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