120d (Message Wall | contribs) No edit summary |
120d (Message Wall | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
====Comments==== |
====Comments==== |
||
{{DiscussionBoxBegin}} |
{{DiscussionBoxBegin}} |
||
| − | *{{Comment}} Since I am not really a user on this wiki anymore, I will not vote, but since I was linked to this block review, I feel like I should |
+ | *{{Comment}} Since I am not really a user on this wiki anymore, I will not vote, but since I was linked to this block review, I feel like I should give my opinion on this. I agree that Jensonk has always tried to make good edits and the warning system is broken. I also agree that an explanation for Jensonk's actions is essential. That being said, I feel like this review is done quite biasedly. There are very few actual facts. Jensonk was an excellent editor, and I don't think anyone is going to debate that. I also don't know how many people would be willing to debate that 456, among others, can be harsh in his warnings. My main issue with this review comes from the fact that a lot of assumptions were made. If this fails and you wish to try again, I feel like getting in contact with Jensonk would be a reasonable course of action before creating a new review. I was not a fan of the idea that his behavior could be tied to mental differences. While I am aware that it is possible, I feel like that is not exactly something you should present as an option without actual evidence. He could just be a mean person without any sort of underlying problems with how his brain works. I am not going to say that is the case, but I think that people should not look at one's bad behavior and just chalk it up to autism or being suicidal. Sometimes people are just mean. They shouldn't be, but sometimes they are. I would love to know more about why Jensonk did what he did, but assuming these things just is not okay in my opinion. {{User:120d/SigReal|21:40, November 11, 2018 (UTC)}} |
{{DiscussionBoxEnd}} |
{{DiscussionBoxEnd}} |
||
{{clear}} |
{{clear}} |
||
Revision as of 21:41, 11 November 2018
|
Block review
The following is an ongoing block review. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules. You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion. Note that neutrals do not affect the final percentage. |
|---|
Jensonk (wall • contribs • 88,857)
| Information | Details | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blocking administrator | Spongebob456 | ||||||
| Length of block | infinite | ||||||
| Reason for block | Constant disruption over a period of 3 years as seen with his colourful block history. Been gblocked recently too. Ignores warnings. | ||||||
| User starting review | 1033Forest | ||||||
| Reason for review | Yes, I know, this user is like the most hated here. But that doesn't stop me from reaching out to everyone to defend Jensonk and his legacy one last time. Jensonk: This is a gift for you, given on Veterans Day. Please be grateful if this passes and never make the same mistake again. I'm giving you hope one last time.
Before this gets closed as invalid, it's not for the following reasons. While a block review for him has been created in September, it was withdrawn and is further excluded from the rules. Jensonk's 4th review was closed as the 6 month requirement was from the end of the block review. Then, Jensonk's 5th review, which was valid, was closed by Depth Strider 10. It was clearly valid as it has been a full six months so that was an invalid closure. Overall, the last valid review was on November 5, 2017. It was the first and was made by Expert at Terraria. That was the only one that has not been closed, closed invalidly, or withdrawn. Thus it has been exactly 1 year+ before having another discussion that will remain on it Clearly, Jensonk has had a mixture of personalities. Some being insensitively rude, some being unbearable, some just unimaginable. His contributions were good. And I know bad behavior doesn't excuse good edits. But I think Jensonk has truly learned from the year's block that has deeply, dramatically effected him. And I think he wants to start new, from scratch, and re-join the ESB Community. There have been multiple concerns which I will address and answer. There's the concern of like 40 blocks. I believe all of those were short term. None of them were threatening long like this. Some were minor misdemeanors such as edit warring and violating the communication policy. It may be easy to get so engaged in an edit war that you forget to follow the rules on stopping. And Jensonk may not be in the mood to respond. I do agree that he should be more willing to accept mistakes and such. I think with this long, ongoing block, issues like this Jensonk will take seriously and stop. Jensonk has socked twice. But his accounts were made for good intentions. Jensonk made edit requests on twitter, his socks etc. His socks mainly edited. In fact, his edits in the socks were what really made users believe it was him. Jensonk mainly wants to come back to edit from what we've observed from his socks. Instead of bashing him with sock puppetry and breaking the rules, we need to think more closely on why he did it. As Alex.sapre once mentioned, looking at both sides of a conflict is always good. The opposition against him, partially because of that should be thought more closely. Jensonk has shown good intentions to come back, start fresh, make good contributions and change entirely just by observing his socks alone. He just wants 1 last chance. He's asked for edit requests and made socks to fulfill his editing needs. Now all that editing that he plans to do and all those errors are now left untreated as time goes on and all that wonderful work Jensonk would've done in the time he's been blocked for has been lost. Jensonk has been purely a phenomenal editor. We need to look at why he makes rude comments. I feel just slamming him with that reason wouldn't be appropriate unless we look at the treatment of him as well. People have gossiped about him behind their back, make rude comments back at him, criticize him too much that it looks like an attack, and simply mistreat him as a troll instead of a user. People have been opposing because they think he won't learn if he's unblocked. If he's shown good interest and intentions in editing, why not give him another chance? How would you feel if an infinite block was made? Of course the temptation to sock is high but he did it for good intentions. And if you were infinitely blocked, you'd feel so bad for all the things you did. You'd regret the past and want to apologize so greatly to the community. You'd want to start over and scratch all those dirty things you did. I think that's what Jensonk is feeling right now. He may have not been able to express it to the community because he is blocked but I'm sure if he was unblocked, he'd be open to do a session where he hears what other users think he should improve on in his second chance and he'll make some promises so it won't happen again. I noticed a good portion of this wiki is extremely biased. The gamer 987654321, another rude member, has been unblocked lately. They've received numerous warnings, chat bans, and blocks on their behavior. But they made good edits. In the block review, they promised to only make good faith edits and not cause drama and that ended up being the result. Jensonk may even be autistic. He may have a hard time learning what's right and wrong and may need assistance on it. We don't know what's going on in his life. He may even have suicidal thoughts. We really need to be careful on how we all react to whenever Jensonk does a mistake. I'm sure if we all communicated to him with open mindsets and feedback, he'd listen so we can all enjoy his presence. AMK152 once said on the first block review:
AMK himself was neutral to the infinite block. Clearly because it's too long. I discovered the process of admin reviews today because of a highlighted thread and looking back at some closed ones, I strongly am against how Jensonk got demoted from assistant. I admire how fair AMK is and shows no bias towards people. Even if they get on his nerves. AMK has good tastes when it comes to punishment. Even a 6 Month - 1 year block wouldn't been better and more likely from him. Spongebob456 agreed with AMK in his vote on the first block review. So did TheKorraFanatic. I think Spongebob456 was being too harsh with the warnings. A warning is supposed to be a reminder to help someone improve. In the event of Jensonk being disabled, autistic, stressed, depressed, or suicidal, that's a very bad warning. Spongebob456 needs to try and be soft with him. I'm sure Jensonk wouldn't be so ignorant or aggressive to admins if they weren't so mean or so serious about everything. Maybe Jensonk doesn't like the tone of the admins which stresses him out and causes him to respond rudely. Maybe he doesn't respond to some at all because he knows it would be better to hold all his feelings back and not respond at all to prevent any more punishment to go against him because he can't control his temper. As you can see, there are many possibilities. Him telling a user to commit suicide from what votes previously have told me is disgraceful. However TheInternetRuinedMyLife has been very over reactive over Spongebobvstheloudhouse's PMs. It may be the case the drama back then annoyed Jensonk and he might've felt the suicidal message might have been attention-seeking and uncalled for. He might've thought it was a bad joke. Or, he simply has had enough with all those times TheInternetRuinedMyLife has caused some drama. Let's not forget Jensonk might've also noticed them creating socks which might've also made him think that that message was fake and attention-seeking and that icanhascookie just wants the community to feel bad for them and blame loud for their suicide. There are many possibilities and cases for why that could've happened. It's not really appropriate anyway. Simply telling them the world would never have to deal with you again may be because cookie was causing a hard time for the community and Jensonk may have had enough with it. Before taking that comment as a sign of him being a troll, we need to dig deeper more into Jensonk's view before making assumptions. That reminds me, Jensonk has had little chances to voice or defend his actions. He's blocked without the privilege of editing message walls. He's pretty much lost all the ways he can write an apology, a defense/explanation, and a promise to become a better person. He did say a hacker should have a heart attack. While dirty, I wouldn't consider it something that should interfere with us all. That was so long ago, and should be left behind. The fact that there was no hacker actually present in the thread means that that message was aimed at absolutely nobody. Also, let's remember that hackers are criminals. Criminals are negative people who live their live with negativity. They want people to suffer by hacking data, they want to commit crime, they want people to lose lives. If they want all of that, then how the heck does anyone want a criminal in their world? Again, I'm sure Jensonk can explain further if he got a chance but I don't think that's so much of an issue. Many users have mentioned a year is enough. In fact, THAT was his first initial punishment rather than infinite. Then Spongebob456 edited his final warning to infinite. He labeled his warning as "OK, this has gone on too long." That itself is extremely immature, aggressive, informal, and uncalled for. Again, we should look at Jensonk's side. He may do rude things because he might be getting treated unfairly as well. Jensonk might've left that rude comment to that warning because Spongebob456 didn't warn him properly, and warned him as he cared so little about his future. It's like he almost doesn't like him. Like for biased messaging. Overall, as AMK152 mentioned, I do expect that a year block is enough and this can be discussed as a year as passed. Jensonk has shown good intentions to coming back, starting fresh, closely being monitored, making good edits, looking for improvement, and finally re-joining the community. I think instead of giving the black eye Oppose, we should all consider giving him another chance. We should also be open to hearing his defense, explanations, and more on what makes him do it in the first place. Stopping someone from the community without even looking at the source of the issue is ludicrous. We need to figure out what's wrong before taking extreme measures like this. And Jensonk is probably still helpless, unable to voice his opinion nor defense, and just going with the flow. I think we should give him, another chance... |
Support
Support - As I said, with all the evidences and possibilities given, I think Jensonk has improved and learned his lesson THIS time. We should look further into what causes him to act that way and do our best to make sure his time on the FANDOM is enjoyable. And that he can be an everlasting editor, with a good heart. -1033Forest (talk) 04:28, November 11, 2018 (UTC)- Support -Tan Ham Man
04:59,11/11/2018 - Support - Jensonk was taken for granted. AlternativeHuman93 (M•C•E) 05:19, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I think it's time. He's a good user with an odd set of quirks. I think if we all learn to understand him, it should turn out alright. ChickenkrispiesW C E 05:29, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Vehemently Strong Support - Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!! Expert at
- Weak Support - It's been 1 year and 4 days since Jensonk was blocked, and while I haven't been too fond of the idea of him being unblocked, I think that it has been enough time. In the first block review, many people stated that we should wait one year, and it certainly has been one year. Of course, this would have been a stronger support if Jensonk hadn't been violating the policy during his block, but perhaps it can be excusable due to the fact that he has been blocked long enough to cover those violations. However, block evading is block evading, no matter what the reason is. Making an exception for him would be unfair to anyone else who block evaded to edit.
That said, I do disagree with some of your points. I have no doubt that Jensonk means well to a degree for the wiki and is a wonderful editor, but having someone with behavioral issues constantly starting trouble would look very bad for the wiki. I understand what you say about understanding him, but I have to agree with SB456 with regards to the fact that the administration has been giving him chances for years. It seems that Jensonk doesn't really show an interest in changing his behavior, and I have rarely/never seen him apologize for it.
But I won't ramble on. I'm willing to overlook his previous behavior just because of the fact that he hasn't done anything really bad outside of the wiki during his block. However, I don't believe he is as innocent as some users paint him. He really did not have a good behavior at the time, and whether or not it was his fault isn't for us to decide. None of us are licensed medical experts, so we aren't at liberty to make claims like that. Here's to hoping Jensonk does make an effort to change when he comes back. The most expensive boss, Alex.sapre (talk) 16:50, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I may be on wikibreak, but I saw this and thought I'd give my input: Okay, so while I've had limited contact with this user, I have heard of him before, and from what Ive seen, he seems like a nice guy and fairly misunderstood. While I've heard some notorious claims about him, I think that most of them are misunderstandings. I think he actually is willing to become a better person because if you look at his contributions on the Simpsons Wiki, you'll see that a lot of people have expressed remorse over his block here at ESB, and Jensonk has replied to them saying that he feels regret over his past actions and is willing to change his ways if given the courtsey of an umpteenth chance and that isolation from this wiki for a year has really taught him to be more mature. EmilyHarmonizer02 (M•C•B•E) 17:08, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Extremely Weak Support - Per above. I'm very reluctant to allow him back here but I'd be willing to give him ONE last chance. Mainly because I want to see if this lengthy 1 year block so far has changed his intentions. (Contact • Contrib) 17:13, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Per above. Anthony2306 (W•C•L•E) 17:15, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Support - --CheeseCrocker (talk) 18:46, October 13, 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support - One year seems like enough. Tyler730 (M•C•E) 19:39, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral - I do not know, Jensonk was a great user and it is sad to see him stuck with his many edits, however, he was very rude and rude to other users, and above all, he got 30 blocks and had not learned his lesson, IDK, Neutral vote for this. A Wikia Contributor ITALIAN's return (M•C•E) .
Neutral - I do not know, Jensonk was a great user and it is sad to see him stuck with his many edits, however, he was very rude and rude to other users, and above all, he got 30 blocks and had not learned his lesson, IDK, Neutral vote for this. 
- Comment - You see, maybe Jensonk has a reason for his actions. He never really got to explain them. And worst of all, all the hate he gets might affect him in his real life. I'm sure there's a reason behind it, and we can fix it so if he's unblocked, he won't continue making the same mistake, over and over again. 1033Forest (talk) 15:54, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - I understand, but, I know very strict administrators who do not give a damn if a user it's definitively banned and he has had so many possibilities and now learn the lesson or not, I do not know if it is the case of admins of ESB but I prefer to wait for their vote before to support. A Wikia Contributor ITALIAN's return (M•C•E)
Comment - You see, maybe Jensonk has a reason for his actions. He never really got to explain them. And worst of all, all the hate he gets might affect him in his real life. I'm sure there's a reason behind it, and we can fix it so if he's unblocked, he won't continue making the same mistake, over and over again. - Neutral - LuigiTheMurderer (M•C•E) 16:32, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral - (Contact • Contrib) 16:45, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral Very Close to Oppose - Ok, after reading the comments of the admins, I think that sincerely Jensonk does not deserve to be unlocked, has had too many possibilities and when a block is infinite, is infinite, period, I'm not sure whether to vote Neutral or Oppose, I'd rather wait. A Wikia Contributor ITALIAN's return (M•C•E)
Oppose
- Oppose - Jensonk has been given plenty of chances though. It isn't just me who has pointed out misbehaviour though, Squiddle did as well. The whole admin team tried to give him chances but unfortunately we were never able to break through. His contributions were great, I've never denied that. He's also a very experienced user who knew the rules. You mention he never got the chance to explain himself, lots of warning threads gave him that chance I'm afraid, sorry. --Spongebob456 talk 16:08, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per 456. TheKorraFanatic (Talk Page) (Contributions) (Guestbook)
- Oppose - Per 456. Figmeister (W•C•E) 16:42, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per 456. Anthony2306 (W•C•L•E) 16:43, November 11, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Jensonk has been given plenty of chances though. It isn't just me who has pointed out misbehaviour though, Comments
- Comment - Since I am not really a user on this wiki anymore, I will not vote, but since I was linked to this block review, I feel like I should give my opinion on this. I agree that Jensonk has always tried to make good edits and the warning system is broken. I also agree that an explanation for Jensonk's actions is essential. That being said, I feel like this review is done quite biasedly. There are very few actual facts. Jensonk was an excellent editor, and I don't think anyone is going to debate that. I also don't know how many people would be willing to debate that 456, among others, can be harsh in his warnings. My main issue with this review comes from the fact that a lot of assumptions were made. If this fails and you wish to try again, I feel like getting in contact with Jensonk would be a reasonable course of action before creating a new review. I was not a fan of the idea that his behavior could be tied to mental differences. While I am aware that it is possible, I feel like that is not exactly something you should present as an option without actual evidence. He could just be a mean person without any sort of underlying problems with how his brain works. I am not going to say that is the case, but I think that people should not look at one's bad behavior and just chalk it up to autism or being suicidal. Sometimes people are just mean. They shouldn't be, but sometimes they are. I would love to know more about why Jensonk did what he did, but assuming these things just is not okay in my opinion. 120d Talk Contribs 21:40, November 11, 2018 (UTC)