Jeské Couriano blocks newbie with abusive block summary, ...because he was making minor edits Options Rating

[Gandoman]

Seethis ANI thread.

User Smokemirror86 started his Wiki-career by adding "Escape From Alcatraz" to the article "list of films based on actual events". Shortly thereafter, he made a series of minor edits to the same article. Jeské Couriano notices this and draws the conclusion that this is a Grawp sockpuppet trying to make repetitive edits in order to reach the auto-confirmation limit, and blocks the user with the block summary "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl". He also disabled e-mail and talk page editing so the user cannot even appeal the block.

Well, it turns out that this was probably not a Grawp sock at all, but a legitimate newbie who had registered with a valid e-mail address, but Jeské still denies having done anything wrong. As the thread progresses, it becomes clear that Jeské is strongly emotionally involved in the "war" with Grawp, apparently because Grawp vandalised his userpage with personal information. The newbie was unblocked two days later, but I wonder what impression he has of Wikipedia if he saw the block message.

Also, note that several admins are advocating blocking newbies who make series of minor edits, as a precaution, because that is "reasonable, preventative and easily reversible". Yeah, that's a great way to attract new contributors.

[Edit: Updated link since thread was archived]

This post has been edited by Gandoman: Mon 2nd February 2009, 4:06pm

[Cla68]

Seethis ANI thread.

User Smokemirror86 started his Wiki-career by adding "Escape From Alcatraz" to the article "list of films based on actual events". Shortly thereafter, he made a series of minor edits to the same article. Jeské Couriano notices this and draws the conclusion that this is a Grawp sockpuppet trying to make repetitive edits in order to reach the auto-confirmation limit, and blocks the user with the block summary "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl". He also disabled e-mail and talk page editing so the user cannot even appeal the block.

Well, it turns out that this was probably not a Grawp sock at all, but a legitimate newbie who had registered with a valid e-mail address, but Jeské still denies having done anything wrong. As the thread progresses, it becomes clear that Jeské is strongly emotionally involved in the "war" with Grawp, apparently because Grawp vandalised his userpage with personal information. The newbie was unblocked two days later, but I wonder what impression he has of Wikipedia if he saw the block message.

Also, note that several admins are advocating blocking newbies who make series of minor edits, as a precaution, because that is "reasonable, preventative and easily reversible". Yeah, that's a great way to attract new contributors.

The actions by Jeské Couriano, especially that edit summary, were extremely unprofessional and reflect poorly on Wikipedia's administration. It doesn't appear that anyone counseled him/her about it and it's probably too late now since it happened a week ago.

[Aloft]

I think Wikipedia has reached the point where the perception of Grawp causes more damage than Grawp himself. They're firing in all directions and hitting each other instead of the enemy.

[Moulton]

I think Wikipedia has reached the point where the perception of Grawp causes more damage than Grawp himself. They're firing in all directions and hitting each other instead of the enemy.

The monsters are due on Maple Street.

[cyofee]

I think Wikipedia has reached the point where the perception of Grawp causes more damage than Grawp himself. They're firing in all directions and hitting each other instead of the enemy.

He's become more powerful than they could possibly imagine...

This post has been edited by cyofee: Mon 2nd February 2009, 12:44am

[Kelly Martin]

As the thread progresses, it becomes clear that Jeské is strongly emotionally involved in the "war" with Grawp, apparently because Grawp vandalised his userpage with personal information. The newbie was unblocked two days later, but I wonder what impression he has of Wikipedia if he saw the block message.

Yet another admin who needs to find another hobby.

[LaraLove]

This is the sort of crap I was talking about on my talk page. Admins who pull this sort of shit should be stripped of their tools. I recall an incident where the_undertow was counseled for leaving a block summary of "vandalism: is teh suck". It was discussed on the unblock mailing list and then taken to the_undertow's talk page where a few of the usual suspects dropped some fail... including lying about the blocked user being offended, a lie about the_undertow's history of unblocks (of which there was no history) and the outing of the_undertow's personal domain email.

Too many admins need to be shown the door.

[Milton Roe]

Also, note that several admins are advocating blocking newbies who make series of minor edits, as a precaution, because that is "reasonable, preventative and easily reversible". Yeah, that's a great way to attract new contributors.

Why don't they advocate blocking IPs who make dozens and dozens of vandalistic edits, and only vandalistic edits over the space of YEARS?? THAT is "reasonable, preventative and easily reversible". But I hardly ever see it done for more than 2 days.

The day I see a new nameuser with some minor and confused edits, treated with the same courtesy as an IP who has been blanking pages and writing "Hey fucktards!" I think I'll go into shock. Because the latter are as a rule, treated with utmost courtesy. It's a WP custom. They MIGHT be a school. Probably not, but you never know...

[Obesity]

This is par for the course for Mr. Couriano.

He's the admin, who in response to a concerned IP editor wishing to have an error-riddled article about his sister, still a legal minor and a somewhat obscure actress, taken down, retorted "Look, at this point I don't care if you're the crap entering her toilet. You're not going to get the article deleted just on your say-so, and your belligerence has only gotten you an extended block."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...my_sisters_page

A class act.

[everyking]

I wouldn't blame the user if they came away with the impression that Wikipedia is completely insane. This is what happens when you empower over a thousand people, allow and even encourage them to act boldly and independently, and give them automatic life tenure upon election.

This post has been edited by everyking: Mon 2nd February 2009, 5:02pm

[Hipocrite]

No comment

This post has been edited by Hipocrite: Mon 2nd February 2009, 1:41pm

[LaraLove]

This is par for the course for Mr. Couriano.

He's the admin, who in response to a concerned IP editor wishing to have an error-riddled article about his sister, still a legal minor and a somewhat obscure actress, taken down, retorted "Look, at this point I don't care if you're the crap entering her toilet. You're not going to get the article deleted just on your say-so, and your belligerence has only gotten you an extended block."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...my_sisters_page

A class act.

Someone linked this to me a couple months ago. Without realizing it was the archive link (I didn't pay attention to the date stamps) I removed it. I soon realized and reverted myself, but I was shocked that no other admin had reverted it. Just pathetic. Morons.

[Friday]

I don't remember why, but I remember being concerned with Jeske shortly after he was made an admin. It most likely had something to do with him behaving in an obviously immature fashion. He's a great example of why kids shouldn't be given the bit.

[Alison]

User Smokemirror86 started his Wiki-career by adding "Escape From Alcatraz" to the article "list of films based on actual events". Shortly thereafter, he made a series of minor edits to the same article. Jeské Couriano notices this and draws the conclusion that this is a Grawp sockpuppet trying to make repetitive edits in order to reach the auto-confirmation limit, and blocks the user with the block summary "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl". He also disabled e-mail and talk page editing so the user cannot even appeal the block.

I've removed the abyssmal and totally inappropriate block summary, in deference to the editor involved. It's still visible to admins. Yeesh - that was a really bad stain on a newbie's first experience

[Random832]

It's still visible to admins.

If so, it's quite well-hidden. Maybe I just don't know the magic words.

This post has been edited by Random832: Mon 2nd February 2009, 10:21pm

[Eva Destruction]

It's still visible to admins.

If so, it's quite well-hidden. Maybe I just don't know the magic words.

Nor to me either.

[Alison]

It's still visible to admins.

If so, it's quite well-hidden. Maybe I just don't know the magic words.

Ooo-err

Can you see this, or the edit summary in this? It may be more inaccessible than I thought.

[Eva Destruction]

It's still visible to admins.

If so, it's quite well-hidden. Maybe I just don't know the magic words.

Ooo-err

Can you see this, or the edit summary in this? It may be more inaccessible than I thought.

Unauthorized

The action you have requested is limited to Oversighters.

Return to Main Page.

and

13:22, 25 January 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Smokemirror86 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (comment removed) (unblock | change block)

respectively.

[Kelly Martin]

Wikipedia's management needs to establish a policy that any admin who uses block or other log messages containing defamatory, insulting, profane, or other such impolite language is summarily desysopped.

[Alison]

Unauthorized

The action you have requested is limited to Oversighters.

Return to Main Page.

and

13:22, 25 January 2009 Jéské Couriano (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Smokemirror86 (Talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (comment removed) (unblock | change block)

respectively.

Wups!

Okay, I read through all the blurb on Mediawiki and here's the deal. Admins who have access to revision hiding/log hiding only will have access to the contents of that log. It seems that the system is set up to grant this function to admins, too, similar to IP Block Exemption, for example, but that it's just not used here. Oversighters can hide information from those admins, too, and for the moment, it would seem that anything that tool modifies is unavailable to anyone but oversighters.

This is a bit harsh, IMO, and I don't think anyone else is aware of this. I'd better let them know!!

Wikipedia's management needs to establish a policy that any admin who uses block or other log messages containing defamatory, insulting, profane, or other such impolite language is summarily desysopped.

Agreed. It's seriously unprofessional and just provokes people.