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

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from RfC page 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have struck out the above comment, as it may have been too hasty. Camillus (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: An interesting? diversion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  From [[WP:3o]] 

message: Following on from this RfC, I've opened a Request for Arbitration which can be found here. Demiurge 15:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration opened