QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Sat 4th February 2012, 1:01am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:36pm)
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 2nd February 2012, 8:26am)
Oh, and by the way, Tnxman307 is a
Bastard. He made me reboot my modem and get a new account - I want those 45 seconds of my life back, dammit.
Tnxman is another "evil patroller". Blocking people forever seems to make his little pee-pee hard.
from his admin stats; Users blocked -- 13216
Okay, now something good about Tnxman307. He actually engaged in an on-wiki discussion with me after I'd been indeffed. My edit to his Talk page had been reverted by Kww, and
he restored it, then
he responded. That was fair enough. There was, out of this sequence, review of RevDel policy, there had been creeping use of it to remove edits by banned editors from all public view, and while that wasn't totally ruled out, it was discouraged.
There is a substantial contingent of administrators who want to use RevDel to completely hide edits by banned editors, because it, they think, will discourage them from editing. Maybe. More likely, it will simply increase public distrust of the administrative corps.
Revision deletion is increasingly being used with vandalism, mentioned here. That's proper under certain circumstances, and this should be spelled out in policy, not left to discretion, because the tool is dangerous to open governance. Indeed, edits of the form "So-and-So is gay," where So-and-so appears to be a real name, or may be an identifiable person, I'd agree, should be Rev-Del'd, and I think I did that some on Wikiversity. I'd never use RevDel to hide a good faith edit that doesn't violate privacy policy or break, say, copyright laws. History is public, and true copyvio in history is still copyvio, if it's publicly available through a link.
I'd stopped using self-reversion because of the escalating sanctions. The implications of this have never been examined by the community. Self-reversion by a banned editor was originally suggested for use with ScienceApologist, was explicitly approved by an arbitrator, was formally proposed on WP talk:Ban, with little negative comment. It was only rejected when I used it for a harmless edit, rejected by editors who were searching for anything to throw at me.... It's been proven to work, elsewhere, to benefit the project and sometimes to pave the way for unban. That's exactly what the abusive administrators don't want. They want "a ban is a ban is a ban." And they absolutely don't want to look back.
(An explanation of self-reversion as it was originally recommended by me, used by several editors, and then as actually practiced by me: Editor who is banned or topic-banned makes edit and adds to summary "will self-revert per ban." (or block) If they are blocked and are editing IP, they add "of [blocked username]." Then they promptly self-revert. The proposal was that self-reverted edits which were not positively harmful in themselves would be considered non-abusive and would not lead to the sanctions that would be normal for block or ban evasion. If an editor abused this, the escalating sanctions could still apply. Example of abuse: a self-reverted edit that was grossly uncivil, or seriously misleading, as with lying about what's in a source -- intentional deception, not merely some error --, or other major violations of trust. I was never accused of any of these things, by the way. It's been claimed that topic-banned editors could make suggestions to other editors, who would then make the edits on being personally satisfied of their value. However, that's highly inefficient for both parties. Originally, self-reversion was suggested for spelling corrections -- ScienceApologist was making them in an attempt to troll admins into blocking him for a harmless edit. They weren't taking the bait. I suggested a way that, if he actually wanted to make corrections without complicating enforcement, he could self-revert as suggested. Since his goal was, in fact, to complicate enforcement, he rejected the suggestion, rather strongly. His friends thought I was harassing him.... No. I was just offering an option.)
Since an editor using self-reversion is wasting his time if no active editor reverts the edit back in (or otherwise incorporates what they approve of, from the material), self-reversion sets up conditions where a banned editor may develop cooperation with editors "on the other side," and I saw it work that way, with PJHaseldine. See my coverage of
self-reversion history on Wikiversity. At least as long as those pages stand!
To complete this discussion, I did not actually stop editing because of the escalating sanctions. I simply evaded them. Once IP editing with disclosure that I was Abd was interdicted, by the edit filter, and when Range blocks were raised, I then created a normal sock, and did not disclose identity, and freely violated my abusive bans. To the benefit of the project, always. From my point of view, my obligation to respect community process ceased once I was banned, when due process had been exhausted. That sock was detected when an arb used checkuser, apparently on his own initiative, though he may have been prompted privately. I hadn't taken evasive action. With that sock, anyway!
I know enough, as do many banned editors, to be able to create undetectable socks. Whether it's worth the trouble or not is another story. Mostly, Wikipedia isn't worth it, it's a dying project. Its bones may still be useful, though.... People like Scibaby don't bother with "undetectability," because they really don't care if they are detected, they like the fuss that's made. This is *created* by the banning practices.....
Wikipedia utterly failed to value editor labor. Any idea how much time has been wasted finding and dealing with over a thousand Scibaby socks? Thank Raul654! The "community" is still dealing with the consequences of that, one of the "defacto bans" that were created by the cabal. Scibaby failed to cooperate, eh? He certainly wasn't invited to, the message was simply "Go Away! You are Bad!" Funny, that doesn't seem to inspire cooperation in people. Who'd a thunk it?
Rlevse returned, Has Rlevse returned to plague FAC? 
chrisoff Rlevse returned 
