Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Larry Lurkington

User:Larry Lurkington and User:Betacommand

Move along, we're only feeding the troll and creating unnecessary drama. --Maxim_(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, I'm being rather repetitive here, but how are you justifying unilaterally archiving a discussion that's still going on? --Philosophus ^T 16:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The title has been changed to prevent the flamebait from appearing on watchlists. Former title below.

"hay fucktard" -- Betacommand; personal attack

I noticed this, Betacommand a user who should know better and claims to fight vandals... while violating WP:NPA around Wikipeida; he attacked an admin EncycloPetey by calling him a "fucktard".[1] About time to pull the plug or make him sit on the naughty step for a bit? - Larry Lurkington (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Noo, it's time to block you indefinitely. First edit to ANI == dumb trolling, 99.9 percent of the time. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 14:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Er...well, I dunno about Moreschi's comment but Betacommand is always doing that. It ain't that big a deal anyway--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 14:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That he's always doing it makes it even less acceptable. Or are we throwing out WP:CIVIL.? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, EncycloPetey blocked BC just before this remark. While the language is regrettable, I can understand it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand rage causing murder too, but that does not make it okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is right in the statement that removing the tag before addressing the issues was wrong, but the bot calling it vandalism was wrong, and BC calling the guy a F***tard was COMPLETELY unacceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

...unacceptable if for no other reason than it's incredibly juvenile. "Fucktard"?! Are we in elementary school? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wknight94, Rlevse and Larry Lurkington are correct. It is absolutely unacceptable for Betacommand to call EncycloPetey a "fucktard". Aecis^Brievenbus 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

People do get angry when they've just got a classic horror block. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Seemed pretty gross to me when I first saw it. But then I saw the block log. Betacommand does a lot of good work for the encyclopedia and he has to deal with a lot of angry people on his talk page. This was a particularly bad case of blocking by the administrator. Nothing justifies incivility though. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, being good with bots or an admin or having been wrongly blocked does not justify calling someone "fucktard". — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

being a valued user for ones contributions does not justify this language. As mentioned on the talk page there, anyone who is going to run a bot that will inevitably provoke anger must learn to deal with that anger politely. DGG (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Kill the messenger" mindset of the WikiClique continues apace, with the indef block of Larry Lurkington for making a valid complaint. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, don't be ridiculous. Someone who's first edit is to ANI so that they may launch a completely misleading attack on Betacommand is evidently not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So true, this is a valid complaint, even if it is a new account. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even though the first edit by the complainant account was here, what is the problem with that? We all know you are allowed to have multiple accounts, as long as they are not used disruptively. Making a valid complaint about the actions of an administrator is not, in any way, disruptive, and whoever blocked the user has serious problems with his/her judgment, in my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes... one of the big problems with Wikipedia these days is the tendency to ban people for not liking what they have to say... Moreschi ironically was the victim of this attitude over on the wikien-l list just recently, as he got kicked off the list for his comments; but here on Wikipedia itself he's one of those who are quick at the trigger in banning others. Pretty ironic. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't believe this. Yes, multiple accounts (this being an obvious sockpuppet) are not prohibited, though they are discouraged, but you are not allowed to have drama-only accounts - certainly not ones that make reports like this on ANI on the very first edit. Quite apart from the second edit, [2], which contains a personal attack of its own. Obvious troll. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat more complex than just that. If I understand the situation correctly, the restriction on drama-only alternate accounts was added to SOCK recently, during the revisions prompted in part by the Privatemusings issue. In the current policy, which you may want to read if you haven't done so in the last few weeks, a distinction is made between sockpuppets and alternate accounts, in a way such that this account probably isn't a "sockpuppet" under current policy, but is instead an alternate account. The policy doesn't appear to support the indefinite block of alternate accounts on sight, the protection of talk pages, and so on, and directs that consensus on the appropriateness of the account should be reached via discussion. If you disagree with these changes to the policy, then you should explain how indefblocking this account, which didn't appear to be editing in bad faith, for being an old-definition sockpuppet, would be substantially different from blocking me for being an old-definition sockpuppet. --Philosophus ^T 16:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)The problem I have with the, 'well no he should not have blown up like that, but it was understandable given the block', argument (aside from there really being no excuse for the bad attitude) is that the bot has the worst instructions for dealing with problems. It used to have this link in the middle of a block of text, where you'd only find it if reading the whole page, to click to 'shut down the bot' if it was making mistakes... but the link actually just took you to edit the bot talk page and didn't really shut it off at all. That was removed by someone who noticed it wasn't true and now there is just another link in the text, in teeny tiny font, instructing admins to block the bot if it breaks stuff. However, even that gets a bit hard to follow (if you even see it) because the text states that the task will sometimes be run manually by Betacommand... which might make people think it was sometimes executed by the other account, which in fact I think I recall that it has been sometimes.

It seems unwarranted for Betacommand to blow up about blocks (he started cursing about the last block on the bot a couple of weeks ago too) that are inevitable given the poor documentation of how to handle problems with the bot. Why can't this bot just have a big red 'shutdown' button like others? Preferably one which actually works rather than the fake 'shutdown' link it used to show. --CBD 15:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, another complaint about BetacommandBot. Someone should just shut down the bot or file an RFC on it or something before it does more damage. And why can admins get away with incivility and insulting others? --Kaypoh (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not an actionable complaint for ANI because the violation of decorum occured long enough ago that blocking Betacommand would be punitive at this point. ANI is not part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. If users are concerned that Betacommand is violating decorum on a regular basis, they should first speak with him and see if informal discussion can resolve the problem. If that fails, then a user conduct RFC might be the next option. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a disgusting block. I know from experience that admins aren't subject to WP:CIVIL, but to indef block a user for complaining about foul and abusive language from an admin is appalling. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And if the user in question is an obvious sockpuppet whose first edit was to post here in a completely misleading manner, and whose second edit was a personal attack? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The complaint is valid. The second edit, while poorly worded nad quite possibly worthy of a warning, does not negate the validity of the complaint, and does not justivy an indef block. By the way, it makes it easier to follow discussions if proper edit summaries are used.DuncanHill (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think several people agree with that, and IMO the account should be unblocked. But I'm no admin. There has been attempts to talk to the blocking admin about this here, but it does not look like the admin thinks the block was anything but acceptable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempt made to ask BC about this too, see User_talk:Betacommand#ANI_thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Everybody's nerves on Wikipedia and its related things like mailing lists seem to be getting quite raw these days, leading to all sorts of regrettable rash actions... including by me: just where did I get off calling Moreschi part of the "WikiClique", after he's been fighting against cliquishness for quite a while (and I even voted for him for the ArbCom for it)? Everybody on Wikipedia has gone crazy now, including me. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, please unblock the account. We should take special care not to block users merely for complaining. The reason is drama avoidance. If this user needs to be indefinately blocked, they will repeatedly prove it. For those who have insinuated a double standard, Betacommand is a former administrator as of May 2007, per ArbCom decision. At this time he is just an ordinary user. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you for clarifying Betacommand's status, I stand corrected! DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• The account is an SPA. Single. Purpose. Account. It has done the job it wanted to do viz. create more drama. The "hay fucktard" -- Betacommand; personal attack" header was a good way to initiate it, and now we have users patronising trolls. Please note that I am not justifying BC's personal attack in any manner. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above statement about trolls if the new account made an edit trying to get someone to call someone "fucktard", but he didn't, he merely reported something that already happened. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking people who make complaints about abusive language is a sure-fire way of making sure people don't use their main account to make complaints! DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If a regular user was behind the SPA and used their real account, they wouldn't have been blocked. BLACKKITE 16:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 16 December 200 (UTC)

Of course they wouldn't. It would've been a reasonable complaint and would've been dealt with as such. But creating a sock and posting on ANI about it guaranteed to draw a block - see WP:SOCK - "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy". BLACKKITE 16:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What guarantees can you, Black Kite, give about Moreschi's behaviour? He got it wrong in this case. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a very extreme case? --Philosophus ^T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's rather obvious that an established editor wouldn't have been indefblocked for this. However, I'm concerned that SOCK is being applied incorrectly. The good-hand bad-hand proscription is about inappropriate uses of alternate accounts, not actual sockpuppetry, and as such SOCK doesn't appear to justify immediate indefblocking with no discussion. --Philosophus ^T 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just being a non-disruptive and not-necessarily-bad-faith SPA doesn't justify immediate indefblocking, and as I noted earlier, SOCK doesn't support immediate indefblocking here either. --Philosophus ^T 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason for the account to raise the issue here in the first place. The user who was called a "fucktard" is an administrator and as such should be regarded as being capable and compotent in dealing with a situation such as that without having to rely on a newly registered single purpose account to raise the issue here for discussion. This was an incident that has no need to be discussed here, it could be dealt with in private and both parties sanctioned as appropriate away from the spotlight here. I would assume that since the administrator did not mention the incident here, they have no requirement for community input on the situation. Nick (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This block has about as much merit as Moreschi's (overturned) banning of me from editing at Afrocentrism. Totally without merit. Just awful. The difference is in my case, another admin stepped up and did the right thing and simply undid the block. Anyone? deeceevoice (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The user can request {{unblock}}. As a single purpose account that made it's first post to ANI using a flame bait title, I do not expect that much sympathy for the user. Nevertheless, blocking such users promotes drama as this thread has proven. A better strategy is to refactor or remove the flame bait, address the merits of the issue (e.g. Betacommand really was incivil, but WP:RFC/U is the place to deal with that, not WP:AN/I) and let the discussion die naturally. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the red herring fuss about the reporting account being blocked. It was obviously not intended to be used for any other purpose than this. The account was blocked, not the person. The person can and will go back to editing with his/her original account with no harm done. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A sysop needs to provide instruction to the blocked account on how to request unblock, as his talk page was protected; a bit prematurely I'll say. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When a user is blocked, they see a page that clearly explains all the unblocking options. These include using the talk page, or emailing the unblock mailing list. Having the talk page protected do not preclude a user from requesting unblock. They can do so easily via email. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that is correct, okay. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that they can also request unblock on their main account, which is also blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There really doesn't appear to any justification for that in the new SOCK policy. --Philosophus ^T 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh

Another shoot first, ask questions later block. The name chosen to edit appears to be from a lurker. Could it be a sock? Only CU knows, but do remember we have tons on anons around here and they may choose to register to gain more respect in certain forums such as ANI. This was a poor block from someone who did make a good faith effort to report something. Instead of actually focusing on the message, we shot the messenger, drawn, quartered, and sent the parts of the body off to the four corners of wikipedia. This has got to stop. The current Matthew Hoffman arbcom shows that the members of the committee sincerely frown on things like this. spryde | talk 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Betacommand was incivil towards an administrator, we are generally regarded as being capable and competent enough to deal with behaviour ourselves, without the need to rely on a new account to raise the issue on our behalf at a forum such as ANI, if we so desire. The fact the comment nor the block was raised by either party suggests to me that both parties realised they had erred, understood that they had both erred and did not wish to make a huge spectacle out of the situation. There's really no need to keep chucking a log on this fire now, it shouldn't have been lit in the first place but it's almost out. I should also mention that the user in question has not requested to be unblocked yet, they appear to be content to sit back and either sit out the autoblock and go about their editing as normal, either logged in or out, or they appear to be content to sit back and let people argue on their behalf. There's no need to continue this discussion on either the SPA, Betacommand or the administrator (who's name I forget) unless this SPA actually requests to be unblocked, and perhaps explains a little behind their edits today. Nick (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand's response

The reason that I was pissed off and used the language that I used, was because a admin blocked my account, please note that it was not the bot that was blocked. The admin in question blocked a long standing editor with 50,000+ edits for no valid reason. I was enforcing policy, the image in question was orphaned, It was tagged by the bot, the admin reverted without cause. I re-tagged (Per policy). the admin then attempted to "Un-orphan" by using it in his userspace, (a violation of our Non-free content policy part number 9). I removed it and was then reverted again, yet another violation of policy that occurred by a admin. He then proceeds to block me saying that I am Out of control. that block violates WP:BLOCK. so the admin at that time had violated 2 policies (WP:BLOCK and WP:NFC) and a guideline WP:USER, so my response to the block was completely justified. I also stand by by comment calling him a fucktard (see that definition). I rarely use profanity/ breach WP:CIVIL but when I do it is warranted by the actions of the instigator. β^_command 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear something up, My comment was not appropriate, but I say what I mean and mean what I say. I said that because the action, not at the user. β^_command 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering that people get indef-blocked for reasons at least as flimsy, and get called trolls when they protest, your very-short-term block hardly seems like a monumental injustice in the grand scheme of things. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's really no need for further discussion here. Betacommand made an error when he called the administrator in question a fucktard; the administrator in question did breach policy in blocking Betacommand and by using a non free image in their userspace. I believe both users are aware of their errors and will try to ensure such repeats do not occur. Nick (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Betacommand's post above shews he has no awareness of his error - "I also stand by by comment calling him a fucktard" - his words. He explicitly states that he regards his actions as justified. Hardly an acceptance of error. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take against both users then ? Nick (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Which "both users" do you mean? We now have several to choose from - Betacommand, the admin who blocked him, the user who complained about Betacommand's language, and the admin who blocked the person making the complaint. DuncanHill (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably Betacommand and the admin who blocked him. But that's just a guess AlphaAJ86 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we go for all the users you've mentioned, what action would you like us to take ? Nick (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If it was up to me - 24 hour blocks all round, and a reminder that a hell of a lot of ten-year-olds cope far better with stress and disagreement than any of them. But, blocks are preventative, not punitive so that'll probably not fly. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably too late for that, and I don't know how well a block on an administrator would go down for making two slightly worrying mistakes that can be dealt with better without blocking. I can certainly agree with the block on Betacommand for any future incivility, I'm not overly bothered by the SPA and the admin who blocked it. Nick (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indef 'em all. --Carnildo (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He's a stickler for policy when it suits him. (I mean, that's what his bot is all about, ensuring that images rigidly conform to policy.) But he finds it rather easy to rationalize ways out of obeying policy himself. I don't care when people lose their cool on occasion--everybody's human and, to be honest, I find it rather lame every time somebody tosses up a link to WP:CIVIL as if that's a be-all-end-all solution for people getting frustrated. But somebody else's violation of policy isn't an excuse for you to take the law into your own hands or to violate policy yourself. (Quote from BC's talk page illustrating this point: If you're here to whine and complain that But <place image name here> is just like my image and isn't tagged for deletion I will tag that image too, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.) Was BC's outburst justifiable? Maybe. But was it still a deviation from the Wikipedia ideal? Absolutely. It would be arrogant to claim otherwise. AlphaAJ86 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation without any comment on the actual incident; one week an admin unjustifiably blocks an editor and all hell breaks loose on the admin involved, but in this case an admin unjustifiably blocks an editor and all the ire is concentrated on the editor for a single snippy remark at the admin? Where's the logic there? BLACKKITE 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of ire at the admin who wrongfully blocked the user who raised the initial concern. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that had the editor not been BetaCommand, there would not have been a sock SPA set up to bring it to ANI, and this thread would not have existed. BLACKKITE 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Had that SPA not been needlessly and wrongfully blocked, most of this thread wouldn't have existed either. DuncanHill (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I really don't care about the whole incivility/blocking issue. The indefblock is the problem I'm concerned with. --Philosophus ^T 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Instead of blocks all round, why not strong warnings all round? A strong warning saying "you will be blocked if you do this again" is in some ways better than an immediate block. It lays the ground for a future block, since if the behaviour is repeated (within a reasonable length of time), you can point to the previous behaviour, and the warning, and say that on the basis that this might happen a third time, you have blocked this user. It also reduces the drama that a block creates, while still getting the message across. Just try and write a handwritten warning and don't use a template or overdo things with a silly icon and upheld hand 'stop sign' symbol. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be personally prepared to remove the block on Lurkington if only to send the message that a block on someone, SPA or not, for making a reasonable complaint in a reasonable manner is not a good idea. DGG (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock here too, as much as I dislike SPAs in cases such as these, I think, even if an established editor had complained, they would have been largely ignored or warned for disruption. I'm suspecting the user in question has had difficulties in complying with fair use policies, has had a few warnings from BCBot and out of frustration, they've complained about Betacommand behaving in this manner. We're sadly being distracted from incivility and an inexperienced administrator here, the SPA brought to the attention of administrators and other experienced users the fact that two problems exist and if established users have to use an SPA to do this, we really need to look at how we deal with complaints from established users, whether or not they have an axe to grind. Nick (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support an unblock as well. I also strongly dislike the trend towards calling new accounts SPAs. A new account cannot be judged an SPA until time has passed. If the account diversifies its range of editing, then it is clear that it was never an SPA. If the account remains inactive after the initial edit or series of edits and is never used again (give it a year or so), it was probably a throwaway account (a type of SPA). If it continues to edit a single area (say around 100 edits over a few months), then it becomes possible to call it an SPA. It might be a productive SPA (a type of alternate account), or a disruptive SPA. But the point is that you can't reliably judge these things after a few edits or a few weeks or days. Sometimes the best way to find out is to ask (and at the least to provide a welcome template to encourage diversification of editing). Most genuine new editors will diversify to avoid accusations of being an SPA. Those who rush to judge accounts as trolls, socks, SPAs and the like, misunderstand how such things are best handled. Trying to block such accounts out of the discussion or editing is ultimately a heavy-handed and counter-productive strategy (there are always more where they came from - severe cases can be dealt with by checkuser to cut off the source). I've always found that a better way is to engage in good-faith discussion. Most trolls get bored and give up and go away. The genuine new users respond to friendly discussion and go on to become productive editors (mostly). Finally, even the most inane of discussions helps the editors of an article to re-examine their own arguments and stops them becoming stale. It is usually those who are convinced that there are right and there is no need for further discussion, who are quickest to call for "obvious socks" to be indefinitely banned. I would like to point out here that Moreschi's initial comment here, "Noo, it's time to block you indefinitely. First edit to ANI == dumb trolling, 99.9 percent of the time." bears an eerie resemblance to his attitude displayed to Matthew Hoffman, "To be honest, I think an indef would be preferable here. This is quite obviously a sockpuppet, judging by his abnormally well-informed edit summaries and knowledge of 3rr technicalites. Single-purpose accounts that are solely here to push POV (particularly on just the one article) should IMO be shown the egress ASAP." For the likely verdict on that, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

SPA has wording that would include all new editors under the term, but doesn't contain any justification of blocking for being an SPA. --Philosophus ^T 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. Carcharoth, I'd be the first to admit that my bullshit detector sometimes ballses up, but it's usually pretty reliable (thus I deduce by the fact that I have not, as of yet, been desysopped nor commununity-lynched. Then again, this could be an indicator that I'm a competent and successful troll). If you all want to unblock, go ahead, but it's totally irrelevant. This user will have gone back to his regular account (assuming he's not banned) having created his drama with his SPA-sock. I have cost you no encyclopaedic contributions, I think I can safely say. Really, not worth getting wound up about. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. There are people over at that ArbCom case (including me) who are quite clear that your comment in the events being examined by that case were extremely unhelpful. Nothing formal, and seeing as you've steered clear of it, probably never will be anything formal, but you will forgive me if I tend to double-check your "certainties" now and in the future. More generally, do you think it is good that someone wading in at the start of a thread with extreme confidence can set the tone for the subsequent discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked, relying on Moreschi's acceptance of this course. DGG (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up a few things. Indef blocked tags removed, welcome template and extra note left. Talk page unprotected. I won't be too surprised if nothing ever happens after this, but it's the same result either way, and handling it this way to begin with would have caused less drama. Carcharoth (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)