Forum:Request to block User:Parsonsda

Forums: Yew Grove > Request to block User:Parsonsda

Note: I include a lot of links, many of which are only viewable by sysops. I have indicated these with asterisks so you don't waste your time clicking links you can't follow.

I am requesting to block Parsonsda for one month (30 days) for his repeated and knowing violations of numerous Wiki policies, mostly relating to image uploads.

Parsonsda ^{Talk • Contribs • Edit count}

Reasons

This all started when Parsonsda uploaded an image* of Kuradal on 5 December 2009. He bragged about getting a screenshot of her on Hapi's talk page. This file looked suspicious, however, so I did some investigating and determined quite clearly that the image was from the RSMV. I notified him that those types of files were not allowed. He insisted that he got that image himself in the slayer tower. However the file was incontrovertibly from the RSMV, and numerous other editors agreed when I presented my case to them, so the file was deleted anyways.

The very next day, he uploaded several images of Glophren (here*, here*, here*, here*, and here*). He bragged on Hapi's talk page again. However in order to get to Glophren, Parsonsda would have had to defeated every single other champion first. This includes the Aberrant Specter champion, which requires 60 slayer. Parsonsda did not have 60 slayer at that time. I brought this up to Parsonsda, who, not knowing how the Champion Challenge worked, said that he got it himself because all he had to do was show up and fight them. Caleb interrogated Parsonsda ingame, and he finally admitted they were taken from YouTube. I deleted them and left this warning.

A little while later, he got involved in an RSMV discussion. On 19 December, he started talking about his cousin who worked at Jagex. No one bought it, either on the original thread, nor on the thread he started later that day. Despite this, he uploaded yet another image* of Glophren on 20 December 2009 with the upload summary "finally got him", implying that this was an image he got. Of course it wasn't, so I immediately deleted it and warned him again. A little later, he started a thread on 28 December, 2009 concerning the images he got from his "cousin". That same day, Stinkowing started the first block request against him. This request was unsuccessful.

A couple months later on 19 February, 2010 another request to have him blocked was started by Stinkowing. The events which led up to this request occurred while I was away, however they are clearly outlined on the thread so if you want to know, read the opening post of that thread. This request was successful and he was blocked for 1 week.

Now on to the events which prompted me to start this new request. Shortly after Dungeoneering came out, on 17 April 2010, Parsonsda uploaded the Dungeoneering hood inventory sprite* with the upload summary "yes, the real skillcape hood, not fake, got it from youtube :)". Frede asked where exactly on YouTube Parsonsda got the image. Parsonsda replied that he asked Jagex for the image and they sent it to him. Frede asked for more details. Parsonsda posted the link that Jagex "sent" him, an imageshack link to a Dungeoneering hood in an inventory. Frede questioned the likelihood that the Imageshack account was actually used by Jagex, to which Parsonsda replied that they probably used it to keep images hidden from the public.

This is the point at which I got involved. I requested more details. He simply repeated that he got it from YouTube. I asked for additional clarification, which Parsonsda did not reply to. At this point I discovered the Request for Deletion against the image. Seeing that Parsonsda had been given every opportunity to explain how he got the image, yet did not, I deleted the image and closed the RfD. Later, he posted on my talk page finally admitting that the got the image from a private server forums. He then changed the image links used in his signature to a direct link format so he could keep using them in his signature, a minor instance of gaming the system.

Parsonsda has been warned more than enough times and yet he still flagrantly violates the wiki's policies uploading images from sources he knows aren't allowed. Even though he was previously blocked as a warning, within a month of its expiry, he did the exact same thing again. He needs to be shown that ignoring the polices is not alright, and since warnings were shouted at him from all sides to no avail, the only remaining recourse is a month long block.

A note about AGF

The previous block requests received a lot of opposition on the basis of assuming good faith. AGF is absolutely not applicable to this situation. Assume good faith does not mean allowing someone to repeatedly break the rules just because they think its for the best. Its about assuming that when someone does something wrong, they don't know it. But Parsonsda does know it. He's been told it dozens of time. So do not oppose the block on the grounds of AGF because it is far far too late for that.

Also, the AGF argument is rendered void by another keystone of Wiki policy, all editors are equal. If a new user with just a few hundred edits had done what Parsonsda had done, people wouldn't think twice about blocking him. The simple fact is, the amount of good edits Parsonsda has made is irrelevant in considering what consequences should be faced for his bad ones.

Discussion

Support - As nominator http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 05:53, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's been warned enough times. It's time for him to take the consequences. Frede^Talk 06:26, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

OpposeWe have no policy against model viewer images. Likewise, no policy allowing it. Yes, he is a liar, but no policy was violated. Thats a pretty important point.--Degenret01 07:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

He never actually uploaded images from the model viewer. He uploaded them from youtube, which we do have a policy against. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 07:18, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, question. For all the things I know we (yes myself included), are we certain he was aware that he is not allowed to take images from other fansites? I am not trying to nitpick, I am trying to be fair. I know for myself I have told him a hell of a lot of things, but I don't think I ever directed him to that policy specifically.--Degenret01 07:23, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

He got this warning when he uploaded the first batch of Glophren images, and I warned him again when he uploaded the second one on 20 December 2009 http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 07:27, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thats enough for me, striking out oppose.--Degenret01 07:38, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Even though you have already removed oppose, I might just add that two policies currently say that cache images aren't allowed. (RS:NIP and RS:IMAGE ^source) _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:42, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - here my reasons for whats going on

• list
  • Signature
    • there was a problem with it, i didnt want it messing up userpages, so i did that so it be clean
  • Image
    • yes i know, im sorry for that but i was really existed about the new skill i looked everywhere for the emote and found the hood

--User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 07:21, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

You can't oppose this. —Manyman ^(talk) 07:25, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - You have had plenty of warnings. —Manyman ^(talk) 07:24, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It just seems that our warnings have no meaning to you. I believe that you did this to assist the wiki, but the ways that you went about it violated our policies. If this was the first time, then maybe it wouldn't have been a support, but this has happened on numerous occasions, and keeps happening, again and again. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 07:28, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I see Parsonda in the activity thread quite often and having lots of great contributions to the wiki, sure he has made a few mistakes but a month! thats way to severe. He is definatly, in my eyes anyway, a very valued member who makes a few mistakes. Just my 3 cents. Sentra246 07:35, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

'Oppose' - Parsons made one little mistake! Thats hardly enough to warrant a ban. Imagine hes Guthix,Hes good and bad keeping the scale of balance well.balanced.

But the thing is,He ISNT Guthix,on his scale of balance,the good FAR outweighs the bad,BY FAR.Im pretty sure he should be forgiven and we just make a new policy stating that images on this wiki if they are ingame images,MUST be taken by you,not from another fansite,or youtube or anything.Battleben 07:51, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, it wasn't just one little mistake. He knowingly violated the policies multiple times. He was even blocked for it, and when the block expired he did it again. Also per RS:AEAE it doesn't matter how many good edits he's made when considering the consequences for the bad edits. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 07:55, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There has been about 2-3 discussions about this, he has a block but when it expires, Parsonda carries on from where he left off at before he got blocked. These discussions are getting on my nerves. (I am never angry but this is so annoying to me). oh and, I crossed out Parsonda's Oppose because this is about him meaning he can't vote, right? Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 07:53, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Whether he broke a policy or not (and he has broken policies), his lying is becoming a sickness. If we all lied as much as he did, we would not be such an effective and successful wiki as we are today. It's simply a matter of telling the truth. There is no need to lie, honesty is always the better way out. It gets quite annoying when he provides horrible reasons for his actions such as "getting x image from Youtube", yet he cannot provide a link. What video was he watching? No one has 99 Dungeoneering yet, and so it can't be possible. Jagex surely wouldn't show it, and RSMV doesn't show inventory sprites, as they aren't models.

He needs to learn that with good faith edits must come truth. I realize that most of the time, he means to help out the wiki, but he's just not doing it in the correct way. Defying policies and lying is not the way to go. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 11:33, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Parsonsda, may not be one of our best editors, but, I honestly do not think that he deserves the block, he is trying to help the wiki. Also, he broke a rule only once since his last ban, and I'm pretty sure that he believed that it was real. Also, I don't want to accuse people, but most of you just want him banned because you don't like him. I don't like him either, he sometimes makes me hate him, but, I won't support his ban just because he uploaded a single image. bad_fetus^talk 13:18, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "most of you just want him banned because you don't like him." is correct, look at any day and he has great edits that really help the comunity. Also he is trying to help the wiki usually, i mean even admins and bureaucrats make mistakes. Sentra246 08:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment All of the images you have linked us to can only be viewed by admins and above.I would like to seethe images before i support or oppose this thanks Timwac ^talk 16:27, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Is using bad judgment in uploading files a bannable offense? He is not flaming, or harassing any other players. ‎AtlandyFile:Beer.gif 16:32, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose He tries really hard for the wiki and does what he think is best. I suppose does lie but he has made great contributions. We would be worse off if we ban him, imo

1. REDIRECT User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 16:37, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He's just being a bit to Bold... He tries his best for the wiki. The block system is meant for trolls and vandals that wánt to do bad things to the wiki, and Parsonsda only wants the best. He may not always understand every policy, but this is not where block is meant for. Mark (talk) 16:47, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - He puts everything into his images, he'll do anything to improve the pictures of the wiki, and yes he gets carried away, yes he is annoying, but should we block someone for wanting to improve the community?

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 17:05, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't do any permanent harm, and he has a lot of other worthwhile edits. He has knocked four times. 17:09, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Good edits > Bad edits. Oil4 ^Talk 20:01, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Really? This is getting ridiculous. ⁓ Hello71 20:59, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Stop blocking the good faith editors. If they are constantly doing stuff wrong, then enforce an unofficial ban of them doing a certain things (such as uploading images). If they break that agreement, then they get blocked. Honestly, assume good faith. Ajraddatz _Talk 16:50, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

hold on!

some of the things in that thread are from the past block! i already served my ban for that, here the things that was from the past block:

• This all started when Parsonsda uploaded an image* of Kuradal on 5 December 2009.
• The very next day, he uploaded several images of Glophren
• A little while later, he got involved in an RSMV discussion. On 19 December, he started talking about his cousin who worked at Jagex.

thoes things are sorted and he has no right to bring them up, if you know the treat users fairly rule meaning you can't bring back things just to improve your chance at banning me! that wrong! and i also asked for that to be never said again so it wouldn't ruin my life! can't you see! you bring the past back!

so over all it just the hood and a small lie, all i did was wanted to help =( nothing else, just help. i mean it a new skill! i really wanted to help wiki by getting the image for the the skill, nothing more nothing less =(

--User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 08:03, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Your history is a huge factor in the decision making process. It shows that you have had multiple chances and you still choose not to abide by the wiki's policies. It would be stupid to not bring up the past events. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 08:06, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

But i already done my ban for that, why bring it back? --User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 08:08, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to get you banned for that stuff again. I'm attempting to get you banned for uploading the dungeoneering hood even after you were banned for that previous stuff. Your history is NOT irrelevant, Parsonsda. What you did in the past has a huge effect on how you are treated currently. No one would ever think of banning you if all you did was upload this hood. Its all the stuff you did before that makes uploading this hood so bad. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 08:11, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way, Parsonsda. When we block vandals, we give blocks depending on the severity of the offence and whether or not the user has vandalised before. If two IPs made similar edits inserting false information, but one was a first-time offender while the other was a repeat vandal, the repeat vandal would be given a longer block. C.Chiam^Talk 08:26, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - "i also asked for that to be never said again so it wouldn't ruin my life! can't you see! you bring the past back!" I believe I had said once before that the Wiki isn't your life, it's not your soapbox, it isn't your Twitter. The Wiki shouldn't be your life, you should realize that lying gets you nowhere and you should also take note that doing what's best should use common sense. I'll also note that your superiority complex does nothing for you when you dictate yourself in-game (since then I have added you to ignore) or when you think some people are stupid. I see you as a sophomoric sixteen year old who uses lies to get his way. You deserved a month block the last time. People do not see eye to eye, but that can also be said for George W. Bush. I am also aware that you believe double jeopardy is non-existent, but the opening paragraphs to this block are evidence to your misconduct. I fail to see how this hurts the Wiki to block him. It's more or less about what this child should learn rather than what the Wiki will no suffer. There are over 2,400 active editors right now. I am confident that more than one will do images, even better than this editor. Template:Signatures/Bluesonic43 19:52, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's clear no one had the dungeoneering hood, one shouldn't have been uploaded, and I said that. Somehow he has to learn that he needs to co-operate with policies. Halo^Talk 20:11, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - And blocking him is the way he learns that? I'm quite sure that if you keep hitting a 5 year old for stealing a candy he'll never do it again (well, it will probably, though that is NOT the way). Mark (talk) 20:14, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

What are we supposed to do? We can't just say, "Oh! That was bad! Don't do it ever again!" He has been warned multiple times. It's not like one month is forever. It's some time off, to give him a chance to THINK about it. And I think your example is inadequate, it would be more like sending a 5 year old into the corner for time out after he has stolen candy a few times with you telling him no. Halo^Talk 20:20, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mark, blocking him is not like hitting a child. Blocking him is far more like giving the child a time-out, which is exactly what you would do in that situation. Don't say that that's only a punishment fit for small children; it's not unlike a suspension from school, either. Although I'm not sure what my opinion is on this block, I think that your argument is incorrect. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:31, April 29, 2010 (UTC) 

learning

i taken a few hours of my time to read all the rules, so that it wont happen again i now understand what i done, i belive i boke this rule

• Non-existent item policy
  • You are allowed to make an article for an item that does not exist. However, there must be some valid proof that shows that the item will be created in the future. The article must clearly indicate that the item does not exist.

and this may come in handy aswel

• Don't feed the trolls
  • Do not antagonise trolls under any circumstances. It may worsen the situation.

--User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 20:22, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Oppose Strong Support - I do believe that he has broken the rules multiple times, but not attempting to make the wikia a more troublesome place, but instead to help contribute new images. Im aware about the rules and his previous bans, however, I personally believe in 1 final ultimatum. He should be given a final warning asking him to stop it now, and if he is to break the rules again in the future, he should just be placed on an instant block, as per the ultimatum idea. Now, after looking at the other discussion that resulted in a block on him, I now do believe that he needs to mature up, He has been warned large amounts of times and just doesn't seem to get the point that EVERYONE is under the oath of the rules... Changing to strong support Rhys ^Talk 20:26, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything to deserve a perm ban, but I don't think a temporary one would hurt. Also, if you want to add to the list of rules you are breaking parsons, you could add the Signature one (Signatures must link to the user's userpage. Furthermore, that text must uniquely identify the user by either including the username verbatim, an obvious abbreviation of the username, or another name by which the user shall be consistently known.), but that one is easily enough fixed. Halo^Talk 20:29, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

That was the idea, Final warning, if broken, 1 month block Rhys ^Talk 20:32, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

He has had PLENTY of warnings if you read above. Halo^Talk 20:34, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't broken the rules multiple times since his last ban and, he has more useful edits on the wiki than most of us do. bad_fetus^talk 20:36, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware, but I still believe in one final warning, perhaps this whole discussion will enlighten him to the trouble he will get in to after 1 more rule break... He didn't break the rules out of bad heart... And Chess is right, he has a massive amount of good heart edits Rhys ^Talk 20:36, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

It's not like we are ostracizing him, we are suggesting to give him some time off to think about it. Halo^Talk 20:40, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I truly believe Parsonsda is trying to help, but unfortunately he lies to achieve his goals. He has already been blocked once, so that doesn't seem to be helping. He also doesn't learn from his mistakes and has begged people many times not to consider his past actions. In addition, I don't think Parsonsda is actually trying to disregard the wiki's policies; he just needs to consider the consequences that may result from his actions. Think before acting, Parsonsda. Think.  Tien  20:40, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - After reading through the history, I believe he's broken the rules multiple times EVEN AFTER BEING WARNED (whether it's good-will or bad-will I will never know) and I'd support a temp ban so that he can really take this time to familiarize himself with the policies of this wiki so that he can become a better editor in the future. Lil cloud 9 20:41, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Although you knowingly broke the rules many times, you were still trying to help the wiki, and you have made very many positive edits. So I will only support a month long block; however, if you do anything else like this again, I'll support a permanent ban. User:C Teng/sig 21:05, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - In the last discussion (Forum:Concerning Parsonsda...), it was made quite clear to him that if he broke the rules again, he would be blocked. He even received a week-long block as a warning. It is clear that he has not learned. I believed last time that applying AGF to that case was stretching the policy. Now, with all this, it really doesn't even apply anymore. We need to stop being the softies that we are. --Liquid^Talk 21:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Support - Based on the last blocking thread, and the numerous warnings he has been given before, I think he should be blocked. He certainly does have some useful edits, but I'm not sure if those are outweighed by his behavior. ʞooɔ 21:55, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and comment I have really been thinking about this one and I truly believe this is the wrong way to go. Yes, he clearly violated a policy that he was informed of on at least two separate occasions. His violation is the uploading of a single image he took from another fan-site. Yes, hes been blocked and warned before for enough similar things, and he has been told that lying is unacceptable. But, no offense meant to him here, I just do not think he is as fully mentally capable to fully understand all this.
Although it has been said that "Assuming good faith does not apply", I think it has to apply at all times in all our actions and how we deal with and treat people. I do not think Parsonsda did this for self glory, I feel certain his ultimate goal was just to get that pic on the wiki because he loves the wiki and he wants it to be as complete as possible. I am also pretty certain that some people support because indeed they just don't like him or his attitude or how he is. If it was about liking people, I would totally support as I like and respect Psycho and really get as annoyed at Parsons as almost anyone else. But that should not be a factor in this.
I do think somehow a message needs to be sent in a very clear way. But it needs to be a message that he understands, as well as a punishment that fits the crime. Yes longer blocks are given to repeat vandals, but for a single image one month is just way too long. I would support a five to seven day block at most. And even then I am not sure if it is the morally correct thing to do, but I would hope it does its job.--Degenret01 00:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you look here, you'll see that he has specifically stated that any fake image calls for immediate deletion and a 24 hour block. (Point number 5). By the agreement that he proposed, I would have the right to block him for 24 hours right now (which I'm not going to do, because I want this discussion to finish). At any rate, what this shows is that he is indeed aware that what he is doing is wrong and that he knows of the consequences. --Liquid^Talk 00:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just doubt he is capable of remembering these things for long. And maybe the 24 hour bock would have been best all things considered.--Degenret01 00:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

You can't excuse him on memory. People don't get excluded from rules because they lack memory or something. They must be hold accountable just like anyone else. Halo^Talk 00:20, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We as a wiki have got to stop being so soft. We have given unruly users several warnings, most of them supposedly "final warnings". And yet, we still have yet to take conclusive action. If this trend continues, then our "final warnings" in the future will become nothing more than a worthless template slapped onto a nondescripit talk page.

What we need to do is take action. It's time to put our feet down and say enough is enough. We also have to stop making excuses for other users. So Parsons has ADHD? Fine. But, as Haloolah said, a disorder of a small magnitude (such as ADHD) does not excuse a person from any legal infractions he or she may commit. The only psychological disorder that is legally recognized as a valid excuse to avoid punishment is insanity. And last I checked, Parsons is not insane, so any defense lawyers that want to argue an insanity defense can drop the case now.

Haven't we given enough warnings already? We, as a community, need to get our act together and start acting upon our own words. --Liquid^Talk 00:32, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, anyone could claim he or she has ADHD and not get blocked. User:C Teng/sig 00:45, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Even furthermore, pampering him and treating him better than others is not helping anyone, including him. Just because he has ADHD doesn't mean we should hold his hand and be his mommy -- (not to act as if he's a little kid, but as if we treat him like one). He should be warned and blocked just as anyone else would be, under the right circumstances of course. I'm all for understanding that not everyone is perfect, but there comes a time when mistakes cross the line and become utter carelessness. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 03:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Spanking a baby with an axe is not the way to go. Get tough? Tough? I'm sorry, I must have missed where he wrote "**** your mother" in the middle of 18 pages. And blanked 400 others. Once pic man. One. Uno. Singular. 30 days is insane for that, even on a repeat offender. You want to get tough, do it to real vandals, thats great. This would just be wrong.--Degenret01 09:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I was giving my opinion not only on this one image, but his behavior overall. He lies to us when we ask him for information about something he did that broke a policy, then days or weeks after it's resolved, he confesses. Why couldn't he confess when we needed him to? Honestly, I don't know how we can make him fully realize what he's doing is wrong, obviously a week-block didn't do much. I just want us to stop being pushovers, especially because he has a non-crucial disorder that a lot of teenagers have. I mean to say that we shouldn't be letting him off the hook every time he does something wrong. He deserves to be punished just as much as anyone else would. Maybe a 30 day block isn't the best thing for him, but after seeing that we've tried this multiple times, I have no idea what else could work. Blocks aren't teaching him how to behave and obey policies, I think he's just fine with them. We need to find another way. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 11:35, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What does having ADHD have to do with anything? I have it, so do many other people, although it's usually just ADD. But if he is 13, like the Wikia Terms of Use specify, then he should be able to control it just fine. CDX^rwojy 03:35, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not a big deal, but people are treating it as if it's some case of autism or something. He's not autistic, he's a regular teenager with ADHD who is sometimes careless/ignorant in his edits, and doesn't always acknowledge wiki policies. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 03:38, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Cool!! im allowed to go around doing whatever the f*** I want???? huh??? geez.... im 14...i have autism....i got over it one month after i found out......

I think an amandment to some policy is in order....mental status shall not be considered in ban/unban arguments

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:03, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - C Teng, I got ADHD (Apparently) but do you see me doing stuff like this? So this has nothing to do with it. Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 09:22, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

As do I, if that happens to help your case at all. User:Stelercus/Signature 10:17, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this disorder varies in severity from person to person, and age should also determine how much it affects someone. Chicken7 ^>talk 10:48, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Degen that we should be more tolerant but not forgetful, though I think that he has passed the line of what is acceptable. My main problem is not breaking the rules despite being warned, nor blatantly lying, but faking conversations with Jagex after having being partly banned for it once before. To me this makes him impersonating Jagex staff through fictionalising conversations with them which is never acceptable from anyone, especially a repeat offender. Jagex are are both the only real source that we can quote in articles and their stance and rules often have a powerful sway on subjects and policy creation (RS:NOT#SCAM) so I don't think that this can be treated lightly. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 11:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Those images may be fake, but I honestly believe that Parsonsda makes them because he thinks that they help the wiki, he believes that those will become true. I don't think we should ban a user just because they are trying to help. Also, he has loads of good faith edits. bad_fetus^talk 13:58, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ah,but you forget ADHD Is commonly linked with autism,As many People with ADHD often have some form of autism.

Actually autism is more commonly associated with depression......not ADHD...geez have a heart......

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:03, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Also,PARSONS SHOULD NOT BE BLOCKED FOR ONE LITTLE IMAGE!.A one day ban will do fine,He isnt harming the wiki in any way whatsoever! so why block him for a MONTH!? From what i hear Hes leaving the wiki,So are you going to let ONE LITTLE THING Cause one of the best darn editors this wiki has leave?Battleben 12:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The severity of the proposed block is because this is not the first time. --Kgnomes^Talk 14:14, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The only mistake he did since his last block was uploading a dungeoneering hood >_> bad_fetus^talk 14:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

That is true, however he lied about the origins of the image and continued to do so when Frede began questioning him about it. The fact that he was dishonest is what seems like the actual problem to me.-- --Kgnomes^Talk 17:05, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you spent few minutes checking the adhd article of wikipedia, you'd see that it can cause lying. bad_fetus^talk 18:21, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because a condition he has can cause lying (because only ADHD can), everything is ok? Anyone can lie, he just does it more. If he's a pathological liar, it wouldn't better the situation. --Template:Signatures/Rsa23899 20:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support Block - The problem that I have with this entire discussion is the fact that everything being discussed was already decided in the previous discussion. The verdict was that if he were to break a rule again, he would be blocked again. We cannot allow this decision to be ignored, especially when pretty much everyone — including Parsonsda, I might add — agreed to it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 19:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC) 

small ban

hmmm i been thinking...it just 1 small image, it was a accident i forgot about the last ban, it kinda harsh doing that for one small image and lie that i forgot about, that all, nothing major like last time, can't i have a 1-3 day ban, it perfectly ok, but i don't wish to have a ban for something i forgot about, this time i broke only 1 small rule, that it, i haven't used a rsmv,no massive hacks, no damaging, nothing! you cant say better then a 1-3 day ban, i also been trying to show how good i been by trying to spread the word of project myface to show how hard i work, so please think about it a 1 month ban for 1 small image that may cause me to go angry at the wiki, or a 1-3 day ban that small , fair and perfectly ok? your choice, just think about that - Thanks. --User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 18:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - 1-3 day ban makes sense, unlike a whole month ban for one image. bad_fetus^talk 18:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's just about one image, It's about all his past offences, and his disregard for our rules.

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 16:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has broken rules only once since his last one and made many constructive edits. So it is like banning him just for one image. bad_fetus^talk 16:37, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Have you considered the possibility that he's not a sufferer of ADHD, but in fact lying about that too? I have a theory about the Universe. It exists. 18:37, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I choose to believe him. bad_fetus^talk 19:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Emphatic Oppose - A full WEEK ban didn't make any difference in your behaviour so why on earth would we believe a one day ban would do a damn thing? http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 18:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

If the previous ban didn't do any difference, how is this one gonna make a difference? bad_fetus^talk 19:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Because its a more severe punishment, not a less severe one. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 19:30, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose small ban - That's what we did last time. Just like IP repeat offenders get successively increasing blocks for policy infractions, per AEAE you will get the same. --Liquid^Talk 19:02, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

He didn't have only one rule-breaking before. Also, those vandals don't have loads of constructive edits, unlike him. bad_fetus^talk 19:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's when RS:AEAE comes. We are all equal: a 30k contributions editor can still be given a month ban, just the same if a 20 contributions editor does it. --Gragon 126 ^Talk 19:14, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is related to AEAE. Those vandals who get banned do not have constructive edits. bad_fetus^talk 19:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. The number of constructive edits is completely irrelevent to this discussion. The fact is, Parsons broke the rules (including his own agreement and the consensus we established in the last discussion) and action has to be taken. --Liquid^Talk 19:29, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The number of constructive edits is relevant, RS:UCS. There is no point of blocking someone that is useful to the wiki. bad_fetus^talk 19:33, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that as long as someone has constructive edits they can get away with whatever they want? Because that sure sounds like the argument you're making, and if that's the case, Caleb should be allowed to get away with murder. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 19:40, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Chess, please, stop writing non-sense. kkthxbai. --Gragon 126 ^Talk 19:41, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Idk if you noticed, but Parsonsda is a human. Humans make mistakes. And that's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that 1 single rule-breaking edit is insignificant to the amount of constructive edits he has made. bad_fetus^talk 19:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)He has been warned many, many times (check his block log, talk page, even yew grove threads). We can't Assume good faith everytime he commits a mistake or something. I repeat, He has already been warned before. I Support 100% a block here. --Gragon 126 ^Talk 19:48, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Look, multiple people have already said that the number of constructive edits does not matter. And, it's not just one single rule-breaking incident that we're concerned about. The issue is that after he uploaded the fake images, he consistently lied to Psycho about their origins. If he had admitted that what he did was wrong when asked, then the punishment would not be so harsh. --Liquid^Talk 19:46, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

(Two edit conflicts D:) - Look, multiple people have already said that the number of constructive edits does not matter. - and multiple people have opposed the vote because of the number of constructive edits. bad_fetus^talk 19:51, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, this section is about whether or not Parsons should get a small ban as opposed to a large one. Parsons has said himself that any fake images call for an immediate 24 hour ban. However, in the process of determining if that image actually was fake, Parsons broke his promise not to lie numerous times, and even after the images were deleted, he manipulated the links in his signature so he could still have them. Such flagrant rule-breaking is not much different from that fake forum post of Andrew that we saw on the last forum. So, I think that a 1-3 ban would not suffice. --Liquid^Talk 20:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose blocks I cannot support a temporary nor permanent block if the smoking gun is a couple of scattered images that have since been deleted. Didn't we have another YG thread concerning the applicability and legality of RSMV, with the consensus being the status quo, with the status quo being that there was no consensus? If Parsonsda did NOT use the Model Viewer as his source, which I highly doubt as Youtube uploads take a significantly long time and has a notoriety for bad quality and would still have to have their source from somewhere else presumably being the RSMV leading up to the first issue, we still have to prove that it was indeed not his own source and that he was lying to himself. We can't take Parsonsda's word for everything, if he says something bad against himself we all jump on it and disgrace him for it, and then when he says something to defend himself we all deny and ignore it. We can't block Parsonsda for using the RSMV or modifying third-party cache, if there is no current policy or rule regarding this. While there may be a policy against lying, something as trivial as this deserves nothing more than reprehensions. People like Parsonsda won't stop with blocks, blocks won't do anything to him, we have to make him realize the gravity of these affairs. This may tie indirectly to some other policy I'm not aware of, but I'm certain that a few images here and there does not harm us in any way nor jeopardizes our relationship with Jagex. Parsonsda may be headstrong and a bit tacit in his understanding, and I must admit that I am sometimes perturbed by his continuous slandering, but he has shown that he can and has changed before. He has gone to great lengths to cover up his identity, even changing his "name" several times on occasion when he felt that he was being harassed. If this thread does not grab his attention (even though it has already resulted in his subsequent postings) and doesn't make him realize how grave the current situation is, then I would be supporting a permanent block for him. But I am sure he is no older than much of us here, he still contributes willingly and benefits the Wiki with his own edits, just because there's a few bad apples spoiling the bunch (or whatever that quote goes), doesn't mean that we should block him entirely and forever. Maybe it takes time for a person to change, or maybe an arbitrary block will make a person realize his or her wrongdoings, but one thing we can all be certain of is that Parsonsda meant no harm to this Wiki from the day he signed up, down to the very last day of his contributing. I wish that people like us were given chances, I myself am speaking from experience. Temporary blocks can change the attitude of a person greatly, but at what cost? When parents spank their children, it disciplines them and sets them straight. But what of the repercussions, what if the child retaliates further? I insist that this thread, and maybe a few more messages on his talk page, will settle this once and for all. If I am wrong, and God forbid, I do not wish to think of the consequences. My advice to you Parsonsda, is foremost: please stop obtaining material from other sources and claiming it as your own, this is to be frowned upon and it has greatly diminished your reputation as a person whom we can trust. Second, knowing how great it feels being in the spotlight and knowing how the center of attention feels, it's really just pointless keeping up that attitude of "Oh, I got so-and-so image FIRST, I should receive due credit." The Wiki is a place where everyone can contribute, and all editors are equal. No one contribution is more equal than another contribution. Please do not edit this Wiki in hopes of garnering attention or credit you would otherwise not receive through honest and good-faith editing. Realize that, we are only trying to help you Parsonsda. These threads shouldn't be just thought of as a place where we bullies congregate to be demeaning to you as possible, we are only trying to improve the experience of others and of course, to try and see where you went wrong. Admitting your mistakes is one thing, but promising not to make the same mistake takes courage, courage that I believe you have. Please do not take our words or work for granted, the editors here work hard, and like Degenret once said to me, "Do not blatantly throw what we work so hard for here in the trash as though we don't matter." This may seem a bit harsh, but it's reality. And the reality of it all is, if this current trend of yours continues, then my opinion of you won't be the only thing that will change.

Getting off my soapbox now, I just hope we can all resume our normal lives. Drama really isn't my thing. Fruit.Smoothie 04:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

“	When parents spank their children, it disciplines them and sets them straight. But what of the repercussions, what if the child retaliates further?	”
	— User:Fruit.Smoothie

Read above, a block is not, and cannot be compared to a spanking. A block is similar to a time out, or a 'suspension' from school. ⁓ Hello71 14:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

A little bit of information on blocks vs. punishment - new proposal

Well, this forum is kinda bothering me in that all of the supporters, and some of the opposers are supporting the use of Special:Block as a punishment. Because of this, I will attempt to enlighten you on the correct usage of a block, and what to do for punishment; in the most polite way that I can.

First off, blocks should never be used as punishment for past actions. The point of a block it to prevent a disruption from continuing. Now, I'm sure that after reading that many people will raise the point that Parsonsda might upload another bad image, and in that case the block would be warranted. However, that view is (quite bluntly put), wrong. You see, Parsonsda edits in good faith, and because of that he should be treated differently than a vandal. The thing about people who contribute in good faith is that they help the wiki; by blocking them over one thing, you lose that benefit to the wiki. We shouldn't be punishing ourselves here.

You might be now thinking to yourself "well, if a block isn't the way, then what is?". Actually, most of you are going to completely ignore what I said about blocks, and just oppose this idea "just 'cause". The way to go for things like this is a choice, and an agreement. First of all, we should give Parsonsda the choice between a one month ban, or to sign an agreement saying that he will not upload anymore images for a certain time-frame (say a year - which is fair after what he has done). Then, if he breaks the agreement we can say that he is now editing in bad faith, and block him to prevent further such edits. Sound good to everyone? Ajraddatz _Talk 19:57, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - That's what I've been trying to say, I wasn't able to put it in words though bad_fetus^talk 19:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - An agreement was what we had at the end of the last forum, and yet Parsons still broke it. He has broken agreements too many times for me to place any faith in them. Any future agreements will have to say that any sysop can block Parsons if he violates the agreement, even if there is an ongoing discussion. --Liquid^Talk 20:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Another matter is about "good faith". RS:AGF clearly states that constant lying is NOT good faith. And, if breaking any agreement that he would sign at this thread is "bad faith", then isn't breaking his previous agreements also bad faith? --Liquid^Talk 20:02, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I just said that if he violates it, he gets blocked. Also, he is clearly trying to help the wiki. That is called good faith. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:03, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Oppose and comment - Stop stretching RS:AGF policy. I'm getting tired of it. --Gragon 126 ^Talk 20:04, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

How is saying he helps the wiki, which is obvious, stretching RS:AGF? bad_fetus^talk 20:05, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Since when was uploading fake images helping the wiki? --Liquid^Talk 20:05, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

He uploaded only one single fake image since his last ban, but uploaded several useful ones. bad_fetus^talk 20:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think that its not being streched here....however i do think that it doesnt really apply to him lying

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:06, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Many weeks ago, I ran a semi-automated bot program against other editors wishes. I wanted to help the wiki, and prove to people that the bot would do a good job. That was the wrong course of action, and it caused many users to go against me for a while. It also caused some other issues outside of this wiki. However, while it was the wrong thing to do, I was doing it to try and help the wiki, hence in good faith. You can be wrong and still edit in good faith. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:10, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We already had an agreement. Last time. Now he's broken it, and per the agreement, a 24 hour block at minimum is completely warranted. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 20:08, April 30, 2010 (UTC) 

Not my fault he just can't stop lying... --Gragon 126 ^Talk 20:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

But not a month block. bad_fetus^talk 20:11, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Oh and by the way, he also gamed the system when he uploaded those images that were in his signature to an image host. So he could keep using them. Just saying...--Gragon 126 ^Talk 20:12, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that is gaming the system. You can put whatever image you want in your sig. bad_fetus^talk 20:15, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

No, he wasn't. There is nothing wrong with using images in your sig, no matter what they are. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Correct, it is not gaming the system at all, several people use outside pics in sigs. It is one-hundred percent allowed on this wiki.--Degenret01 20:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

(2xEdit conflictNot if that image had been deleted from the wiki, because of it uncertain source (or w/e) He DID know why that Dung hood image had been deleted from the wiki, and yet he still uploads it to an image host so he can still use it on a sig. That IS gaming the system. --Gragon 126 ^Talk 20:19, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Not at all; if he had used it in an article, then yes. As it is, he just wanted the pic in his sig... which is 100% allowed. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Adding images to your sig, even if they are from an image host, even if they are a deleted image, is completely irrelevant to RS:GTS

Just to clarify, he did not upload them to an external hosting site (at first, if at all), he used a hotlinking format to abuse the fact that Wikia's images server isn't often emptied of deleted images to bypass its deletion. (Note the URL of the image is images4.wikia.nocookie.net so is hosted on Wikia's servers not imageshack/photobucket.)  @Gaz#7521 21:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

AGF means two things - First, it means that an editor should always edit in good faith. Second it means that people should assume that the editor is editing in good faith until proven otherwise. This is a great way to prove it. Ajraddatz _Talk 20:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I have no connection to this case. If someone can get me compelling evidence that he was editing in bad faith, then by all means block him (indef would be nice). However, all that I see is one image upload which may or may not have been intentionally fake. Now stoppit with teh edit conflicts >.> Ajraddatz _Talk 20:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

>.< Haven't I already said MANY times that AGF doesn't apply? Read this, taken straight out of RS:AGF:

“	Actions inconsistent with good faith include constant vandalism and lying.	”
	— RS:AGF

He is lying, which immediately disproves AGF. --Liquid^Talk 20:18, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that he's lying in order to help the wiki, so I don't think AGF is completely irrevelant here.  Tien  20:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

not to be rude but read panjy it says that he lied about image source by bragging that it was his own, which is clearly against AGF

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:29, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? Panjy hasn't commented at all.  Tien  20:34, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Stupid me lol i forgot that you were teinjt and not panjy....whoops

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:41, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, okay. Anyway, yes, I have read it and I am aware that Parsonsda's constant lies are not in good faith. However, he is not lying to hinder the wiki... he is in fact doing it to help the wiki (and thus good faith can apply).  Tien  20:55, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

But, he's still lying. And, I don't think fake images help anyone. --Liquid^Talk 20:57, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

He lies a lot, but I still believe he is acting in good faith. Imagine you were in his place. Wouldn't it be great if we were the first fansite to have a picture of the Dungeoneering skillcape hood? That was probably what he was thinking. As I mentioned earlier, he just needs to learn to think... more.  Tien  21:07, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, beyond this comment ADHD will have ABSOLUTELY no effect on the consensus/discussion--

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

20:33, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Since when are you the one that decides it? >_> bad_fetus^talk 10:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

SInce when wasn't I? RS:AEAE and besides it shouldn't have any effect on the discussion....give me one good reason it should?

 Mythbusterma_Talk   ^HS<= BRASSICA PRIME

12:31, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that RS:AEAE gives you the right to make such decisions, you need to re-read the policy. C.Chiam^Talk 12:49, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

RS:AEAE Doesn't give him the right to make the decision, it makes the decision. All editors are equal, and ADHD is a common condition that many members of the wiki have. If Parsonsda is unable to control it like the other, then I truly am sorry for him, but that doesn't change the facts. All editors are equal, so he cannot receive special treatment over it. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 15:56, May 1, 2010 (UTC) 

Then I believe that RS:AEAE needs to be changed. This is like arresting someone who has mental disorders. bad_fetus^talk 16:00, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment about block duration - Repeat offenders always get progressively longer blocks. Always. That means that the minimum duration for any block is one week, the length of his previous block. --Liquid^Talk 20:35, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. A vandal who blanks 20 pages may get three days, they come back and add "crap" to a page a month later, I give them 1 day. Similar things have happened several times. The current offense is the primary issue.--Degenret01 20:52, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Really? That's news to me. I've always given repeat offenders longer blocks. But, you're more experienced in this area than I am, so I'll take your word for it.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidhelium (talk).

Support - Thats a really good idea  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sentra246 (talk).

Comment How about we meet it halfway, A medium sized ban, say 2 weeks. And a block from uploading images for about 60 days?

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 16:38, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

That's still too long. I could support if it was one week and a block of uploading new images. bad_fetus^talk 16:41, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

After what he's done, this sounds very reasonable :) Ajraddatz _Talk 16:39, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

So. A one week ban and a 60 image upload block?

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 16:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. bad_fetus^talk 16:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Overall

ok, i read all your comments and thanks for your help now here the solution to my problems:

• The Fake Image Upload Problem
  • I added something called k-9 filters onto my p-c most of the site are block so that sorts that out
• Lieing
  • that human nature to lie, you may do it to get out of trouble, i did just that, i only wanted to help with the skillcape, i didn't think it would be that big.
• If you have any other question pm me in game ill be happy to help with that.

--User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 09:39, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

---

By the way - If you want something else against Parsons, look through the last blocking discussion. You'll see that he faked an image; it "shows" Andrew Gower "giving" Parsons permission to make that copyright-violating "library" he made a while ago. The image is clearly fake, thanks to Parson's subpar English in Andrew's "post", which clearly denotes the image as fake.

Not only that, but when Parsons was still blocked last time, I got the feeling that he didn't really care either way, as he gloated in the CC and on my talk page that his block was almost done. Oh, and I support a month-long block. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 15:45, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Lying is something that reflects your overall integrity and impacts the level of trust that others have toward you. Obviously there is a serious breech of trust here, so it would be in your interest to try and repair that trust if possible. That is the point to this thread. While it may be "human nature" to lie, cheat, steal, and in all manners ignore that there are standards, ethics, or even laws that apply to your behavior, we should be striving to become better today than we were yesterday and to improve our relations with other. Appealing to the lowest common denominator and dismissing unethical behavior simply because of "human nature" doesn't cut it.

To edit on this wiki requires that the rest of the community trust you to a certain extent. Over time through edits, discussions, and how you participate in general either gives you additional "privileges" (aka the ability to have more tools at your disposal to help the wiki) or additional "restrictions" that will be placed upon you. What is being said here is that the trust is being eroded to the point that some are considering you to be "the enemy".

The question to the rest of the community is to consider what "privileges" ought to be removed from you, and noting that the only real tool we have to work with is to simply block your account and keep you from editing on this wiki. Perhaps something else could be done as well, and certainly all of your edits are now suspect, regardless of how much good you've done with them.

It is an interesting problem in general, and I'm wondering out loud here if there can be something between a complete ban on a user and leaving full editing privileges for somebody on this wiki? It would be nice to be able to do something perhaps like blocking file uploads or removing other access tools, but unfortunately that would also require some massive tweaking of MediaWiki to get that to happen. It certainly is an interesting dilemma. For myself, based on the above statement, Parsonsda has actually backfired in an attempt to diffuse this situation and a block may in fact be reasonable. --Robert Horning 15:50, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

What I was suggesting above is what Wikipedia does with these things. What we can do is tell him that he can't upload anymore images, of any kind, or else he will be blocked for a long time. There is no way to restrict individual permissions, but that is something we can do. Ajraddatz _Talk 15:52, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

What it would take is to create a new class of users on the wiki, with that class having some additional restrictions that ordinary users don't have. Typically MediaWiki is centered around the idea of a bureaucrat giving additional privileges to users instead of taking them away, but that isn't the only option here. On a lower level (aka within the MediaWiki configuration files) it is possible to restrict individual user permissions. You can look at Special:ListGroupRights for some specific privileges that are given for each class of users, and note that those classes can be modified. For example, on some MediaWiki configurations, unregistered users have just "read only" access to the wiki and can't even make an edit, or possibly can't even access some pages of the wiki. I'm just suggesting that perhaps this would be an option, a tool available to bureaucrats and admins (perhaps just bureaucrats?) to deal with troublesome users that don't want to play nice, but don't necessarily merit a complete block? For example, Parsonsda's actions would certainly merit a de-admininship of his account if sysop rights had been previously granted. Could it be possible to roll back rights on an account so they only have the rights of an anonymous IP user, but can still log their edits under a registered user name? --Robert Horning 16:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be possible to create a parsonsda group (lulz), or call it restricted users. The issue here is that there is about a 1.5% chance that Wikia will do this for us. Ajraddatz _Talk 16:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. (Lulz at parsonsda group.) bad_fetus^talk 16:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

I would put the chance of Wikia doing something like this a fair bit higher than 1.5% chance. To do this for a single user is certainly something that would fail, but the idea of coming up with additional tools and resources for admins is something that Wikia might really be interested in.... particularly if it is something that might show up Wikipedia for a change. It is always better to have more options available to deal with a problem, and I am suggesting this could be at least something positive to come out of this whole mess. Even if such a tool isn't available for us to reasonably use on Parsonsda, there will be users in the future that will be creating messes like this that it would be nice to have another option to deal with them. --Robert Horning 16:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Let's End This

This has gone on long enough so it's time to finish this, I'm going to keep this plain and simple. I propose that Parsons gets a one week block and once he has completed that, he will be blocked from uploading images for 60 days. If he does upload an image during the 60 day period, he shall be blocked from editting the Wiki for a further amount of time.

Support - Seems fair to me. I think he will really learn from this.

1. REDIRECT User:Swizzl3d/Sig 16:55, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Swizz. bad_fetus^talk 16:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As we are out of options, there doesn't appear to be much more we can do at the moment. I would like to have somebody point to specific instances of problems in this past week (aka something of a recent nature) than something that happened in the more distant past, but in general I do think this user has been a bit of a problem. File uploads should be certainly something this user should avoid at least for the near term. --Robert Horning 16:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)