User:Ceiling Cat, The exquisite sense of humor of Raul654 Options

[everyking]

Recently someone brought the issue of Raul654's sockpuppet account, User:Ceiling Cat, to the attention of WP:AN. The edits speak for themselves--they are nothing but foolishness of the sort associated with internet trolls, and some of it is disruptive foolishness. 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.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[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.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

... and some of it is disruptive foolishness.

So Raul wants to put naked pussies on the main page. what's the big deal?

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

[everyking]

... and some of it is disruptive foolishness.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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 are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
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:

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:
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

[thekohser]

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

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!

[Random832]

I'm waiting to see if anyone bothers to tag it as your sockpuppet.

[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".

[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.

[Kelly Martin]

Perhaps talk history should be wiped after 6 months, so that people lose the ability to poke at old wounds.

I argued somewhere (probably on WR) that all nonarticle content should be deleted after a reasonably short time to discourage grudgekeeping. Of course, this is unacceptable; if this is done, then how will future historians document Wikipedia?

They won't even agree not to make this content indexable by search engines; getting them to delete it is beyond the pale.

[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!

[Kelly Martin]

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!

I can't imagine why anyone would bother, but you know how the Wikiculters have this insane belief that they're engaged in the most important activity humanity has ever attempted. Given that mindset, believing that future historians will actually care is reasonable.

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.

[Gold heart]

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!

I can't imagine why anyone would bother, but you know how the Wikiculters have this insane belief that they're engaged in the most important activity humanity has ever attempted. Given that mindset, believing that future historians will actually care is reasonable.

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· ·|:/|....................... ................................_-~`` · · · \..
....................|;| · · · / · \ · · · | ;/....... ......................................, ---~`` · ` · · · · , /
...................`-| · · · ¯ ¯ · · · ·|`............. ................................./` · · · · · ·_·,·-````
......................\ · ·`¯¯¯¯` ·,,- |,................ ................. ........./ · · · · · · /_,,__,,
........................`\ · · ¯· · /-` / ``~-,.............___... ...... ....../ · ·'~,,,_· `· · · ·`|· ·\
.........................| ·-¯¯¯ · /::::::::::::`/``¯/¯::::::::\... ... .../· · · ·· · · ·\ /· · · |· · | \
.....................,` :| ·/¯¯\`~,/::::::::::::::/::::/::::/¯¯¯¯`-,_,| · · · · · · · |· · · ·/···| · /
................-~`:::| · /::::::\·/::::::::::::::/::/``::::::::::::::::::/ `-_¯¯``~`¯ /`· · / / /
....._..-~`/::::::::| · /:::::::/::::::::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::/:\ · ·`-,,--,__/,__/,_, /
.../::::::::/:::::::::| /::::::::/:::::::::::::/:::::::::\::::::::::::::|::::\· ·· ·``~-~--~
..|:::::::::|:::::::::: |:::::::/:::::::::::::/::::::::::::\:::::::::::::|::::::\ · · · · · /
./:\::::::::|:::::::::: |::::::/::::::::::::/:::::::::::::::\:::::::::::::\::::::¯¯~~¯|
/:::\:::::::\:::::::::: |::::/:::::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::``~-,_,,_______,__,-'
::::\::::::::\::::::::: |:::/::::::::::/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::\:::::::::\::::::: |::/:::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::\:::::::::\::::: |:/:::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
:::::::::\:::::::::\::: |::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
::::::::::|::::::::::\: |::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:/::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\
::::::::::|:::::::::::: |:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[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.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[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.

[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.

[tarantino]

[...] its dysfunctions will provide countless graduate students endless opportunities for theses that nobody (except other grad students) will ever read.

Here's one I ran across a few weeks ago titled "Democracy in Wikipedia" by R. Stuart Geiger also known as User:Staeiou. I didn't read it.

He also spoke at Wikimania.