User talk:Bishonen

I blocked you

I blocked you for 3 hours for a personal attack. I am very hopeful that, based on general principles, you will endorse this block as entirely appropriate considering the kind of atmosphere we are trying to cultivate here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better block any underage sysop from a chat room on sight. It is they who turned the English Wikipedia into the kind of place where editors feel themselves uncomfortable. In practice that would mean about 80% admins and half the ArbCom; I doubt any reader would notice their departure. That would be fair. But I know you would not because it is you who made the English Wikipedia, through its close intertwining with IRC, the least meritocratic Wikimedia project of them all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, ArbCom has a minimum age limit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just be grateful Bishonen that you didn't delink any dates! (And come back soon.) HWV258 06:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins - please block Jimbo Wales, clearly the account is compromised and now disruptive - we've often wondered at the management's ineptitude, but this is so utterly and monumentally stupid, it just can't be the bearded wonder at the keyboard. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "toxic personality" jibe was a personal attack in itself, wasn't it? Extraordinary. Tony (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would administrator user:Jimbo Wales please link to the policy "personal attack" that Bishonen violated and explain how and why and where her remarks constituted such a thing? Shouldn't it be unambiguous, if there is a block without discussion? Shouldn't it be clear, if there is a block without a report to AN/I first? Geogre (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George, since Jimbo probably has better things to do with his time than continue arguing with people over this matter, i'll answer your questions! The AN/I discussion is right here and the personal attack that started all this is right here. I'm sure I don't need to explain why thats a personal attack. Cheers! John Sloan @ 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he doesn't, and yes, you do. 1. This is blocking an administrator without warning. Procedure in blocking requires warning, talking to the person, and trying everything short of a block. 2. As the blocking administrator, Jimbo does not have "better things to do." If he does, he should not have blocked. We've established, over and over again, that people must not block and skip away, as we are answerable for our actions, and blocking is a horrendous thing to do. 3. I do not see personal attacks. I see insults of screen names. A person is another matter entirely, and an attack is another matter, again. An attack is not a response. An attack is an action taken by itself.

If you need an illustration of how the legitimate policy regarding attacks and blocks came about, it was this: Some schoolboy accounts and vandal accounts registered simply to write "Mikeizsogay." Those were attacks on some person (notice the name involved). Then there were accounts that existed to do something like "Jews are evil and run the media." Again, an attack account. Those were properly blocked as accounts that existed to attack. This is continents away from a person replying to a vexatious situation.

On the other hand, saying, "You answered my screen name by calling it something nasty, so I get to block you" is prima facia absurd, unsupported by policy, and unsupported by judgment. The first of these is obvious by simply looking at the policies. The second is obvious by watching people react when questioned: they will avoid, at all costs, specifying what the attack is or having a group examine it to assess whether or not it constitutes harm. There are ways of determining real damage from silly sods trying to get even, but the people who like to block, and especially the people who like to block in the name of peace, never show any interest. Geogre (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

This knitter hopes no one will loose their adminship.

Hiya Bish. In future, ya should let other Administrators watch over Giano's page. I don't wanna see ya loosing your Administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: IMHO, only Administrators or the retiring editor-in-question, should be adding the Retirement tag to that editor's Userpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, you have a habit of turning up on troubled editor's pages [1] with some sage advice and a grin, reminding me of the women who used to sit knitting under the guillotine. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, I mean no harm. I'm anxious to keep veteran editors around. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I was just taking a peek and then I find this. It seems Wikipedia isn't treating its veteran editors very well. I feel sorry for you. — mark ✎ 15:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bowdler and the SPCK

Once we judge by words, instead of utterances, we are fundamentalists throwing proof texts at one another or Victorians putting skirts on pianos lest someone think of "leg" and then think of mons veneris by runaway mentation, and, of course, be blamed for causing it.

Once we judge by reaction, instead of by community standards, we are in the height of the "politically correct" language wars, where, because a person could hear "man" in "woman," and might feel that the "wo" is "womb," all speakers must write and say "wymyn"; where, because a person felt bad when you said, "Nice outfit," you were harassing. Furthermore, we beg, or we demand with guns and knives, the question, "Whose reaction?" Is it the reaction of the person who reacted or the person who reacted to the reaction, or the person who reacted to the reaction to the reaction?

These are idiotic hymns being sung to idols, off key and off color.

Who "disrupted?" Giano for "calling names," or the 'crat who promoted against serious opposition and cited "discretion?" Who "disrupted?" Bishonen for calling someone a name, or that someone who insisted on vandalizing a user page? Who is at the "higher standard," Giano, who is not an admin, or the 'crat who defied the rules and procedures to promote without good rationale and who showed poor judgment? Is the "higher standard" on Bishonen, the administrator, or Jimbo, the administrator who is treated as something else? Once we get into these obviously stultifying arguments, the questions just don't stop.

They don't hold water, rationally. They don't make sense. The only thing they satisfy is emotions and interests. Geogre (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]