Eusebeus and David R. Floristan, sockpuppets of the same hand

Eusebeus and DavidRF must be sockpuppets of the same sockmaster. About a couple of weeks ago, "DavidRF" declared he was going to go on vacation "from mid August until late August." That account made no edits to Wikipedia between the 14th and 19th. Meanwhile, "Eusebeus" declared no vacation but was similarly silent from the 13th to the 19th. Both accounts pretend to be experts on the subject of classical music, yet I know more about it than either of them even though I only go to classical concerts when the wife drags me along. I learned an interesting tidbit when I tried to sneak out of the concert hall to go to the football stadium: Robert Schumann, the German composer who went crazy when a single G-flat wouldn't stop playing in his head, had in the 19th century what Wikipedia's most vicious idiots would call "sockpuppets:" he called them Eusebius and Florestan. Eusebius represented the cheerful side of his personality, while Floristan represented the brooding, melancholy part. At least Robert Schumann wrote some halfway passable music, and he wrote no ballet music. (Ballet is absolutely the most boring thing ever.) Will the sockmaster of Eusebeus and David R. Floristan
leave anything any man's wife will care to drag her husband along to in a hundred years? Not bloody likely.

By the way to William: I still think Eusebeus is a puppet and not a master. The 'vacation' certainly points to something fishy, but it doesn't rule out that Eusebeus could be a sockpuppet. So either send me more convincing evidence or drop it.

Brutal warrior of the week: Dpbsmith

Dpbsmith hasn't nominated anything for deletion since November 19, 2008. At least that's what he wants you to think. But can you really be sure that a bastard who still so proudly displays a "flower" of Wiki-thanks from 2005 "For making me laugh when reading VFD [Votes For Deletion, what Articles For Deletion used to be called]" would not continue to be energetically involved in Wikipedia's sacred deletion process? No, he must still be strongly and energetically pushing for deleting Wikipedia content. Just not in any way that can be publicly seen.

Least subtle warrior award goes to Toddst1

Recently, Wikipedia user Willi Gers07 was brought to my attention. Toddst1 had tried to tell Willi Gers07 that Wikipedia is not a battlefield. Willi Gers07 dared warrior Toddst1 to "defeat" him right then and there so Toddst1 could concentrate on more important enemies. Toddst1 did exactly that! He deleted Willi Gers07's userpage and blocked him permanently. He then went on to attack more important enemies. Way to prove him wrong by doing exactly as Willi suggested, Todd!

Brutal warrior of the week: Maurreen

A woman can be a brutal wikiwarrior? I strongly doubt it. Maurreen is almost certainly a man. You see, pretending to be a woman can be a little bit like hiding a cannon in an ambulance. It can be a highly effective tactic for disorienting your enemies. And his creation of Wikipedia's "Wikiquette alerts" marks him as one of the foremost brutal warriors. Supposedly, the Wikiquette alerts board is to mediate "impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors." But in reality, Wikiquette alerts are to notify when people disrespect tenured wikiwarriors. The slightest disrespect is subject to tremendous reprisal, and initiating a reprisal through an Orwellianly named Wikiquette alert is just brilliant. Here's a toast to Maurreen: not an amazon, but indeed a relentlessly tough, brutal, vicious warrior of the keyboard.

Brutal warrior of the month: Mastcell

Still supposedly on sabbatical, the viciously ferocious MastCell continues to toil away at Wikipedia. Who wants to bet his sockpuppets are just as active? What a brutal warrior that MastCell is.

Googlepedia

Wikitruth suggested that Wikipedia's massive stupidity might be fixed once it gets bought out by Yahoo, and at the time that idea made sense. But realistically, Google is now a much likelier prospect for taking Wikipedia over and turning it into a respectable reference rather than a battleground for ignorant idiots to fight each other over the color of a template. So: don't donate money to Wikipedia. Allow it to get to such a point that it can't refuse a Google take over. When Google takes it over, it would be nice if it would rename it "Googlepedia," to usher in a new era of actual reference-building, and put all the idiotic fighting in its past.

Warrior of the week: TTN

Some of Wikipedia's most ferociously brutal warriors have the battle scars to prove the vindictive ferociousness of their campaigns. TTN is one such warrior. To date he has been blocked three times: the first for violating the sacred 3-revert rule in an article about a fictional character, the second and third time for the scary-sounding "arbitration enforcement." But don't be fooled, these are all just for show. The second block was just for a week and it was simply allowed to expire. But the third block, for two weeks, was reversed by the blocking admin barely four days after the sentence. This way, Wikipedia's ruling idiots have it both way: they can claim to uphold the supposedly lofty principles of Wikipedia while letting off the true violators with slaps on the wrist, practically love taps.