Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters made his first edit on 12 July 2004. His sixth edit was to create an article on himself (David Mertz). He was, however, an irregular editor, On 5 April 2005, he made his 41st edit, which was to deface another WPian's userpage [1]. Soon after (19 April 2005) he became interested in the Pope Benedict XVI article, making many edits (see user contributions). He soon embroiled himself in the style wars (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and [2]).

He then made a number of personal attacks against me, accusing me of vandalism [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. This caused User:Linuxbreak to try to help [9], but as you will have seen, many of those diffs are after Linuxbreak's attempted intervention.

He has also disrupted WP trying to prove a point by adding prefixes where previously there are none (bear in mind that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters opposes prefixes in all circumstance when reading these links), see: [10], [11]. After the vote on prefixed styles, which even using User:Whig's weird voting method, only showed 53% support for Lulu's preferred option (ie clearly no consensus for change - or, indeed, any consensus whatsoever), he, knowing full well as it had been pointed out to him often, started editing to enforce his views: [12].

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification) and Talk:Kim Jong-il

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is new to WP (except for his small number of edits before April 2005), and therefore is unused to WP ways - in particular about consensus-building and not being disruptive. However, at present, he has wasted a lot of time by very many users - and has made very few good constructive edits to articles in the meantime.

I ask him to leave this style issue alone for a while, and try contributing constructively in other (maybe less controversial) areas, jguk

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia is run by consensus
  2. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (or indeed for any other reason)
  3. No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. jguk 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:22, 2005 May 16 (UTC) Not only is Lulu a PITA, he's ugly too! Just take a look at his user page.
  3. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 06:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. As an aside, it appears that Lulu regards RfC as the object of his amusement. I suppose that's one way to handle it. Mackensen (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. And could I please ask that Lulu just stop with the accusations that everyone who disagrees with him does so because they love the pope so much? john k 20:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I strongly disagree with Lulu's idea that the VfD on David Mertz was solely to spite him. I can understand fully why jguk nominated it for deletion. Incidentally, the one vote for deletion in that debate was Starblind's... That's either carelessness or deliberate deception on Lulu's part. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Proteus (Talk) 21:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. He has already been blocked twice for his behaviour on the Benedict XVI page. He had to be unblocked ("parolled" in the words of the person who did it) to participate in this page. I have seen little evidence of Lulu contributing anything but edit wars to wikipedia, and proclamations that his POV is NPOV and everyone following the established consensus is pushing a pro-Catholic POV! FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Regret the way Lulu has responded to this questioning of his actions. Dbiv 09:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In addition to my comments below (under Mel's summary), I'll add that this is more than simply a silly revert war. Lulu used misleading and abusive edit summaries. E.g. on 3 May, he wrote in the edit summary, "That Jguk certainly is quite a vandal (time for an RFC?)" In that edit, he was inserting a reference to the survey on styles as a footnote after "His Holiness". The previous edit from Jguk was fourteen edits below, had nothing to do with the styles issue, and was not vandalism. Ann Heneghan 11:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HIs actions are disruptive and worrisome. Bratschetalk random 12:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I've reported him twice for 3RR violations (for one of which he was blocked). I left a note on his user page saying I had no ill will towards him and hoped he would just follow the rule in the future. He then proceeded to violate 3RR again, and he was reported by someone else and blocked by Gentgeen. He tends to game the system, and that really bothers me...it's not about the letter of the law, it's about its spirit, and he seems to want to twist the rules in whatever way necessary to accomplish his desired result. --MikeJ9919 17:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – ugen64 19:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. User has good intentions but does not understand how Wikipedia works and hence his edits are disruptive and take time away from other editors. I hope he will follow the letter and spirit of the Wikipedia policies. Andries 17:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

No effort whatsoever was made to resolve this "dispute" (whatever it might be) prior to the RfC.

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This is a charming little rant by Jguk. I copied it to my user page, since it is a relatively good summary of my WP activity since I created a named account (I did a little editing before that, by IP address, but not a large amount). (Well, it's not really such a good summary; but it is amusing).
Obviously, the rant is not in any meaningful sense an RfC since there is no single (nor even several) particular issues it raises; rather, the rant amounts to "Jguk doesn't like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters"—which is his right, of course.
FWIW, the first thing that got me involved in more active WP editing was that as soon as I made one comment against the use of styles (I think on the B16 talk page, but maybe it was somewhere else), Jguk added a {{VfD}} to the page David Mertz (which is about me). That VfD was completely gratuitious, and motivated only by bad faith—of course it was voted down by one delete to maybe a dozen keeps (guess who was the one delete :-)). Actually, I created an account in the first place, largely so that when I copied in the bio of me (from an outside source, I didn't write it), it would have a user-identified history (I had been referred to by several WP articles, so thought the bio was relevant; I did not then know the anti-autobiography rule).
I do hope that this RfC acts as a palliative for Jguk's free-floating anger (which seems to stem from his horror at the thought the pope might not be addressed with sufficient deference).
* Oh, as much as I endorse the catharsis this RfC hopefully brings Jguk, I really am ticked off that he keeps trying to hide the fact that the negative characterization I made on User:NCdave's page was reverted, by me, three minutes later. I was indeed acting childishly for three minutes, in relation to NCdave, but not any more than that. An accurate summary would include that fact. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration on Jguk

[edit]

Incidentally, since this foolish RfC started, it appears some other users brought an unrelated RfA against Jguk. It appears that he is following a very similar pattern of abusive edits around the usage of BCE/CE for dates as he has around the use of styles for European Christians. It is becoming ever more clear that Jguk has a very specific ideological agenda, and is willing to subvert Wikipedia's NPOV standard in many ways (and dishonestly) to push his particular POV.

Outside views

[edit]

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Zocky's view

[edit]

Lulu, along with Whig, has indeed shown over-eagerness in pushing their version of what the poll result means, not to mention that the badly organized poll produced a lot of bad blood (though it was well run). They got told off a bit for that, and I'll be glad if this RfC reinforces that.

But, it has to be said that the other side is misrepresenting the issue. For years, biography articles on Wikipedia had no styles. Whether it was "policy" or just status quo, is beside the question. And then, about a year ago, a group of editors started adding them to a bunch of articles. Other users immediately objected on grounds of POV and non-encyclopedicity, but got more or less shouted down. Opposition to the use of styles never ceased and finally culminated in the unfortunate poll. To cut it short, the supposed consensus for adding styles never existed.

The editors who added styles seem to have reached their conclusion that the use of styles is NPOV from the Commonwealth perspective. They may even be right. But by imposing the same policy for all biographies, they presumed that it's NPOV in the rest of the world. It's not. Calling Aleksandar Karadjordjevic "His Royal Highness Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia" is a political statement, and a very controversial one at that. To anybody familiar with Yugoslav history, this makes Wikipedia sound like a supporter of Serbian royalists and chetniks. Use of styles has strong pro-royalist connotations even in many monarchies.

What I would propose, instead of one side shutting up, is that both sides stop adding and removing styles from articles until the current poll runs out and we have had a chance to reflect on things. Also, when this poll fails and we start a fresh round of debate, I plea for moderation and civility from both sides. We know that Jguk wants styles and Lulu doesn't. We don't need to be told with dozens of vehement statements, objections to the procedure and querelous (the latest buzzword) edit summaries.

Off-topic: Plenty of editors have been with us for far longer than both of these users, but as said, that's completely off-topic. Thank you.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zocky 20:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I have decided that I have no opinion on this matter. Apparently, people involved in this debate find petty shouting matches more important than trying to resolve the matter about which they're shouting. If anybody wishes to help move the issue of honorifics along, I'd be much obliged. Zocky 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can agree to this. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse this fair summary. Incidentally, I disagree with FeirEIREANN's statement above, because there quite clearly is no established consensus. RSpeer 02:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely correct. Titanium Dragon 00:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Those in favour of prefixed styles have been ferocious in insisting that consensus supports their POV on the matter, but this is a crock - it is clear that no such consensus has ever existed. Fawcett5 03:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Etitis' view

[edit]

I can see no merit in this RfC at all; indeed, it comes perilously close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. The complaint seems to be largely that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was involved in a proposal and a debate with which a few users disagreed (though this didn't stop them participating in it). This simply doesn't meet the requirements of an RfC, and I'm tempted to suggest that it should be treated as an RfC on those who have brought it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 2005 May 16 (UTC) (except that I think RfC'ing Jguk is just playing the same silly meta-WP games as his and Jtdirl's RfC's and VfD's).
  3. Seriously, what is this all about? Phils 23:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The same person who made this RfC also made one on me, in an apparent attempt to stifle opposition to a minority-held position that the prefixed use of styles (i.e., "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI", as opposed to a more neutral, "Pope Benedict XVI") does not violate NPOV. I think this RfC is in bad faith. Whig 03:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. If anyone involved deserves an RFC, it'd be jguk for starting this whole farce with a unilateral change of the biography form page. Titanium Dragon 00:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel

[edit]

I have been asked to comment on this RfC and after much thought I decided to "step in it" so to speak.

My main concern about Lulu's contributions resolve around a premature change to the Honorific standards. Relying on the framing of the vote by Whig:

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. [13]

Lulu changed the Honorific using the vote results as precedence i.e. quoting this "There's been a vote, the MoS changed, and the POV usage has zero official WP support" (see here) and then threatened 3RR Block and RfC (see here with a 3rd revert/vandalism/mistake here). I feel that was improper Wikipedia:Wikiquette; in that it violated the principals: 1) Don't ignore questions and 2) Recognize your own biases and keep them in check, for example. In sum the question was not resolved before the changes began. (and the threat could have started this RfC since the request for me to comment on it came shortly after this comment was made and following the revert war on Pope Bendict XVi in which I had restored the leading honorific here.

Conversely, I think that an RfC for either side is too much. And the bringing of it could also be considered improper Wikipedia:Wikiquette for lack of good faith; however, I think the nominators of the RfC are just frustrated because they have been "deep in the fight," and I must assume they brought this in good faith so that it could start a resolution of their conflict.

I hope the parties will work toward resolution (prove Zocky wrong), reread Wikipedia:Wikiquette and see the good contributions that each are making and work towards a compromise that can build true consensus, such as the one that Zocky proposed.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Trödel|talk 23:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:05, 2005 May 18 (UTC). While I haven't fallen quite as "deep in the fight" as Jguk and Jtdirl have (e.g. no spurious RfC, VfD, or 3RR complaints from me), Trödel accusation/observation is entirely correct. I got carried away on this issue; but I've since taken a chill pill and decided there are 560k other pages to contemplate, and it doesn't destroy WP if a few of them have "the wrong version."

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

What is the dispute?!

[edit]

I have honestly been trying to figure out what dispute any of the position endorsers think they are trying to resolve. Each one seems to have a distinct dispute, all of which reflect the subtext "don't disagree with us on style usage." Of course, none of these was ever subject to attempted resolution. But from Jguk's summary, I see a number of candidate disputes:

  1. Lulu didn't make very many edits until recently
  2. Lulu made many edits to the B16 article (including too many reversions)
  3. Lulu made numerous arguments on the style usage survey
  4. Lulu said mean things about Jguk
  5. Lulu added style prefixes to articles that did not have them
  6. Lulu is new to WP
  7. Lulu doesn't understand consensus
  8. Lulu briefly made a negative characterization of (banned) user NCdave

Branching out to the other stylists, I also see:

  1. Lulu thinks style supporters like the pope
  2. Lulu was 3RR'd
  3. Lulu doesn't take this RfC seriously
  4. Lulu wrote inaccurate edit summaries

I guess all of these are more-or-less true (except my alleged lack of understanding of consensus). Few of them seem resolvable, even in principle; and the rest are, well, not exactly RfC material.

What exactly do the style supporters imagine will resolve these numerous/nebulous disputes. My summary execution? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Ann Heneghan

[edit]
  • It's quite true that you reverted your own vandalism of NCdave's user page three minutes later, and I agree that in fairness to you, that should have been mentioned in the original accusation against you. However, you labelled your original vandalism as m - a minor change. I don't think anyone would see changing "I am a stickler for truth and accuracy" to "I am an utterly deranged right-wing nut, who lacks any basic power of reasoning, and disrespects evidence" as making a minor change. That particular vandalism was surely in violation of the No Pesonal Attacks rule. Also, in your edit summary of the reversal, you wrote, "Last edit was probably better" etc. That does not indicate that your "childishness" lasted for "not any more than" three minutes. An apology, posted by you to NCdave's user page would be an indication that your "childishness" (as you see it) was temporary. Sure, abusive personal attacks are childish, but they are more than childish and should certainly be apologized for. Ann Heneghan 11:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You list that you "briefly made a negative characterization of (banned) user NCdave." Since the use of the word "banned" may lead people to think that you had provocation, I am pointing out that User:NCdave is not banned, and has exactly the same standing on Wikipedia as you. Like you, he had an RfC filed against him. He was recently blocked for three days. You were blocked for 24 hours on 23 April [14]. You were blocked again on 16 May, this time for 48 hours [15] . The block was lifted merely to enable you to participate in this RfC [16], not because it was decided that you had not violated the 3RR rule. In fairness, I will say that I believe Gentgeen was mistaken in thinking that you intentionally disguised a link to your user page in one of your edits 18:31 15 May. I am sure that was an accident.

How "brief" was your negative characterization of NCdave? As I've pointed out, in [17] your edit summary of the reversal], you wrote, "Last edit was probably better" etc. That doesn't suggest that you were completely withdrawing your remarks. However, you did revert it yourself, and I think that should have been made clear in the original draft of the RfC.

I think you miss the point here. But up front I need to point out that this is completely irrelevant. If NCdave or someone else had wanted to write an RfC (or just a comment on my user page) at the time, OK fine. But the mention here is wholly irrelevant, and is simply Jguk spending way too much time looking through my edit history for something to construe negatively.
On the NCDave thing though, however unrelated: Well, I do notice that you are just about the only person on NCDave's RfC who found anything remotely supportive to comment. Which makes me think you have a bit of the same agenda he was pushing. But OK, let's assume good faith. I made the negative characterization, then reverted it, partially out of annoyance and frustration. And partially out of unfamiliarity with WP internals—it was probably the first user page, including my own, that I ever touched. Past that however, I deliberately made the change and then reverted (with the edit comment) because I figured NCdave would notice the sequence, but probably pretty much no one else would study the history once they looked at the current page. So basically I meant it as a semi-private message for his eyes. In retrospect, sure I let my annoyance get the better of me.
Then again, my action was a lot less inappropriate than that of stylist and endorser of this RfC, John Kenney, who told me to "Fuck off" (in those words) in the survey discussion. And a lot less inappropriate than Jtdirl railing about how nasty I was for criticizing his encouragement of "tactical voting" (even after I repeatedly, explicitly disagreed with Whig that anything was wrong with tactical voting in the first place). And it's a whole lot less inappropriate than Jguk was in writing a VfD on the page David Mertz for no reason but spite (and that could not find more than a single delete vote). And it was one heck of a lot less inappropriate than Jtdirl putting spurious VfD's on both the old page Honorific (that I didn't even write, despite his weird insistence I did so on the VfD page) and on Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics just because I created it (with public support from a couple other people). Neither of Jtdirl's VfD's, of course, can get any significant support either--not even a single other person for Honorific, and not any one who wasn't vocally pro-style on Academic and Journalistic Use of Honorifics.
So yeah, I'm human. But still a better human than the folks who play games abusing WP's administrative infrastructure to make petty personal points. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:09, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Can you explain your edit summary from 3 May, in which you wrote in the edit summary, "That Jguk certainly is quite a vandal (time for an RFC?)" As I've mentioned above, the previous edit from Jguk was fourteen edits below, had nothing to do with the styles issue, and was not vandalism.

Actually, I was referring to a still older edit by Jguk than the one 14 edits earlier. I believe it is [18]. My point was that Jguk was conspicuously and repeatedly modifying the page to push his personal view on styles, even to the point of trying to hide information about the survey then ongoing. I'm pretty sure that in that time frame, I could have filed one or more 3RR's on Jguk for his changes on B16, but frankly I feel that petty vindictive use of WP administrative procedures is inappropriate (and confessedly, I hadn't exactly studied them all at that point—as I've done unfortunately much of of late). Having done aforsaid perusal of WP internal pages, I recognize that vandalism is probably not quite accurate in the WP-specific sense; WP:Point is closer. But the fact was plainly that Jguk was making many edits in bad faith and rather obnoxiously. Far more than I ever did on my most carried away day (though I confess I also got carried away on this issue) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:54, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I think this is descending to a level of pettiness at this stage, and I would be happy to withdraw my support for the RfC, but would like an answer about your edit summaries. Ann Heneghan 01:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close

[edit]

This RfC is not validly certified. While there are a number of complaints that people have made about User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters in the comments, none of them have certified the statement being made above by User:Jguk. I believe this RfC should be closed, and those having valid complaints about Lulu can try to work them out directly with him, only resorting to an RfC if discussion fails and a valid, properly certified complaint can then be made. Whig 23:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move to close. Trödel|talk 23:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no acknowledgment whatsoever by Lulu about the issues underlying this RfC. Indeed, he seems really just to restress his view that he has been right all along and that his behaviour is entirely appropriate. There is no acceptance that, in retrospect, the way he conducted himself on the style issue was inappropriate to WP. Nor is there any recognition that it is best for him (and for me as well) to leave this style issue alone for a while. Until there is some acknowledgment that something went wrong, the RfC should not close because the dispute remains unresolved. Kind regards, jguk 08:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no certified dispute, and your continued lack of good faith is unfortunate. Whig 08:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what need to happen for this "dispute" to resolve, BTW:

  • Jguk sincerely apologizes for his misconduct in bringing a spurious RfC
  • Jguk reflects on how extremely inappropriate his edit history was
  • Jguk acknowledges he was wrong to bring the soundly-rejected VfD on David Mertz
  • Jguk agrees to refrain from further insertion of styles

Oh, and on Lulu's side:

  • Lulu continues to acknowledge that Jguk doesn't like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (the one and only "issue" in the RfC).

It would also be nice for Jtdirl to discontinue abuse of Wikipedia (spurious VfDs, etc.), but I recognize that he did not write this RfC, so it is not really a question for this page.

Fair enough? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:47, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

It would seem that Lulu's comments above indicate his attitude and also the conspicuous absence of any inclination to resolve this dispute. Keep Open. Bratschetalk random 03:38, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
There's a dispute?!
Sorry, I hadn't seen anything to indicate that. Would you be willing to tell me what it was, or is this one of those "need to know" things? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:33, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
I do not see any humor in your comments, if that is what you are trying to do. The entire dispute is outlined above, and comments by several users also show the dispute. Bratschetalk random 16:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Someone (Susvolans) certified the dispute approximately one week after the RfC was opened. That does not seem like "within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page." He gave no evidence of trying to resolve anything or of even having involvement in the supposed dispute. This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Whig 07:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was only because Lulu continued to confuse everyone, and certify his own RfC. Bratschetalk random 12:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
But there isn't yet a second person to certify Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_2. Others have endorsed it, but it needs two people to certify it, isn't that right? (And that means that at least two people have to state that they tried to resolve a dispute - the same dispute, not different disputes - with Lulu, and failed. Not just that they agree that his behaviour was inappropriate - I think most of us would agree on that.) Ann Heneghan 12:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Attack on Jguk and abuse of Protection by Lulu

[edit]

According to our protection page, users should "place [a] request [for] protection; use when your involvement in editing a page precludes protecting it yourself. Also used by non-administrators who wish for a page to be protected.

According to the edit history, contrary to policy Lulu added in Vprotected on his talk page. (cur) (last) 19:06, 23 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (vprotected)

As well as placing it himself, he never registered it on the protected page.

He installed the protection to include the following personal attack on Jguk.

A boorish user named Jguk wrote a silly RfC about me

A number of users, including Jguk, Whig and Smoddy removed the personal attack. As the evidence shows, Lulu attempted to stop the removal by setting up the phoney Vprotected.

  • (cur) (last) 19:34, 23 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Am I 3RR yet? -Zippy the Pinhead)
  • (cur) (last) 19:18, 23 May 2005 Smoddy (It isn't vprotected, and it is a personal attack)
  • (cur) (last) 19:06, 23 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (vprotected)
  • (cur) (last) 19:01, 23 May 2005 Smoddy (rv it is certainly a personal attack)
  • (cur) (last) 18:39, 23 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Å®Summarizing my Wikipedia Activity)
  • (cur) (last) 18:38, 23 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Seriously, don't change my user page (and look at the rather precisely accurate definition))
  • (cur) (last) 10:22, 23 May 2005 Whig (removed personal attack (jguk was not wrong to remove it))
  • (cur) (last) 17:46, 22 May 2005 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (If Jguk continues to edit my user page, this is definitely an RfC/RfA issue (use talk page))
  • (cur) (last) 08:20, 22 May 2005 Jguk (Å®Summarizing my Wikipedia Activity - removing personal attack - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

This behaviour is highly questionable. I was going to support the closure of this rfc page. After the above, I cannot support the closure. It seems Lulu has learnt absolutely nothing as to the problems he causes or the rules he breaks all over the place. FearÉIREANN(talk) 19:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition, see [19], which shows a conversation with me about these two reverts of his, which were clearly in bad faith and attempting to provoke me. He then deleted the discussion as being boring. Incidentally, I just reverted him again on his user page for the whole Vprotected thing. This is very unwiki behaviour. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, these complaints are not pertinent to the current uncertified RfC. Discuss with Lulu, and if discussion fails, file a valid, properly certified RfC complaining of the specific issues you are addressing above or others that you think appropriate. Whig 00:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you people have anything better to do? Zocky 01:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little advice for everybody involved: If you don't like somebody's user page, don't look at it. If you don't want other people fretting about your user page, don't mention them. This whole thing has nothing to do with writing of the encyclopedia and is entirely secondary. Zocky 02:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) There is a policy remove personal attacks. I obeyed it, and removed "boorish". Lulu does not own his user page. He was trying to provoke me into breaking 3RR. Then he had the temerity to accuse me of breaking policy. I challenge you not to be offended by this. 2) It is relevant to the rest of this page, because it is the same sort of behaviour. 3) I could let it lie, yes, but a user like Lulu who so blatantly disregards WP policy should be censured. Do people think I should start another RFC? I certainly don't want to. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 09:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely placing a protected notice on a page is in itself impersonating an administrator, and is a very serious matter. Doing so in an attempt to break WP policy by making and repeatedly reinserting personal attacks is utterly appalling. Proteus (Talk) 09:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&oldid=1064220614"