|
|
|
Raul654 |
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
They stopped redirecting last June. Pathoschild removed them from the blacklist, and Raul654 put them back because he has to prove he's a tough guy. It's rather ridiculous, really. After Pathoschild removed them, editors fixed all the links on my bio so that they worked like any link should. Then they all got screwed up after Raul654 put the domains back on the blacklist, and editors were wondering why it was so hard to work on my bio. Someone should take this to the ArbCom. Raul654 is just being a bully. And what is that "per guidance from Foundation" that Just zis Guy is talking about? Does anyone have any idea? It sounds like something Brad Patrick should be chasing down and dropping into the Wikipedia memory hole, lest it end up in court as evidence that the Foundation is a publisher, not a service provider. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_b...pedia-watch.orgwikipedia-watch.orgThey've gone a little bit too far: they publish logs from IRC channels which is unambiguously prohibited. See discussion here. Since they're causing a lot of trouble (remember Everyking's desysopping?), I s'ppose we should blacklist this site mercilessly. Any thoughts? MaxSem 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC) When I saw this comment, I was like "huh? Aren't they already blacklisted?" And yes, they were - until Pathoschild removed them in this ill-advised edit a few days ago. I have restored them now. Raul654 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Pathoschild removed them because Brandt's sites stopped redirecting months ago. Raul654 restored them, calling Pathoschild's edit "ill-advised," and also restored the inaccurate comment that Brandt's sites are redirecting. Therefore, Raul654's edit is based on a lie, whereas Pathoschild's edit is based on the truth. Pathoschild also queried a couple of IRC channels before taking action, and heard no objections. Raul654 acted on impulse, and didn't consult anyone. Now I ask you, who is "ill-advised" -- Pathoschild or Raul654? 68.89.130.94 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Per guidance from Foundation, we should not link to sites which directly attack or violate the privacy of Wikipedia editors. This seems like a reasonable rule to me; I guess the reason could be changed for clarity but the fact of it being blacklisted is I hope generally accepted as prudent. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined:
From: Bishkek
Member No.: 460
|
He is very open about his identity, work and location. See him and the other CAPSL Ph.D. candidates HERE. Surrounded as he is by presumably brilliant, dedicated, hard-working Asians, the massive amount of time he spends on Wikipedia must stick out like a sore thumb. Maybe they'll give him a Ph.D. with an asterisk.
|
|
|
|
Olivier Besancenot |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 36
Joined:
Member No.: 42
|
Everything you need to know about Raul654 can be gleemed from the first two sentences of his home page and his picture.
Raul654 is the perfect example of power going to someone's head. He was always annoying, but did some work that needed to be done in the beginning. Not long after becoming a bureaucrat and arbitrator though, the pudgy computer dork with the five o clock shadow suddenly became a monster and typical cabal member. Raul is definitely someone who needs to unplug his computer, and go out to a rainbow gathering or something.
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined:
From: Bishkek
Member No.: 460
|
He's back! This time the lovely Raul is inserting demeaning stuff about Ann Coulter (who may deserve to be demeaned, but not in this fake Raulian way) then making citations that don't have much to do with his demeaning assertions. He may be doing it at the behest of a buddy/sockpuppet/meatpuppet/socktroll named kizzle. See it HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=91525223Try to find something in the citations about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. (Hint: it isn't there) Somebody ought to look into this. But then I guess it's business as usual for the Delaware Dunce.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
Raul654 smites Satan and saves the encyclopedia: QUOTE I notice that the Daniel Brandt page on the English Wikipedia cannot link to his websites, which were placed on the Spam blacklist because they used to refer Wikipedians elsewhere. This was true the last time someone requested that these links be removed, but it is apparently no longer the case, and the discussion page for Daniel Brandt seems largely in favor of including traditional-style (rather than cut-and-paste) links. Though I just stumbled onto this article last night, I have to agree that actual links to pages like Wikipedia Watch and Google Watch would have obvious merit in this article. Though at least one user has argued that he "might do it again," i.e. redirecting our links elsewhere, I feel that a notice of his prior dirty tricks above the links is preferable to this accidental censorship via the spam blacklist. --Ourboldhero 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Request denied. Firstly, it's not "accidental censorship" - we are quite intentionally excluding his sites from being linked in Wikipedia. He's made it his mission to "out" as many administrators as possible by posting their personal information (in some cases, personal information of young children). I see no reason why we should allow his idiocy to be linked from Wikipedia. And yes, there's always the possiblity he'll do it again. Raul654 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Young children? I knew that there was a cabal of little teenagers, but young children? Where? He should cite his evidence if he's going to libel me. Oh, that's right, he can't. The evidence, presuming it exists, is on the spam blacklist. If Raul is referring to this item then he's still full of it. That item is tasteful and amusing. Besides, it's my guess that the mother or father attached that nametag to the child -- the parents are guilty of identifying their daughter and then letting someone take a pic! Throw them in jail! It's not like someone stalked the playground to get the pic.
|
|
|
|
Daniel Brandt |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined:
Member No.: 77
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 4th December 2006, 12:27pm) User:Juicifer's daughters' names, maybe? It's not like you're posting their ages or where they go to school, but I could see why that would set them off, at least. Remember, someone trying to demonize someone else will grasp at just about anything. That doesn't make sense. I don't even know Juicifer's real name. So there is a Deborah Something and an Emily Something somewhere in Europe, and they are daughters of Ms. Something Something. This information came from Juicifer's user page. I'm trying to identify her because she spent months harassing me. If she emails me and gives me a verifiable real name, I'll take down her daughters' names even if she leaves them up on her user page. No, I think it's the item I mentioned that set him off. As I recall, someone at that little dinner where Jimbo and his wife were present snapped the picture, and it was up on Wikipedia somewhere, and Jimbo told him to take it down. It's possible that Raul "got the word from Jimbo." That would make idiots out of both Jimbo and Raul654. No big surprise there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |