Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[Viridae]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

Its not a ban.

[Hipocrite]

It doesn't take 2 months to answer a simple yes or no question about a knowing lie you told 6 months ago.

It takes 2 months to hope that the people who are gunning for you go away. FT2s answer can be assumed - "Yes, I did know." FT2s excuse can be assumed

"meaningless words x 10000"

[Viridae]

Oh every time I go away for a day or two a huge dramafest occurs.

[SirFozzie]

Oh every time I go away for a day or two a huge dramafest occurs.

Well then, don't go anywhere anymore!

(bans Viridae)

[Bottled_Spider]

Durova's summary in the RfAr is excellent.

No it isn't. It's shite. It reads like your interminable WikiDefender-style contributions to this thread. Which is disappointing, as you're usually quite un-dull.

[Dzonatas]

Guess FT2 could be like that guard that shot Grant in L.A. BART station. When the guard was approached with the situation that he had to answer questions... he resigned to avoid it.

[Somey]

Guess FT2 could be like that guard that shot Grant in L.A. BART station. When the guard was approached with the situation that he had to answer questions... he resigned to avoid it.

Los Angeles has a BART station? Damn, that must be one long-ass subway system!

Still, not to miss the point or anything... I've always wondered why he doesn't just deny the whole "zoophile" thing. I mean, it's Wikipedia, not some high-tone country club for rich social climbers. Failure to deny is probably the same as an outright admission to most people there, and here too for that matter. And if it turns out the denial is false, so what? It's Wikipedia, not some high-tone court of law for people who have actual reputations to protect!

[Dzonatas]

The RFArb seems to call this an attempt to desysop/block Bishonen, which would mean FT2 could avoid the question with this distraction call.

[Cla68]

If no one has said so already, I'll point out that this is an attempt to put more pressure on FT2 by stirring the pot to try to get more community members involved with it and to try to force the issue to a head.

Bishonen/Bishzilla, Giano, and SlimVirgin, among a few others, don't appear to like FT2 very much and appear to want him off the Committee, perhaps even off of Wikipedia altogether. He has made some mistakes, but I personally don't understand the level of vitriol directed at him. In my three years of participation in Wikipedia, I think I've seen much worse behavior from other "established" editors.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 13th January 2009, 11:28pm

[cyofee]

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Politely asking FT2 to answer the infamous question only got people an eye strain.

This post has been edited by cyofee: Tue 13th January 2009, 11:32pm

[Dzonatas]

Let's say a user has been blocked, and evidence was provided. An admin reviews the block as an appeal. The admin refuses to answer a certain question about the block, which then keeps that user indefinitely blocked since the answer would provide evidence.

That could be obstruction of justice in court law. In Wikipedia however, it would be simply disruptive to cause someone to remain blocked by refusal to answer a question.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this. Yes, FT2 is obviously unfit to be an arbitrator, and arguably unfit to hold any position of responsibility on the site. But for Bishonen to swoop in and ban him based solely on her own say-so? It's just incredible to me that Wikipedia cannot grow out of such stupidity. FT2 is a long-standing contributor and any decision about blocking him should be based on the will of the community, not a single admin's say-so. Regardless of what happens to FT2, Bishonen (and/or her dinosaur alter-ego) should be desysopped.

It is simply ludicrous that people think they can solve problems like this.

I'm sure B didn't think this block wold solve the problem, just bring it up front and center.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Tue 13th January 2009, 11:45pm

[Anonymous editor]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

[Viridae]

For those who need a refresher, this is why I said that the block of FT2 was not a ban (in a message to Moulton):

A ban is not a physical impediment (though it involves one) it is an agreement among the members of the community that comment that they no longer want X person to participate in any form. It therefore requires further agreement to be overturned. (it can also occur without discussion if no person with the ability to do so (ie an admin) feels inclined to overturn an indefinite block) - I think that might be your case. The latter type (a defacto ban) can technically be overturned by any admin. The former type cannot. This block fits neither of those cases because there is neither an agreement nor an unwillingness to unblock - in this case it was an indefinite (ie of undefined but not necessarily infinite length) block which was quickly overturned.

[written by he who wrote it]

My guess is that she hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail.

I'm struggling to understand how she could think causing a huge dramafest is a positive result. What is her goal here?

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

And those are. . .? He's been delaying the requested answer for months, despite numerous inquiries; Bishonen's frustration is quite understandable.

[Kelly Martin]

Erm ........... She hopes the heat of a massive dramafest will force him to either answer or bail? No? Yes? Hello? Jesus.........

that's friggin' stupid. There are much better means of achieving that end.

There probably should be, but this is Wikipedia w'ere talking about. Generating drama is really the only way to get attention to an issue, provided that you're not already either rich or powerful (in which case you can get attention by calling/threatening Jimmy).

[Moulton]

Ever since the advent of legal thinking about bans was first carved into stone tablets (some 3769 years ago), the party enacting the ban was obliged to prove just cause. Failing to present a valid proof of just cause not only invalidated the ban, it subjected the would-be banner to the death penalty. This was not just some random law. This was literally the very first law ever carved into stone tablets.

What we see at Wikipedia is a manipulation of the practice of blocking/banning/blacklisting that verges on corruption. A community ban would at least correspond to a Parliamentary Bill of Attainder (a practice forbidden by Article I of the US Constitution and also abandoned by the British legal system). Capricious blocks, predicated on the presumption that the community would then become hopelessly deadlocked, is not a very intelligent way to manage a 21st Century community that purports to be manifesting the sum of all human knowledge under the umbrella of a tax-exempt educational non-profit. Do the donors appreciate that Wikipedia is teaching 21st Century youth to engage in corrupt political practices that were already going out of style 3769 years ago?

[Cla68]

Has anyone linked to this statement by Thatcher yet? Here's the diff so that it can still be read if it's archived or deleted.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 14th January 2009, 1:12am

[trenton]

Defense: FT2's defense as I understand it is two-fold. First, Wikipedia Review was attempting to "out" him and he wanted to avoid giving them what amounted to confirmation of his general geographic location.

Called it! Fourth post. WR make such good villains to excuse anything.

Incidentally anybody want to start a pool on the word count of FT2's "clarification"? My guess is 20,404 words which will probably amount to the Essjay defense of "I had to lie to protect myself and my family from the uber-evil WR stalkers"

[NuclearWarfare]

Go see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22368

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare: Wed 14th January 2009, 4:56am