User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban

Responding to utterly false statements:

"It appears the next step is to forward this article, its complement on the larger movement Islam as a political movement, to a large number of groups of all stripes, along with the name and address of Robert Kaiser (User:RK) who claims that they are all followers of Deobandi, Mawdudi or Wahabism. With no serious argument raised by either User:Graft nor User:RK, only censorship and lies (such as the lie that the entire content of this article is from Islamism), it's time to delete Islamism and simply get on with this refactor."

(Edit summary: (let's get on with the refactor - are there any serious arguments here, or shall we VfD Islamism for being hopelessly POV - as long as it exists, Islamic parties etc. will be equated with it))

This is his actual claim, and he has made that visible to everyone by his own choice. No threat here. Are all these groups murderers? Who says so? user:142.177.etc

"No threat here"? Are you serious? If so, why the hell send his name and address to those groups? So that they can argue with RK via postal mail, rather than on the Internet? Even if, somehow, this isn't an implied threat, giving out the address of editor to others without the editor's permission should be grounds for banning, in my opinion. -- Khym Chanur 05:12, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

The comments above *could* be interpreted as a threat, but there is no way that they could be reasonably interpreted as a "death threat." Rather, these comments "threaten" to out RK as someone who is allegedly slandering muslims by characterizing all muslims as extremists. Are such comments out of line on Wikipedia? Absolutely. But there is no way that they could be interpreted as a threat of bodily harm, much less a "death threat." -- NetEsq 05:38, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What, exactly, it the point of outing someone with their real-world address, if not to make it likely that someone will go to that address and do something? If EoT simply wanted those groups to flame RK, or add him to a "hall of shame" list, or for them to argue with his POV, or whatever, then there'd be no need to give them his address. Giving out someone's real-world address to people in such a manner strongly implies a threat of a physical nature. -- Khym Chanur 06:13, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, I can think of a number of reasons why someone would want to know the physical address of someone who is posting controversial material on the Internet, the most obvious being for service of legal process in a civil suit. There is no reason whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that there is a threat of bodily harm involved. -- NetEsq 15:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wales says "what I plan to do is pursue this one aggressively with any and all ISPs that he tries to use to get around the ban. Who knows how well that will work, but one of the big issues with EofT is that he has explicitly said that he intends to violate any ban that I impose."

Not only that, I'll help anyone else who wants to do so, do so. You are publishing libel here, Wales. You have no case to complain to any ISP, there are no "death threats" anywhere, but do as you will - you seem to have learned nothing from various attempts to reform your attitude to governance.

Time to build a real encyclopedia project to take all this away from you, since you can't handle it. 142.177.etc

Wikipedia is open source. You can take a fork anytime you like, and go on from there. Bon chance. Vicki Rosenzweig

Why should racists be permitted to hijack this fork? It's worth a fight, using whatever weapons. Welcome to escalation.

Was EofT banned only for the above quote? If not, what else did he do? --Wik 17:03, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

LOL. Wrote this neutral article on what an Islamist really is promoting, which User:RK continually attacked out of process, as part of his campaign to define Islam itself as an inherently intolerant movement. That article, and Militant Islam, are intended to replace shameful and racist assertions at Islamism that claim that all Islamists are followers of Mawdudi, and worse, that Wahabists all belong in a group with Al Qaida, etc. - this is USPOV at best, Fox News POV more likely. - 142

Please deal harshly with all those involved in this fraud. They do so truly deserve it. user:142.177.etc

Bloody hell. The Wikicidal thought police really are gaining the upper hand. GrahamN 12:14, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to set up an organization that welcomes its members to make death threats against each other. I'll be somewhere else.Vicki Rosenzweig 12:54, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you read that as a "death threat", it can only be because you assume all Muslims kill rather than correct their opponents - that makes you a racist, and it would be not bad for you to be somewhere else. - 142

Bollocks. Read what he wrote. He never made any death threats. Who is paying you people to destroy Wikipedia? GrahamN 13:05, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd guess Mossad. user:142.177.etc

Graham - don't blame "you people" - Jimbo made the decision, nobody else. If you disagree with that decision, direct your flak at him, not Wikipedia. Martin 17:16, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I thought this was an open, collaborative project, not a Jimbo Wales project. Also, unlike many people here, I have to earn a living in some way that does not involve spending eight hours a day working on Wikipedia. I simply don't have the time to get involved in all this nonsense, but I'm saddened at the way Wikipedia is turning out. A year ago it seemed so promising. GrahamN 17:46, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The "open, collaborative" nature has always been a lie - there has never been any democratization, acknowledgement of a need to shift modes of m:governance, etc. - Wales always and only wanted a one-man show, presumably because it serves some purpose for bomis.com in the long run. - 142

Please stop attacking Jimbo Wales. We should be grateful to Mr Wales for his vision (and his money), setting up this wonderful project. It's not his fault he's been put in this position. He only has "supreme overlord" status here because Wikipedians have chosen to give him that role. Regardless of the legal and economic facts in the "real world", the inherent nature of Wikipedia is such that ultimate power over this patch of cyberspace is held by the mass of Wikipedians. To go to all the trouble and expense of building a system that makes centralised control impossible, only then to set yourself up as its central controller, would be perverse to say the least. But I don't think that is what has happened. What I suspect has happened is that some people have been frustrated that they have been unable to control the content of this site, because of its free-for-all nature. One strategy they have adopted to undermine that nature is to play on our gratitude to Mr Wales' benevolence. They have built up the idea that he should have a hands-on role as the project's final court of appeal. It will always be easier to manipulate one man than a whole community. I'm sure Mr Wales is a very capable and strong-minded person, who is not easily manipulated, but if he happens to read this, can I respectfully ask him to step back into the role of standard Wikipedian, and to allow Wikipedia to take its own course. GrahamN 18:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Amen. He keeps saying that he wants to do this. But he keeps acting as if he's afraid to lose any control whatsoever. Even documenting the actual policies he follows tends to generate attacks from his personality cult. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

Edward Said has died. Maybe that's Mossad too. That would be par for the course. Well, I dedicate the rest of the time I spend taking out racists in this forum, to him. A great man. And, kudos to the Israeli air force pilots who refuse to fly missions into Gaza for assassination and murder of civilians. About time sanity prevailed.

Now, if only it would prevail here also. You might gain something if you convinced Wales to Tit For Tat ban User:RK and User:EntmootsOfTrolls together.

That wouldn't be sanity. I'm not in favour of banning anybody at all. I'm troubled by this talk of "ganging up" and "escalation". If you go down the route of fighting fire with fire, you become as bad as them. We cannot win that kind of "war", given there are more of them than us, and the collateral damage might well be terrible. It would inevitably result in even more damage to the project, and might well be used as a pretext to impose all sorts of draconian restrictions and limits on our freedom here. The way to wrest power from the Zionist/Neo-conservative claque who now have such a disproportionate amount of influence here is to recruit as many new Wikipedians as possible, of all shades of opinion. The Claque have managed to change the dynamics of Wikipedia to some extent (by extending the powers of administrators; by blocking a scheme for a simple, open and transparent deletion system; by introducing software "improvements" that actually make Wikipedia slower, harder to use, more complicated, less reliable, and less inviting to newcomers; and by encouraging the notion that Jimbo Wales should act as the project's benevolent dictator) but in essence this place is still run by ordinary, honest Wikipedians. The more people there are here the harder it will be for anybody to dominate, and the better Wikipedia will be for it. GrahamN 18:49, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's happening here? Is EOT still banned? If so, why is nobody making a fuss about it? Why is it only me who seems to be interested any more? He clearly did not threaten anybody. Please don't take my above comments as endorsing the blatantly politically-motivated ban. Un-ban EoT now. GrahamN 16:45, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, good riddance. And BTW I don't share all the criticism of EOT's opinions. But his behaviour was so unbelievable as to warrant a ban. And it wasn't his first. FearÉIREANN 19:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What is unbelievable is that one can simply state that any comment whatsoever is a "death threat" and that Wales can use it as an excuse to apply his selective bans, and that anyone cares what he says. It wasn't the first time "death threats" were invented as an excuse to get rid of someone who sought m:regime change, no, that is true. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

His behaviour has been no worse than RK's, as far as I can tell. I'm not endorsing EoT's behaviour, nor RK's behaviour, but I don't see what is to be gained by banning either of them. It's a slippery slope we're edging down here. GrahamN 20:12, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Generally I think vandals and trolls aren't banned quickly enough here. But in this case I am not convinced. I have yet to see any of those "death threats" he supposedly made. I had the impression he was a serious contributor, who was involved in some edit wars with RK, in which both sides went a bit over the top, but in the substance EofT seemed to make more sense. RK has some serious POV problems. --Wik 20:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree RK has serious POV problems, as his editing of Mel Gibson all so starkly highlighted. EOT did offer a necessary balance. But he did so through gross abuse, outrageous attacks and a behaviour towards RK (in creating 'attack' pages, etc) that should never be tolerated. EOT was already a banned user who behaved outrageously not once but twice. But I do agree that vandals and trolls aren't banned quickly enough here. FearÉIREANN 20:21, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I'm still relatively new here, so I may well have missed the outrageous behaviour you mention. --Wik 20:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wik, I wouldn't take JT's word for anything. It's strange, but although he always claims to sympathise with the people who speak out against Zionism and US world domination, he always seems to end up attacking them and using his sysop powers to delete their work. GrahamN 20:45, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree, broadly (although I'm not sure what you mean by "POV problems" - we are all entitled to a POV) What can we do? Can we start some kind of petition or something? GrahamN 20:12, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We all have our personal POV, but we should keep it out of the articles. RK has a quite noticeable Zionist agenda. --Wik 20:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the ball is in EofT's court, and the only way that the ban can be lifted is if he appeals to Jimbo Wales directly.

This seems unlikely as EofT, while listing Jimbo on his list of "lamps", opposed his absolute authority. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

If you wish to contact Jimbo in support of EofT, Jimbo will most likely be open to anything that you have to say on the matter, but (ultimately) the dispute is between EofT and Jimbo. For the record, I do *NOT* support the ban of EofT, and I would like to see EofT reinstated by Jimbo Wales ASAP.--NetEsq 20:32, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure he's a lovely fella and all, but I fail to understand why, as a community, we have decided to accord Jimbo Wales absolute power over us. I'm no historian, but it reminds me of the English Revolution. My hazy recollection is that the people seized power from the King and the artistocracy, but then weren't sure what to do with it. So they restored the monarchy and carried on as before. GrahamN 20:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo is, in fact, a lovely fella and all, but I have never assented to his absolute power over us. In fact, I often think Jimbo's very, very wrong, and I often say so. To wit, the EofT ban is the latest in a long series of wrong-headed decisions by Jimbo, albeit wrong-headed decisions that were made in good faith and supported by a large number of misguided Wikipedians who are clearly in favor of an authoritarian Wikipedia regime. Beyond stating my displeasure, what, exactly, am I supposed to do about it? Fall on my own sword? What good can come of that? -- NetEsq 21:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The unfolding of the RK/EofT story is deeply troubling to me. While EofT may not be a model Wikipedian, it is clear to me that RK is at least as much to blame in the present conflict as EofT. A review of the two users' history of contributions shows that both users have been embroiled in POV disputes in many of the articles they have edited. Each user has waged a campaign to discredit the other. I fear that RK has "prevailed" primarily because EofT has called for changes to the Wikipedia power structure while RK has not. I previously stated my heartfelt opposition to Jimbo's "ceasefire" here, though you'll have to find it in the history since it was promptly removed by a member of the cabal. I realize that much of the conversation has taken place on the mailing list, which I have never followed regularly. Of note, however, RK is a happy participant on the list, while EofT is not.

I believe that the fundamental problem is that there is no "lightweight" decision making process for the article disputes that ultimately escalated to the point where a user is banned, as I once stated here, in an article that has been since moved to the meta by the cabal (see a pattern?).

Weighing in briefly. I'm gone again. Kat 21:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It might have something to do with the fact that his company owns the machines. Legally, he could shut the whole project down today if he wished. Any armed resistance, therefore, should take place at Bomis. </sarcasm> - Hephaestos 21:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Which means, that with the effort and resources he's contributed, he's arguably almost as important to Wikipedia as any one of the most prolific writers. Owning the machines and bandwidth shouldn't make him a god. Kat 21:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Or indeed a MeatBall:GodKing. Martin 21:59, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kat and other Wikipedians interested in a fair process may care to view my recent changes to Wikipedia:Bans and blocks. Martin 23:36, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The following moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

Am I the only person here who is bothered by the recent banning of EntmootsOfTrolls? The stated reason for the ban was that he supposedly made a death threat against RK. However, anybody who reads what he wrote, and examines the context in which he wrote it, and who chooses to understand the English language, can see that it was merely a rhetorical flourish, and by no stretch of the imagination any kind of a threat. I appreciate that EoT was not the easiest contributor to get along with, but the same is true of many others here, not least RK. EoT has clearly been treated unjustly. I can't be the only person who has noticed this. Why will nobody else stand up for him? Are you all afraid of RK's hectoring? Please go to User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban and make a fuss. GrahamN 19:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Fuck off, GrahamN. EntmootOfTrolls had a long history of vandalizing pages with his bizarre ideas, getting into flame wars and revision-warns, and has made multiple death threats. To see you support such hateful action indicates that you yourself have no place in polite society. Perhaps you woudln't mind if someone made similar death threats to you? Fuck off, seriously. RK 00:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This attitude speaks for itself, doesn't it? Saying that someone has "no place in polite society" suggests a level of exclusion that no one ever actually suggested RK should suffer - merely exclusion from *this* service, and the forwarding of his actual opinions as publicly stated to such people as Mel Gibson or the Islamic parties or Liberal Islam proponents that he slanders. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

<< Am I the only person here who is bothered by the recent banning of EntmootsOfTrolls? >>

In a word, no.

<< The stated reason for the ban was that he supposedly made a death threat against RK. >>

Clearly, a bum rap.

<< Why will nobody else stand up for him? >>

Ultimately, most Wikipedians defer to the decisions of Jimbo Wales, and EofT made a point of challenging Jimbo's authority. What can I say? You don't tug on Superman's cape; you don't spit into the wind; you don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger; and you don't mess around with Jim.

<< Are you all afraid of RK's hectoring? >>

I know that I'm not, but perhaps I should be in light of what happened to EofT. In fact, RK made a point of adding me to his "list of people risking a ban," for reasons that still leave me shaking my head. -- NetEsq 20:18, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A bum rap? He makes repeated death threats, against more than one user, and you support him? It is sickening to see so many hateful people on this forum. RK

Yes, a bum rap. There were no "death threats," much less "repeated death threats," much less "repeated death threats, against more than one user." I have no doubt that you believe that such death threats took place, but the facts speak for themselves, and the fact that your confrontational tactics worked in actually getting someone banned is truly bizarre. God only knows how many Wikipedians (e.g., Kat) just walk away from a confrontation with you, shaking their heads in dismay and disgust. -- NetEsq 01:49, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned EOT's ban was perfectly justified and long overdue. FearÉIREANN 20:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

EofT admitted to Jimbo in private email that he was former(banned)users 24/142.

This is false. What actually happened is that a single 142 IP claimed on a talk page to "be" EofT, and then EofT, on a User_talk page, said it was true. He may have said that he was in fact *ALL* 142.177.etc IPs - I don't remember. But who knows if he gives his password out to people? That is common among net-anarchist types. And no one said anything about User:24. That is someone else's opinion that 24 is one person, and that the same one person is behind all 142.177 IPs. It is all quite confused. Given the sheer volume and speed of contributions, it seems quite unlikely that this could all have been one person. More likely a group of people refining some base of text maybe provided by one person, like Larry's Text? Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

Jim decided that it was serendipitious that the previous ban be 'reinforced' just in time to cool things down with RK. I objected to the disparity of treatment, but he was banned already, and acting like an ass, in excess of reason. --戴&#30505sv 20:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)p.s.:I should mention that this was all blown up when EofT got carried away with making /ban pages in RK's namespace-- something which he continued to do for a day or so after Jim asked him not to. Further issues with RK can be dealt with at 'Wikipedia:Community case RK.' or something like.戴&#30505sv 21:01, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I did not interpret what EofT (supposedly -- the edit on Talk:Militant Islam was made by an anonymous IP) wrote as a death threat, but I did interpret it as a clear and very substantial breach of Wikipedia:Wikiquette. I also believe that RK has committed severe breaches of Wikiquette in the past. The two users seem to have been in a permanent flamewar, and while I don't know if there was enough evidence to ban EofT, I certainly hope that he will re-examine his behavior and then write a letter to Jimbo, who is usually quick to unban people who promise to follow the rules. As for RK, he seems to have mellowed down somewhat, and I hope that he will understand that he is taken much more seriously that way. If you are in contact with EofT, please explain to him that he can participate again if he focuses on being a productive member of the community rather than engaging in personal vendettas.—Eloquence 21:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Am I the only person here who is bothered by the recent banning of EntmootsOfTrolls?

No you are not.

The stated reason for the ban was that he supposedly made a death threat against RK. However, anybody ... who chooses to understand the English language, can see that it was merely a rhetorical flourish

I choose to try to understand English language, and I did not see death threats.

And I deny that the sky is blue. But it doesn't change any facts. RK 00:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why will nobody else stand up for him?

I did. Nobody cared.

Are you all afraid of RK's hectoring?

RK already called a ban on me. I am mostly tired. And no one seem to really care. I am very upset of disparity of treatments. But then... so what ? Anthère

Anthere, you did have a severe problem; for some time you kept pushing your religious and political views into science articles, and you refused to work with the rest of us, and you refused to even allow for the possbility of compromise. After a long time, you eventually stopped your bad behaviour, and I stopped calling for you to be banned. I reached out to you to make peace, you reached out to me...and then for reasons I still don;t understand, you started flooding the WikiEn list with personal attacks on me, and cries of persecution. Then, to top it off, you started defending a mentally ill person who makes death threats to push his views. Frankly, between your delusions of persecution, your pushing away of someone reaching out to you, and your support of a very sick person, you have lost all sympathy. RK 00:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

You have never offered me any sympathy RK. Recently, I tried in all fairness to work with you on the islamism article. I meant it well, with an open mind, ready to listen to you, ready to cooperate with you. I intended to learn something in the process, and perhaps to be given a little chance to speak my mind. And I stated I appreciated your politness.

What happen is that either you didnot answer my questions, or you just stated coldly I was wrong. And that was all there is to say about it. You may call it a refuse from "me" to cooperate with you, but everyone can see it is you who just refused open communication with me. It is very sad. And defending someone who has been ihmo unfairly treated, is not necessarily meaning I attack you. Again it is very sad that you refuse to work with people who do not think as you do. Very sad. A loss. I feel sorry for you that you can't restrain yourself. You should learn to make a difference between a comment, an opinion, and an attack on yourself. Tell me if I can be of any help here. Anthère

RK's POVing of text is a big problem, particularly when he almost alone thinks his edits NPOV. There were however two differences with EoT that didn't apply with RK. EoT's series of /anti-RK pages was distasteful in the extreme and so broke every tenet of wikilove as to be mindboggling.

Creating /ban pages was the standard procedure at the time. Loading up Wikipedia:problem users, which is the successor technique, is not much better. In RK's case the list of complaints would literally have been impossible for most browsers to load. This "wikilove" propaganda, well, it can't apply to those who have hate at the root of their own character.

RK, for all his faults never sunk to that level. Secondly EoT was already a banned user on wiki under false pretences, ie., pretending not to be a banned user.

No one asked. This is not pretending. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

RK has not been banned and has never hit his identity or used a false one. Had it been RK who created a series of anti-EoT pages and been a banned user pretending to be an unbanned user, then I would 100% support his banning. It isn't a case of EoT being singled out in a battle where both acted outrageously, but EoT going further than RK in his targeting of a user which a series of attack pages and using a false identity while being banned. That was the difference.

RK's serious misbehaviour is a problem wiki has to face up with, but in this instance he was the less guilty party who showed marginally (and I stress marginally) more restraint. RK walked along the line, EoT crossed it and so deserved to go. And RK will too if doesn't restrain his POV and continue personally attacking users. FearÉIREANN 00:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. RK crossed the line over and over again, was ignored and facilitated in going further, driving off contributors, and EofT remained well within process in responding to him. It was and is only racists that can read any comment of his as a "death threat", and it was and is the case that those who defend User:RK or even draw some kind of moral equivalence are masking an increasingly-clear agenda of their own. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

It is your serious misbehaviour that I am more concerned with. I reached out to you in openness and honestly, and tried my best to work with you. You wrote back claiming that you wanted to put any disputes behind us, and that you were happy to try to create a productive and polite relationship. And yet out of the blue you started making a new series of personal attacks on me on the WikiEn list. That is when I gave up on you. You say one thing, and do another. As for your claims about my "NPOV problems", the facts speak for themselves. My work on Ethics, [[Philosophy, Judaism, and a myriad of Israel-Palestinian articles is very well accepted.

This is a lie. This "work", which in some cases verges on vandalism and a smear campaign, was not challenged because those with the qualifications to challenge it already knew you were Wales' sacred idiot, and that you were engaged in ongoing smear campaigns against all those who challenged you. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

You can claim otherwise, but the indisputable fact is that the great majority of what I write eventually finds consensus an support among Wikipedians, and still remains in all those articles. And unlike others (including you) I have made serious concessions on controversial articles. Your holier than thou attitude is wearing thin, o pious one.RK 00:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, you conceded from views that were TOTALLY or MOSTLY wrong to views that are only MOSTLY or SOMEWHAT wrong. That is not a win for Wikipedia, if your edits stand. Which they will not. Anonymous user 142.177.99.102

With an attitude like that, is it any wonder that so few people to your defence even when, as was the case with EoT, you were the victim of outrageous behaviour? For the record, I have defended you when I thought you needed and deserved defending. I have attacked you when I believed it was justified. I have urged you to be more respectful of others and to stop crying 'anti-semitism' every time someone expresses an opinion that is critical of you. I appreciated your comments on the wiki-list and said so. Can you please respect other people's attempts to be honest towards you. If you get banned it will be because of your behaviour. I don't want that to happen but it is up to you. And I don't think there is a single person I have met on wiki who has been surrounded by more continuous accusations of POV. Your edits on Mel Gibson were a case in point. In dealing with Gibson's repulsive opinions (my pov on his opinions, BTW) you so overloaded the article with polemic that it was cringe-inducing to read. And there as so often the effect of what you did was so overblown you created a sympathy for a man whose views make most people's skin crawl. And then you interpreted various users' attempts to salvage the article and make the article about the actor rather than largely an ADL attack on his repulsive viewpoints as censorship. Try to restrain yourself, Robert, and stop waging war on people and issues. You are your own worst enemy and you do more damage to the causes you keep pushing than any critic ever has on wiki. FearÉIREANN 22:27, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've proposed an alteration to our (rather sketchy and underdefined) banning procedures at Wikipedia:Bans and blocks, to mirror a similar, highly successful, h2g2 policy. I beg for feedback on the relevant talk page. Martin 23:35, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

beg??? Martin, a chara, since when do you beg? :-) FearÉIREANN 00:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

End of text moved from Wikipedia:Village pump

Uh, Jt, why are you offering me flowerless plants?? Martin 22:48, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think dear sir that he meant this definition. Angela 00:10, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)

A chara means friend (male), a cara (female). FearÉIREANN 18:54, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

from the village pump

Truth Controversy[edit]

Article on Truth is currently being kicked around a bit by a couple of users. My view is that one of the articles is of fairly good quality by someone with a philosophical education. The other one is illiterate. But who decides in such cases? User:dbuckner

The normal course of action is to discuss it on the articles talk page. Is there a discussion on it there? —Frecklefoot 16:17, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Be aware as well that some of the recent changes may be from a hard-banned and very intelligent troll, see #Contributions by 142.177.xxx.xxx. Enormous potential here for wasting time. Andrewa 19:18, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contributions by 142.177.xxx.xxx[edit]

In the past little while, hard-banned user 142.177.xxx.xxx, aka 24, User:EntmootsOfTrolls has been rather active. Contribs: 142.177.10.33, 142.177.11.23, 142.177.81.243, 142.177.79.242. In particular, the following articles were created by him:

Now, being hard-banned doesn't mean anything unless someone enforces it, so I'm going to step up here. Here's what I'm going to do:

Rather than outright deleting these articles, I'm going kidnap each of these new articles to subpages of my own User page. I ask that if anyone wants to reinstate one of these, please do not move it back, but rather use a cut-n-paste procedure. The idea is that you are permitted to create the article, but 142.177 is not.
I will go through these contributions and revert all of the substantive edits that remain current at this time. (Substantive is my subjective judgment, of course.) Again, feel free to reinstate any of his edits, under your own user name.

-- Cyan 01:51, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

They also wrote Cognotechnology (currently listed on Vfd). Maximus Rex 01:59, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That was before he was banned I think. Angela

I have only kidnapped articles created since October 27. Also, there is a question of the attribution required by the GFDL. Since this user is nominally anonymous, I'm not too concerned about it. If necessary, attribution can be made in the edit summary or on the talk page of any reinstated article. -- Cyan 02:06, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted most of 142.177's other edits. I have also personally reinstated his article on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. On another topic, I just want to make clear what the big idea behind all of this brouhaha is:

The hardbanned user who edits out of the 142.177.xxx.xxx IP range must get permission from Jimbo before returning to Wikipedia.

Thanks, and good night. You've been a great audience. -- Cyan 03:01, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He's back as 142.177.74.48. Will revert. Kosebamse 16:55, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with Personal experience and Ethical paradox, though. And by the way, this seems not the right place for discussing the matter. We have a vandals page and a problem users page, but I can't remember seeing a banned users page (which would be useful anyway for reference - bans are rare, but some banned ones are persistent, and it would help to have their characteristics summarised somewhere). Kosebamse 17:19, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion at meta:Wikipedia:Requests for undeletions

[ User:GrahamN asked to see an article written by 142.177 that had been deleted by User:Maveric149, and then asked "What harm is he doing, Mav?" ...]

He is posting in defiance to the hard ban so it doesn't matter what he wrote because he should not have posted it here. What do you think "hard ban" means? If we read what he writes and keep that then there is no hard ban. --Maveric149 22:06, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question - "what harm is he doing?", but I'll answer yours. If this is the person whom I think you think it is, then "hard ban" means that some people who dislike this person's opinions were alarmed by the coherent and persuasive way he was expressing them. Finding that they could not manufacture the consensus for a ban, they browbeat Jimbo into banning him by Royal Decree. It's disgraceful. There was never anything near a consensus for a ban. [...] GrahamN

He is anti-social and has (as 24) threatened Larry and (as 142.177) has threatened me, Jimbo and the rest of the "cabal". In fact Jimbo was so shaken up by it that he forbids his wife from opening packages they were not expecting. If you think that that type of activity should be encouraged by allowing him to continue to edit, then you have some emotional problems that need to be examined by a professional. So the only thing that is distasteful here is your accusation that the 142.177 hard ban is not justified. And the way we do bans around here is still by Jimbo's decree, so either get used to it or propose a better way (I would like to prevent Jimbo from being the bottleneck on bans - he waits too damn long sometimes). [...] --mav

just an aside comment about hard banning. Someday, we will have to face the fact Jimbo only ban people in english. Not in other languages. Cause he can't really judge the situation himself. Then we will have to face the fact meta is not english place only :-) I hope it does not come before a long time :-) [ User:Anthere ]

I know RK alleged that he'd been threatened, but he's always going over the top and saying things like that, and in my opinion (and the opinion of several others) he did not produce any evidence that the threat was real. It seemed to be a figment of his over-active imagination. [I know all about those - I have one myself.] These new allegations you are making (new to me, anyway) may put a different complexion on all this. But this is the first I've heard of them. Why were they not even mentioned on this page? Where did the threatening take place? Where is the evidence? I'm not saying I don't believe you, but it all seems very odd to me. GrahamN 18:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've read about these types of allegations on the Wiki-EN mailing list, but I have not yet seen any actual evidence of these alleged threats, and (as a general rule) people are not very good at determining what actually constitutes a threat. On this note, Jimbo was very quick to jump on the bandwagon when RK claimed that he had been the victim of a "death threat." One can never be too careful, but there's no security risk involved in allowing EofT to edit articles at Wikipedia. Therefore, imposing and enforcing a ban on EofT does not make any Wikipedians any safer. It's simply a punitive feel good measure, designed to punish EofT and appease the people who subjectively feel threatened by EofT. -- NetEsq 00:14, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have protected this page. This back-and-forth edit war is ridiculous. This case was settled back last November. There is no reason to be editing this page. - Hephaestos|§ 00:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any reason for this page to be protected. If anyone can make a case for the need for it, I am happy to re-protect it. Mark Richards 04:18, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit save one since last November has been a back-and-forth edit war between User:GrahamN who evidently wants to re-open the case, and User:UninvitedCompany who apparently does not want her own words pasted here out of context. At any rate the only reason this page is here is as an archive of proceedings that concluded in November. It should be re-protected so the article history doesn't scroll with irrelevant edits. If the case is to be renewed, it should be done on a separate page, as procedures have changed considerably since November (there wasn't even an Arbitration Committee then). - Hephaestos|§ 04:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to re-unprotect it, but honestly, who cares? Why is anyone edit waring on a banned users' talk page? Who cares? Who will ever read it? You are right of course that this is not the place to make a formal request to revist a ban, but it seems like it might be a place to talk about whether or how to do that. Mark Richards 16:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Who will ever read it? — you'd be surprised. –Xoid 18:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it out of curiosity. Lorkonius (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me also - the 'thread' appears utterly incoherent, reading more like the conversation between Minds in an Iain M. Banks novel than a conversation between supposedly rational adults. And what's worse - I'm still no closer to understanding exactly why EntmootOfTrolls got banned.SleepyHead 13:32, 06 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because: User:24.150.61.63 = User:142.177.etc = User:EntmootsOfTrolls. I guess few people knew this during the course of the thread above. "142" actively participated in it, as you can see, but apparently no one realized that he was the same person they just banned. :-) Goes to show that Wikipedia has come a long way. Anyhow, EoT was an accomplished troll for sure. More info on his antics (in chronological order): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
As a wikiarchaeologist, I say: keep our history! - theFace 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]