Requests for Comment/Reverse community ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies

From Meta
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reverse community ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies[edit | edit source]

Overall comment on the entire RfC[edit | edit source]

It has only been 27 days since the decision was made to institute this ban. Why are we discussing this at all? --Robkelk (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Because I/we strongly believe that I/we was/were banned unjustly in the first place. Prairies-Lawrence (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The comments in Requests for Comment/Community imposed ban on User:Lawrence-Prairies indicate that the ban was not unjust. --Robkelk (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering the fact that the community had strong opinions to ban you before you created dozens of abusive accounts, made death threats, and impersonated others..... I have strong doubts that your proposals will pass. You've proven yourself quite dedicated.... Put that dedication into learning how to host your own wiki. Methinks it would be easier. Now of course, before all this recent bullshit went down, I might have actually been just fine with giving you your own wiki to screw around in, provided that your interaction with this site was strictly limited to that wiki (no phab, no git, no wiki creator, no IRC; you make requests on that wiki and it gets done when someone feels like it). Now however.... You might as well scramble your own password and logout. It would be easier. -- Void Whispers 02:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Prairies-Lawrence: The first step in getting anything unbanned is going to be agreeing with our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which you indicated you didn't. You will never be allowed to use our services if you don't agree with these policies. Pup (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The initial posting of this RfC included the text "I reserve the right to: Remove any comments ..." As long as this user has that attitude - especially when asking for leniency - this user should remain on indefinite ban from Miraheze. --Robkelk (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not going to condone such evil. If he does this again, he will face the block again, despite we were allowing the contribution from the current account for appeal only. — revi 02:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    And that's not the position who wish to be unbanned to take. — revi 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that the requester has closed the RfC without a decision being reached (although the decision appears to be a foregone conclusion). Considering that the requester asked that his/her/their/its current account remain unblocked, I have to wonder whether the requester understands why he/she/they/it was blocked in the first place. I strongly suggest that the requester ponder why the ban was put in place before considering another appeal. (First hint: changing or deleting other people's opinions is a Very Bad Thing. It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what's being said; the requester needs to go out of his/her/their/its comfort zone and support freedom of speech the rest of the time as well. And, yes, that means the requester is allowed to say about me whatever he/she/they/it is willing to defend in court.) I also suggest that this consideration by the requester take longer than six months, and that the conclusions reached by such pondering and consideration be included in the text of any hypothetical subsequent appeal. --Robkelk (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)