< User talk:Guanaco Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:41, 4 July 2004 editGuanaco (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,306 editsm →152.163.252.102: rm more nastiness← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:27, 5 July 2004 edit undo68.36.175.254 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
			=ANSWER THE QUESTIONS--BLANKING WILL GET YOU NOWHERE=

	'''''See ] and ] for past messages.		'''''See ] and ] for past messages.
	__TOC__		__TOC__
Line 159:		Line 161:

	] has taken it upon himself to remove other people's comments and post all kinds of nastiness here. So I reverted. -- ]\|] 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)		] has taken it upon himself to remove other people's comments and post all kinds of nastiness here. So I reverted. -- ]\|] 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			That person is dead] 15:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			==HOW TO DEAL WITH ASSHOLES==

			'''Moved from ]'''

			WARNING: THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE WAS TWICE REMOVED FROM THIS PAGE . THOSE WHO INTERFERE WITH THE CRIMINAL'S PROSECUTION FOR HIS CRIMES COULD BE CHARGED IN A COURT OF LAW WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

			I've had my editing ability removed by a wiseass named "Guanaco" who seems to think he's better than anyone else here! NEWSFLASH: this site is a common-property resource and NO ONE has the right to censor other people's opinions. However, this major dick seems to think that whatever HE doesn't like about the site and whoever is saying the things he does not like should automatically be banished from the site. This, as we all know, is bullshit! However, no longer able to edit ANYTHING at the Misplaced Pages, I can't even make my case or explain why the fucker, Guanaco, should be the only person blacklisted from this website. The pathetic little upstart can dish it out, but he can't seem to take it. I implore the members of the Meta-Wiki community to look into removing this despot's privileges, which he is obviously not mature enough to be capable of handling. I also urge my fellow Wiki members to fight for the rights of ALL Wikipedians, so that we are ALL freely able to contribute whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want. Or is this place now supposed to be a fascist dictatorship? (I had been under the impression that we're all supposed to be EQUAL members of a community with EQUAL rights and responsibilities to make this project what it is.) As a lawyer, I know my legal rights--rights that this "Guanaco" has clearly violated. If need be, I am ready to bring charges against him. But, I believe that before I rush to get the matter tied up in the legal system, I should offer him a chance to abdicate his position and apologise to all who he's harassed and used his power to silence. Please pass this message on to him and the general Wiki community! We all must realise that we DO NOT need to tolerate crap from him or ANYONE else! Someone named "Mike H" AKA "CustomOfLife" is an affiliate of his and together they have gone out of their ways to make trouble not only for me, but for several other innocents.

			:I highly doubt you are a lawyer. If you are, you are clearly not one of reasonable intelligence. You are only claiming to be one in an attempt to scare me away.

			::Appearances can be deceiving. You're not the first person, online or offline, to question my intelligence or my profession, and you certainly won't be the last. I don't really care what people think of me. I don't go out of my way to create any kind of phoney image--what you see is what you get. I'm not the one who's making the false assumptions, so it doesn't matter to me.

			:Obviously you don't know your legal rights, or you would know that Misplaced Pages does not have to allow you to post your personal attacks and other garbage. ]] 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			::Define "personal attack". What you did was a "personal attack" on ME, because YOU'RE the one who's violated American law. I violated no law. So, sue me if I didn't do something the way that a handful of people deem "correct" at a site where there is no official "correct" way of doing anything. Your unilateral blocking of people with whom you disgaree, the least of which is me, is not only against commonly-held Misplaced Pages folkways, but also, as stated above, against American censorship and anti-discrimination law.

			Examples of their abuses of power:

			"From: Al-Awda at myafgha@myafghan.com

			I'm outraged at what has gone on at this "encylopedia". Not only has my ability to edit and contribute been removed, but every single picture I uploaded and contributed has been blanked. This is absurd. Some "administrator" named guanaco is responisble. I hope something is done to remedy this. I'm willing to forget the whole thing if the editing block is removed the the pictures restored. I'll provide a full explanation afterwards. If not, you'll see some real vandalism, not what Colin did. This is a friendly warning."

			To which they respond:

			"Could you take care of this and tell this person to stop emailing me? Mike H 21:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

			I got a delivery failure notice when I replied. Apparently I've been blocked from sending him anything. The email back says the IP from which his email is originating is 63.119.175.14, if that helps. Mike H 21:53, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

			I searched for Al-Awda and apparently it's the Palestinian Right to Return organization. A nice pun to mirror returning to Misplaced Pages? Either way, I am not amused. Mike H 22:02, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

			He should be treated like any other vandal/copyvio poster. We don't need to worry about this, and we especially don't need to give into his threats. I have spent enough of my time dealing with these people. Guanaco 22:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

			Should someone with Guanaco's powers NOT be a little more impartial? Rather than do that, he seems to abuse his power to defend his whiney friend, Mike, from severl of his self-initiated squabbles with hard-working, caring, and honest Wikipedians. In short, Mike and Guanaco are purposefully attempting to bring BIAS to Misplaced Pages by silencing those voices with which they disagree! It happened to Al-Awda, and, more recently, it's happened to me. A fellow person of "privilege" had to remind him recently of his purpose:

			"I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

			I've already unprotected it. Guanaco 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

			:I don't see the problem here. To "help mediate disagreements between others" is a principle of ]. ]] 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			::You do not "help mediate" anything. As stated by Burgundavia, "you are not here to solve disputes". Obviously, you're exceeding your power by single-handedly dictating who's allowed to post when and what; you're doing no fair mediation. What you consider "mediation" is biased against those you do not like. I have done research into your banning. Not only did you ban me ONCE (yesterday), but you have thus far done it AT LEAST TWICE, as indicated by a comment you made on June 29. I was away during the June 29-30 period, on a business trip, and did not arrive home until AFTER my banning period had expired, which is why I did not originally notice it the first time it occurred. What gives you the right to unilaterally ban ANYONE, let alone ban the same person, for the same fraudulent reason, TWICE in the same week?

			He has time and time again acted unilaterally, both in BLOCKING people (as he did to me and Al-Awda) and by UNBLOCKING people:

			"Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

			Why is it so important that all of Michael's accounts be blocked? He is free to create as many as he wants as often as he wants. Would you rather him edit anonymously, forcing us to dig through RC for his edits? That is exactly what happens when he is blocked. Guanaco 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
			Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK"

			"Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			Bird is hard banned? He seems to have only been permablocked. If you have any evidence of a formal ban, I'll be happy to reblock him. Guanaco 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

			"Please stop creating work for people by playing with the blocks they have made. I find your actions extremely frustrating and hope that you will please stop. Maximus Rex 05:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			I'll try to be less controversial when I'm unblocking users. Guanaco 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
			Just stop unblocking. There is no reason that these accounts should be used again. What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Unblocking accounts that have been blocked for good reason will just piss people off unnecessarily. It also sends the message, unintentionally, that it is okay for them to vandalize. If any of these people did want to become useful contributors their first step should be to sign up for a new account. Maximus Rex 05:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

			:This is completely irrelevant to your complaint. ]] 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			::Hardly! It supports my complaint that you believe you are above anyone else at the Misplaced Pages. You ban those of us who do not share the privilege to ban you back; you purposely and independently not only implement bans, but remove them as well--without a single person's consent whatsoever. The fact that SEVERAL others with banning priveleges have called you on it all but proves that you're annoying people. As someone stated, your actions COULD be interpreted as a type of troll-behavior, intended explicitly to create chaos at the Misplaced Pages site.

			Another example of power abuse, in censoring something he, and he alone, deems "inappropriate":

			"May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

			There was no such consensus. This is a unilateral action of censorship by Guanaco. Completely unacceptable IMHO and it leads me to question his competency as an admin. blankfaze \| •• 08:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
			I have not yet succeeded to understand if the picture was deleted out of censorship, or if it was a mistake in trying to fix a bug. I hope for clarification, and I am currently of the opinion it was a honnest mistake :-) Meanwhile, JamesDay - who fortunately still had the picture in his cache - restored it."

			:You appear to be leaving off ]. Maybe I should be the one complaining about censorship. ]] 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			::People can read your excuse on that page, if they wish to do so. The important part of the above dialogue is your acting unilaterally to remove something that you disagreed with. I did not even bother to include your excuse, since I have attempted to access BOTH "clitoris" pictures and they have BOTH been removed by you. Your remark about one of them being old and outdated (how a clitoris can be outdated is something I'll never understand; I wasn't aware that they look different now than they did when Misplaced Pages began in 2001) holds no water because there was no "newer" picture put in the older one's place.

			The most disturbing thing about Guanaco is that ALL of the above problems, with a handfull of different people, have taken place within the past TWO WEEKS!! This is outrageous! He is in violation of everything Misplaced Pages stands for, and we shall not tolerate his disruption of this project! Who is he to play God at this COMMON-RESOURCE site? Consider yourselves warned, Wikipedians. If, as a community, we do not take action to curb this menace's abuse of powers that he should never have been granted in the first place, and we do not do so ASAP, I will file formal, legal charges against him and Mike H in a court of law! I am heading to my county courthouse, in Newark, NJ, this afternoon in order to obtain the legal documentation necessary for the formal charging as well as the subpoenas of a select few others who are witnesses to his internet fraud, slander, and harassment. Please, somebody, pass this message on to him. Thank you. ] 17:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			::County courthouse? I'm sorry, but I don't live in New Jersey. If I did, it wouldn't matter, because your accusations of ], "]", and ] are ridiculous. ]] 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			I will begin by pressing charges in my county, as this suit would be too ridiculous, and too worthless, to take to the state or national level. Online law is a funny thing--you can, indeed, be charged with breaking my laws at the county level, state level, national, and/or international level. If someone who lives under Newark's jurisdiction, as I do, were to file a lawsuit against you, you or a lawyer representing you would have to appear in a Newark court. As for not believing my "accusations" to be legitimate, would you rather wait and find out how real they are once the charges are filed?

	==About Michael!==		==About Michael!==
	I've found a way to deal with our good friend Mike. I'm complaining to AOL about his ban-dodging. ] 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)		I've found a way to deal with our good friend Mike. I'm complaining to AOL about his ban-dodging. ] 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			WHY was he banned? Was it by a unilateral action on the part of Guanaco? (It must have been, as you are posting this message on HIS user page.) I would be more than willing to turn my suit into a class-action suit and represent, pro bono, Michael as well as Al-Wada, Rienzo, and any others who have been harassed and had their rights removed by the zealot Guanaco.

			:This is silly and stupid. It really is. I say put your money where your mouth is and file that suit. Unless, you can't. Or won't. ] 15:50, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:27, 5 July 2004

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS--BLANKING WILL GET YOU NOWHERE

See /Archive 1 and /Archive 2 for past messages.

Clitoris picture

May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. This is a unilateral action of censorship by Guanaco. Completely unacceptable IMHO and it leads me to question his competency as an admin. blankfaze | •• 08:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have not yet succeeded to understand if the picture was deleted out of censorship, or if it was a mistake in trying to fix a bug. I hope for clarification, and I am currently of the opinion it was a honnest mistake :-) Meanwhile, JamesDay - who fortunately still had the picture in his cache - restored it. SweetLittleFluffyThing

This was neither a mistake nor an act of censorship. All copies of the image are at Image:ClitorisNewLoc.jpg. Therefore, since Image:Clitoris.jpg is buggy and unused, it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Guan aco 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OKAY. HENCEFORTH, I solemnly SWEAR not to be on the Misplaced Pages during bouts of INSOMNIA. Apparently sleep deprivation affects my judgement and leads me to believe gossip and come to conclusions too quickly. I'm really off-base about this, Guanaco, and I hope you can forgive me, but at the time I wrote it, (most) everyone in IRC thought it was censorship, and my sleep-deprived-3AM-stupidity caused me to overreact. and react wrongly. i was CRAZY, INSANE, just weird last night. blankfaze | •• 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About the edit to James Madison that you reverted

I saw this edited and didn't know whether to interpret as vandalism. I even wrote a True or false problem on this user's talk page. All comments please put them on that user's talk page, not mine. 66.245.14.250 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the information on his appearance on the $5000 is absolutely correct as I stated it. See www.currencygallery.org -Levente (209.213.....)

Danny Rosenblatt

I've received this email. I don't know why I got it but there's something you should know:

From: Al-Awda at myafgha@myafghan.com

I'm outraged at what has gone on at this "encylopedia". Not only has my ability to edit and contribute been removed, but every single picture I uploaded and contributed has been blanked. This is absurd. Some "administrator" named guanaco is responisble. I hope something is done to remedy this. I'm willing to forget the whole thing if the editing block is removed the the pictures restored. I'll provide a full explanation afterwards. If not, you'll see some real vandalism, not what Colin did. This is a friendly warning.

Could you take care of this and tell this person to stop emailing me? Mike H 21:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I got a delivery failure notice when I replied. Apparently I've been blocked from sending him anything. The email back says the IP from which his email is originating is 63.119.175.14, if that helps. Mike H 21:53, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I searched for Al-Awda and apparently it's the Palestinian Right to Return organization. A nice pun to mirror returning to Misplaced Pages? Either way, I am not amused. Mike H 22:02, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

He should be treated like any other vandal/copyvio poster. We don't need to worry about this, and we especially don't need to give into his threats. I have spent enough of my time dealing with these people. Guan aco 22:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being emailed randomly. I have taken measures so he cannot email me again, and quite frankly, I don't like the "There's nothing we can do" attitude. Especially when this email is directed at me and not at you. Mike H 22:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do yet. We should go about our business editing, and if there is any vandalism related to this threat, post a note to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress, and someone will block the IP or username. We have survived worse threats and vandalism with little harm actually done to Misplaced Pages. Guan aco 22:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Guanaco. I got three e-mails from the guy. One was kind of threatening (whoopie) and the other two took on a more pleading tone. I didn't bother to answer him and I simply blocked the IP. Thought you should know. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did the same, but the emails were sent from Misplaced Pages, so I highly doubt that the person who sent them had been blocked. Mike H 23:33, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

According to MediaWiki:Blockedtext, emails can be sent via Misplaced Pages by blocked users. Guan aco 23:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ooh, and Danny Rosenblatt's profile had said he liked extremist websites, and I think POV aside, Al-Awda could be labeled "extremist." Makes sense now. What a turd. Mike H 23:40, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to tell you here that I swear that no more vandalism will occur. I really apologize for all of the ridiculous stuff that went on before. I am extremely ashamed of being put at the top of the list of vandals. What happened actually started out as a joke, and I wasn't serious for most of that time. Thankyou very much for allowing me to edit again. I would like to confer with Guanaco on what he believed were copyright infringements with my pictures. I don't believe there were any. I would welcome a discussion. I will wait until we have discussed the matter to put the pictures back up. Thankyou again for putting up with me. I will move on to a constructive career here at wikipedia.

Why aren't you at User:Colinrorr? Mike H 01:38, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I switched to a different user to see if that would have any effect when I was attempting to restore some pictures that were taken down (guanaco assumed they were copyright infringments based on the behavior he saw). I didn't realize the IP address was being blocked.

I think you'll be fine. I'd take the stuff down from BJAODN but I don't know if there is consensus. Mike H 01:43, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, what's the BJAODN?

The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense page. I put the transcript of the delete log for Danny Rosenblatt up there yesterday. I'll remove it since you seem very intent on reforming. It's going back if you screw up again, though. Mike H 01:46, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking it down. You could even leave it up if you want to, since in retrospect it could be entertaining. It probably will damage my future reputation though.

No need to worry; I removed it. Mike H 01:49, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for your help. Not to ask too much, but the one thing I would like to be removed from is being listed as the #1 vandal for wikipedia. Thankyou again

Now that is something that is beyond my capacity. Mike H 01:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The vandalism listing will eventually drop down and be archived as time passes and more vandals are listed. Guan aco 01:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

O.K. Who should I ask about that?

Guanaco, and since this is his talk page, he will see this. He'll have a comment shortly, I'm sure. Mike H 01:55, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I'll wait and see what he says. Thankyou again.

Guanaco, most of the pictures can be found here: http://www.albasrah.net/images/moqawama/index1.htm and here: http://ppoopp.host.sk/war/index.htm The rest are Associated Press that can be located on reuters or yahoo news. It was my assessment that they could be posted with difficulties with copyright infringement. What do you think?

The Anti-Semitism article

Simonides has been bothering Adam Carr and others in other Judaism related articles, he is not just causing trouble with me in the anti-Semitism article. His shtick is that he deletes the sources that people add, then cries "There are no sources; it is just the unproven opinion of the Jews". Then when I add back the deleted sources, and add yet more authoritative sources, he deletes most of the sources again, and basically claims "This is just opinion; there are no studies!" This kind of lying-to-your-face is unacceptable in any communal project, let alone an encyclopedia. We can't allow him to edit out sources, claim no sources exist, and then revert everyone else's edits! RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I was going to add; I understand that Simonides would just have reverted the article again and remove them, but the sources we have added are not for him; rather, the sources were for anyone reading the article. I feel that it is important that when big claims are made, multiple sources should be used if possible. Interestingly, the resurgence in anti-Semitism that Simonides denies exist is a fact that the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, and the ADL all agree on. RK 01:06, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

The sources are now included in the list of external links. Guan aco 01:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as, being a substantive edit to a protected page, it was in clear violation of Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. I hope you'll understand. —No-One Jones 20:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish magazine, Tikkun, ran a series of article on the resurgence of anti-Semitism across the world.

Editing protected pages

I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've already unprotected it. Guan aco 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Guanaco, I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in, and sorry if it landed you in any hot water. In my opinion the protection was timely and appropriate. -- Simonides 02:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good job on old copyvios

I just wanted to say that I notice and appreciate the cleaning up of old copyvios that I'm too ignorant or timid to make a decision on or too lazy to do the complex removing of copyvio while leaving legitimate article work. moink 03:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir, Michael, and Saddam

Since it's Lir intentionally violating the 3 revert rule, why not block him as well? RickK 05:04, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your blocking and unblocking policy just leaves me lightheaded. What ARE you doing? RickK 05:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

It was found out that those sockpuppet accounts were not Lir, but actually Michael. So Lir didn't do anything but add the dispute three times. I think my blocks were exactly what Michael wanted. Guan aco 05:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir apparently listed you at the now-defunct WP:RFROAA regarding this, and I moved it to WP:RFC. You may wish to respond there, or not. It is possible, perhaps likely, that the dispute will fail to meet the various criteria and be removed by someone else. Best regards, UninvitedCompany 16:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unblocking

Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK 20:14, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

A second more difficult for him? Yes, it does take a second of his time to log out and begin editing anonymously, making it harder for us to watch him. If we want to keep track of his style of editing, we can use the list on User:Michael. Michael knows what he is doing is wrong, and will continue to do it whether we block him or unblock him. So why is it such a big deal for you? Guan aco 03:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because it sends a message to your friends the vandals that vandalism is okay. Why is it such a big deal for you that they be unblocked? RickK 05:53, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Dugout (smoking)

OK, I can see you un-deleting it. I still think it's pointless - perhaps it could be a component of some other article, but nothing more IMHO - but you're right that it didn't fall into speedy-delete territory. Maybe you could wikify it a bit? - DavidWBrooks 19:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hard ban

Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bird is hard banned? He seems to have only been permablocked. If you have any evidence of a formal ban, I'll be happy to reblock him. Guan aco 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Elyaqim

I'm just curious, why did you create Elyaqim's user page even thought it is blank? --Merovingian✍Talk 06:23, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I believe it had to do with the vandalbot attacks. It's deleted now. Guan aco 06:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:LordZarglif555

Please stop creating work for people by playing with the blocks they have made. I find your actions extremely frustrating and hope that you will please stop. Maximus Rex 05:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to be less controversial when I'm unblocking users. Guan aco 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just stop unblocking. There is no reason that these accounts should be used again. What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Unblocking accounts that have been blocked for good reason will just piss people off unnecessarily. It also sends the message, unintentionally, that it is okay for them to vandalize. If any of these people did want to become useful contributors their first step should be to sign up for a new account. Maximus Rex 05:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Maximus Rex. Your actions are very unilateral and could be seen as an endorsement of troll behaviour. Please try to build a consensus before unblocking users that the community feels should be blocked. --H. CHENEY 19:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say the community feels Lir and Bird should be blocked. Lir's comment on WP:RFA is not "admitting to trolling". And Bird was clearly blocked against Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Vandalism. The User:Bird account has never been used for vandalism, so it should have never been blocked for vandalism. Only Bird's IP addresses and usernames that actually have vandalized Misplaced Pages should be blocked. Guan aco 19:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What was the edit that you said was not a test??

What was the edit that you said was not a test?? 66.245.30.216 21:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was a massive replacement of text that was clearly intentional , and it was probably done by the banned user Paul Vogel. Guan aco 21:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

True or false: Paul is the second strongest vandalizer of Misplaced Pages only to User:Michael. 66.245.30.216 21:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very false. We have had automatic scripts that vandalize Misplaced Pages pages automatically and very persistent users like Rishartha. Paul Vogel isn't a vandal for the most part, but his edits are biased. Guan aco 21:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could I get you to create an account? Just go to Special:Userlogin or click on Log in in the upper-right corner of your screen. It will only take a few seconds. Guan aco 21:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

152.163.252.102

152.163.252.102 has taken it upon himself to remove other people's comments and post all kinds of nastiness here. So I reverted. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That person is dead68.36.175.254 15:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

HOW TO DEAL WITH ASSHOLES

Moved from m:Talk:Main Page

WARNING: THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE WAS TWICE REMOVED FROM THIS PAGE . THOSE WHO INTERFERE WITH THE CRIMINAL'S PROSECUTION FOR HIS CRIMES COULD BE CHARGED IN A COURT OF LAW WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

I've had my editing ability removed by a wiseass named "Guanaco" who seems to think he's better than anyone else here! NEWSFLASH: this site is a common-property resource and NO ONE has the right to censor other people's opinions. However, this major dick seems to think that whatever HE doesn't like about the site and whoever is saying the things he does not like should automatically be banished from the site. This, as we all know, is bullshit! However, no longer able to edit ANYTHING at the Misplaced Pages, I can't even make my case or explain why the fucker, Guanaco, should be the only person blacklisted from this website. The pathetic little upstart can dish it out, but he can't seem to take it. I implore the members of the Meta-Wiki community to look into removing this despot's privileges, which he is obviously not mature enough to be capable of handling. I also urge my fellow Wiki members to fight for the rights of ALL Wikipedians, so that we are ALL freely able to contribute whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want. Or is this place now supposed to be a fascist dictatorship? (I had been under the impression that we're all supposed to be EQUAL members of a community with EQUAL rights and responsibilities to make this project what it is.) As a lawyer, I know my legal rights--rights that this "Guanaco" has clearly violated. If need be, I am ready to bring charges against him. But, I believe that before I rush to get the matter tied up in the legal system, I should offer him a chance to abdicate his position and apologise to all who he's harassed and used his power to silence. Please pass this message on to him and the general Wiki community! We all must realise that we DO NOT need to tolerate crap from him or ANYONE else! Someone named "Mike H" AKA "CustomOfLife" is an affiliate of his and together they have gone out of their ways to make trouble not only for me, but for several other innocents.

I highly doubt you are a lawyer. If you are, you are clearly not one of reasonable intelligence. You are only claiming to be one in an attempt to scare me away.

Appearances can be deceiving. You're not the first person, online or offline, to question my intelligence or my profession, and you certainly won't be the last. I don't really care what people think of me. I don't go out of my way to create any kind of phoney image--what you see is what you get. I'm not the one who's making the false assumptions, so it doesn't matter to me.

Obviously you don't know your legal rights, or you would know that Misplaced Pages does not have to allow you to post your personal attacks and other garbage. Guan aco 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Define "personal attack". What you did was a "personal attack" on ME, because YOU'RE the one who's violated American law. I violated no law. So, sue me if I didn't do something the way that a handful of people deem "correct" at a site where there is no official "correct" way of doing anything. Your unilateral blocking of people with whom you disgaree, the least of which is me, is not only against commonly-held Misplaced Pages folkways, but also, as stated above, against American censorship and anti-discrimination law.

Examples of their abuses of power:

"From: Al-Awda at myafgha@myafghan.com

I'm outraged at what has gone on at this "encylopedia". Not only has my ability to edit and contribute been removed, but every single picture I uploaded and contributed has been blanked. This is absurd. Some "administrator" named guanaco is responisble. I hope something is done to remedy this. I'm willing to forget the whole thing if the editing block is removed the the pictures restored. I'll provide a full explanation afterwards. If not, you'll see some real vandalism, not what Colin did. This is a friendly warning."

To which they respond:

"Could you take care of this and tell this person to stop emailing me? Mike H 21:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Should someone with Guanaco's powers NOT be a little more impartial? Rather than do that, he seems to abuse his power to defend his whiney friend, Mike, from severl of his self-initiated squabbles with hard-working, caring, and honest Wikipedians. In short, Mike and Guanaco are purposefully attempting to bring BIAS to Misplaced Pages by silencing those voices with which they disagree! It happened to Al-Awda, and, more recently, it's happened to me. A fellow person of "privilege" had to remind him recently of his purpose:

"I would be very careful about editing protected pages. The protect policy very clearly states that no edits should be done, save a few, which your edit is not covered under in IMHO. Just unprotect the page and let the wiki magic take effect. If the wiki badness takes over, then reprotect, but you are compromising your integrity as an admin by editing a page when only admins can. Remember, you are not here to solve disputes. Burgundavia 21:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've already unprotected it. Guanaco 21:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)"

I don't see the problem here. To "help mediate disagreements between others" is a principle of Misplaced Pages etiquette. Guan aco 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You do not "help mediate" anything. As stated by Burgundavia, "you are not here to solve disputes". Obviously, you're exceeding your power by single-handedly dictating who's allowed to post when and what; you're doing no fair mediation. What you consider "mediation" is biased against those you do not like. I have done research into your banning. Not only did you ban me ONCE (yesterday), but you have thus far done it AT LEAST TWICE, as indicated by a comment you made on June 29. I was away during the June 29-30 period, on a business trip, and did not arrive home until AFTER my banning period had expired, which is why I did not originally notice it the first time it occurred. What gives you the right to unilaterally ban ANYONE, let alone ban the same person, for the same fraudulent reason, TWICE in the same week?

He has time and time again acted unilaterally, both in BLOCKING people (as he did to me and Al-Awda) and by UNBLOCKING people:

"Guanaco, PLEASE stop unblocking indefinitely-blocked Users without discussing it! RickK 18:55, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why is it so important that all of Michael's accounts be blocked? He is free to create as many as he wants as often as he wants. Would you rather him edit anonymously, forcing us to dig through RC for his edits? That is exactly what happens when he is blocked. Guanaco 20:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Because it makes it even a second more difficult for him. And it lets us keep track of the style of editing that he has used before. And by unblocking him it gives him the idea that it's okay if he does what he's been doing. And why is it such a big deal for you? RickK"

"Why did you unblock hard banned user Bird? --H. CHENEY 02:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bird is hard banned? He seems to have only been permablocked. If you have any evidence of a formal ban, I'll be happy to reblock him. Guanaco 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

"Please stop creating work for people by playing with the blocks they have made. I find your actions extremely frustrating and hope that you will please stop. Maximus Rex 05:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to be less controversial when I'm unblocking users. Guanaco 05:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) Just stop unblocking. There is no reason that these accounts should be used again. What exactly are you looking to accomplish? Unblocking accounts that have been blocked for good reason will just piss people off unnecessarily. It also sends the message, unintentionally, that it is okay for them to vandalize. If any of these people did want to become useful contributors their first step should be to sign up for a new account. Maximus Rex 05:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

This is completely irrelevant to your complaint. Guan aco 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hardly! It supports my complaint that you believe you are above anyone else at the Misplaced Pages. You ban those of us who do not share the privilege to ban you back; you purposely and independently not only implement bans, but remove them as well--without a single person's consent whatsoever. The fact that SEVERAL others with banning priveleges have called you on it all but proves that you're annoying people. As someone stated, your actions COULD be interpreted as a type of troll-behavior, intended explicitly to create chaos at the Misplaced Pages site.

Another example of power abuse, in censoring something he, and he alone, deems "inappropriate":

"May I know who deleted the clitoris picture ? Where is the discussion and consensus over this deletion? thanks SweetLittleFluffyThing 06:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. This is a unilateral action of censorship by Guanaco. Completely unacceptable IMHO and it leads me to question his competency as an admin. blankfaze | •• 08:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) I have not yet succeeded to understand if the picture was deleted out of censorship, or if it was a mistake in trying to fix a bug. I hope for clarification, and I am currently of the opinion it was a honnest mistake :-) Meanwhile, JamesDay - who fortunately still had the picture in his cache - restored it."

You appear to be leaving off part of the discussion. Maybe I should be the one complaining about censorship. Guan aco 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People can read your excuse on that page, if they wish to do so. The important part of the above dialogue is your acting unilaterally to remove something that you disagreed with. I did not even bother to include your excuse, since I have attempted to access BOTH "clitoris" pictures and they have BOTH been removed by you. Your remark about one of them being old and outdated (how a clitoris can be outdated is something I'll never understand; I wasn't aware that they look different now than they did when Misplaced Pages began in 2001) holds no water because there was no "newer" picture put in the older one's place.

The most disturbing thing about Guanaco is that ALL of the above problems, with a handfull of different people, have taken place within the past TWO WEEKS!! This is outrageous! He is in violation of everything Misplaced Pages stands for, and we shall not tolerate his disruption of this project! Who is he to play God at this COMMON-RESOURCE site? Consider yourselves warned, Wikipedians. If, as a community, we do not take action to curb this menace's abuse of powers that he should never have been granted in the first place, and we do not do so ASAP, I will file formal, legal charges against him and Mike H in a court of law! I am heading to my county courthouse, in Newark, NJ, this afternoon in order to obtain the legal documentation necessary for the formal charging as well as the subpoenas of a select few others who are witnesses to his internet fraud, slander, and harassment. Please, somebody, pass this message on to him. Thank you. 68.36.175.254 17:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

County courthouse? I'm sorry, but I don't live in New Jersey. If I did, it wouldn't matter, because your accusations of internet fraud, "slander", and harassment are ridiculous. Guan aco 03:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I will begin by pressing charges in my county, as this suit would be too ridiculous, and too worthless, to take to the state or national level. Online law is a funny thing--you can, indeed, be charged with breaking my laws at the county level, state level, national, and/or international level. If someone who lives under Newark's jurisdiction, as I do, were to file a lawsuit against you, you or a lawyer representing you would have to appear in a Newark court. As for not believing my "accusations" to be legitimate, would you rather wait and find out how real they are once the charges are filed?

About Michael!

I've found a way to deal with our good friend Mike. I'm complaining to AOL about his ban-dodging. WhisperToMe 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHY was he banned? Was it by a unilateral action on the part of Guanaco? (It must have been, as you are posting this message on HIS user page.) I would be more than willing to turn my suit into a class-action suit and represent, pro bono, Michael as well as Al-Wada, Rienzo, and any others who have been harassed and had their rights removed by the zealot Guanaco.

This is silly and stupid. It really is. I say put your money where your mouth is and file that suit. Unless, you can't. Or won't. Mike H 15:50, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)