Forum:Lift the Parsonsda Ban/Archive
I've created this thread to point out the flaws with the argument validity presenting the current ban on Parsonsda.
- First off, the validity of the agreement is placed into question when you look at what was posted pre-agreement on the thread itself. Not only was the User Treatment Policy (UTP) violated numerous times, also in Joeytje50's Urban Dictionary post on "Parsons", which shows that the entire argument itself was biased and on shaky ground in the first place, but using past incidents in an agreement for future use isn't allowed. The past incidents can be used as evidence for a ban or block, but shouldn't be brought up for something like that.
- When giving Parsonsda "all the opportunity in the world to change the duration of the block", after scanning the threads themselves, there was no opportunity for Parsonsda to, in any way or form, appeal his block or appeal to decrease the general duration of the block itself.
- The current ban is against policy for vandalism. Especially for a minor offence. After all, I was given a one-week ban from the Wiki for getting into fights with people like Cook. Iiii I I I blanked the main page when he first joined. He wasn't punished. He was given Adminship a few months later.
- Parsonsda has shown that he has ADHD, in at least a mild form. If this is the case, and social judgement is partially inhibited, then what he's done, and the mood swings I've seen in chats, are all excusable. If not, then this is discrimination and a violation of the UTP itself, which amounts up to a ban which is placed on shifty ground biased upon preference of whether or not one has a personal liking for Parsonsda, therefore violating the policy on banning itself, and rendering both the agreement and the ban useless, thus the ban would be lifted immediately.
- The agreement is not anything official, nor should it be considered as such. Parsonsda was forced into agreement, and the validity of the points made in this agreement (which there is no clear thread or link for) is definitely questionable.
All of the above having been said, Parsonsda has apologized for the incident numerous times.
Adam Savage 16:31, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Please note that other information may be added to the above.
Support Removal - As nom. Adam Savage 16:31, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Like I said in the last "Unblock Parsons" thread, he has had too many chances from what I can tell. Also, if you check the previous thread, it was stated that Parsons doesn't have ADHD. Also, your claim that it wasn't an official agreement doesn't seem right to me. I'm pretty sure by RS:CONSENSUS it was an official agreement. And finally as I stated last time I'm willing to let him have certain consessions that Suppa listed 16:43, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't ever stated that he didn't. There were a few trolls saying that he didn't to try and prove something. Adam Savage 17:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - The agreement is every bit as official as any consensus. Parsons was not forced into the agreement. He did not have to agree to anything if he chose not to. As to your point that he has some form of ADHD, that is not a pretext for his actions. I should remind you that in real life, mental disorders, while mitigating criminal culpability for one's actions, still carry serious consequences that are equal to or greater in severity as punitive consequences from a criminal conviction.
As for the modification of the agreement, I strongly oppose that as well. The community and Parsons made an agreement that was clearly understood by both sides. We should not go and modify it for no good reason. --LiquidTalk 16:52, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- I've got an image that says otherwise. Adam Savage 17:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - this was just discussed yesterday and for all of Adam's claims, this is the same thread.16:55, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Not the same thread, if you can read. Adam Savage 17:00, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - He was forced into nothing, his ageement to those terms was completely voluntary. Too many exceptions have been made on his behalf. His block is utterly just, and he himself fully supported the 6 month block before it actually came to fruition. If there was an overwhelming consensus not to reduce his ban not even 24 hours ago, I see absolutely no reason for another thread on the same subject to be kept open. He has already shown even more disregard for our policies by opening [http://runescape.wikia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5478&sid=1de71351d2bc5d87515f3ef65ff04f06 another thread] mere hours after Halo's in a completely inappropriate forum. There's been far too much discussion on this topic for now, in my opinion. If he truly feels he has a legitimate reason to appeal his block in a month, then by all means let him do so, but this has just been causing a landslide of unnecessary arguments and frustration during the last few days. Ronan Talk 17:12, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I first disputed the ban that Parsonsda received, but it's over now... Overall, he's committed several offences, which is clearly enough to get any other person a severe ban... ADHD means nothing here, he blatantly boasted about adding false information to the wiki, which is an infringement of his agreement that HE signed and agreed to at the end of the other thread.
|“||I, Parsonsda, hereby accept that my actions regarding the Dungeoneering skillcape images were wrong. I accept a one-week block for my actions, and promise not to upload any images for a sixty day period. I understand that if I violate this policy in any way, including block evasion, my account will be fully blocked for a period of sixty days. Furthermore, I understand that if I violate another wiki policy or agreement, my account will be banned for 2 (Actually decided 6) months.||”|
As a result of this, unbanning him is virtually out of the question, he knew he was on his final chance, he purposely vandalised the wiki after what he said in the IRC here. Not only did he purposely do it, he then attempted to lie his way out of the ban numerous times, both in the log and earlier today (Which I can supply the log to if anyone wishes.) The only thing that is in question right now is the length of the ban, I personally believe that it should be shortened to 3ish months... But that is just me.
Just as an extra note, I'm heavily disappointed in Joeytje50 with his violation of RS:UTP... There is NO reason for anyone to post offensive messages on external websites that are out there for hating other users... Trust me, I hate some specific users/admins on the wiki, but I don't go out there making urban dictionary posts and other crap about them. 17:23, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
-_- - Vandalism doesn't warrant a six month block. I'm retiring now. Adam Savage 17:28, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- He did more then just vandalism like utp and stuff you know. -- CakeMixwhut? 17:39, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- You're aware that he's been warned/banned in the past numerous times for breaking the rules, and we've made so many exceptions for him just because of RS:AGF and his apparent ADHD issue... Man, this is over due... If you want to act like the old me, throwing in ultimatums like that, go ahead... My advice is, it never works. ;) 17:41, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't go jumping to conclusions. Parsons has got away with this kind of things so often that it is not a block for only that vandalism, but also for all other things he has done. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:34, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE FOREVER AND ALWAYS - Apparently the numerous other threads are not making the point clear. Parsons has knowingly vandalized NUMEROUS times. ADHD, whether he has it or not (which is unknown and therefore should not be used as a counter argument) is not excusable. You don't see me vandalizing from my ADHD do you? No. If he finds joy in vandalizing, he should be blocked. Any other person would have been, I do not understand what the issue is here. We're all equal, are we not? We cannot use mental illnesses or disorders as an excuse, there's no way to prove them, this is the internet.
He does more harm than good, and he takes pride in that. I sincerely hope this gets added to the previously rejected proposals, it is obvious that the community does not want to unban him. Heck, we've been through at least 3 threads discussing this same thing over and over again. Giving them your opinion is not going to change theirs. 17:42, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Notice of Intent - This was proposed by Halo yesterday, though he closed the discussion himself before the entire community was able to voice their opinion. For that reason, I will leave this thread open. However, unless there is any support in the near future, the thread ought to be closed.21:37, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I really don't want to restate what has been said numerous times today, yesterday and last year. However, I will take a moment to dismember some of your arguments. Point one, I know that certain people have a dislike for Parsonsda, and in no way is that acceptable, however, that does not affect the validity of any thread. If there was a personal attack in an argument, it would not be considered, per RS:C. Point two, he has had every opportunity since that thread was closed to redefine his possible future punishment, whether or not he took it, irrelevant. Point three, simply put: consensus overrides policy. Also, times have changed. Point four, mental illness' are not grounds to be exempt from the rules. Even though it shouldn't, we have already given out multiple chances - most other users would have already been permanently blocked by now. Point five, if the Yew Grove isn't "official" on this wiki, I have no idea where else we could go. Also, Parsonsda was not "forced" into anything, he could have simply ignored the agreement and refused to sign, but he did sign, and quite promptly based on what was posted in the thread. Whether or not that was a hasty decision in hindsight, is irrelevant. It appears that what is "definitely questionable" is your argument. 222 talk 07:01, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Ferg's.07:20, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose and ban subject for 1 month - Basically this is an appeal, and after the first appeal fails, the next appeal is allowed in 1 month. As this appeal obviously failed, the next appeal should not be any sooner than in 1 month. Also, I am not violating wiki policies by doing something on another site. I did something on another site (yes okay sorry, I shouldn't have done it), but there shouldn't be consequences for that on the wiki. Anyway, per others JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 09:59, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This should not up to the community to decide. And what's more, this type of forum should not be started by a user who does not have the authority as an administrator to deal with blocks and bans.
Banning users is an administrative decision. This type of decision should not be open to the whole community, as all it does it delay a process which is, in its simplest, a few strokes of they keyboard and a few mouse clicks. A ban on Parsosnda will probably not have a noticeable effect on the whole community, so there should be no justification for the entire community having to partake in a forum like this. If Adam Savage had a problem with the block, he should have contacted the administrator who blocks Parsonsda and tell him/her why he believes the block shouldn't be in effect. Let's also look at the subject of the discussion - Parsonsda, why does he need to be put through this, and why does he need to face all this opposition to unban him? Especially when he himself cannot have a say in this discussion? I wouldn't be happy if I had to be openly spoken down on and had my misbehaviours openly announced like this in front of the entire Wiki, even if I deserved it.
Bans that are given usually stay. Especially to users who have as many edits and as much experience as Parsonsda. There must have been good reasoning to ban him in the first place anyway. And for that reason, if we're going to discuss this openly in the community, that I oppose lifting Parsonsda's ban.14:42, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Parsonsda's block was issued by community consensus, so another consensus is required to lift it before it expires. It is entirely up to the community to decide. Where did you get the idea that only an Admin can start a thread like this? See RuneScape:Consensus. 16:10, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Plenty of blocks have been brought forward to the community for discussion before, although I can only remember one. Per our policies, community agreements are our fundamental system of decision making, and seeing as this block was administered by community consensus, it must be removed by community consensus also. Ronan Talk 15:01, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- The block should have never been administered by community consensus. Administrators are under full authority to issue blocks as they see fit. The community need not be consulted for things which will not affect the community. 15:06, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Nonsense. How can you think that repeated violations of wiki policies (ie. Vandalism) will not affect the community? A community consensus to debate a block is perfectly valid, should the relevant sysop wish to go through with such a process. Please read our policies before arguing over them. Ronan Talk 15:16, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Callofduty, either you're off your rocker or just severely misinformed. We have always done this by community consensus (if you look through the Yew Grove archives you'll see loads of block/unblock threads), and administrators can only block when it adheres to our user block policy. Andrew talk 20:37, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
|“||i know i had so many warning, this is why i wish it to be my last, but instead of a 6 month ban, i wish for a perm ban Agreement for my last chance:
I Parsonsda will make a promise to wiki, that if i behave in the manor i do ever again, i will never return to the wiki, and will accept a Permanent ban, in replace of the 6 month ban i request it to be 1 month, if this forum is approved, i will also leave the IRC alone, and not use it as a chat application, meaning i will not be in the IRC any longer, i will only use it for important reason only. along with this agreement, if i behave for 6 months, not including the 1 month ban, i wish for the old forum to be removed, i will accept my punishment if this forum is approved, to show im a changed user, furthermore i don't wish to be called a Vandal, if you support this forum, please say so, if you wish for any additional things to be added to my new ban plot, please do tell by posting it on User_talk:Parsonsda, this said, i Parsonsda agree to this punishment in replace for my current ban.
--16:34, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
|— User talk:Parsonsda#New Ban Plot|
- Transferred from his talk as requested. 16:39, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Enough already - This is Parson's fourth appeal by my count in a few days. This should not be allowed. I am forced to re-iterate what I have said above - too many exceptions have been made on his behalf. He must wait the required period of one month before appealing again, even though he has no legitimate basis for his block to be removed. Ronan Talk 17:09, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose appeal - It's too late man, you accepted the terms of the previous agreement, and now you don't want to follow what you pledged yourself to. What's going to make you change after being through this situation 9001 times in the past? Just accept the ban like a man and get on with it. THANKU4URKINDEDITCONFLICTFLAYSIAN!17:13, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - He's been given enough chances. Per all.18:08, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Notice - Parsonsda has accepted the 6 month ban, so this section no longer requires comments.20:44, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, there was an evil man named Palpatine. In a fight he was defeated, and pleaded to his friend to help him. His friend did, and he continued his evil deeds, taking his friend along with him. The Story-Speaker 00:06, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
Notice - This section is closed. Parsonsda's ban will not be lifted as the community has not shown consensus to do so and he has agreed to endure the duration of the ban. Further comments should not be posted here. The discussion continues in the section below. Suppa chuppa 00:42, August 19, 2011 (UTC)