On 24/09/2007, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Someone wrote:
No, I consider Wikipaedia an attack site, and do not wish to further Wikipaedia's attacks against individuals.
Sorry, but why is this person still being allowed to post here? It's enough of a firehose already without this kind of nonsense.
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
So let me get this straight. Wikipaedia has the right to emotionally hurt, emotionally harass, emotionally abuse, paint in a false light, defame, or violate the privacy of any individual it does not like, for whatever reason. These individuals, however, do not have the right to lift a finger in their defence, nor does anyone else have a right to speak on their behalves, nor do the Chinese have a right to say anything at all.
****** This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options. They can post an unblock request, e-mail ArbCom, contact the Foundation, or (for what it's worth) contact an Eguor Admin like me with their evidence and request an investigation. Occasionally I've unblocked editors on that basis.
I have a standing offer to community banned editors that I'll support their return after six months if they don't violate WP:SOCK, don't bash Wikipedia offsite, and if they pledge not to repeat the behavior that got them banned. If they were banned by ArbCom instead of by the community I'll put in a good word for them in a review request.
I also have a standing offer of two site awards to editors who make a legitimate return from a siteban or who've been sanctioned by ArbCom. I'll hand the Resilient Barnstar to any of them who start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know? I've also created the Valiant Return Triple Crown for those who satisfy a certain set of content contributions. I've handed out a couple of those barnstars and am waiting to award the first Valiant Return crown.
The window of opportunity usually remains open a crack and it isn't that hard to return. I'm glad when someone does turn around successfully and I'm doing my best to figure out how that happens and what I can do to encourage it. Most banned editors behave in ways that keep themselves banned.
-Durova
That's really nice of you Durova, but see, I don't want to be unbanned. I just wanted some silly page blankings and deletions, without drawing more attention to the material or being given hell just for asking.
Apparently other people have been through similar problems, often involving banned user templates showing up as the top Google search result for their name or pseudonym.
I'll even trade for them if you name a price! But I don't want to be unbanned.
On 27/09/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options. They can post an unblock request, e-mail ArbCom, contact the Foundation, or (for what it's worth) contact an Eguor Admin like me with their evidence and request an investigation. Occasionally I've unblocked editors on that basis.
I have a standing offer to community banned editors that I'll support their return after six months if they don't violate WP:SOCK, don't bash Wikipedia offsite, and if they pledge not to repeat the behavior that got them banned. If they were banned by ArbCom instead of by the community I'll put in a good word for them in a review request.
I also have a standing offer of two site awards to editors who make a legitimate return from a siteban or who've been sanctioned by ArbCom. I'll hand the Resilient Barnstar to any of them who start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know? I've also created the Valiant Return Triple Crown for those who satisfy a certain set of content contributions. I've handed out a couple of those barnstars and am waiting to award the first Valiant Return crown.
The window of opportunity usually remains open a crack and it isn't that hard to return. I'm glad when someone does turn around successfully and I'm doing my best to figure out how that happens and what I can do to encourage it. Most banned editors behave in ways that keep themselves banned.
-Durova
Armed,
Can you name the pages you would like deleted and I'm sure one of us on the list will see what we can do.
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
That's really nice of you Durova, but see, I don't want to be unbanned. I just wanted some silly page blankings and deletions, without drawing more attention to the material or being given hell just for asking.
Apparently other people have been through similar problems, often involving banned user templates showing up as the top Google search result for their name or pseudonym.
I'll even trade for them if you name a price! But I don't want to be unbanned.
On 27/09/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options. They can post an unblock request, e-mail ArbCom, contact the Foundation, or (for what it's worth) contact an Eguor Admin like me with their evidence and request an investigation. Occasionally I've unblocked editors on that basis.
I have a standing offer to community banned editors that I'll support their return after six months if they don't violate WP:SOCK, don't bash Wikipedia offsite, and if they pledge not to repeat the behavior that got them banned. If they were banned by ArbCom instead of by the community I'll put in a good word for them in a review request.
I also have a standing offer of two site awards to editors who make a legitimate return from a siteban or who've been sanctioned by ArbCom. I'll hand the Resilient Barnstar to any of them who start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know? I've also created the Valiant Return Triple Crown for those who satisfy a certain set of content contributions. I've handed out a couple of those barnstars and am waiting to award the first Valiant Return crown.
The window of opportunity usually remains open a crack and it isn't that hard to return. I'm glad when someone does turn around successfully and I'm doing my best to figure out how that happens and what I can do to encourage it. Most banned editors behave in ways that keep themselves banned.
-Durova
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/27/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options.
[snip]
What big egos we have that we jump to explinations of how someone can get unblocked when what they desire is not to have a google search on their name bring up a page on Wikipedia claiming that they are troblemakers.
On 27/09/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options.
[snip]
What big egos we have that we jump to explinations of how someone can get unblocked when what they desire is not to have a google search on their name bring up a page on Wikipedia claiming that they are troblemakers.
Durova may not understand what it is that I want, but she is actually a really sweet person. If there were more on WP like her, maybe I would want to come back. But there aren't. So I just want the pages blanked/deleted.