Well my block has expired so what's done is done, but I still find the justification for it rather scary. Here's a Link to my latest post. Please note the reasons Sam Korn and Kesh give for the rationale behind my block. Apparently some behavior can warrant a block even when it does not violate a specific policy on the grounds that it is "disruptive". If you're curious about what I actually did, there is another thread entitled "I just got my first block" for you to look at. Also, my latest response (which is linked) describes what I did.

Never Φear —

Once A Prick Or Prickee In Wikiputia,
Always A Prick Or Prickee In Wikiputia.

Jon

Blocks do not always have to be policy based. It looks like this one was a common sense block.

"Common sense" is a bad term to be used regarding the actions of the Wikipedia ruling class; what's common there is rarely sensible, and what's sensible is far from common.

Even if that's so, no specific act of mine that "showed a lack of common sense" or "caused disruption" was ever mentioned. They mention that it was "in the way I advocated the creation of that article" but they ever give a legitimate explanation as to why the "way in which I advocated the recreation of that article" was disruptive. See this link to my latest post and also read Sam Korn's above post. The closest someone came to an explanation of why my opening a deletion review for that article was disruptive was that it was opened immediately after another deletion review for that same article started by myself was closed, but the only reason the original review was closed is because at the time I didn't have a draft of the article and the closing admin requested one. I returned with a draft and started the review again. So unless proposing a recreation of that particular article is disruption and a lack of common sense in itself, my behavior was in no way disruptive, or at least no legitimate explanation as to why my behavior was disruptive has been given.

Terms like "disruptive" are overly broad, vague weasel-words that generally do not define an act that violates policy. Rather, a person is likely to be called a "disruptive troll" if they impede someone who has an agenda that varies from the proper purposes of the site. I define "troll" as someone who asks a good question that the person being "trolled" doesn't want to have to answer.

Yesterday, in the raucous talk page for the biography of Rosalind Picard, a number of good faith editors posed such troublesome questions to the cabal of ID editors who had long dominated that problematic BLP. The blustering responses of the members of the ID cabal are quite fascinating to dissect.

They didn't have to. The mere accusation is generally enough in wiki-whacky world, outside notions of evidence or due process simply need not apply (unless it suits them). Something of an echo for aficionados of a certain 60's British cult TV show.



Be seeing you!.