banned means banned, Don't they understand how sick they really are? Options

[mbz1]

A few days ago I told my friend that, when a user is banned from wikipedia, his user page is replaced with banned user template. She looked at me, and asked "why?" I was not able to explain to her "why" because a normal person will never be able to understand it anyway.

Even before I was banned, I observed how a "little shit" Daedalus969 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and other "little shits" were doing this, but today a sitting arbitrator AGK (T-C-L-K-R-D) did it too:
"banned means banned; barnstars, and his actual userpage, are in the history"
Why, AGK, did you do it? What is wrong, if below the banned user template there would be barnstars? What are you afraid of? Don't you understand how sick it looks to normal people?

And suddenly I realized that "the banned user template" is the only thing I'd like to be associated with me in the insane asylum that calls "wikipedia" http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...0&oldid=3513926.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Mon 27th February 2012, 6:46pm

[iii]

That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

cite

This, Wikipedia, this is the kind of brilliance you have running the place.

For fuck's sake, little arbman, just because you think that every person banned has necessarily exhibited behavior so disruptive that it reflects "badly on your real name" doesn't make this peculiar belief of yours an immutable law of the universe. Badges of shame displayed prominently at one of the top ghits for a real name have a vindictive likelihood of causing damage when, for example, a potential employer does a perfunctory web search. Because, you see, the rest of the world cares not a lick about perusing user contributions or arbcom cases, but they will look at what appears to be a personal webpage hosted by Wikipedia and these little template messages carry with them primarily a meaning of, "this person is evil and can't be trusted". So nice of you fucks to spread that message to the world.

Seriously, someone should do something about the profound lack of education this asshat evinces. And he's making governance decisions?

Terrific. Terrific.

[mbz1]

That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

cite

I responded to it on Meta

No, I could not have known

You wrote:"If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template."

No, it is a wrong assumption. A normal person cannot predict what sick ones will do to him.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked by a closed tribunal, a tribunal, in which I was not allowed to participate, a tribunal, which gave me no warning.

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be banned by a sick, cowardly and mostly anonymous lynch mob with me not being allowed to say anything in my defense!

In my wildest dreams I could not have predicted I'd be blocked and then banned after I was under a self-requested block for more than 6 months!, and for something I did on Meta. Even now banned Will Beback called my ban "a precedent"

So, no, I could have predicted what was coming my way. I was editing under my real life name. It is at my pictures that are displayed at my user page. I know it is useless to ask you to remove the sick template. That's why I am asking you to remove the pictures, and redirect my talk to my user page. If you have some compassion still left in you, you'll do it. If you do not...well it is not my problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Also you write "The point of the template is to make it clear that a user is banned. As a checkuser, I know this is necessary when I'm tracking accounts back to blocked users; I need to know if there is a banned user at work in a given situation, and other checkusers and administators surely must too." It is BS. There is nothing different for CU process between blocked and banned users, and besides there's a list of banned users in case you did not know.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And AGK responded, confirming that everything I said was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 3:04pm

[jd turk]

And AGK responded, confirming that everything I said was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

When people just delete what you've written and ignore you, it doesn't indicate you are correct. It just indicates you have gone on for far too long.

[mbz1]

The thing is that I suddenly realized I no longer wish to have my pictures with my real name at the same page with the template added there by sickos, and done



This post has been edited by mbz1: Thu 1st March 2012, 9:09pm