I support unbanning him, and I have no problem with him rejoining the wiki side of the community.

(This is inherently implied in the unbanning, I'm just clarifying because of the "they don't have to make me a member again" part.)

In chat I've seen him take a sort of "whatever" attitude towards the idea of being banned or going back on site. He really doesn't seem to have so much of an interest from the times I've talked with him. He seems to be a lot more chilled out and calm from my experiences, though. Just my two cents from what I've seen in chat.

So this is a vote to resolve vezaz's previously indefinite ban.

I'll start off voting by voting in favor of resolving the ban. Nearly two years is a long time for a banned user to hang around and continue to be a part of the community in whatever way they can. I don't know why he wouldn't be interested in membership (and contribution) but that's a long enough period of time to assure me of his commitment to the site, for what that's worth.

Note: Only Administrators and Disciplinary Committee members may vote on Disciplinary matters.

Edit: Live Ban-Vote Tally

Vote passes, ban removed.

The images aren't separable from the articles. I didn't write these stories for busybodies to fiddle with.

This is hilarious, unmitigated bullshit. "My theft (however well-meaning and common in this community) of pictures that I didn't create is a sacred right!!!!!!!"

That said: Not part of image team, but my recommendation: Leave those particular articles alone for now, then come back to them later. This is a massive project, after all.

And no, he doesn't get to unilaterally delete collaborative projects. What a joke.

I keep holding out hope that vezaz will one day come back and redeem himself, but all he wants to do is dig himself further into the douchebag hole.

If you're going to take down the images to my scps you can go ahead and give me the fishmonger treatment and just take my stuff down completely, and I mean that.

I responded with:

That's… a completely unreasonable response… but you're the author so sure. Would this still apply if the original image creator was contacted and the images reinstated, or would you rather article deletion take place if the images are down for any length of time whatsoever? Also, do you want to leave authors who used your articles high and dry? Do you have any collaborations?

He said:

The images aren't separable from the articles. I didn't write these stories for busybodies to fiddle with. No need to delete everything until you guys decide to remove the images, but when you do remember to get the coldest war hub as well. I don't mind if the foreign sites keep things up.

I think we should leave the coldest war up, since it isn't his thing alone and he doesn't have the right to unilaterally make that call, but for the rest… I guess he can take his sour grapes and go home? I've instructed my team to hold off on checking his stuff for a little while, while he cools his jets. Luckily he only has three articles, so it won't be much of a holdup at all.

one lone nut clearly being flagrantly rude towards Staff

Here's the thing. Staff should not have to put up with anyone being flagrantly rude towards them. That's how staff members get burned out and quit, if they have to put up with bullshit in addition to their normal jobs, and as much as we need to preserve our userbase? We also need to preserve our staff members. These are people who volunteer their time for no pay to make the wiki better. The least we can do is make sure that they feel appreciated and protected.

If Vezaz wanted to express disagreement or discontent, he could have done so politely and firmly. Instead he chose to be flagrantly rude. And I don't expect the wiki's staff to put up with that from anyone. I do expect them to have a thick skin and appreciate some good-natured ribbing here and there, but I don't expect them to put up with outright hostility.

"Go ahead and ban me" isn't just rude, it isn't just a matter of us "doing what the guy wants," it's that guy saying he doesn't intend to play ball. He doesn't take our rules seriously. It was a statement of intent that he was not going to follow rules. "I disagree with the rules" is a legitimate complaint. "Your rules are stupid and I'm not going to follow them unless you make me" is him disengaging with the entire process. We can't work with someone who entirely abandons the system.

Mea culpa. I am sorry, Quik, and my apologies to whoever else was affected by this.

My points about process still stand, but I think we're of one mind on that. (Though if anyone objects, please do weigh in.)

http://www.scp-wiki.net/site-rules

Way at the bottom:

An instant permanent ban only results from vandalism, blatant and obvious trolling, harassment of a site member, or other, severe misconducts.

I think this fell under "blatant and obvious trolling, harassment of a site member, or other, severe misconducts."

Quik was not only correct in permabanning, but the rules clearly state it was okay.

End of discussion.

- Clef

I am highly disappointed by the overreaction to what happened here, and I'm extremely upset at the admins who choose to rip into Quik for putting out a fire when it was burning and before any more damage could be done. Putting his head on a pike out for the entire public to see isn't transparency, it's shooting yourself in the foot.

Vezaz has basically kicked dust in the face of the site staff. We could sit back and take it, but it would make our jobs in the future harder. Instead, I stand by the course of action that will actually allow our moderators to MODERATE.

Vezaz was free to insult Quik to his face, was free to insult other users, was free to call the entire site a bunch of freaking assholes, and would have gotten the standard penalties. But he's directly challenging the moderators' authority. He's basically the equivalent of the guy who goes into a bar, causes a big fight, then walks up to the bouncer and dares the guy to toss him out.

I recommend that we toss the asshole out onto the street so that the other patrons can drink their beers in peace.

I'm not even sure what is currently being called an issue, since while we argue wording, the exact issue of the user seems fairly black and white in this instance. Right now we're arguing of how we are to treat each other. Regardless of wording in a more casual manner, the site rules already say that staff decisions are to be respected, even if they are disagreed with. That staff can be questioned, but only in a respectful manner (same to users). Said user had done neither, was explicitly warned, and continued behavior, then proceeded to explain that they have no intentions in changing their behavior and will actively resist any change in behavior. It was agreed upon three other admins, who agreed on chat (as far as I know, this has been done before) that their behavior warranted a removal from the community permanently.

What, exactly, is the issue here? The user in question has already been outright blunt that they had absolutely no intentions of obeying the site rules. They had been warned, which they responded with further rulebreaking. It would be no different if the admins had agreed to the ban by posting their agreements within 30 minutes- the same level of "chance to chime in" on the decision would remain, which would be a 30 minute window, followed by whatever comments everyone else had.

What, exactly, are we having concern about in which we proceed to butt heads?

In the forum exchange in 2030's thread, Vezaz has demonstrated that (a) he's not gonna follow the rules and (b) won't recognize the authority of staff. Why would we want to keep that kind of disruptive agent in the community? (Not to say that Vezaz could never come back, but I'm gonna say right now it shouldn't happen without a lot of contrition on his part.)

Staff have authority over the userbase because we have it. It just is there, as a self-evident fact of being on a website with hierarchical authority structure. The vast majority of users acknowledge and respect the rules set by staff (which are generally common-sense and obvious protocols for interpersonal behavior anyway), and those who don't need to be removed for their transgressions against the userbase, not the staffbase. And permabanning one person to "send a message" to other people isn't a good way to operate either.

While I'm responding: Vezaz shouldn't have been permabanned without 05 consensus, partially to avoid groupthink, partially to give non-chatting administrators (or just admins who weren't in chat for that half-hour) a chance to chime in, and partially just to keep an actual public records of the proceedings available for everybody's perusal.

Vezaz has committed the cardinal sin: He's directly antagonized the staff. That's behavior that cannot be allowed.

The message needs to be sent: acting like a douche to staff earns you a ban. It's the only way that staff can maintain their authority over the userbase.

I don't care if the method of his antagonism was essentially to stand out in the open making wild gestures and yelling "come at me, bro." In the words of a wiser man than I, the response to that should be to tase him and watch SuperNanny while he drools on the carpet.

All that said… I stand by the rest of my actions, including banning his ass when he posted his response to me in the discussion thread. Just, not in response to his little tantrum. But he was rude (by his own admission, even) to two different users (who are also staff) to warrant the warning, and then he flagrantly ignored a staff order (and an official warning) to quit being rude (and hateful and condescending) to other users. That's grounds for banning. Just, of an as-yet-determined length. So, let me try this again.

Vezaz was given a warning for being rude, hateful, and condescending to others, and banned for flagrantly ignoring my stop order. His utter disregard for staff authority and outright daring to be permabanned inclines me to grant his wish. Short of that, I can get behind an indefinite ban like eric suggested. Whatever is decided is retroactive to 16:34 EST, when I enacted the ban.

Again, I'm sorry for jumping the gun on the length of Vezaz' ban and for generating (more) unnecessary drama.

Anyway, I think this is a good idea.

That said, he was out of line in the Forum and some kind of ban is reasonable. What I'd like to see happen when someone is behaving like he did is an indefinite ban. When he's had enough time to decide that it's worth it to behave himself so he can come back, he can approach an Admin and you can let him back in assuming he appears to recognize what he did was wrong.

I think an outright permaban is called for in two situations:

1. Someone has done something so outright horrible that we don't want to be associated with them, or makes them a menace to the site or its users.

2. "Serial abusers" who have proven that no matter how many chances they get, they either can't control their behavior, or fundamentally don't see it as wrong. One has to get tired of these folks lying to you to get back in, only to do the same or some other bad thing again.

The permaban says "We don't want you here." The indefinite ban is a bit different, with a different message: "We don't want you here as long as you continue to do X." This puts the onus on the banned person to recognize and change whatever is offensive about their behavior, and recognizes that it can take a widely variable amount of time. Some folks have a tantrum and realize it a few hours/days/weeks later and apologize; others need a couple years to mature. For the completely unrepentant, it ends up being a permaban.

where there may be no dissent because rawr groupthink.

Exactly. Groupthink is a constant problem, but it's IMO much easier for many people to disagree on O5 than during a conversation on staff chat. If only because it's just more effort to dogpile dissent. ;P

Although FlameShirt/Eric, I meant O5 is also for "people who can't get on chat right now".

Why do you disagree? He literally asked for a permaban.

Because it's his job to leave and not come back if that's what he wants, not our job to dance to his tune.

Plus, I don't think this merits a permanent ban. Because since when do we jump directly from warning to permanent ban in the space of two posts? The answer is that we don't, except for harassment, creepiness, massively over-the-line shit. Not for just being a garden-variety boring asshole.

To Quik: I actually don't know that any staff have personal animosity towards vezaz beyond "no more than for any other user who acts like a total douche".

I suppose I could say I have a grievance given that I was the one who tried to handle his case during his slow meltdown up to when he ragequit staff, though obviously I wasn't involved with this ban, and vezaz attacked me directly (much) more than he attacked others. But I can't think of anyone else with a grievance.

In fact it's at least partly because I have a grievance that I don't think jumping to permaban is a good idea.

Also, for those saying this is a "hasty" ban, most bans are enacted as soon as there are three admins agreeing.

On the wiki, whether or not someone asks to be banned(and a sarcastic request at that) we have a process, and what Vezaz did does not merit a perma. Especially not one enacted hastily by agreement in chat, with some staff members who have been known to not like Vezaz.

tl;dr I don't think we should play into the hands of sour grapes users when we have a process for this.

I will also state that I have no personal animosity toward Vezaz. Well, no more than for any other user who acts like a total douche, but not any personal grievance.

But, if the majority of administration feel I acted hastily, then I'll live and learn and go in and unban him myself. Still though, given that we honor the requests of authors to take down their works, why would we not also honor their requests to be banned? (Besides the optics of it, but again, Careful what you wish for.)

[added:] Moved thread from Minor User Issues to Major User Issues.

Means we need two other admins to support a permanent ban assuming no one else disagrees, otherwise it's not valid.

In addition, I'd like to recommend a formal warning for those involved in such a hasty ban.

Whoa, whoa. I think we should slow down and figure out what actually happened first before handing out formal warnings. No need to compound our errors, especially by turning on each other with fangs bared.

Particularly considering that the only member of administration that we know was involved (Quik) has basically just returned from a very long hiatus and isn't necessarily aware of all these issues because most of the rest of administration has been consumed by issues in their own personal lives.

If it's warranted, sure, but let's hear what happened first.

Permabanned with consensus from SSSC.

Consensus from staff chat?

ANY ban requires consensus of three administrators. (with the exception of temporary membership revoking which doesn't count as a ban) Let alone a permanent ban.

Staff chat may support a ban but their consensus is advisory. It is advisory exactly because it leads to situations like this, where the rest of everyone thinks a permanent ban is a terrible idea outside the moment.

It's true, vezaz did literally directly ask for the permanent ban because he's being an asshole (which I continue to hope isn't a permanent state but who the fuck knows) — but that doesn't mean we dance to his tune.

You done got played here, Quik. This is exactly the kind of chaos a sour grapes user would want to cause. Rescind the permanent ban.

I see he's already been banned; I'm willing to support keeping that for a day's length. No more. And that still requires at least two other admins besides me to agree.

And yeah, let's not do this again. I don't want to yell at you too much because you haven't been around much until recently and other admins (including me) have forgotten to update you on some things due to being busy ourselves. It's an understandable fuck-up, but now let's fix it.

Given that his "argument" consisted of telling a community member¹ to "buzz off" for the offense of giving critique, then telling another community member to "stuff [it]," responding to a staff post, and sarcastically demanding a perma, my sympathy for him is limited.

He wasn't speaking truth to power. He was having a tantrum, and, when called on it, said "perma me or I'll keep breaking the rules." And so he was perma'd.