Vote to bypass the rules in order to unblock FortressOfNight (Evie Dark) | Fandom

This post is locked.

RusMan·2/15/2016 in Community Voting

Vote to bypass the rules in order to unblock FortressOfNight (Evie Dark)

I am making a new vote to bypass our new rules in order to unblock the user FortressOfNight, later known as Evie Dark. Our rules have been updated since my previous vote was made, and they now state that a user cannot make a community vote to unban a user. Thus, I am making a new vote to bypass that rule.

As all of you are aware by now, but the well-established community member FortressOfNight (Evie Dark) was blocked from the wiki on November 28th, 2015. After the previous vote that I created back in January, the administrators eventually shortened his ban from eternity to approximately 8 months, however the original vote's purpose was to completely unblock him immediately, not just to shorten his block. I still believe that his block was unjust as he was blocked because of an "accumulation" of some of the past things that he had done, and not just from one major thing. The previous vote gained a majority of supports, so I trust that this vote will also go well.

EDIT: (Note from Admins) Please read the opposing evidence on post #13 before voting so that you fully comprehend the situation.

[A] Yes, I want to bypass our current rules in order to unblock Fort (Evie) from this wiki.

[B] No, I do not want to bypass our current rules in order to unblock Fort (Evie) from this wiki.

[C] I am neutral on this matter.

Current Vote Count:

[A] 8 votes

[B] 22 votes

[C] 5 votes

Consensus

The rules will not be bypassed in order to unblock Fort (Evie).

(Edited by administrators)

0

Loney 97·2/15/2016

I'm voting B.

(Edited by Loney 97)

4

Alemas2005·2/15/2016

B). Three reasons.

1) As Spider said, if this goes through, it basically undermines the system we built on CVs, community involvement, and admin involvement. The community got so worried with the admin team "backstabbing" them with possible vetoes, that they voted to abolish them. But now look, they want to do kind of the same thing against us, and our own policy. Not cool.

2) As Spider sort of said, this could set a dangerous precedent for any future admin decisions. No real need to explain this, if a vote on explicitly breaking the rules goes through, then what is there to stop more of the same?

3) Don't you think shortening the block to 8 months, considering what he did, is a decent compromise? Some of you wanted at least an admin revote on the matter, and that's the result you got.

(Edited by Alemas2005)

0

Michaelyoda·2/15/2016

B.

(Edited by Michaelyoda)

1

Avalair·2/15/2016

Alemas2005 wrote:
B). Three reasons.

1) As Spider said, if this goes through, it basically undermines the system we built on CVs, community involvement, and admin involvement. The community got so worried with the admin team "backstabbing" them with possible vetoes, that they voted to abolish them. But now look, they want to do kind of the same thing against us, and our own policy. Not cool.

2) As Spider sort of said, this could set a dangerous precedent for any future admin decisions. No real need to explain this, if a vote on explicitly breaking the rules goes through, then what is there to stop more of the same?

3) Don't you think shortening the block to 8 months, considering what he did, is a decent compromise? Some of you wanted at least an admin revote on the matter, and that's the result you got.

Per this. Lets not get comfortable with going against the rules that have been set out... B.

(Edited by Avalair)

0

LEGOfan2010·2/15/2016

B.

(Edited by LEGOfan2010)

4

Keplers·2/15/2016

Following on Alemas's second point, it's almost scary that this is even a consideration. It is very much a step to coordinated lawlessness.

(Edited by Keplers)

0

Eagleeyedan·2/15/2016

B he has done enough to deserve the eternal block, you should be glad we shortened the ban as much as we did and he will serve due ostracism for his pervasive disobedient behaviour. ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂

(Edited by Eagleeyedan)

3

Legofrodo12·2/15/2016

B. Fort knew the rules. He knew the policy. This isn't like blocking a new person who has no idea what the policy is without warning. And I agree with Alemas' and Jdude's respective points on this.

(Edited by Legofrodo12)

0

Slicer Vorzakh·2/15/2016

I just want to remind everyone that this vote is to revert a block that performed borderline incorrectly. Fort had not received any direct warnings that he would be permanently blocked if he continued his behavior, and he had not received any shorter blocks or bans about his behavior in over a year and a half. A proper admin response would have been to give him a shorter block because of his rude behavior. If he had received more, shorter blocks beforehand a lengthened block would have been more justified. Even if this vote may be bending the rules a bit I think it would be fair to given that it's trying to revert an admin decision that bent the rules a bit.

(Edited by Slicer Vorzakh)

0

Legofrodo12·2/15/2016

Slicer Vorzakh wrote: A proper admin response would have been to give him a shorter block because of his rude behavior.

Uh, Slice? The admins did just give him a shorter block...

(Edited by Legofrodo12)