User talk:Refactory

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Sarcasticidealist, what is your point in this? You know as well as anyone that I got railroaded on ANI (incidentally, with the assistance of this guy). Why do you take it upon yourself to block now? You're not a police officer, who is under oath to enforce the law. Indeed, our policies say, Wikipedia "is inconsistent, and it tolerates things that it does not condone. (Some argue that these are not defects.)" Now, why is it that people are always telling me that I shouldn't favor stricter rules – and yet at the same time, they insist on their strict enforcement when they're being applied against me? What about WP:IAR – "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"? I'm not asking you to do anything but turn a blind eye and let me continue my work. Refactory (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're a banned user. I didn't, and indeed don't, support the ban, but there seems to be little doubt as to the community's consensus on the question.  I am unwilling to turn a blind eye to banned users.  When new accounts that are blatantly Obuibo Mbstpo socks crop up in my watchlist, I block them, because I don't have an eye blind enough to make not doing so anything but a deliberate undermining of Wikipedia's policies and community consensus.  I suggest you stay away from Wikipedia for a while - a few months, say - and then come back under whichever of your accounts you're most fond of and request that the ban be partially lifted to allow work exclusively on parliamentary procedure articles.  Then, after some time of doing that, it might be possible to get the overall ban lifted.  Alternatively, you can keep creating new socks, but that's a strategy that's going to guarantee that your days of editing Wikipedia unhindered by repeated blocks are over. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOCK says that blocking is preventative. In this case, there is nothing in particular to prevent; you've seen my edits enough to know that the good far outweighs the bad. WP:POLICY says that the wider consensus, as expressed in policy, overrides a limited consensus expressed in one forum. (In this case, ANI.) I appeal to arbcom. Refactory (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I unblock you will you agree to edit only WP:RFARB and, if the case is accepted, other pages associated with your appeal? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm! You mean, use this account only to edit those pages, or don't use sockpuppets either? I just took a look and this seems like a time-consuming process. Wellllll...... let me think on this. For now, I am suspending my appeal. Refactory (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be advised that any subsequent use of socks after declining to follow due process and appeal to arb comm will lead me to reconsider my opposition to your ban. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be harder to get a ban lifted than to place a ban in the first place? Consider how it works in real life. One officer can make an arrest, but it takes a lot of procedure to convict. And then one person, the Governor, can easily pardon. That is supposed to be the way it works here as well. One admin can block, but it takes a consensus to ban. And one admin can lift the ban. Look at WP:BAN: "If no uninvolved administrator proposes unblocking a user, and the block has received due consideration by the community, the user is considered banned." Not sure what "uninvolved" means in this instance, but the gist seems to be that one admin can lift the ban.


 * Now, you might be reluctant to stick your neck out for me. But what do you have to lose? De-sysoping is notoriously hard to do around here and has only happened a handful of times, generally to people who repeatedly committed egregious bad-faith offenses.


 * Although I think the easiest, safest, and least controversial thing would be just to ignore me. If you walked down the street and saw your neighbor accidentally drop a small bag of weed out of their purse, would you report them to the police? Same concept. Why adhere so strictly to the rules or consensus, when they're so blatantly wrong? Will the world be a better or worse place if you turn them in? Similarly, will the encyclopedia be better or worse off without me? I don't have any experience with arbcom, so I'm not sure of the prospects for success, but I do know I underestimated the community's tendency to want to brand people as "trolls" or whatnot, get into a herd mentality, and shoot from the hip based on rapidly propagated untruths. The slowness of the process might be beneficial in that aspect. Refactory (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me be clear: I'm going to continue to block your socks whenever I see them. If you stop engaging in sock-puppetry and instead appeal the ban to ArbComm, I will participate in that case and support a partial lifting of your ban - sticking my neck out as far as I'm willing to stick it. If you continue sockpuppeting, I will have nothing further to do with you beyond blocking your socks when I stumble across them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of conversation at User_talk:Air_Fortress

 * You've f'ed up before and gotten unblocked, so I think you should recognize the potential of others to do the same. I didn't pick a battle of wits with Fredrick, but ended up on the losing end of one. I was just recognizing what appeared to be his impending victory. There have been a lot of comparisons of Wikipedia to game theory, just as there have been to situations in the business world and many other settings. It's an appropriate comparison anytime people are strategizing, and yes, people do strategize to get things done on Wikipedia. Anyway, if you don't have constructive criticism, you're welcome to go away (from my talk pages). Refactory (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not yours anymore. You're banned. And I did not continue doing what I got blocked for after I was unblocked, whereas you did.  Equazcion •✗/C • 00:29, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)