Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 19 February 2007

User talk:Zordrac/Archive1:Dates: 24 November 2005 - 24 December 2005 :Posts: 95

Note: Due to harassment, I am not readily reading my talk page at the moment. Until something is done about the harassment, I will merely look at the history and may read just a fraction of my talk messages. Also note that I did quit on 25 December 2005, and, other than checking messages and tidying up a few little things, I am not intending to come back, at least not until the stalking stops. To date, not a single person has done anything about these abusive users, and the system seems to encourage this behaviour, so quite frankly I have no desire to be here. See User:Zordrac/goodbye for more details. I apologise if this seems rude, but you can blame the 2 people who are harassing me. It really makes people not want to contribute when they are treated like this.

First comment here. Edit below this line

Bans lifted

I thought that I would advise you that the bans on User:Poetlister, User:Newport, User:Taxwoman and User:Londoneye were all lifted yesterday by User:Dan100 for the reason of "no evidence", and he has since begun an investigation in to the matter, and is gathering evidence. As he is independent to the matter, and you were directly involved, you may wish to contact him regarding the case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite your continued insistence to the contrary, I was not "directly involved" in that matter. Your repeated failure to assume good faith has been noted for the record, however. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop threatening me. Thank you. You were directly involved via the request made on your talk page from SlimVirgin, which began the proceedings towards the ban. I have not failed to assume good faith, as WP:AGF is not relevant when questioning someone else's inability to assume good faith. If I was failing to assume good faith by doing this, then so too are you, by suggesting that I failed to assume good faith. Your circular logic deludes you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO

In my opinion, The Powers That Be have concluded that you are more trouble than you ae worth and are collecting evidence to ban you. You just gave them more ammunition. Maybe I'm wrong. But I saw your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales and looked at User:Zordrac/experts and I think you'd benefit from looking at Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons and think about learning as much as teaching. You suggest people write their own bios? People lie. You suggest we let people both edit[REDACTED] in username that is also making legal threats? We have enough problem as it is with abusive behavior. Sue if you want or edit if you want; just don't do both. Make a legal threat with one username and edit with another on an unrelated article. That's way more freedom than you'll find anywhere else. I'm really glad you care so much you want to help[REDACTED] and lots of individuals. Some of your help may not have helped. People don't want help that they perceive is not helping. How would you feel if someone thought being a female was the best thing and offered to pay for a sex change operation for you? You feel complimented? I would guess not. By the way, Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Your suggestion to turn it into something else by having a contact the expert section is simply not what Misplaced Pages is about. It might be a good and useful suggestion at Meta Misplaced Pages. If you fancy youself an idea man, maybe you should check them out. They are in a way the larger group that Misplaced Pages is a subset of. Anyway, please use[REDACTED] to learn as much as you use it to help others. Thanks, friend. WAS 4.250 16:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 and learn a little about Kelly Martin. You communications with Kelly would be improved if you knew more about him. WAS 4.250 16:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If they ban me, that's fine. Its just Misplaced Pages, it won't matter to my life. My suggestions at User:Zordrac/experts are my own personal beliefs, and it is a suggestion that I thought might work. If they don't agree with it, then that's fine, I am not forcing them to adopt it. It is just a suggestion. However, that is how regular encyclopaedias work - where possible they interview subjects of the articles or get experts involved. So it would not be changing it from being an encyclopaedia to being something else - it would be making it more encyclopaedic. As for the legal threats issue, I have explained this. It is an important way to control abuse, and to protect people. You might disagree, and that's fine. This is my opinion on it. And as for Kelly Martin, I do not know her (or him) and do not plan to. I am responding purely on her (or his) comments. Yes, I am fully aware that they are a member of the Arbitration Committee, as they were the person who I contacted a month ago to ask how CheckUser worked. I have no issue with Kelly Martin, just with her misinterpretation of WP:AGF and her threats, which are not acceptable to me, no matter who she is. I do not think that it should matter what rank someone is in terms of their behaviour. If anything, I would hope that higher ranked people work harder to be civilised. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom

As you can see by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Kelly Martin, many people agree with you. WAS 4.250 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I just asked her/him some questions (sorry, but to me, Kelly is a girl's name, similar deal with Lulu lol). I plan to vote for User:Jayjg. I am not sure who else. Jayjg is the best administrator I have seen anywhere so far. I have seen a lot of his work and he is fantastic. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg and SlimVirgin operate as a team from what I've seen. You get one, you get both.

You may have meant "eludes" rather than "deludes" in your comment to Kelly.

I'm not sure I'm going to vote at all. I think its all rigged anyway, why bother. I hope I'm just being pesimistic. WAS 4.250 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with SlimVirgin. Her actions with regards to the case that I was critical of have only demonstrated her loyalty to other administrators. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't have a problem with anyone here. There are 2 people who I wish would stop harassing me, but beyond that I really have no issue with anyone, and if those 2 would calm down and speak properly towards me, I am sure that we could resolve things too.

I just went around and asked all candidates that I am considering, as well as those that I think would make dreadful candidates (just so as to show to everyone how bad they are) the following questions:

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

What do you think? I picked out Charles Matthews, Everyking, Morven and Karmafist as people who I would consider as well. I also gave a couple of others some questions, and gave a lot to ones who I think would be dreadful candidates. But its up to them to prove me wrong, I suppose. If they are hoping to become good candidates, then they just have to prove me wrong. Just ask User:Linuxbeak and User:Izehar as 2 people who I was very critical of, but their subsequent actions proved me wrong. The door is always open for people with a committment to doing the right thing, and in the end intentions always shine through ahead of whatever mistakes that they make. Mistakes are forgiveable. Intentions are much harder to forgive. But even bad intentions are forgiveable eventually. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And you should note that I tried to convince people who were involved in disputes with SlimVirgin that she was not involved to the extent that they think. I am very much pro-SlimVirgin. And, with the exceptions of the harassment I have received, I am very much pro-Lulu too. Or at least I was. The door is open for him just as soon as he calms down. If he could also convince his friend to stop harassing me, I would think that Lulu is wonderful. But it is up to him to do the right thing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I just put headings on. Actually, to be fair, I asked questions to everyone I had ever had any interactions with or had heard about. The names that I know nothing about I didn't bother to ask questions of, since I won't vote for people who are strangers. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can I suggest that you are taking things a little too personally? Sometimes other users try and make it personal, often there seems to be bias and agendas... but at the end of the day, we're writing an encyclopedia and nothing else. When people try and make it personal, my suggestion is simply to ignore it, and focus on content issues. Always stick to the highest standards of civility. Never make a personal attack, or even something that could be mis-read as one. (I'm not saying you have, this is just general advice!)

Just let anything personal roll off you and focus on content. Part of that includes making sure that other useful editors don't get a raw deal, but in doing so try to stick to a neutral, cool, tone. You'll find WP much more enjoyable and peaceful if you do this! Peace and have a Happy Christmas, Dan100 (Talk) 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think that I am taking things personally. I like to think a lot. Some people don't understand what philosophy is, or why people think. I don't know if I ever gave a personal attack to anyone. Most likely, per their own personal view of a personal attack, at some stage someone probably did think that I did. But I didn't ever attack anyone. Not once have I gone to someone's user page so as to harass them or attack them or anything like that. I have sometimes gone to pains to try to convince people of my argument, and to express my point of view, and I have also sometimes tried to defend people from being attacked. But that's about it. It is difficult to be neutral, as you likely know. I don't think that anyone can ever truly be neutral. However, I find that with thought and consideration, it makes things easier to do so. You are right that in the past few days I have not really contributed anything towards building the encyclopaedia, and I have become focussed on righting wrongs and at the same time trying to avoid harassment and to stop the harassment that I have received. This has been both very rewarding and very distressful. Righting the wrong has been very rewarding, whilst the harassment has been very stressful. In fact, it is the harassment that I have received which has made me reluctant to edit, because I have been followed in to articles which I tried to edit and the users began immediate edit wars with me in those articles, making me feel like I wasn't safe to do anything. In effect it made me feel like I couldn't do anything because of it. Thus I focussed on this for now. I think that my sub pages are coming along nicely and long term I think that my having created them in this way will make things better for everyone. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

sighs

It sounds like someone's been accusing me of something. I just wish that people would stop being hostile and work to try to get along. It is frustrating sometimes that no matter how much I work to try to prove to someone that I am not against them and am not trying to fight with them, some people still insist that I am against them, and therefore think that harassing me or stalking me or going to great lengths to attack me is reasonable. Apparently I am being threatened with being banned because I tried to help a newbie in trouble and tried to right a wrong. And also being threatened with being banned because I have 2 people stalking me. So if the powers that be deem that I am required to allow people to harass me and stalk me and that I am forbidden from helping anyone out, then fine, they can ban me. I don't come here to deal with nonsense. Nobody should ever have to put up with treatment like that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Months ago (long before I was an admin) a then-member of the arbcom made some very uncalled-for comments about me, and I proceeded to tell everyone I could find and demand "punishment". I was soon told that that's not how things really work. Admins aren't police officers, and it's amazing what kind of nastiness people can get away with. But know this - when they do that, they lose the respect of everyone else, and people are much less likely to listen to them or ever support them. Further, severe misbehaviour and harrasment can lead to an RfC against a user, and then an arbcom case if necessary.

The key though is to take the moral high ground. Never threaten (vieled or otherwise), always be extremely civil, overlook personal attacks, never use aggresive or confrontational language etc. Do that and you'll gain respect, and if RfCs or more are ever needed, people will be on your "side". Dan100 (Talk) 17:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA on Webcomics

For what it's worth, I agree with you. It is frustrating and tedious that it takes seconds to copy & paste in an article on your newly created webcomic / band / company / product / neologism / drinking game / whatever, and in aggregate probably some hours of the Misplaced Pages community's time to prove that it is unverifiable from trusted secondary sources (aka "non-notable"), but that's the price we pay for allowing idiots like us' to edit the 'pedia. You and I are known to differ on individual deletions, that is down to personal intepretation of the rules. I have offended people by nominating things for deletion (for example, I hate listcruft, I think many lists would be better replaced by categories and others would be better if they were simply not there at all), but in the end due process is due process. I try not to vote on my own AfDs and I try not to enter into lengthy arguments on AfDs and I try to give full, reasoned justifications for AfDs because experience has shown that it is considered rude not to. I'm not sure it needed to got o arbitration this early in the game, but I think that there is some reprehensible behaviour. Plus, if they really want to trim the crap, it's far smarter to work with the webcomix community than against them, since they will be much quicker (and much more accurate) in spotting the cruft from the good stuff. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you for your note, Zordrac. I wish you a Merry Christmas too and all the best for the New Year, and yes I certainly do consider you as a friend. ;-) You asked about the situation with Lulu. My advice is to let everything drop. The dispute seems to have started as a misunderstanding, so rather than going over who-said-what, I'd say just let it go. I'd also recommend staying away from articles he's editing until things blow over, and perhaps also as a gesture of goodwill, you could delete or archive some of the more critical things you've said about him (or tell him you won't object if he deletes them). And perhaps send him some season's greetings too. I'm pretty sure that would put an end to it. All the best to you, SlimVirgin 00:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Please consider striking out your inflammatory comments on the vote page

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 Travb 01:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Santa hasn't gotten to you yet...

Daniel Brandt

Ammunition - this comment constitutes libel, and could cause problems for Wikimedia. I suggest it's retracted post haste. 86.133.53.111 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar's RfA

Hi Zordrac,
I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go...

I am sorry to see an editor of such caliber as yourself go. I see now that there seems to be a subset of this otherwise wonderful community that is corrupt and without class, and it saddens me that an honest editor such as yourself has to run off to the hills (as it were) to flee from such sub-human persons. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 19:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rufus Pudens Pudentianna

Consensus was merge, per you. Since I know nothing about this topic, I'll leave this task to you if you are still with us. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:09, Dec. 25, 2005

Howcheng's RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. I'm sorry to see you go, however. It was always good to have someone balancing out AfD discussions. Hope to see you back online again soon. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A few responses

Hi. Attacks on my talk page were a big reason why I left, so I hope that you can understand that I don't reply to all of them. I only read the ones from people that I know.

• El C - thanks for your help, and it is greatly appreciated. It made me smile. However, as I explained in User:Zordrac/goodbye, it is actually a bit more than just getting some attacks. I thought about it when I was out for Christmas breakfast, Christmas lunch and Christmas dinner with family and friends, and I thought that this really wasn't worth it. I tried hard to sort things out with the people concerned, but the gut-wrenching thing was that my attempts to sort things out were if anything used against me more than when I tried to expose them. So what's the point? I mean I'd hate to see them banned. If nothing else, this whole episode has proven that at least Lulu has connections which would mean that if any admin did ban him then everyone involved would have hell to pay. So its just not worth it. So all I want is for the harassment to end, as far as that is concerned. I am hoping that Jimbo will look at my User:Zordrac/Poetlister subpage and decide to overturn the bans and actually investigate things. You know that a lot of people were actually investigating this, and these were neutral people too. Okay so User:Arniep isn't totally neutral, but the other people were - people like me, User:Dan100 and User:Mistress Selina Kyle were totally neutral to the situation, yet were rubbished and even accused of being sock puppets. For what it's worth, Arniep was upset about me for being too neutral. And he tried to argue that actually Lulu was against Antidote. But the issue surrounding Poetlister didn't even involve Antidote, so Antidote is irrelevant to that. It complicates things too much. One funny thing though is that some people are saying that "They were all socks" is the simple answer. But its not. To believe that they are all socks you have to believe that for 6 months they acted with no collusion at all on totally different articles and then, for 3 days at the end of November they all helped each other with mild collusion, and then went their separate ways again. That is actually totally unbelievable. A more believable explanation is that they are different people who called each other up to help each other out when in trouble. Does Misplaced Pages punish people for helping someone else out? Actually, from what I've seen in this case, yes they do. But they shouldn't. We should be encouraged for trying to help people out, not banned for it.

• Just Zis Guy, you know? - I am pretty much neutral for you - disagree over some stuff, agree with others, probably more agree than disagree though. But the Webcomics thing I made an outside view opinion which probably wasn't too well informed, and that's the extent of my involvement with it. You might mistakingly think that because I made an outside view on it that I actually care. You should note that of my 4,500 edits, 0 of them have been on Webcomics articles. That should illustrate to you how much I care about it. I read some Webcomics, but I don't really care enough about them to care if we should list individual ones or not. My personal opinion is that it'd be great to have a list somewhere that listed all Webcomics (not sure if its encyclopaedic, but it'd be great) and I don't care one way or the other about individual ones. My issue was with the deletionist mindset that existed in that specific case. But really, its no big deal.

• Travb - I can't strike out my notes on the AFD in question, even if I wanted to, since its closed now. I am sorry if you think it is inflammatory, but the reality is that USA is the most hated country in the world. It really is (clarification - by other countries other than its own people). Its also the most patriotic country too. All of this goes along with power, which was my point. I don't see why its inflammatory to note that. Do you really think that terrorist groups would become as powerful as they did if there wasn't some underlying hatred involved? Go and watch Team America:World Police and you'll see what I'm talking about there. Ah South Park is good at jokingly explaining political issus.

• Joe Beaudoin Jr - I think its great that you'd say such things in spite of me voting "oppose" on your RFA. I noticed a few people took such things to heart and its good that you didn't. I asked you for help with some images and a couple of suspicious users, and you were great, so I think its you who deserve the commendations, not me. Yes, I am quite proud of my Poetlister page. I hope that people come by and read it every so often and maybe even link to it when doing decisions relating to bans etc in the future.

• Freak of Nurture - you were mistaken if you think that I knew anything about the topic. All I knew was that there was a "Merge" template in the article, which seemed valid. Most things that I vote on in AFDs I am not an expert about. Things that I contribute to in large numbers, on the other hand, I usually am something of an expert with. Outside views are handy though. And occasionally there are AFD topics which I know a bit about.

• Anon IP - I checked out the comment, and there's nothing libellous about it. I was stating my opinion. An opinion is always true, and henceforth can never be libellous. There is no need for me to remove something which is my personal opinion. PS. I presume that's Daniel there. Yes, you are right, Daniel, that I did get upset with you. But that doesn't mean that I suddenly think that you were treated fairly - you weren't. Whether or not I personally like you is irrelevant as to whether or not I think that you were treated fairly. You weren't treated fairly. But its just that I no longer care about it anymore. I am no longer prepared to stop you from being badly treated.

Anyway, that's it there. As some of you might have noticed, I have come by to add bits in to my sub pages to tidy them up (mostly the Poetlister one) since I "left" and I also wrote a handful of talk messages to let people know about it. I wanted to make the evidence good enough for Jimbo and bullet-proof. However, whilst I was neutral as at when the bans were put in place, I am no longer neutral by virtue of the attacks that I have been subjected to because of trying to investigate the claims. As such, someone totally neutral to the incident will need to be the one that lets Jimbo know. If anyone wants to volunteer, feel free to. I'd prefer it if my page just spoke for itself though. I've already stated all of my opinions in there.

There is more evidence of course, and I could go through all what is it 30 Jewish list histories, plus talk pages, and keep going through more and more and more stuff. But the reality is that the List of Jewish jurists one is the one that I was told was at the centre of the dispute that led to RachelBrown quitting, hence that's the only one that I looked over in depth. Whilst I know that it is related to other articles and other disputes, the specific one relating to that ban was that article. No others.

Anyway, maybe it will make more of a difference if I just don't participate anymore.

I've been thinking about it though, and if I were to change accounts, I'd want these sub pages to remain. I couldn't transfer them over because then people would harass me through to there. So what I would need would be for an indefinite ban. Not now. I would also want it to state in the block log "Indefinite ban by user request". I think that that would be the best thing.

However, I'll think about it. It may be possible to continue using this account safely. I don't know. A lot of it depends on what happens with the whole Poetlister case really.

Bye now.

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister page

Zordrac dont take into account Calton's bulshits! He is a well known zelot, he is 24 hours a day online, which means that he is a lonely human beeing with no personal life. Obviously he has some kind of...lets not say it in order not to offend him.. ;-) Brokoli 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Zordac, I've read some of your arguments and I'm confused as to how you interpret the Misplaced Pages:Privacy_policy to require the release of IP information on the assumption that the subject has given permission. I've never seen a privacy policy that requires the release of a subject's information and I highly doubt that was the Wikimedia Board's intention when writing this policy. I don't think the tactic of insisting that such information must be released is helping your case very much. Just my $.02 though. Carbonite | Talk 16:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The privacy policy very clearly states that CheckUser information must be released upon a request from the users concerned. Its rather obvious that that would be the policy anyway, since it exists everywhere. Obviously, if they did a CheckUser on me to prove if I was a sock puppet of Poetlister, I wouldn't want that info released. But if they tried to suggest that I was, and I disputed it, I obviously would want it released. Well, they have disputed it. Ergo, it must be released. And why is it hurting "my" case so badly? (its not my case, obviously, this is talking about my investigations in to the case of someone else - so ultimately whether it succeeds or not is not my issue, I am just an outsider looking in) But the whole point of the matter is that they have refused to provide any evidence. There it is in black and white that they are obligated to provide the evidence. Yet they refuse to. They refuse to check out an IP that was used to vandalise a page to make it look like there was evidence to justify the ban. Refuse to do a review. Refuse to provide any evidence.

How is this not obvious?

Oh, so what, I wrote too much?

And how is it "obvious sock puppeting"? According to Kelly Martin, they only used the same IPs twice. Once 3 of them used the same IP for a period of 9 minutes, and a second time 2 of them did for a period of 5 minutes. So what do we have? Once 2 of them visited and another time 1 of them did. They didn't use the same IPs over a long period of time and there was no collusion.

Or, wait, is there some hidden edit history that's not available? Have these masterminds somehow managed to manipulate Misplaced Pages's own internal servers to remove edit history?

And lets not forget that these must be professional vandals. After all, they hid in wait for 7 months just to engage in a quick 3 day POV push to vote keep on a handful of articles. Ouch! Wow, it was lucky that we caught them! If we hadn't, they might have waited another 7 months and voted keep on a handful more AFD articles. Wow, it would really hurt Misplaced Pages so much if we did that.

LOL.

Yes, Occam's Razor applies. They can't be sock puppets. Its as obvious as the hand in front of my face.

Or, another way of looking at it:

Was the evidence so obvious that a 5 minute check made it so obvious? Or was it that in those 5 minutes they just blindly ignored all of the evidence?

Kelly Martin herself admitted that there was no evidence of collusion.

And do you honestly believe that someone would go to Misplaced Pages, take 50 photos for 4 different accounts, including supposed photos of themselves, with entirely different edit histories JUST TO EDIT AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA! I mean come on now. If you are going to that kind of effort for a blog, sure, believable. But for this? Its just insane. Make up entirely different personalities with no collusion for an encyclopaedia? Come off it now.

If you were going to write about a different topic, would you make a whole other account to do it? Why would you do such a thing? And if you were going to, why put a photo in at all? Let alone why lie about it?

Yes, the sock puppet theory is by far the hardest to believe theory. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Which section of the Misplaced Pages:Privacy_policy "very clearly states that CheckUser information must be released upon a request from the users concerned"? I've read the whole policy, but maybe in my post-holiday daze, I'm missing it. Carbonite | Talk 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Privacy_policy#Policy_on_release_of_data_derived_from_page_logs

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs will not be released by the developers who have access to it, except as follows:

..

2. With permission of the affected user

..

Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above.

How did you not notice that? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I removed Carlton's personal attack from this page. I've read it, but it doesn't belong in someone's talk page. I also changed the heading, since the heading title itself was a personal attack. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I read that part, but I certainly don't interpret that as requiring CheckUser data to be released. I thought perhaps there was another section I was missing, but I guess not. The whole point of a privacy policy is to list all circumstances under which logged data might (not must) be released. It's not written to force or require any information to be released. The sentence you referred to does leave open the possibility of such data being released, but absolutely doesn't obligate any info to be released. The reason I bring this up is because telling people a policy requires something when in fact it does not is going to hurt your effort. By all means, ask for this info to be released, but I wouldn't recommend continuing to insist that it must be released. Carbonite | Talk 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, but it does require it to be released. Its covered by the Freedom of information Act, and is law. It also applies to the internet. The only question is whether or not it is to be released publicly. I can look up the applicable law as it applies to the United States, but I am pretty confident that its basically identical to Australia's. It is a law that exists in all "western" countries, and is a part of Freedom of Speech. Ergo, they don't have a choice about releasing it. They are forced to. And yes, they really are. In fact, they'd be forced to no matter what their privacy policy said. They privacy policy is merely reflecting what the law is. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, but it does require it to be released. Its covered by the Freedom of information Act, and is law. Oh, Good Lord, MORE stuff you know nothing about yet pontificate on. The FOIA covers the accessibility of government-held information and says diddly about privately held information. See the and the text of the law. And the less said about your misunderstanding of Occams's Razor (hint: it's still not "I think it's reasonable") the better. --Calton | Talk 05:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm 99.9% sure that no law requires Wikimedia to release any information without a subpeona. At the very least, the United States's FOIA only applies to government agencies, which Wikimedia is not. The point is that you'll have much better luck requesting such data than demanding it. I just thought I'd give you some advice, but, in any case, good luck with trying to resolve the situation. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so sure? Do you think that there isn't an FOI for private businesses? Hmm. I'll have to find it, but there is one. Its just that in most cases the government one applies, and the private businesses ones are usually very similar anyway, so the government one applies. Basically, all you have to do is to ask. Let's just see. CheckUser info - would the government be likely to have that? Uh, no. Is it private? Uh, yes. Well, not overly private, and indeed Misplaced Pages could legally release it to everyone. But since they don't, it is considered to be private. Besides which, CheckUser doesn't prove anything in this case anyway. I don't know why they harp on about it being the be all and end all. So what? They went over to visit each other once or twice? Big deal. There's no collusion, there's no nothing. And if they are going to make out that it's more than that - PROVE IT. Simple. That's a very simple thing that everyone should do. Why they refuse to prove something, and then make up reasons why they don't have to is just plain silly. This is a very very obvious case. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote, User:RachelBrown et al.

I had a rather unpleasant run-in with User:Antidote and it didn't come as a surprise when I realized how much disruption he has caused. It's quite unfortunate that his flagrant disregard for Wikiquette and due process is allowed to continue unrestrained. I have posted a note on the administrator's notice board hoping that someone will finally notice and help to bring him to his senses. Anyway, kudos for all the work on User:Poetlister - at times like these one has to wonder why people just can't get along. Cheers Jbetak 03:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note my response on there before jumping to any conclusions about willfully violating 3RR block. Thanks. Antidote 08:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by Antaeus Feldspar

In case you are still logging in and reading this, you ought to know that User:Antaeus Feldspar (Daniel Atta Benzona) has a pattern of harassment of users on Misplaced Pages and vandalism of the user pages of people he has harassed. The same thing happened to me, and I had my user page deleted in order to stop this scumbag vandalising it any further. I've reported his vandalising activities on the Misplaced Pages Administrator's noticeboard, although unfortunately, based on my previous experience, he was actually allowed to vandalise a page (Andrew Orlowski) the Misplaced Pages "rules" on vandalism don't apply to you if you have some Misplaced Pages administrators on your side. If you want to discuss it, you can email me at benkasminbullock at gmail.com. DannyWilde 06:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspected that I wasn't the only person that had ever been targetted, because of the way that he went about it, and his unwillingness to stop. Its disappointing that someone like that could have protection though, as I am unaware of any legitimate edits by him. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who made Misplaced Pages better for everyone

Not at all narcissistic, are you? Ambi 10:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. I changed it to "Users who tried to make Misplaced Pages better for everyone". Whether I succeeded or not is an opinion. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not yours

With regard to User talk:Zordrac/FAQ, please be aware that Misplaced Pages:User page says "pages in user space still do belong to the community". You will note that the community owns your user pages, not you. And the page cited tells you what the rules are for those pages. You don't tell the community, the community tells you. You are part of that community, not the whole of it. WAS 4.250 13:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Very much a technicality. Effectively, I do own it,

"As a tradition, Misplaced Pages offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

• Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
• Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
• Community policies, including Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
• In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below).

In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, it should be placed on a personal web site. Many free and low-cost web hosting services are available to serve such needs." Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did change the FAQ though to avoid "controversy". The issue was that I was trying to stop harassment. And, Misplaced Pages rules or not, I should not have to put up with harassment. Its a very simple thing. I wasn't trying to tell them what to do. I was trying to tell them what I would tolerate. If they tell me that I am forced to withstand illegal actions, then fine, I quit. Note that I quit over this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For somebody who quit, you seem to still be doing a lot of posting :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon

FW's block was enabled on the 23rd. It's a 6month block. If you'd like me to pass him the note IRL, I will. However, I think he's taking an extended Wikibreak. Thanks for caring.--ghost 17:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well just see if he can read the sub page. It might cheer him up. I'm not expecting him to do anything. I just think its nice sometimes to know that others feel your pain. I am tempted to combine the 3 issues in to one. But in doing so I am also cautious that there might be a lot more than just these 3 issues. FuelWagon, Marsden, Poetlister - any others? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your response

I understand. My friend, those that feel the way you do may need to take the long view. While there is a definite need to better police the Admins, it cannot be done by isolated vigilantes. That would be like Batman fighting corruption in the Gotham PD. Instead, a grassroots effort must be built. Then this movement must put forward it's own Users for Adminship. Only then can the type of change descibed be effected. BTW, feel free to email me.--ghost 19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang

Do you edit 24/7? I feel like I'm constantly on Misplaced Pages and you've still managed to out-edit me by miles. How do you do it? JHMM13 (T | C) 22:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC/Antidote

I read the subpage about User Poetlister. However, endorsing the summary in RfC/Antidote I didn't care so much about Antidote's suckpuppets as about his changes to List of Poles.--SylwiaS | talk 16:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

appeals

I cannot comment on Kelly or Slim, and I do have my disapprovals of some of their actions, but it is not enough to yet drive me to anything, and I have to admit I like many of their actions. I cannot yet say anything on that issue. As for unblocking MSK urgently, I will wait until she responds on her talk page to do so. I have a high hope that after she agrees to appeal, that unblocking would be agreed to immediately. Elle _{vécu heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What You Said Before

Actually, you might hate me, but I don't believe I remember you. Sorry, I think I vaguely remember FreakofNurture talking about you, but otherwise, nada. After over 3,300 edits last month, they all seem to blur together.

Anyway, we're in complete agreement with Selena. She's contributed in good faith for the most part since she got here, but has gotten nothing but harrassment since she has an abrasive personality, a common trait with those who have Asperger's Syndrome, a trait me and her share. Due to that, she's gotten jaded incredibly quickly, thus deterring her from what should be her role as a widely respected person on here. I've been in her shoes before, and seeing it happen to her just eats me up inside, with people like that I will do whatever I can to try and steer them away from burning themselves out or worse.

Ultimately, that's my ideology with everybody more or less -- if someone intimidates or harrasses others, they're my adversary; if someone is being intimidated or harrased without provacation, they're my ally. People in these two categories may agree or disagree with me to differing extents, or may vary in how much I like or dislike them to differing extents, but in my nature, that rule above is a constant.

If Kelly said tomorrow "I'm sorry, i'm not going to go on user witch hunts anymore", I'd be willing to move on, the last thing I want is conflict. Unfortunately, due to her incalcitrant attitude, I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.

With Kelly and Snowie, I agree with you. Kelly shouldn't be allowed into a position of power, and Snowie shouldn't be allowed around people, let alone anything regarding a computer. However, Slim misunderstood when it came to MSK, I've sent her dozens of e-mails in regards to Selena and other miscellaneous things, and recently she's become a victim herself to GMaxwell's intimidation. Slim's reasonable, I think if we can get Selena to calm down, Slim will not only leave her alone, but also may become her ally.

I saw at the above that you're being harrassed yourself. I don't know if I can help all that much, but please let me know what I can do. karmafist 16:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks removed

I have removed the personal attacks from this page. Please do not restore them. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean any offense by this, but what exactly in my message to you was a personal attack? Mo0 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi MoO. I just deleted large blocks, and yours and El C and a few others were mixed up with it. I am sorry, but I was deeply offended with the kinds of things that were written in there by others, and I don't even want to look at them. If you can stomach it, feel free to re-add your comments and El C's. I don't think that there were any others in there that weren't personal attacks. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Editing your user page

Please. Common sense should indicate that because it's my user page I reserve the right to revert any change I don't like. It doesn't say anything about your changes being permanent. Beyond that, my comment to you was sarcastic, yes, but not a personal attack in my opionin. Although I now regret reverting Dschor's userpage, I don't recall ever asking others to do the same, nor writing on the admin's noticeboard about it (please point it out to me, if true, however). Finally, what "false accusations" have I met against you? Thanks, and I look foward to your response.--Sean|Black 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that you reserve the right to revert any edits to your user page and I support that right. Note that I did not revert it, nor did I ask Dschor to do so. Why he did it you had best go over with him. However, in saying that, I didn't personally attack you and my edits were not vandalism. You said very clearly on your user page that you encouraged edits to it. Furthermore, you went beyond that to write on the Administrator's Noticeboard to complain about Dschor not wanting his own user page to be edited. Now, you have every right to have your own rules for yourself. But per your own rules, I did nothing wrong. Therefore calling me a vandal and threatening to block me for it (and then writing to Ambi suggesting the same) is uncalled for and inappropriate. I have now been told that Ambi is threatening to give me a permanent block over it, which I will just say is ridiculous. Now, as I said to you, if you don't want "anything" on your user page, you should change it. Its just plain common sense. For example, when I wrote my sub page User:Zordrac/Poetlister, I made it clear that I did allow people to edit it, but that I maintained ownership over it. WP:OWN doesn't apply to user pages or sub pages. Yes, you can edit it. A few people edited User:Zordrac/goodbye too, and did nothing wrong - except for the person who removed a part of the text, apparently because he was offended at the word "FUCK". I actually wasn't really trying to make a point there. I would have thought that you'd be proud of blocking MSK indefinitely. I mean it is factually accurate, that you are the one that did it, and its a significant achievement. Snowspinner boasts on his user page how he was the one to ban Lir, so I don't see why there's a difference. If you don't like it, sure, of course you can remove it. But I thought that you might like it there. I think that you should consider putting at least that part back, even if you edit it a bit. Your user page is rather empty right now. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Malber has been misquoted

Malber did not call MSK a jerk, as far as I know. His paragraph with the word "jerk" does not even mention MSK. Malber said:

I think it should be noted that most "Aspies" are possibly self-diagnosed. The existence of a userbox makes this extremely easy. It is unfortunate that in this day, bad behavior is hidden behind a constructed disorder. We say a child has ADHD and administer pharmaceuticals instead of addressing the possibility that she lacks discipline. When the child grows up she can hide behind the label of an "Aspie" instead of dealing with the fact that she is a jerk. This is unconscionable. Even if someone has a legitimate though manageable disorder, it's the person's responsibility to deal with it instead of hiding behind it.

I think it is pretty clear he is merely saying that people should be accountable for their actions, regardless of whether they have a medical condition, pathology,Psychosis troubled background, or if they are simply having a bad day. If someone is a pathological liar,would we excuse their vandalism of articles with made up facts? What if they were delusional? I submit that we would not. Everyone must take responsibility for their actions. Malber's example was an abstract example about a hypothtical "child that has ADHD". Johntex\ 05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Malber hasn't been misquoted. It was MSK who said that he was a jerk. I quoted MSK. Furthermore, its quite clear from what you highlighted that he was talking about MSK (after all, the entire thread was about MSK), and he used the words "she is a jerk". Who else would Malber be referring to? All of the millions of female Aspergians? The vast majority of autistics are male. Asperger's Syndrome has *NEVER* been used as something to hide behind. It is used as an excuse to abuse people. MSK certainly never suggested that it was anything to hide behind, and she hated the very fact that it was listed on the Administrator's Noticeboard under her name. Whilst the guy who originally introduced it did it with good intentions, the reality is that he was the one who ultimately opened the doorway for people with discriminatory views on autism to come forward. It was only a matter of time before someone like Malber came along. Put simply, nobody should ever have even talked about it in the thread or offered it as an "excuse" or anything like that. The only reason to mention it is to explain why WE are confused by her. In other words, to give excuses for our bad actions, not for hers. Most people, you will find, have no problems at all understanding autistics. Its really only very narrow minded people who have any problem at all. I for one do not find it difficult at all to note that MSK has never engaged in any personal attack on anyone. She has been direct and blunt, and there is a difference. Of course, that doesn't mean that she is incapable. She should not have used the word "prick". Just like how Malber shouldn't have used the word "jerk". But neither was overtly personal, and probably neither should have been blocked for that. But the difference is that Malber wasn't just attacking MSK - he was attacking all autistics. And that is extremely wrong. Malber demonstrated the very thing that I was afraid of happening when that title was listed there. Ambi told me I was stupid for worrying about it, but Malber's efforts have proven the fear. Whether Malber is usually like that or not I don't know. But his comments were certainly uncalled for and inappropriate. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Malber did not attack anyone. He was using a hypothetical example of a child that gets a medical diagnosis and then uses it to avoid accepting responsibility for his/her actions. His point is that people are responsible for their actions, no matter what condition they may have. Johntex\ 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That was precisely my point, and why I wrote to the guy that first made the thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard warning him about it. The whole thing was going fine until Ambi jumped in, and after that its been a battle. I just think that as soon as you first mention something like that as a factor it is going to lead to discrimination, like what we got from Malber and now Snowspinner. And, whilst Ambi wasn't being discriminatory, the personal attacks weren't very nice. Really, there shouldn't have been a thread to discuss it like that. People should be treated as people - not attacked because of being autistic, or excused because of it. MSK hasn't engaged in any personal attacks, and it shouldn't take a consideration of Asperger's Syndrome to see that. All that it takes is an open mind on such things. There is a difference between someone saying "FUCK IT I QUIT", which uses swear words but is not a personal attack, as opposed to "Are the black helicopters coming for you?", which very much is a personal attack. There is also a difference between "fuck off and leave me alone", which is not a personal attack, as compared to "you are a worthless troll", which is a personal attack. Personal attack means something personal. Autism is a personal thing. Saying that someone is faking it is a personal attack, and that is the attack much more than any word like "jerk". I think its very technical, and a wrong decision to suggest that MSK engaged in any personal attack there, while it is quite correct to suggest that Malber, Snowspinner and Ambi did. But there we go. I will leave it at that. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But Malber did not say that anyone was faking anything - as far as I saw. If I missed it, please provide the dif to where Malber said any actual person (not a hypothetical person) faked anything. Johntex\ 23:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Amusing

I find it amusing that I am blocked almost a month after quitting. See User:Zordrac/goodbye. Is it illegal to use Misplaced Pages as a blog after you feel too harassed to use it as an encyclopaedia? I just think its amusing. I don't enormously care if they block me obviously, since I'm gone already. I just hope that the 2 people who brought this on, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and User:Antaeus Feldspar get banned as well. If you like, I will provide evidence here now. There were obvious reasons not to previously, but now since this absurd action has been taken, then I may as well do it.

It seems also that I was banned for protesting the ban on User:Zordrac/Poetlister and User:Zordrac/Mistress Selina Kyle. Apparently I'm not even allowed to edit that sub page now. So beware if you dare to support a banned user. It seems that that is enough reason to be banned.

The corruption in this place is outstanding. And it seems that the simplest way for them to justify an unfair block is to claim sock puppetry, and then refuse to release any CheckUser evidence on the basis that its an invasion of privacy.

Well, here you go I GIVE FULL CONSENT for them to release CheckUser evidence about me. If you can do it and prove that I am this banned user, then go ahead and ban me. But I doubt that you can. If you could, you would have presented the evidence somewhere by now. You haven't. So there you go.

Anyway, Guild Wars is a good game, and is a much better use of my time that stuffing around with this ridiculous project. I did my bit, but upon discovering the corruption with Poetlister, and then more corruption after that, its just not worth it. Really, seriously, not worth it.

Actions: - Ban User:Ambi, User:Kelly Martin, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, User:Antaeus Feldspar and de-sysop User:SlimVirgin - Unban User:Mistress Selina Kyle, User:Poetlister (and all others related) - Promote to sysop User:Mistress Selina Kyle

Then you might have a decent encyclopaedia going. But while there's so many wrong decisions being made, its just a joke. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After all Zordrac's antics, I seriously doubt that anyone's taking his lies with any grain of truth anymore. However, for anyone who doesn't know enough about Zordrac to realize how badly he lies, then simply visit his page at User:Zordrac/Poetlister and read the following account of what I supposedly did: "08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Misplaced Pages. " Then follow the link for yourself and see whether it mentions or in any way references Lulu or Poetlister or Poetlister's ban or anything Internodeuser a.k.a. Zordrac claimed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am relatively sure that when old page versions are deleted, the permament diff links are affected. I could be mistaken however - but page revisions WERE deleted from this talk page . --Blu Aardvark | 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I was clearly wrong to think that Antaeus Feldspar had reformed or was in any way willing to stop his abusive behaviour. HE MUST BE BANNED! This is very clear. His abusive edits on my page and on many others have a significant destructive influence. 203.122.230.206 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that one would claim to have "left" the encyclopedia yet have dozens upon dozens of contributions subsequent to "leaving." FCYTravis 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its hard not to look.... But note that I had less than 10% of what I had previously, and didn't edit a single actual article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you protect this page from personal attacks like User:Internodeuser's page is? I have never been accused of making personal attacks in my whole time on Misplaced Pages. But if you think that I am him, then you surely must protect this page. So what is going on here? Is it a crime to go, saying that you aren't going to edit any articles anymore, and then continue to edit sub pages and talk pages? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is a serious Misplaced Pages offense to tell malicious and damaging lies about people, which you have done repeatedly. The evidence that is listed at User:Antaeus Feldspar/Zordrac is not even a complete list of the malicious lies you have told and the trouble that you have admitted deliberately inciting against me, personally; I am sure that with your apparent inability to ever tell the truth there must be plenty of others like me who by themselves have enough evidence to bring you to RfAr. "Significant destructive influence", indeed; if you continue to tell malicious lies about me I will continue to present the evidence that they are lies. That's not "stalking", dear Zordrac, that's a legitimate editor defending a reputation sullied by skulking prevaricators. You have exactly zero right to whine and mewl about me "following you everywhere" when you make that necessary by telling outrageous lies about me everywhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Check User

In case anyone is in any doubt here, as Snowspinner seems to be

I HEREBY GIVE FULL CONSENT FOR ALL CHECK USER EVIDENCE ABOUT ME TO BE MADE PUBLIC FOR ALL TO SEE

That should address any and all concerns with regards to Check User.

But then again, they refused to release the evidence with regards to User:Zordrac/Poetlister, so why should they do so now?

Protecting my privacy? I quite frankly don't care. Nor would anyone who has been banned. So release it already! There is no policy in existence that forbids it once I've given explicit permission. And here you go, explicit permission. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Just as a matter of interest, was there any evidence? Or are we not bothering with trivialities such as evidence? Some admin says so is not evidence by the way. That's some admin saying so. Different things.

These kids get overexcited, sure enough, but you have to ask yourself, does it really help to give them reason for thinking you have it in for them? Is there no other way of handling them? Grace Note 10:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Open

I am happy to go to a Request for Comment, or even a Request for Arbitration if necessary. I was considering lodging one to de-sysop User:Ambi, User:Kelly Martin and User:SlimVirgin, to also include User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and User:Antaeus Feldspar as accessories. I wouldn't include Snowspinner. I think that this ban is a perfect example of the kind of ridiculousness of the CheckUser priveleges. They act as if proving that someone used the same or similar IP address is enough to prove everything. It's not. Most people, including myself, use IP addresses that are shared. Whilst I don't personally know how many people use this and edit Misplaced Pages with it, I am sure that its more than a handful. And for all but the tiniest of ISP's this would be true. So it has to be attached to other evidence. This was the exact same issue I had with the block on User:Zordrac/Poetlister, and indeed the same ridiculous block on User:Mistress Selina Kyle, apparently at various points accusing her of being User:Chaosfeary and even (laughably) User:Willy on Wheels. So its even ironic in a lot of ways that I could be facing an unfair block based on ridiculous CheckUser "evidence" when that was the very thing that I was protesting in those cases.

So go ahead and drill me, go through every single edit I've ever made. Compare it to those of User:Internodeuser. Compare it to anything you like. Go and see what you can find. Indeed, I am tempted not even to worry about commenting. I am confident that there's no problems with it.

A few messages here:

• User:Jeffrey O. Gustaffsen - my first interactions with you was that I was angry at you for newbie biting, which was the precise reason why I'd never made an account before. But actually your severeness with it was a part of the reason why this time I made an account. To prove you wrong if nothing else. I have at various points looked at your user page since then, and I have been content with your progress. I guess in the end I got in a lot of trouble over the talker articles, and so you had merit. So I will humbly apologise to you. I liked what you said in the Administrator's section.
• User:Longhair - we never actually talked as such, other than in edit summaries, but you seem to be a good editor. Your editing of Peter Falconio was very good, and coordinated well with what I did. I was of course upset with the verdict, but you didn't let that stand in your way of good editing. I also liked your photos and some of your corrections. I for one think that we made a good collaborative article. I didn't realise that you had problems with User:Internodeuser, and I am sorry if he was abusive towards you.

Well, that's it really. If the guy that had attacked me the most during my first days says that I shouldn't be banned, and the guy who got Internodeuser banned says that I shouldn't, then that should be the end of the case. But apparently its not. Anyway, whatever. Guild Wars is a better game to play than the silly wikipolitics game.

I hope you have fun looking at my contributions.

Oh and look at pre-December 25 if you want to look at the useful ones :)

Here you go

Enjoy! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is a good guy?

Well, apparently she is.

I am not sure how to feel about this. I guess that, in fairness, my first run ins with her were very positive, and indeed it wasn't until the User:Zordrac/Poetlister incident, and only a few days in to investigating that that I found out about her involvement, in which I discovered that it was her actions more than User:Mindspillage's (and I believe I apologised to Mindspillage for getting them mixed up). So now what? Am I being too forward in asking for her to also review the User:Poetlister situation? I don't know.

Where did I disrupt Misplaced Pages? And where did I say that it was my intention to do so? It was my intention to leave, and just write a few talk messages so as to keep things up to date. What incident is she referring to that warranted a 3 day block? Asking for Snowspinner to have a 1 week block for his anti-Asperger comments perhaps? Asking for Ambi to get a 24 hour block for personal attacks? Are such things uncalled for? I don't know. I think its consistent to do so. They both broke policy, so should have got blocks for it, admins or not. Is there something wrong with me pointing these things out?

I guess now people will want me to edit articles again, so I guess I will have to. I'm not sure where to start though. Do I have to start editing again because of this? I really don't know what I should be doing. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The evidence against you was a joke, and in my reply I pretty much trashed any chance they had of using those flimsy accusations ("they use the same ISP" etc, when it's one of the largest australian IPs.. I mean REALLY how lame an attempt is that.. and the others, proved them wrong too)

I have no doubt that it was concocted by the arbitration committee to get rid of you, as as they already implied they "wanted you gone anyway" because you're a "troublemaker", it's all just way too convenient.

Rather than "we banned him because he disagreed with us" it becomes "we banned him because he's a sockpuppet", which turns a possibly controversial block into a moot point:

Or it would have, if it wasn't actually a totally false claim concoted out of pathetically loose evidence. --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Kelly Martin is not a good guy mainly because she is not a guy. Tintin Talk 23:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ignore user button

The most important thing to note out of this is that there should be an IGNORE USER button. I should not be forced to get messages on my talk page from someone whose sole aim is to harass and stalk me. This is a basic fundamental right that all people have. So please, Misplaced Pages, put one in! Its been months now since I've asked for this, and not a single person has done a thing about it, and this guy continues to stalk me. I will not return until this issue is addressed. I can't. Its just not worth it for me. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Evidence against Zordrac

Zordrac/Internodeuser/blissyu2, it's so glaringly obvious that you're the same user as not to be a joke. You should have just put your hands up and shuffled off. In any case, you've said you want to be here only to troll.

I don't support that, Zordrac. Occasionally pricking the balloons of the overstuffed is all part of the rough and tumble, but having as your sole purpose stirring the shit will always -- and rightly so -- get you banned.

If you have the slightest hint of balls about you, I suggest you post a public apology to Kelly Martin, right here and another on your board, and then head for the shadows. There are a lot of things wrong with Misplaced Pages but, mate, you're one of the problems, not part of the solution. Grace Note 02:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's rude. When did I say I was here to troll? And who should I apologise to? There was nothing fake in anything I did. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Using this as a blog?

I made almost no contributions since December 25, so suggesting I was using it as a blog, or was here to troll or anything along those lines is absurd. I quit because people editing my talk page, my user page and everything I went to (one person in particular) made it impossible to continue. This has nothing to do with revenge or anything like that. I didn't once engage in revenge or anything like that. I was trying to make peace with people. The ban expires in May. Ambi has used false representations to extend it further, and it is an incorrect proposal. I think that there is merit to appeal the ban in the first place, as I certainly didn't deliberately break any rules, and if I did break any by accident, it was because of newbiehood. Was I here trying to stir up trouble? Hardly. Just look at my contributions for a moment. 150-200 per day from October-December 2005 - that's 6,000 contributions in 2 months - 4,000 with this account and 2,000 with anon IPs. Then from then its lowered to 5 per day. 150 per day vs 5 per day is a significant difference. Or is this just simply not relevant to people here???? And the vast majority of my edits were to articles. Over 80%. Go have a look at User:Zordrac/Articles if you like. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually as I understand the way bans work, by editing with a sockpuppet while banned you've extended your ban until one year after the last such edit. So your ban expires (now) on 17 January 2007. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Zordrac, you deleted my comments, but you seem to be replying to them: "suggesting I was using it as a blog... is absurd". The only way in which I suggested that was by quoting your comments on this very talk page. Up above, at the beginning of the section User talk:Zordrac#Amusing, you ask, "Is it illegal to use Misplaced Pages as a blog after you feel too harassed to use it as an encyclopaedia?" Well, I was attempting to address that question. No, it's not "illegal", but we aren't required to allow it, either. Whether or not that's what you're doing, it's what you asked. Those were your words, not mine. It's also beside the point whether you use it as a blog, a scratching post, a toilet, a picket line... any use other than as an encyclopedia project is not welcome. If people working on the encyclopedia find you disruptive, even if the community just decides that you're generating more heat than light, then you may be asked to leave.

I know you've made many good contributions. I'm sorry you've decided to stop contributing. I'm sorry if you were treated badly here; I really don't know anything about your case. I still don't understand why you're sticking around after saying you were leaving, though. I find that behavior inconsistent in the extreme. When I say I'm leaving a place, the next time you look up, I'm gone. Whatever floats your boat. I still think you should either write an encyclopedia, or actually go away, but that's just my opinion, I guess. -GTBacchus 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

REVERT NOTICE

Please do not permit Antaeus Feldspar to write on here. He is a stalker in the extreme and has been harassing me for over a month. If anyone sees an edit on here by him, please revert it ASAP. And for an administrator, please make a note of his activities, as it is thoroughly unacceptable behaviour. 203.122.230.206 09:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, and as I can provide more than enough evidence to prove, Zordrac is the one who is harassing me, by making malicious and completely false accusations against me. His demands are therefore unreasonable, as what he is really asking for is for him to have complete freedom to smear my good name and for me to be rendered unable to respond to those false accusations. Note to any administrator: I am more than willing to take this to ArbCom; the only reason I have not already opened the RfAr against Zordrac is because I don't think the ArbCom will want to spend time on a case involved a user who's already banned. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar, you are a stalker of the worst kind imaginable. I have never stalked you, and you have no evidence of this, for it is a lie. It is a malicious lie, to cover up your illegal deeds. These are not just deeds against Misplaced Pages's terms of service, they are illegal. You should be imprisoned for your actions. Goodbye evil being. Zordrac 12:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

Just so you know, you're no longer banned. 1ne 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Internodeuser