- There is absolutely no point to this RFC (or most RFC's anyway, but never mind) - it's a waste of our time. Whatever decision we/you/us make here, RMS is still going to come back and make whatever edits he wants. He has so many different I.P.'s that it's not worth the effort to track him and there won't be any way to enforce anything on him. He doesn't even use his user account anymore.
JackO'Lantern
00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be sent to ArbCom? Computerjoe 's talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What are they going to do about it? The facts are
- 1. RMS doesn't listen to anyone's authority
- 2. We can't enforce anything on him because he has so many I.P.'s
JackO'Lantern 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we prevent this user from "contributing" by banning all of his/her known I.P.'s? This user is a malicious hate-mongerer and, as far as I can tell, (s)he hasn't made any worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia.-- Nicholas 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- RMS, it needs to be stated, has made quite a number of worthy and useful edits to articles, mostly biographical. However, in his quest to eradicate everything that he sees as 'Catholic bias', he adds quite a lot of POV. When challenged, he gets quite obnoxious. This RfA should run its course and whatever - he'll most likely be back and when he is, other editors will be ready to revert his POV on an hourly basis (as what happened with the Michael Cusack article). - Ali-oops ✍ 07:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, he's also now taken an interest in WP:IWNB [1] - Ali-oops ✍ 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, this may take some time (there's so many obvious examples of sock-puppetry) - I'll make a start, and continue later.
- Sock puppet "Barbara_Glownicka" see Special:Contributions/Barbara_Glownicka. Note the message: "Domestic terrorism in the U.S. (ran it by Demiurge--with no response)"
- Then take a look at User_talk:Demiurge#Domestic_terrorism - it's clear that it was Rms125a who "ran it past Demiurge". Take a look at the changes that "Barbara Glownicka" made: [2] - exactly the same as what Rms125a had "proposed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States&limit=500&action=history
- Note that the above page was a redirect to "Domestic terrorism in the United States", where "Barbara Glownicka" tried to create a POV fork.
- Note in the history of the original article the comment from another of Rms's sock-puppets, "Brandubh Blathmac":
(I just played with the syntax, this Barbara's got her head on straight--funny she's Polish)"
- A blatant lie apart from anything else - this edit added Rms's "essay" from above.
More (much, much more) to follow. Camillus (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Irish-Scots&action=history
Shows that "Brandubh Blathmac" and 216.194.2.210 are one and the same, edits/edit summaries completely consistent with Rms. Note also, from "Brandubh Blathmac's contributions, the same interest in "Irish catholics" and actors/actresses (an area where Rms has added useful edits), and particularly Catholic actors/actresses. Camillus (talk)
I've never commented in an RFC before, so I thought I'd put my comments here, as I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is for putting them in the main RFC. I have never been in an actualy conflict with the user, but have noticed his frequent disruption peripherally, and while he has made many good contributions, I'm sure he uses multiple IP addresses and accounts as sockpuppets when things aren't going the way he likes. I tagged one IP address ( 24.136.99.194) as a possible sockpuppet with the identical edit summaries seen here and here. I was drawn to this RFC after reverting these changes by Brandubh Blathmac to the James Joyce article which are very similar to changes I reverted back in February by Rms125a@hotmail.com, with odd paragraph breaks and changing novel title emphasis from italics to bolding. It seems to me that the user often doesn't even try to hide his identity when editing from IP addresses, and I grant that you don't have to be logged in to edit Wikipedia, but I've noticed in some cases the reason for not logging in is to evade a block. - dharm a bum 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Small, but amusing. Yet another sock "AodhBlathmac@eirelover.net" left a note on my talk page pretending to wonder who this "eedjit" was (one of Rms's socks accusing me of being a "fifth-columnist", one of Rms's pet phrases) - but couldn't resist correcting my mispelling of Rms's surname! ( see here. Check "Aodh"'s contributions - same interest in croatian catholic fascists etc.
- Which brings us on to "Eirelover@earthlink.net" (pattern? note that practically the only google hit for "eirelover" is this sock's user page!) - check contributions - same interest in actors and actresses, particularly catholic actors/actresses, and Irish politics, same POV. Camillus (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If these anonymous IP addresses are nothing to do with Rms (as he maintains), then why do they vandalize the same pages in exactly the same way (" Croat whores edit related to Bleiburg massacre by User:Aisling O'Cuiv; Rms admits making the same edit here). Why do they sign his name to their edits? Why do they share the same obssessions about Michael Cusack and the Bleiburg Massacre? Why do they use the same turn of phrase about "Catholic censors"? Why do they refer to edits made by Rms as edits made by themselves? Why do their edits contain the same idiosyncrasies as his ( random bolding of phrases, reversing dates, adding Category:Roman Catholics to people who are not notable for their Catholicism)? He even betrays himself in his response to this RfC -- when he talks of "censors" and "fifth columns" -- now where else have we seen those particular words used? I'm positive that a CheckUser request would confirm it, but I think everyone already knows what's going on here. Demiurge 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that in his response, he denies using sockpuppets in one breath ("I deny all alleged sockpuppets") but admits them in the next ("Jtdirl is the one who created a secret account (named Billy Collins) to block me from logging in (although obviously not from contributing)". Demiurge 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
These two charming posts clearly link 216.194.3.172 and "Brandubh Blathmac" with Mr. Seiger:
Notice the pattern - fifth columnist/censor used by Robert Seiger in his response...
Notice, if you can be bothered, that in the second one, though I direct my comments directly to "Robert", "Brandubh Blathmac" makes no attempt to deny he is Rms. If you really can be bothered, I've moved all of Rms's many sock-messages to User_talk:CPMcE/Robert's Abuse Page, where you'll see the same "Brandubh" pretending to be an "Oirish Catholic", with no knowledge of "Robert", and suggesting that maybe I'm secretly in love with "Robert" - which of course, hurt me to the quick.
Let's get this tied up as soon as, so we can all get back to the real job, and stop Mr. Seiger wasting all our times, and WP resources. Camillus (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Even more evidence: "he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct" by Brandubh Blathmac vs. "It is Demiurge who is the censor; it is his DNA and his every instinct" by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
After User:McTrumpet added his comment, I, ( User:CPMcE) added the following comment, and then struck it out as I had no evidence for the suspicion stated:
Comment I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the above user has practically no edit history ( see here), starting just tonight, immediately after the latest "sock-puppet" of Rms disappeared, with unsolicited comments on my talk page, "attacking" Rms and another editor I had a dispute with. I apologise in advance if I am adding 2+2 and getting 5, but I, er, "smell a rat".... Camillus (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have struck out the above comment, as it may have been too hasty. Camillus (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
McTrumpet replied:
Camillus, I've already addresses this on my talk page. Kindly respond there instead of going around Wikipedia spreading malicious rumours about users.
Your behavour is in clear breach of this Wikipedia policy : Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Kindly confirm that you will cease and desist immediately, or provide evidence to the contary.
-- McTrumpet 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
MrTrumpet has now created a user page, which I'm afraid amounts to a personal attack on me - re-stating that I am still going round Wikipedia "spreading malicious lies and rumours" about him. I fail to see how one comment on one other article expressing a suspicion amounts to "going around Wikipedia spreading malicious rumours".
If you haven't already died of boredom, please take a look at User_talk:McTrumpet, were I explain why I had my suspicion, and User:McTrumpet. Camillus (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that motion. It shows fully how
User:CPMcE has taken it upon themselves to launch a personal attack against myself, insinuating that I engage in vanadlism, anonymous edits, and how I am a sock puppet. --
McTrumpet
01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A sample :
at 23:58, User:CPMcE wrote : "I suspected you of being "somebody else", ie. a notorious vandal trying to disguise himself"
at 00:12, 29 March 2006 User:CPMcE wrote : "I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the above user has practically no edit history (see here), starting just tonight, immediately after the latest "sock-puppet" of Rms disappeared, with unsolicited comments on my talk page, "attacking" Rms and another editor I had a dispute with. I apologise in advance if I am adding 2+2 and getting 5, but I, er, "smell a rat".... User:CPMcE"
00:22, 29 March 2006, User:CPMcE wrote : "Perhaps you have been editing anonymously before tonight"
-- McTrumpet 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot this one :
"I strongly suspect it's Mr.Seeger up to his old tricks. What a bore. Camillus (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" -- McTrumpet 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Who cares if Camillus is a sockpuppet of RMS? Why don't we all go to Category:Cleanup from March 2006 and spend our time usefully? JackO'Lantern 02:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No! I'm the alleged sock puppet! -- McTrumpet 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to rephrase, if you will - Who cares if McTrumpet is a sockpuppet of RMS? Why don't we all go to Category:Cleanup from March 2006 and spend our time usefully? JackO'Lantern 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Errr, dude! We're Scottish. We don't have anything better to do.
Clean it up by all means dude.
(I don't have to do it myself do I?) -- McTrumpet 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well this is something I've been thinking about lately. Aren't we at Wikipedia to improve it/the world/contribute/be productive/etc.? No one out there really cares about RMS, McTrumpet, or me. Why waste time discussing ourselves when we should be discussing/improving the articles?
JackO'Lantern
02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to admit I have come round to agree with you, JackO'Lantern. Looking at Rms's list of suspected sock-puppets, which is the longest I've ever seen, and given some of his recorded boasts of "more users names to invent, new IPs to use!" (I paraphrase), and given that he'll even pretend to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", in order to continue his "work", I'm afraid we're stuck with him. Reasonable editors may be open to reform by the community, but I'm afraid that Rms doesn't fall into that category - so, unfortunately, we're stuck with him and his vile propaganda, and his disgusting personal attacks. Still, enough people may have been alerted by this RfC to keep an eye out for his vandalism, so that is a plus. But you're right, there really is no further point to this process.
Camillus
(talk)
02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't think this RfC is wasted, it's a necessary step on the way to a Request for Arbitration. If this RfC doesn't have any effect on Rms's behaviour (and signs so far are that it hasn't) I'll bring it to the Arbcom, who will have the power to permanently block Rms. This block will apply to any account or IP address of his, and will be enforceable by any administrator, so if you see one of his abusive sockpuppets popping up, you'll be able to notify an administrator who will automatically issue a block. Even Rms will get tired of switching IP addresses every 5 minutes. Wikipedia has taken on far more determined and resourceful vandals than him and won. Demiurge 08:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to admit I have come round to agree with you, JackO'Lantern. Looking at Rms's list of suspected sock-puppets, which is the longest I've ever seen, and given some of his recorded boasts of "more users names to invent, new IPs to use!" (I paraphrase), and given that he'll even pretend to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", in order to continue his "work", I'm afraid we're stuck with him. Reasonable editors may be open to reform by the community, but I'm afraid that Rms doesn't fall into that category - so, unfortunately, we're stuck with him and his vile propaganda, and his disgusting personal attacks. Still, enough people may have been alerted by this RfC to keep an eye out for his vandalism, so that is a plus. But you're right, there really is no further point to this process.
Camillus
(talk)
02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I want that last statement by Camillus exactly to be kept where it is.
I'm going to see if theres some sort of dispute resolution policy in place for this.
I'm not having Wikipedia users making personal attacks on me like this.
- I do not think that McTrumpet is a sock-puppet of Rms. The above statement is clearly directed at Rms, so I don't see why McTrumpet is taking it as an "attack" on him. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- McTrumpet 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the page on
Wikipedia:Third opinion .--
McTrumpet
02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP:3o
This page was listed on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, but I can frankly see no reason why. If you two don't like each other, that's entirely your business. Is there a dispute about an article somewhere here? Fagstein 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Fagstein, it was listed on
Wikipedia:Third Opinion because I seek external opinion on the acceptability of the conduct of user
User:CPMcE
They have alleged that I :
1 : Vandalise Wikipedia 2 : Make Anonymous posts 3 : Act as a sock puppet for, at various times, "Rms", "Mr Seeger" and/or "Mr Seeker". 4 : I spread "vile propoganda" 5 : My actions are in breach of have breached Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- 1) I have accused Rms of vandalising Wikipedia. 2) I have never "accused" anyone of making "anonymous posts", as there's absolutely no policy against anonymous posts. 3) I did have suspicions of McTrumpet at the start, due to the fact that my talk page had been attacked by Rms under various guises, every half hour or so, the last were he pretended to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", and then McTrumpet appeared on my talk page attacking Rms. I no longer think that McTrumpet is a sock-puppet of Rms. The "allegation" in (3) appeared on my talk page, where I struck out the remarks, commenting "I suspect it may be Rms up to his tricks". 4) I accused Rms of spreading "vile propaganda", a view endorsed by this RfC, where did I accuse McTrumpet of this? 5) I consider McTrumpet's user page (not just his discussion page), which is solely dedicated to an attack on me, as unacceptable. While I aknowledge I acted hastily in suspecting McTrumpet of being Rms in yet another disguise, I will not apologise, given the way he's used his whole user page to attack me, selectively picking from the "discussion" between us. I propose to waste no more time on this. Let's face it, McT, - no-one gives a flying f**k about our little disagreement. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have asked User:CPMcE to stop spreading unfounded lies and rumours.
I have also asked User:CPMcE to provide any sort of evidence which they may have to justify these statements against myself.
User:CPMcE has failed to provide a single piece of material which would point to any impropriety whatsoever on my part. Their actions are without reason, logic, nor do they have any basis in fact.
Furthermore, they continue to make these unfounded claims, despite acknowledging that they are unable to provide any sort of back up for their statements at all.
- Patently untrue. The comments above were clearly directed at Rms, if McTrumpet wants to take them as attacks on him, that's his business. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I do not feel that User:CPMcE has acted within the policies of Wikipedia, and I seek the opinions of third parties on that.
That is why I placed it in [[ Wikipedia:Third Opinion]].
-- 82.9.50.32 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(Why does the preview show my ip? What happened to my username? Have I been banned or what?)
Fagstein, I noticed that you moved the original listing on
Wikipedia:Third Opinion to somewhere else called, 'Active Disagreements'. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that page on Wikipedia. Don't suppose theres any chance you could provide a link?
I've just found this page : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and I think that it might well be the most appropriate venue this discussion. -- 82.9.50.32 11:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I may or may not respond there. I agree: "If you two don't like each other, that's entirely your business." Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Following on from this RfC, I've opened a Request for Arbitration which can be found here. Demiurge 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- On the recommendation of two arbitrators in that application, I am closing it and refiling as an incident report on WP:AN/I as a proposal that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation. -- Tony Sidaway 13:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
See
this edit in which I put the recommendation to the administrators, who have the power to implement it. I am not closing the application for arbitration just yet, just in case the community decides not to take the recommended action. --
Tony Sidaway
13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no point to this RFC (or most RFC's anyway, but never mind) - it's a waste of our time. Whatever decision we/you/us make here, RMS is still going to come back and make whatever edits he wants. He has so many different I.P.'s that it's not worth the effort to track him and there won't be any way to enforce anything on him. He doesn't even use his user account anymore.
JackO'Lantern
00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be sent to ArbCom? Computerjoe 's talk 06:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- What are they going to do about it? The facts are
- 1. RMS doesn't listen to anyone's authority
- 2. We can't enforce anything on him because he has so many I.P.'s
JackO'Lantern 06:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we prevent this user from "contributing" by banning all of his/her known I.P.'s? This user is a malicious hate-mongerer and, as far as I can tell, (s)he hasn't made any worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia.-- Nicholas 11:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- RMS, it needs to be stated, has made quite a number of worthy and useful edits to articles, mostly biographical. However, in his quest to eradicate everything that he sees as 'Catholic bias', he adds quite a lot of POV. When challenged, he gets quite obnoxious. This RfA should run its course and whatever - he'll most likely be back and when he is, other editors will be ready to revert his POV on an hourly basis (as what happened with the Michael Cusack article). - Ali-oops ✍ 07:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently, he's also now taken an interest in WP:IWNB [1] - Ali-oops ✍ 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, this may take some time (there's so many obvious examples of sock-puppetry) - I'll make a start, and continue later.
- Sock puppet "Barbara_Glownicka" see Special:Contributions/Barbara_Glownicka. Note the message: "Domestic terrorism in the U.S. (ran it by Demiurge--with no response)"
- Then take a look at User_talk:Demiurge#Domestic_terrorism - it's clear that it was Rms125a who "ran it past Demiurge". Take a look at the changes that "Barbara Glownicka" made: [2] - exactly the same as what Rms125a had "proposed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States&limit=500&action=history
- Note that the above page was a redirect to "Domestic terrorism in the United States", where "Barbara Glownicka" tried to create a POV fork.
- Note in the history of the original article the comment from another of Rms's sock-puppets, "Brandubh Blathmac":
(I just played with the syntax, this Barbara's got her head on straight--funny she's Polish)"
- A blatant lie apart from anything else - this edit added Rms's "essay" from above.
More (much, much more) to follow. Camillus (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Irish-Scots&action=history
Shows that "Brandubh Blathmac" and 216.194.2.210 are one and the same, edits/edit summaries completely consistent with Rms. Note also, from "Brandubh Blathmac's contributions, the same interest in "Irish catholics" and actors/actresses (an area where Rms has added useful edits), and particularly Catholic actors/actresses. Camillus (talk)
I've never commented in an RFC before, so I thought I'd put my comments here, as I'm not entirely sure what the procedure is for putting them in the main RFC. I have never been in an actualy conflict with the user, but have noticed his frequent disruption peripherally, and while he has made many good contributions, I'm sure he uses multiple IP addresses and accounts as sockpuppets when things aren't going the way he likes. I tagged one IP address ( 24.136.99.194) as a possible sockpuppet with the identical edit summaries seen here and here. I was drawn to this RFC after reverting these changes by Brandubh Blathmac to the James Joyce article which are very similar to changes I reverted back in February by Rms125a@hotmail.com, with odd paragraph breaks and changing novel title emphasis from italics to bolding. It seems to me that the user often doesn't even try to hide his identity when editing from IP addresses, and I grant that you don't have to be logged in to edit Wikipedia, but I've noticed in some cases the reason for not logging in is to evade a block. - dharm a bum 22:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Small, but amusing. Yet another sock "AodhBlathmac@eirelover.net" left a note on my talk page pretending to wonder who this "eedjit" was (one of Rms's socks accusing me of being a "fifth-columnist", one of Rms's pet phrases) - but couldn't resist correcting my mispelling of Rms's surname! ( see here. Check "Aodh"'s contributions - same interest in croatian catholic fascists etc.
- Which brings us on to "Eirelover@earthlink.net" (pattern? note that practically the only google hit for "eirelover" is this sock's user page!) - check contributions - same interest in actors and actresses, particularly catholic actors/actresses, and Irish politics, same POV. Camillus (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If these anonymous IP addresses are nothing to do with Rms (as he maintains), then why do they vandalize the same pages in exactly the same way (" Croat whores edit related to Bleiburg massacre by User:Aisling O'Cuiv; Rms admits making the same edit here). Why do they sign his name to their edits? Why do they share the same obssessions about Michael Cusack and the Bleiburg Massacre? Why do they use the same turn of phrase about "Catholic censors"? Why do they refer to edits made by Rms as edits made by themselves? Why do their edits contain the same idiosyncrasies as his ( random bolding of phrases, reversing dates, adding Category:Roman Catholics to people who are not notable for their Catholicism)? He even betrays himself in his response to this RfC -- when he talks of "censors" and "fifth columns" -- now where else have we seen those particular words used? I'm positive that a CheckUser request would confirm it, but I think everyone already knows what's going on here. Demiurge 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Also note that in his response, he denies using sockpuppets in one breath ("I deny all alleged sockpuppets") but admits them in the next ("Jtdirl is the one who created a secret account (named Billy Collins) to block me from logging in (although obviously not from contributing)". Demiurge 09:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
These two charming posts clearly link 216.194.3.172 and "Brandubh Blathmac" with Mr. Seiger:
Notice the pattern - fifth columnist/censor used by Robert Seiger in his response...
Notice, if you can be bothered, that in the second one, though I direct my comments directly to "Robert", "Brandubh Blathmac" makes no attempt to deny he is Rms. If you really can be bothered, I've moved all of Rms's many sock-messages to User_talk:CPMcE/Robert's Abuse Page, where you'll see the same "Brandubh" pretending to be an "Oirish Catholic", with no knowledge of "Robert", and suggesting that maybe I'm secretly in love with "Robert" - which of course, hurt me to the quick.
Let's get this tied up as soon as, so we can all get back to the real job, and stop Mr. Seiger wasting all our times, and WP resources. Camillus (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Even more evidence: "he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct" by Brandubh Blathmac vs. "It is Demiurge who is the censor; it is his DNA and his every instinct" by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Demiurge 17:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
After User:McTrumpet added his comment, I, ( User:CPMcE) added the following comment, and then struck it out as I had no evidence for the suspicion stated:
Comment I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the above user has practically no edit history ( see here), starting just tonight, immediately after the latest "sock-puppet" of Rms disappeared, with unsolicited comments on my talk page, "attacking" Rms and another editor I had a dispute with. I apologise in advance if I am adding 2+2 and getting 5, but I, er, "smell a rat".... Camillus (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have struck out the above comment, as it may have been too hasty. Camillus (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
McTrumpet replied:
Camillus, I've already addresses this on my talk page. Kindly respond there instead of going around Wikipedia spreading malicious rumours about users.
Your behavour is in clear breach of this Wikipedia policy : Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Kindly confirm that you will cease and desist immediately, or provide evidence to the contary.
-- McTrumpet 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
MrTrumpet has now created a user page, which I'm afraid amounts to a personal attack on me - re-stating that I am still going round Wikipedia "spreading malicious lies and rumours" about him. I fail to see how one comment on one other article expressing a suspicion amounts to "going around Wikipedia spreading malicious rumours".
If you haven't already died of boredom, please take a look at User_talk:McTrumpet, were I explain why I had my suspicion, and User:McTrumpet. Camillus (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I second that motion. It shows fully how
User:CPMcE has taken it upon themselves to launch a personal attack against myself, insinuating that I engage in vanadlism, anonymous edits, and how I am a sock puppet. --
McTrumpet
01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
A sample :
at 23:58, User:CPMcE wrote : "I suspected you of being "somebody else", ie. a notorious vandal trying to disguise himself"
at 00:12, 29 March 2006 User:CPMcE wrote : "I'm sorry, but I have to point out that the above user has practically no edit history (see here), starting just tonight, immediately after the latest "sock-puppet" of Rms disappeared, with unsolicited comments on my talk page, "attacking" Rms and another editor I had a dispute with. I apologise in advance if I am adding 2+2 and getting 5, but I, er, "smell a rat".... User:CPMcE"
00:22, 29 March 2006, User:CPMcE wrote : "Perhaps you have been editing anonymously before tonight"
-- McTrumpet 01:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot this one :
"I strongly suspect it's Mr.Seeger up to his old tricks. What a bore. Camillus (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" -- McTrumpet 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Who cares if Camillus is a sockpuppet of RMS? Why don't we all go to Category:Cleanup from March 2006 and spend our time usefully? JackO'Lantern 02:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
No! I'm the alleged sock puppet! -- McTrumpet 02:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Allow me to rephrase, if you will - Who cares if McTrumpet is a sockpuppet of RMS? Why don't we all go to Category:Cleanup from March 2006 and spend our time usefully? JackO'Lantern 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Errr, dude! We're Scottish. We don't have anything better to do.
Clean it up by all means dude.
(I don't have to do it myself do I?) -- McTrumpet 02:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well this is something I've been thinking about lately. Aren't we at Wikipedia to improve it/the world/contribute/be productive/etc.? No one out there really cares about RMS, McTrumpet, or me. Why waste time discussing ourselves when we should be discussing/improving the articles?
JackO'Lantern
02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to admit I have come round to agree with you, JackO'Lantern. Looking at Rms's list of suspected sock-puppets, which is the longest I've ever seen, and given some of his recorded boasts of "more users names to invent, new IPs to use!" (I paraphrase), and given that he'll even pretend to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", in order to continue his "work", I'm afraid we're stuck with him. Reasonable editors may be open to reform by the community, but I'm afraid that Rms doesn't fall into that category - so, unfortunately, we're stuck with him and his vile propaganda, and his disgusting personal attacks. Still, enough people may have been alerted by this RfC to keep an eye out for his vandalism, so that is a plus. But you're right, there really is no further point to this process.
Camillus
(talk)
02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, I don't think this RfC is wasted, it's a necessary step on the way to a Request for Arbitration. If this RfC doesn't have any effect on Rms's behaviour (and signs so far are that it hasn't) I'll bring it to the Arbcom, who will have the power to permanently block Rms. This block will apply to any account or IP address of his, and will be enforceable by any administrator, so if you see one of his abusive sockpuppets popping up, you'll be able to notify an administrator who will automatically issue a block. Even Rms will get tired of switching IP addresses every 5 minutes. Wikipedia has taken on far more determined and resourceful vandals than him and won. Demiurge 08:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to admit I have come round to agree with you, JackO'Lantern. Looking at Rms's list of suspected sock-puppets, which is the longest I've ever seen, and given some of his recorded boasts of "more users names to invent, new IPs to use!" (I paraphrase), and given that he'll even pretend to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", in order to continue his "work", I'm afraid we're stuck with him. Reasonable editors may be open to reform by the community, but I'm afraid that Rms doesn't fall into that category - so, unfortunately, we're stuck with him and his vile propaganda, and his disgusting personal attacks. Still, enough people may have been alerted by this RfC to keep an eye out for his vandalism, so that is a plus. But you're right, there really is no further point to this process.
Camillus
(talk)
02:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. I want that last statement by Camillus exactly to be kept where it is.
I'm going to see if theres some sort of dispute resolution policy in place for this.
I'm not having Wikipedia users making personal attacks on me like this.
- I do not think that McTrumpet is a sock-puppet of Rms. The above statement is clearly directed at Rms, so I don't see why McTrumpet is taking it as an "attack" on him. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
-- McTrumpet 02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I've listed the page on
Wikipedia:Third opinion .--
McTrumpet
02:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP:3o
This page was listed on Wikipedia:Third Opinion, but I can frankly see no reason why. If you two don't like each other, that's entirely your business. Is there a dispute about an article somewhere here? Fagstein 04:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Fagstein, it was listed on
Wikipedia:Third Opinion because I seek external opinion on the acceptability of the conduct of user
User:CPMcE
They have alleged that I :
1 : Vandalise Wikipedia 2 : Make Anonymous posts 3 : Act as a sock puppet for, at various times, "Rms", "Mr Seeger" and/or "Mr Seeker". 4 : I spread "vile propoganda" 5 : My actions are in breach of have breached Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- 1) I have accused Rms of vandalising Wikipedia. 2) I have never "accused" anyone of making "anonymous posts", as there's absolutely no policy against anonymous posts. 3) I did have suspicions of McTrumpet at the start, due to the fact that my talk page had been attacked by Rms under various guises, every half hour or so, the last were he pretended to be an "Oirish Catholic", calling Rms an "eedjit", and then McTrumpet appeared on my talk page attacking Rms. I no longer think that McTrumpet is a sock-puppet of Rms. The "allegation" in (3) appeared on my talk page, where I struck out the remarks, commenting "I suspect it may be Rms up to his tricks". 4) I accused Rms of spreading "vile propaganda", a view endorsed by this RfC, where did I accuse McTrumpet of this? 5) I consider McTrumpet's user page (not just his discussion page), which is solely dedicated to an attack on me, as unacceptable. While I aknowledge I acted hastily in suspecting McTrumpet of being Rms in yet another disguise, I will not apologise, given the way he's used his whole user page to attack me, selectively picking from the "discussion" between us. I propose to waste no more time on this. Let's face it, McT, - no-one gives a flying f**k about our little disagreement. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I have asked User:CPMcE to stop spreading unfounded lies and rumours.
I have also asked User:CPMcE to provide any sort of evidence which they may have to justify these statements against myself.
User:CPMcE has failed to provide a single piece of material which would point to any impropriety whatsoever on my part. Their actions are without reason, logic, nor do they have any basis in fact.
Furthermore, they continue to make these unfounded claims, despite acknowledging that they are unable to provide any sort of back up for their statements at all.
- Patently untrue. The comments above were clearly directed at Rms, if McTrumpet wants to take them as attacks on him, that's his business. Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I do not feel that User:CPMcE has acted within the policies of Wikipedia, and I seek the opinions of third parties on that.
That is why I placed it in [[ Wikipedia:Third Opinion]].
-- 82.9.50.32 11:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
(Why does the preview show my ip? What happened to my username? Have I been banned or what?)
Fagstein, I noticed that you moved the original listing on
Wikipedia:Third Opinion to somewhere else called, 'Active Disagreements'. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find that page on Wikipedia. Don't suppose theres any chance you could provide a link?
I've just found this page : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and I think that it might well be the most appropriate venue this discussion. -- 82.9.50.32 11:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- I may or may not respond there. I agree: "If you two don't like each other, that's entirely your business." Camillus (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Following on from this RfC, I've opened a Request for Arbitration which can be found here. Demiurge 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- On the recommendation of two arbitrators in that application, I am closing it and refiling as an incident report on WP:AN/I as a proposal that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation. -- Tony Sidaway 13:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
See
this edit in which I put the recommendation to the administrators, who have the power to implement it. I am not closing the application for arbitration just yet, just in case the community decides not to take the recommended action. --
Tony Sidaway
13:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)