Great TK banning Incident
From Rationalwikiwki
(He may be back soon, so this to get things clear.) |
(ct) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
*The sentence was arbitrarily changed by some members who didn’t like it. | *The sentence was arbitrarily changed by some members who didn’t like it. | ||
*The final values calculated unilaterally by some members were wrong. | *The final values calculated unilaterally by some members were wrong. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:High Drama]] | ||
Revision as of 21:08, 21 February 2008
Began on 15 January 2008 when Robledo wrote, “Grow a pair. Nuke him.” The site immediately switched into Headless Chicken Mode and the fun began. Although permabanning seems to be outside the site’s remit a Radioactive afikomen, Kels and AmesG supported the idea and the voting on his permaban began.
Contents |
The voting
There was something a little surprising about the voting as it did not seem to split along the anticipated cabal lines. This suggests that it was not premeditated or controlled in any way but really was as chaotic as it looked. Initially those who called for the vote confidently expected a super-duper majority.
majority?
As as the vote got harder to call the question of a majority had to be readdressed as the expected super-duper majority was clearly not going to be obtained, and another vote was taken on the size of the majority necessary for a peramban. This vote was taken on the suggestion that, for a permaban, a two to one majority was necessary. Of the eight people who voted, four were clearly in favor of the “two to one” proposal and the rest either wanted a simple majority or said something else. The eventual result of the permapan vote was 14 in favor of a permaban and 10 against. But by then the point was moot as the punishment was already being enacted.
The banning
Even while the voting was in progress various people decided to circumvent the process and ban TK before it was complete. The full sequence of that day’s blocks and unblocks can be seen below.
Furthermore, although the vote was about the subject of an infinite ban, the actual bans for TK on that date were: 314 seconds, 3141 seconds, infinite, 5 years, 143 days and finally 54 days.
The calculations seem to have been carried out by individuals based on their own feelings at the time, and to have little to do with the discussions taking place on the Wiki.
- 1: Human blocked TK with an expiry time of 314 sec. (5 minutes) (Bohdan: Wanted to get one last pointless jab in. You typed something offensive on this wiki today I'm sure.)
- 2: Human blocked TK with an expiry time of 3141 sec. (about 1 hour) ("Those who live by the sword shall perish by it." - TK. Apparently threatening.. the entire wiki Or just AmesG?)
(These may have been applied before the process began in earnest.)
- 3: Kels blocked TK with an expiry time of infinite (trolling above and beyond the cause)
- 4: PFoster unblocked TK (Pending consesus - see discussion on Craker's page.)
- 5: Cracker blocked TK with an expiry time of 5 years (Okay. That's enough. Good bye.)
- 6 Edgerunner76 unblocked TK (Unblocking to reblock to comply with policy)
- 7 Edgerunner76 blocked TK with an expiry time of 143 days (Comform to Fibonacci policy)
- 8 Linus unblocked TK (Correct FIbonacci sequence value)
- 9 Linus blocked TK with an expiry time of 54 days (Fibonacci-1 for time served.)
Fibonacci sequence
Although the vote was about a permaban, two individuals Edgerunner76 and Linus seem to have failed to grasp this point and unilaterally decided to apply the Fibonacci sequence instead. Not only that, but they came up with different calculations. This is not really surprising, as TK’s previous bans did not follow the sequence and attempting to retrofit the Fibonacci to the previous random value bans is not really practical. As neither of them published their calculations it is not clear how they arrived at their figures. However it does look as though at some point in June an attempt was made to start a Fibonacci sequence with these blocks:
- 19 June 2007 Jtl 3 hours
- 16 June 2007 Jtl 2 hours
- 16 June 2007 Human 1 hour
Later block values are pretty random and vary between seconds and infinity. Some subsequent bans were also not serious or were later repealed as being too harsh. After a review there would seem to be a further 10 blocks after the three listed above which were not later repealed or jokes. Calculating in hours that would take us up to a Fibonacci number of 337 (hours) or 14 days. The number of days finally applied, apparently 55 days, is equivalent to 1320 hours which is not a Fibonacci number.
55, of course is a Fibonacci number. But if we say that the process changed into Fibonacci days at some point, then the fist block for days was this one:
- 11 December 2007 AmesG 3 days.
3 is a Fibonacci number, and after this block there were a further three “real” blocks before the vote. That would still only take us to 13 days on the Fibonacci sequence.
Conclusion
- RationaWiki began a voting process about something which was against the site’s principles.
- There was no clear idea about how the voting should be carried out.
- The vote seems to not have properly complied with the secondary vote on the process.
- The sentence was carried out before the voting process had finished.
- The sentence imposed was not the sentence that was being voted on.
- The sentence was arbitrarily changed by some members who didn’t like it.
- The final values calculated unilaterally by some members were wrong.
