[WikiEN-l] The more I think about my ban from Wikipedia, the more I realize how wrong it was.

[Armed Blowfish]

On 05/09/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Let's start out with a general explanation. I am
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flameviper . I had been contributing since
> May 2005 or so, with numerous crapstacles. I had been banned/unbanned about
> 3 times, etc, etc.
> I had been editing pages and such for about 3 months since unbanning when I
> saw a comment from the user Elaragirl. I went to her talk page to respond,
> and read the linked document EL:TEACUP, which (if I recall correctly) is
> still linked to from her talk page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elaragirl).
>
> Anyways, I said something to the effect of "you're either going to be my
> friend or a pain in the ass, I hope for both our sakes it will be the
> former". Of course, both Elaragirl and I (as later cleared up via email)
> understood the point of the message and neither of us were offended (I asked
> her). However, I was banned per the personal attack policy.

Humour is hard to detect online.  According
to A. Barbour, only 7% of communication is
verbal (38% being vocal and 55% being
body movements).  Unfortunately, online,
that 7% is all we have.

> On AN/I, Ryanpostlewait (sorry if I spelled it wrong Ryan) posted an e-mail
> from me (which I thought had been private) which said something along the
> lines of me being a troll and trying to be good and not get banned. Of
> course, I meant to say something completely different, but nobody asked me
> about it again, and I was summarily banned.

I'm sorry to hear that.

> A couple months later, I came back with another account named Two-Sixteen.
> This time, however, I was friendly (perhaps overly so) to everyone I saw. I
> made great (perhaps overly exaggerated) efforts to not offend anyone, and I
> got along fine with the general Wikipedia population. I edited pages, I
> categorized things, I didn't really do anything spectacular.
> One day, someone raised the issue of the account Flameviper being unblocked
> (maybe it was me, I don't remember). I didn't have a crusade for Flameviper
> to be unblocked, I simply suggested the idea and left the discussion alone
> (although I said "I agree" on the noticeboard).
> It was generally agreed that Flameviper had not done anything wrong in the
> first place, and so that account was unblocked. At this point, "Flameviper"
> was unblocked (although the account's past was still suspicious) and
> Two-Sixteen had never received so much as a warning for anything.

That's technically against the banning
policy, but I suppose you probably
didn't read that?  Anyway, sorry to
hear.

> The next day, I logged on and found that Jpgordon had performed a checkuser
> (although without any type of process, even though I remember a lengthy
> process to approve requests for checkuser) and found that Flameviper and
> Two-Sixteen were the same person.
>
> Two-Sixteen was indef-blocked immediately for being "disruptive" (although
> the account in question had never disrupted anything).
> Flameviper was indef-blocked immediately for "using a sockpuppet to
> manipulate an unblock" (which is odd, since the administrator unblocked on
> his own judgement).
>
> Now here is my opinion of the entire incident.
>
> My statement in the e-mail to Ryan (which was something along the lines of
> "I enjoy Internet
>  drama" was somehow twisted into "I like to create Internet drama" and
>  that was further bastardized into "I am a troll". And when whoever it was
>  offered to be my mentor or whatever, I accepted the offer, which was
>  somehow twisted into "I decline the offer". And again, TROLL. I
>  *personally* find being banned offensive to me, but I at least realize that
> by
>  banning me the admins aren't trying to be offensive and that they're
>  just doing what they think is right. And I respect your right to have
>  your own opinion and not sugar-coat everything you say so it won't be
>  construed as a "PERSONAL ATTACK OH MY GOD". Because furthermore, what I
>  said on Elaragirl's talk page was more along the lines of "When I meet
>  someone with a similar personality to mine, we either agree on everything
>  and it's a blast, or we have a massive conflict because we have
>  differing opinions and we both have the rock-colid attitude that nothing is
>  going to change our minds, and most of our decisions will conflict with
>  one another's, and we'll end up hating each other. I hope for both of
>  our sakes that we can learn to get along". But instead of saying that, I
>  contracted it to "You're either going to be my friend or a pain in the
>  ass, I hope it's going to be the first one". And because I didn't
>  carefully sugarcoat all the pointy phrasings of my comment, it was taken as
>  a "personal attack" by people who it wasn't even directed at (nobody
>  even asked Elaragirl if she was offended or not), and I was banned. I'm
>  sick of talking for an entire damn paragraph when I could say the same
>  thing in three words, and although I realize the policies on "trolling"
>  and "personal attacks" were intended to protect innocent users from
>  actual trolls and flamers, they're becoming utterly ridiculous and a
>  nuisance to everyone involved.
>
> I joined Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia, not to have a damn soap
>  opera every time I say something.

If you really were a troll, they'd love you.

Any way, I'm sorry things didn't go well
for you.

*hug*