| |
|
  |
 Raul654, Wikipedia's 2nd worst admin, probable leader of the cabal - so why |
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
In our recent poll, we adjudged Raul654 to be Wikipedia's second worst administrator (after Slim Virgin, tied for 2nd with Snowspinner). Here we are, quite rightly having lots of information investigating Slim Virgin (moreso lately than overall, but overall still having more on Slim Virgin than anyone else). And whilst we have also had a half decent amount on Snowspinner, we've had practically nothing on Raul654.
Lir wrote a wonderful piece about Raul654, who was a major part of Lir's criticism of Wikipedia. We've agreed that he is probably a major part of the cabal, if not their leader. He is a high ranking administrator, bureaucrat and long-term Arb Com member, with meta admin status. He has added Lir's criticism to the spam black list, as well as Wikipedia Review.com (which was reversed by Eloquence eventually, but Lir's was not). He also added Wikitruth to the spam black list, which was later reversed. When I spoke to him on meta (the only time I've ever talked to him), he was rude, obnoxious, arrogant and very false.
So what do we have on this guy? If we can do that much to expose Slim Virgin, surely Raul654 deserves at least half as much attention. We need to catch up.
Why precisely is he such a bad administrator? Why would Wikipedia be better off without him? Why should Jimbo desysop him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lir |
|
Communist
Group: Inactive
Posts: 978
Joined:
Member No.: 4
|
QUOTE(Hushthis @ Tue 6th June 2006, 11:15am)  Other times he's just a bully. Thats basically it, as Jimbo said to me, 'Raul is pretty uptight!" Raul does what he thinks is best, and claims to not care about process or 'bureaucracy'; and since he can easily ban people, the result is that he bullies people into doing what he wants. Its all really hypocritical, because he has set up a massive bureaucratic process on Wikipedia, centered around the arbcom; and so clearly, he wants people to follow his bureaucratic process, but to "ignore all rules" when it comes to other sorts of process; for example, the parliamentary system which was advocated by User:Karmafist. Basically, Raul can ban you, without folllowing the process; but you can't even file a ban request against him, or even a request for comment; unless you first follow a very lengthy process, during which you'll probably be banned "for trolling and disruption" by one of Raul's sychophants, and in which you'll have to go through a tiered process (including demonstrating personal attempts to resolve the issue, cooperation with the mediation committee, requests for comment, etc), and in which you will have to satisfy vague condition statements in order to elevate the situation to the next level; and of course, the final level is ultimately the arbitration committee, which is basically run by Raul (although he denies it, showing what a sleazy and dishonest mentality he has). Furthermore, Raul loves to make comments which are disrespectful towards the community; things like, "Make policy, and wait for common sense to catch up." which shows his elitist attitude -- he simply believes that he is better than the average Wikipedian, as the masses are stupid; its a concept which is greedily latched unto by his fanclub, people such as Phil Sandifer. On top of all that, Raul is immature and vindictive -- a good example of this is when Blu decided to voluntarily leave Wikipedia for awhile; rather than letting things be, Raul went and supported a ban on Blu, which has since become an indefinite ban. The reason, of course, was that Blu made the 'personal attack' of saying that Raul is a troll, and Blu made the mistake of posting to this forum -- of course, the hypocrisy here can be seen in the fact that Raul constantly refers to others as trolls; for example, everyone here is a"neo-Nazi troll", or so he has claimed. There is also the fact that Raul doesn't really do much for the Wikipedia -- he claims to put the encyclopedia first, but he really doesn't contribute anything. Raul is one of those so-called "wiki-fiddlers", who goes around correcting grammar, voting on VfD requests, deciding who should be banned, arguing about templates, selecting the "featured article" in a strange process which, I guess, is still run solely by him, and occassionally adding trivia about Pokemon (literally)... he claims to have interests in electrical engineering, and military history, but his contributions in those areas are not substantive. Basically, Raul is one of those people who is dead weight on the project; he loves to supervise, but he doesn't actually get any work done. If you think I have a grudge against Raul, I suppose you would be right -- he banned me because of "vandalism" against User:198's page, however, he ignored User:198 when 198 came to the arbcom and stated that there was no vandalism. Basically, Raul went out of his way to invent evidence -- another reason for my ban was that I "admitted" to having sockpuppets, when I stated that I had "a member of the board, in a pear tree". Of course I would have a grudge, against someone whose ethics are as low as Raul's. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Herschelkrustofsky |
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
|
My only encounter with Raul654 was brief, but telling. In the "Nobs01 and others" arbcom case, I was the sole respondent that was not mentioned in the Findings of Fact (link to case.) There was no discussion of any misconduct by myself. I roused the ire of the ArbCom simply by declaring, on the workshop and talk pages, that I felt that the penalties being proposed for the other editors involved were inequitable. The original wording of the penalty against me tells the story: *"15) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." Then, in an act of cowardly CYA, arbitrator Raul654 simply removed the explanation ( edit summary: "removed controversial part" ), leaving a penalty with no explanation whatsoever: *"15) Herschelkrustofsky is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." |
|
|
|
|
|
| antbear |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 41
Joined:
Member No.: 247
|
QUOTE(Lir @ Tue 6th June 2006, 6:28pm)
On top of all that, Raul is immature and vindictive -- a good example of this is when Blu decided to voluntarily leave Wikipedia for awhile; rather than letting things be, Raul went and supported a ban on Blu, which has since become an indefinite ban. The reason, of course, was that Blu made the 'personal attack' of saying that Raul is a troll, and Blu made the mistake of posting to this forum -- of course, the hypocrisy here can be seen in the fact that Raul constantly refers to others as trolls; for example, everyone here is a"neo-Nazi troll", or so he has claimed.
I'm not a neo-Nazi troll, and it's a perversion of justice that Raul can force Blu Aardvark to remain permanently banned. I think that's proof that he has too much power. QUOTE
If you think I have a grudge against Raul, I suppose you would be right -- he banned me because of "vandalism" against User:198's page, however, he ignored User:198 when 198 came to the arbcom and stated that there was no vandalism. Basically, Raul went out of his way to invent evidence
Wow! Where did User:198 say that? QUOTE
-- another reason for my ban was that I "admitted" to having sockpuppets, when I stated that I had "a member of the board, in a pear tree". Of course I would have a grudge, against someone whose ethics are as low as Raul's.
How can they say you've been using sockpuppets, when you've never used any??? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lir |
|
Communist
Group: Inactive
Posts: 978
Joined:
Member No.: 4
|
QUOTE(antbear @ Tue 6th June 2006, 9:08pm) Wow! Where did User:198 say that? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=16969071He stated: **'''198''': Lir did '''not''' vandalize my page I gave him permission to edit my page. He and I where talking on the IRC channel [[C Plus Plus|C++]] and I had asked him to leave a message on my user page should Jimbo Wales arrive on the Wikipedia IRC Channel.--[[User:198|198]] 04:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) The full text of my so-called vandalism was 'Jimbo Wales was Here!': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=6949690Arbcom members such as Sannse have acknowledged that they wrongly convicted me of 'vandalism' -- nevertheless, they have not reversed the judgment, or done anything to amend this. QUOTE(antbear @ Tue 6th June 2006, 9:08pm) How can they say you've been using sockpuppets, when you've never used any??? Not only that, but remember that having multiple accounts is expressly allowed on Wikipedia; I have very strong evidence for this, because an arbcom ruling was made against me, stating that I could only have 3 other accounts ("Lir may edit under the user name Lir and up to three other accounts") -- obviously, normal users are allowed to have more than 3, but I didn't have any. The only requirement about having multiple accounts, is that you are not allowed to vote with them -- I was NEVER even accused of doing that; I was simply banned for supposedly admitting to having sockpuppets (as if a joke that someone on the board is my sockpuppet is really an admission), when even if I did have some sockpuppets, it wouldnt be against the rules at all. Aside from my so-called admission, no evidence was ever shown that such sockpuppets exist -- and presumably, I am still using them? Here is my 'admission' of guilt, in response to harrassment from Snowspinner who was trying to claim I have sockpuppets: QUOTE yes, fyi i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree. I think this exchange between Snowspinner and myself shows an adequate defense of myself, which the arbcom wholly ignored. Based on this, I have been banned for more than a year -- notice how the original ban was for a month, and it increased more than 12-fold, simply because I appealed Snowspinner's decision. Raul654 oversaw all of this, which shows his character! |
|
|
|
|
|
| blissyu2 |
|
the wookie
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 4,596
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 5
|
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 7th June 2006, 10:57pm) QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Wed 7th June 2006, 12:37pm)
Well, they aren't being as gentle to you. They seem to think that you run this place, and hence have more responsibility. Silly people. Blu has been running it since it was on the old forum.
To be fair, Blu wasn't the one posting silly alleged pictures of a well-known admin. They were silly little jokes. Using the word "alleged" is stupid, since that photo has been floating around the internet for close to 10 years now, we have all seen it 100 times before, and there was no serious suggestion that that had anything to do with Slim Virgin. While the joke got old fast, using the word "alleged" is really not summing up the situation very well. |
|
|
|
|
|
| antbear |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 41
Joined:
Member No.: 247
|
QUOTE(Lir @ Wed 7th June 2006, 3:34am) QUOTE(antbear @ Tue 6th June 2006, 9:08pm) Wow! Where did User:198 say that? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=16969071He stated: **'''198''': Lir did '''not''' vandalize my page I gave him permission to edit my page. He and I where talking on the IRC channel [[C Plus Plus|C++]] and I had asked him to leave a message on my user page should Jimbo Wales arrive on the Wikipedia IRC Channel.--[[User:198|198]] 04:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) The full text of my so-called vandalism was 'Jimbo Wales was Here!': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=6949690Arbcom members such as Sannse have acknowledged that they wrongly convicted me of 'vandalism' -- nevertheless, they have not reversed the judgment, or done anything to amend this. The ArbCom is completely corrupt, except maybe Sannse, and Raul seems to be the worst of the lot. QUOTE QUOTE(antbear @ Tue 6th June 2006, 9:08pm) How can they say you've been using sockpuppets, when you've never used any??? Not only that, but remember that having multiple accounts is expressly allowed on Wikipedia; I have very strong evidence for this, because an arbcom ruling was made against me, stating that I could only have 3 other accounts ("Lir may edit under the user name Lir and up to three other accounts") -- obviously, normal users are allowed to have more than 3, but I didn't have any. The only requirement about having multiple accounts, is that you are not allowed to vote with them -- I was NEVER even accused of doing that; I was simply banned for supposedly admitting to having sockpuppets (as if a joke that someone on the board is my sockpuppet is really an admission), when even if I did have some sockpuppets, it wouldnt be against the rules at all. Aside from my so-called admission, no evidence was ever shown that such sockpuppets exist -- and presumably, I am still using them? Here is my 'admission' of guilt, in response to harrassment from Snowspinner who was trying to claim I have sockpuppets: QUOTE yes, fyi i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree. I think this exchange between Snowspinner and myself shows an adequate defense of myself, which the arbcom wholly ignored. Based on this, I have been banned for more than a year -- notice how the original ban was for a month, and it increased more than 12-fold, simply because I appealed Snowspinner's decision. Raul654 oversaw all of this, which shows his character! It's crazy! How can they say you have "sockpuppets" when they specifically allow you to use your alternate accounts? It was probably some sort of trap - they told you you could use alternate accounts, then, when you did, they pounced on you! They're real bastards. You should keep using them anyway, to spite them. QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Wed 7th June 2006, 1:58pm) QUOTE(guy @ Wed 7th June 2006, 10:57pm) QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Wed 7th June 2006, 12:37pm)
Well, they aren't being as gentle to you. They seem to think that you run this place, and hence have more responsibility. Silly people. Blu has been running it since it was on the old forum.
To be fair, Blu wasn't the one posting silly alleged pictures of a well-known admin. They were silly little jokes. Using the word "alleged" is stupid, since that photo has been floating around the internet for close to 10 years now, we have all seen it 100 times before, and there was no serious suggestion that that had anything to do with Slim Virgin. While the joke got old fast, using the word "alleged" is really not summing up the situation very well. Right - they were literary criticism. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) This post has been edited by antbear: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chahax |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7
Joined:
Member No.: 1,289
|
This is my very first post. I've been posting to forums for a very long time, and I want you all to know that I'm breaking a few of my own rules by coming on so strong in a first post (my normal nature is to do a simple safe white-bread hello). I also don't know if it's appropriate to make this exact post in this exact thread, but I did go through a lot of posts vary carefully before choosing this one, because it was Raul654 who brought me to you. Without him, I would never have found the Wikipedia Review, and would not be here.
Up until yesterday, I had been having a lot of fun at wikipedia. Snipping here, tucking there, contributing where I felt good. Had a small disagreement with an editor one time which turned out amicably, and we are now freinds. I felt that wikipedia had a lot it could teach the world...well, I felt that way until yesterday.
Yesterday I came across the "Intelligent design" article. It seemed editorially lopsided, was full of misspellings, weasel words, and frankly, I thought it was at best a mediocre piece. BTW, before you ask, I'm a student of evolution, and do not believe in creation. I don't want anyone to think I was attacking the article on a religious basis. The article was ranked as a featured article, which was embarrassing. I put the featured article up for review. Anybody would have.
Then the monster came out.
The article was removed from FAR without discussion, and I was told by raul654 that if I kept pushing POV, I would be blocked. I had no idea what he was talking about. My only view was that the article needed review. I made the mistake of re-nominating the article, and as promised, he blocked me, and my IP. Claimed I was a sockpuppetteer! (I occasionally edit from my IP on controversial subjects as per wiki policy, (I'm never disruptive or threatening, feel free to look). User:216.67.29.113 It's all well within the rules)
So when I tried to complain about this admin abuse, I find that this guy has more power than God. That he runs the arbitration committee and the Featured Articles! I'm screwed. Permanently blocked, all because I thought a featured article needed review.
1. How does a petty tyrant get so much power?
2. What can be done about it?
Coming to this site just made things worse for me, as I found out that there are plenty more of these "little hitlers" where Raul654 came from.
Sorry about a first post like this. If anyone has any suggestions, ideas, (gentle) critisisms, I'm listening.
Thanks
User: Chahax
This post has been edited by guy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(blissyu2 @ Tue 6th June 2006, 10:42am)
Why precisely is he such a bad administrator? Why would Wikipedia be better off without him? Why should Jimbo desysop him?
I did interact with Mark early on in the Wikipedia Review saga. At the time, he seemed to be open-minded enough, that I didn't consider him adversarial in any way. More recently, though, I've seen that he's definitely against me personally, or against the Wikipedia Review concept... I don't recall specifically, and I can't readily provide the "diffs". Anyway, since I've made his sh*tlist, then I guess he's on mine now, too. By the way, he's supposedly studying at University of Delaware. I typically attend 2 to 4 home games of the Blue Hens each autumn. If anyone needs me to physically stalk Raul in person, I could be paid to do so. (Kidding, folks.) Let's see how long it takes a Wikipedia admin to cite the above paragraph, conveniently expunging this paragraph, so it looks like another "threat" from Wikipedia Review. Greg This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
