User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Zordrac

Notes in case admin action against User:Zordrac proves necessary.

Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes (and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles)
- Deletion of content from talk page to try to cover up discussion/criticism: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6],
- "FAQ" that aggressively claims ownership of user and user talk pages: [7]

Personal attacks on me on user talk pages or admin pages (very partial):

Zordrac's own page keeps changing, but is particularly nasty:
- Vague misogyny: [8]
- Lulu is a conspiracy theorist: [9]
- In one of his numerous edits since "leaving" Wikipedia, I notice Zordrac claims: If nothing else, this whole episode has proven that at least Lulu has connections which would mean that if any admin did ban him then everyone involved would have hell to pay.[10]. Apparently Zordrac has developed an oddly paranoid belief that I am "the man behind the curtain" at WP. This sort of conspiratorial thinking, I think, ties in well with a belief common to some users (including Zordrac) that Jimbo Wales is "in charge" of the whole site, and therefore "going to Jimbo" will resolve whatever conflict one is involved in. There is something both childlike and disturbing about the conviction that "someone is behind" every non-hierarchical collective.

Try to determine relationship between Zordrac and User:Poetlister. Sockpuppet? Meatpuppet? Obviously they are more than new WP acquaintances. Maybe another one of the RachelBrown/Poetlister/etc. "flatmates". If so, not prohibited, but interesting in light of the claims of non-acquaintance.

General ranting about "Wikistalkers" (and about me specifically): [11], [12], [13]

Page vandalism out of WP:POINT
- Various nonsense and "pseudo-editing" added to List of African American jurists to try to spread Poetlister's conflict from List of Jewish jurists there: [14], [15],

Lots of of nasty ranting about me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Probably Wikipedia:No personal attacks violations, but it probaby doesn't matter being some minor tributary to a user page, not in article space or talk space.

There is also the weird insistence in many of the places listed that I am an admin, and that somehow that contributes to my participation in some cabal against the allegedly maligned RachelBrown/Poetlister/Zordrac. At least half of these insistences follow Zordrac reading my uniquivocal statement that I am not an admin (nor is the fact exactly a big secret, nor hard to check). There is no guideline against claiming a regular editor is an admin; but it is peculiar nonetheless.

Generalized misogyny and sexism, though that is not exactly prohibited either, e.g.: [16] ("Kelly is a gir's name")

Apparently even more over-the-top swearing and belligerence before I ever interacted with Zordrac. So maybe I got lucky?
- [User] Daniel Brandt is a two-faced double crossing mongrel, as he just showed today. He didn't appreciate a single frigging thing I did for him, and instead insisted that I'd "prematurely ejaculated" to use his words, and ruined everything. So he can go screw himself. I thought that he of all people would appreciate someone trying to help, but he can't. So forget it. He's a mongrel. Say what you like about him, I won't object. And as for you Izehar, well, you did the right thing and wrote on my talk page, and didn't over-react, so you did your bit. I am sorry that I was so vigorously supporting this guy. I thought that he was just hardly done by. It turns out that he has no honour whatsoever. Zordrac (talk)[17]

Funny abuse of Wikipedia categories:
- Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_RachelBrown
- Lots of spurious categories on Zordrac's own page (as commentary, apparently): [18]

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Zordrac" page.

Start a discussion