Forum:Unblocking Parsonsda

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Unblocking Parsonsda
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 August 2011 by Haloolah123.

A year ago, I would have been the first to say that we should get rid of Parsons because of his continued rule abuse. Now that doesn't make me an expert, but it does make me able to see both sides of an issue. Let's face some facts here. With his continued rule abuse, what he deserves is to given an indefinite block from the wiki. But sometimes, it's not about that. Sometimes it's about grace. I've talked with Parsonsda on a few occasions. He doesn't have the same cognitive function that I do. I don't know if he has some extra genetic material in one of his chromosomes or anything similar. What I do know is that he's not faking. It's not some elaborate act that he's put on to fool us all so he can abuse whatever he likes and continue on in his own way. Because of that, it means he has a hard time learning from his mistakes, and that he also truly does not mean any harm.

You may find that hard to believe, and I was with you a year ago. In my limited understanding of the world, I never had come across anyone who wasn't "normal". One of my cousins has down syndrome. I've seen firsthand what it's like. But that's no reason not to treat her like a human being. It's hard to understand without having seen it first hand, so I would beg you to please bear with me.

Now from that, there are two options that we can take (a false dilemma, I realize, we could continue on the way we are going, but I see that as the most unproductive): we could either give him the indefinite block he deserves, or we could show him grace, give him what he does not deserve. We could unblock him, with no strings attached (assuming he doesn't do anything like start vandal botting, which is highly unlikely). Clean slate, another chance. He's not a bad guy, and that's a preconception a lot of people tend to have.

Now a lot of people probably want to laugh at me. Why should we unblock someone who has issues following the rules. So allow me to explain. Blocking is generally used to prevent damage, with the secondary purpose of trying to teach the blocked person that there are consequences, and that we will not tolerate it. However, Parsonsda does not have the ability to realize these consequences, so the only function it serves with him is prevent damage. There's no gray area with him. He's either blocked or he's not, and it affects his life greatly. He's not like most people here. For instance, if I were blocked, I could move on. Sure, it'd suck not being able to edit, not being welcome in the chat, but it wouldn't affect my life much. I'd still play runescape, I'd still have friends, etc. It's not the same case with Parsonsda. The wiki is a large part of his life and being blocked from it affects him terribly.

He doesn't understand the same concept of time that I do. He lives a lot more present time based than worrying about the future.

Now let's take a look at the other side. Take a look here if you don't mind. Those are some of the highest quality images this wiki has ever seen. I couldn't produce anything like that, given months and all the tools necessary. It's something truly spectacular. Look at what he brings to the table.

Now balancing those two points. Is it not worth putting up with a little bit of trouble for what he can give us? Sure, we can get images from other people, and life will go on. But as far as I'm concerned, we will have lost a valuable member of our community.

Therefore I would support reducing his block or even unblocking him entirely. I do not believe anymore than a month of a block would do anything useful.

I would finally ask that anyone who places their opinion here would read everything I say and think about it (maybe even take a few days and think about it). I personally am willing to deal with a little bit of damage to repair than the loss of a valuable community member. HaloTalk 21:11, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Question - Are you saying Parsons has down syndrome? I'm confused by the comparison to your cousin. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:18, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

He apparently has "ADHD". -- CakeMixwhut? 21:23, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm just acknowledging that he has mental issues. HaloTalk 21:30, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
How do you know they're real? -- CakeMixwhut? 21:48, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
In my non-expert opinion he does not appear to be faking. HaloTalk 21:55, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
If he had anything at all, I would guess it is asperger's which affects people's social qualities. Seeing as how he is understanding how he is breaking the rules (he is doing it in full awareness and not questioning why he is blocked), it cannot be considered an excuse. I can't imagine anything he might "have" that could be used as an excuse regardless. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:57, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Another question - Are you saying that we should unban him because of his images and just forget how many times he has vandalised the wiki and lied to a lot of people? -- CakeMixwhut? 21:21, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Also, no. I'm saying that the damage he causes isn't that big of a deal. And the damage that blocking causes him personally is a big deal. HaloTalk 21:30, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - No more chances. The buck stops here. Repeated rule abuse and leniency on the part of the community undermines our credibility. How can one expect us to follow through on our word if we constantly grant extra chance after extra chance despite clearly stipulating "last" chance in several previous threads?

There were agreements (that I and others had brokered) in previous threads, agreed to by both Parsonsda and the community. Once Parsonsda violates the agreement, the other party, the community, is expected to follow through on its previous threat. Otherwise no one will take us seriously in the future.

There have been plenty of "one more chance" positions in the previous thread. This cannot continue ad infinitum. It has to stop.

As for his alleged condition, the veracity of which cannot be verified, we have cut him plenty of slack already. His block should not have taken anywhere near the number of threads it took to pass. That is the equivalent of giving him several extra chances to compensate for his "condition." --LiquidTalk 21:23, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per liq, when Parsonda did a hard utp against me the admins said "oh wait till he does something bad then We'll ban him" <- the f? He has gotten so many chances unlike me who edited a usertalk and got a 1 day ban -.- -- CakeMixwhut? 21:29, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose unblocking him - I dislike the idea of lessening the ban on him. Former threads have made it quite clear what has to be done. Exceptions should not be made. I dislike the idea of lessening the effects of a ban on a user that supposedly doesn't know better. If they don't know better, and they cannot learn better, they have no business to be here. Also, what proof do we have that he does have a mental condition? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:31, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

None. I won't say I'm an expert, but it seems quite obvious to me he has one. HaloTalk 21:38, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - There was an agreement made and it must be stuck to. If he didn't want to run the risk of being banned for six months next time he should have said so when the agreement was made. I mentioned earlier on IRC that if he had said at the time that six months was a bit extreme, people probably would have agreed and lowered it (the thread originally had two months). He didn't, and instead put his name to the threat of a six month ban as collateral against further policy violation. If that decision isn't binding now then really what is the YG for? Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 21:34, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - He's gotten his chances. I was going to block him for about a month back in June for extended breaches of RS:UTP, but I decided to give him a final chance. He's had his chances. Besides, he can never learn if we keep "banning" him for 6 months and then making a forum to unblock him. This is utterly ridiculous. Additionally, his condition, whatever it is, should be mostly irrelevant. At the very most, the absolute most that I would agree to, we can reduce his block to half of the allotted time and give him an abuse filter ban for the rest of the time. This would allow him to, for example, have full use of the move log and upload log. In terms of upload, we could only restrict new files that he uploads, it's not technically possible to restrict uploads of newer versions, however. Furthermore, we could restrict the number of mainspace edits he makes in one day. But unbanning him is absolutely out of the question. Sorry, but he got his chances. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:35, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I've worked with mentally and physically challenged children and adults for half of my short life. We taught them how to ride and handle horses; everything from people with ADD to quadriplegics - they all got on a horse and rode. We also helped teach them anything from muscle building to addition and subtraction. With my limited knowledge on this, Parsons has nothing that would wager him a ticket to vandalize in-between good-faith edits. Very few mental disabilities would, really. He is a very clever troll, and yes, he is clever. ADD and ADHD can be helped/hindered and are in no way an excuse to his continued behavior - not at this age. Lining up his vandalism and his good edits, we are better off not spending our time debating over his bans, reverting his edits, or spending hours trying to find out if he's telling the truth or not. As others have said, he has had numerous chances and has blown them all. The slate is permanently dirtied. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:38, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Parsons has knowingly vandalised the Wiki and added false information. Given his edit history, any other user would likely have been banned and it would have left it at that. I agree with limitations that suppa suggested though What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:43, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - It's obvious how the community feels about this given the number of responses in such a short amount of time. I was looking towards a more permanent solution, but this appears to be the best one that can be achieved currently, so I guess we'll cross that bridge tomorrow. HaloTalk 22:11, August 16, 2011 (UTC)