I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards,
Chairboy
On 8/8/07, Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards,
Chairboy
Actually, accusations of sock puppetry can lead to bans for a single misstep. There is an arbcom that was halted based on an accusation of sock puppetry and the user being banned for life because of the ACCUSATION of sock puppetry and the results of a check user. Everyone who knows the editor at issue, even those of use who loathe him, knows he never sock puppeted on Wikipedia.
So, we ban folks for life for a single non-misstep, banning them for life for an actual misstep pales in comparison.
KP
Also, this discussion at the Village Pump:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPP#Biting_newcomers
IMO we need to seriously rethink the way we approach username blocks.
Cheers,
C More schi
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: "Benjamin Hallert" ben@vipmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:30:14 -0700
I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards,
Chairboy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com
There are two kinds of autoblocking - direct hardblocks on IPs and user blocks with autoblock enabled. In the latter type, the blocks on the IPs of the user are only blocked for 24 hours from when the user last tried to use said IPs... and the background colour of the blocking message is much more relaxing. Blue rather than stressful pink with a red X thingy, and then a lot of the blocking templates have another red X thingy, so you end up with a pink background and two red X thingies, which is quite stressful. (Compare [[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]].) ;_; Someone ought to change them to light blue or lavender and put in happier little images... not to mention add helpful explanations to the templates of what the blocked person should do if he or she wants to appeal.
This patch would be useful, although it has about 10 FIXMEs and is around 2 years old: http://www.imperialviolet.org/binary/mediawiki-1.4.4-tor-block.patch
Basically, the idea would be that certain IP addresses would be blocked as a set, automatically, if any one of them were blocked, and automatically unblocked after a certain period of time - temporary blocking games, sort of like rangeblocking AOL for a short period of time.
Also see explanation here: http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/May-2005/msg00128.html
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Also, this discussion at the Village Pump:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VPP#Biting_newcomers
IMO we need to seriously rethink the way we approach username blocks.
Cheers,
C More schi
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
From: "Benjamin Hallert" ben@vipmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:30:14 -0700
I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards,
Chairboy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com
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 8/8/07, Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
Autoblocks do not perminatly such down an IP.
As Armed Blowfish said a few minutes ago, we are not blocking them for life. Autoblocks expire after 24 hours whether we want them to or not. Also, "account creation disabled" just works for the *account* itself, not the underlying IP. Therefore, I do not see how your problem still exists.
On 8/8/07, Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of username blocks recently with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, or a combination of the two. Some of the admins I spoke with said they were doing this on purpose because of 'bad faith usernames'. As these are essentially lifetime bans from Wikipedia (my IP address, while dynamic, lasts months at a time), I think the wording of WP:U should be changed so it doesn't explicitly endorse this, and I'd like some consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards,
Chairboy _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I agree...
--- Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
consideration to the idea of avoiding hardblocks for username violations because of the heaviness of the action.
I've started a discussion on WP:U and on Template:UsernameHardBlocked about aspects of this issue and would like to solicit additional input from the community.
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
Regards, Chairboy
... completely. I'd participate in the discussion, but I'm blocked. Feel free to copy/paste. Wikipedia is without question the worst wiki when it comes to utterly useless blocking. Like dealing with some church librarian stuck in a basement erasing naughty words from books. If it's supposed to be uncensored, quit wasting everybody's fucking time, including your own. Clear enough?
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
On 8/8/07, Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
I can't recall who said this but this is a good quote...
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I can't recall who said this but this is a good quote...
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
But a username like "Ggggggggggggggg12" is not.
That is disputable.
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
I can't recall who said this but this is a good quote...
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the
contrary"
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
But a username like "Ggggggggggggggg12" is not.
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 08/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Benjamin Hallert ben@vipmail.com wrote:
Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we essentially within our powers ban someone for life on the result of a single misstep, and I don't believe we should do it here too.
I can't recall who said this but this is a good quote...
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
Because everyone is either good or bad, and nothing in between... one drink of alcohol, and you've gone over to the dark side forever!
#include <srcsmdsclmr.h>
Armed Blowfish
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
Because everyone is either good or bad, and nothing in between... one drink of alcohol, and you've gone over to the dark side forever!
Oh there are "inbetweens" but they're not likely to choose a username like "suckmydick" but they might choose "Ggggggggggggggg12". If a tweener or even a good guy gets drunk and creates "user:suckmydick", he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
On 08/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
Because everyone is either good or bad, and nothing in between... one drink of alcohol, and you've gone over to the dark side forever!
Oh there are "inbetweens" but they're not likely to choose a username like "suckmydick" but they might choose "Ggggggggggggggg12". If a tweener or even a good guy gets drunk and creates "user:suckmydick", he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
Sure... but you might not want to leave a note in the block log saying 'leave and never come back, you are indefinitely banned.'
Just jesting....
Armed Blowfish
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
"user:suckmydick"
he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
Sure... but you might not want to leave a note in the block log saying 'leave and never come back, you are indefinitely banned.'
My note would be "it will cost you a a grand and a note from your mother. Encyclopedia Dramatica is that way, MEOW ===>"
[[Meow|Myerrrrrr....]] : )
Actually, 'Come back and pick a different user name when you are feeling better. Good luck, ~~~~' would probably be a better message.
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
"user:suckmydick"
he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
Sure... but you might not want to leave a note in the block log saying 'leave and never come back, you are indefinitely banned.'
My note would be "it will cost you a a grand and a note from your mother. Encyclopedia Dramatica is that way, MEOW ===>"
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Good luck indeed. There's 4 million possible usernames ruled out straightaway. Ggggggggg12 and such usernames are rapidly becoming all that's available.
On 09/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
[[Meow|Myerrrrrr....]] : )
Actually, 'Come back and pick a different user name when you are feeling better. Good luck, ~~~~' would probably be a better message.
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
"user:suckmydick"
he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
Sure... but you might not want to leave a note in the block log saying 'leave and never come back, you are indefinitely banned.'
My note would be "it will cost you a a grand and a note from your mother. Encyclopedia Dramatica is that way, MEOW ===>"
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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 Wednesday 08 August 2007 20:41, Ron Ritzman wrote:
Oh there are "inbetweens" but they're not likely to choose a username like "suckmydick" but they might choose "Ggggggggggggggg12". If a tweener or even a good guy gets drunk and creates "user:suckmydick", he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
I don't understand how that's necessarily indicative of bad faith or inebriation.
I don't drink, and I always edit in good faith. I want a blowjob. What's wrong with my username indicating that fact?
Inebriation was merely one example of how things are not always as simple as 'good' or 'bad'.
You could say people ought not to be getting drunk, but then again, if he just found out his fiance was cheating on him, can you blame him?
Armed Blowfish
On 08/08/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 20:41, Ron Ritzman wrote:
Oh there are "inbetweens" but they're not likely to choose a username like "suckmydick" but they might choose "Ggggggggggggggg12". If a tweener or even a good guy gets drunk and creates "user:suckmydick", he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
I don't understand how that's necessarily indicative of bad faith or inebriation.
I don't drink, and I always edit in good faith. I want a blowjob. What's wrong with my username indicating that fact?
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
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 09/08/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 20:41, Ron Ritzman wrote:
Oh there are "inbetweens" but they're not likely to choose a username like "suckmydick" but they might choose "Ggggggggggggggg12". If a tweener or even a good guy gets drunk and creates "user:suckmydick", he can always choose another one when he sobers up.
I don't understand how that's necessarily indicative of bad faith or inebriation.
I don't drink, and I always edit in good faith. I want a blowjob. What's wrong with my username indicating that fact?
-- Kurt Weber kmw@armory.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's in bad taste (no pun intended...)
On 8/8/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
I don't drink, and I always edit in good faith. I want a blowjob. What's wrong with my username indicating that fact?
There are plenty of less confrontational ways of indicating that.
For example, User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobpleasepleaseplease is not taken.
On 8/9/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/8/07, Kurt Maxwell Weber kmw@armory.com wrote:
I don't drink, and I always edit in good faith. I want a blowjob. What's wrong with my username indicating that fact?
There are plenty of less confrontational ways of indicating that.
For example, User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobpleasepleaseplease is not taken.
Well, I suppose wikipedia can be used to advertise your chronic need for oral sex from complete strangers via your username, as this isn't like you're advertising your business.
KP
On 8/9/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
There are plenty of less confrontational ways of indicating that.
For example, User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobpleasepleaseplease is not taken.
User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobandasteakpleasepleaseplease
On 10/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
There are plenty of less confrontational ways of indicating that.
For example, User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobpleasepleaseplease is not taken.
User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobandasteakpleasepleaseplease
User:deletedafterseveralafds?
On 8/9/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
For example, User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobpleasepleaseplease is not taken.
User:ImsobercanIhaveablowjobandasteakpleasepleaseplease
User:deletedafterseveralafds?
User:fredwhackedmeforputtingitonwikinfo
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary"
A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
If we're looking to define a canonical "bad faith" username, I'd actually really prefer we look for something more akin to "Jimbo Wales sucks!! call him at 123-456-7890!" -- something that displays not only bad judgement and ill will, but even prior knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings.
Yes, "suckmydick" should be blocked, but should they necessarily be prevented from choosing a more appropriate name? What message should we be sending? Is it "please choose another name" or "please choose another name, oh wait, you're autoblocked, lol, gtfo and don't come back"? In most cases, I'd prefer the former. From experience watching the live new users feed, most people don't suddenly turn around and register "suckmydick2" if you softblock them, and most of the serious trolls use dynamic addresses that won't be significantly affected by autoblocks, anyway; I can't help but question whether these harsh blocks are really doing much good, on the whole.
Or something along those lines. I'd rather scare off as few potential contributors as possible, in the process of keeping out the trolls.
-Luna
To add a tiny bit of historical perspective to this...
In the very early days of wikipedia; I mean in the very very early days, we had among other editors one by the username of ThrobbingMonsterCock and TokerBoy (or something on those lines).
Out of deference to community views, they did infact change their usernames to TMC, (catch the alliteration there?) and TUF-KAT respectively (perhaps in this case it is useful to spell out that the abbreviation The User Formerly Known As Tokerboy was clearly the intended allusion).
Now admittedly those were the free-wheeling early days of wikipedia and we have indeed matured as a project quite noticeably since then, as 8 million wikipedia articles in all languages combined clearly attest. But once in a while it does not hurt to look back and remember...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 09/08/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
To add a tiny bit of historical perspective to this...
In the very early days of wikipedia; I mean in the very very early days, we had among other editors one by the username of ThrobbingMonsterCock and TokerBoy (or something on those lines).
Out of deference to community views, they did infact change their usernames to TMC, (catch the alliteration there?) and TUF-KAT respectively (perhaps in this case it is useful to spell out that the abbreviation The User Formerly Known As Tokerboy was clearly the intended allusion).
Now admittedly those were the free-wheeling early days of wikipedia and we have indeed matured as a project quite noticeably since then, as 8 million wikipedia articles in all languages combined clearly attest. But once in a while it does not hurt to look back and remember...
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And TUF-KAT, who'd have been blocked indefinitely today without warning, is now a Bureaucrat... just goes to show.
Luna wrote:
On 8/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
"I will not assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary" A username like "suckmydick" is evidence to the contrary.
Yes, "suckmydick" should be blocked, but should they necessarily be prevented from choosing a more appropriate name?
If that's the person's only fault I don't even see the point of blocking at all. If they register the name and go away without editing they have effectively prevented anyone else from using the same name.
What message should we be sending? Is it "please choose another name" or "please choose another name, oh wait, you're autoblocked, lol, gtfo and don't come back"? In most cases, I'd prefer the former. From experience watching the live new users feed, most people don't suddenly turn around and register "suckmydick2" if you softblock them, and most of the serious trolls use dynamic addresses that won't be significantly affected by autoblocks, anyway; I can't help but question whether these harsh blocks are really doing much good, on the whole.
They really don't do much good. More effort goes into these counter-measures than these individuals with short attention spans ever put into their silly games in the first place. Energy is much better spent on dealing with the more persistant vandals.
Ec
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been username-blocked. As is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I pointed him to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put the username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I will make a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the uw-ublock template if you're going to username-block someone."
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been username-blocked. As is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I pointed him to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put the username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I will make a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the uw-ublock template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their user talk page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked while in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been
username-blocked. As
is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I pointed
him
to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put the username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I will
make
a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the uw-ublock template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Okay, erm, as a banned user, I am quite sure one finds out when one clicks on an 'edit' link and then there's a big scary red block message... or a not-so-scary blue block message.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their user talk page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked while in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been
username-blocked. As
is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I pointed
him
to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put the username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I will
make
a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the uw-ublock template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Okay, erm, I deliberately didn't say this for fear of being condescending, but we're talking about username blocks here.
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, as a banned user, I am quite sure one finds out when one clicks on an 'edit' link and then there's a big scary red block message... or a not-so-scary blue block message.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their user
talk
page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked
while
in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been
username-blocked. As
is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I
pointed
him
to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put
the
username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I
will
make
a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the
uw-ublock
template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right... but whether your user name is blocked, or someone else's user name is blocked, or an IP address you use is blocked, you will still see either the Blockedtext or the Autoblockedtext when you click on an edit link. The software doesn't check to see if you are blocked before deciding what CSS layout to show you... and besides, banned/blocked users are still allowed to view the source code, just as when pages are protected, so we still need edit links.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, I deliberately didn't say this for fear of being condescending, but we're talking about username blocks here.
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, as a banned user, I am quite sure one finds out when one clicks on an 'edit' link and then there's a big scary red block message... or a not-so-scary blue block message.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their user
talk
page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked
while
in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been
username-blocked. As
is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I
pointed
him
to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put
the
username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I
will
make
a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the
uw-ublock
template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Erm... what Josh is trying to say is that people have to wait until they try to edit before being told about a block if we do it your way, but people find out when they log in if we do it his way. There is no reason why we shouldn't do both, but it is nice to get the 'you have new messages' notice in advance of actually editing pages.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Right... but whether your user name is blocked, or someone else's user name is blocked, or an IP address you use is blocked, you will still see either the Blockedtext or the Autoblockedtext when you click on an edit link. The software doesn't check to see if you are blocked before deciding what CSS layout to show you... and besides, banned/blocked users are still allowed to view the source code, just as when pages are protected, so we still need edit links.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, I deliberately didn't say this for fear of being condescending, but we're talking about username blocks here.
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, as a banned user, I am quite sure one finds out when one clicks on an 'edit' link and then there's a big scary red block message... or a not-so-scary blue block message.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their user
talk
page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked
while
in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the user's talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading their talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the big blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid of all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed a [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been
username-blocked. As
is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I
pointed
him
to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to put
the
username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough. I
will
make
a new account with a reasonable name".
I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the
uw-ublock
template if you're going to username-block someone."
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Some of us don't read the new messages before trying to edit.
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Erm... what Josh is trying to say is that people have to wait until they try to edit before being told about a block if we do it your way, but people find out when they log in if we do it his way. There is no reason why we shouldn't do both, but it is nice to get the 'you have new messages' notice in advance of actually editing pages.
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Right... but whether your user name is blocked, or someone else's user name is blocked, or an IP address you use is blocked, you will still see either the Blockedtext or the Autoblockedtext when you click on an edit link. The software doesn't check to see if you are blocked before deciding what CSS layout to show you... and besides, banned/blocked users are still allowed to view the source code, just as when pages are protected, so we still need edit links.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, I deliberately didn't say this for fear of being
condescending,
but we're talking about username blocks here.
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Okay, erm, as a banned user, I am quite sure one finds out when one clicks on an 'edit' link and then there's a big scary red block message... or a not-so-scary blue block message.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
Well, actually, they'll know they are blocked when they read their
user
talk
page and see the notice, except in the unusual case of being blocked
while
in the middle of an edit (and saving without previewing.)
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Except put the template in the blocking reason slot, not the
user's
talk page. Users do not find out they are blocked by reading
their
talk page, they find out when they try to edit and they see the
big
blocking notices ([[MediaWiki:Blockedtext]] and [[MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext]]), which display the blocking reason.
Someone really ought to change the background colour on the Blockedtext to lavender (the pink is quite stressful), and get rid
of
all the stressful red Xs.
Armed Blowfish
On 10/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote: > I had a quite surprising experience a couple days ago; I noticed
a
> [[CAT:RFU]] for one [[User:Badassfatass]], who had been username-blocked. As > is common in such cases, he yelled CENSORSHIP and HOW DARE WE. I
pointed
him > to our username policies (the original blocker had neglected to
put
the
> username block template on his page), and he said "Fair enough.
I
will
make > a new account with a reasonable name". > > I guess the moral is, "at the very least, please put up the
uw-ublock
> template if you're going to username-block someone." > > -- > --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist (AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious Editing Club of Wikipedia.
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 11/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
They should have thought about that before doing something blockworthy, then, shouldn't they?
Wikipaedia has a right to block people, blocking people being part of Wikipaedia's self-determination, but there are still things Wikipaedia can and should do to make the process as painless as possible. The goal should only be to prevent the person from editing, not hurt the person.
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
Armed Blowfish
on 8/11/07 8:50 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
They should have thought about that before doing something blockworthy, then, shouldn't they?
Wikipaedia has a right to block people, blocking people being part of Wikipaedia's self-determination, but there are still things Wikipaedia can and should do to make the process as painless as possible. The goal should only be to prevent the person from editing, not hurt the person.
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
Armed Blowfish
Excellent points, AB. This has to do with how the culture regards its people.
Marc Riddell
Thanks! : )
In that case, I'd like to suggest the following: 1. Blocking/banning notices (the templates and the Blockedtext and Autoblockedtext messages) should be sensitively worded and contain clear instructions on a) the proper course of appeals, if there are any viable options, or else an apologetic explanation that there are no viable options, b) asking for courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight (it is far too difficult to figure out how to contact the OTRS), and c) how to get advice (Editor assistance, I guess, since the Association of Members Advocates and Mentorship Committee are both rather dead). 2. Said notices should use relaxing colours - light blue, lavender, green - and avoid stressful red Xs. 3. Blocking templates should be placed in the 'Blocking reason' slot, not on the editor's talk page, where they would show up on Google. 4. The OTRS ought to be given more room to work in terms of courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight. 5. Please, pretty please, do not discuss the courtesy blankings etc. publicly, on-wiki. This defeats the point. Use email. 6. Please do not continue to discuss, in a hurtful way, the banned users when they are not even appealing. Also see [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]] where it states 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.'
Thanks, Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/11/07 8:50 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
They should have thought about that before doing something blockworthy, then, shouldn't they?
Wikipaedia has a right to block people, blocking people being part of Wikipaedia's self-determination, but there are still things Wikipaedia can and should do to make the process as painless as possible. The goal should only be to prevent the person from editing, not hurt the person.
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
Armed Blowfish
Excellent points, AB. This has to do with how the culture regards its people.
Marc Riddell
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 8/11/07 11:43 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
In that case, I'd like to suggest the following:
- Blocking/banning notices (the templates and the Blockedtext and
Autoblockedtext messages) should be sensitively worded and contain clear instructions on a) the proper course of appeals, if there are any viable options, or else an apologetic explanation that there are no viable options, b) asking for courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight (it is far too difficult to figure out how to contact the OTRS), and c) how to get advice (Editor assistance, I guess, since the Association of Members Advocates and Mentorship Committee are both rather dead). 2. Said notices should use relaxing colours - light blue, lavender, green - and avoid stressful red Xs. 3. Blocking templates should be placed in the 'Blocking reason' slot, not on the editor's talk page, where they would show up on Google. 4. The OTRS ought to be given more room to work in terms of courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight. 5. Please, pretty please, do not discuss the courtesy blankings etc. publicly, on-wiki. This defeats the point. Use email. 6. Please do not continue to discuss, in a hurtful way, the banned users when they are not even appealing. Also see [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]] where it states 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.'
This all sounds good to me. It also reminds us of our policy on Civility.
Marc
This is basically the "lets bend over backwards to protect bad users from the ramifications of their actions" theory.
On 8/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/11/07 11:43 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
In that case, I'd like to suggest the following:
- Blocking/banning notices (the templates and the Blockedtext and
Autoblockedtext messages) should be sensitively worded and contain clear instructions on a) the proper course of appeals, if there are any viable options, or else an apologetic explanation that there are no viable options, b) asking for courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight (it is far too difficult to figure out how to contact the OTRS), and c) how to get advice (Editor assistance, I guess, since the Association of Members Advocates and Mentorship Committee are both rather dead). 2. Said notices should use relaxing colours - light blue, lavender, green - and avoid stressful red Xs. 3. Blocking templates should be placed in the 'Blocking reason' slot, not on the editor's talk page, where they would show up on Google. 4. The OTRS ought to be given more room to work in terms of courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight. 5. Please, pretty please, do not discuss the courtesy blankings etc. publicly, on-wiki. This defeats the point. Use email. 6. Please do not continue to discuss, in a hurtful way, the banned users when they are not even appealing. Also see [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]] where it states 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.'
This all sounds good to me. It also reminds us of our policy on Civility.
Marc
--
- Practice random acts of kindness. *
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 8/11/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
This is basically the "lets bend over backwards to protect bad users from the ramifications of their actions" theory.
But remember, when you put a block message on a person's talk page, you assault them for the second time.
I wasn't insane a few weeks ago, dammit! And insane is not the same as bad. There may be similarities... but if you were forced to remember in vivid detail the things I've been forced to remember, you'd be insane too.
And it's not my bloody fault I got molested... which is where this all started many years ago.
Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
This is basically the "lets bend over backwards to protect bad users from the ramifications of their actions" theory.
On 8/11/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/11/07 11:43 AM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
In that case, I'd like to suggest the following:
- Blocking/banning notices (the templates and the Blockedtext and
Autoblockedtext messages) should be sensitively worded and contain clear instructions on a) the proper course of appeals, if there are any viable options, or else an apologetic explanation that there are no viable options, b) asking for courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight (it is far too difficult to figure out how to contact the OTRS), and c) how to get advice (Editor assistance, I guess, since the Association of Members Advocates and Mentorship Committee are both rather dead). 2. Said notices should use relaxing colours - light blue, lavender, green - and avoid stressful red Xs. 3. Blocking templates should be placed in the 'Blocking reason' slot, not on the editor's talk page, where they would show up on Google. 4. The OTRS ought to be given more room to work in terms of courtesy blankings, deletions and the occasional oversight. 5. Please, pretty please, do not discuss the courtesy blankings etc. publicly, on-wiki. This defeats the point. Use email. 6. Please do not continue to discuss, in a hurtful way, the banned users when they are not even appealing. Also see [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]] where it states 'Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.'
This all sounds good to me. It also reminds us of our policy on Civility.
Marc
--
- Practice random acts of kindness. *
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ 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 Saturday 11 August 2007 11:22, Josh Gordon wrote:
This is basically the "lets bend over backwards to protect bad users from the ramifications of their actions" theory.
No, it's more like the "let's not be a bunch of uptight, pretentious jackasses" theory.
Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Thus, the effects of our blocks should be limited to preventing harm to Wikipedia itself. We should avoid causing collateral damage to the individual's reputation outside of Wikipedia.
I fear, Mr. Gordon, that you are taking yourself and Wikipedia way too seriously.
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I don't think I implied it, I think I stated it, and I stand by that statement. Yes, there is the occasional mistake, but we have appeals processes to resolve such mistakes. The vast majority of banned/blocked users who remain banned/blocked after using all the appeals available to them do deserve to be banned/blocked. I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF is merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF is merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
On 11/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF
is
merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
It's not an act. This is the transparency people have been asking me for for weeks... the answer to the question people wouldn't stop asking. I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but that's not my fault. 'Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.'
Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF is merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
on 8/11/07 1:06 PM, James Farrar at james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
That's pretty rough, James. You need to be clearer about what you are referring to.
Marc Riddell
On 11/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF is merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
on 8/11/07 1:06 PM, James Farrar at james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
That's pretty rough, James. You need to be clearer about what you are referring to.
Perpetual "as a banned user" comments, when he isn't.
On 11/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all;
ABF is
merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in
good
good standing,
on 8/11/07 1:06 PM, James Farrar at james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
That's pretty rough, James. You need to be clearer about what you are referring to.
Perpetual "as a banned user" comments, when he isn't.
The community denied my unblock-auto request, which makes it a community ban. 'If not one out of 1,298 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.' See [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban]].
Armed Blowfish
That's just hooey. A community ban is when an editor is banned for a reason. You were not banned, that's all there is to it, and your pretending to be banned is just tiresome. You can edit any time you want. You just can't use open proxies, like everyone else. No, not one of the 1298 administrators is willing to violate the policy against open proxies by making an exception for yours; that's hardly a ban -- it's equitable treatment.
On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The community denied my unblock-auto request, which makes it a community ban. 'If not one out of 1,298 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.' See [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban]].
That sounds just like, 'if you were someone other than who you are, then you would be welcome to edit.' Same could be said of any banned user. And yes, paranoia is part of who I am, as should be apparent by now.
Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
That's just hooey. A community ban is when an editor is banned for a reason. You were not banned, that's all there is to it, and your pretending to be banned is just tiresome. You can edit any time you want. You just can't use open proxies, like everyone else. No, not one of the 1298 administrators is willing to violate the policy against open proxies by making an exception for yours; that's hardly a ban -- it's equitable treatment.
On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The community denied my unblock-auto request, which makes it a community ban. 'If not one out of 1,298 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.' See [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban]].
-- --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ _______________________________________________ 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 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
That sounds just like, 'if you were someone other than who you are, then you would be welcome to edit.' Same could be said of any banned user. And yes, paranoia is part of who I am, as should be apparent by now.
Use of open proxies isn't who you are, it's what you do. Big difference.
I suggest you peruse [[Wikipedia: List of banned users]]. "Banning is different from blocking; a block is a technical measure to disable editing by a specific account or IP address, and is a restriction which may be temporary."
And your name is not on that page, hence you are not a banned user. Please do not pretend to be so again.
On 11/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
That sounds just like, 'if you were someone other than who you are, then you would be welcome to edit.' Same could be said of any banned user. And yes, paranoia is part of who I am, as should be apparent by now.
Use of open proxies isn't who you are, it's what you do. Big difference.
You are what you do....
I suggest you peruse [[Wikipedia: List of banned users]]. "Banning is different from blocking; a block is a technical measure to disable editing by a specific account or IP address, and is a restriction which may be temporary."
And your name is not on that page, hence you are not a banned user. Please do not pretend to be so again.
I don't think being banned has much to do with what lists you appear on.
If no one is willing to unblock - which is okay now, for the record - that would seem to qualify as a ban.
Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The community denied my unblock-auto request, which makes it a community ban. 'If not one out of 1,298 administrators is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.' See [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Decision_to_ban]].
There's a difference between a user being banned and a shared IP being blocked.
On 11/08/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/11/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
I'm not familiar with the details of your case, so it is possible you are an exception, but there aren't many.
Exception only in the sense that ABF is not banned or blocked at all; ABF is merely expected to adhere to the same policies as any other editor, in particular the prohibition against open proxies. ABF is an editor in good good standing,
And his martyr act is starting to wear really thin.
If he's not actually blocked/banned, can we ban him from the mailing list for outright lying?
Thomas Dalton schreef:
If he's not actually blocked/banned, can we ban him from the mailing list for outright lying?
He may just be confused on terminology: the difference between blocking and banning is not easy, and one should also clearly differentiate between people, user accounts, and IPs.
* People can be banned. That means they are not allowed to come back under any name.
* User accounts can be blocked (not banned). This may happen because they belong to banned people, because they are sock puppets, because of our user name policy, or some other reason.
* IPs can also be blocked. This may happen because they belong to banned people, or because they are anonymous proxies.
People whose user accounts or IPs are blocked, are allowed to return to editting under another name or from another IP, unless they (the people themselves) are actually banned.
It is my understanding that when ABF says he's banned from editing wikipedia, he actually means that his IP is blocked. The result of this may well be that he is unable to edit Wikipedia at all, if he is unable to get another IP to edit from.
Eugene
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
Technically, only users who do not have ipblock-exempt are blocked from editing via Tor.
I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
Armed Blowfish
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
It means you're not getting a special arrangement just for you. That's not a ban.
Enough. If you can't see by now, it's because you really really really don't want to.
- d.
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
on 8/11/07 3:05 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It means you're not getting a special arrangement just for you. That's not a ban.
Enough. If you can't see by now, it's because you really really really don't want to.
David,
Enough - is right.
Marc Riddell
From: "Armed Blowfish" diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:55 -0500
On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
Technically, only users who do not have ipblock-exempt are blocked from editing via Tor.
I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
Armed Blowfish
Because we are not prepared to break the rules for you, because we believe in playing fair. It is not a ban because you are able to edit the minute you drop the open proxies. If you look at our other "banned" users, none of them has such an easy (well, I don't know that) way back to editing. Ergo, you are not banned.
Now, for the love of God, please stop going about this. It's fricking tiresome. We're just going round in circles here, and we're not going to get out of the circles, seeing as you're blatantly in denial.
C More schi
_________________________________________________________________ Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com
On 11/08/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: "Armed Blowfish" diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:55 -0500
On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
Technically, only users who do not have ipblock-exempt are blocked from editing via Tor.
I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
Armed Blowfish
Because we are not prepared to break the rules for you, because we believe in playing fair. It is not a ban because you are able to edit the minute you drop the open proxies. If you look at our other "banned" users, none of them has such an easy (well, I don't know that) way back to editing. Ergo, you are not banned.
Now, for the love of God, please stop going about this. It's fricking tiresome. We're just going round in circles here, and we're not going to get out of the circles, seeing as you're blatantly in denial.
C More schi
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, which he is open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article, but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some good articles and helps other editors as part of the Editor assistance program. One day, he is indefinitely blocked for his continual changing of British spelling to American. He appeals several times, eventually up to RfC, but the community will not unblock him unless he agrees to stop changing British spelling to American. He closes the RfC early, being very depressed about it. He feels hurt that, in spite of all the work he's put into article writing and Editor assistance, all some people care about are his mostly harmless spelling changes.
That's okay though, he'll get over it. Except people keep yelling at him even after he is gone. They want to know why he is obsessive compulsive, they say obsessive compulsiveness is bad. A lot of his memories of getting beaten up are brought to the surface, and he can't handle reliving those memories. Additionally, it feels to him as though people are saying it is his fault he got beaten up. And for some reason, because of his prior work in Editor assistance, people keep asking him for help, even though he is banned. He is confused about how it is possible to be a community mother and a banned user at the same time, but he does his best to help them anyway. When he thinks things have finally died down a bit, he asks for some page blankings, but some people give him hell over one of said blankings, and he feels like Wikipaedia will never leave him alone. Subsequently, his head goes BOOM!
Would you say that he is not banned merely because he could get unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly different?
Armed Blowfish
On 12/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, which he is open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article, but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some
[...]
Would you say that he is not banned merely because he could get unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly different?
There have been real cases like this - Mike Garcia in his heyday, for example. That his behaviour was due to a mental problem did not make it Wikipedia's problem to put up with. He got all of AOL blocked quite a lot ...
- d.
On 12/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, which he is open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article, but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some
[...]
Would you say that he is not banned merely because he could get unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly different?
There have been real cases like this - Mike Garcia in his heyday, for example. That his behaviour was due to a mental problem did not make it Wikipedia's problem to put up with. He got all of AOL blocked quite a lot ...
- d.
There is a difference, however, between 'We love you, but unfortunately we have to ban you,' and 'Evil insane person! Ban! Ban! Ban!'
Armed Blowfish
Blowfish -
The question here is not "less trust => banned". It's "not yet earned more trust or other criteria needed for an exception". There is a huge difference.
A neurological/psychological problem such as OCD, which some people cannot escape, is not the same as a preference for editing through a given medium. The example doesn't have much direct relevance.
The logic of your comment below is closer to this scenario: - as if you felt "banned" because the community declined to allow you adminship and you stated that you so much needed the ability to block or protect, to edit, that without them you would feel obligated to leave. If you demanded that exception on threat of not editing if not granted, you would expect a similar response. Being declined an exception, is not a rejection from the community or a "ban", it's simply that (in this case) for whatever reason, whatever additional requirement over and above being a regular user that might be needed to warrant the exception, for whatever reason it wasn't felt applicable when you asked. That's immensely far from a "ban".
A response to the effect that "If you can't give me that additional permission, I will feel obligated not to edit so you have in effect banned me" doesn't really hold water. That's a false responsibility and coercion issue. You have the power to edit or not to edit; and that choice remains as it always was, with you. If the community felt okay about an exception it would clearly allow one, but they obviously don't feel it is appropriate, and that's their permissible view.
What you are doing with that view is similar to saying "I am not prepared to accept alternatives, and therefore not giving me an exception is a ban because of *my own self-imposed limit* -- so you have a moral duty to make an exception, otherwise my self-imposed limit will hurt me."
(That structure is why it sounds like a kind of coercion.)
Perhaps this explanation may be useful.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:53 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames
On 11/08/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: "Armed Blowfish" diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:55 -0500
On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
Technically, only users who do not have ipblock-exempt are blocked from editing via Tor.
I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
Armed Blowfish
Because we are not prepared to break the rules for you, because we believe in playing fair. It is not a ban because you are able to edit the minute
you
drop the open proxies. If you look at our other "banned" users, none of
them
has such an easy (well, I don't know that) way back to editing. Ergo, you are not banned.
Now, for the love of God, please stop going about this. It's fricking tiresome. We're just going round in circles here, and we're not going to
get
out of the circles, seeing as you're blatantly in denial.
C More schi
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, which he is open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article, but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some good articles and helps other editors as part of the Editor assistance program. One day, he is indefinitely blocked for his continual changing of British spelling to American. He appeals several times, eventually up to RfC, but the community will not unblock him unless he agrees to stop changing British spelling to American. He closes the RfC early, being very depressed about it. He feels hurt that, in spite of all the work he's put into article writing and Editor assistance, all some people care about are his mostly harmless spelling changes.
That's okay though, he'll get over it. Except people keep yelling at him even after he is gone. They want to know why he is obsessive compulsive, they say obsessive compulsiveness is bad. A lot of his memories of getting beaten up are brought to the surface, and he can't handle reliving those memories. Additionally, it feels to him as though people are saying it is his fault he got beaten up. And for some reason, because of his prior work in Editor assistance, people keep asking him for help, even though he is banned. He is confused about how it is possible to be a community mother and a banned user at the same time, but he does his best to help them anyway. When he thinks things have finally died down a bit, he asks for some page blankings, but some people give him hell over one of said blankings, and he feels like Wikipaedia will never leave him alone. Subsequently, his head goes BOOM!
Would you say that he is not banned merely because he could get unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly different?
Armed Blowfish
On 12/08/07, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Blowfish -
The question here is not "less trust => banned". It's "not yet earned more trust or other criteria needed for an exception". There is a huge difference.
Ignoring what I've done post head explosion, which I am sure I will never be forgiven for, how had I not earned enough trust for an exception at the time of my RfA? It seemed to me nothing would have been enough.
A neurological/psychological problem such as OCD, which some people cannot escape, is not the same as a preference for editing through a given medium. The example doesn't have much direct relevance.
I can't escape paranoia. You could say Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and changing spellings aren't the same, but when one leads to the other, what's the difference?
The logic of your comment below is closer to this scenario: - as if you felt "banned" because the community declined to allow you adminship and you stated that you so much needed the ability to block or protect, to edit, that without them you would feel obligated to leave. If you demanded that exception on threat of not editing if not granted, you would expect a similar response. Being declined an exception, is not a rejection from the community or a "ban", it's simply that (in this case) for whatever reason, whatever additional requirement over and above being a regular user that might be needed to warrant the exception, for whatever reason it wasn't felt applicable when you asked. That's immensely far from a "ban".
It's not my fault the only group with ipblock-exempt is admins. I proposed a patch to add a separate group. The patch was declined.
A response to the effect that "If you can't give me that additional permission, I will feel obligated not to edit so you have in effect banned me" doesn't really hold water. That's a false responsibility and coercion issue. You have the power to edit or not to edit; and that choice remains as it always was, with you. If the community felt okay about an exception it would clearly allow one, but they obviously don't feel it is appropriate, and that's their permissible view.
I keep seeing Mediawiki:Blockedtext messages. My paranoia compels me to use Tor. Yes, I do feel some sort of ethical obligation to not go searching for a non-blocked proxy to proxy chain, as that would feel rather like ban evasion - if the community wanted me to be able to edit via Tor, they would've unblocked me.
Look, if they want to ban me, fine, but there's a difference between banning someone and flaying them alive.
What you are doing with that view is similar to saying "I am not prepared to accept alternatives, and therefore not giving me an exception is a ban because of *my own self-imposed limit* -- so you have a moral duty to make an exception, otherwise my self-imposed limit will hurt me."
Paranoia. And it isn't the ban, it was the way some people wouldn't leave me alone.
Armed Blowfish
(That structure is why it sounds like a kind of coercion.)
Perhaps this explanation may be useful.
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Armed Blowfish Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:53 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames
On 11/08/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: "Armed Blowfish" diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:02:55 -0500
On 11/08/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Also, as a banned user, I must ask you to not imply that banned/blocked users 'deserve' to be banned/blocked.
You are not a banned user - you are a user who chooses not to use access methods other than ones that are blocked with strong reasons. That TOR is blocked is unfortunate and a pain in the arse, but that doesn't make you a banned user, because you simply aren't.
- d.
Technically, only users who do not have ipblock-exempt are blocked from editing via Tor.
I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am still not seeing how that is not a ban.
Armed Blowfish
Because we are not prepared to break the rules for you, because we believe in playing fair. It is not a ban because you are able to edit the minute
you
drop the open proxies. If you look at our other "banned" users, none of
them
has such an easy (well, I don't know that) way back to editing. Ergo, you are not banned.
Now, for the love of God, please stop going about this. It's fricking tiresome. We're just going round in circles here, and we're not going to
get
out of the circles, seeing as you're blatantly in denial.
C More schi
Another analogy: A guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, which he is open about. (He does not, however, state the reason for his obsessive compulsive disorder, which is that he was beaten many times as a child.) Being obsessive compulsive, he keeps changing British spelling to American. No revert warring, never on the same article, but he does this many times. He can't help it - he's obsessive compulsive. Aside from that, he does good work - he's written some good articles and helps other editors as part of the Editor assistance program. One day, he is indefinitely blocked for his continual changing of British spelling to American. He appeals several times, eventually up to RfC, but the community will not unblock him unless he agrees to stop changing British spelling to American. He closes the RfC early, being very depressed about it. He feels hurt that, in spite of all the work he's put into article writing and Editor assistance, all some people care about are his mostly harmless spelling changes.
That's okay though, he'll get over it. Except people keep yelling at him even after he is gone. They want to know why he is obsessive compulsive, they say obsessive compulsiveness is bad. A lot of his memories of getting beaten up are brought to the surface, and he can't handle reliving those memories. Additionally, it feels to him as though people are saying it is his fault he got beaten up. And for some reason, because of his prior work in Editor assistance, people keep asking him for help, even though he is banned. He is confused about how it is possible to be a community mother and a banned user at the same time, but he does his best to help them anyway. When he thinks things have finally died down a bit, he asks for some page blankings, but some people give him hell over one of said blankings, and he feels like Wikipaedia will never leave him alone. Subsequently, his head goes BOOM!
Would you say that he is not banned merely because he could get unblocked if he merely agrees to stop changing spellings? Would you say it is his 'choice', because he could stop changing spellings, as though obsessive compulsiveness is something that can be turned off at the flip of a switch? Or how is this situation significantly different?
Armed Blowfish
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Paranoia. And it isn't the ban, it was the way some people wouldn't leave me alone.
Armed Blowfish
What, the way you won't leave this issue alone? I think we're done here. There are more interesting and constructive things to discuss.
DFTT, people.
C More schi
_________________________________________________________________ Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com
Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal needs more comments from a wider audience. If you like, feel free to comment there.
Thanks for your time.
Navou
On 8/12/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal needs more comments from a wider audience. If you like, feel free to comment there.
Thanks for your time.
Navou
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I posted here about this the other day and it didn't get much attention. *sigh*
I know you did <smile> , I did not think the list would mind a repost, or at least I hope not. It's for the project. I've also crossposted this to VPP VPT and AN.
Best regards, Navou
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Kamryn Matika Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 4:53 PM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] autoconfirm
On 8/12/07, NavouWiki navouwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal needs more comments from a wider audience. If you like, feel free to comment there.
Thanks for your time.
Navou
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I posted here about this the other day and it didn't get much attention. *sigh* _______________________________________________ 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 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us don't read the new messages before trying to edit.
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
C'mon, this is ridiculous in pretty much all cases of username blocks (which is how this came up). How is it going to hurt someone for a block notice to show up when someone searches google for "godhateswikipedians"?
Insane doesn't imply bad, but it should imply being put on moderation.
On 11/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us don't read the new messages before trying to edit.
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
C'mon, this is ridiculous in pretty much all cases of username blocks (which is how this came up). How is it going to hurt someone for a block notice to show up when someone searches google for "godhateswikipedians"?
It might not matter in that case, but it does matter for those of us using real names or long-standing pseudonyms. Why should it bother anyone? It is less work to not have to put anything on the user's talk page.
Insane doesn't imply bad, but it should imply being put on moderation.
Well, I hate to say it, but my insanity in a way Wikipaedia-induced... not in the sense that Wikipaedia is in any way the root problem, but in the sense that Wikipaedia destabilised the balance between total memory suppression and not being able to go one waking hour without reliving one's worst memories (and yes, there is a balance between those things).
Armed Blowfish
On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us don't read the new messages before trying to edit.
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
C'mon, this is ridiculous in pretty much all cases of username blocks (which is how this came up). How is it going to hurt someone for a block notice to show up when someone searches google for "godhateswikipedians"?
It might not matter in that case, but it does matter for those of us using real names or long-standing pseudonyms. Why should it bother anyone? It is less work to not have to put anything on the user's talk page.
Why let one solution fit all problems? The vast majority of indefinite username blocks/bans are not of people using real names or long-standing pseudonyms. And a good portion of those of people using real names have block messages which say something harmless like: please verify that you are indeed this person.
Insane doesn't imply bad, but it should imply being put on moderation.
Well, I hate to say it, but my insanity in a way Wikipaedia-induced... not in the sense that Wikipaedia is in any way the root problem, but in the sense that Wikipaedia destabilised the balance between total memory suppression and not being able to go one waking hour without reliving one's worst memories (and yes, there is a balance between those things).
If Wikipedia is part of the reason for your supposed insanity, that's even more the reason for us to block you from this list, so that you don't make things worse. You have at least once made an accidental post to this list revealing personal information, and at least once besides that made an intentional post to this list which was not in your best interests.
Please find a more productive place to engage in this self-therapy. Or better yet, find a real therapist.
On 8/11/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 11/08/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Some of us don't read the new messages before trying to edit.
However, talk pages are shown on Google, and block logs aren't... and it is entirely conceivable that a banned user might not want the fact that he or she is banned to show up on Google.
C'mon, this is ridiculous in pretty much all cases of username blocks (which is how this came up). How is it going to hurt someone for a block notice to show up when someone searches google for "godhateswikipedians"?
It might not matter in that case, but it does matter for those of us using real names or long-standing pseudonyms. Why should it bother anyone? It is less work to not have to put anything on the user's talk page.
Why let one solution fit all problems? The vast majority of indefinite username blocks/bans are not of people using real names or long-standing pseudonyms. And a good portion of those of people using real names have block messages which say something harmless like: please verify that you are indeed this person.
Insane doesn't imply bad, but it should imply being put on moderation.
Well, I hate to say it, but my insanity in a way Wikipaedia-induced... not in the sense that Wikipaedia is in any way the root problem, but in the sense that Wikipaedia destabilised the balance between total memory suppression and not being able to go one waking hour without reliving one's worst memories (and yes, there is a balance between those things).
on 8/11/07 1:00 PM, Anthony at wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If Wikipedia is part of the reason for your supposed insanity, that's even more the reason for us to block you from this list, so that you don't make things worse. You have at least once made an accidental post to this list revealing personal information, and at least once besides that made an intentional post to this list which was not in your best interests.
Please find a more productive place to engage in this self-therapy. Or better yet, find a real therapist.
It is times like this that I curse this medium. If this conversation needs to take place at all, it should be done in person.
Marc Riddell