User:McTrumpet
I joined wikipedia on 28/03/06, at about 23:30
at 23:58, User:CPMcE wrote : "I suspected you of being "somebody else", ie. a notorious vandal trying to disguise himself"
Well gee, thanks for that dude. After reminding User:CPMcE about the Wikipedia:Assume good faith guidelines, I sat back and awaited an apology.
at 00:12, 29 March 2006 , I made a response to a request for the views of third parties Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com. 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"
Evidently no apology would be forthcoming! Further to this, User:CPMcE is actively still going around spreading rumours and lies about myself!
00:22, 29 March 2006, User:CPMcE wrote : "Perhaps you have been editing anonymously before tonight"
Such a fine old Scots welcome User:CPMcE has given me.
Many thanks dude.
UPDATE :
01:05, 29 March 2006. User:CPMcE wrote : "But I would have to take exception to "Camillus is actively still going around spreading rumours and lies about myself!". This is patently not true."
Ahhhh, it must have another camillus who was insinuating that I was a sock puppet, that I make anonymous edits, and that I engage in Wikipedia vandalism.
User:CPMcE also wrote : "I can't see how your remarks about me on your user page (not just on the discussion page) do not amount to a personal attack against me."
Just the facts, maam, just the facts.
Check out the full text of this on the talk page. It's a hoot.
UPDATE :
At 01:18, ":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)
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)"
was removed from the main page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com by User:CPMcE
UPDATE :
01:40 and still no retraction! If I am a sock puppet, vandal, or make anonymous edits, kindly prove it. In fact, kindly give one, just one example. One. Just one. That's all. Just one.
The floor is yours.
edit :
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 01:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE :
01:50, 29 March 2006 CPMcE (→Er, hello... - the mind boggles how someone could endores an RfC about someone they've never heard of before and don't give a hoot about!!!)
Wow, what a welcoming and friendly guy.
First, User:CPMcE accuses me of being a 'notorious' vandal. And a sock puppet. And that I make anonymous edits. Oh, and that I'm someone called Mr Seeger (whom I have to presume is a troublemaker previously known to Wikipedians, and that by attempting to associate myself with this person, User:CPMcE is attempting to discredit me in the eyes of the wiki community). User:CPMcE also proposes to tell me that I have no right to make an entry on an Rfc because I have no previous knowledge of the case, and jusdge it on the merits of the evidence presented.
User:CPMcE has been asked on numerous occassions to provide any evidence, just one piece of evidence, to support any of the allegations made. He has failed to do so.
User:CPMcE Has been asked to retract the allegations. He has, again, failed to do so.
Make of it what you will.
--McTrumpet 02:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, for a sock puppet, I do hold some strange views.
My comment on the Rfc :
"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)"
Whoa dude! Ph34r |\/| 1337 5k1ll5 ! I'm such a sock puppet! LMAO
--McTrumpet 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE :
"Mr Seeker now pretends to disagree with himself. Personality disorder, anyone? Camillus (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)"
Mr Seeker? I thought it was Seeger? No wonder you think I have a split personality.
Yes, User:CPMcE , has it sunk in yet?
I am not the person you think I am.
You seem to think, for whatever reason, that I am this user Rms, or Mr Seeger, or Seeker or whatever name you seek to give your Wikipedian Nemesis. I have asked you to provide evidence of this.
Any evidence which you may have, at all, to back up, or even give rise to, your suspicions.
Any evidence at all. Even one piece.
You have not provided a single piece of evidence which would point towards your arrival at the conclusion that I am the person you seem to think I am.
I have susequently, politely asked you to refrain from making lurid allegations against me.
You have, for whatever reason, continued to do so.
Your actions are in breach of these policies :
Wikipedia:No personal attacks - This policy in a nutshell: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Harassment - Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.
To point out that you are in breach of these Wikipedia policies is not a personal attack, and to claim such is another example of your attempted harrasment.
--McTrumpet 02:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE :
"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 now listed the page on Wikipedia:Third opinion
I'm now a sock puppet, a vandal, I make anonymous posts, I create multiple identities, I produce vile propoganda, and make disgusting personal attacks.
I'm simply not standing for this.
For no reason at all, this user User:CPMcE has taken it upon themselves to launch a sustained, unprovoked and entirely without reason, personal attack upon myself.