Forum:NB: User block vote

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.

To summarize: This vote got the result it intended to get. The original block was potentially questionable, so it ended. Never let it be said that I cannot be reasonable. Sadly, the user committed a multitude of other offenses against the Wookieepedia community while blocked, per the laundry list on User talk:Baggins. It is unfortunate that they chose to utterly ignore the options for appeal that the system provided them and make a public spectacle, repeatedly insulting Wookieepedia and its users. For this, a new (non-infinite) ban has been implemented. When someone stabs someone else in prison, the authorities don't throw up their hands and say "oh well. They're already in prison. Nothing else we can do." When someone injures an officer while resisting arrest, they get an additional battery charge. The simple fact is, even if the original ban was thoroughly unjustified, which was never truly settled and is still debatable, the user dug their own grave and must now lay in it. Life goes on. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an administrator only vote

Per the Administrative autonomy policy, this is a vote regarding the blocking of User:Baggins, following a series of administrator emails. User:Baggins received a block of infinite duration. His edits can be found here.

  • If you think the block should be undone, vote yes.
  • If you think the block should not be undone, vote no.

--Eyrezer 00:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Yes, undo the infinite block

  1. --Eyrezer 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. No, I'm not saying that if you know an admin you can do anything you want. And no, I'm not holding anything against any admins or users involved in this. What I am saying is that in my opinion this user did nothing wrong, and per the letter of our own law, should be unblocked. If you can specifically point out where the user violated Wookieepedia:Vandalism or another policy, giving any admin the right to exercise their own discretion in implementing any length of block, I may be convinced to change my vote. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Permabanning someone for a good-faith edit attempt without so much as a warning is inappropriate. "He'll get his way then" is not a good enough reason to condone that sort of modding. - Lord Hydronium 05:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Didn't even get a warning. I'm more worried about precedent that the banning sets that the unbanning does. No one, excepting obvious vandals of the "Willy on Wheels" mold should be getting an infinite ban for a first offense. (And there's no evidence there even was a first offense. QuentinGeorge 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Based on the fact that there was no warning before the ban and the editor (though confusing in his edits) was essentially lopped with the likes of vandals. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    The standard unblock request procedure wasn't followed (the part where a blocked user or a concerned admin contacted the blocking admin first was skipped), but I'd rather set the precedent for taking a concern to the admin mailing list than leaving in place an indefinite block without warning for what seem to be good-faith edits. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. I've considered the first two options, and I just don't think this would be sending the message it's argued it would send. Plenty of people whine after their bans. It doesn't get them anywhere. The only reason this guy got anywhere was because, after looking into it, it seemed he really didn't deserve an infinite block, or really any block at all. If you want to dispute Quentin's method, then take it up with him. That's not this user's problem. I'd be all for warning him after he's unbanned that he should use the proper process in the future. But he's had a couple days of blocking already -- I don't think he needs any more to teach him a lesson. So I don't think the original ban was justified, and as such it should be undone. Havac 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Havac. And since other people have taken it upon themselves to decide what "explicit" message I'm sending by voting here, allow me to actually BE explicit: I'm sending the message that it is the responsibility of the Administration to right wrongs done to Wookieepedia editors, regardless of how we are made aware of those wrongs. The idea that people will "do absolutely anything they want without fear of consequences because their case will be immediately appealed" as a result of this vote is insulting to the rest of the administration's ability to collectively judge justified blocks from unjustified ones. If you trust the rest of us that little, then it is YOU who are showing disrespect toward your fellow admins, not those who vote to correct this error. jSarek 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reduce the block length

  1. After considering the matter, I have decided that both sides make a strong point. Did Baggins deserve to get permanently banned? Surely not. Could he have tried other means of disputing his block? Definitely. I therefore propose a compromise: reduce the block length to a week. That way we do not permanently lose a potential contributor to Wookieepedia, while still maintaining that whining to your admin buddies does not get you off the hook. I think this is the most reasonable option, and I urge both sides to consider my proposal. --Imperialles 13:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Your proposal is fair, but I'd just like to point out he didn't whine to me. He posted on a thread, I saw the post, and contacted him myself. QuentinGeorge 22:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • We don't need specifics. Less mulling over details, more resolution. --Imperialles 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, that's an important detail, since it shows the user in question did not even violate our recommended procedures for contesting a block, as has been alleged. jSarek 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's even better. All you have to do to get unblocked is throw a tantrum in public. Wonderful message to send to the community. Nice job. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • We have no policy regarding discussing blocks and bans offsite so long as there is no NPA involved, nor should we. jSarek 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • By the time this is over, it will have been at least a week anyways, yes? So all of the votes for these top two sections could be combined. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See, I was planning to vote this way, but I assumed that it would be an additional week tacked on to whenever this ends, assuming this option wins. I know of at least two admins who say that they would not support this if it were as Xwing thinks, because then that's no difference then voting outright to overturn the block. So, what would this be? I'm not picking on you Xwing; this was actually something that I had been wondering too. Chack Jadson (Talk) 02:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think this is a suitable compromise, since I agree with both sides to varying degrees. I think the block was too long, but the way this was handled was wrong and I don't believe we should overturn the block completely. Grunny (Talk) 13:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Seems reasonable to me, on reconsideration. I change my vote, but still stand by my comments above. —Silly Dan (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Ditto what Silly Dan and Imp said. While it is certainly not true that "all you have to do to get unblocked is whine to an admin," it looks to me like this did not deserve a permaban. Time will tell his true intentions soon enough, and I would certainly support a permaban if needed. WhiteBoy 14:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, keep the infinite block

  1. Not this way, at the very least. An incredibly bad precedent for the site ("All I have to do is whine enough and I can set the admins against one another and get unblocked") and for the administration ("Let's just go around so-and-so's elected powers because we disagree with his or her methods on this occasion"). The methods and motives of the banned user and the complaining administrators are just as questionable as anyone's. This is not the way to implement site policy, in my opinion. Graestan(Talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. If you vote to unblock, you explicitly send the message that if someone knows a Wookieepedia admin through another site, they can do absolutely anything they want without fear of consequences because their case will be immediately appealed, regardless of whether the admin they whine to is active on Wookieepedia or up-to-date on Wookieepedia affairs. If you vote to keep blocked, or don't vote at all, you show that you respect the letter of the law and your fellow admins. This should be an easy call. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 01:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting present

  1. Eeeehhhh... see, the user did receive unfair treatment. There was no warning given, and the infinite ban over-punished the minor disruption. I understand the motivation behind the banning, though: the user is a single-issue contributor, and that single issue is removing an "ambiguously canon" status from one particular article. First of all, by my interpretation, he's substantively wrong. "Ambiguous" is ambiguous. That puts Jean-Luc Picard in the same category as, say, Abso Bar Binks, which is just where he belongs. Second of all, he probably wasn't about to stop his meddling in that single issue, argument or no... that point may be debatable, but with the situation as it stands, there's now enough animosity between the parties that he certainly won't stop his meddling now, and things can only escalate. So... it was an unfair ban, or at least premature, but not a good idea to rescind it now. Enochf 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
While the user was mistaken in his understanding of what is ambiguously canon material, I don't believe it was worth an infinite ban. Perhaps a few days to cool down, and be corrected on the matter, but not infinite. I'm unsure whether this opinion means I should place my vote into that of removing the block because I see middle ground here. Besides, anyone notice there's no warning on his talk page before the infinite ban? [shifted to above] -- Riffsyphon1024 05:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that was already mentioned, at least in the admin emails. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether he was wrong is irrelevant. Users can be wrong all the time. You shouldn't be banned for it. QuentinGeorge 06:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No offense, QG, but in my mind, you contacting him is a bit different than him contacting you. At any rate, that's moot. And I do think it would have been best if you had contacted Culator separately first rather than emailing everyone. However, that's moot now, just something to keep in mind for the future. This whole thing has just erupted into a huge mess; I never thought it would get this bad. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)