User:WJBscribe/Hilarious

In brief, user considers him/herself a bringer of humor per this former edition of the talk page. The user's only edits have been to promote holiday humor or bemoan the lack thereof, through last February, reappearing (appropriately) today; not a single constructive edit to the encyclopedia can be found among the user's edits. Therefore, to me, this user epitomizes WP:TROLL. Comments welcome. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  04:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it is supposed to be a play on Willy on Wheels, but he posted once today and mentioned that he won't be doing the same stuff as he did last year due to the lack of AGF shown by the community. I won't do the blocking, but I will not be upset if he is. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While this block might evoke images of Scrooge I completely agree with it. This is a perfect example of trollery. 04:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Endorse the block, given the lack of constructive edits. --Core desat  04:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC) No longer endorse the block. --Core desat  06:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse the block. No point in letting Santa get around this Christmas :). In all seriousness, though, accounts doing nothing to contribute to Wikipedia should be blocked. alphachimp.  04:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow...Blocking santa...Somebody's getting a lump of coal. Just H 02:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoping that Santa is listening, here are my thoughts: If he's not causing any disruption, and is spreading good will, then there is no cause for blocking. Leaving positive messages for other users does benefit the encyclopedia, and does so much more so than some of the other holiday antics around here, like the things that many people do on April Fool's Day. If the user has become disenchanted due to last year, then I would advise that the person responsible for the account leave it dormant, rather than spreading any ill will. If Santa would like to go and leave users presents (I would suggest limiting himself to those who he gave presents to last year and who expressed appreciation, either on his or thier own talk pages), then more power to him. If not, as I said before, the account should just go dormant, rather than stirring up any kind of disharmony. I think blocking the account will do exactly the same, and would encourage those thinking about doing so to ask themselves "Am I really doing Wikipedia a favor in doing this, since I know how much discord doing so will bring?" Essjay   ( Talk )  04:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Santa" was blocked about an hour ago. From what I can see, other than a couple of messages on the noticeboards, he (I'll deem the Santa character to be male) was in the process of responding (with tailored and measured responses) to 5 users who had posted "wishes" on his userpage. I think leaving this go would have been harmless, though I will admit that I wasn't around last year and can only get a sense of what happened through reading the contribs log.
 * It's obvious that "Santa" was being played by a regular user, who knows many of us here, and that the "lack of constructive edits" pertains to this special-occasion account and not the user as a person. I would urge unblocking now, not so much because I want a present, but so as not to embarrass whoever might otherwise get caught behind the autoblock. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've released the resulting autoblock, as there is no reason to think someone who is obviously a regular (and dedicated, to have been here at least a year) contributor will cause any problems necessitating an autoblock. While I won't unblock Santa, I will say I'm deeply disappointed at the decision to place the block. Essjay   ( Talk )  04:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I remember of last year's incidents I think he's (Santa on Sleigh) right - we need to assume good faith a bit more, and would support an unblock. – Chacor 05:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think his comments were trolling; bad attempt at humour perhaps, but not trolling. Kimchi.sg 05:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it benefit us to have accounts that do nothing to contribute to our articles? alphachimp.  05:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The same way, how does having Esperanza, or user autograph pages, benefit the encyclopedia? You might be interested in Jimbo's comment on Esperanza and user autograph pages... – Chacor 05:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not unwilling to suppose that Santa is a bona fide alternate account. Kimchi.sg 05:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, absolutely the EA thing is a good point. I guess this all really gets back to the debate about the full extent of community that should be allowed to develop on Wikipedia. Quite frankly, I don't really have much of an opinion on it. alphachimp.  05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that Santa has now been unblocked, although so far there's no note about it on his talkpage or userpage, so he probably doesn't know it yet. I suspect that the moment has been lost, anyhow. :( Newyorkbrad 05:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake... <|:o) Kimchi.sg 05:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like User:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh to explain the unblock with no discussion with me whatsoever; not one single edit to Wikipedia by this editor furthers the encyclopedia in any manner whatsoever, and the user's edits define WP:TROLL. I must also ask User:Essjay to review the edit history of an editor who has "been here at least a year" and, at the same time, explain the 10-month absence. The user was previously blocked, then unblocked per WP:AGF; then, this user failed all manner of the assumption of good faith. Is there an explanation? RadioKirk (u|t|c)  05:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should WP:AGF a little. Did you read Jimbo's comment I linked? If you haven't, please do. I think that based on that comment it's fair to unblock. – Chacor 05:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With all respect, perhaps you should read WP:AGF, which makes clear that the assumption of good faith cannot trump the overwhelming evidence to its contrary. Not one edit by this user is productive in any way; every edit is intended to be either humorous or damning of its lack by Wikipedia editors; if there is a more obvious example of WP:TROLL, I've not seen it. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  05:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I'm being called out by name here, I'll respond. First, I don't think any of us believe that this is the only account this user is using; to have come in all of a sudden and picked the list of people that were messaged last year is far beyond the scope of coincidence. There is obviously an established user behind this account, one who knows many people, and who makes regular contributions to the site. The fact that this seasonal sockpuppet does not edit in the non-Christmas season is irrelevant; the editor responsible for it obviously does. Beyond that, I see no evidence that the unblocks were a result of AGF; they pretty clearly state they are reversing unjustified blocks made outside of policy. (We don't block to enfore wikibreaks, see WP:BLOCK.) I'd suggest everybody step back at this point, as this has already caused far more discord than the edits of the user, and it will only cause more if it continues. Essjay   ( Talk )  05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I note that the account is reblocked as of now, so I guess this now qualifies as something of a wheel-war over Santa Claus. Newyorkbrad 06:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The blocks may or may not have been attributed to the correct policy, based on the history of this particular, as you put it, "sockpuppet", and yet, with every respect to everyone involved, including those named within this discussion, they remain no less correct, and remain no less improperly unblocked (not a wheel war, an improper unblock) sans discussion. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  06:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reblocking someone who's been unblocked (both the unblock and reblock without discussion) most certainly is wheel-warring. – Chacor 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You assume that the reblock is done sans discussion. That is incorrect, the unblock required discussion in the first place; the reblock restores the issue prior to the lack of discussion thereof. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  06:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't attempt to wikilawyer. While the unblock was not discussed you should not have restored the block without further discussion either. Admins have been sanctioned in the past for this. – Chacor 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I'll be "sanctioned" here. I'm correct, and the other editor was incorrect, in my view. RadioKirk (u|t|c)  06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If he posts on the talkpages of people who actually want him there, by all means let him do so, as I see no harm. If he's posting with wild abandon, however, then I would impose a block. This is my opinion. --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a single edit to the encyclopedia, and annual, Christmas-themed edits to those who do (and do not) embody this user's definition of its "spirit"? What else, if not this, defines WP:TROLL? RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 06:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do the talk pages he posts on belong to editors that want him there? Most importantly, is he disrupting Wikipedia? --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm lost; this is even up for debate? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You submitted this report, people disagree with your actions, you defended said actions, so technically yes, this is a debate. Merry Christmas! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Physicq210 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
 * An unblock outside policy and guideline is not a "debate". <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we then get rid of Concordia, and Esperanza, and unencyclopedic user subpages then? Seriously now. WP:TROLL does not seem to be an accepted description of his edits by anyone but yourself and Netscott. – Chacor 06:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, indeed, comparing the unproductive edits of an apparent troll with projects that further the encyclopedia... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As the only person who's pushing ahead with this, your single opinion that he's been WP:TROLLing doesn't count for much (neither does my opinion that he isn't). Your reblock as such - that his edits are trolling - was clearly misplaced, however, and you should stand up and admit that you were wrong in wheel warring. – Chacor 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly my "single opinion" per the responses hereto, you should in fact admit that the unblock without prior discussion was the one and only improper action herein. A "wheel war" requires two people acting within policy and guideline; Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh's action fails both. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 06:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. That fits no definition of wheel warring at all (and there is no such thing as an in-policy wheel war). You don't get a free pass to edit war or wheel war or anything else just because you think you were right, or even if you were. We have ways of dealing with cnflicts other than hitting back, and no administrator should be engaging in combative reversions, even when provoked. If you need a policy, perhaps you should read the same page you linked, beginning with "Block wars, in which a user is repeatedly blocked and unblocked, are extremely harmful...". Wheel warring is what you've done: stale reversions of fellow administrators without talking. You are responsible for escalation and responding with disrespect in kind. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, a perfect description of the unblock. Thank you. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome; it was meant to be. The unblock was disrespectful. And, I repeat, you are responsible for escalation by responding with disrespect in kind. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This thread has to be the most un-Christmas conversation on Wikipedia. Merry Christmas to everyone (including trolls, vandals, Santa the whom-RadioKirk-calls-a-troll, IP addresses, editors, administrators, bureaucrats, stewards, developers, Jimbo Wales, and everyone else who have no involvement on Wikipedia)! --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lovely sentiment, Physicq. It appears, however, that our friend Santa is probably too busy to bother with Wikipedia now.  According to NORAD, this is where he is at now .  Hmmm...NORAD tracks Santa, Wikipedia blocks him...Merry Christmas all.  Risker 06:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The NWS claims differently ;P – Chacor 06:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that there is an argument going on over this. It is harmless. Get a grip. ... and what if it really is santa??? I bet blocking santa gets you double coal.--Gmaxwell 07:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'm not big into Christmas, but c'mon, this is completely harmless. Who does it hurt? No one if Santa is only posting on people's pages who want him there. And who is he helping? Everyone who's spirits are brightened as a result. Seriously, some editors really need to stop being such kill-joys.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Trolling is harmless? I'd have sworn we were writing an encyclopedia... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 08:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but who is being hurt? You keep citing policies but you are not saying how this is actually harmful. A few years ago you could have cited laws in certain US states that said oral sex between two men was illegal, but you'd be hard-pressed to show how it actually hurt anyone. You are merely referencing policies, but in case you don't know, as an anarchist I don't give a damn about generalized policies; I only care about individual situations. And again I ask, who is hurt by this?  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 08:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedia; and, as a libertarian, I find your "anarchist" argument non sequitur at best. The issue remains that, as I brought a block here for discussion, an editor who decides to unblock absent discussion had better have a damned good reason, and it simply didn't exist. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 08:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a non-sequitur. All you are doing is citing policy for policies sake and not giving any reason as to how this individual situation is harmful to the project. You seem to be trying to enforce policy merely because is is policy, but you are not saying why it needs to be enforced.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I unblocked because there was sentiment by Essjay and Newyorkbrad that the rationale for your block was weak. Whatever... the energy you expend into defending your block is now costing us more time than any disruption the troll cause. EOD. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Kimchi.sg 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus to me looks like we are not in favor of this user's being blocked. There. I have discussed an action I would like to take, that of unblocking this user. I have not seen any example of this user's activity that justifies this block, and the existence of features on Wikipedia designed to build community and cheer up other Wikipedians, as well as Jimbo Wales' comments about autograph books lead me to believe that this user needs to be unblocked. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most people seem to be in support of unblocking this user as far as I can tell. And as mentioned earlier, there had been discussion and some people felt the block was not needed.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 09:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked this user. Does everyone realize how bizarre this situation will look to outsiders? This will probably be picked up by a news source, even if it is some hack columnist in England (Everything negative that I have read about Wikipedia seems to come from newspaper hacks who happen to be English). This is like Miracle on 34th Street: RadioKirk, you need to recognize the mail sacks that these other admins have hauled into the courtroom. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a break... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly in favor of unblocking at the time it was performed, no matter what Kirk is trying to say after the fact. I do think his comments, actions, and attitude are mystifying and slightly worrying coming from an administrator. Regards, —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  17:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time the user was unblocked without discussion, four others endorsed the block; the only one who didn't was the one who performed the unblock. Worry all you want... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk (u|t|c) </tt> 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Um. You blocked User:Santa on Sleigh. At Christmas. And there was more penis vandalism on the Main Page this morning. This place is going to the dogs... – Gurch 21:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am a bit disturbed that Admin's attention are being diverted from serious threats to the Project that actually damage Wikipedia's credibility with a debate on whether a user trying to promote holiday cheer is a troll. Agne 08:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

RadioKirk advances fallacious logic. He claims a=b and b=c so a=c. Apples are fruit and oranges are fruit so apples are oranges. Santa=troll and troll=bad so Santa=bad. Worse, he constructs the first part of his fallacious equation from a hasty conclusion and somewhat of an argument of authority, or maybe more like begging the question. He declares Santa's activities to be trolling, based on his authority to declare it so, or just begging it so. Beyond the simple declaration of his conclusion, his assumption draws a hasty conclusion that if trolls act in a certain way, all others who act in that same way must also be trolls. Apples have red skin and are white inside, but not all things with red skin that are white inside are apples. Is this debate about strength for reasoning, or about status in a social context? 1 thang 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit odd that this time last year the user made dozens of edits without incident (well, except for a 364 day "enforced wikibreak" block the next day, which was only a joke – Gurch 13:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sheesh. I'm glad I avoid this board most of the time, otherwise I would have blown my top.  I can't believe someone blocked Santa.  I thought last year's gift spree was hilariously quirky, exactly like what one would hope to find in a community of volunteers, at least those editors who don't want a top-heavy bureaucratic structure to tell them how to be encouraging.  It was also non-disruptive and had clearly identifiable rules in which the gag would occur.  FFS. I guess I should go back to the salt mines. - BanyanTree 04:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)