User:TJive/Coqsportif

User:Coqsportif edit

Continually re-inserting the VfD tag at Israeli terrorism, despite that the article's VfD just closed today; also insists upon mass deletions and Wikipedia self-referencing on the (obviously) heated article. After my last removal of the VfD tag, user engaged in unacceptable personal attack, referring to me as a "self-hater." I'm not sure what to do here, but figured this is the right place to comment. Shem^(talk) 04:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It is very likely that this is a strawman sockpuppet. Look at his contribution list and note the similarities with this one but with messages and edits that give the opposite intended effect of the other. This comes after several similar accounts were banned, but were instead used for the purposes of reverting contributions of mine en masse. "Bee Hive", "Lamb Chop", "MaquisMesser", "Jay-Z". Notice that all of these accounts are familiar with the voting process as well as more basic things like the acronym "rv", though in this case there has been a more genuine attempt to appear newbieish, relinking to archived Vfds, leaving messages without headers and at the top of talk pages, etc. --TJive 04:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Also, see #Lamb Chop. --TJive 04:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

He has now followed my editing to an article on Australian Senator Andrew Bartlett (photographed on my User page); this is deliberate harassment. Shem^(talk) 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and it now appears that "Coqsportif" has been reduced to attempting the same reversions. Take a gander at the edit history of National Endowment for Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is not only among the previous sets of mass reversions of my material but in this case he has also reverted completely unrelated edits by another user. Each incarnation is more disruptive than the last. --TJive 04:56, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

He is also disrupting articles like Israeli terrorism and Ron Paul to prove a point. --TJive 05:04, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Has likewise made the same pattern of insertions and changes to the same pages as this User [1], who has been warned on vandalism. Seems to be trying to deliberately provoke a response. nobs 05:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My edits stand up to any informed scrutiny. This section is now being used as a dubious basis for reverting every edit I make, without reason. I will not tolerate it. Coqsportif 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coqsportif has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR at Harry Magdoff. WP:AN/3RR#User:Coqsportif SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This user also edited Robin Cook adding negative POV and weasel words and his summary gave the implication of positive POV. Certainly annoying, if nothing else. Secretlondon 14:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The username "Coq Sportif" makes reference to a French sportwear brand. The image on his user page can be seen as taking an old image out of context as to ridiculise French symbolism (the image is ridiculous all right, like for instance propaganda posters of the Second World War). It is very close to the sort of rethorics one can witness on sites like http://www.fuckfrance.com . Also, the image has been edited to read Va te faire foutre ("go fuck yourself"), which I strongly doubt our little friend here is unaware of. Hence my remark at the bottom of this page. I think that this, added to the nature of his contributions, hint at a disturbance-dedicated user account, which we might as well forcibly definitely shut down. Rama 14:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This user, at first glance, seems to share the same interests as User:Reithy (Ron Paul, Placentophagy, etc. [2], who hasn't edited since Novmber 2004. What that means or implies I leave up to those with a longer history here. --Calton | Talk 14:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to see if they have the same location etc before jumping to conclusions. We've had loads of US-based anti-French editors. It was quite fashionable at one point. Secretlondon 14:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Ron Paul may be chocked up to coincidence as the single edit was simply from a crude nationalist POV rather than the general, and extensive, fulminations in which Reithy engaged. Placentophagy, however, provides a point with some contiguity in reverting which may require a further look.

But Ruy is a communist, and Coq a US nationalist. Why would Ruy have a sockpuppet with an opposite view point? Secretlondon 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Already answered above: TJive called him a strawman sockpuppet. --cesarb 17:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean User:Adam Carr says I'm a communist (which I have never said I was, Adam Carr on the other hand said he was in a communist group - I prefer for myself the old 60's term "anti-anti-communist"). As far as TJive's elaborate theories about who Coqsportif is - he says Coqsportif is a sock puppet of mine. Furthermore, it is not a typical sock puppet that would be created to get around 3RR, or do blatant vandalism and the like. He says I have created a sock puppet that makes lots of wild edits in "attempts to bury its repeated reversions amid several other disputes which serve as red herrings." I can do him one better. TJive has created this sock puppet to make it look as if it was my sock puppet. Being very clever, he makes it look like I tried to not make it my sock puppet, but in a way where it would look like it actually was my sock puppet. Plus he gets the added bonus of making all of those US nationalist edits on top of casting suspicion on me. Putting past the point that TJive is obviously a sock puppet - look at his first ten edits, it is obvious he is a sock puppet. I have been here for over a year. Ruy Lopez 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The only point of response that is necessary at this time is to note that there is significant evidence in favor of Ruy Lopez sockpuppetry (irrespective of the identity of Coqsportif) and not but an insinuation in Lopez's favor. --TJive 22:26, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon, this was already addressed. The primary purpose, generally, of a "strawman sockpuppet" is to attempt to show cupidity and ignorance from the opposite POV of what is held by the actual, living breathing person. The edits themselves serve to disrupt the pages in question with crude, POV language and continual reverts of material. The selections in question as I outlined demonstrate the same pattern of topics chosen. However, there is another single purpose which is a continuation of reverts which began under other sockpuppets for which it was the only point and action of the account--most of these have been banned. That is shown by the actions in the NED article, where the same revert was picked up by "Coq". In this manner a real purpose (and POV) is being demonstrated albeit hidden in a swath of others which all suggest the entire opposite. Hence massive disruptions of many articles where there is a prior user concern and where there is not. I expect that he is learning from the mistakes he made in revealing himself and will attempt a different tack of justification in his reverts the next time around. --TJive 02:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I find this all a little conspiratorial and I seriously require some evidence. The concept of a "strawman sockpuppet" is a new one to me. I notice that you've all been fighting on the same pages - maybe you are all sockpuppets of each other? For example Coq edited Robin Cook, Ruy (or any other bogeymen) hasn't edited that page. Why would Ruy's bizarre anti-alter ego edit that page if Ruy hadn't edited it? This feels like you are witchunting Ruy by making him responsible for editors with your POV whose modus operandi you find unhelpful. Secretlondon 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Secretlondon, I know you are on good terms with Ruy but unless you are prepared to explain what is otherwise a massive, involved, and tiring coincidence with the edit histories of five separate registered users all of which have chronologically contiguous obsessions over the same sets of articles and the evidence for which has been laid out here for you to survey at your leisure, your claim of "witchhunting" falls far short. --TJive 08:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

As one of the users who ultimately became rather closely involved in the Reithy/Chuck F foolishness, I'm virtually certain this is a reincarnation of Reithy -- the combination of Ron Paul, Placentophagy, and Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is simply too bizarre to be ignored. I see no reason to suspect sockpuppetry by Ruy Lopez, Strawman or otherwise -- Reithy was also more interested in stirring up trouble anywhere he could find it than in pushing any particular political ageanda. Seeing as Jimbo banned Reithy indefinitely last November, I see no reason to tolerate any more of his foolishness. RadicalSubversiv E 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly however it must be an elaborate coincidence for this user to initiate edits which follow a chronological path through four prior sockpuppets as well to make an identical revert and vote/disrupt the same sets of articles. If anyone cares to look through the contributions of the accounts in question and follow the dates to confirm or deny this they may, but little explanation is forthcoming. See also SlimVirgin's talk page. --TJive 04:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped editing, though I'm minded to block the account if it starts up again. There are too many complaints of disruption, and people are complaining by e-mail too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He now claims to have been a previous editor but not to have edited since 2003. See the section here. --TJive 08:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He's back, initially pretended his block hadn't cleared and he could only post on his talk page, so I locked his talk page, and lo and behold, he was in fact able to post elsewhere. He didn't e-mail me during the block, he says, because he didn't know how to. I don't believe him: I think it's because he doesn't want to risk revealing his IP address. There were other silly claims I won't go into. I've told him I'm going to block him if there's any more disruption, so if any of you are keeping a close eye on him, please let me know if the trouble starts up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

He says he is going through old articles to figure out what his name was, and that he is none of the above users. --TJive 08:26, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Minutes after posting to my talk page and obviously visiting my user page, the user copied the Category:Wikipedians in Hawaii on my user page and copied it to his own. I removed it twice since I thought it was pretty obvious Coqsportif was engaging in some kind mimickry/mockery troll, but he claims that I'm vandalizing his user page. Today on my talk page, the user has admitted that he does not currently live in Hawaii but claims to have been born there. Out of curiousity, I asked him the name of the island and town just to confirm his knowledge of Hawaii, but I was greeted with silence in response. So, the user adds the category back to his user page, admits he doesn't live in Hawaii, and refuses to talk about the claim that he does. If this isn't trolling I don't know what is. --Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding a category link as was done. Doing so is not "trolling". His "admission" was that Hawaii was not currently his primary residence, but that he owns a home there, was born there and will be returning to live in said home which his parents currently occupy. I understand that these claims (coming from someone who has made questionable use of Wikipedia) are likely untrue, however, if we went around stripping out anything in anyone's talk page that we felt they had not substantiated properly... well, at least WikiMedia's servers would have some reclaimed disk space ;-) -Harmil 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with removing articles from categories if they are miscategorized. Coqsportif admits that he doesn't live in Hawaii so I'm not clear why he's added the category, in this case minutes after commenting on my talk page. It looks to me like he's deliberately trolling for a reaction, much like the image he originally added to his user page. In response to his claim, I've asked him what island he was born on and he refuses to answer. I don't see why that question is so difficult to answer other than the possibility that he's making it all up. In any case, he got my attention after I told him I was ignoring him, so it was a successful troll. --Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is the end of the matter now but for the record I am happy to disclose my birthplace, my property ownership, my ancestry all of which demonstrate I am 100% Hawaiian. But I won't be answering to Viriditas who seems to be engaging in a form of trolling new to me, which is that you accuse someone else of being a troll and then puruse their every edit. I have no wish for interaction of any kind with Viriditas, I did not initiate any, I will not be seeking any. That doesn't sound like trolling but his behavior might well be. Either way I make no formal complaint and just wish the matter to conclude peacefully, it is obvious I started off on the wrong foot and I hope I can quickly fix that and get in step. Thank you to all those who addressed the issue of protecting my user page from Viriditas' edits, it is appreciated. Coqsportif 21:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Coqsportif has a total of 360 edits to date, ~277 of which do not contain edit summaries. At 11:53 on August 12, I added the {{subst:summary}} user talk namespace template as a reminder for this user. Approximately one minute later, at 11:54, Coqsportif removed the reminder with the comment, "remove trolling". [5] --Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the Wikipedia policy/guidelines that mandate user of edit summaries, I don't dispute what Viriditas claims, I'd just like to see for myself. Am also interested in what the policy says about wikistalking. Might be useful for him to read too. Coqsportif 05:02, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Pot, kettle, black, "Coqsportif." Shem^(talk) 05:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqsportif, you have beeen "pointed" to the guideline twice, and twice you have removed it from your talk page with the summary, "thanks troll". [6] [7]. You've also done the same thing by asking users to contact you, yet you refuse to provide an email address. I think it's pretty clear who is the troll, here. --Viriditas | Talk 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Although the use of edit summaries is not an etched-in-stone requirement, it is generally accepted that using them is a Good Thing and it is a heavily encouraged guideline. It is considered poor form not to use them because it greatly inconveniences other editors—patrollers who watch Recent changes and editors who have an article watchlisted find a brief descriptive summary very useful in their work. Nobody will (or at least should) yell at you if you occasionally forget to add one, but we would all really appreciate it if you made the effort.

It is also worth noting that Wikipedia's policy on civility also applies to edit summaries. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It should also be noted that after two polite reminders on the users talk page, as well as this discussion, the user is continuing to edit without filling out the summary field. --Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User has now blanked his talk page [8], as well as outstanding source requests for images that the user has uploaded, including Image:Lecoqsportif.gif and Image:Remington.jpg. --Viriditas | Talk 07:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now spamming my talk page with nonsensical messages [9][10][11]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

User is now trolling Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion in regards to Image:Gropecunt-Lane.gif, the second fake image that the user uploaded in addition to Image:Lecoqsportif.gif. --Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No image was fake, one was a cheese label taken from the web and the other a photograph I took years ago. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User has "welcomed" a new sockpuppet, User:Ray Lopez [12]. --Viriditas | Talk 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This should not be ignored. Shem^(talk) 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain how one recognizes a sockpuppet? I might also add when I saw Ray do the wrong thing, I counselled him not to. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here's one scenario: At 03:29, 13 August 2005 User:Coqsportif votes on a poll at Talk:Joe Scarborough [13][14]. In a nearly identical vote to the same poll as Coqsportif, User:Ray Lopez arrives and makes his first edit at 11:18, 13 August on Talk:Joe Scarborough [15]. Twenty minutes later, at 11:38, 13 August, Coqsportif "welcomes" Ray on his talk page [16]. At 03:59, 14 August, Coqsportif edits Talk:Joe Scarborough and removes a link to User:Stirling Newberry's blog, with the summary, "remove spam link" [17]. At 04:09, 14 August, Coqsportif claims to "remove spam" from a comment by Stirling Newberry on User talk:Ray Lopez [18]. At 08:04, 14 August Coqsportif is blocked for a 3RR violation [19]. Almost two hours later, User:Ray Lopez shows up, with the edit summary, "Removed Stirling Newberry's Spam" [20]. --Viriditas | Talk 13:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you realize that in "Ray Lopez"'s "vote" in the Scarborough article that he replaced a previous vote of Ruy Lopez? That makes it rather clear that regardless of the identity of either Coq or "Ray" that the latter is an impersonating sockpuppet which needs indefinitely banned. --TJive 15:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User has violated 3RR on Gropecunt Lane by reverting five times. [21][22][23][24][25]--Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Clear exception to 3RR here for two reasons:

The image has been proposed for deletion, it was deleted from the article by Viriditas which in turn makes it an orphan which means it will be deleted. Rather circular, don't you think? In these circumstances, I believe what is going on is vandalism although I will leave that to others to judge.
The image was initially deleted because it was said to be fake, I think that misunderstanding has been cleared up and now the image is being examined but not on any grounds that would justify its deletion. Viriditas' actions in deleting the image need to be corrected, which is exactly what I did, reverting vandalism is not in breach of the 3RR which is why I persisted with it. I believe I was right to do so. Coqsportif 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a clear 3RR violation. Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:Viriditas edit

This user is reverting every edit I make, without providing a reason. He declines to respond to repeated requests for explanations. Can he be stopped from this conduct? Coqsportif 12:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen here, he is systematically reverting every edit I have made. Can I have some explanation for this? Coqsportif 12:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up on this page a little bit, there's a section with your username on it as the heading. DreamGuy 12:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

And how does any of that justify reverting every single thing I've written, without basis. Simple answer: it doesn't. Coqsportif 12:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is already a strong incitation to ban you indefinitely for offensive language and improper behaviour. If I were you, I suppose that I would try to keep a low profile. Rama 13:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I#User:Coqsportif and WP:AN/3RR#User:Coqsportif SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

As of 8/12/05

Disruptive sockpuppet edit

I have not broken any such rule. And I am neither strawman nor sockpuppet. I am having every edit I do blocked by User:Viriditas and have complained about it. I would just like changes explained as I have explained my changes. Coqsportif 12:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The user has reverted four times, [26], [27], [28], [29], to an old version of the article which was mine. Please see the notice I mentioned for further information on this user. --TJive 13:00, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, isn't it, how this user immediately finds the way to your talk page with my comments, showing that they are either: 1) scanning my contributions, 2) have a watchlist which encompasses user talk pages they should have no reason to have contacted thus far. Again, see the noticeboard, Slim. --TJive 13:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

They are not four reversions and after I left a message on your talk page you were on my watchlist, which I think updates automatically. Assuming evil is not fair or nice. Coqsportif 13:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and I won't edit anything actually until I get an explanation about why Viriditas is reverting every edit I make. Coqsportif 13:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you managed to discern value in scanning your watchlist, specifically saw Slim's message to me, turned here, and posted a cogent response and signature in less than three minutes, which is the difference in time between Slim's posting on my page and yours here, and your only plausible connection to seeing this as you describe it? That would make you a rather skilled user I should say, certainly not one who in the same sitting posts both at the bottom and top of talk pages, with headers and without. It is indicative of one who knows the essential purpose, importance, and placing of votes for deletion pages, coincidentally one that Ruy Lopez started. --TJive 13:20, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the respite, if brief. If you read my post at the notice in question, and scan the contributions of the users I mentioned, you will know that the existence of these disruptive sockpuppets is very much real, and has been ongoing for weeks. Three or four of them have been banned (by Jayjg) for their activities but this newest incarnation is more creative and Jayjg has so far not indicated any interest in resolving the question. If you follow the contributions chronologically and then take a look at Ruy Lopez's page when they begin (the first sockpuppet being Bee Hive) you will see that he reverts the same general set of pages where Ruy left off. This is his most creative attempt at disruption but it certainly won't be the last.

Incidentally, Viajero noticed the pattern and inordinate knowledge of this user for his own part, but, apparently oblivious to the irony, alerted Ruy Lopez to inform him of "Coq"'s egregious editing, which this time goes squarely against Ruy's politics. --TJive 13:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pledging to take a more extensive look at this person; so far no other administrator has indicated interest, though more than a couple users have complained. --TJive 13:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

As of 8/12/05

Coqsportif edit

1) I cannot respond on the "talk" page that I have as it seems to be protected. If you did this, could you explain why?

2) You blocked me for the most spurious possible reasons. I reject your decision and your attempts to justify it after the event. You suggested I email you without providing me an address to email. I was unable to respond on your talk page and was therefore unable to complain about your actions.

3) You assert you have received complaints about my edits and that they have further prejudiced you in favour of blocking me again. What complaints and which edits do they relate to? I have not edited since 2003 and I suspect things have changed a lot but I cannot imagine any responsible admin acting in the way you have. Is assume good faith no longer relevant? I won't be back for another two years if this persists. Coqsportif 07:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Am not reluctant to email you, why haven't you emailed me? It's ridiculous, as is the bizarre conspiracy theories of the page you linked to. I again ask you what is your problem with my edits, I can hardly comply with such vague instructions. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines but if you have other ones, you should perhaps enunciate them or be silent. Coqsportif 07:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For a good chuckle, check out User talk:Nobs01#Harry Magdoff. Pretty droll... Noel (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As of 8/13/05, deleted and unarchived

Previous user edit

You say you were around in 2003. Who were you? --TJive 08:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My user name you mean? No idea. None of the ones suggested though. Am trying to go through some ancient edit histories in articles I remember contributing to to trigger the memory bank, it was something witty but no luck so far. I probably only had a thousand edits but enjoyed it thoroughly. Am off work for a month so thought I'd get back in the saddle. Things have changed it seems. Good to see Wikipedia go on from strength to strength in popularity but the downside seems to be a lot more draconian action from administrators. Oh well, perhaps this is the price of success. Coqsportif 08:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to know who you are. You claimed you had an account; have you found that?

What is obvious to me at the very least is that you are basing most of your edits by a look through the contribution list of either myself or Ruy Lopez; why? --TJive 15:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well I am mostly uninterested in the side disputes but am looking out for sockpuppets who have been reverting my material en masse. Because of your editing patterns this means I will be watching you closely. If you really are not who you say you are not then surely you will understand. --TJive 15:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

Reply from Coqsportif edit

Strawman? Yes, I think I do.

Sockpuppet? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coqsportif (talk • contribs) 02:35, August 6, 2005

My talk page

Coqsportif edit

S/he doesn't seem to have violated 3RR at Harry Magdoff. If he's being disruptive, can you give examples? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

It does indeed seem to be a violation. Sorry for missing it first time I looked. He's blocked for 24. I'd normally warn first, but he's definitely not a new user. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time later tonight to take a close look at the contribs. If the account is clearly disruptive, I may be able to block on that alone without having to show sockpuppetry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would welcome your comment on my recent edits. I have no desire to be seen as disruptive, and have never been accused of such a thing before. Obviously some articles are more sensitive than others and I would appreciate the feedback without you rushing to denunciation first. Coqsportif 15:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I got onto Ruy Lopez I think through an edit history of an article I think. I was interested in what he was writing, which seemed to be about communist articles and so on, something I know a little about. Maybe he'd say little about. You did the same thing I suppose by looking at my edits and reverting them, as others did. I don't mind really. I was looking at Ruy Lopez's edits as a guide to interesting areas in Wikipedia. I assure you I am neither him nor wanting to appear to be him or against him or for him or anything to do with him. Perhaps I'll stick to less exciting areas, attracting less paranoia. I think there must be a balanced way of reporting on Soviet spies who operated in America, condemning them or whitewashing are not desirable, they need a good encyclopedic treatment. As for my old user name, I have no idea atm, but will track it down eventually I guess. It's two PC's ago, so I'll have to find it among edit histories somewhere. I would ideally like to merge that record with my new one if that's still possible. Coqsportif 15:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The NED article I definitely screwed up, I thought I was reverting to a different version entirely, not the POV one I seemed to. Obviously wasn't concentrating. As for the vfd, I thought it was a clear case of someone wanting to control an article about themselves and when it didn't work they wanted it deleted. I don't know which way Ruy Lopez voted, or care, I thought it was clear-cut enough. Coqsportif 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Coqspucfor's track is to insert links to ihr (neo-nazi) site. nobs 23:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Coqsportif 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)