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

[Peter Damian]

facepalm* DuncanHill, since nobody seems to have gotten this through to you, I'm going to put it simply. Oversighted material is removed for reasons of privacy concerns. Therefore, not even Jimbo can reveal the exact content of oversighted material. Feel free to ask User:MGodwin if you don't believe me.

Given that the oversighted edits had nothing relating to privacy (they were simply edits to an article), and that the reason for the oversight was simply to obliterate the fact that FT2 was their author (and in consequence shifting the apparent authorship to a third party), and given, therefore, that the oversights were against policy and should therefore be reversed, why are people still saying things like this? There should be no problem about revealing their contents.

[Peter Damian]

Aha -

SV has filed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

which makes the whole thing very clear. Good.

He is therefore asking the community to believe that he did not request the oversighting of his earliest edits; that David Gerard did not tell him he had oversighted them; that he did not notice they had disappeared; that when Jimbo asked him about them in December 2008, the question was so unmemorable that he quickly forgot about it; that FloNight's and Peter Damian's e-mails about them either went unread or were similarly unmemorable and soon forgotten; and that the extensive discussion on another website, where he has an account and has been active, also failed to jog his memory. As a result, his statements of July and November 2008 that he knew nothing before July were mistaken, he says, but he believed he was telling the truth. He says he did not remember until December 2008 that he had been told about the oversights in December 2007 by Jimbo.

It is submitted that this version of events does not stand up to scrutiny, that the reluctance to be forthcoming amounts to behavior unbecoming of a member of the ArbCom — as well as a checkuser and oversighter — and that the situation is damaging the Committee. Accordingly, FT2 is asked to resign his seat.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 14th January 2009, 9:08am

[Bottled_Spider]

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.

Ah! So you've finally "got" what's being said. Well done.

There are much better means of achieving that end.

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

[Milton Roe]

Aha -

SV has filed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...for_comment/FT2

which makes the whole thing very clear. Good.

He is therefore asking the community to believe that he did not request the oversighting of his earliest edits; that David Gerard did not tell him he had oversighted them; that he did not notice they had disappeared; that when Jimbo asked him about them in December 2008, the question was so unmemorable that he quickly forgot about it; that FloNight's and Peter Damian's e-mails about them either went unread or were similarly unmemorable and soon forgotten; and that the extensive discussion on another website, where he has an account and has been active, also failed to jog his memory. As a result, his statements of July and November 2008 that he knew nothing before July were mistaken, he says, but he believed he was telling the truth. He says he did not remember until December 2008 that he had been told about the oversights in December 2007 by Jimbo.

Aha! I have it. FT2 is actually Alberto Gonzales.

[Bottled_Spider]

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.

Yeah! Thanks, mate. Much obliged. But why, in a message to Moulton, did you say that the block of FT2 was not a ban?

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain). But .......... I have to say that it really does all sound like a bunch of Wiki wankery. The explanation of the silly process, I mean. No offence intended to you, though yes offence to Wikipedia and its labyrinthine rules, or whatever they are.

[Sylar]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

[Sarcasticidealist]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

[Friday]

The issue of which account was used seems like a trivial thing to me- simply a distraction. Who cares about such unimportant details?

The block.. well, it's not what I'd have done, but it was certainly bold direct action. Misuse of tools? Perhaps, but she did _one_ bold thing and reported it at AN/I. This does not warrant any censure.

It certainly brought attention to the issue again. As for whether it was a good idea or not, I don't think we know yet. It's going to depend how it turns out.

[Dzonatas]

You'd think by this time the forum would be taken off of Wikipedia and moved to another Wikimedia project.... just to keep Wikipedia's purpose pure.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Though the case looks likely to be rejected, FayssalF's comments in advocating acceptance may be of interest.

[GlassBeadGame]

Though the case looks likely to be rejected, FayssalF's comments in advocating acceptance may be of interest.

I like how he fashions sanctions before the decision to even hear the case is made. This is the very model of efficiency. Might as well dispose of "evidence" and opportunity to be heard if it is only going to mangled by a crappy "made up as you go along" process in any event.

[Milton Roe]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

[Viridae]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

It didn't happen for a long time though.

[Anonymous editor]

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

I got immediately that the goal was a huge dramafest. I posted that at the beginning.

What's friggin' stupid are Bishonen's actions. It shouldn't be difficult to grasp why.

You don't seem to understand that.

I can't really be troubled to explain it to you.

Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain).

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Wed 14th January 2009, 9:34pm

[Bottled_Spider]

Yes. So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid.

I got immediately that the goal was a huge dramafest.

No you didn't.

I posted that at the beginning.

No you didn't.

What's friggin' stupid are Bishonen's actions.

So you've been saying. A lot. Which is friggin' stupid. Though I do understand that poor old FT2 needs all the arse-kissing that he can get just now. Yes.

It shouldn't be difficult to grasp why. You don't seem to understand that. I can't really be troubled to explain it to you.

Good. Very good. You'd only confuse yourself. Again.

Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

"We"?! I think you should contact the police. Someone has sneaked into your head - probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia - and brutally stolen your friggin' humour gene. And probably lots of other things as well. Eh?

[Anonymous editor]

Are you mentally disabled? Where did I say anything about FT2 and my opinion of him?


Thanks for proving my point, though. We can now add January to the list.

(Hey. I'm just yankin' your chain).

"probably while you were friggin' sleeping / editing Wikipedia "

Editing Wikipedia? Really? I'll go out on a limb and say you have more edits in the last year to Wikipedia than I do.

This post has been edited by Anonymous editor: Wed 14th January 2009, 11:05pm

[Milton Roe]

Why the hell does the same person have two different admin accounts?

She doesn't; Bishonen's not an admin.

Yeah, but it used to be the other way around. People never would have passed Bishonen's Godzilla account at an RfA (though why not exactly, escapes me). Letting the account with the "respectable" persona ( ) go up for, and pass, an adminship "election", THEN trading bits for the two accounts on grounds that they are the same person anyway, seems like cheating to me. Again, the reason being that this could not have been done from the outset-- the community would not have allowed it directly-- so why should it be allowed to happen the sneaky way?

And god knows we wouldn't want to have cheating or lack of fair play at Wikipedia.

Milt

It didn't happen for a long time though.

So? That just makes it sneakier. If Bishilla couldn't have passed an RfA, Bishilla should not be able to finesse "itself" into getting the bit by some other means.

(Other than the old traditional ones of donating to, programming for, or gettting into bed somehow with Jimbo Wales).

[Anonymous editor]

So? That just makes it sneakier. If Bishilla couldn't have passed an RfA, Bishilla should not be able to finesse "itself" into getting the bit by some other means.

(Other than the old tradiational ones of donating to, programing for, or gettting into bed somehow with Jimbo Wales).

Agree completely. Also agree about admins sneakily "vanishing" and getting the bit transferred to their new accounts. That's happened like ten different times.

[tarantino]

lol at Sherilyn lecturing Peter -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=264159633

Thou shalt not troll. This is part and parcel, in my view, of the kind of shit the committee finds itself knee deep in. Some heads need to be banged together. I suggest that we immediately start constructing a B Ark wiki for those Wikipedians who have become addicted to drama and politics ...

Peter, "Better shun the bait than struggle in the snare. — John Dryden"

[SirFozzie]

Heh. Funny Red Dwarf reference.

Although I understand the motive behind Bishonen's block.. I think just bringing a AN notice that she found the lack of response distressing instead of a fait accompli block would have done almost as much for the cause, and focused a lot less of the resulting heat on her. But that's just my two braincells bashing together (they get lonely), and what do I know?