PopeofPeru

Thanks all. I can understand getting warned or something, but getting banned in insane. I'll be back if he pays up.

STILL NO MONEY =( =( =(

Your edits to reality

Thank you for experimenting with the page reality on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Well done, Canadian Hero. If only I had my comp. on last night...*sigh*

maybe with this money you can finally buy your dream car

WINNER~!

Impressive. Must be a fast typer. telekid 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to you! That was fast! -- itistoday (Talk) 04:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep reality democratic, hero! -- ZombiesNTea 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I literally leaped off my couch to run in here and check reality. You beat me to it!--Gage Thompson 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Way to go man! Hope you get that five bucks! :D -Hoekenheef 04:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your internet connection? That was insanely fast.--K-UNIT 04:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was within 15 seconds... nicely done. - Wendal 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Props. Can I borrow $5? Doctor Lyles Carlton III 05:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

well done.. wikifame!--202.161.30.27 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the reality of Pavlov's experiments on dogs. Someone rings a bell (i.e. tells you to do something and offers a reward) and you automatically salivate (i.e. act without thinking). Jinxmchue 20:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CongratsRlk89 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking Reality

While you're busy getting pats on the back from other folks here, consider this: When you vandalize articles here, you're creating work for other people. It's inconsiderate and shows a lack of judgment. Please consider your future on this project. If you're going to be contributing, that's great. But if you're just going to deface parts of the project like a trained monkey because someone told you to... you should ask yourself what that says about who you are as a person. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Someone" is not a high-school friend in this case but Steven Colbert, a very popular and influential television personality that many people respect. Do not single-out PopeofPeru in this, as you can see by how popular his talk page has become he's not the only one who tried to "vandalize" that page. It was all in good fun and the page is now protected from further vandalization, no harm was done. -- itistoday (Talk) 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Itistoday, I invite you to re-read your words above. You seem to suggest that fame confers an immunity from courtesy. Is that really how you feel? Regardless of 'good fun', he still chose to vandalize, and that's anathema to what this project is about. I'm sure PopeOfPeru appreciates your concern for his well being, but I think he can answer for his own actions. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fame alone does not confer an immunity from courtesy you are right in that, but respect and a good sense of humor does. If Colbert were to command his legions every day to vandalize wikipedia that would be a problem, but such is not the situation. In this case a "boys will be boys" attitude is appropriate, and you all need to lighten the fuck up. -- itistoday (Talk) 05:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert has done this before (e.g. elephant). You may think it's funny, those who have to clean up the garbage don't; your defence of this vandalism amounts to WP:SOUP. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But harm was done. Hundreds of hours are spent countering vandalism, regardless of reason, and each edit adds up. Colbert needs to understand that at as well. I invite you, and him, and every vandal. to try editing, and realize the work it adds up to. Prodego ^talk 05:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I *do* edit and have contributed a lot to wikipedia, but I'm not delusional when it comes to things like this, you all need to chill out. "Hundreds of hours" were not spent countering this specific case of vandalism, I think the page was protected within a couple of seconds of Colbert finishing his sentence. -- itistoday (Talk) 05:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a pretty flexible ethical framework. "It was quick to revert, it's no big deal." "The bruise I gave you will heal, ease up." "I only took $5 out of your wallet, dude, you make that in 15 minutes, that's nothing." It's a pretty slippery slope, and I choose to walk a different path. I don't make crap-work for other people, and I hope you and PopeofPeru decide to follow that example. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see things as black and white but rather in shades of gray. People who see life in black and white quickly deteriorate into draconian-type zealots. -- itistoday (Talk) 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Riddle me this: Did he create work for others? Check. Did he take his instructions from someone else? Check. Did his actions violate wikipedia policy and the trust that the community has in its members to create instead of destroy? Check. What part is confusing? He showed a lack of judgment, and I'm calling him on it. His actions going forward are his to choose, I hope he chooses well. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a good reason why in America at least, the trial and sentencing procedures are separated in our court system. Guilt alone does not determine the punishment, and a good judge will make the punishment fit the crime. Is PopeofPeru your ordinary run-of-the-mill high-school goatse-posting vandal? So far, from his contributions that doesn't seem to be the case (in fact he reverted some vandalism). It's a good thing too that authority figures in life usually have some humanity in them, "Well, your driving record seems good, so I'll let you off with a warning, don't forget to renew your license next time, sir." That's essentially what you're doing here though, so I do appreciate the fact that you haven't blocked him for this :-) All I'm trying to say is that this is not an ordinary case of vandalism. -- itistoday (Talk) 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What does court have to do with anything? I didn't block him, I asked him to reconsider the nature of his contributions. If someone says something that makes you feel so uncomfortable, perhaps it's worth examining why it has that effect. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what I said, I think we're posting and editing simultaneously here and I don't think you read that last part. (Wikipedia is terrible for instant messaging-type communication...) -- itistoday (Talk) 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, this wasn't some hidden vandalism that needed to be hunted out and researched. Editors were notified the same time "Vandal McSpeedyFingers" was changing Reality. For but a moment.--Ryan! 05:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's not a good idea to vandalize articles (although I'll admit to having been tempted to do it after watching today's Colbert Report). However, Chairboy, could you please do us all a favor and try to be a bit more tactful? Comparing someone to a "trained monkey" isn't exactly a good way to tell them. --Poochy 06:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy: I respect Stephen Colbert more than I do or ever will respect you. And I don't even know you. I just really, really respect Stephen Colbert, the Last American Hero. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, folks this wasn't just vandalism. You might call it intellectual civil disobedience or questioning authority. Colbert's humor makes the important point that Wikipedia doesn't determine reality. People determine Wikipedia's reality. Those who don't get that fact have lost sight of the forest. Yes, Wikipedia is a magnificent resource and project. It is extraordinarily valuable. But everyone will come closer to reality by understanding how it can be manipulated. Just because others can perpetually modify the modifications doesn't make it infallible. To those who had to "battle" vandalism: thanks -- good for you for fixing things. Just please don't lose your sense of humor and become sanctimonious over this instance.

Chairboy needs to remove the sand from his mangina. Stephen Colbert is funny. Colbert's criticisms about Wikipedia are pertinent. 71.120.12.196 22:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I think you guys are missing something here. Pope didn't vandalise just because a celebrity "told him to." He did it for money -- remember the five bucks? If you watched the show, you would know that Colbert was making a point about Microsoft paying money to have people post Micro-friendly propaganda on Wikipedia. Isn't this a form of vandalism?? And doesn't Microsoft deserve this scorn more??

Good point, btw. The money was a big thing, yeah. Plus, I might get mentioned on The Colbert Report, which would just kickass.

---

Hey Pope, its Midnight^ from GR, and anyone who feels this is something negative needs to think how much press this has given wikipedia - I bet the number of people logging on sky rocketed as soon as the show went out. Sister Disco 21:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Get ready for your next order

What has been done was a simple vandalism. The fact that PopeofPeru or others do it because Colbert said just makes them colbert's blind tools and does not justify their action. I wonder how far these people are ready to follow their celebrity leader and how far their pals would congratulate them. Get ready for his next order to compete with eachother for it.128.230.141.37

I'm guilty of this sort of change myself, though I seriously wasn't attempting to degrade Wikipedia's quality when I did it. But, Stephen Colbert's point is facile and this edit is clearly destructive. I would like him to point to a medium that doesn't have a problem with reality being a commodity. All sources are biased, including this one. Encouraging random people to destructively edit Wikipedia in order to prove this is just stupid and destructive. Omnifarious 06:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Colbert to pay?

How exactly does Colbert go about contacting a random anonymous wikipedia user who has no contact information listed...? -- itistoday (Talk) 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier for PopeOfPeru to contact Colbert? He would probably get the benefit of the doubt... After all, it's just five bucks.

I've informed him of my Postal Code / email, at the top. -Pope, 2:52 AM

Blocked due to vandalism

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} .

Somitho 07:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|insanely excessive, I vandalize ONE SINGLE PAGE, and I get banned? Not to mention, the fact that IN THAT BOX, it CLEARLY says "repeated".}}

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		You know why... SERSeanCrane 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Somitho, that was uncalled for. PopeofPeru has been more than suitably admonished for his lapse in judgment, as you can see above. (But he's only made 21 edits under this account anyway, so losing the account name probably isn't such a big deal.) --Quuxplusone 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's Colbert vandalism has been so disruptive we've had no other choice but to "shoot first, ask questions later". Dozens of new accounts have been indefblocked without warning today for making a single edit. Given that you have made constructive edits before, I'm unblocking you on the principle that blocks are "preventive, not punitive", and on the assumption that you will spend your 5$ buying a random wiki admin a beer in acknowledgment of the insane amount of extra work we've had today cleaning up the "commodities". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quuxplusone, I did not make the block; it wasn't my judgement call. I simply notified the user. Somitho 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but... you didnt unban me? -3:07AM, Pope

Ah, the autoblocks I suppose. Forgot to lift those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC) - Try again now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ty very much. Fine now - 3:14AM, Pope

PopeofPeru, I did not block you. I simply posted the block message. Check your block log again. Somitho 19:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User page

Hi PopeofPeru. As your user page contained nothing but 'congratulations' messages about how awesome your vandalism was, I have deleted it. Proto::► 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before in other talk pages. The greatest threat to wikipedia is its self-righteous admins who think that they have THE most important job in the world. I think all these actions (blocking the user indefinitely/deleting the userpage) are overreactions to what this user did. There should be consistent rules and they should be applied regardless of the page that was vandalized. More later. Leotolstoy 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto, please explain what part of the deletion policy gives proper justification for deleting a userpage in this case. --Hemlock Martinis 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

While personally seeing with what popeofperu did as a promised-to-paid-vandalism by blindly following a celebrity, I see your action of deleting his userpage also a vandalism and agasint freedom of speech. I think popeofperu needs to applogies for his/her action but also Proto's action needs furthur explanation.Farmanesh 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no freedom of speech on WP when it comes to advocating and rewarding vandalism. It's that simple. As for deletion policy: IAR. By the way, it wasn't really his userpage, it was almost entirely written by the various copycat congratulators. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, deleting the userpage of an unbanned user is an overreaction. A better solution would be to move all existing comments onto this talk page, then issue a warning that comments are to be kept off his userpage. If the violations continue, issue appropriate punishments. --Hemlock Martinis 07:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There cannot be any wikipedia without vandalism or absolute freedom of speech. It is very easy to commit a vandalism and your actions (like banning etc) are not going to stop it (if your account is banned create another one. If your ip address is banned use a proxy). Also wikipedia has been built to tolerate vandalisms (undoing a vandalism is as easy as clicking a undo button). So instead of harshly punishing a user for a small misdemeanor (I know it is small because I have seen worse. Ex: inserting a porn image in the featured article.), you can always let him off with a warning and suggestion to make useful contributions. Especially it applies here as I am sure this user did this not to harm wikipedia (either to its reputation or to its users). It was clearly a overreaction on your part and I ask you to reinstate his page. Leotolstoy 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, you guys are all seriously barking up the wrong tree here. First, the guy is away, he's never even asked for his page back or anything - why don't you just leave it to him? Second, about "harsh punishments", have you even read above what actually happened? He was let off with a warning. About how simple and harmless this all was: what exactly in my phrase above, "the insane amount of extra work we've had today cleaning up" do you not understand? (And no, nobody bought me that beer yet - will you?) Finally, the deletion of the page was not a punishment, let alone a harsh one. Nobody was harmed, nobody was hurt. Goddamit, the guy didn't write that page, it wasn't even his properly speaking, we have no indication he ever even wanted one! He didn't have a userpage before, he doesn't have one now; he can always create one. Where's the problem? Now please everybody just go and play someplace else. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be missing something here. How hard is it to undo a vandalism?. I might not be an expert but I have undone tens of them and it is as easy as editing a good version and saving it. How hard is it to protect a page?. Especially for you since you are an administrator and you should have plenty of special tools that make the job even easier. Let me know if I am missing something here. Leotolstoy 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just the quantity of it, mostly. Ever spent half an hour on recent-changes patrol in times of Wiki Defcon 2? Look at WP:ANI of that day, and then look at the contributions and blocking logs of some of the admins involved and sum up the amounts of time they put in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw that page and it has a big list. The point is, do not to take your job seriously. You should remember that you are doing this work voluntarily. The moment you think this job is killing you you should stop. FYI, the world is not going to end if a page is left vandalized for a day. I mean it is a very useful tool but everyone on this earth can survive without it. (Please don't think that I am insulting you or WP. In fact I am a small contributor myself and I refer to it almost for everything). Leotolstoy 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

His page was a self-promotional magnet for users to glorify and promote disruptive edits to wikipedia - a user can be banned/blocked for being disruptive. If the user feels like contributing constructively to the project, then by all means let him/her do so, however re-instating this username is a bad idea. Sfacets 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, so they deleted a couple comments, and the picture of an american $5 bill. No big deal. Remade it. Feel free to edit it however you see fit. Just no pictures of goatse, or anything like that. After saying that, I know theres gonna be a couple. PopeofPeru 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Pope. If there's any goatse pictures (etc), an admin will remove them, block the offender, and protect your user page for a little while, 'til the fuss dies down. To clarify, your (old) userpage was only deleted because it was just a list of congratulations about how awesome your vandalism was. Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, not myspace. Proto::► 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A permanent block for THAT?

Damn, a TOTAL confirmation that Wikipedia has no sense of humor AT ALL. Why not a permanent block for the guy who tried to change reality by insisting that Larry Sanger wasn't a co-inventor of Wikipedia? Oh, wait... SBHarris 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? He's not permanently blocked. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a fake block! Punked. Evidence of humor. Better. SBHarris 05:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, read the above, and the block log. He was indef-blocked just amid dozens of other vandalism accounts as an emergency measure, but then unblocked. And no, we have no sense of humour when this incident is involved. Absolutely not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Eh, umm... I don't think this page needs a temporary page tag, as I'm not banned any more...

Removed. Proto::► 10:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

great work

demonstrating the vulnerability of WP is very important. Don't listen to these crazy nerds. Colbert is very intelligent and what he does helps WP more than these narrow minded admins.Comaknacon 11:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily reverting and locking the page would have been sufficient and not overkill. A show of minimal, effective, and perfectly applied force. THAT kind of thing (a smart bomb) is much more impressive and doesn't make us all look like humorless overreactive fumbling asses. I mean, look, we see IP.xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx get on some major Wiki page every day and change it to "Floyd is GAAAAYYY! asdfhjklasdfhjkl" We deal with it. Colbert's jibes at best allows for a little free (and really hard to buy, even with lots of money) WIkipedia advertizing demo to the world how this process works. So thank the man, try to keep it a bit in check next time, and let's go on. SBHarris 06:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Misquote

Technically, you got it wrong; the quote was "Reality Has Become A Commodity." Hope Colbert respects the spirit of the agreement rather than the letter ;) -Aprogressivist 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality becomes a commodity, gj XD

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Almost six years later, congratulations. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was here. I came from a reddit post about a scumbag telling his 5 year old kid to swear on chatroullette. To a video on youtube of colbert losing his shit over suq madik, to some dude's 144p clip of colbert talking about editing this very article, to which he addded 30 seconds of some sort of conspiracy theory tinfoil hat illumaniti stuff. I write this to show the power and weirdness of the internet.