User talk:TheVidiot

Welcome

Hi TheVidiot, on behalf of the Welcoming Committee, Welcome to the English Wikiquote!

• For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote.
  • Also see What Wikiquote is not for common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
• To ask for help or to talk with another editor, visit our Village pump or ask one of the members of the Welcoming Committee.
• To browse Wikiquote, take a look at our browsing start page.
• Before creating new articles, consult our guide. You may practice how to edit a page at Sandbox.
• Please remember to use edit summaries when editing pages.
• When posting to a discussion, please sign with a date by writing four tildes (~~~~) and saving.
• Be bold.

Enjoy! WelcomeBot ^owner!_question? 15:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

You are tangling with a long running troll and POV vandal from Wikipedia. THe puppetmaster account is Eleemosynary. He is permanently blocked for outing the personal details of an administrator and had a longrunning history of bans for edit warring, 3RR, POV, personal attacks, etc. He has branched out to Wikiquote since his banning and employs the same tactics of blind reverts (claiming "vandalism" or whitewash") and refusal to discuss on talk pages. Good luck in dealing with him.

Some helpful links:

Not sure how to do interwiki lins, however from Wikipedia, check out the following:

w:User:Eleemosynary - puppetmaster w:User:98.14.221.68 - most recent ip, banned 6 months at Wikipedia. w:User_talk:69.64.213.146 - long running ip, perma banned from Wikipedia

Keep an eye on User_talk:Slivowitz as well. See Talk:Matt Sanchez. Another sock.

He is active here on Rush, as well as Matt Sanchez, which relates to the dispute he was perma-blocked for on Wikipedia. This should be enough for you to build a case. Happy hunting!

I love it when sockpuppets talk to themselves. ;-) -69.64.213.146 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I’ve noticed that you do it all the time. I, however, do not have any sock puppets. The Vidiot 07:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You know, you might want to consider not restoring the warnings on User talk:69.64.213.146. Removing them really isn't harming anything, and it's not like any sysop worth his salt will see an IP's talk page already existing but blank and not be confused about what's going on (and then look at the history and subsequently see what the backstory is).

At this point, you're doing more harm than good. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The Vidiot 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pity you seem unable to take it. --98.14.221.68 07:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Pity that you continue to use multiple IPs and remove any criticism against you, however valid it may be. The Vidiot 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My comment about users being able to remove comments from their own talk pages extends to you as well; this would be a perfect time to just remove trolling, rather than taking the bait. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it’s fine. I don’t mind leaving my discussions out for all the world to see. I stand by my comments. Thanks for the advice though! The Vidiot 22:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

Blocked for one week. Disruptive editing, SPA on Rush Limbaugh, adding dubious sources after warnings at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to post your responses here on your talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should still be able to edit your own user talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that unfortunately you cannot edit your own user talk page while blocked. I would suggest that you email info-en@wikiquote.org. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Blocked indef, for socking, block evasion, with 17.224.39.234 (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note also comment from admin BD2412 (talk · contributions) - I have reviewed and endorse this block. Pretty close to being a single-purpose POV account, flouted our policies, block evasion is just the final straw. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your email

I would suggest that you email info-en@wikiquote.org. However, note that the block has already been reviewed by another admin, BD2412 (talk · contributions).Cirt (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

TheVidiot emailed me the following response to this block:

---

[beginning of email]

“I have reviewed and endorse this block. Pretty close to being a single-purpose POV account, flouted our policies, block evasion is just the final straw.”

Can I at least explain my case before you endorse a permanent block that was given without warning, following a week-long block that was given without warning?

1. There is nothing inherently wrong with a single-purpose account, as you can read on the page. That is not a violation of policy.

2. I posted a quote with a proper secondary source. Cirt removed it, and said that the source (Media Research Center) was POV and should not be used. Again, this was not a violation of policy, or even a violation of Cirt’s warning, since he posted the warning AFTER I had already posted the quote. So at this point, I had done nothing to even violate a warning.

3. I found a different secondary source for the quote and re-posted it. It was removed, and my account was blocked for a week. I was not given a single warning, and certainly not “multiple warnings” as Cirt put in his explanation. I did not violate any policies.

4. Cirt kept telling me to respond on my Talk page, but I could not. He refused to discuss the matter with me. He refused to respond to email.

5. When I was on another computer and discovered that I could post again, I asked Cirt why my account was blocked. Again, this was on the Discussion page. I did NOT try to edit any articles as another user. I was simply asking why my account had been blocked, because A) I could not edit my own Talk page, and B) Cirt refused to respond to email.

6. I was told that the anonymous usage was considered a sockpuppet, and banned permanently. Again, without warning.

So, for the sum total of Wikiquote policies I have “flouted”: I was banned for a week without warning, and posted an anonymous question about why I was banned, since every other avenue of questioning was blocked by Cirt.

I think a lifetime ban is ludicrous. I think a ban without warning is ludicrous. I think Cirt is abusing his power, and shutting down opportunities for other people to contribute. For example, people are posting questions on the Rush Limbaugh discussion page, and he is removing the questions themselves. Not responding to them: REMOVING them.

I would like my block removed. I think the punishment is unwarranted, considering my actions.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Please respond. Cirt refuses to respond, but I hope that you will.

[end of email]

---

I note that Cirt apparently did respond to your email by directing you to email info-en@wikiquote.org. I believe it is common knowledge that using an IP address to edit during a block is prohibited. I understand that on Wikipedia, a blocked user can edit their own user talk space, and we as a community are looking to deal with that as well. I've made my evaluation of the situation, and I remain of the opinion that Cirt's actions were within the bounds of administrative discretion. BD2412 T 21:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Subsequent block evasion with 17.224.39.173 (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)