User talk:PhoenixPinion

Someone Unblock this User

This user was effectively banned from editing wikipedia with complete disregard to WP:BAN, please fix this mistake! --The Raven is God 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youve been unblocked, congratulations. Now you can go back to editing Nanosolar --The Raven is God 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pleased with this decision, however I must ask that someone look into why the block was instigated so quickly and without proper vetting in the first place. We should be very concerned if blocks are issued without regard to consequence.--Iruhkoi 02:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous 'Decline' Reasons

Definately not funny. --Shell ^babelfish 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because its 'not funny' he should be blocked forever? --The Raven is God 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Whether it was funny or not, a permanent ban seems somewhat overkill punishment to me. As far as formal policy goes, I was under the impression that I was banned under [this] rule, however I had permission from the user to make this claim - so I don't think it applies. Please reconsider. - PhoenixPinion 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he did have my permission. I see no justification in imposing an indefinite block on Phoenixpinion, and thus I am reposting his unblock request, until I get a more concrete reason than 'This is not funny'. --The Raven is God 00:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the looks of [this], it seems that there are maybe 100-200 banned users on all of Wikipedia. This raises the question of whether my offence warrants a punishment that places me well into the worst .001% of overall Wikipedia users ([there] are about 2 million users on Wikipedia). This severe a punishment seems to me to fall outside the reasonable. - Phoenixpinion 00:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having read a number of articles edited and contributed to by Phoenixpinion, I would wholeheartedly concur with a decision to repeal the ban. I would simply suggest a 48 hour suspension as an alternate punishment, for the 'crime' committed was indeed childish. There are other users who are better deserved of this kind of a ban. --Iruhkoi 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC) (for any naysayers out there, yes I did create this account explicitly to post here, but I have contributed anonymously countless times).[reply]

He isn't banned, he is indefinitely blocked. Fram 08:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'effectively banned' as I said above. --The Raven is God 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy. A ban is much more serious, and many more users are blocked (indefinitely or otherwise) than there are users banned (the 100-200 you refer to). Fram 12:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it 'more serious'? The effect is the same! Although you are right there are about ~2000 users that are 'indefinitely blocked', I would guess. --The Raven is God 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but I'm not sure I understand the difference; it looks to me like they have the exact same implementation and effect. -Phoenixpinion 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, consider the first sentence of each :

'Blocking is the means by which a Wikipedia administrator prevents a user account or IP address/range from editing Wikipedia. '

'A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia.'

It seems to me that the only difference is that blocks are usually used for anonymous IP's, whereas users CAN be banned instead (although block accomplishes the same effect). And, if indefinite, it is as PhoenixPinion says, the effect is the same. Complete inability to contribute to Wikipedia for all eternity. --The Raven is God 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His offence does not violate the Posting of Personal Details section of the Ban policy, therefore this ban is completely unreasonable --Polfbroekstraat 22:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why is this user indef blocked for an action that didn't violate any policy? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Fram, I fail to see how the difference between a "ban" or "indefinite block" have anything to do with Phoenixpinion's appeal. The issue at hand here is not to debate abstruse and convoluted Wikipedia jargon, but to consider the said user's legitimate request for reinstatement of edit privileges. She/he has accepted responsibility for his/her actions and I see no documented reason to believe errors of this sort would be committed by the user again. I think it's very clear that there are bigger fish to fry than Phoenixpinion, and I'm sure that as I write this hundreds of articles are being subtly vandalized by fanboys and others who have none of Wikipedia's founding principles at heart. --Iruhkoi 01:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Worries

Hes unblocked! As you can see from this. Thanks to JohnnyBGood and Bunchofgrapes! --The Raven is God 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

The request is not because of a disagreement specifically between me and you, but because of the discussion about the deletion of a group of articles, and the behaviour of a group (or two groups) of editors in those cases. As you are one of the people involved, I have added you to the request for mediation. This is simply a request for external (not involved) editors or admins to come and take a look at what went wrong. You don't have to agree to the mediation, of course, but I wanted to include all users involved. Fram 07:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hi PhoenixPinion,

You are now unblocked. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PhoenixPinion for more details. Happy editing, and careful with the jokes! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time. -PhoenixPinion 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're welcome. Thank JohnnyBGood too. Don't hesitate to let me know if you need any help. My personal opinion remains that you were hit with a much harder stick than was called for... although it's probably right that we have something of a hair-trigger on things that involve violence or death. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]