Interesting block

[Zzeexxaa]

I just found a curious block in en.wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... umismatist
The user is supposedly blocked for advertising and self-promoting, but no obvious advertising or self-promoting are visible in his contributions. All contributions look helpful. His unblock request is reasonable and articulate. An admin reviewing the unblock request at first did not find any problems either, but the blocking admin sent him a private message, after which the reviewing admin did find "a problem not addressed in the unblock request". However both admins refuse to tell the user what problem did they find.

[Bezdomni]

I suppose the TOS probably does say something like "users may be blocked for any reason or for no reason at all at the sole discretion of a couple other users", doesn't it? If it doesn't, it probably needs updating in the "always improving" spirit.

speaking of puppets, blocks, & socks, check out our chewy macaronetta.

Cookies are apparently more nourishing than beans & rice♪ in wikiland.

[tarantino]

I just found a curious block in en.wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... umismatist
The user is supposedly blocked for advertising and self-promoting, but no obvious advertising or self-promoting are visible in his contributions. All contributions look helpful. His unblock request is reasonable and articulate. An admin reviewing the unblock request at first did not find any problems either, but the blocking admin sent him a private message, after which the reviewing admin did find "a problem not addressed in the unblock request". However both admins refuse to tell the user what problem did they find.

Curious_numismatist (T-C-L) created the bio for John P. Connaughton, which was deleted by Smartse for unambiguous advertising or promotion

[Poetlister]

Allegedly, the article was undeleted today by Wbm1058 and moved to draft: namespace. That's a bit pointless if the editor is blocked.

[Bezdomni]

The story has continued (user talk): the ball is in the blockee's corner, but now at least they know what they are faulted with doing.

[milowent]

well, yes, it seems likely the article was created by someone connected to the subject or paid to create it. corporate bios are awfully boring to write.

but this one was so exciting it was finally time to post on this forum!!??

[Bezdomni]

My initial comment was made after frumiously typing up a letter to your old Signpost haunt, Milowent. I have always found the following attitude odd:

I see commercial editing as the biggest threat Wikipedia faces at the moment, so I consider draftifying content made by commercial editors to be a big deal[.]

For my take on this, Cf. this AfD. The same folks went round again later on deleting the same page. Kudpung reached a different decision than Sandstein had the 1st time around, with similar arguments advanced. Kudpung (T-C-L) & the san-fran prize winner I Never Cry (T-C-L) appear to have been in agreement with banned sock farmer SwisterTwister (T-C-L) on that one. ^^

Thanks for shining some light on what appeared so opaque at first glance, wbm. It gave Tony a chance to be heard!

I actually agree re: a lot of what you said i.r.t. the critic sites (fwiw, there are even some users (sic) on them that hate (sic) me whose opinions I find useful)

source

re: i.r.t, fwiw ts;du. Were you referring to this post? this one?

[Kumioko]

If Tony actually thinks this is the biggest threat Wikipedia faces these days he really has no clue!