UDWiki:Poll/Unban Jedaz

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This poll is about the un-banning of Jedaz. As stated in the Moderation Guidelines "It is, however, expected that a Moderator... be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it." As of such since Misconduct has failed I am bringing this case to the community as a whole in an effort to get Jedaz un-banned.

The issue

On October the 5th Xoid perma-banned Jedaz as seen here. Jedaz has been a long time contributor to the wiki, most noticably with the suggestions pages and was until just recently a moderator as well. If you were following the drama surrounding Jedaz you would know that he made comments about Vandalising the wiki. These were usually after being aggravated by Cyberbob, not only on this wiki but also the Scroll Wars wiki as well and were obviously not made in a clear frame of mind as I doubt someone stalking you would let you think rationally. Especialy when "Cyberbob stopped by simply in order to puke venom in Jedaz's eyes". If you noticed Jedaz never made any attempts at vandalism even when being accused, infact he even went to all of the trouble to let Xoid know a fatal weakness to the wiki and Xoid repaid him with a perma-ban. If you look here you can see that Jedaz said "I'll explain to you the plan and what I've done to counter it on the scroll wars wiki (and now indirectly the UD wiki)". If Jedaz was planning to vandalise then I doubt he would have told Xoid his plan.

Jedaz statement

(From the Scroll Wars wiki as a request for people to put this at misconduct)

Xoid broke the rules and perma-banned me for no act of vandalism. Xoid let his hate and dislike towards me get involved in his moderation duties thus leading to the ban. He conviniently left out many of my statements stating that I did not plan to vandalise such as "I know that if most of the moderators had a chance they would ban me instantly so I'm going to be good so that doesn't happen". The vandalism report can be seen here

Xoid's first piece of evidence was a quote of me saying "Actually Cyberbob, I was E-mailing him a tool that allows you to change proxies quickly. I wanted him to test it out and see if I programed it correctly". A tool of which, if I'm not mistaken, can be quite easily found anywhere on the internet. I did not view this as a potential danger because this style of tool can be easily found so it wouldn't have mattered if I supplied it or not.

The second quote that Xoid had from me was "It seems life a few of the mods have had a bit of fun on the UD wiki with you and Gold Blade". I never knew for sure if Gold Blade was vandalizing or not, but I just assumed that it was considering the proximity of him asking about proxys and the actual vandalism.

In the third section of the vandalism report Xoid shows my "plan". However I explained it to him so he knew about the posibilitys as seen here, I also commented about the new policy which would stop that posibility. The extent of Xoids dislike for me can be seen on the speedy deletions page here where he removes one of my user pages only minutes after I decide I might try and leave the Urban Dead wiki. Xoid also commented that "People have been banned for less than that and no one has batted an eyelid, you could argue a technicality but you can't be held accountable if your colleagues won't hold you to it" from here. He obviously belives that he can pick on anyone he doesn't like if they arn't popular.

The last point is that I did not commit one single act of vandalism, ever. I never made a bad faith edit. As you can see Xoid let his general dislike for me get in the way of being objective. I ask that these following people don't rule on this case as I know that they are clearly bias towards me in some way or another. These people are Cyberbob, Bob Hammero, or The General. I would also like to note how many times Xoid actually mistquoted me as well during the case (for example I said "like" instead of "life" in the second quote). This probably would be because he wasn't thinking clearly at the time. I ask that Xoid to be stipped of his powers, or at the minimum to serve a ban for as long as I have endured as he is obviously unfit for the current position. - Jedaz - 19:40/25/04/2024 22:13, 4 October 2006 (PDT)

Xoid's Statement

In rebuttal to Jedaz' statement:

  1. "Xoid broke the rules and perma-banned me for no act of vandalism." — the rules specifically state: "It is, however, expected that a Moderator ban those who clearly act against the community's wishes, and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it."1. I strongly believe that it is within the community's best interests to not have Jedaz around, but I am willing to reverse the ban if the community desires it.
  2. Regarding the cropped quotes: Jedaz' has continually mentioned that he will vandalise this wiki, but won't, but will, but won't, but will, etc. Is he, or is he not going to? There is a difference between saying "I am capable of doing X, Y and Z" and saying "I'll do X, Y and Z. Not. Nah, I will.". Hard to tell which path of action you are going to follow but your disdain for the wiki makes me believe you have already vandalised it. I will admit that you have never been caught prior to this point. While you have not been caught for vandalising it in an overt manner you have already vandalised it subtly. You can read through all of his posts on the Scroll Wars wiki (links are on M/VB) or in various places around this wiki (links are also on M/VB). It's hard to blame me for cropping your quotes when there were simply so many choice bits to choose from. My quote in full context:
    "People have been banned for less than that and no one has batted an eyelid, you could argue a technicality but you can't be held accountable if your colleagues won't hold you to it. While that does leave the system open to abuse, it also gives us more than enough leeway to dodge punishing a moderator over a technicality. Remember how people put copyrighted images on their user pages and we can remove them without prior warning? That's the system at work; ignoring a technicality to ensure the wiki doesn't go down due to lawsuits. Even banning an IP range could be technically considered abuse as we are potentially blocking legitimate users as well. When no one cares that it's a technicality because of how grossly something breaks the spirit of the rules, there is no possibility of a mod getting "punished" over it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 14:08, 3 October 2006 (BST)"
  3. Jedaz' agreed that he would've contested the deletion on the basis that there would need to be an example. So his argument about asking him does not hold water. He changed his story from "If you had've told me why" to "I knew why". Which one is it? Is it the latter which you have said on more than a single occasion, compared to the former which you said once?
  4. The page was deleted because it's continued existence was a threat to the wiki's wellbeing. Any vandal Subst:ing or template-exploiting that page into various templates could cripple large portions of the wiki. It was created as an example. Once it was learned from it should've been put up for speedy.
  5. "I never made a bad faith edit." — Then why did you say you did? Why did you say you deliberately recreated the "Evil Text" page purely to educate vandals on how to better vandalise the wiki? Does your story ever remain consistent?
  6. "A tool of which, if I'm not mistaken, can be quite easily found anywhere on the internet." — Just because you may be able to find firearms in any number of places, does that mean you hand them to a wanted criminal? Exactly why did you give him this tool, knowing full well the potential for harm?
  7. "In the third section of the vandalism report Xoid shows my "plan". However I explained it to him so he knew about the posibilitys as seen here, I also commented about the new policy which would stop that posibility." — Which you only provided after I already illustrated that I had full knowledge of exactly what you were doing and how to counter it.
  8. Finally your assertions that I hate you are blatantly false. I hate what you are doing, and why you are doing it. There is absolutely no reason for you to assisting 3 Page to vandalise this wiki yet you did. Considering what you have done, I consider it dangerous to let you continue to be able to participate as a member of this community and I banned you accordingly.

–Xoid S•T•FU! 04:54, 6 October 2006 (BST)

Jedaz final Satememnt

To everyone

First off I would like to appoligize to everyone. I realize that I made a mistake by giving a tool to a known vandal however I tend to assume good faith in just about everyone. But the malice wasn't there.

To the people who support me

I would like to thank you all and even if I don't make it back I really appreciate your support.

To the people who want me to stay banned

If you all succeed then you have chosen to be on a wiki that is restricted by a couple over protective moderators. If you look at the most visable moderators you'll notice that they are ususally the center of drama on the wiki. Not because they are nice, friendly and make the community a nicer place to be in, but are infact because they assume bad faith. Just look at the talk page and you can see what our moderators are like. Does Xoid perma-banning me for his own gain seem too far of a strech?

In response to Xoids statement

  1. I can't say anything really about Xoids beliefs so I'll just leave this one except that I have no desire to vandalise this wiki and so I'm not a threat to this community at all.
  2. Xoid has conviniently left out my constant "I'm not going to vandalise the wiki" as of late, however I know that we've had communication problems with him in the past so I can understand that he might of missed the message I was trying to communicate.
  3. I never agreed that I would contest it, infact I was saying that I see where Xoid was coming from when he removed it.
  4. Xoid never asked me previously for the page to be removed. Even before this issue arose, and if asked I would have seen his point and had it removed.
  5. I never said that I created that page to educate vandals. I would like you to point out when I said that. The reason that I re-created it was because I wanted to educate everyone about it.
  6. I now realize that was a very stupid mistake of mine, however I tend to assume good faith in people rather than bad faith.
  7. Did you realize it before? I must have missed that, seriously. Well my reason was still the same, I wanted you to know the potential of what could happen.
  8. Well since I'm not doing anything, or going to do anything then I would say it's safe to unban me, but I doubt that you trust my word. Maybe if people assumed good faith rather than bad faith these days everything would be alright.

The last question for Xoid

Taken from this talk page Before you "Revert vandalism", I want to call one fact to EVERYONE's attention. According to the vandal data page, Jedaz was parmabanned due to "Continual vandalism". Note however, that the FIRST and Only thing under his name is the permaban. Forgive me for blindness, but I fail to see the continued vandalism prior to the permaban. How do you ban someone for not commiting vandalism? --Call to your attention 20:16, 6 October 2006 (BST)

I don't have any obligation to answer you, nor even leave this petition here, but I do so regardless. I have nothing to hide. You were banned for being a sockpuppet though. The two involved parties already stated their case. If you're a legitimate user, vote, else go away.
Now, to answer your claim: there is plenty of precedent; if someone does enough damage in a single spree, they don't get a second chance. Jedaz worked dilligently towards 3 Page's aims and was caught out for subtle vandalism after the fact. –Xoid S•T•FU! 20:30, 6 October 2006 (BST)

The question is, for all of my supporters here so they have a clear understanding to the other reasons why I was perma-banned, can you explain the subtle vandalism and give a few diff links of it? Obviously if you were right in your banning of me you would be able to produce such evidence. If you were wrong, well then you won't have any, and thats because I didn't vandalise.

Re: Jedaz final Satememnt

Re: To the people who want me to stay banned

"If you all succeed then you have chosen to be on a wiki that is restricted by a couple over protective moderators." — Protective? Yes. Overly? Hardly. I've invested too much time and effort into the game and into the wiki to allow someone to actively plot it's demise, assist in it's vandalisation, and above all, blackmail it.

"Does Xoid perma-banning me for his own gain seem too far of a strech?" — I don't have anything to gain from permabanning you. You're not a threat to me, and I've never really had it out with you. You almost disappeared from the wiki. Exactly what do I gain from this?

Re: In response to Xoids statement

  1. If you're not a threat, why did you continually threaten the Urban Dead wiki? Even for someone who got angry and said something stupid, there is more venom in your threats than I'd expect from you; you came off as cold and calculating instead of "heat of the moment" angry. Something doesn't add up.
  2. You've conveniently left out how you've consistently lorded it [knowledge of loopholes in rules, saying that you would vandalise when you felt like it and couldn't be punished, that you already started doing subtle vandalism] over the Urban Dead wiki. In nearly every sentence where you've said that you won't do anything, you first explained with discernable glee how you would do something untoward. In intricate detail, I might add.
    From here: "Ha, yes I am selfish, and I know you are too from you reaction to Bob Hammero geting promoted, but thats besides the point. The thing is though, technicaly I've already vandalized, it's just that it isn't obvious yet. I'ld like you to think about that and try and do something about it. I'll laugh at your pitiful attempts. - JedazΣT ΞD GIS S! 01:40, 18 September 2006 (PDT)"
    That one was in it's entirety. Should I pull some more up where you did not say "but I won't/haven't" at the very end? Do you blame me for latching onto one of the few things (you saying you would vandalise) that remained consistent in your ever changing story?
  3. I asked a number of observations, one of which was "you would contest it". Your blanket response "Hmm... I see your point." to the entirety of that just may have been misleading. While there have been communication problems in the past, they've been few and far between. Chalk up number two.
  4. The honest truth? It wasn't until you started spouting off about "evil seeds" and such that I decided to trawl through your most recent contributions to see what you might be talking about. The "Evil text" page? "Evil seeds"? It suddenly made sense. Fearing the damage it could do, I immediately asked Bob to put it up for speedy.
  5. You said you would recreate it purely to spite me. Instead of merely recreating it, you recreated it complete with a HowTo. Since you had previously been rather smug in your assertions that you were untouchable, this certainly seemed in line with your "vandalism that you can't be punished for".
  6. If it was simply one stupid mistake, I might be able to construe it as that. Considering the sheer number of times that 3 Page had struck, the damage that had ensued and his sheer notoriety, I find it hard to believe that you forgot who he was. You are usually quite perceptive, this sudden lack of insight from you seemed completely out of character.
  7. I realised it before because I started looking into what you were doing just before you left. Interesting that you couldn't find the time to tell us about it until weeks later, when it was no longer relevant. Also interesting is the number of people who are ignoring the time difference between when you knew it was a problem (before you left), when you gave your "help" (a long time after you left) and when we got struck by 3 Page (not long after you left). It seems that your telling us what we already learnt the hard way is going to be viewed as a good deed, despite the fact you could've prevented it from being an issue in the first place.
  8. Assuming good faith is desirable, but difficult considering the circumstances. Your vitriol towards the wiki certainly made it hard to see anything good stemming from your actions. I tried to see your actions in a good light, but they simply do not make sense. If you were not acting in bad faith, why weren't you telling us when you first discovered some loophole? What reason do you have for withholding that sort of information? We're supposed to fix problems, not keep a repitoire of loopholes on hand to exploit whenever we feel like it.

Re: The last question for Xoid

…of course there is the recreation of the page despite your professing that you knew what sort of risk it posed. Creating it might not have been vandalism, but recreating it after you learnt about the threat it posed was.

But I found this particularly interesting…

Subtle? Certainly. Good faith? Maybe. I wonder though, how many people would argue good faith if I went around rewriting rules as I saw fit. For a wiki that is constantly accused by your clique of being run by some shadowy cabal, your altering the rules directly regarding that is intruiging. That you did it without running it by the community was not a good thing. I doubt your clique would appreciate your alteration knowing that it reduced the community's control of the promotions process. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:09, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Voting

Voting will last for a total of one week ending on the 13th of October. From there a simple majority vote will be the basis of the decision. If 50% or greater of people wish for Jedaz to return to the Urban Dead Wiki then he will be unbanned in accordance to the Moderation Guidelines, if not he will remain perma-banned.

Please indent your votes using #'s.

For Unbanning

Please vote here if you wish for Jedaz to be unbanned

  1. why should a long time editor like Jedaz be banned from the wiki ? how many users have to leave the wiki until people realize that there is some serious thing going on in here ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:14, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  2. I agree with Hagnat. Broad interpretation of bad faith is one thing, actually breaking the rules is another. These unvalidated permabans are leading the wiki down the wrong path and will probably cause more damage than good. This was a misuse of power. I am not a big fan of Jedaz, but this was just handled all wrong. --Zod Rhombus 04:43, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Permabanning a person of this stature for this? I'm not a moderator, and I'll stand by their decisions, whatever they may be--it's a job I couldn't do myself, nor do I want to. But without definative vandalism, a permaban seems a tad extreme. I don't care if it's as short as a week or as long as a year, but it just seems kinda shady, just my opinion. I don't consider it to have any weight, but my two cents...--Peter Moran 05:50, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  4. The evidence seems to suggest that someone was using malicious information to HELP, rather than to hurt. It may be a bit like shooting off your own foot to demonstrate the dangers of guns, but from the 'actions' of Jedaz? They don't make sense taken in a purely malicious light. The information presented COULD have been used for ill, but seem to have been presented more as a demonstration for potential threats rather than any attempts at blackmail or damage. I'd rather have someone who has dangerous information use it to HELP us rather than someone who has dangerous information just to HAVE it. Lets bring Jedaz in and see whats what. --MorthBabid 08:01, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Never heard of him, sounds a nice guy and if you guys say he was misstreated, then i'm in. I've been missunderstood many times before and i think this injustice should be re-thought SGT Jenkins 15:31, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  6. I believe the banning of Jedaz was in violation of many principles that I hold dear. At my college, a student wrote a paper on how to hack into our card system, not to encourage hacking, but to point out a fatal flaw in that system. Since our admin would not listen to him, he published the paper for a computer conference, trying to get attention to this subject. Instead, he was sued by our adminstration. For trying to help. I feel the same thing is being done here, the mods are too arrogant (some are) to listen.--Steele Glovier 15:45, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Getting in a pissing contest with the mods and then saying dumb things is not illegal- especially when the user has no past history of vandalism. --Ron Burgundy 23:27, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  8. I pointed out my feelings already on the Misconduct case. Xoid broke the rules according to the guidelines, and the ban should be removed. --♥UpsettingNot a Moderator 23:34, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    If you ban someone for the potential to vandalize, that's just wrong. --Solamnic Knight 03:28, 7 October 2006 (BST)
    • Proxy IP account, vote struck. --Karlsbad 06:10, 7 October 2006 (BST)
  9. As Ron Burgundy. David Malfisto 11:38, 7 October 2006 (BST)
    I run into people like Xoid every day but Jedaz is different. I read both their user pages and made my decision. 9:49, 7 October 2006 (BST)
    Unsigned vote struck. I can do that, right? --SirensT RR 02:52, 8 October 2006 (BST)
    Proxy IP Account, vote struck. 2nd Sock in Jedaz's dirty laundry. --Karlsbad 06:44, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  10. I'm still trying to work out why he was banned in the first place.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:01, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  11. TheDictator 12:11, 8 October 2006 (MCT)
  12. It looks like moderators and users that Xoid and the Xoidettes disagree with are being discredited, chased away, or knocked off. This is the most insane, cruel, bitter community I have ever seen. I wish I wasn't stuck having to come here for my information. -- Basil 20:10, 8 October 2006 (BST)
    I recognize the fact that he did things which were questionable, but I think unbanning him would be a show of good faith and might help cut down on vandalism on the wiki.--Gage 23:39, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  13. no comment--ag 05:27, 9 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Oh my God... Jedaz banned? When I first saw that notice, I took the time necessary to check most of the issue (well, at least a little). Whenever I see Jedaz's name, I can't (and mustn't) forget every contribution he made. Every user of this wiki is judged, promoted and punished in base of the content of these contributions, and Jedaz's contributions look good. Then what's the problem? On this wiki where everyone has a voice a heavy contributor like Jedaz gets banned? Face it: mods that still keep a hearth inside them are going to SW to have a chat with the person that went here by the username of "Amazing". At first I looked at The General with some distrust, because OMG he was his friend, but now his (and plenty of other guys) actions seem very reasonable. Look at 3pwv case on the SW Wiki: he started as a vandal there, but (I'll say it like that again) the person that went here by the username of "Amazing" (understand what I mean?) chatted a bit with him and made a friend. And here, after it was proved that User:The Devil was him, people chased him like chakals. The person that banned him probably got templates with cookies, gold or both as a prize. Vandal Banning is the page where Mods get points and normal users can make a reputation. And the Mod with the highscore is TEH MAN! If you move mountains on other sections of the wiki it doesn't matter: get Jjames permabanned and you can get a promotion in a two week period, guaranteed! Grow up, you herd of Yahoos.
    Back to the main issue: Jedaz witchhunt started when he dared to touch the SW Wiki. Neither me nor Cyberbob240 can deny it, because he takes a big deal of time watching what everyone there does, and it's not like I wuold be here to reply his rants after I post this so I don't care. He actually got forced to present a request for his own demotion in fear of being punished even harder by the harsh administration of this place. I actually worked a bit on the policy that was built in means of getting him banned (Yeah, I felt like Otacon in MGS1, unknowingly working on a policy that was built in bad faith to get another user banned), check the talk, and the worst is that I wondered why the hell Bob seemed so persistent in making his decissions final and unquestionable by normal users requests. And the cause: some words (who cares if it was a 24-48-72hs burst or not) where he claimed that there was a pretty ironic way to vandalize the wiki that wuoldn't be covered by the guidelines as "vandalism", and that he intended to to repair that (the guidelines), or at least point the error to someone else because he was tired of wiki work. Now, the chase doesn't end, because someone as good natured as Jedaz, as the bad tongues said, helps an UD vandal by pointing him to a tool that could aid him to vandalize more effectively. Bullshit, he was talking to a fellow user on a non UD related Wiki and users tend to help other users. Probably when you talk too much with The Devil on SW you start forgetting that here he's TEH Devil =P, don't you think so?
    Now this Wiki has become a nice analogy of what could be the first human society, I won't exply why. Xoid, if you ever want to be taken seriously again, either start banning real Wiki troublemakers like, I dunno, the whole Gankbus former members list and Cyberbob to prove the consistency of your arguments, or unban Jedaz. And I'm afraid that I must point, because you last actions prove that you can trip on even the smallest of details and fuck up pretty badly, that the latter option is the one preferable. This vote won't be replied by me at least, but I feel there's plenty of people that can respond for me, maybe wuoldn't but can do it. I wuold like to finish this by saying that if some of Jedaz actions are to be considered "bad faith" because, as the guidelines say, they were "not in spirit of improving the wiki", then how we call harrasment on an user to make him trip like the ones that Cyberbob unleash periodically on several users, that Xoid made on Jedaz before banning him and that Bob made on God? You can't possibly call that good faith and ban a guy that did nothing. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 08:40, 9 October 2006 (BST)
    "I took the time necessary to check most of the issue (well, at least a little)" — if you're not going to bother reading everything, why'd you bother reading anything at all? It's obvious you're deciding this based on his record when you were here, not after you left.
    "He actually got forced to present a request for his own demotion in fear of being punished even harder by the harsh administration of this place." — which is where you're wrong. Bob and I talked it over and initially decided to give him a chance. I doubt you're going to believe me or the chat logs I could provide, but I'm beyond caring at this point. I don't even know why I'm bothering to counter your points, even if I had a signed written confession from him your mind is made up.
    "…he intended to to repair that (the guidelines), or at least point the error to someone else because he was tired of wiki work." — if he did, then why didn't he bring it up? Why did he continue to make threats? Why did he hand tools to known vandals? Jedaz is sharp, I don't see him forgetting something like that quickly.
    "…prove the consistency of your arguments…"? I'm not banning trouble makers. If I were to go about banning trouble makers then I sincerely doubt much of the wiki would be left. There is a difference between someone who has a difference of opinion and someone actively helping to undermine the wiki.
    "…that Xoid made on Jedaz before banning him…", uh, no. I wasn't trying to elicit a confession out of him. I never expected one, but when it seemed like I had one I acted.
    "Bullshit, he was talking to a fellow user on a non UD related Wiki and users tend to help other users." — Bullshit, sir. 3 Page hasn't stopped his vandalisation over there, his efforts just aren't as pronounced or frequent. Even in the interests of preserving his new home Jedaz shouldn't have handed it over. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:58, 9 October 2006 (BST)

For keeping blocked

Please vote here if you wish for Jedaz to be kept banned

  1. My reasoning stands. He knew what he was doing was wrong and did it anyway; the definition of bad faith. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:59, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  2. My cat took a shit once. It would make a better wikizen then Jedaz has. --CaptainM 04:09, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Leave the bastard banned. Not only that, but the outcome of this poll is irrelevant. Established wiki policy is that votes for the banning/unbanning of users (e.g., the banning of Amazing) are interesting but irrelevant. Thus, the outcome of this poll, while telling about its voters, will serve nothing. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:37, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  4. The end of the stay tainted his entire record. However, I'll disagree with you here Bob. The policies do say that the will of the community should reverse a ban. But not that they can demand one. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:39, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  5. Helping vandals gets you banned, no matter if you are Odd Starter or whoever.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:16, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  6. You reap what you sow.. even Amazing made a lot of Wiki contributions. But he pissed off a lot of people all the time, even I can see that. Sustained Wiki drama does screw you in the end, nobody wants some a hole bugging you every damn day. We get enough of that in the real world. I stand by Xoid's decision to ban Jedaz.. if in time people's feelings subside a bit or we can honestly say "We could really use him again right about now, we need someone like him for this, this and this." well then different story. For now, let him stew, I've been temp banned a few times myself.. I have to confess.. the occasional swift kick in the ass is good for you! --MrAushvitz 05:17, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  7. I have to say, after his arrogant statements, saying that he may possibly vandalise the wiki, and that he had the intention of testing out a proxy on the wiki is enough grounds for banning. And it should stay that way. --Absolution 06:13, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    I was torn for a long time. Jedaz was a good wikizen for a long time, but his dramatic transformation as of late proved to me that he really doesn't have any desire to continue being a productive member. Sorry Jedaz, I liked you. I really did.--Gage 06:50, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  8. I'll vote even though I understand that the sockpuppets will arrive en mass, therefore eliminating any sense of this being a "community" vote at all. Either result and Jedaz is stil Ban-ban ban-didily banned. --Karlsbad 07:08, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  9. In Soviet Russia, Jedaz bans YOU!! Cyberbob  Talk  07:18, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  10. Bad faith, plain and simple. Conndrakamod T CFT 08:19, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    Jedaz did alot for the community but that doesn't change what he did in recent weeks. Pillsy FT 08:39, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Jedaz is bad for the grilled cheese movement especially when he said he crash people's talk pages who voted against the signtature movement--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU 10:30, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  12. I trust Xoid's judgement, I can't see him banning somebody with no reason, But that's just my 2 cents. It's 1.5 cents American, and something like 0.5 Sterling.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 16:18, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    • So you're voting simply because you believe that xoid would always be right?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:03, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Xoid's a rational guy, and if all the evidence and assertations brought forth are true, helping out a vandal is akin to Accessory, and thus deserves banning. -- Buncy T 18:41, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    Two things seem clear to me. Jedaz developed and shared wiki-vandal tools. Hiding behind the excuse that "he didn't do it" is just ridiculous and cowardly. Secondly, Xoid seems like a fair individual, who gave Jedaz many chances before finally opting for the ban. --Funt Solo 19:21, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    Having read the whole case, it seems that Xoid never gave him a chance, nor was he ever even proven to vandalize. IF you would, please point out where Xoid gave Jedaz those "plenty of chances." --Master Cheif 19:26, 8 October 2006 (BST)
    Gold Blade's comment struck. Cyberbob  Talk  22:26, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  14. The evidence that Xoid presents is clear enough. Perma-ban is the appropriate response. Bubba 00:06, 7 October 2006 (BST)
  15. Same Reason as Captain Morgan (Number 3 in this list). --DarkStar2374383 Talk | LDY | LOE 21:20, 7 October 2006 (BST)
  16. As much as I hate to cast my vote here, he has helped UD wiki vandals. There's no choice but to keep him banned. --Nob666 22:52, 7 October 2006 (BST)
  17. No. Youronlyfriend 02:16, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  18. Permaban sounds appropriate. -Certified=InsaneUG 02:56, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  19. Side with the masses!--Mayor Fitting 05:09, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  20. Does anyone seriously believe that Jedaz and Goldblade did NOT intend to participate in this Halloween Crash-The-Wiki vandal event? Rheingold 20:17, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  21. Jonny12 Talk 21:53, 8 October 2006 (BST)
  22. From recieiving cookies from Xoid for being a good mod...to being banned. Voting because of Rheingold and Gage's first vote.--ShadowScope 00:22, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Abstain

Sign here if you refuse to take a side. "Voting" abstain does not count as a vote, and will be ignored when votes are totalled.

  1. It occures to me that with Jedaz's knowledge of proxies, it won't make one lick of difference if he stays banned. And also...while I am very much against giving tools tips and tricks to vandals, I'm an annoyingly forgiving person. As such, I'm now neither for nor against his ban. --SirensT RR 03:58, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  2. I don't know what to think anymore, honestly. Mia put it well.--Gage 09:46, 9 October 2006 (BST)
    Jedaz continually reposted a page with information and links about how to grievously vandalize the wiki. Jedaz and Xoid are in agreement about this fact. Jedaz says he shouldn't be banned because posting information and links about how to vandalize and how to get into contact with vandals is not, per se, vandalism. I cannot view that line of argument as anything but dishonest. Him asking us to exercise good faith in the face of his actions is just chutzpah.
    However... given his past contributions if Jedaz posts an apology and promises not to vandalize the wiki, I would change my vote to Unban.
    He would still go right back to vandalizing of course. And probably participate in the Halloween vandal event. But at least then we could permaban him and this dramafest would be over for good. No more wikigates plz. Rheingold 11:01, 9 October 2006 (BST)
  3. I'm changing my vote to abstain. I don't really have a clear view anymore. Pillsy FT 11:03, 9 October 2006 (BST)
    The numbers wont work correctly after indented comments, dunno why. Nevermind, changed so indented comments don't affect numbering.
  4. Changing my vote to abstain. I don't know any of these people. --Funt Solo 12:03, 9 October 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Poll/Unban_Jedaz&oldid=2087406"