best refuge of the Loon, the Nutcase, the Fanatic, the Freak and the Ideologue.
Again and again we have seen them win battles here.
I ask you citizens what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets someone called "Hershellkrustowsky" edit LaRouchite pages and pages about the Jewish people in a way so dripping with hatred and bile as to make one ill.
I ask you what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets confessed libertarian supporters describe the United States Libertarian Party and all its adherents.
I ask you what happened to the ideals of Jimbo Wales, I ask you where did the idealism go. And where indeed was the love lost?
My heart breaks for what might have been. A free-form resource built by all, with standards and passion and values. I am happy to rant about these things but deep down I know that as blind as I am, there is no one here who seems to be willing the shine the light of freedom in these dark warrens of intolerance, ideological obsession and bigotry.
Reithy 13:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I originally wrote a short intro, but I decided it's not worth my time doing such things for childish trolls like Reithy.
Okay, there's only one, but I digress. You're a childish troublemaking troll, Reithy, and ChuckF is probably one too, albeit to a lesser degree. The two of you had better not edit any of this, as policy dictates that only arbitrators may refactor discussion. You're free to trot out your old "ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATOR POWER" bullshit in "response", though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am disappointed by the profanity and hope you can keep it to a minimum. I wish you well. Reithy 14:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
In an totally unrelated mailing list thread [125] I was publicly flip-flopping over whether some IP address should be banned.
Someone claiming to be Reithy emailed me to write:
I'd never even heard of the guy up to this point. Not knowing whether this actually came from Reithy, and perhaps being slightly annoyed, I just blocked the email's originating IP address (144.132.89.151 - contributions) with the comment "Trolling via private email; also on Wikipedia. Probably User:Reithy".
I then got an email which was indeed sent from Reithy via the Wikipedia email system:
So, there you go. Evercat 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reithy has deleted evidence from this case several times. I warned him about it the first time, but since he continued, I blocked him for 24 hours. The arbitrators may decide whether my action was improper. —No-One Jones (m) 00:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some time after I blocked Reithy he posted the following on my talk page:
—No-One Jones (m) 19:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chuck has been blocked by User:Infrogmation for an edit war on Ron Paul. He continued to edit the article with uregistered ip address 61.121.224.11 [129] 202.78.94.101 [130] and 210.178.220.65 [131]. Ron Paul was subsequently protected, making it the seventh page currently protected from editing due to edit wars involving Chuck.
Chuck may also be editing from the ip 221.186.113.226: [132]
You know... this evidence agianst me would go a lot better if it wasn't this anon ip was the reason that all of these pages were protected.... It's like he's just trying to provoke me to go and gather evidence about protection... when he's the other half of the equation (also notice this is this only anon ip's edit) Chuck F 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Though I'm not technically savvy enough to trace IP addresses with enough certainty to imply the involvement of any particular individual, I think the ArbCom may be interested to know that there has been a couple of previously unseen IPs, 203.185.130.44 and 200.141.76.227 reverting Liberal Democratic Party of Australia without comment back to Chuck's preferred version. See: [133] and [134]. Going by their contributions pages ( [135] and [136]), they have also been editing other articles at issue in this arbitration, at the exclusion of any other topics. J. K. [[]] 07:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just received a new password e-mail which I had not requested. The request came from IP address 144.132.89.151, which looks like suspiciously like Reithy. RadicalSubversiv E 19:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm doing this wrong - I haven't ever submitted evidence to an Arbitration Committee case before. I've never had any dealings with Reithy, but I recently received the following e-mail, according to the headers via the Wikipedia e-mail function:
From: Reithy <reithy@walla.com> To: Andrevan <andrevan@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:27:25 GMT Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
I wish to purchase your wikipedia account. Please name your price.
I'm not sure if this breaks any rules or is anything of note, but I think someone ought to know about it. I'll forward it to anyone who wants. Andre ( talk) 23:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Looking at how the proposed decision is going, I think I need to state here that I attempted mediation with Chuck F and Rhobite and that that mediation was unsuccessful. -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
??? This is my arbitraton case I brought against Reithy Chuck F 03:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While trying to appear contrite here, Chuck is continuing to violate the temporary injunction. RadicalSubversiv E 23:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pages need protecting from him, acknowledged by many. [1].
Please also consider the Arthur Farnsworth massacre [2]
please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reithy and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Reithy for intial problems with Reithy, he has since stopped his overt vandlism of Wikipedia and made it much more subtle while stalking and harrasing me.
For sure, I initially was foolish with some of my edits. Now, under various different accounts (to avoid being trolled by Chuck), I am contributing usefully. I hope so anyway. As I have proved elsewhere on the Libertarian Party page he actually deleted my entry before reading it, later read it and realised it was positive to his POV and restored it. Very disappointing. Reithy 13:53, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Why some of his trolls are interesting, obvious humerous flamebait he sure does like to troll. Which makes it kinda difficult to deal with him and impossible to use talk: Examples: [ [3]] [ [4]] - heh, he really likes trying to piss people off.
This Arthur Farnsworth page Reithy created is obviously a pov trying to use wikipedia as a tool to defame libertarians (this is his old edit, notice how he mentions libertarians three times in one sentence, his series of articles where he stresses the libertarian connection then goes and tells you about the awful things person has done) [ [5]] Rhobite has some more down there and I will add more up here later
Reithy has been posting my personal information over Wikipedia in a way that could only be called threatening and stalking. At first he mistakenly believed I was in Australia(asia pacfic domain's resolve to apnic in australia) [ [6]]. He then used that information to try and seemingly intimidate me on my user page[ [7]]. He then found out how to properly use whois services and posted this [ [8]] on the requests for comment page. and this on my user page [ [9]], there was absoluty no reason to post anything like that besides to try and frighten me/troll me.(especially as he spends time in Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Roppongi_Hills&diff=6805371&oldid=6805127).
He then went and posted My personal information on a variety of other pages that there was utterly no reason to post it at [ [10]] and even after an admin told him to stop [ [11]], he still continues posting personal information to this day [ [12]]. and continued posting it on my user page even after I told him to stop vandalizing my user page(and removing the personal information), and the admin told him to stop. [ [13]] [ [14]].
Addition: even after I added this section and he responded to it, he continues to engage in posting of personal information to try and troll me more: [ [15]], [ [16]] and still more he continues [ [17]]
This is merely just the stalking problem.. I will add more to the harassment problem and his gutting of articles just to try and troll/harass me later..
Note: Reithy continued to delete things from the above section and put his responses in there, please check edit history, I'm moving his responses to down here, so that I won't be deleting them.
Reithy and his legal defense team will provide links and background information.
[ Demonstrates adding useful data to article]
I'm still writing out my evidence here, arbitrators please give me time.. but let me just respond to this. I love that you use that article as a history of your good edits... Let's just take a look and show that Reithy is trying inserting pov, insert inaccurate info(some of which I belive might be vandalizism out-right lies), spin the truth and generally what he considering is best edits to be:
Here is one of his edits [ [18]], and then [ [19]] (which is factually inaccurate info)
Reithy after these edits then added in info that even the most basic fact checking should have caught, [ [20]] (notice Reithy didn't add anything in after these edits were proven untrue, about the fact he Ron Paul was running unopposed and cite something like the lp saying this is because they believe it is too expensive to mount a campaign against Ron Paul).
After these edits Reithy went and added in this [ [21]] Using a quote by his staff members taken out of context and putting it under a subheading Ron Paul's views on race.
Here is the quote: he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." that is the full quote from the article.
Reithy only put this part of that quote in: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." and said that ron Paul wrote. (and keep in mind the article he refrenced the quote from actually states that this wasn't even writen by him):
Also the page Reiyh used as a reference was filled up with far more interesting facts about Paul, but I notice Reithy only put in the negative.
Again, Arbitrators This is nowhere near the more grevious of Reithy's actions, I'm just responding here and showing that this is what Reithy belives is one of the good examples of his work.
Posted by Chuck_F, who didn't put his name to it. Reithy 08:48, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 have repeatedly broken the 3 revert rule, engaged in repeated personal attacks, multiple edit wars, unjustified, unexplained reverts, large-scale deletions of relevant material, inappropriate language etc. He has refused to negotiate, or to use Talk productively even when given the opportunity from others keen to engage him. There is currently a request for comment on Chuck_F. Comments to Reithy 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Stung by criticism, Rhobite is now on a rampage of "evidence" collection with bizarre concocted claims against me, including:
Rhobite is guilty of:
Reithy 15:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Due to the edit-warring on this very page, I have no choice but to put evidence in my own section. Please don't revert this. Rhobite
Why a section against myself? It's because I'm confident my actions will be viewed as reasonable, and I have nothing to hide here.
Rhobite believes in hanging a lantern on his own PR problem. Great tactics though do not disguise venal conduct and blatant abuse of power. As he reiterates his Personal Attack that he at one stage withdrew we can see his own sarcasm and insincerity are unimpeachable.
FACT: Rhobite THREATENED to use his administrator's powers in order to force a win about the content of his Talk page.
FACT: Rhobite EDITED my comments on his Talk page.
FACT: While Chuck and I have occasional revert wars, we do not pretend to be anything other than two dudes having some fun and contributing hopefully something useful.
There is nothing preachy about Chuck's approach, he is just a little stubborn. I think a serious analysis of my History shows I've contributed quite a lot of useful material, including insights into an article written by User:Rhobite who mistakenly assumed Dick_Morris was in business as a campaign consultant in the US. Chuck has added an unusual and useful piece on placentagraphy. But neither of us have pretended to be superior in tone, as Rhobite has. Rhobite's whole attitude has been arrogant in the extreme and contemptuous of the contributions of others. Appointing someone who contributes nothing but nit-picking edits as an administrator has clearly been a mistake. We get to see that play out here. As time goes on you can be sure Rhobite will have many other victims.
It is appropriate to point out the following:
Reithy 00:18, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
Temple University [ [105]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Personal attacks. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of sourced material. Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. Requests for page protection.
Roppongi Hills [ [106]] - Breaches of 3 revert rule. Failure to use Talk. Large scale repeated deletions of sourced material. Page protection requested.
General Motors [ [107]] Breaches of 3 revert rule. Unjustified reverts. Deletion of several relevant and sourced paras on GM's finances. Disagreements with other users. Page protected.
Michael Badnarik
Libertarian Party
Libertarianism
Placentophagy
Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit
Reithy's people that he is saying I'm having disagreements with besides him, are him!
Might I show you one [ [108]] which I quote him from up there as saying "Disagrements with two users other than Reithy. " This is obviously reithy, Considering later: [ [109]]
Reithy is claiming that i'm having disagreements with other users, but he is creating tons of sockpuppets to make it seem like there is a large concenus against me, and then one other user might come and revert saying they are following the concenus, when it's all just lone reithy and his sockpuppets. Chuck F 13:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and if you look at the edit historys for all the page Reithy is listed, you can see that he breaks every rule(and more) that he claims I break
Reithy's insanely unacceptable behavior has obscured the fact that Chuck has a constant habit of removing material he doesn't like with little or no explanation. He often presents this as a revert of Reithy, even if he's removing material added by others. He also makes limited-to-no use of talk, and rarely gives actual justifications in edit summaries (often just "revert to last version by me"). Much of this is well-documented on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F; here's a few more instances (generally I've taken just one edit, though he rarely stops there). Some of these don't involve Reithy at all, but ArbCom seems to have decided to deal with Chuck's behavior here.
Liberal theory of economics: [111]
Ron Paul: [113] (particularly outrageous: a consensus/compromise version of the text was fairly well-developed. Reithy sweeps in to vandalize the page: Rhobite reverts him, at which point Chuck uses it as an excuse to remove agreed-upon material which might portray Paul in an unfavorable light), [114], [115], [116], [117]
United States Libertarian Party: [122]
That's Because I've provided my reasons on the talk page. Okay so many of these things you've pointed out now, I've provided long-winded rants on the talk pages of thoese particular pages as to the reason for my changes. Chuck F 11:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Appendum: Radical - some of that evidence is unfair... You say it was a concenus - I just reverted back to the last non-reithy edit Before the page was protected(the page had only been protected for a day, I re-added the edits done on that day). Also you listed things that both me and Rhobite had problems with your edits as being somehow that I didn't use talk Chuck F 08:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Citoyens, I rise before you on this day with defiance whirling around us.
And the motion will become a movement.
And the movement shall verily change the entire world.
Some say I indulge in insane ranting, well now is the time.
Now is the time to tell it how it is, regardless of consequences.
This is the time to declare Wikipedia the last, best refuge of the Loon, the Nutcase, the Fanatic, the Freak and the Ideologue.
Again and again we have seen them win battles here.
I ask you citizens what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets someone called "Hershellkrustowsky" edit LaRouchite pages and pages about the Jewish people in a way so dripping with hatred and bile as to make one ill.
I ask you what encyclopedia worthy of the name lets confessed libertarian supporters describe the United States Libertarian Party and all its adherents.
I ask you what happened to the ideals of Jimbo Wales, I ask you where did the idealism go. And where indeed was the love lost?
My heart breaks for what might have been. A free-form resource built by all, with standards and passion and values. I am happy to rant about these things but deep down I know that as blind as I am, there is no one here who seems to be willing the shine the light of freedom in these dark warrens of intolerance, ideological obsession and bigotry.
Reithy 13:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
I originally wrote a short intro, but I decided it's not worth my time doing such things for childish trolls like Reithy.
Okay, there's only one, but I digress. You're a childish troublemaking troll, Reithy, and ChuckF is probably one too, albeit to a lesser degree. The two of you had better not edit any of this, as policy dictates that only arbitrators may refactor discussion. You're free to trot out your old "ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATOR POWER" bullshit in "response", though. Johnleemk | Talk 14:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am disappointed by the profanity and hope you can keep it to a minimum. I wish you well. Reithy 14:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
In an totally unrelated mailing list thread [125] I was publicly flip-flopping over whether some IP address should be banned.
Someone claiming to be Reithy emailed me to write:
I'd never even heard of the guy up to this point. Not knowing whether this actually came from Reithy, and perhaps being slightly annoyed, I just blocked the email's originating IP address (144.132.89.151 - contributions) with the comment "Trolling via private email; also on Wikipedia. Probably User:Reithy".
I then got an email which was indeed sent from Reithy via the Wikipedia email system:
So, there you go. Evercat 15:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reithy has deleted evidence from this case several times. I warned him about it the first time, but since he continued, I blocked him for 24 hours. The arbitrators may decide whether my action was improper. —No-One Jones (m) 00:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some time after I blocked Reithy he posted the following on my talk page:
—No-One Jones (m) 19:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Chuck has been blocked by User:Infrogmation for an edit war on Ron Paul. He continued to edit the article with uregistered ip address 61.121.224.11 [129] 202.78.94.101 [130] and 210.178.220.65 [131]. Ron Paul was subsequently protected, making it the seventh page currently protected from editing due to edit wars involving Chuck.
Chuck may also be editing from the ip 221.186.113.226: [132]
You know... this evidence agianst me would go a lot better if it wasn't this anon ip was the reason that all of these pages were protected.... It's like he's just trying to provoke me to go and gather evidence about protection... when he's the other half of the equation (also notice this is this only anon ip's edit) Chuck F 06:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Though I'm not technically savvy enough to trace IP addresses with enough certainty to imply the involvement of any particular individual, I think the ArbCom may be interested to know that there has been a couple of previously unseen IPs, 203.185.130.44 and 200.141.76.227 reverting Liberal Democratic Party of Australia without comment back to Chuck's preferred version. See: [133] and [134]. Going by their contributions pages ( [135] and [136]), they have also been editing other articles at issue in this arbitration, at the exclusion of any other topics. J. K. [[]] 07:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just received a new password e-mail which I had not requested. The request came from IP address 144.132.89.151, which looks like suspiciously like Reithy. RadicalSubversiv E 19:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm doing this wrong - I haven't ever submitted evidence to an Arbitration Committee case before. I've never had any dealings with Reithy, but I recently received the following e-mail, according to the headers via the Wikipedia e-mail function:
From: Reithy <reithy@walla.com> To: Andrevan <andrevan@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:27:25 GMT Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
I wish to purchase your wikipedia account. Please name your price.
I'm not sure if this breaks any rules or is anything of note, but I think someone ought to know about it. I'll forward it to anyone who wants. Andre ( talk) 23:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Looking at how the proposed decision is going, I think I need to state here that I attempted mediation with Chuck F and Rhobite and that that mediation was unsuccessful. -- sannse (talk) 18:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)
??? This is my arbitraton case I brought against Reithy Chuck F 03:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
While trying to appear contrite here, Chuck is continuing to violate the temporary injunction. RadicalSubversiv E 23:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)