On 12/08/07, FT2 <ft2.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The question here is not "less trust => banned". It's "not yet
trust or other criteria needed for an exception". There is a huge
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
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.
(That structure is why it sounds like a kind of
Perhaps this explanation may be useful.
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(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
"Armed Blowfish" <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish
> 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.
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.
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
drop the open proxies. If you look at our other
"banned" users, none of
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
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
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
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: