Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com

An interesting? diversion

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'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.

--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

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.

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?)

Discussion moved from RfC page

• 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)

• 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)