The point of the logs wasn't that this was a fluke taken out of context. It's a pretty regular occurence.
When you say "Flameviper is a notorious troll", I don't know whether to laugh at the stupidity or cry at the idea that people actually believe it. A troll? Wow, that's rich. When have I ever trolled anything? Never. I've annoyed people from time to time, but guess what? If you don't like someone, that doesn't mean you have to ban them. Ignore them and get on with life. The only reason I discuss my ban on IRC/mailing list/etc is because I'm banned. What a great self-fulfilling prophecy! Ban someone and then complain when they get pissed off because you banned them! Maybe, just maybe, if I wasn't banned, I wouldn't complain about being banned.
And secondly, "notorious"? What the fuck does that mean? It's not like you're talking about WoW, ED, the GNAA, or Blu Aardvark. On-wiki, I got a bad reputation and some people decided that I was evil. Same thing happened on IRC. Of course, everyone simply ignores the fact that I have >2,000 mainspace edits, wrote multiple articles, and wade through backlogs on a regular basis. If you acknowledged the fact that I was a legitimate contributor, you would no longer be able to label me as a "troll" and ostracize me!
The fact is, I've come back under a couple different names, and haven't done any "trolling" with either. If I'm so notorious, wouldn't I get blocked for disruption without the help of a checkuser? If someone's a perfectly normal, productive contributor, why block them?
The fact is, just because I got a bad name a while ago, a few people have taken it upon themselves to man a crusade against me, and put their personal grudges before the project.
Wikipedia is a fucking encyclopedia. If someone is editing productively and not disrupting, there is no reason to block them. Instead of bitching about pointless shit, how about we actually try *doing something*?
--------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.