Current requests
The procedure for accepting requests is descibed at
arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the
nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence
elsewhere if you need to.
User:24.45.99.191
Paul Vogel is an anonymous user who has had temporary
bans implemented him on several occasions for
trolling, breaking the revert rule and making abusive
comments. 24.45.99.191is his most common IP address
but according to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul
Vogel he also uses:
24.45.99.191 (
optonline.net � broadband provider)
65.125.10.66 (
tcius.com � marketing company)
66.2.156.* (10, 27, 36, 38, 48, 69, 100, 123)
(
algx.net NY dialups)
216.99.245.* (139, 146**, 153, 154, 170, 171, 184,
188) (
algx.net NY dialups)
(**) new
He has been especially prevalent (and abusive) on
Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, Cosmotheism, White
Separatism, Judaism, Genocide and associated talk
pages.
I wish to request a permanent block against Vogel and
his various IP addresses. AndyL 04:26, 21 Apr 2004
(UTC)
It is clear that a cabal of censorous pov bigots have
falsely accused me of being a "troll", "vandal", or of
making "abusive comments" on some TalkPages, or of
"breaking the 3-revert rule". This is psychological
projection by a pov mob or ilk of lying hypocrites. I
do request Sam Spade, to be my "advocate", and I also
can provide evidence to demonstrate the fact that
those here attempting to have me banned and to have me
censored, are themselves "trolls", "vandals", and have
themselves broken the 3-revert rule and have hurled
"personal insults" and have abused and used slanderous
and false personal insults and "abusive comments" as
their own stock in trade and in their own pov bigoted
and biased campaign of "character assassination".-PV
I agree to being his advocate, in this circumstance
and others, until I such time as I might find cause to
recuse myself. Sam Spade 22:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. User has an unbroken five-month record of
personal attacks, revert wars, vandalisms, and so
forth. �No-One Jones 04:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Another typical case of Psychological projection by
Mirv, ad nauseum.-PV
And did I mention that he constantly tries to diagnose
psychological problems based on what people write on
Wikipedia? Not sure if that behavior is within the
purview of the arbitrators, but. . . �No-One Jones
15:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC):-)
In your case, it is quite obvious and clear, as "lying
hypocrisy" is a key indicator of psychological
projection.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy
brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in
thine own eye?" - Matthew 7:3 King James Version of
the Bible
It is not "rocket science", Mirv.-PV
I believe Vogel is currently under a 24 hour ban. He
has apparently circumvented this by posting under
216.99.245.146 He's been on Wikipedia for months but
has refused to register, it would seem, so he can
circumvent discipline more easily. AndyL 02:15, 23 Apr
2004 (UTC)
Vogel was expressly banned by Hadal for 48 hours and
has now returned (as 216.99.245.146) to continue to
engage in an edit war.GrazingshipIV 02:19, Apr 23,
2004 (UTC)
I personally don't see a reason to go through such
contortions in order to deal with this user. He has
made ad hominem attacks a central tactic in his
"debates" with others and will see no compromise. The
community has put up with him for months; much time
and energy has been wasted in vain pursuit of accord
with Vogel.
As I do not see quickpolls as an appropriate method of
resolving what should be a simple matter of an IP
blatantly violating policy, I also do not see
arbitration as necessary in this case. It's another
waste of time and energy which would be much better
spent building Wikipedia or dealing with problem users
who bother to log in (and, for that matter, have done
more than disrupt). I have re-blocked Vogel's primary
(static) IP for 96 hours, as I promised I would do if
he tried to evade the original 48 hour block. If he
attempts to evade this block as well, I will make the
block indefinite. I'll do the same if he does not
moderate himself in the future.
If others want to pledge themselves to what will
surely be wasted effort, that's their choice. In the
meantime, I'll do what I believe is best for the
community. Wikipedia is not the Stormfront forums;
Paul Vogel knows this as well as anyone else. -- Hadal
04:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Arbitators opinions on hearing this matter
We should hear this. I believe it is Wikipedia policy
that pushing an extreme point of view is not in itself
grounds for banning. However there are a number of
Wikipedia policies which by necessity must be violated
in an effort to aggressively push a point of view. I
think, based on a preliminary review of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paul Vogel there are
sufficient grounds for consideration of his actions.
Fred Bauder 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Fred; support. James F. (talk) 13:26, 21
Apr 2004 (UTC)
Both sides seem to want us to arbitrate, so by all
means let us do so. Martin 21:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash