Forum:Unacceptable poll behaviour


 * 

Just slapping this here.

Now I may not hold any weight with the wikia anymore, but as a founder I must say something. Maybe this has been going on for years, but now I'm older and more "mature" I can see whats going on and want to complain about.


 * Issue 1; people are making the poll personnel. Yes we get you don't like someone else, but your making it personnel.  How?
 * Calling the other side "stupid" for voting to keep ST from banment.
 * Making the pro-keeping ST side "bad guys" by undermining our votes as "just voting because we're his buddys"
 * Issue 2; using old evidence, from case that have been resolved or are irrelevant. Half the things on the "evidence against ST" list were not reasons for a 4th ban. The reason for the 4th ban was just because someone was jumping on the case to get ST banned after something else recently occurred revolving a ban.
 * Issue3; where are the admins/bureaucrats? You should be steeping in and telling people off for that, telling everyone to cool off and be mature.

Now here is the thing, this has nothing to do with that discussion, this is about the behavior of the editors within the topic. There is mudslinging and insults being tossed around. This is not about if the poll is right or if the poll is wrong, this is about stopping others from turning polls into a method of attacking others. And some sort of warnign should be released with this.

So, I want some solid rule/guidelines to proper etiquette in polls, what I don't know. Its amazing because its likely this has gone on for years unchecked, but now I'm just noticing this sort of thing is going on, and I don't like it.

Now I'm not going to say I'm perfect, I'm not going to stop anyone from having their say, but this poll is crossing the line and is at points resulting in coming close to cyber bullying. And if nothing is said, this sort of behaviour will only get worst.

We'll sort out how to take this to vote, once a discussions took place in which someoen (me or another) can form a legit solid poll. . One-Winged Hawk (talk) 20:33, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
It's easier said than done, how do you make rules to make people vote "seriously"? Or rather, how can you check that? If you have suggestions, please tell me (us). About what you said about the old evidences I don't think that's the case, I explained why I voted in one of my last posts.


 * Yeah I realized its easier said then done, but there has to be a cut off point where people shouldn't gang up on someone just because they have a different opinion, this is what I'm trying to point out. The other side is stupid for voting to keep ST?  We're only voting because we're his friends... God... This is just playground insults.  When there is comments thrown in by this point, the discussion is about who gets one up on the other, not about providing evidence and showing everyone why ST should be banned.  At one point because ST was being rude himself, I did almost change sides, but stuck to my guns because the for banment side wasn't be any better then ST, in fact they resulted to being overall worst then his behaviors was in the discussion at points. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 12:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need to do something about polls, but I'm not sure I agree with what you've said. First off, about admins/bureaucrats, their voices shouldn't necessarily carry more weight than any other editors. We're a community of editors and in cases like these, everyone's voices should be equal. However, if the admins post in a way that's full of respectable content, then of course their words will carry more weight, just the same as any other user who posts in a similar way.

Second, I personally disagree that many people on the "pro-ban" side are making a personal decision. Perhaps some people are, but it is unfair to accuse everyone of that. Some people are voting because they do truly believe that ST's edits are harmful to the wiki, and are not using a personal bias to make this decision. It could also be said that those people on the "no-ban" side who vote to keep ST because they are personal friends with him are also making it personal. However, you could also say that some people truly believe that ST's edits are not harmful to the wiki and are not using a personal bias to make this decision. The point is that personal bias can both exist and not exist on both sides of any poll. There really is no way to change that fact.

I truly understand that we don't want to argue about ST's forum here, but I do want to make some explanations about my evidence. 1) Most of my links were from after the 3rd time the forum closed. I would not say that those are old, given that the last forum ended about a year ago. Rather I would say that all of that evidence is new. 2) The purpose of the one piece of "old evidence" about NinjaShiek was misinterpreted by many people in the forum. I put it there to show that it is almost the exact same situation as another very recent edit I linked later in my first post. I put it there to show that his behavior has not changed over time, despite the many times he has been warned regarding his behavior. However, I think that because I made the mistake of posting my evidence in chronological order in my first post, people misinterpreted it as it being my strongest piece of evidence, when in actuality, it was just a small partner piece to another piece of evidence and the first chronologically. I did not, nor do I wish to ban ST for that incident, but rather I wish to ban him because he has not learned from that incident as shown by his recent edits.

I have some ideas on how we can reform ban polls, however I'm waiting until the poll in ST's forum closes before I post them. I don't want discussion of those ideas to be clouded by any bitter feelings surrounding the poll. 21:55, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Admin/bureaucrats should not carry more weight, I'm not saying that, I'm saying they should step in when things go too far and remind people to be civilized.


 * Unfortunately, the personnel ones were the ones who were making their points a bit too loud and were trying to use playground tactics to get others on their side. As I said to DP, ST was at points himself just as bad and that almost caused me to change sides because he wasn't presenting himself well.  And this is despite the fact I'm fine with ST myself, as a editor.  But to bring a point across here;here is the thing, the ban is decided, ST is banned for a week; next we have a ban LENGTH poll going on in the topic.  People indeed have it out for him, and this is another point about whats going on in the topic.  Yeah we get it, but now you've got editors undermining the admins/bureaucrats by removing the rules that the community helped elected in, by ignoring we have rules the community voted in.  If the rules change constantly, how are guys like DP suppose to do the job, or editors know their rights during conflicts like this?


 * What makes ST so special he has to be treated like anyone else, the wikia has its ban rules, so those few people who are leading the parade against him are really pushing the point that they don't like him. And further more, those making this personnel on are still able to contribute to voting - and the vote was decided by 19 to 17, a result of two votes. So someone making it personnel, even if it only impacts 2 votes, still can make an impact on the results.  I hope you get my point on this, bias towards someone is costly. (Edit: I'm not saying they should not be allowed to vote, I'm saying how their can impact others to vote by putting the pressure on them not to vote to keep ST a editor).


 * The evidence is fine if its within the year, if its within the last year, its still very relevant. What no one pointed out was ST was providing his own evidence against himself in the topic itself. So some of it was clear even with those with little experience of editing alongside ST. We have nothign about older evidence, but an issue that was resolved so it never came up again isn't going to carry a weight as its done and dusted.  Unless there is something new on the matter, you end up punishing a person for a action they did multiple times, which is when this becomes a little questionable.


 * Even way, the "anti ban" guys didn't show enough support or good will to ST's cause, so the bottom line is ST got banned and the evidence for him was weaker then against him. So there is no issue, the evidence was harshly lopsided either way. I don't know, maybe your seeing my issue with the evidence as a problem, but its not, even I can see the failures of both sides at supplying their point.  Hell, I've noted that no one is giving links to all the good edits ST has done and I was not prepared to go that far myself alone.  :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 12:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason the discussion got so heated was that ST's is a hot topic here. Look how many people voted in the poll. Most polls don't get anywhere near 34 votes (I mean total, not for any specific side). A lot of people seem to have strong opinions on this since a lot of the votes are from relatively inactive users or users who don't usually vote in polls. 00:37, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Is there a register for the chat? Maybe some inactive user was hired to vote. Not accusing anyone! Only asking! --Meganoide (talk) 00:39, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * If your referring to myself, I had been hanging around for a few weeks on and off the chat. I'm coming back to this wikia now and I'm just trying to figure out where I fit in.  But I've known ST from when I was still editing here in 2011, just before another wikia called me to its aid for a few years.  I've nown since being here there are some editors you just will never see eye to eye with. I'm proud of this wikia, to the point where certain behaviour, if it gets too much, does make me feel like the wikia standard is falling.  I'd like to say it was better in the older days, but it was actually worst, doesn't matter a little older - a little wiser.


 * Also Meg, I noticed you using the idea of banning someone like ST being banned in someone's talk page - I've been lurking on the wikia for the last few years and I'm not blind to what is going on.


 * Once I've found how to get back into editing, you'll see more of me. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 12:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

No, Levi brought it up recently but most users were against it. 00:55, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Just scanned the forum,didnt read everything but:-JSD had a small chat with me about these some new ban-forum rules.
 * I agree and even posted on the forum that mega's going overboard.
 * Being biased over ban polls(for or against the ban) is stupid.--