QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 12:10pm)
QUOTE(Happy drinker @ Wed 11th November 2009, 12:07pm)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 11th November 2009, 4:06pm)
Greg's candidacy could be used to raise the issue of so-called "banned" and "indef blocked" editors -- a contradiction in an environment that bills itself as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" -- and question how a "community" united on the concept of creating a reference text has become subdivided with inconsistent enforcement of policies.
It's been discussed before, including Greg's case and one or two others that will no doubt be familiar to many here. Greg may be interested to know that I supported his unblock and was one of several people left with their credibility dented when he rapidly achieved a re-block.
He didn't "achieve" a reblock -- Arbcom's stupidest arbitrator took it upon herself to reblock him because of some sassy edit summaries that were not, by any stretch of the imagination, disruptive to Wikipedia's well-being. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
I'm sorry that I disappointed you, Happy Drinker. How did you feel about Shoemaker's Holiday deliberately withholding from Sage Ross the audio file of the Board candidates' interviews, in the very face of Ross saying that he would edit the file in a fair and impartial manner?
I agree with Horsey's interpretation here. In the end, I'm really more able to achieve what I want to achieve on Wikipedia, without interference, by being "banned" under my best-known identities. So, ultimately, while it is a ding on my outside-Wikipedia reputation, I guess; practically speaking, banned is the better way to go.
Thanks for your unblock support, though! You were one among about 30 people. I hope they're not all similarly duped as you are to be "dented" by what was in reality a stupid re-ban.