[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[Riana]

Hm, well, if it's just your situation we are discussing - I'll have a go
with my interpretation. I don't know if it's entirely accurate so feel free
to correct me on any points.
Your first ban was justified - you appear to admit so yourself ("history of
asshattery", "giant shitstorm", etc). Your second - the one where you got
unblocked by swaying consensus using a sockpuppet, right? So the blocked
sockpuppeteer gets reblocked for using a sockpuppet - I'm not sure what's
wrong there.
If ArbCom isn't working for you, talk to an admin you trust. Tell them
exactly why you've changed, why you won't use socks anymore, why you won't
be an asshat. See if they like what you have to say for yourself, and
perhaps they'll appeal to ArbCom themselves. A banned user (Qst) recently
got himself unbanned this way, and he's doing alright.
But trying to get our sympathy by telling us to assume good faith - nah.
It's not assume the position, or assume blind faith. AGF is an abstract and
ill-defined concept. Give me a good reason, based on, say, an outline of
goals you want to achieve if you are unbanned, and I would certainly support
unblocking you.
This is me judging your case individually, as you ask. I wouldn't support
unbanning Amorrow if he planned to write an FA. I don't think you're all bad
- or even bad, really. Give us a good reason.

On 16/11/2007, Flameviper Velifang <theflameysnake at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I enjoy how, despite the fact that I presented my message as referring to
> my situation, people continue to refer to "banned users" instead of
> "Flameviper/PM/Banned User/etc".
>
>   Sometimes you have to put aside the umbrella and deal with individual
> cases.
>
>   Every banned user isn't the same, nor do they have the same intent, the
> same motives, or personality. Just because BadGuy1331 is banned for DDoSing
> Wikimedia, doesn't make me equally bad because we belong to the group of
> Banned Users. But it's constantly treated as such.
>
>   I laugh at JzG's "appeal to ArbCom" post. I *tried* to appeal to ArbCom
> when I was banned, and they
>   1) ignored my request
>   and
>   2) reset my ban counter.
>
>   There's no arbcom mailing list. It's near-impossible to reach ArbCom
> when you're an editor in good standing, much less when you're a banned
> criminal that everyone hates.
>
>   And again, I'm anticipating many replies of "troll" and the like.
>   I invite you to go ahead, Senator McCarthy.
>   Instead of "trolls" and "trolling", why don't we just say "annoyance"
> and "annoying"? It's the same thing; a degrading insult that can be thrown
> around by anyone in power without consequence (because branding someone as a
> troll magically turns them into one, somehow).
>
>   I would go on IRC today to talk about things, but OH SHI- I'm banned on
> IRC because they think I'm a troll, based not on anything I've done on IRC,
> but based mainly on my Wikipedia ban. And I would also like to mention the
> fact that I get constant shit on every IRC channel and forum I've ever
> entered due to someone screaming that I'm a troll and deserve to be banned
> forever, thus repeating the cycle everywhere.
>   Huzzah, Wikipedia. Huzzah.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See
> how.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
Riana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana