Re: My entry to wikip's by age/year: Deliberate. I'm being coy. ;-) Elf 04:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I know - I fully inteded to link it once I found a relavant page. Raul654 00:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! You are now a Meta administrator. Please read the Meta:Deletion policy before deleting anything, and make sure you understand how to edit pages such as the fundraising page before doing so. Angela 22:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! Raul654 22:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Edit war on Www.wikipedia.org_portalEdit
User:Node_ue has been endlessly reverting other people's edits back to his preferred version. This occurred three times on 13 Jan. He has also vandalised a straw poll that User:Eloquence set up on Talk:Www.wikipedia.org_portal. Can something be done about this please? GeorgeStepanek 02:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Eloquence has also been reverting edits to his preferred version. Rules on meta are considerably more lax than those on en.wikipedia and it is encouraged that people try for a peaceful solution instead of sweeping blocks.
- Node - you are obviously edit waring against everyone (as usual). Keep it up and I will block you. Raul654 05:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "you are obviously edit waring against everyone (as usual)" - not only do I take offense to that, but you are a notoriously bad speller. If you block me, you will wish you hadn't. --Node ue 23:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (A) You taking offense at this is not a large concern of mine, and (B) you are welcome to complain as loudly as you want to whomever will listen to you, as few as they may be. Consider yourself warned. Raul654 01:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- (A) That's because you're an insensitive jerk. (B) Who said anything about complaining? Consider yourself warned. --Node ue 20:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that I reverted the page because this is not a temp page on which we are working together, but a LIVE version. And a live version of possibly one of the pages which gets the most hits. So, we can hardly play with it. Anthere 06:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Erm, now might be a good time to put Catherine's version in place, before a whole new set of alternatives proliferate, and we have to go through yet another vote... GeorgeStepanek 21:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul. About my block...I've 'fessed up my last nihilartikel to Shanel. It was w:Broken Manika. OK, and to be fair, when I meant nihilartikel I misunderstood its meaning. In my view, a nihilartikel was one that isn't famous enough to be in Wikipedia. There's no more nihilartikels, and I'd like to be unblocked again, so I don't have to sneak around making sockpuppets in order to edit. Is my unblocking a viable option? --Wonderfool 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will relay your comment to the rest of the arbitration committee (via the committee's private mailing list). Raul654 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
|Thanks for voting!|
|Thanks for voting on my RfA; I'm happy to annouce I was promoted!. I look forward to being able to do more good work for Meta, and if there is anything I can do for you, let me know.|
Re: Carbonite desysopingEdit
I desysoped him following his own request archived here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions/Archive_2006/February#English_Wikipedia -Romihaitza 11:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, he just told me the same thing. My mistake - can you desysop him again? Raul654 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for changing "lesbiansex" to "lesbiansex\." in the spam blacklist. I feel that non-profit organisations should not be caught in spam filters intended for commercial porn sites. 18.104.22.168 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for adding logos.com to the spam blacklist, but shouldn't the completed additions be moved to Talk:Spam blacklist/completed additions instead of removed? w:User:Iamthejabberwock 23:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
He Raul, I know you probably don't want to hear from me again, but I was wondering if the ArbCom came to any discussion about allowing me back on Wikipedia? I've admitted all the nihilartikels I (stupidly) made, and I wanna get back translating stuff from the French Wikipedia. My university has had words with me about my misuse of Wikipedia and, without going into details, they have warned me that any further misuse of it will result in serious repercussions on my part. So can I have my identity back (Just one of them, mind, ;) )? I've no intention whatsoever of being a silly billy. Thanks, --Wonderfool 17:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
- It looks to me like you have fufilled the terms we set out in our emergency orders. Please go here and email this request to me - I'll forward it to the arbitration committee and have them CC you on our response. Also, please include a specific list (or link to a list) where you declared them all. Raul654 17:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raul/Mark, I noticed that you are quite active in updating the site-wide spam blacklist. A few days ago I have added a request to put some frequently spammed Nigerian sites on the list; the details can be found here and here. In the last few weeks, there have been some nasty personal attacks (see this discussion and also en:Talk:Lagos); they even followed me here to mess with the request. I think it would be a good thing if those urls could be added to the blacklist as soon as possible. May I ask you to look into it? Thanks in advance, — mark ✎ 07:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Spam blacklist addition queryEdit
Hello there, since you are a meta admin and have worked on the blacklist I thought it best to post to you. I am wondering if there is a specific criterion or set manner for the spam blacklist. I have been reverting (for the past month) a piece of link spam on the english wikipedia (see Stena Line history) which is constantly inserted by an anon IP who is on a shared IP (thus not properly blockable for any significant amount of time - which means the spam quickly reappears). If it was just that then things would be roughly fair enough (and I would happily just revert every time it appears), the element to it which unsettles me somewhat is that the linkspam is attempting to pass itself off as being from stena line themselves (see  for an example of the change that is made every time). The official stena line site is stenaline.co.uk and that is that (a simple google search proves that), but the difference is a small change that makes it all appear as some sort of phishing operation. At the very least it has the potential to mislead a user browsing by who doesn't know better, and we could end up with a situation where someone is possibly getting scammed as a result of following a link from that page. That is where the blacklist would be handy, since the spam potentially may not be reverted for some time, and in that time frame there may be users who are clicking on the fake link. I don't know if this spamming meets the criterion for blacklisting, but any help you would provide would be graciously accepted (not least because I am getting fed up reverting the thing every couple of days! - the spammer has taken 3 blocks, but the shared IP status means that he/she cant be blocked permanently, thus they just resume spamming when the block expires). You can contact me on my meta talk page or on my WP talk page (same username). Thanks, SFC9394 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Change of usernameEdit
Hello Raul, me again, sorry. I'm here because I'd like to change my username on Wikipedia. I've already submitted a request at Wiktionary to get my username renamed, and hope to follow suit on Wikipedia. I would drop you a line on your Wikipedia account, but I've (deliberately) perma-changed my password and all the settings in that account, thereby rendering me unable to log in with it. Formally: Please change User:Wonderfool to User:Thewayforward. --Wonderfool 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks very much, and if you have any questions, fire away. --Wonderfool 07:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- You realize that if I rename it, (a) anyone will be able to register user:Wonderfool, and (b) it will still be inaccessible, even under the new name - right? Raul654 02:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Edit to the spam blacklistEdit
Hello Raul654. Please don't add patterns to the logged sections of the spam blacklist unless you do log them. Those special sections are divided by month and titled with "[[Spam blacklist/Log]]". :) —[admin] Pathoschild 03:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Spam_blacklist#blogs.myspace.com - Now, I certainly don't mean to imply that you were making anything up but without seeing a diff I think it's possible that you maybe misinterpreted something Jimbo said - it certainly seems odd to add something that hasn't been a spam problem to the spam black list (it's not the en:WP:RS blacklist, after all), and I can't imagine that he really meant to say to do that. Can you please clarify and maybe provide a diff? --Random832 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Jimbo made his request in a private email to arbcom-l on January 10, 2007 (in the 'myspace spam block; ebay spam block' thread). Jimbo asked "How do I add it [blog.myspace.com (sic)] to the blacklist? On meta, right?"
- David Gerard follow up Jimbo's email with a request that I do it (since I'm one of the few (the only?) meta admin on arbcom-l. I then did it for Jimbo. Raul654 21:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Racetotheright.com from the BlacklistEdit
How do we go about removing this, as it has been added incorrectly. If you are unwilling to assist, who do I go to do get this dealt with? --Zeeboid 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
My ban on the English WikipediaEdit
This is the real Willy on Wheels, not an impersonator. I can confirm that I had several pagemove accounts between 2005 and 2006, and then disappeared in the middle of 2006 from Wikipedia.
The email on the mailing list was not by me, it was a hoaxer. As regards my edits from 22.214.171.124, well, it's an IP address used by multiple public computers, not to mention some at service stations off the M5 around Gloucestershire, Bristol and Somerset. It's a shared IP basically...
Anyone who created an account after May 2006 ending in "on wheels" or similar, is patently not me. The original Willy on Wheels was a joke account, using the term "on wheels", i.e. popular, see here for a meaning.
I politely ask that the Arbitration Committee accept this case, and you can let them know this.
By the way, Willy on Wheels was a group of people, including some who work on radio stations, and I'm really really sorry to everyone, at commons, wikiquote, wikipedia and wiktionary. --Willy on Eastington Wheels! 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the contribution to it. Can you please log your entry with some form of permanent link please? Seems like a pain but in practice in a few months time it will not be practicable to find who made the edit with the history as long as it is. That will mean it will get removed if there is no "evidence" - I know because I've had to do just that. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough but if it is solely en wp then it really should be on the local blacklist (& equally logged there)? Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, the whole site is based around people building "cities" and then getting people to click links to go to their city. It's a site ready-made for spamming. Raul654 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just curious why did you add myminicity.com to the blacklist? id:User:Bennylin
- Oh, I just read your comment above: "No, the whole site is based around people building "cities" and then getting people to click links to go to their city. It's a site ready-made for spamming." Is there any discussion about it, because it seems like a personal opinion. Cheerz. id:User:Bennylin
- It's not a personal opinion - I caught someone spamming it. Raul654 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for usurpationEdit
Blacklist & loggingEdit
Hi - I see you have added an item to the blacklist. Can you please make sure you log it per the instructions on the all the pages. While it is a pain it is far more of a pain to attempt to find the rationale in a month or six months time merely by looking through the history. That causes frustration & has led to sites being removed. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Your question to the candidatesEdit
Hi Raul - I think the question you just posed is virtually identical to this one. If you believe it's different, could you edit it to more clearly establish what you'd like from us that we didn't provide in the other question? Sarcasticidealist 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't realize there was a 1st page of questions. Sorry, my mistake. Raul654 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
October admin confirmationsEdit
Just to let you know that, per Meta:Admin#Poll after a year, your local rights on meta are up for their annual reconfirmation at Meta:Administrators/confirm. WJBscribe (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- All right. Raul654 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This is why we log SBL entriesEdit
Raul, you are listed as an English Wikipedia authorized person to receive email communications. I have contacted The Florida Catholic newspaper asking for permission to use a picture of their newspaper on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami where it is being threatened with deletion  for violating some Wikipedia rules. How can I direct the emailer to contact you with this permission if they grant it to me. I already received permission directly: From: Christopher Gunty <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 5:14 pm Subject: Permission to Use photograph
Dear Ms. Heise,
The Florida Catholic Inc. grants you permission to use a photograph of the front page of the Florida Catholic newspaper for an entry regarding the Archdiocese of Miami on Wikipedia.com.
Thank you for your request.
Christopher Gunty Associate Publisher
However, I am told this is not enough, that it has to be emailed to you and specifically grant GNU permission. I am afraid if I email this nice man again he is going to lose patience with all of this. Is there anything that can be done to assist me in my efforts here? Thanks. NancyHeise 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ups, it's done. Thanks anyway. --Vriullop 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The "recent behavior" from Wikiversity was partly responsible from an on Wikipedia troll, RTG, who came to Wikiversity, saw the project, created his own where he would attempt to spread lies and get someone to shut down a project (he gave Wikisource as an example) and at the same time started spreading false messages to Jimbo about Wikiversity activities. Information on this can be found here. Furthermore, the only banned user that Wikiversity could be considered a "haven for" is myself, who has not only served as an admin at Wikiversity since mid 2008 but also enforced Jimbo Wales ban on Moulton per his orders in addition to stressing the upholding of his current actions.
I was the first one to warn Privatemusings about his actions and had him discontinue his active pursuit of a "breaching experiment" in terms of anything that went beyond analysing notable ArbCom cases and the ethical problems within. I explicitly prohibited any socking guides or actively trying to use Wikiversity to promote such inappropriate behavior.
I also offered up my resignation to the WMF board in case they believed that I did not do enough to prevent any such problems as you can see here. I have been working hard to ease the various tensions that resulted from this case, and I have been trying to keep order both on Wikiversity and on Meta.
- The specific banned users I was thinking of when I wrote that are Jon Awbry, Private Musings, and Moulton. I was not thinking of you.
- If you can convince me that I have gotten the wrong impression of Wikiversity (to wit - that the project has competent administration that will not allow Wikiversity to serve as a troll haven) then I'll withdraw the petition. But so far, I see an ill-defined project that produces little of value while providing banned users a place to continue disrupting the project. Raul654 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Moulton is banned. I went so far as to ban IPv6 access to Wikiversity one time to stop him from coming. Private Musings was unblocked by Jimbo and I do not know the discussion between them. Jon Awbry has not been active and if he is then he would be as little tolerated as Kohs who was quickly banned. Much of our project has not been defined simply to allow university staff to come and set up various projects. When Pete Forsythe was trying to find a project to have various academics release papers, it was determined that Wikiversity was probably the only suitable one (for part of the discussion, see here, but I don't know what forum the rest of it took place in). For example, I have posted a few of my lecture notes. I have many others but I have not released so many (mostly on demand when other teachers I know want to look over them for various classes). We have a few works that we deem "featured" for various reasons here or various classes that do work like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jon Awbry is most certainly not inactive. He's a signatory to that open letter. He last edited less than 24 hours ago. Moulton is active on Wikiversity too.
- Worse, the comments on that open letter basically confirm my fears, that Wikiversity's administration is A-OK with running a haven for trolls. To wit, JWSchmidt comment there: I think everyone at the Foundation who will read this letter knows that Wikipedia culture has a very strong "nip this in the bud" approach to management. I hope they know that Wikiversity has a culture where the approach is more "let's nurture this bud and see what develops". Another way of describing the difference is that Wikiversity participants are willing to assume good faith with respect to people who are thoughtfully developing a Wikiversity learning resource. That is basically veiled statement that people who are kicked-off of other wikis for doing bad things will be welcomed with open arms at Wikiversity. Another case and point: one of the opponents of the petition is user:MisterWiki, who in his comments on the petition helpfully noted that "I speak as a banned person from Wikipedia in English and Spanish and Commons. This user is just speaking because no one really cares about him." One has to wonder what MisterWiki did to get himself banned from three different projects. (I checked his commons accounts. Apparently he was a prolific uploader of copyvios. he got blocked, his content deleted, and he decided to use sockpuppets).
- I guess the point that I'm making is that Wikiversity has massive systemic problems, which are rooted (a) in the lack of any focused goal for the project (which de-facto means that anything goes); and (b) wikiversity's administrative mentality, which permits anything-goes behavior - up to and including vandalizing other WMF wikis. Raul654 03:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- JWSchmidt is not a English Wikiversity administrator. Blocks are a preventative measure, if people are blocked simply because of what they did on another project that would make it punitive. Wikimedia Commons is for hosting files it doesn't exist to educate people. Wikiversity does exist to educate people so more effort is put into trying to help people understand copyright for instance. Some Wikiversity participants held a workshop at a university recently on this very topic to help the average person understand copyright, how to use copyleft works, and how to create your own copyleft works. There is both course material on Wikiversity and via a personal blog where an upload of the recorded workshop can be found. This is just one way that Wikiversity participants try to make a difference. I think Wikiversity doesn't have as many problems as people think, people just need to take some time to understand how Wikiversity participants think and prefer to do things. That is not to say that Wikiversity never blocks, but education is the preferred method of preventing problems. --darklama 04:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Jon Awbry has only been active in response to Jimbo. Jimbo blocked Kohs after responding but did not block Awbry as responding. He was not active before then, and I will not block/unblock people related to the matter since I am 1. recused for being the original deleter of the problematic material and 2. Jimbo is there and has made himself capable of blocking such people when he has deemed them as getting too out of hand. My statement about activity was about participation in Wikiversity as a whole. By the way, MisterWiki is not banned on Meta. Neither is Jon Awbrey. They have both used Meta. Even if you remove Wikiversity, they would still have Meta to do the same thing especially with the petition and open letter existing here too. By the way, where is the evidence that PrivateMusings vandalised any Wiki based on Wikiversity stuff? I warned him not to do any such thing 12 days before Jimbo arrived and PrivateMusings did not go against that from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This user was blocked for obvious disruptive socking. A few days after, he does this. He makes statements that are very similar to WR and knows exactly where to go and how to act to support Abd. I think the CUs on Wikipedia need to look deeper, because the guy is obviously an old sock master who needs to be blocked for more than a week. By the way, this isn't surprising to see. It seems that there are some rather dangerous people who desperately want to do whatever they can to give Abd a foothold to disrupt Wikipedia and other WMF sites. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
What does Jack Merridew have on so many Arbs that they are willing to bend over backwards to justify almost non stop socking and harassment in addition to non stop disruption of Articles? They ban so many people who produce good content yet they do whatever they can to ensure that those like Jack are given free reign. You really need to get back in there and clean that up. It is a disgrace. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- That question is better directed towards members of the committee. Frankly, some of their more recent decisions have been idiotic. I have no idea what is going on inside their minds. Raul654 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is obvious that the Committee members don't answer questions regarding situations like the above because they either lack an answer or the answer is so ridiculously absurd that it would be laughed at. It is funny how the same people champion Merridew have been part of the "banned means banned" - I guess a sock puppet exemption for plagiarist and those who sock puppet to aid the plagiarists is in the fine print. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 Sigh. It is a really sensitive FA and had 7k deleted without justification. This has happened to at least 10 of my FAs and GAs without any real care or attention. Clear sock puppets and single purpose accounts. Many of them are connected to those like Jack Merridew who use to target me in such ways before. These are the people that the Arbitrators have been actively supporting while trying to keep those like myself from having any access. How can we have an encyclopedia when the current people in charge are doing whatever they can to destroy it? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Risker claims that restoring an FA of 8k of text removed without cause (with wholesale removal of important sources and important information on the topic) needs to be justified. She is basically deleting 1/3rd of the FA without discussion and reinforcing a sock puppet's vandalism. Why are FAs allowed to be destroyed like that? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)