On 13/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 8/13/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/08/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Okay, so I am banned for using Tor and running a Tor exit node,
right?
So can I pretty please qualify for emotional protection under [[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users]], where it says, '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.'
You're not banned;
The community had a choice - they denied my appeal. However, that's okay. I got over that part.
Actually, according to what I've read, you withdrew your appeal.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The appeal == RfA? Or the ipexempt patch?
God this is all so confusing :*(
If it's the RfA, well, there's more to adminship than ipexempt.
And if it's because of the patch - well, that's more of a dev thing than a community thing.
Sorry to confuse you. : (
There were three appeals: 1. An unblock-auto request on my talk page, asking to be added to the ipblock-exempt group. Failed because there was no such group. 2. A patch, to create such a group. Failed because the developers didn't like it. 3. The RfA, which, as established above, was the only thing the community could do, which was rejected by the community.
Armed Blowfish