UC Bill Gianoed, Down goes a developer? Options

[Hipocrite]

UC_Bill (T-C-L-K-R-D) has a short temper. He's also, I believe, a developer.

He was just blocked indef, email blocked cannot edit own talk page for venting on his talk page after getting in a fight with Bart Simpson fans.

A must read.

[Peter Damian]

This is excellent.

NOTE: I do not believe in WP:CIVIL, and think it is a stupid, problem-causing policy. Phony politeness is not politeness. Feel free to insult me on this page all you like, although I would recommend against insulting anybody else. Note that you might still be reprimanded and/or blocked by some misguided admin for insulting me, although if this happens let me know and I'll do my best to defend your right to do so.

Regarding your comments on Talk:Nancy Cartwright: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. TheLeftorium 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you dare try to block me, jerk. I don't give a rat's ass what you THINK policy says, I can say whatever I want, to whoever I want, any time. I have just as much of a right to contribute to the encyclopedia as you, and you should go find something useful to do with your time, other than harass people who happen to have a foul mouth and short temper. Asshole. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Theleftorium has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "UNBLOCK ME NOW. THIS IS BULLSHIT. I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF CLEANING UP A GODDAMN VERY LARGE CATEGORY, AND SOME ASSHOLE CRIES TO THE ADMINS THAT I'M USING FOUL LANGUAGE. YOU'RE NOT THE FUCKING POLITENESS POLICE."

You seem to be very much a person who tells it as it is, which is great, but there is a difference between being a straight-shooter and well, lets face it, acting like a dick. If you've honestly just deleted something which you spent your own free time on, then that's pretty damn pathetic and the only person really losing out is you. You say I was acting superior but your entire little speech there fits perfectly with my favorite essay, Wikipedia:Don't Feed the Divas. Anyway, how about some advice, you have two options right now. Go off and be huffy, retire and never come back. You lose a hobby which presumably you once enjoyed, and sure we lose a useful contributor but I'm sure we can cope. Or, you can just let it go, you were a bit too loose with your tongue, someone sensitive didn't like it and you got a time out, but never mind, just forget it and move on. Your choice, makes no difference to me either way--Jac16888Talk 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

blocks are supposed to be preventative, dick-head. i don't "get a timeout" for calling a spade a spade, or in this case, calling a moron a moron. i've been contributing to wikipedia for eight fucking years, and have just about had it with you pathetic 20-something college kids who think you know shit from shinola. you're not a fucking police officer, you're SUPPOSED TO be doing useful things like cleanup work. you're a janitor. admins here should all be stripped of their rights, and a new batch brought in that actually understands their jobs.

Yes, thats right 20 years old, college student(not pathetic thank you very much) and I don't actually know what shinola is but there we go. First of all, for the record, I am well aware of what my role is as an admin, if you look at my contributions and logs you'll see most of what I do is cleanup, either the mundane deletions of unneeded pages or clearing up after all the little shits who use wikipedia as facebook. The reason I'm here having this conversation/argument/debate/whatever with you right now is believe it or not because I'm trying to help you--Jac16888Talk 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:UC_Bill

OK the account is a sock

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&target=UC+Bill

and he claims to have been editing 8 years - who was he before?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 25th March 2009, 2:04pm

[Peter Damian]

This is what caused it:

I'm moving this article back to Nancy Cartwright (actor) and making Nancy Cartwright a redirect to that page. I'd rather Nancy Cartwright be a disambiguation page, but to minimize the possibility of further disruption and to give this discussion a more appropriate home, I think that's a good compromise for now. That way, no matter what happens with Nancy Cartwright, we can be sure that Nancy Cartwright (actor) will always work correctly, and the discussion can stay on Talk:Nancy Cartwright where it belongs. As for the value of two-article disambiguation pages, they let the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name, in a much more noticeable way than a hatnote. It makes it a lot easier to check that links are made to the correct article, since ones to an unqualified name will show up in the various "links to disambiguation pages" reports. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from performing controversial moves without consensus.
2. Your proposed "compromise" contradicts our naming conventions; it's flat-out incorrect to redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)".
3 Your claimed advantage of "[letting] the reader (and editors) know that there is more than one person with that name" also is inconsistent with our naming guidelines, which state that the sole relevant concern is making it as easy as possible for readers to find the articles that they seek. Anyone seeking the philosopher's article and arriving at the actor's article will immediately know this (and be directed to the intended target). For those intending to view the actor's article, there is no issue; we have no mission to inform people that another person has the same name as the person whose article they seek (and yet, the hatnote accomplishes this quite well).
4. There's no reason why a bot cannot be set up to list only new links to the non-disambiguated title (thereby negating the other advantage that you cited above). —David Levy 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop, that proposal seems absolutely pointless. Note that in terms of page views, this Nancy Cartwright had 21119 views while the philosopher had 872. Please don't de-stabilize this article and ruin the FAC just to prove whatever ridiculous point you are trying to prove. If you want to do something useful, why don't you copyedit the article for me? -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're both morons. David Levy, you're the ONLY person with a problem with the move, so I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. Scorpion, relatively popularity is meaningless. They both have the same name. Ergo, there should be a disambiguation page. Since neither of you seems to have a clue, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore. Good luck with your fan page, idiot. And good luck with your fascism, Levy. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody here isn't reading things properly. How could David Levy be the only one against the move when I clearly said I thought it was pointless? Okay, popularity is meaningless, what is the point in having Nancy Cartwright redirect to Nancy Cartwright (actor)? I'm glad you're not wasting your time any more, maybe you should try editing articles and improving rather than trying to move random pages then insulting people who oppose you. -- Scorpion0422 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit? You started with the insults, I'm just not taking crap from a stupid fanboy like you. If you actually looked at my edit history, you'd see that I do contribute articles, and unlike waste-of-space Levy, I also do regular maintenance work here like cleaning up categories and other things admins are supposed to do. Keep replying, I'm not wasting any effort "improving" this piece of crap article, but I'll be glad to call you names and point out how stupid you are, all day long. --UC_Bill (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nancy_Cartwright"

This man is a hero.

Amazingly, your sarcastic bullshit and superior attitude have inspired me to stop contributing to Wikipedia entirely. I've already deleted all the source code for the patch I'd been developing for the project (yes, I'm a developer) and I hope you feel all good about yourself with your smug attitude. Douche. All the admins here (with a few exceptions) should be strung up and ridiculed by people who actually have a life.

Yes, yes.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 25th March 2009, 2:14pm

[Bottled_Spider]

This is what caused it:

.... Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit?

This man is a hero.

Yes!!! Yes, he is. The small section, above, is enough in itself for that title to be bestowed upon him. Face it - you just can't beat a good "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit?". You can't. I laughed until I stopped.

Drama rating : 9.7 / 10.

[Mike H]

The drama and lulz were very nice. And to be fair, I once told David Levy that he should win the Miss Wikipedia Drama Queen pageant, complete with sash and tiara. He didn't like that a whole lot.

[Milton Roe]

User:UC_Bill has a short temper. He's also, I believe, a developer.

He was just blocked indef, email blocked cannot edit own talk page for venting on his talk page after getting in a fight with Bart Simpson fans.

A must read.

Hey, UC_Bill, don't have a cow, man! You just met one of WP's resident OCD people, is all.

This caused me to read the Nancy Cartwright (actor--ahem) bio, and found that in 1978, she "joylessly flew into Westwood, Los Angeles, California." And were her arms tired! (rimshot). Since there's no airport there. Unless she maybe floated down in a good-witch-Glinda bubble somewhere on Millionaire's Mile or maybe UCLA med center's helicopter landing pad....

[Cla68]

User:UC_Bill has a short temper. He's also, I believe, a developer.

He was just blocked indef, email blocked cannot edit own talk page for venting on his talk page after getting in a fight with Bart Simpson fans.

A must read.

If he's a developer, does that mean he's currently employed by the Wikimedia Foundation? Or do you mean a developer in the generic sense?

This post has been edited by Cla68: Thu 26th March 2009, 2:06am

[CharlotteWebb]

If he's a developer, does that mean he's currently employed by the Wikimedia Foundation?

Well Brion gets a check and I think Tim might too but the others WMF developers are volunteers.

[EricBarbour]

Funny guy. Colbert should hire him.

Guys like that end up either at the top of the corporate heap,
doing standup comedy, or dead of a drug overdose.
Sometimes all 3 at once.

I'd like to spread my Wiki-Love all over Hersfold (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's and Garden (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's faces.
Straight from my ass.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 26th March 2009, 3:17am

[Gandoman]

The admin who blocked him indef and blanked his userpage, User:Hersfold, is one of the teenage Twinkle/Huggle users whose only accomplishment on Wikipedia is using these tools to revert vandals and report improper usernames.

[KamrynMatika]

This is a good example of what Kato was going on about in this thread. Can you imagine a work colleague turning to you and saying "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit"? This is so entertaining.

[CharlotteWebb]

Can you imagine a work colleague turning to you and saying "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit"?

Nah, just the supervisors. And the safety inspector. And the folks over in accounts payable.

The admin who blocked him indef and blanked his userpage, User:Hersfold, is one of the teenage Twinkle/Huggle users whose only accomplishment on Wikipedia is using these tools to revert vandals and report improper usernames.

Gee, is there a page to request new features for these tools?

[Somey]

Interesting case...

From what I can determine, UC Bill (T-C-L-K-R-D) hadn't really been involved in any serious "incivility" incidents until he entered into a dispute with Tony1 (T-C-L-K-R-D) on this Bugzilla ticket. The nastiness begins about halfway down, and to be frank, Tony1 actually starts it by referring to the idea of "normalizing" the appearance of auto-formatted dates as "hair brained" (i.e., not only does he not like the idea, he doesn't even know that the phrase is actually "hare-brained").

Tony1 doesn't like Date Autoformatting, and even has a section of his user page devoted to the subject (diff link). If I understand this correctly, his objection is that the automatic blue-links are "distracting" and that they "dilute" the impact of "high-value" links elsewhere in the articles in which they appear.

UC Bill apparently wrote a MediaWiki patch that would...

...cause linked dates to be rendered without the link, and in the same format as they appear in the wikicode (although it will add missing commas where appropriate) -- in other words, this patch completely nullifies date autoformatting. It is only intended for testing purposes, pending community approval of a proposal to temporarily disable date autoformatting to gauge editor response.

In other words, UC Bill offered a technical compromise that completely addressed Tony1's stated concerns, and did not assume it would be adopted without a test/trial period.

But Tony1 wasn't having it - this was when he responded on the Bugzilla page with the "hair brained" remark. UC Bill's compromise solution would have, essentially, threatened to put an end to Tony1's crusade to completely remove autoformatted dates from Wikipedia altogether. But interestingly, there was no further comment (or action on the ticket) for nearly a month after that. It was only when someone later asked if there had been any action on the ticket that things started to heat up.

When Tony1 tried to export the dispute onto Wikipedia itself, UC Bill tried to stop him, calling it "wikistalking."

Evidently, this experience soured things for UC Bill on Wikipedia to a considerable extent!

The Nancy Cartwright business started here, but that was actually one of numerous edits he'd made that day that were related to an attempt to clean up the "Philosophers" category. He probably didn't think it would be such a big deal, meaning he'd probably never really dealt with fans of The Simpsons prior to this incident.

Finally, just to clarify, UC Bill seems to be a MediaWiki developer, but not a WikiMedia (i.e., paid by WMF) Developer, i.e., his account does not have the "developer bit." Otherwise he would have been able to delete his user page himself, instead of having to threaten automated vandalism in order to get the page deleted.

[CharlotteWebb]

Finally, just to clarify, UC Bill seems to be a MediaWiki developer, but not a WikiMedia (i.e., paid by WMF) Developer...

Like I said, only a couple of the developers defined as "people with write access to svn.wikimedia.org" are paid.

Otherwise he would have been able to delete his user page himself

Only if he could sneak malicious code past one of these people who have the ability to synchronize what code has been written with what code's being used.

Kinda like how the devs have a form of FlaggedRevs but we don't.

[Somey]

Only if he could sneak malicious code past one of these people who have the ability to synchronize what code has been written with what code's being used.

Are you saying there's a feature that prevents people with special access rights (i.e., admins, devs, etc.) from deleting their own user pages? That can't be right, surely...?

[Kato]

Tony1 doesn't like Date Autoformatting, and even has a section of his user page devoted to the subject (diff link). If I understand this correctly, his objection is that the automatic blue-links are "distracting" and that they "dilute" the impact of "high-value" links elsewhere in the articles in which they appear.

Linking all those dates is one of the most cringe worthy elements of Wikipedia articles. It is utterly pointless, and usually means me clicking on a link by mistake and coming to some unhelpful article about a Year - then having to go back to the article.

[Peter Damian]

This is a good example of what Kato was going on about in this thread. Can you imagine a work colleague turning to you and saying "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit"? This is so entertaining.

Can you imagine a work environment in which people are allowed, nay invited to turn up from the street and start 'helping' you with your work in a way that you would prefer them not to? Particularly when they clearly have no expertise in your line of work (though they imagine they do). And when you get exasperated and say "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit", one of the workplace security guards turns up and escorts you from the premisses. Can you imagine that? No, quite.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Thu 26th March 2009, 5:42pm

[Milton Roe]

Tony1 doesn't like Date Autoformatting, and even has a section of his user page devoted to the subject (diff link). If I understand this correctly, his objection is that the automatic blue-links are "distracting" and that they "dilute" the impact of "high-value" links elsewhere in the articles in which they appear.

Linking all those dates is one of the most cringe worthy elements of Wikipedia articles. It is utterly pointless, and usually means me clicking on a link by mistake and coming to some unhelpful article about a Year - then having to go back to the article.

In fact, the issue is so contentious that according to WP:MoS all editors are ask to stop linking OR delinking dates for the time, until they work out a policy.

Since yesterday was Wednesday, I myself did very little work on WP except editing on one science topic I thought needed fixing. I enjoyed watching ISPs vandalize all my favorite articles and did nothing about it. Be interesting to see if any of it survived to today.

[Kato]

Can you imagine a work environment in which people are allowed, nay invited to turn up from the street and start 'helping' you with your work in a way that you would prefer them not to? Particularly when they clearly have no expertise in your line of work (though they imagine they do). And when you get exasperated and say "Why don't you go fuck yourself, you dipshit", one of the workplace security guards turns up and escorts you from the premisses. Can you imagine that? No, quite.

Everyone who deals with the public as part of their job has to deal with this - and a lot worse - every day.

Get serious, please.

Since yesterday was Wednesday, I myself did very little work on WP except editing on one science topic I thought needed fixing. I enjoyed watching ISPs vandalize all my favorite articles and did nothing about it. Be interesting to see if any of it survived to today.

I know, I forgot to bump that thread.

[CharlotteWebb]

Are you saying there's a feature that prevents people with special access rights (i.e., admins, devs, etc.) from deleting their own user pages? That can't be right, surely...?

No I'm just saying the best UC_Bill could do with svn "developer" access is hope someone is dumb enough to approve mal-ware code designed to make "User:UC_Bill" to magically disappear from the database after the next page-load.

He would not have the ability to modify the database himself, only make changes to the proposed source code of the software.

Obviously if he was an admin the software would allow him to delete whatever pages he wanted to.