In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:12, 28 March 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Rms125a@hotmail.com, and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has consistently and repeatedly breached several Wikipedia policies, including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.

Description

Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Personal attacks:

POV editing:

He also removed him from Category:British novelists and Category:Scottish novelists with the edit summary:
"I do not consider him to be British or Scottish; he's just an Irish fifth-columnist)"
Apart from the sectarian slur, not true (see above attack on User:GraemeL. Camillus (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism:

WP:3RR violations

Evading 3RR blocks

Sockpuppetry

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Personal attacks: [8]
  2. User page vandalism: [9]
  3. NPOV problems: [10] [11] [12][13][14]
  4. 3RR violations:User_talk:Rms125a@hotmail.com#Three-revert_rule[15] [16]
  5. User notified of RfC at [17] (original account), [18] (most recent IP address) and [19] (most recent sockpuppet).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Demiurge 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ryano 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ali-oops✍ 20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Camillus (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Gourlg9a 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nicholas 09:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Very difficult user. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. After having a good look through the above evidence... wow. - dharmabum 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Very negative overall. Grace Note 01:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Very agressive and racist user. Superdude99 15:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Amazed that things have got this far. - Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. User is a bigot who refuses to engage in any kind of meaningful dialogue, uses the discussion pages to launch personal attacks on fellow users and constantly reverts articles to their own version-which are heavily POV.GiollaUidir 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This user is abusive, argumentative, and confrontational, just had the pleasure here[20]Regards--Domer48 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Having spent the past 24 hours+ dealing with his IP range vandalism here[21], I can now say that I understand why he is banned. Clearly, he has no intention of stopping. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 15:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

From Robert Sieger

I am not in the least interested in this chicanery; I don't have to like Irish Catholics or Croatian Nazi supporters; my only responsibility as a contributor (which I will continue to be regardless of what anyone here says) is that my contributions be accurate and truthful, and as far as possible, sourced. And if someone disagrees, fine with me, but I won't back down until I am proved wrong.

It is Demiurge who is the censor; it is his DNA and his every instinct -- he is a CENSOR, and if, God forbid, he ever becomes an administrator, for which he is manifestly unqualified, it will be the beginning of the end of this wonderful enterprise. His normal instinct (observed over long periods of time by myself) is to censor anything he doesn't like, and mindlessly continue to revert regardless of any new info posted.

Jtdirl is the one who created a secret account (named Billy Collins) to block me from logging in (although obviously not from contributing), whch Jason Lunkwill discovered (but lacking a spine did nothing about it) until I contacted Theresa Knott (and she finally found the hidden block). Hidden, planted if you will, sort of like a fifth-column in a certain country, the more I think about it. Jtdirl should have been expelled from Wikipedia for this!!!!

I am not familiar with Camillus or McTrumpet, I don't know anything about them.

I deny all alleged sockpuppets--you prove it; as I have said I do not own my own computer and use rentals at various sites (libraries, rental places, friend's house, International News, Kinko's, NAMI, etc.) and I am not responsible for anyone else.

There isn't enough space here to provide the huge body of evidence tying Rms to his various sock-puppets (though the very tone and language in this "denial" point directly to Rms). See the talk page. Camillus (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bother me again with this nonsense. Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside View by Computerjoe

The user does, on multiple occasions breach WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. However, the user has also made numerous good faith edits. Computerjoe's talk 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):


Outside View by McTrumpet

The user has breached the rules of wikipedia, on multiple instances, and has admitted to previously, and will continue to, create multiple identities for the purpose of vandalising wikipedia. --McTrumpet 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page. Camillus (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Outside View by fergie

The user is a sectarian bigot in the classic 20th century Scottish and Northern Irish mold. Although I have found him to be aggressive and his article contributions largely unhelpful, he has not been successful in disrupting wikipedia to a large degree. I think his nasty contributions often (unintentionally) strengthen the opposing non-sectarian viewpoint and thus do more good than harm.Fergie 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Outside View by Djegan

This user has an malignancy that I have never seen before on wikipedia from someone who has maintained user accounts for so long. Its about time for wikipedia to make a stand against this person and ban them indefinitely. So much time and good will has been wasted. Djegan 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view by CMacMillan

I'm a bit new to all of this, but my limited dealings with the user - and his various "sockpuppets" - not to mention his attempts at vitriol, leave me with a very disturbed viewpoint. I believe he should have a voice somewhere, however, I do not believe Wikipedia should be his personal pulpit. My viewpoints are naturally Canadian - and I'm sure this will subject my own country to his bile - but much of his writing would be actionable as "Hate Literature". It's unfortunate he can't distance himself from his personal hate since his non-Croatia-bashing, non-Roman-Catholic-bashing, non-Irish-bashing edits are well done. Oh, and just an FYI, I'm a little bothered by the phrase "bigot in the classic 20th century Scottish and Northern Irish mold". CMacMillan 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by KaptKos

I'm new to this, but this user has repeatedly breached numerous policies, particularly WP:CIVIL, and continues to do so, and threatens to do so in the future, despite attemps at moderation by various users. In my short time with Wikipedia I don't think I've come across such bileKaptKos 08:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by JzG

Reviewing this user's contributions it is very hard to find anything which redeems the abysmal behaviour noted above. The user has been indefinitely blocked and should stay that way. Just zis Guy you know? 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jreferee

Additional Rms125a@hotmail.com Sock puppet evidence - In response to Demiurge reverting 70.19.72.158's "where apartheid schooling by creed has been the rule" post in the George Galloway article with the edit summary "rv sockpuppet POV"[22], the newly created Sockpuppet@earthlink.net account immediately readded the deleted material[23]. When the material was removed, 63.164.145.85 readded it.[24] Alison removed 63.164.145.85's post with the edit summary "rv usual, daily User:Rms125a@hotmail.com sock-puppetry / POV."[25] 70.19.40.53 reinserted the material,[26][27] which Alison deleted as coming from User:Rms125a@hotmail.com's sockpuppet.[28]. 67.101.192.69 then reinserted the material.[29][30], which was deleted. Doc Glasgow then reinserted the material.[31]. Eirelover@earthlink.net then reinserted the material.[32]. 71.247.236.86, returned to the article a while later and inserted "a non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" (Scottish Bishop Joseph Devine agreed that they are "divisive")."[33]. 70.18.203.33 then reinserted 71.247.236.86's deleted post.[34]. Leaving no doubt about the connection, Rms125a@hotmail.com then added "non-denominational school, which is somewhat surprising as almost all Catholics of Irish extraction, in the West of Scotland, attend "denominational" schools, which non-Catholics regard as "Irish" and "divisive" to the article.[35] 70.19.72.158, User:Sockpuppet@earthlink.net, 63.164.145.85, 70.19.40.53, 67.101.192.69, Doc Glasgow, Eirelover@earthlink.net, 71.247.236.86, and 70.18.203.33 are suspected sock puppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. -- Jreferee t/c 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kennercat

We must ban and block RMS125A. Kennercat (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

More