User:Khranus/ban

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

from: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/012985.html :

Well, Khranus made it easy for me.

>From his User_talk page:
>In response to Kosebamse's complaint about "ramblings, contempt,
>insults, hostility", etc. -- the owner of this website user:Jimbo
>Wales, asks that you contact him via e-mail.
>
>See his letter about this matter here. --Uncle Ed 15:55, 12 Nov 2003
>(UTC)
> >So now there's a wikipedia gestapo? I don't think I have to reply to
>any of this non-sense. If you have some sort of a problem with the
>memes I distribute, you can go ahead and distribute yours--but please,
>don't decrease the overall amount of information being
>transmitted. Khranus

His refusal, above, to email me about this, coupled with his accusing me (or Ed?) of being a "gestapo" conveniently eliminates the need for a long drawn out process of discussion and attempts at reformation. If he isn't willing to talk about it, we can just end this right here.

I just banned him. As usual, my offer that he can email me to discuss our behavioral and editorial standards remains open, and who knows, maybe reform is possible.

But I see no reason to subject the rest of you to this nonsense in the meantime, so for now he's history.

This applies across all languages and meta, but does not apply to the mailing list, as he's welcome to come here and state his case. It applies to ip's and any followup username he may want to try to use.

--Jimbo



Discussion from Problem users[edit]

User:Khranus[edit]

Summary[edit]

Uncle Ed and Kosebamse have asked Jimbo to intervene, and User:Pakaran (who was also involved in the discussion) posted to the list. Various users have posted long lists of contraversal edits by Khranus. Jimbo asked Khranus to e-mail him privately.

Khranus is refusing to do so according to his talk page. Secretlondon 19:00, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
He's now apparently banned, according to a message left by Jimbo on his user page: User:Khranus. --Delirium 22:36, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Details[edit]

Left this message on my talkpage:

"I strongly suggest you stop mutilating the Skull and Bones article. If you are a member of the Black Lodge, you can fuck off, and if you are, even worse, just an uninformed idiot propogating his dogma, you can shut your fucking mouth. Khranus:.


For the Love of God, stop mutilating everyone else's comments in that article! The 'facts' which you leave in the article are no more supported than the conspiracy theories! Khranus

Fuck your 'etiquitte'... You've directly attacked that article, so I directly attack you, motherfucker. Get used to it. Khranus

. See Skull and Bones, Reptilian humanoid and other contributions. -- Someone else 07:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He also added this on his talk page: I usually respect your policy, but I also have a VERY relativistic view of the world, and in this relative case, I was quite justified in making 'comments' about him. He nonverbally insulted the several people involved in the S&B article, and such insult can only be returned with insult. Silly obsession with 'policy' can't make up for the hassles this guy has caused all over the 'pedia. He has a bad reputation and many more comments of a rather unpleasant nature. The idea that "insult can only be returned with insult" is in blatant violation of our policies. If Khranus cannot be convinced to change his attitude fundamentally, Wikipedia would be happier without him. Kosebamse 11:01, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of his edits are throwing in badly-phrased pseudoscience and whatnot... see the insane Dolphin intelligence where he says dolphins can cause cold fusion. -- Jake 11:11, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

I have to admit, if we could somehow confine him to posting on talk pages and keep him from abusing other users, I find User:Khranus an unbelievably amusing troll. His rants about memes and Timothy Leary in an attempt to make the rest of us feel goodness-knows-what (inferior? unintelligent? larval?) really do tickle my funny bone. But alas, Khranus cannot be cornered thus, and honestly he seems far too hostile and counter-productive to become a contributor here. If he makes apologies to those he has insulted, I might change my mind, but as it stands, I don't see why we should long suffer the railings of someone who openly announces his opposition to NPOV--after all, if Khranus doesn't like NPOV, then Khranus really shouldn't be an editor here. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't mind the stuff on talk pages - but it does lead me to question his NPOV ability - not to mention that some of it is uhm interesting, and makes me wonder about his rationality. On Talk:Cold fusion a few minutes ago, he commented that cold fusion was real, but was being covered up by (among others) the British royal family and Enron in order to make money. Somewhere else he mentioned that the dolphins may be using cold fusion. -- Pakaran 02:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Khranus gets reverted for POV and factual problems very often. He often leaves offensive quotes on various pages. Many users have tried talking to him with little or no positive effect, see User talk:Khranus. I think banning may be the best option for this user. Daniel Quinlan 02:59, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

  • on User talk:The_Anome: My God... You seriously are policing me! You'd think you have something better to do... But it seems that every article I edit, you fuck around with... What in the name of God is your problem with me? and Get a fucking life... Stop policing me...
  • on Talk:Dick Cheney: There's nothing positive to say about this sick motherfucker. He's the real dictator of the United States at the moment (why we see so little of him and so much of Bush), and has used Bush as a frontman to divert attention from himself--considering that that would most likely immediately lead to investigation of his corporate corruption. He's nothing but a power-driven, genocidal, cold-blooded, inhuman fucknut who deserves to be put behind bars.

He's now defending his views further on Talk:Cold fusion. See also the first revision of Dolphin intelligence for his "interesting" statements that dolphins may be using ultrasound to create cold fusion via cavitation. -- Pakaran 03:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would leave a message on his talk page, but enough people have already done so, and he already left bad math on my user talk page. If he doesn't change really soon (think before Tuesday night server time) I will be strongly tempted to start a thread about him on wikien-l and try and get Jimbo's opinion. I'm reluctant to do this as a new user myself, but the extent of the science he makes up, and the personal insults he uses, are getting out of hand . :( -- Pakaran 05:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding his motives, he wrote on Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis: I once worked to keep sacred knowledge secret, concealed, hidden... But now, I realise my err in doing this... Now, I work to reveal knowledge to the masses--to spread the memes--to set humanity free... I think perhaps that I believed in secrecy once because I didn't believe in Humanity. Either that or it was the arrogant rush I got when feeling as though I knew something that someone else did not...But all that is so childish, so senseless... Esotericism is dead--or at least dying. If it's not dead yet, I'm going to work to help kill it. Kosebamse 08:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And furthermore (in Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis revision 09:28, 11 Nov 2003):

(...) Crowley did indeed literally sacrifice children. Though this may come off as socially unacceptable, one must think relativistically of the matter. Whilst he sacrificed children and other humans(as did Winston Churchill and the Ancient Order of Druids), perhaps numbering in the hundreds by his death, literal hundreds of millions of people were dying during the First and Second World Wars--mass sacrifices in the name of silly political dogmas. All who ascend the XI degree also do indeed engage in anal intercourse--and at some point, in some ritual, almost certainly will have homosexual contact with another human being. There is of course nothing wrong with this, but somehow it has created a fuss among the masses (at least for a time, perhaps not so much now)...It's amazing how people have focussed on the White Lodge, claiming that they are somehow 'evil', when, for instance, the Black Lodge, which controls the Catholic Church, not only have been behind the mass murder of an infinitely higher number of humans than the White, but are also aimed almost purely at the subjugation and control of the human species as a Whole. The Black Lodge was also responsible for the rise of Adolf Hitler AND Josef Stalin--both dicatators were manipulated into power by the Lodge. Humans need to wake up and smell the roses--there is a secret, ancient war occuring on Earth, between several generally unacknowledgeed groups with immense social influence.

There may be a small chance that Khranus acts in good faith and believes this kind of things, but I will take the liberty of applying Occam's razor here and make a diagnosis of advanced trollicism. It's enough. We can't waste our time with him any more. I propose to give him a final warning and then go on to banning procedures. Kosebamse 08:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of his stuff is 'bog standard' David Icke-style conspiracy theory. I'm amazed he said he hadn't heard of Lyndon LaRouche though. As for whether he's paranoid, a true believer or merely trolling I don't know. Secretlondon 10:08, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

He also added a somewhat hidden link to User:Kosebamse linking a period character to Rosicrucian. Do we really have time for this crap? Daniel Quinlan 10:42, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

So you think it's time to draw Jimbo's attention to him? -- Pakaran 16:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He's continuing to spam Wikipedia with his conspirology (see this for an example) and it does not look like he will listen to advice. Therefore, yes, I think this needs to be taken to the list as a case of trolling, outspoken disregard of NPOV, outspoken disregard of Wikiquette, and of continued insulting of users (not to mention lack of contributing anything remotely useful). Kosebamse 16:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I just posted - but I accidentally posted as a (valid) variant of the address I am subscribed under, so I'll need to wait for moderator approval (my mailer doesn't keep a copy of outgoing messages). Anyhow, I couldn't help BUT be amused to see that last edit, where Khranus quotes a co-author of the Illuminatus trilogy as defense of his beliefs! -- Pakaran 17:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps if discussion with him is avoided he will go away? He appears to be a troll (if it walks like a... talks like a... acts like a...) so by responding to his nonsense he is being given the attention he craves yet doesn't deserve. Maybe if the troll is no longer fed, he crawl to back to whence he came. If this works, it may be more permanent than harsher alternatives that are harder to enforce. Just my 2 cents. Maximus Rex 14:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This user repeatedly (after removal) scribbles his opinions on Talk:Robert Mugabe (also on Talk:David Icke). Not using the talk page as intended (to improve the article), but as a personal soapbox. --snoyes 18:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Further Discussion[edit]

Khranus is clearly Michael. He's used these IPs:

* 152.163.252.134
* 64.12.96.79 and 64.12.96.139
* 205.188.209.40

These ranges are listed on User:JohnOwens:Most Wanted

Evercat 02:24, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another list: User:Snoyes/check --snoyes 02:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Have these already been added?
* 129.173.208.155 and 129.173.208.180

Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 20:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess it could just be another AOLer... irrelevant if he's banned anyway. Evercat 02:36, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I really doubt he was Michael - note that AOL uses a fairly small range of proxy IPs for a lot of users. Also, Michael's command of English wasn't in the same ballpark as Khranus'. Michael was more into music than conspirology. I suppose it's *possible* that this is Michael trying to deliberately hide his writing style, but I don't perceive him as that industrious. -- Pakaran 05:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To ban or not to ban[edit]

As a general rule, I oppose banning Wikipedians for breaches of civility. In cases like the present one, where the offender was clearly spoiling for a fight, a much simpler approach would be for Jimbo to protect the user's userpage and post a general warrant on said userpage that would allow any and all Wikipedians to revert any and all said breaches of civility by said offendor without comment. Such a course of action would demonstrate to the offender that the offender's actions were an unacceptable breach of community standards. It would also demonstrate that Jimbo's decisions are recognized as persuasive authority and are supported by a large cross-section of the Wikipedia community. -- NetEsq 21:59, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)