Future Perfect at Sunrise, what's he about? Options

[Abd]

There isn't a lot here about FP. There is In the Tar and Feather Barrel, which never got to the supposed "sins," at least not much. There is this checkuser request, which gives hints about former WP identity. That's not important to what I'm doing yet. I'm not here to toss mud, but to find out more about this administrator who blocked me, because I'm preparing to go to RfAr, it being clear to me that he was involved and shouldn't have personally blocked, to say the least, and that FP isn't about to discuss the matter seriously, and he's got a coterie of supporters that will definitely disrupt any on-wiki process. If someone has allegations of administrative misbehavior (or other serious editorial behavior), I'd like to see it, but he's got a long history, and I assume anyone will have some gaffes in that time. I'm especially, but I'm not interested in editors simply describing how awful he is, unless they point to where actual evidence can be found. Nevertheless, this being Wikipedia Review, surely some of those might appear.

So far, no serious dirt have I found, glancing over older stuff. Some questionable use of tools with respect to, shall we say, personal interests, near the end of 2009, not enough for even a troutslap. But somebody doesn't like him, for sure, there is a spurious public profile at google. He looks like he's pushing forty, serious academic (professor). I've called him "stupid." Probably, instead, naive. Not paying enough attention, incautious. Happens to lots of adminstrators, they start to burn out and become impatient. I'll know more when I review block logs now and compare with older.

The RfAr could be pretty simple. He made some mistakes recently, but, hey, he's got a long and glorious history, and all that's needed is to point out the errors. What happens then would largely be up to him. Or maybe I'll find something else. I prefer the truth to any possible agenda.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Abd]

In Future Perfect's RfA, he acknowledged a former account, not openly disclosed for reasons of privacy.

He began editing as Future Perfect in April, 2006. He didn't stop editing as the old account until May, 2007. However, substantial contributions seem to have stopped in May, 2006. There is still some overlap in time. I haven't look at coincident articles edited yet. But given his disclosure, I'd assume lots of overlap in articles edited. Harmless, so far, the only thing a little worrisome is the RfA. He offered to email the identity on request. What actually happened? Was there anything to hide there, besides RL identity? My guess is that what we see is what we got: this stuff isn't a problem. I'm just starting with first things first.

Definitely, someone has been very pissed at him, there are posts all over the place using his real name and connecting it with Future Perfect, and claiming to admit serious editorial misbehavior. Some people definitely need to get a life. On the other hand, some admins get editors that pissed without necessity. I can understand it!

The rest of this is a bit of an essay on recusal rules.
What happened with FP is exactly why recusal rules are so important. If I'm blocked by an admin and I start screaming that the admin is involved, if the admin says,

I'm sorry you feel that way. Tell you what. I will withdraw any objection to your being unblocked, just put up a template [instructions] and ask a neutral admin to look at the record, *here* is my reason for blocking you in detail, and this new admin will decide if you should be allowed to edit. I'm waiving all right to object, since you claim I'm biased. Maybe I am! Happens to the best of us, and we can be the last to know.

By the way, raving about how biased the block was is a quite good way to solicit a decline. I suggest you focus on the good work you did or plan to do, and admit any mistakes that you can possibly admit, even if they were certainly unintentional and made in good faith. The reviewing admin will be mostly concerned with whether a problem might recur, not about punishing you for errors past. If you claim you did nothing wrong, that may worry the admin and the admin might decline. Good luck, and I hope I get to see your excellent work.

If you ever need any help, please feel free to contact me on my user talk page or email me.

This message was pure boilerplate, added identically to all Talk pages where the admin's neutrality is questioned. When Iridescent blocked me indef, she added, "indef as in 'until some other decision is made,' not as in 'infinite.'" Iridescent erred in the block, as could be shown by later events, but that never happened because it was moot. Admins have the right to make mistakes, and if they never make mistakes, they are too timid. Iridescent immediately withdrew the right to object to unblock. Basically, she left nothing behind for me to be pissed about, personally, with her. Had I held on to that, I'd have revealed a serious -- and stupid -- personal bias, the kind that is alleged about me all the time, that I just complain about bias when an admin doesn't agree with me. Nope. Maybe Iridescent will have something to say about that. In any case, by doing this, I wasn't facing her in seeking to be unblocked, I was facing the community.

The kind of response that I described would not avoid all serious attack agenda against an administrator who interrupts an editor's plan. Maybe ninety percent of it. But as important is how it looks to everyone else. Many people now believe that Wiikipedia administration is biased. It's even notable. Recusal rules won't prevent all forms of bias, but they will certainly help with the appearance of fairness. And reality tends to roughly track appearance, long-term.

This post has been edited by Abd: