On 12/19/05, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day Stephen,
On 12/19/05, Kurt Maxwell Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:
karmafist has now re-blocked me, this time
indefinitely. He and
David Gerard both base their actions on totally baseless
assumptions about my psychology, motives, and intentions.
<snip all the ranting>
You don't seem to have been blocked indefinitely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&…
Unless your IP was blocked for trying to circumvent a block. If you
want to dispute the block then take it to the proper channels, don't
try to get around it.
Difficult as it is to defend Kurt, I was under the impression that this
*was* one of the proper channels.
Don't we tell people, if you can't get a different admin to unblock you
probably deserve to be blocked? Seems a bit unfair to then say to a
blocked user that he shouldn't have come to a list he knows
admins-other-than-the-blocker read and ask to be unblocked.
It is indeed a proper channel; it appears that I've been fooled by a
lowercase k:
It seems Karmafist blocked User:kmweber (with lowercase k), whereas I
had only checked the logs for User:Kmweber (with uppercase K). You
can't even check the logs for lowercase k, it puts it to uppercase for
you. I don't even know if blocks still work when the capitalisation is
wrong.
Anyway, since User:Kmweber was not blocked indefinitely, I presumed
that Kurt must have had his IP autoblocked for trying to get around a
block. That would have meant that he was trying to do something he
shouldn't have been doing (evading a block) rather than engaging in
constructive conversation.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com