Raul654 Options

[Skyrocket]

Is there any denser, more self-righteous, less-suited to responsibility, Wikiofficial than Raul? This dude is the Peter Principle personified, the Tiger Woods of unreasoning bloviation, and the dunce of the University of Delaware.

[LamontStormstar]

Let's list things...

*Controls the featured articles and completely gloats about it.
*Always adds things to the spam blacklist without discussion for no reason and makes up lies about it (like adding all of Brandt's sites back to the blacklist saying they are redirecting when they aren't).

[Skyrocket]

* Doesn't spel to gud.
* Dismisses reasoned arguments with snotty and unsupported "you are wrong" statements.

[everyking]

That sounds about right. He is very partial to "I am right, you are wrong" type reasoning (that's not necessarily a simplification; I've seen it come in that form almost verbatim). To put it nicely, he's just an arrogant blockhead.

[JohnA]

I'd heard the excuse that Brandt's sites were redirecting to a third party. Was this true or not?

[Somey]

I'd heard the excuse that Brandt's sites were redirecting to a third party. Was this true or not?

For a while he had them redirecting here, but only if the page-referrer was wikipedia.org. I don't think that's still the case...

[Nathan]

(comment deleted - irrelevant to the thread)

This post has been edited by Nathan:

[Daniel Brandt]

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.org

wikipedia-watch.org

They'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)

[LamontStormstar]

Only one of Brandt's sites violates the privacy of Wikipedia admins. The rest don't.

I think that admin accountability list is also too small. I occasionally see an abusive admin and I wonder why he's not on the list.

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[Somey]

I read on a talk page the other day that "Raul" is busy these days working on his doctorate, so presumably he's defending this Spring. I wonder if one of us can get on his committee? He's going for a Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering, so how hard can it be, right?

Anyway, that presumably means he'll be spending less time on Wikipedia. I just wonder which of his activities will suffer more - writing and editing articles (which he admittedly does rather well), or hurling accusations of sock puppetry based on flimsy evidence (which he does extremely well)?

[Skyrocket]

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.

[Somey]

He is very open about his identity, work and location. See him and the other CAPSL Ph.D. candidates HERE.

Interesting. And according to his personal home page, CAPSL is the "Computer Architecture and Parellel Systems Laboratory." I guess his proofreading skills still need some work! (He spells "parallel" correctly elsewhere on the page, so I'm assuming he just missed it.)

Still, being the FA director at Wikipedia and all... He'll definitely want to fix that.

[Olivier Besancenot]

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]

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=91525223

Try 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.

[LamontStormstar]

Wikipedia shows that people with Ph.D.'s aren't the best people.

[guy]

Wikipedia shows that people with Ph.D.'s aren't the best people.

No, it shows that not all people with Ph.D.s are the best people.

[Daniel Brandt]

Raul654 smites Satan and saves the encyclopedia:

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.

[Somey]

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.

[Daniel Brandt]

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.

[Somey]

Whaaat! You don't think her real name is "Juicifer"?

But sure, if that photo is what they're referring to, then they've really got no serious right to complain if it was up there on Wikipedia for a while. It's covered under Creative Commons, isn't it? Just like the details of everyone else's private life?

Jimbo should also stop uploading so many photos to Flickr all the time, too, if he's concerned about things like that. People wouldn't check so often... I'm not saying he's a bad photographer, but it's not like we don't already know what he's up to!