[WikiEN-l] Hardblocking usernames

[Armed Blowfish]

On 11/08/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/08/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/08/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps it's even a matter of necessity rather than choice, as when
> > > they're severely allergic to peanuts and must avoid any food that
> > > even has a chance of having touched something with peanut residue;
> > > this may impose severe limits on what they can eat, and where their
> > > food may come from, but it still wouldn't make sense for them to
> > > claim they were "banned" from places that use peanuts.
>
> > I still feel banned.
>
>
> That's entirely up to you. Your continued use of the term remains
> inappropriately hyperbolic and fundamentally inaccurate, and you know
> it.

Blocked -> appeal to community -> appeal fails -> banned?

> > Does it really matter, though?  It could easily be a year before I'm
> > sane again, so I may as well be banned for a year at least.
>
>
> Wikipedia is not therapy.
>
> - d.
>

So why not ban an insane person... politely?

And apparently Wikipaedia is the opposite of therapy, at least just now.

Armed Blowfish