On 30/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
People want examples of how "none of the thousand
or so admins wants
to unblock them" doesn't adequately describe the "community" ban
process? How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/I
ncidents/Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle
Synopsis: Linuxbeak unblocks Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle.
A whole page of drama-queen histrionics and hissy-fits erupts, with
some prominent admins loudly storming away from Wikipedia in a huff
(they were soon back), and people demanding that Linuxbeak apologize,
admit to a grave error of judgment, and possibly be desysopped or
debureaucratted. The fact that Jimbo apparently supported
Linuxbeak's action was dismissed as irrelevant. Anybody who in any
way supports the unblocking of these individuals is deemed a
supporter of stalking, harrassing, anti-semitism, and other rotten
stuff. They're quickly reblocked.
Sounds like you're describing a wheel war. ArbCom is the way to go.
The reblocking admins would be at least cautioned, and I doubt
anything would happen to Linuxbeak. ArbCom would then decide once and
forall whether or not to block.
(Disclaimer: This reply is based purely on the parent email, I am not
familiar with the incident in question.)