Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-10112739-20160102070335/@comment-5052737-20160102113650

I'll probably close this anyway since votes on unblocking users aren't allowed (you can't vote to block users, so why would you be able to unblock them...?), but for now, I'll just proceed to explain our actions... I must point out, however, that due to data loss on the admin site, the thread discussing Fort's block got wiped, so I'm having to work from memory.

First, Mad, no, this wasn't "incredibly shady". The discussion was held on admin chat, to which you had access. For you, it couldn't have been "shady" at all. If you were referring to how quickly we dealt with the matter, I suggest you try to remember just the overwhelming amount of evidence collected against him. To any neutral observer, on the basis of that evidence, they probably would have quickly decided for a block as well. And it wasn't "consistent" due to the history of the user in question.

Now, to Rus's statements...

"the administrators decided amongst themselves to block Fort from the wiki for /Eternity/ for nothing major in particular": It wasn't one big policy-breaking action which led to him being blocked, it was the accumulation of several hostile, unnecessary, and offensive comments which the Wiki could well have done without. For example, there was one exchange in this blog between him and Kira in which they exchanged hostilities. Slicer tried to stop it, which only led to Fort reacting negatively towards him and continue the comment chain. The whole farce was stopped when the whole 60+-comment chain got deleted. The whole thing is referred to here. More examples of his rude behaviour can be seen here, here, and here. There were several more pieces of evidence of Fort's obnoxious comments which got lost in the data loss.

"only on the basis that he had been warned in the past to improve his behaviour, however Fort apparently did not commit any new offence for which to be blocked": Allow me to rectify that; he did. Offensive comments towards admins spring to mind (just see his comments towards Jude above), as well as this edit to his "retirement" blog, which was a blatant personal attack.

"he has not heard from any administrator about the reason for the block at all": Perhaps not from the admins, but there's a block reason under his Evie Dark account.

"so I see no reason as to why he should be /permanently blocked/ for seemingly nothing other than being warned before on certain things": The permablock has a reason. The accumulation of obnoxious and offensive comments would have led to a block, you can't dispute that. However, we blocked him permanently because on the basis of his past behaviour, he just wouldn't have improved (allow me to point out the block logs of his Brickmaster and TwistedAlpha accounts). A temporary block would have simply delayed an inevitable permablock, so we decided to cut things short and block him for eternity already. And may I point out that he did get repeatedly warned? If you continuously ignore warnings and continue doing exactly the same things for which you got warned, some form of action is inevitable.

It goes without saying, I vote B).

JSYK, if the admin who posted the thread in admin chat shows up, he may provide yet more evidence for Fort's permablock.