UDWiki talk:Poll/Unban Jedaz

If this is deleted then you know the mods have something to hide! What can it harm to get the communitys opinion if they are right? - Echo 03:18, 6 October 2006 (BST)

What smells like socks? --CaptainM 04:07, 6 October 2006 (BST)

All users are asked to voice their opinions.. okay.. and those opinions are now gone.. hmm. Not good. - MrAushvitz 17:15, 6 October 2006 (BST)

Something you should know

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)

Rowling?

So how come nobody has referenced Harry Potter yet? You know, like when the Weasley dad made the illegally modified muggle artifact, but said it was OK because he never intended to use it? --Burgan 23:49, 6 October 2006 (BST)

The problem is he allowed his dumbass kids to get to it, so he deserved what he got.--Gage 03:13, 7 October 2006 (BST)

Unsigned

Why are unsigned votes getting struck? You can't say that you don't know who left the vote, since their name is in the history, so why should it matter if they signed it or not? Couldn't you just use the unsigned template? The people voting are still users and they still should be able to cast their votes... --♥Upsetting^{Not a Moderator} 04:57, 8 October 2006 (BST)

No. You must sign your votes. Why aren't you campaigning for the people who don't sign on the Suggestions page? Cyberbob  Talk  05:01, 8 October 2006 (BST)

I don't go on to the suggestions page, and a suggestion doesn't campaign for a user's future on the wiki. Suggestions are a bit less extreme than this. Aren't moderators supposed to be friendly? --♥Upsetting^{Not a Moderator} 05:06, 8 October 2006 (BST)

Nope. Nothing says we have to be friendly. Cyberbob  Talk  05:09, 8 October 2006 (BST)

My mistake, I was thinking of common courtesy. Your unwarrented hate for me is clearly within your rights as a moderator. Sorry for the inconvenience. --♥Upsetting^{Not a Moderator} 05:18, 8 October 2006 (BST)

No problems. Cyberbob  Talk  05:22, 8 October 2006 (BST)

Personally, I have always felt that if you cannot take the mere one or two seconds it takes to type "~~~~" or click the signature button, then you never held mucuh thought in your opinion either, and niether should we. --Sirens^{T RR} 08:53, 8 October 2006 (BST)

I disagree with you. They took the time to vote, and just because they forgot four characters or they're too new to know how to sign their posts, their thoughts don't count. I'll point out the last saxon's vote where he signed his vote by typing

He didnt do anything wrong yet he let wrong be done, thats a sin of the bible i read something about but any way he should be alloud back but defiantly not as a moderator, he will be more carefull but he should be watched carefully. your on thin ice Jedaz ;( - the last saxon 6 october

I bolded then end of his vote to show that, in a way, he signed it. But according to the judgement of Xoid, that just didn't cut it. We knew who made the vote, and what day they voted, but since it doesn't have a link to his username, nor the exact time of his post, apparently he just doesn't count as a community member. --♥Upsetting^{Not a Moderator} 17:46, 8 October 2006 (BST)

If it doesn't cut it with something like suggestions, policies, or any other type of vote, then it doesn't cut it with something as important as this. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:09, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Abstain equals Majority

Alright, I can assume that Jedaz didn't expect people to start voting Abstain as a "weak ban", I'll bring this up:
VOTING ABSTAIN COUNTS YOU AS AGAINST JEDAZ'S UNBANNING.
Because the poll is written that "If 50% or greater of people wish for Jedaz to return", this means that even if 30 people vote For Jedaz and 20 people vote Against but 50 people vote abstain, Jedaz remains permabanned as he has only a 30% result. So if you actually want your opinion to be ignored then remove your vote entirely. --Karlsbad 18:16, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Actually, Abstain doesn't count as a vote at all, and doesn't count toward figuring out the majority. It is simply the people who have noticed the poll, and wish it to be publicly known that they don't want to take either side and why. --Sirens^{T RR} 22:08, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Reasoning

Something I just realised: ...if Jedaz knew that 3 Page was such a threat, why would've he given him the tools knowing that it would come back to bite him on the arse in the form of his own wiki getting vandalised? That doesn't make sense...

...don't say "because 3 Page doesn't", he does. He does it whenever his pwetty wil' feelings get hurt. Jedaz isn't stupid enough to give a loaded shotgun to someone who doesn't understand the term "friendly fire".

With that in mind, there simply isn't a strong enough case to keep him banned even if I did think he was plotting something. Without the "handing 3 Page the tools", I can understand the rest. Coincidences, misunderstandings, and stupid things said under when under pressure, pressure that was kept up for those three days.

I'm sorry for this... disaster. Jedaz is unbanned. I'm taking a break, be back in a week. Or two. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 19:30, 9 October 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I guess it had to be done... *shrugs* Cyberbob  Talk  21:53, 9 October 2006 (BST)

I think it was the right thing to do.--Gage 22:47, 9 October 2006 (BST)