I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
Sometimes you have to put aside the umbrella and deal with individual cases.
Every banned user isn't the same, nor do they have the same intent, the same motives, or personality. Just because BadGuy1331 is banned for DDoSing Wikimedia, doesn't make me equally bad because we belong to the group of Banned Users. But it's constantly treated as such.
I laugh at JzG's "appeal to ArbCom" post. I *tried* to appeal to ArbCom when I was banned, and they
1) ignored my request
and
2) reset my ban counter.
There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned criminal that everyone hates.
And again, I'm anticipating many replies of "troll" and the like.
I invite you to go ahead, Senator McCarthy.
Instead of "trolls" and "trolling", why don't we just say "annoyance" and "annoying"? It's the same thing; a degrading insult that can be thrown around by anyone in power without consequence (because branding someone as a troll magically turns them into one, somehow).
I would go on IRC today to talk about things, but OH SHI- I'm banned on IRC because they think I'm a troll, based not on anything I've done on IRC, but based mainly on my Wikipedia ban. And I would also like to mention the fact that I get constant shit on every IRC channel and forum I've ever entered due to someone screaming that I'm a troll and deserve to be banned forever, thus repeating the cycle everywhere.
Huzzah, Wikipedia. Huzzah.
---------------------------------
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how.