User talk:The Trolls of Navarone

Do I need to block you as a return of a banned (many times) user, or can you leave peacefully? Pakaran. 15:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What have I done that you would need to block me? I am not a user who has been previously banned. Thanks for your concern, The Trolls of Navarone 15:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok sorry. The "troll" in your username is a feature of several returns of one blocked user. Pakaran. 15:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure they are the same user? The Trolls of Navarone 15:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

You have been blocked in accordance with this quote from the blocking note of Jimbo Wales on User:The Fellowship of the Troll: username alone is sufficient to justify immediate banning -- in addition to apparently making false claims of being blocked already. -- BCorr|Брайен 17:07, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

The claims were in fact true. Heph blocked earlier.

If you want to change our policy to allow for faster blocking of users with inappropriate usernames, see wikipedia:blocking policy. Martin 18:04, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever let Heph know that that kind of behavior is unacceptable, as must be apparent, he produced no evidence at all of his assumption of my being the user that Jimbo decreed be banned. This kind of witch-hunt, where the cabal decides that they can ride rough-shod over the processes and policies just because they feel like it, then accuse people of 'trolling' or 'being a reincarnation of a troll', as if this were enough to ban someone who is saying something they disagree with, is deeply damaging. Thanks Martin! The Trolls of Navarone 19:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

---

That's a pretty cute "summary" of my question to Jimbo. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:52, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

returned

In an effort to bypass community process, Dante asked for permission from the landlord of the site to ban users who have non-offensive usernames. Jimbos response was: "Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best." He does seem to imply that people should be intollerant of people who they think are 'yanking their chain', so I presume that that is a green light to go ahead with the policy of harrassing and flinging wild and unfounded accusations at users who have not broken any rules. Yea. A victory for community process. Honestly, I don't know why anyone would bother with a policy vote, just ask Jimbo for a few rambling muses. The Trolls of Navarone 06:40, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In an effort to engage in a smear campaign and mischaracterize the proceedings, The Trolls of Navarone has decided to describe the events as above. If anyone is interested as to the reality they can read Jimbo's talk page where I asked him to clarify his intent on a previous ban summary. I did not ask permission to ban users who have non-offensive usernames, and I certainly wasn't attempting to bypass community process. It's fairly clear to anyone who's been following the situaion, but I guess Navarone just got a bit confused. I'd like to think that Navarone will apologize for mischaracterizing my conversation with Jimbo, but somehow I doubt it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:51, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

This isn't a request for a review of admin actions. Martin 18:56, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sincere appologies for any mischaracterisation Dante, but I'm at a loss about what you thought was unfair in my summary. Perhaps you can help me out, and clear up my confusion. Yours, The Trolls of Navarone 19:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I explained all that in my response above. I wasn't circumventing community process and I wasn't asking for permission for anything. Also, this is your user talk page, not your user page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:02, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

List of famous virgins

Please see Talk:List of famous virgins#George Bernard Shaw. 24.217.211.99 17:30, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

cybercrime

Sysops and founders use force against demonstrators, claiming "cybercrime" includes responding to the invitation "Anyone, including you can edit an article now" after an admin attempts to selectively exclude some writers. While claiming anyone can contribute, sysops and founders gradually establish who is part of "anyone" and who is not. Disillusioned with being exluded from the meta-human category of "anyone", contributors who sysops have banned decide it is legitimate to protest the actions of dehumanizing sysops. They contribute strictly benign or otherwise relevant political information to articles in flagrant violation of the ban, laying the foundation in the event of a criminal court case. Eventually, sysops succeed in reqruiting law enforcement assistance, who conduct a series of early morning armed raids on writers who sysops have banned. One banned writer is suprised when police commit raids and is accidentally killed when local rookie police officer thinks suspect is armed. Jimbo gets world wide reputation for using lethal force against educational and political writers. In court, the criminal suspects disclose the genuinely educational material they contributed as "cybercriminals" leaving sysops and founders to appear as censors. Media feeds on stories of Wikipedia supressing free speech. Suspects file civil suit, alleging entrapment by sysops. Founder appears on media claiming use of force was justified to protect his project from criminals.

(Wearing hat as writer of policy documentation) To be fair, users have been banned (as opposed to blocked) by Jimbo and (more recently) the arbitration committee, rather than by sysops. I hope to make this difference between bans and blocks more explicit over the coming months. Martin 17:57, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moldova

Please see Talk:Moldova and Moldova. I guess it is the best now. --Danutz

Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes

Naming & GB/UK/NI/IE railways plods on: see Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom & Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes --Tagishsimon

Dude

Am I the only one who think the 'metrosexual' reference is completely spurious? It is not the same thing, and seem out of place. The Trolls of Navarone 19:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The new word metrosexual seems to be exactly what the word dude meant before it took on its current, rather new (later than 1960, probably) colloquial meaning. I was surprised at how this article began before I edited it a few minutes ago; it's as if it was written by people who only grudgingly admit that the word existed before it took on its new meaning. Michael Hardy 22:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pope trolling

Hi. Cut it or be banned again. Thanks. BTW, you write just like 142 does on Consumerium - David Gerard 19:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have very intereseting theories on your user page. But don't forget that the system is self-preserving and there really is no rule that allows you (or anyone else) to topple it. Eric B. and Rakim 03:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hephaesos' trolling

Can someone show me what piece of policy supports Heph's blanking another person's userpage because it annoys him? Are we really saying that the standard for what can go on someone's page is that it doesn't annoy Hephastos? The only purpose in continuing to blank this user's page is to provoke conflict and bait this user into retaliatory attacks on Heph's page. Something that Heph seems pretty good at. Please stop this trolling. Mark Richards 23:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mark, et al, did this question ever get answered?Erich 07:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not that I saw. Mark Richards 16:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalising user pages

Heph, I don't think people should vandalise your user page, and I don't think you should vandalise others'. I know you want this user banned, and that they annoy you, but until the policy and community support that, stop baiting them. You're looking for conflict that isn't there. If you respond, then you've been trolled. Rise above it. ;)Mark Richards 02:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bull. The contents of that user page consist of vandalism. They need to be removed. - Hephaestos|§ 02:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, Heph, you are obviously trolling. You are blanking a user page of a user who has not been banned, because it annoys you, probably to get a bite, so that they will blank your user page and so on. Grow up. Think through what possible good can come of this. Mark Richards 02:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am blanking a diatribe that basically says "Wikipedia sucks". Why do you have a problem with this? Do you think "trolls are the answer"? If so why are you here? - Hephaestos|§ 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have to agree with it to think that people should be allowed to say it. It is a bizarre analysis of the situation that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I should vandalise it. It is not vandalism in itself, just an odd rant. Your actions can have no good outcome. Stop feeding trolls. Mark Richards 15:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allowing trolls to continue posting graffiti on this site is feeding them. The best way to cut them off from "food" is to block them from editing. - Hephaestos|§ 16:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd point out that your logic is flawed, but there is a more serious problem with your facts. You are not blocking them from editing. You are vandalising their userpage, presumably to cause conflict, which is trolling. Stop it. Mark Richards 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm vandalising nothing, I am removing vandalism. If you think what's on that user page is not a bad-faith addition made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, you probably need to read it again until it sinks in. I'd also thank you to lose the delusion that you can order me around. - Hephaestos|§ 18:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heaven forfend anyone should try to get you to stop throwing your weight around, no matter how much trouble you cause. Think about the effects of what you are doing, and the likely results. You are behaving like a troll, and I think you should seriously examine your motivations. Mark Richards 18:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh please. If you're serious, start an RFC to have my admin privileges removed. I'd start one on you if I thought it would do any good, in my opinion you are far and away the worst administrator we currently have, you've used your privilege and position for nothing but dragging down the quality of Wikipedia ever since you got them. - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, classic Heph trolling. Avoid the question, respond with abuse. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heph is mean and bossy sometimes. One time on IRC he flamed me until I left. :*( Sam [Spade] 19:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this somehow relevant to anything on Wikipedia? - Hephaestos|§ 20:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, your aggressive bully-boy tactics are not appreciated. Mark Richards 20:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark,

While I do not wish to take sides in this conflict in particular, I would like to point out that Hephaestos is a longstanding contributor whose commitment to the project and its goals is beyond question. While some consider him insufficiently tolerant of users whose contribution is yet to become clear to us, he often at the same time acts while a silent majority remains, well, silent. I would encourage you to consider your words carefully as you share your concerns regarding Hephaestos.

UninvitedCompany 01:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your call to civility UC, thanks. Mark Richards 17:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edit conflict, censorship of incitement?

Between 02:55 and 08:13, 6 Jul 2004 User:Hephaestos and User:Mark Richards reverted a user page at least 5 times in an edit war. I hope both of you are profoundly embarrased. You are both supposed to be leading by example and I am appalled.

1. Are you planning on repeating this sort of behaviour?
2. What steps are you planning to take to avoid future outbreaks?

(i have posted this on both user pages)Erich 06:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't make a habit of edit wars; I think my last one was sometime in 2002. So no, not unless extenuating circumstances (such as here) present themselves.

2. None. I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back. You can make your own judgment on that; however I knew full well that I was risking a three-day ban, and if I get one well I deserved it didn't I? I think it would be nice if the community were to make an example of both of us in this situation, but frankly I don't think they have the guts. - Hephaestos|§ 13:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Someone should recognize publicly that too few editors and admins defend us from the few bozos here for fights and psychodrama. Don't let it get you down. The reverts were a peccadillo given the provocation you were removing. Thanks. Alteripse 22:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos, you shouldn’t misinterpret an unwillingness to act as a lack of 'guts'. Swift action over the Internet doesn't really have much to do with courage now does it? Given you track record though, I'd have thought a warning would be more appropriate than time-out at this stage. If you two start up again though I’ll be baying for blood myself. As for "I was removing vandalism. Richards was putting the vandalism back", well that's just bull. You two were edit waring. Plain and simple. Did you look at this proposal? (note that it includes an increasingly short leash for reincarnations) and is in addition to existing vandalism policies (although your definition of vandalism is not in accord with mine. your comments/edits would be genuinely welcome. (you too Alteripse!) best wishes Erich 22:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My definition of vandalism, FWIW, is here. - Hephaestos|§ 02:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Trolls say controversial or unpleasant things (often on discussion pages or in their user space) in order to attract predictable responses or flames. See internet troll. Please don't feed the trolls." - I'm interested in whether you really think someone saying controversial or unpleasant things (since you can't know their intentions) is vandalism. Mark Richards 02:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidently you're skimming again. "Vandalism is bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." - Hephaestos|§ 02:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I read that, but since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that anybody could take the diatribe on that page as having been made in "good faith". - Hephaestos|§ 02:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, but let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 02:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're overlooking the "attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia" part. - Hephaestos|§ 03:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so, since I can't know the intent of the writer. But let's get back to the point, which was, since you can't know the intention of the writer, the only thing you have to go on is the content, and we're back to it being 'controversial' or 'unpleasant'. Mark Richards 03:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose you think he did it "accidentally". Again, bizarre. Please explain to me how someone could write that as a good-faith contribution to the encyclopedia. - Hephaestos|§ 03:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

why dont you two conduct a quick poll of some sort to see if users should be allowed to have content critical to wikipedia and wikipedia admins on their user and talk pages? You could both formulate a 150 word statement of your prososed positions, with links to relevent policies and examples. You could draft your statements in view of each other and ammend your own statements until you were both satisfied you had articulated your points and responded to counter arguement. By mutual agreemnet you could raise the 150 words, but I think that should be enough. How about it? Erich 03:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with content critical of Wikipedia; I have a problem with bald-faced incitement to try to destroy Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with content critical of individual Wikipedia admins, but I do have a problem with content critical of the group of Wikipeida admins as a whole, or critical of the idea of having admins at all, as opposed to total anarchy. So I guess I can't draft a statement to that effect. - Hephaestos|§ 03:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

sure, well I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Why not explain that? I'm only suggesting 150 words, not a doctoral thesis Erich 05:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get backed into defending the content, since I don't agree with it. Where we part company is whether people should be allowed to be critical of the concept of having admins. I think they should be. It's healthy to air a range of opinions, even bizzare and off the wall ones. I don't think that having that range of opinions posted is a threat. Mark Richards 17:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heavens Mark, who was asking you to defend the content? I have taken the extreme liberty of highlighting what, to me, seems the summary of your own expression of your positions. Perhaps that could be a starting point for a 150 word? (Hephaestos, I am aware this is your talk page, so feel free to tell me to bugger off). Guys this is an important issue that all society wrestle with. Why don't we work together to get a robust comunity consensus on it? Erich 03:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that about sums it up Erich, the questions seem to be: is there material that is so seditious and dangerous that it cannot be posted as an opinion, and, does this material meet that criteria? Mark Richards 16:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

two observations

While once again I neither entirely agree nor entirely disagree with either Mark or Heph, I offer these observations.

First, material such as that which Heph cut from User:The Trolls of Navarone is best understood in context. Context, in this case, includes this:

• About 90% of the text in question has been taken verbatim from previous diatribes placed on the meta by User:24.
• Related material (generally, material flatly critical of Wikipedia governance and administration) has been widely posted on Wikipedia, the meta, the mailing list, and various other wikis such as Meatball, Consumerium, Ferment, and probably more, over the course of the last two years. (also, #wikipedia, the Webby awards, etc --Martin)
• Any sort of freedom of expression argument is patently false because this viewpoint has been put forth widely.
• Such material is critical of meta:foundation issues, such as NPOV, the presence of administrators, and Jimbo's ultimate authority. Discussion of such issues is unhelpful, because they are defining matters for the project that cannot be changed.
• Experience has shown that people who post such material, anonymously or as socks, are uninterested in actual discussion of the points raised.
• The repeated posting of this material by anons and sock puppets, as is the case here, might lead casual readers, particularly Wikipedians new to the project, that these views are more widely held than they actually are. There are at most a handful of signed-in contributors to Wikipedia with any sort of positive track record who subscribe to this POV.
• Such repeated posting is therefore both disingenuous and harmful to the project.
• The repeated posting of it, over the last two years, anonymously and via socks, by a handful of malcontents, in a wide variety of inappropriate forums, has become extremely tiresome to longstanding contributors.

Second, it is not unusual for newcomers to the project, who are unfamilar with the context, to take Mark's point of view. I myself held such a point of view when I was new to the project. Over time, I find that I agree more and more with Heph's point of view. I can think of several other Wikipedians who have made similar transitions.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 04:29, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah the dulcet tones of reason and experience! well if that rubbish is just a cut and paste of material already posted somewhere else on wikipedia, then why not replace that rubbish with a link to it? While it is tempting to name the page childish rantings of a borderline personality against Wikipedia, perhaps Unedited writings against Wikipedia not in accord with community consensus might be more expeditious, and there it can stay? if this started to look like a google bomb campaign then the link needn't be made live (ie have the text of the URL but not an actual hyperlink) Erich 05:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised by how insecure this kind of thing seems to make people. I don't think we should be afraid of questioning of basic assumptions, even if they seem fringe and lunatic to us. Mark Richards 16:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Erich - interestingly, that's precisely what MeatballWiki has been doing for some time - consolidating the material on a single page. Not because we love Wikipedia (we don't), but because the author was uninterested in Meatball:BarnRaising, so it just got in the way. This worked well enough there, certainly. Perhaps we can import that solution, and move everything to meta:Case of a Wikipedia troll? Heph, Mark, would this be satisfactory?

I feel that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and user pages are not provided for the purpose of soapboxing. So I have no problem with people removing rants, whether they be against Wikipedia, America, or the price of eggs, and in articles, user pages, talk pages. Whether it is worth getting in a revert war over them, is another question - but I guess this has become a matter of principle now. Martin 20:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if it were a completely irrelevant rant, then maybe, but a rant about the organisation of Wikipedia, or ideas for reorganising it surely could go on the userpages. Some users have essay subpages - this might be a better place for it I suppose. I think the principle that opinions about Wikipedia should be allowed to be voiced, as long as they are not personal attacks, or truly offensive (I mean in the range of tubgirl!). We should not be afraid of criticism or ideas. Mark Richards 21:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opinions about Wikipedia are allowed to be voiced. The "troll heirarchy" has been posted all over the place - one is not afraid of it so much as bored. The world view that claims that trolls are good, that there is no such thing as virtual community, and so forth can be expressed once, and only once. Scattering it about a hundred different places is just spam. Just as we feel free to delete spam from corporations, so we should feel free spam from a persistent individual with an idiosyncratic world view. Fortunately, as Wikipedia-related ranting is on-topic on meta, so we can compromise by centralising such ranting in a single place on meta. Martin 23:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

dumb question number 2: is there currently a once? Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bored? So don't read it, that's the thing, you don't have to. It's not a fight you have to pick at all. If we removed everything from anyone's userpage that was posted anywhere else we'd be in major trouble. The thing is, that there is no threat at all to letting people voice their opinions on their userpages. Deciding what opinions can and can't be voiced there is a potential threat. Mark Richards 00:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Martin, in re your idea, please feel free to copy anything from the talk page here over to meta or wherever you think it might get more readers and thereby maybe do some good.

I'll voice my opinion on the subject once more and then I'm done. Since about April, there have been legions (to borrow a term) of accounts made by people who are not here to work on the encyclopedia, to improve it, or to benefit it in any way. They are here simply to attempt to make it less a valuable resource and to harass those people who are honestly trying to make good contributions. Moreover it is clear, in virtually every case, that this is what they are doing. This is clearly against policy against vandalism, and it needs to be dealt with much more firmly and quickly than it has been thus far, or else this site is just going to become a graffiti board.

So far these people have been taking a mile; we do not need to give them even an inch. - Hephaestos|§ 00:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

go on Heph, do me a favour and have a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. I think the main strength of it is to allow rapid definition (by the sysops) of which users need to be quickly shown the door. Erich 07:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's its main strength, and a good one. However 24 hours is a slap on the wrist, they'll just come back tomrrow. No provision on how to achieve agreement among three admins either, where the discussion should take place etc. And frankly, I don't think some of these people rate warning when it's obvious what they're doing. - Hephaestos|§ 02:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah well, that is where the the escalating penalties come in... and the penalties for presumed reincarnations. By the fourth offence, they don't get a warning and they get a 96 block on each single step out of line (they have to offend once or we don't know they are there!). The benefit is that by the fourth attempt, there is a clearly documented litany of misdemeanors, plus numerous warnings. Even bleeding hearts like me and Mark, are going to complain if people are clearly losers. Then it's just a case of taking all the collected evidence to the AC for and the AC should be able to rule pretty smartly if the rolling 96blocks are considered inadequate.

I agree the mechanism for admins to discuss is not clearly spelt out. I guess it would be on a related talk page. (?) Ultimately it is the URLs to the diffs that say what needs to be said. (both the counterproductive edits and clearly productive edits). Each sysop can scan the evidence (diffs) for themselves pretty quickly to draw their own conclusion. So I guess I was thinking it wouldn't need much chat. do you think it is something you think you may be able to support? best wishes Erich 03:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dispute resolved? Please unprotect

Nobody seems to be providing any reason why this page should not be unprotected and reverted, so I suggest that someone go ahead and do this. Heph archived the discussion on his userpage, so I presume he considers the issue dealt with. Thanks, Mark Richards 14:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll

This "poll" has no validity. Please see Wikipedia:Current surveys for how to organise a poll.

This is just more vigilanteism in flagrant disregard for policy on these matters. Mark Richards 15:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does the content of this user's user page consist of vandalism (i.e., Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Yes

• Hephaestos|§ 15:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No

• It doesn't meet the narrow definition we use. However, it should still go. I have redirected the page to User:24. I believe, in the interest of clarity, all user pages believed to have been controlled by User:24 should be handled this way. UninvitedCompany 15:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• VV 20:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) This page is simply not vandalism by any stretch. It contains disagreeable opinions, but being constrained in the user space it is harmless and I see no reason to censor it.

Neutral

• David Gerard 15:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

24

UC - what evidence is there that this is 24? Mark Richards 15:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The content. UninvitedCompany

?? That's it? It's not even the same. It looks like this user has copied a load of stuff from meta, but that is not evidence that they are the same as 24. Mark Richards 15:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Accounts are banned for what they do here. A user doing the same thing as a banned user should de facto be banned. - Hephaestos|§ 16:00, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what 24 was banned for, but banning this user for the contents of their userpage is ridiculous. Mark Richards 16:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark, please don't trivialize. We already had this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration where I count five users agreeing this is a reincarnation, and you and User:The Trolls of Navarone in disagreement. I call that a consensus. UninvitedCompany 16:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to trivialise, and five to two is a majority, but whether it is a concensus I'm not so sure. There was no mention at all of whether this user was a reincarnation of 24, the talk was bout 142,EMT,JRRT. Those that commented seemed to agree that there was no evidence, but that they would like to ban the user anyway. That is not how these things should be dealt with, and I think this kind of lynchmob attitude is very harmful. Mark Richards 16:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider the subject's vote valid, and I consider 5 to 1 a consensus, particularly so since your stated views on bans and blocks, and your evidentiary standards, are clearly at odds with the community. UninvitedCompany 16:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, its convenient that you don't think the subject's vote is valid, I'm sure he doesn't think yours is either, but regardless, the people who bothered to respond to this do not change the fact that this group was not empowered to make policy, and were not even talking about this user being 24. What is happening here is an abuse by a small group of admins who would like to change policy on banning users, but cannot get community agreement for it. Mark Richards 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense

I have now edited the user page to replace it with a note about the change of password. I think that should be enough to resolve the situation. The account is no longer active, and nobody is currently trying to get it blocked. People should be able to agree to disagree over whether the account was being operated by Craig Hubley. --Michael Snow 17:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed trolling

I have moved various edits from this account below, notably those that many people considered "trolling". I have left some of the more useful edits. Martin 11:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Oppose. Individual sysops are often overzealous in interpreting guidelines as it is. The recent example of Heph blocking me (against policy), and gaining support from some other sysops in this action (Jimbo later clarified that Heph should not have acted in the way he did) shows the kind of excesses that are already happening. The current system of dealing with offensive usernames seems to be working fine. The Trolls of Navarone 16:02, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) PS. It is my understanding that the current policy allows admins to immediately ban users with profane, blasphemous or other clearly offensive names. My objection is to admins being given authority to ban users whose names are not offensive, but the admins nevertheless think might be 'disruptive' from their point of view. The Trolls of Navarone 19:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll often gives the game away. A person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll is more likely to react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser. This section keeps getting re-inserted. It clearly belongs in the section on large public wikis, as this is virtually never seen on Slashdot or mailing lists etc. The Trolls of Navarone 16:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The worst offenders here are the people who pick up on something that would have remained a minor joke, and disapeared into obscurity within days had they not tried to ban / delete it. These overzealous folks get distracted from the real purpose of writing an encyclopedia, and cause everyone to become involved in long, senseless debates about whether sex is the same as chess. Isn't there a word for this? Please, try to focus, and ignore the fringe. The Trolls of Navarone 07:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I strongly protest at the arbitrary powers being given to admins to supress users with whom they disagree. There a systems for banning users, but clearly some admins resent the fact that sometimes concensus on who to ban does not go their way. This will hard the diversity of views on Wikipedia. The Trolls of Navarone 20:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Since you are not in good standing in the Wikipedia community you should not edit policy pages directly to propose such things. Discuss your ideas here first, please. Martin 21:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon Martin, I was not aware of anything that I have done that is against policy. I was also not aware of any determination of 'standing', or any policy on what that status allowed me to edit. Since you moved this here, I presume that means it is for discussion, but how does discussion about this take place if some people are not allowed to propose alternative language in the text? Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 21:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, say what you want to change here, or what's wrong with existing propssal, and folks will discuss it.

However, since you two are the people who have triggered this policy update/clarification, it's unseemly for you to be getting directly involved in drafting a new verion of the policy.

Having too many proposals going on simultaneously is just confusing. Martin 21:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll ignore your unjustified accusation, but essentially, what I fear is that a group of admins is trying to gain unprecidented power to ban people simply because their opinion is that that person is 'disruptive'. My proposal is simply to protect activities such as voting in polls, an activity that Angela has asked that I be banned for. The Trolls of Navarone 21:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Accusation?

Yes, the accusation that I am "two people". The Trolls of Navarone 06:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neither unjustified, nor an accusation. Martin 16:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there is a risk of abuse of the possibility of banning users for being disruptive. On the other hand, currently there is a risk of sysops just ignoring blocking policy, and nobody caring, because the blocking policy isn't seen as sufficient for dealing with the, quote, "spate of vandalism and trolling", endquote. Martin 22:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is plenty of authority to revert vandalism and ban vandals already. The Trolls of Navarone 06:21, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No matter what your standing is you should discuss your proposal here. If people did not have faith in the administrators they would not be administrators. - Tεxτurε 21:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. I was unjustifiably banned today, and instead of an appology, I have been accused of trolling for raising the issue, and then told that, as a result of the ensuing controversy, I am in poor standing, not the person who wrongly banned me. The Trolls of Navarone 22:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then please let me add to the accusations. For someone who claims to be new and not a reincarnation of a banned troll, you have hit every major policy page and related vote today. You bought up pages I wasn't aware of (or hadn't seen updated in some time). You are quite knowledgeable about the inner workings for someone who claims not to be the same troll. Fascinating. - Tεxτurε 22:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great, instead of answering the fact that your accusations are false, bring up some new ones! I was not the first person to post on ANY of these pages, I didn't know about them either until others posted on them about me. The Trolls of Navarone 00:39, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just in case anyone cares, I thought I'd point out that the Trolls of Navarone are by no means pure evil, but have actually made some useful edits. Mkweise 22:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

What you're saying is 'I need a way to handle people I disagree with, but cannot present a cogent argument to show that they are wrong'. That is not what Wikipedia needs. The Trolls of Navarone 17:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The two problems are completely unrelated. Vandalism is already an immediately bannable offense, and can be reverted. Problem solved. 'Trolling', that is, things which are not against policy, but some people still find annoying, can also be dealt with easily. Either: 1. Ignore it, list it on VFD, or 2. Change the policy to make some SPECIFIC and OBJECTIVE thing against policy, in which case, it can be treated as vandalism. The timewasting and argument comes when admins take the law into their own hands and do things like banning a user, against policy, because they feel that the users' contributions are not what they want to see, then try to justify what they did. If they had ignored it in the first place, it would not have been an issue. The Trolls of Navarone 20:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Clearly there is not. Nothing has been done about admins gratuitously banning at least two users just today. The Trolls of Navarone 22:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Trolls of Navarone 21:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) This is arbitrary and pointless. By definition these people have done nothing against Wikipedia policies.

There is no accountability right now. This would make it much worse. There are already systems to deal with people who break the rules. This proposal enable sysops to ban people who have not broken the rules. The Trolls of Navarone 22:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism is already against the rules, and users can already be banned for vandalism. What is being proposed here is that users could be banned for other 'disruptive' acts like 'voting on polls' (Angela listed this today as a reason to ban me). The Trolls of Navarone 22:22, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Your voting in a poll where it is against the rules for you to do so... is a violation of the rules yet you persist. Obey the rules and this would not be possible. - Tεxτurε 22:25, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find all kinds of ways to stifle people who disagree with you, but that doesn't make this proposal anything less than a free hand for admins to ban people who have done nothing wrong. The Trolls of Navarone 22:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sooooo, you're only for the rules as long as they don't apply to you? RADICALBENDER★ 22:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I am in favour of rules about who can be banned, rather than a group of vigilantes who ban people because they feel like it. The Trolls of Navarone 22:35, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the main problem is that it never is. Most proposals at the moment seek to allow admins to define it individually on a case by case basis. The Trolls of Navarone 23:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Am I mistaken here? This vote is not about vandalism, which can already be blocked under existing rules. The Trolls of Navarone 19:28, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Enough of this. Vandalism is totally different from people disagreeing with you. Vandals can be banned under present policy. You don't need more powers to arbitrarily ban people with whom you disagree, or think that they might be 'yanking your chain'. The Trolls of Navarone 20:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course. Expressing an opinion on a page such as this is one of the thought crimes that is to be banned under the expanded Cabal powers. The Trolls of Navarone 18:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The issue is the absolute refusal to define the word 'trolling' except in terms of the points of view of individual admins. By any of the definitions offered, making edits that they disagree with is enough. That is the problem. It is particularly pernicious because proponents of banning people they disagree with always lump this crime in with vandalism, something that can already be reverted and the culprets banned. They are so far from being the same thing it is irresponsible to class them together. The Trolls of Navarone 18:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

:Agree in theory, so long as they are not deleted before the user has a chance to raise possible wrongful blocking by overzealous admins. The Trolls of Navarone 19:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you may be right Martin - I change my vote to oppose. The Trolls of Navarone 16:08, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides to that, while hard working, she also has a reputation for harrassing other users. Nevertheless, harrassment in return is not justified. As to knowing what you mean, the only possible meaning I can see is a vieled threat of violence, but I am sure I must have misunderstood, since that is clearly not acceptable. The Trolls of Navarone 06:56, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then. A beer. I didn't want to talk about alcohol in the presence of a lady, but you've forced my hand. Denni 18:00, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)

Discussion about this account

I'm also moving discussion about this page to here, for the normal reasons. Martin

Mailing list, around 1st and 2nd July:

• David Gerard
• Michael Snow
• David Gerard
• Phil Sandifer
• Mark Richards
• Fred Bauder
• Phil Sandifer
• Mark Richards

Blocking T of N

from User talk:Bcorr

...and there was much rejoicing. :) - Hephaestos|§ 17:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We aim to please! BCorr|Брайен 17:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, clearly you 'aim to please', but that isn't justification of abusing a policy. The Trolls of Navarone 20:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I unblocked. You gave as a partial reason "apparently making false claims of being blocked already" - those claims aren't false - see wikipedia:block log. Inappropriate usernames should be dealt with as per our policy - wikipedia:blocking policy. Martin 18:02, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Martin -- I actually checked the Block log twice to be sure because I thought it seemed rather weird, but I could have missed Heph's blocking as well as your unblocking, though it seems unlikely to me. However, I don't know how possible it is that the log wasn't properly updated, so I will accept full responsibility for that. Also, I honestly felt that Jimbo's comment was reason enough to block the user, so I'm sorry if I overgeneralized from that. (crossposted to Martin's talk page) Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:03, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, it could have been a weird updating problem, I guess. Caching, perhaps?

It seems like policy on this sort of thing will change over the next few weeks, anyway.

Thanks Martin. BCorr|Брайен 20:44, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry, when a member of the Cabal breaks the rules, the Cabal will just change them, making sure that the victims cannot vote or express an opinion. I think you'll be fine. The Trolls of Navarone 21:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removal of replies

from User talk:David Gerard

I assume from your removal of my reply that you did not want me to reply on your talk page. Not having anywhere else to reply to your comment, I put it here. No harm was intended, and I will not write on your talk page again. Might I suggest that if you do not want replies you mention that when writing to other people's talk pages? Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 00:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your request for others to investigate the user who has posted above: I don't know that I have more expertise here than you do, but I'll offer my observations. The history indicates some interest in the article Internet troll, which should not be surprising from any user with this kind of name, regardless of who the user may be. Otherwise, except for activity on certain policy pages related to banning, the set of articles contributed to does not have that much in common with JRR Trollkien, but this user still has a relatively short contribution history.

The account is contemporary with JRR Trollkien and would likely know of him even if they were different people. This could be enough to explain how he found and adopted the Legion of Trolls text - this action reflects a certain philosophy toward Wikipedia, but isn't conclusive proof that he and JRR Trollkien are the same person, though it's circumstantially suggestive. (I might mention that a link to this same text was added to User:Plato/red faction by an IP address generally believed to be User:Lir, and it's pretty well accepted that those two are different people than the 24/142/EoT/JRR group. Like the internet troll article, this text attracts a certain type of person, of which there is definitely more than one.) Anyway, it's on his userpage, and I don't care much what people put on their own userpages, even if it's written by banned users.

What I'm left to conclude is that there isn't strong proof of identity yet, but there's also not much to disprove it. The viewpoints, interests, writing style, etc. of this user aren't inconsistent with your theory, and there is of course the similarity in usernames. I also observe that this user has a tactic, similar to JRR Trollkien, of mixing in a lot of trivial edits (e.g., adding stub messages), perhaps to make it harder to locate edits that might be problematic.

I will try to remain watchful on this case. If there are new developments, like reinsertion of text written by a banned user into actual articles, please let me know. --Michael Snow 22:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm inclined to the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Accidental_blocks myself. "Don't do that then." - David Gerard 22:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blocking T of N

from User talk:Hephaestos

...and there was much rejoicing. -- Decumanus | Talk 16:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Our policy on blocking inappropriate usernames to force a name change is here:Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames. Cheers. Martin 16:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos - your actions seem heavy handed and against the established policy here - is there something I missed, or are you just unilaterally excercising power? The Trolls of Navarone 16:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You might be interested in the request I just made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Blocking of users who are trolling. But don't go looking at it before the weekend is over - you're meant to be enjoying your holiday, not worrying about trolls. ;) Angela. 19:16, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, enjoy the weekend. You know how many times I've "resigned" from Wikipedia, and come back? *sigh* It gets under your skin... See ya Monday! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heph, I'm behind you 100%. You acted completely appropriately. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:29, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nomination of List of sexually active popes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of sexually active popes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexually active popes (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)