Board Thread:The Seven Seas Court/@comment-3112181-20170507140453/@comment-3112181-20170507211557

Squirto19 wrote: Well first off, the reason was "what" because somebody noticed Josh had been unbanned from his infinite ban. Now while there are no records as to the exact reason Josh was given an infinite ban in the first place (I do believe it was threatening the wiki or something), there are ALSO no records as to why he was "exempt" from his ban. Since you're the one who unbanned him with the reason "JOS" and sent him a talk page message stating "JOSH COME ON BACK IT'S SAFE WE MISS YOU I LOVE YOU <3", perhaps you can explain why there's nothing proving he was actually exempt from his infinite ban.

Now sure there's no harm in letting an infinitely banned user be unbanned if we can just say "we'll ban them again if they break rules." Well with that logic, why don't we unban another user who was banned infinitely with very few bans before Jason99Eitc? They only had three bans, one for removing content, one for sockpuppeting over a ban, and the last one being infinite for threatening to hack the wiki. I mean everyone can get a little upset every now and again right? They don't look like they were too terrible of a troublemaker, and besides the ban was 5 years ago, they probably wouldn't come back even if we did unban them. But wait, what's that? They came back on a sockpuppet 5 years later and got banned for the exact same thing they were banned for infinitely the first time (Jasonxzame)? That's why infinite banned users stay infinitely banned. They actually don't change, and because of how long they've been banned for, they probably don't want to do anything besides get back at us for it.

Taking it to an extreme, and probably bringing up a hated point, that's why we don't unban Pearson anymore. Because what happened every time we gave him a second chance?

Anyway getting back on track, obviously Josh did something serious that wasn't just rumors or Par wouldn't have put the ban back in place. Maybe the wiki should have given more year bans and such rather than infinite bans, but if you wanted to vote on that you'd have to make another request. I'm going to this because nothing was actually brought up that proves Josh was innocent of anything (even if you can't entirely prove he was guilty either). I was wondering if that would've been brought up. When I unbanned Josh in 2014, Parax was still president, and I was an admin. I had brought up the notion of unbanning Josh back then, and, after discussing it with Parax, he agreed. Since I was the one who proposed his unbanning, and knowing that Josh and I were old friends, Par then gave me the honours of actually unbanning him myself. However, of course, a few months later he was once more banned by G.

The problem here is that none of the admins (myself included) gave any particular reasons for banning or unbanning Josh, for some odd reason. We can conjecture all day long as to why we think he was banned or unbanned, but at the end of the day there are no records (that I can find).

My theory is that G had not been made privy to the discussion between Par and myself concerning unbanning Josh, and, realising one day that he was unbanned, (not wrongfully) went to the liberty of reattaching his infinite ban.