Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Raul654 _ User:Ceiling Cat
Posted by: everyking
Recently someone brought the issue of Raul654's sockpuppet account, User:Ceiling Cat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#user:Ceiling_Cat The edits speak for themselves--they are nothing but foolishness of the sort associated with internet trolls, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#MAOR_KATZ Many people on AN are of the opinion that an account like this, which does nothing but engage in low-level mischief, is all right as long as the user behind it contributes to the encyclopedia on another account--but if it were just some newbie, it would be banned, of course.
Posted by: Somey
Well, there's no question that Raul654/Ceiling Cat should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Maybe 20 years in the ol' slammer will finally knock some sense into him...
Still, at least he didn't name the account "User:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above." Because, you know, that would have been really offensive and all.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
So Raul wants to put naked pussies on the main page. what's the big deal?
Posted by: everyking
So Raul wants to put naked pussies on the main page. what's the big deal?
He's disrupting the main page's talk page to make a joke.
Posted by: sarcasticidealist
Yes, clearly a technical WP:NOT violation. But do you really and sincerely object to a double standard in this regard, whereby editors who do a lot of Good Work ™ are allowed some leeway for silly stuff like this? As (I like to think) one of the least Myspacey editors on the project, I don't really see the problem with this.
Posted by: everyking
Yes, clearly a technical WP:NOT violation. But do you really and sincerely object to a double standard in this regard, whereby editors who do a lot of Good Work ™ are allowed some leeway for silly stuff like this? As (I like to think) one of the least Myspacey editors on the project, I don't really see the problem with this.
A sockpuppet account devoted purely to low-level mischief? Yes, I object to that--and as you can see from the AN thread, that account caused someone to get confused. I wouldn't object to Raul posting goofy images on his userpage or something like that.
Posted by: The Joy
Yes, clearly a technical WP:NOT violation. But do you really and sincerely object to a double standard in this regard, whereby editors who do a lot of Good Work ™ are allowed some leeway for silly stuff like this? As (I like to think) one of the least Myspacey editors on the project, I don't really see the problem with this.
Administrators of all social rank have been blocked for disruption during April Fools. Why should Raul get away with it when people like Viridae get blocked for "having fun?"
Humor that disrupts the flow and hard work required to maintain the project make people unhappy. It's not "good" humor if there's a mess someone has to clean up. The Main Page April Fools jokes are the best as they allow the mission to go forward without any disruption or messes to clean up.
A joke that makes people upset is not a joke.
The double standards are what make people even more upset. Raul is an arbitrator emeritus, a bureaucrat, and a graduate student. He should know better. I've been on this forum for over a year now and you don't see me putting pictures of nude things all over the place just because I'm a senior member. I would expect Somey to ban me and sell my IP address to a Chinese spammer if I did something like that!
Posted by: thekohser
Still, at least he didn't name the account "User:Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above." Because, you know, that would have been really offensive and all.
Dang, I tried to create the account, but after about 5 seconds, I got this:
You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from Feline Who Watches You Masturbate From Above (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by The Anome for the following reason(s):
The account with this username has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.
Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, or misleading. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:
Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username. Keep in mind, though, that creating a new account is much faster and easier.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on your user talk page or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
This block has been set to expire: indefinite.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by email.
Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
It gets better:
Feline_Who_Watches_You_Masturbate_From_Above (block log • ipblocklist • rangeblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • creation log • unblock)
Reason for unblocking:
Iz can promize notz to watch The Anome
Posted by: thekohser
Request reason: "Iz can promize notz to watch The Anome. Beesidez, User:Ceiling Cat iz moar funny then I is, so itz all okhay!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decline reason: "No — MBisanz talk 15:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)"
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
Some old-looking dude is no funz!
Posted by: Random832
I'm waiting to see if anyone bothers to tag it as your sockpuppet.
Posted by: everyking
After I called for the banning of his sockpuppet, Raul wrote the following on the AN thread: "...if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind." Since he linked to my ArbCom case in doing so, there's no doubt who he was talking about. Apparently, Raul thinks it is appropriate to propose the banning of a serious, massively constructive account in retaliation for the suggestion of banning his ridiculous, non-contributing sockpuppet account.
Searching deep in the mists of time for something to hold against me, Raul linked "good users" to User:Reene, who indeed left WP because of me way back in January 2005, although Reene did almost nothing constructive and spent nearly all her time edit warring with me, arguing with me, and howling for me to be banned or desysopped. Raul says that I drove away this "good user", but what actually occurred is that Reene left in protest after the ArbCom declined to desysop me. Since Raul himself voted against desysopping in that case, one might argue that he is as much to blame (or credit) for "driving her away".
Posted by: dogbiscuit
After I called for the banning of his sockpuppet, Raul wrote the following on the AN thread: "...if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind." Since he linked to my ArbCom case in doing so, there's no doubt who he was talking about. Apparently, Raul thinks it is appropriate to propose the banning of a serious, massively constructive account in retaliation for the suggestion of banning his ridiculous, non-contributing sockpuppet account.
Searching deep in the mists of time for something to hold against me, Raul linked "good users" to User:Reene, who indeed left WP because of me way back in January 2005, although Reene did almost nothing constructive and spent nearly all her time edit warring with me, arguing with me, and howling for me to be banned or desysopped. Raul says that I drove away this "good user", but what actually occurred is that Reene left in protest after the ArbCom declined to desysop me. Since Raul himself voted against desysopping in that case, one might argue that he is as much to blame (or credit) for "driving her away".
Wikipedia does seem to have a culture of grudge holding, it is the Serbo-Croatia of the online world.
I wonder whether it is the problem that everything is remembered for all time so anyone who wishes can view things as they were and reinforce the responses to some real or imagined slight. When we see Slim spiralling downwards in further bile at her perceived vile treatment, adding layer on layer to the actions of her perceived attackers, how much of that is fed through reviewing and festering on old diffs, read and re-read over and over.
Perhaps talk history should be wiped after 6 months, so that people lose the ability to poke at old wounds.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
They won't even agree not to make this content indexable by search engines; getting them to delete it is beyond the pale.
Posted by: Gold heart
. . . . . . . Of course, this is unacceptable; if this is done, then how will future historians document Wikipedia?
Will they bother? There is such a volume of useless infighting that any historian would be completely overwhelmed, would probably start to suffer wiki-stress, develop wiki-fatigue, and get banned by his doctor from going near the wiki-archives ever again!
Posted by: Kelly Martin
Also, I bet there's any number of sociopsychologists just creaming to document Wikipedia as a study in dysfunction. Wikipedia is certainly one of the largest, if not the largest, intentional communities ever constructed mainly via the Internet, and its dysfunctions will provide countless graduate students endless opportunities for theses that nobody (except other grad students) will ever read.
Posted by: Gold heart
Also, I bet there's any number of sociopsychologists just creaming to document Wikipedia as a study in dysfunction. Wikipedia is certainly one of the largest, if not the largest, intentional communities ever constructed mainly via the Internet, and its dysfunctions will provide countless graduate students endless opportunities for theses that nobody (except other grad students) will ever read.
..................../`` /:::::::::::``~,
................../:::,/`'''''''''''``-- ,:::\
..................|::/ · · · · · · · · · -|::::| Doctor's orders. You are BANNED from reading those God-forsaken archives!
...................\| · ·„„„_ - -_„„„ ·|::/....................... .....................................___
...................-|· · ·õ-`|::| -õ· ·|:/|....................... ................................_-~`` · · · \..
....................|;| · · · / · \ · · · | ;/....... ......................................, ---~`` · ` · · · · , /
...................`-| · · · ¯ ¯ · · · ·|`............. ................................./` · · · · · ·_·,·-````
......................\ · ·`¯¯¯¯` ·,,- |,................ ................. ........./ · · · · · · /_,,__,,
........................`\ · · ¯· · /-` / ``~-,.............___... ...... ....../ · ·'~,,,_· `· · · ·`|· ·\
.........................| ·-¯¯¯ · /::::::::::::`/``¯/¯::::::::\... ... .../· · · ·· · · ·\ /· · · |· · | \
.....................,` :| ·/¯¯\`~,/::::::::::::::/::::/::::/¯¯¯¯`-,_,| · · · · · · · |· · · ·/···| · /
................-~`:::| · /::::::\·/::::::::::::::/::/``::::::::::::::::::/ `-_¯¯``~`¯ /`· · / / /
....._..-~`/::::::::| · /:::::::/::::::::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::/:\ · ·`-,,--,__/,__/,_, /
.../::::::::/:::::::::| /::::::::/:::::::::::::/:::::::::\::::::::::::::|::::\· ·· ·``~-~--~
..|:::::::::|:::::::::: |:::::::/:::::::::::::/::::::::::::\:::::::::::::|::::::\ · · · · · /
./:\::::::::|:::::::::: |::::::/::::::::::::/:::::::::::::::\:::::::::::::\::::::¯¯~~¯|
/:::\:::::::\:::::::::: |::::/:::::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::``~-,_,,_______,__,-'
::::\::::::::\::::::::: |:::/::::::::::/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::\:::::::::\::::::: |::/:::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::\:::::::::\::::: |:/:::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::::\:::::::::\::: |::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
::::::::::|::::::::::\: |::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
Posted by: Milton Roe
Perhaps talk history should be wiped after 6 months, so that people lose the ability to poke at old wounds.
No, Fredo. Just as soon as mother dies, you sleep with the fishes.
Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins
After I called for the banning of his sockpuppet, Raul wrote the following on the AN thread: "...if we're looking to ban accounts, I suggest we start with people who have actively hurt the encyclopedia by driving away good users, or harassing admins based on a limited or nonexistent understanding of the facts surrounding their actions. In fact, I have one or two people in mind." Since he linked to my ArbCom case in doing so, there's no doubt who he was talking about. Apparently, Raul thinks it is appropriate to propose the banning of a serious, massively constructive account in retaliation for the suggestion of banning his ridiculous, non-contributing sockpuppet account.
Searching deep in the mists of time for something to hold against me, Raul linked "good users" to User:Reene, who indeed left WP because of me way back in January 2005, although Reene did almost nothing constructive and spent nearly all her time edit warring with me, arguing with me, and howling for me to be banned or desysopped. Raul says that I drove away this "good user", but what actually occurred is that Reene left in protest after the ArbCom declined to desysop me. Since Raul himself voted against desysopping in that case, one might argue that he is as much to blame (or credit) for "driving her away".
Wow, it's true, Reene spent most of her WP career fighting with you. I'm pretty fond of Raul, and it's ridiculous to ban CeilingCat, but he really showed his ass this time. Calling for your ban is way out of line and betrays Raul's personal bias against you.
Posted by: One
I doubt Raul has a personal bias aganst EK. At least I doubt he had one before today, and it's clear he didn't have one when EK was allegedly harassing a user off the project.
He has a strong bias against people who disagree with him. He's fond of saying they're wrong, ignorant, disruptive, trolling, abetting trolling, and should be banned. That's just what he does.
Posted by: tarantino
[...] its dysfunctions will provide countless graduate students endless opportunities for theses that nobody (except other grad students) will ever read.
http://www.stuartgeiger.com/thesisa.pdf I ran across a few weeks ago titled "Democracy in Wikipedia" by http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Astuartgeiger.com++wikipedia&btnG=Search also known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Staeiou. I didn't read it.
He also http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22Stuart+Geiger%22+wikimania&go=&form=QBLH.
Posted by: LaraLove
Recently someone brought the issue of Raul654's sockpuppet account, User:Ceiling Cat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#user:Ceiling_Cat The edits speak for themselves--they are nothing but foolishness of the sort associated with internet trolls, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#MAOR_KATZ Many people on AN are of the opinion that an account like this, which does nothing but engage in low-level mischief, is all right as long as the user behind it contributes to the encyclopedia on another account--but if it were just some newbie, it would be banned, of course.
Wow. And people bitch about the Bathrobe Cabal.
Posted by: tarantino
Did you know that God is portrayed as Ceiling Cat in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LOLCat_Bible_Translation_Project&oldid=224282763? Neither did I.
Posted by: gomi
[Mopderator's note: All the PvP backbiting went into a thread in the Tar Pit. Enjoy it there. -- gomi]
Posted by: Shalom
Mods, should this thread go in Raul654's forum?
Posted by: The Joy
Mods, should this thread go in Raul654's forum?
Done.
Posted by: everyking
Raul654 says that he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=231837882&oldid=231837114. However, it was just a week ago that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&diff=230136951&oldid=229784355 that he cares deeply about what I say here. He said then that I was using WR to "rewrite history" and expressed concern that new users would be guiled into believing my version of events, offering instead a "history of you" filled with staggering inaccuracies and peppered with insults.
It troubles Raul immensely that, through WR, people might learn that I was placed under a pile of unnecessary restrictions for purely political reasons (repeatedly opposing abuse of other contributors by powerful admins, several months before the actual case), and later banned for two weeks and placed under further restrictions based on blatantly false accusations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3#Amendment.2C_July_2006.__Ban_and_extension_of_restrictions, in his multiple roles as accuser, prosecutor, and jury member.
Is Raul only concerned with what I say on this forum? It seems more plausible that he reads the forum regularly and takes it quite seriously.
Posted by: LaraLove
Raul654 says that he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raul654&diff=231837882&oldid=231837114.
Uhm. So, he's being reviewed here... so that would make him a troll by his own words, right?
Good job, Raul. You're brilliant. Way to think that one through.
Posted by: everyking
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=268851734 through his Ceiling Cat account. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=267244437)
Who else would be allowed to do this? If I were to create a joke account and go around trolling prominent talk pages, would no one stop me?
Posted by: One
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=268851734 through his Ceiling Cat account. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=267244437)
Who else would be allowed to do this? If I were to create a joke account and go around trolling prominent talk pages, would no one stop me?
Although I think you take editing games too seriously, you have a point. I doubt your hypothetical "playful" sock would last so long.
Posted by: Somey
First of all, I'm not sure I would call this "trolling." There really is a lot of blatantly anti-cat bias in the Featured Images category. For example, take this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Bratislava_sun.jpg - do you see even a single cat in that photograph? I mean, sure, there probably are one or two somewhere in the city, but they're all obscured by buildings and trees and so forth.
As for the second question, I would think more people would commend you than try to stop you, but that's just me applying my own personal value system to the situation.
Posted by: everyking
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=268861586 I propose that someone indefinitely block this account. It's a secondary account used purely for trolling and nonsense, and Raul should not get special treatment.
Posted by: LaraLove
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=268861586 I propose that someone indefinitely block this account. It's a secondary account used purely for trolling and nonsense, and Raul should not get special treatment.
It wouldn't be so bad if it were funny.
Posted by: EricBarbour
I do so hope the little shit is reading this.
In which case:
Mr. Pellegrini, you are a tedious, lying, backstabbing asshole.
And most other people on WR will probably agree with me.
Just wanted to point that out. Thanks. 
(and btw: there's not much traffic on this subforum, because
you really aren't very interesting. And besides, judging from
recent talk about Arbcom activities, you appear to have lost a lot
of your "power" in recent months. )
Posted by: UseOnceAndDestroy
I do so hope the little shit is reading this.
It seems likely he reads plenty (at least about himself) on this board - I'm reminded of his prompt retraction after this http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17172&st=0&p=90377&#entry90377.