This section of the message is simply a list of links relevant to the events discussed previously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u... Block log for Flameviper12. These are blocks/unblocks before the name change. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&u... Block log for Flameviper. More recent blocks, after the name change. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50... All contributions, from my first edit to the most recent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Son_of_a_Peach Contribs for SoaP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Two-Sixteen Contribs for Two-Sixteen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flameviper/Archive001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flameviper/Archive002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flameviper/Archive003 Archived talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flameviper/socks All accounts which belong to Flameviper excluding Two-Sixteen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elaragirl/Archive_8#User:Elaragirl.2F... Post on Elaragirl's userpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... Discussion immediately following my Elaragirl-induced ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Flameviperemail E-mail exchange from Ryan to me and back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... Appeal to arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... More unbanning drama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archiv... Final unbanning discussion. As soon as I am re-banned, Metros immediately resumes insulting my integrity and mental health, among other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns... All pages which mention the word "Flameviper". You should look through it in case I missed something.
So now you know the (mostly) complete story of the Flamey Snake. I hope you can use this information for good, and not simply for my unblocking, but to improve the conditions for editors on Wikipedia as a whole.
--------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
On 9/7/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@yahoo.com wrote:
So now you know the (mostly) complete story of the Flamey Snake. I hope you can use this information for good, and not simply for my unblocking,
Well if you just want to get unblocked, this is the wrong forum.
but to improve the conditions for editors on Wikipedia as a whole.
Any recommendations? How should people have reacted to your behaviour?
Steve
Flame Viper wrote:
This section of the message is simply a list of links relevant to the events discussed previously.
So now you know the (mostly) complete story of the Flamey Snake. I hope you can use this information for good, and not simply for my unblocking, but to improve the conditions for editors on Wikipedia as a whole.
While I read your first post I could sympathize to some degree, but I, like many others here, was not interested in reading a long-winded life history that was so prolix that it had to be spread out over four messages.
Some have suggested that this list is used for last chance appeals. Maybe so, but that is completely unofficial. For that to work you need to get the point. With excess verbiage you risk losing those who would be more inclined to give you support.
In the outside world appeals courts do not go through all the minutiae of evidence, but are more inclined to look at whether in broad terms the rules have been unjustly applied.
Ec
On 07/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In the outside world appeals courts do not go through all the minutiae of evidence, but are more inclined to look at whether in broad terms the rules have been unjustly applied.
Ec
I fail to see the difference between justice and revenge. Sure, Wikipaedia has a right to control access to its site, which includes discouraging some people from editing (prevention is technically impossible, unless you want to be Citizendium), but it doesn't need to cause people pain beyond that.
On 9/7/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 07/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In the outside world appeals courts do not go through all the minutiae of evidence, but are more inclined to look at whether in broad terms the rules have been unjustly applied.
Ec
I fail to see the difference between justice and revenge. Sure, Wikipaedia has a right to control access to its site, which includes discouraging some people from editing (prevention is technically impossible, unless you want to be Citizendium), but it doesn't need to cause people pain beyond that.
Justice is an attempt to address a wrong through the legal system. Revenge is a temper tantrum.
KP
Justice is an attempt to address a wrong through the legal system. Revenge is a temper tantrum.
I would say revenge is purely done to punish someone. Justice tries to correct the wrong, sometimes including punishment, but normally as a deterrent rather than for emotional reasons.
If someone steals your wallet, getting them to give it back is justice. Hitting them with a baseball bat is revenge.
On 08/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I would say revenge is purely done to punish someone. Justice tries to correct the wrong, sometimes including punishment, but normally as a deterrent rather than for emotional reasons.
If someone steals your wallet, getting them to give it back is justice. Hitting them with a baseball bat is revenge.
So, if someone is not blending in well with the Wikipaedia community, blocking that person and telling him or her you do not want him or her to edit for the forseeable future is protective of Wikipaedia (which you call 'justice... I prefer the term 'protective'). Destroying that person's online reputation - and offline reputation too, if the person's offline identity is known - with a variety of insults posted on top Google-ranking pages is revenge.
Destroying that person's online reputation - and offline reputation too, if the person's offline identity is known - with a variety of insults posted on top Google-ranking pages is revenge.
Only if it is done intentionally to harm them. Negative information being publicly available is a simple byproduct of transparency. It's a matter of weighing up the harm done to the person against the harm done to Wikipedia by being less transparent. Since we like Wikipedia and generally don't like to people we are blocking, is it surprising we choose what's best for Wikipedia?
On 9/7/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Flame Viper wrote:
This section of the message is simply a list of links relevant to the events discussed previously.
So now you know the (mostly) complete story of the Flamey Snake. I hope you can use this information for good, and not simply for my unblocking, but to improve the conditions for editors on Wikipedia as a whole.
While I read your first post I could sympathize to some degree, but I, like many others here, was not interested in reading a long-winded life history that was so prolix that it had to be spread out over four messages.
Some have suggested that this list is used for last chance appeals. Maybe so, but that is completely unofficial. For that to work you need to get the point. With excess verbiage you risk losing those who would be more inclined to give you support.
In the outside world appeals courts do not go through all the minutiae of evidence, but are more inclined to look at whether in broad terms the rules have been unjustly applied.
Ec
Yes, I was somewhat sympathetic or inclined towards being sympathetic with the first post, but I can't read all the rest--it wandered all over the place. I tried, but I wound up losing the thread of even the first post.
KP