Forum:Klobis

Discussion
I've run out of patience. Right now, I'm calling for a ban of at least one month on the user Klobis for being at the heart of many edit wars, refusing to use talk pages or communicate and lack of cooperation in general. Over the last few days I've had to attempt fixing poor edits on his behalf, only to be undone by the very user himself for no good reason. He has also been an issue with images, and seems to be determined to remove many for no good reason, or replace them with his own despite failing to correctly insert them into pages.

I understand he is beneficial to the website due to his ability to speak Japanese, but as far as I can see that is his only saving grace. He is becoming increasingly detrimental to the site and it's community, and the pros of keeping him are quickly losing out to the cons. 08:08, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Please try to collect a bunch of sample links to the revisions you are talking about and add them here (just look at yours or Klobis' contributions), so that everyone will able to see for themselves. If you don't do so, everyone will just talk about their personal sensation about the user and this forum won't go anywhere. Thanks.

Fine.

In the case of his refusing to use talk pages or communicate, I can hardly give you examples of them as the point is, such cases don't exist. Let me rephrase that however, he refuses to use them, unless it suits his needs. I'll give you an example for that later.

As for edit wars, from recent memory we have (despite it being explained to him) Klobis entering former bounties into the infoboxes of Trafalgar Law, Basil Hawkins, Jinbe, Killer and Eustass Kid. He has also been focused on degrading the character table image. In the case of Silvers Rayleigh's page, he has repeatedly removed a large amount of images from the page. Why? I don't know, because he refuses to communicate. Then there's the edit war over the episode collages, starting with, where despite an administrator stepping in he still pursued the issue through talk pages (bringing me back to my above point about only using them when it suits his needs, and also proving the supposed language barrier defence obsolete in discussion.) Such wars over the collage image also occurred for , which was only stopped short thanks to the intervention of an administrator locking the page.

And this is just recent memory. I could go back further, I could even check his contributions. But I'd rather not go through hundreds of examples of needless edit wars and endless undo's. 11:30, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well technically you should, it would be bad if we decide a ban over some sensations. As far I can tell, I do remember often Klobis simply making/reverting an edit without a giving an explanation, but the first edit it's not a issue since everybody can edit an article by their judgement, the problem begins when two or more users stubbornly start an edit war. So that's the cases you should bring here. About the anime images, is still questionable though: that's just your opinion (as it's Klobis opinion that the manga version is better), but do you see my point? If I update an image with whatever version I think it's better then you cannot really talk of "established version". Can you deny that many users uploaded anime version of images just for the sake of having the anime version? Isn't it the same thing? The correct way to manage a edit war is to always give some justification for major changes and limit the reverting to one time, which he didn't (which is your point).

It would be bad if we did that, luckily this isn't the case. Every time I see an ongoing edit war or the recent activity becoming contorted, Klobis is at the centre of it. Many of these issues could be resolved if he simply spoke his mind, rather then relied on others to defend him. But he doesn't, and I am personally tired of cleaning up the mess. His banning would be more beneficial to the site, and would help avoid so many headaches for a lot of people. I've said what I feel I need to right now, and you have also made your opinion clear. Before this discussion makes any more headway, I'm going to wait until somebody other then you has some input. Maybe someone who isn't dismissing my claims as merely sensation. 13:47, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

No wait, don't misunderstand me. I recognize that what are you saying is right. If you want to know my opinion right know, I think that if things aren't cleared up here then a short ban (1-2 weeks) would make a good message, for him and for others.

I remembered that once here if you wanted to call for a ban you had to provide good reasons supported by facts, so I just wanted to do things right that's all. I personally feel that many decisions (other then bans) are recently taken too light-heartedly and I don't like that, that was my point in my previous posts. Other than that, I also wanted to pointed out that many users have had a similar behaviour to Klobis', so we should take that in account (by that I mean give a warning to these users as well). Hope I was clear.

Thank you for clearing your position up Levi. I know one month may seem harsh, and really if Klobis was to come out and agree to communicate more openly I'd call off the ban altogether. But as things currently stand, I don't see that happening, and I hope the ban serves to be more of a wake-up call then anything. 14:26, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

It takes two to start and continue an edit war. If Klobis doesn't want to talk this through, just being stubborn and only undo's the edits, then he must clear this out on this forum right now. Klobis you know how to speak english, it wouldn't hurt for you to write a sentence just to clear this out. Always has to be a fucking edit war. If Klobis ignores this, then I support this ban (2 weeks at least).

I just want to say before anyone else comes in and something like "We shouldn't ban him, he's a regular editor!" as their argument. It's my opinion if someone is a regular editor, and their behavior is unacceptable, we should feel more obligated to ban them than a new user. We shouldn't jump to their defense just because they are on the wikia frequently. If their actions are harmful, then they are harmful, and if they're on regularly, then they are regularly harmful. We shouldn't defend that.

Recently, we've had a few regular users who have been banned/warned by Central Wikia. Those cases we more for more for insults and bad behavior towards other users, so they are a bit different from what we're talking about here. But the fact that those actions were deemed so bad that Central had to step in kind of implies that this wikia can't take the actions it needs to when it comes to banning. It implies that this wikia can't ban people when are most basic rules are broken by regular users. I think that means we need to seriously examine our defense of regular users when it comes to banning regular users.

And that doesn't mean that I want all regular users who do something wrong to be perma-banned, never to return again. I support Klobis being banned for a short 2 weeks, as a disciplinary action to prevent further bad behavior. I want Klobis to return after those 2 weeks with a changed attitude. 15:46, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

These edit wars of images originate with those who love ugly anime pictures deeply, rather than manga images. They also tend to upload anime images without manga counterparts. When we have good images by Oda, especially color images, why must we use unsteady, uneven anime images?

And for episode collages, if we keep using official four images, there will be no edit war. The ones who chose images in their own discretion caused that wars.

Removing former bounties is absolutely nonsense. Why do we have to take the trouble to go to "bounties" page, to know their bounties? What a meaningless wiki. --Klobis (talk) 16:11, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think this wiki is meaningless, then why are you on here? 20:30, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the anime images that we had were fine, and you decided to just upload colored manga ones without giving a reason. We reverted you,and then you reverted back without a reason. Your hatred for the anime doesn't mean you get to decide that every anime image is "terrible". For the episode collages, you were the only one reverting Kuro's, while noone else really cared. I'm OK with having former bounties on the pages, but if you're going to just do it for a few people, then just don't do it at all. Galaxy9000 (talk) 20:35, August 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Klobis, firstly thank you for responding to the forum and proving you can indeed speak for yourself. Second, while some of the example edits may be merely preferential in nature, it is because of this that people will tend to disagree with you. However, unlike most disagreements with users, your's only become edit wars because you often refuse to talk it out before it gets out of hand. That is why you are a problem, while others who do the same are not. To us, when you undo us all we see is a voiceless, faceless user who cannot, or rather will not be reasoned with. 23:44, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

At least, I want you guys not to upload anime pictures without manga counterparts. --Klobis (talk) 02:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * ...unless they derive from fillers or movies? ;) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 07:34, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not your call to make. And out of curiousity, why?? 08:06, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer why: Because the manga is only done by one person with one drawing (developing) style. The Anime is done by several persons with different drawing styles, and they keep messing viewing angles, character poses, and misinterpret attacks... Just for example... -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 08:37, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah. I understand it's about keeping a history of the original illustration. But it's still ridiculous to expect me and anybody else to get the manga equivalent (which often may not even exist, and if so must be a RAW image) just so I can upload an additional image on top of that. It's just more effort for no return, and the additional files only go towards taking up space on the servers. 10:09, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be concerned about things like "space on Wikia's servers". They've got plenty... And aside from filler scenes, virtually all scenes exist as manga. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 10:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we are going off topic here...


 * Levi's right. I'll just say this last thing, no Chris they aren't. Most inconic scenes will be, but everything in the middle is a severe matter of hit and miss. Especially as most middle scenes can be just tiny panels in the original. As for the space issue, yes it is a problem as otherwise we wouldn't have file size limitations in the rules. If you want to discuss this separate issue further, make a forum or just come into chat. 11:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Back on track. Klobis' ban. General opinion is two weeks should be good, but I get the feeling we should still poll it. So is every user currently following this forum in agreement that we should open the, "Should Klobis be banned?" poll, followed closely by the sequel of, "And for how long?" depending on how well the box office does for the original. 11:17, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Please remember it is you who caused that wars. The ones who chose images in their own discretion. --Klobis (talk) 13:08, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Turns out to be that this forum is not for Klobis anymore, it's for the images. Kuro if you want to end this, open a poll and don't drag the conversation somewhere else, focus.

That's exactly what I just said, LPK. Poll's open. 14:21, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just a little reluctant to vote right now. But if Klobis doesn't acknowledge that he needs to use a forum or talk page to settle his problems with images and any other substantial edits before he goes ahead and changes them loose cannon/lone wolf style, then I will support the ban. If he can acknowledge that he needs to change his way of doing things, (which is the point of this ban anyways) then I don't see the ban as necessary. 14:34, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

What KuroAshi98 and Galaxy9000 said: --Klobis (talk) 02:27, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing as they please and not accepting edits by others: OK, no ban
 * Editing in accordance with official choices, so that there are no arguments: Wrong, ban

What KuroAshi98 said: --Klobis (talk) 02:43, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * Readers of the wiki must not know supernovas' former bounties in their own page: OK, no ban
 * We should list their former bounties in their own page: Wrong, ban

Read the first line Klobis, "I'm calling for a ban of at least one month on the user Klobis for being at the heart of many edit wars, refusing to use talk pages or communicate and lack of cooperation in general."

That's it. Poll's up. It's the community's turn to vote now. 03:08, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

In that case you are the first one to be criticised since you made the cause of many edit wars, acted as you please. --Klobis (talk) 04:55, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

That would be you since you never use talk pages. SeaTerror (talk) 01:22, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Well, accusing each other won't get you anywhere, many users are at fault. That's why I think you should be setting some examples.

This forum is a joke. Klobis never was even warned by an admin. This is not the way things should be done…

Sff you've seen what he does. If he just used the talk page he wouldn't be in this mess. Galaxy9000 (talk) 03:19, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

I know. But he shouldn't be in this mess anyway: Others regulars whose ban has been polled like this had had multiple warnings (I mean, real ban-threat warnings by admins) before the forum was even opened. This is quite unfair to Klobis. Plus, one week poll? Come on…

I was just basing this forum off Meganoide's when I decided the time (being the first ban forum I've started). But I mean, if we took 2 weeks to decide whether someone will be banned and two more to decide the time then it means we'd of taken an entire month to ban somebody. In this case it's not too extreme, but for some other users a ban would be needed ASAP. 12:01, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't we made the poll in one go? (Do you want to ban him? If so for how long?)

@Sff: We don't need an admin to warn everyone here that disturbs our work, we are a community and we can easily bring it to a forum and complain about it. And 1 week is fine, gives the chance to people to think about it or just for inactive users. What's done is done, if you think it's unfair to Klobis you should've just talked to him when the edit war was happening, and technically that's why there is a poll.


 * Well, we are voting to ban him for a whole month at minimum which is just ridiculous... And many edit wars started because someone just reverted Klobis' edits. As Klobis learned from World Timeline and from edit commentaries like that one, it is completely legal here to simply block off edits - even after giving TONS of reasons - and even insult people in the process of editing articles here without being harmed or banned.
 * I perfectly understand him not to talk things through and just do his way. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 06:23, September 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * No Chris, we are not banning him for a month. The next poll will determine a time, with the options of one week, two weeks and one month (due to only being a first ban). The winning option will be the time he is banned for. 08:32, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

I just want to note a few things. First, if Klobis gets banned, how is he going to supply us with all the info, etc.? Will we have to contact him through another site, or will we have to search the info ourselves? Basically, it would be a fuss to look for them, because most of us cannot read Japanese, and some of the info may be wrong. Also, when you editors were having discussions based on the edit wars, did you even bother to invite Klobis over and discuss why he thinks it is that way on a page or a file? I believe the answer is no. We all know Klobis is not really interactive with the users, but really, just writing a quick message like "Hi, please come here (page or file's talk) to discus why you think it is that way (Klobis' edit). Thank you." or something like that could just save you all the fuss of being angry at him and even making a pointless forum. 10:28, September 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Not needed.
 * 2) Been there, doesn't work.
 * 3) "Pointless forum", "This forum is a joke", it's as if the people defending Klobis can only resort to dismissing the forum and evidence, rather then actually offering a real rebuttal to what is now a large pool of arguments for the ban.

Until I see a genuine argument using facts and proper judgement, consider this my final reply to the "Discussion" section. 10:54, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to show me where people defending Klobis dismissed any evidence, please? It seems to me that on the contrary, we're the only ones making concessions here… To my understanding, nobody denies that Klobis' behavior is annoying. The problems are: For all these reasons, I don't think Klobis should be banned now. An admin should warn him that the next time he edit wars without stating reasons, he's gone. This would be the proper way to settle this.
 * 1) your forum is unfair for a number of reasons:
 * 2) there has been no admin warning, and generally no admin intervention, whereas banning is admin prerogative
 * 3) the poll has been started very soon, not many people had participated in the discussion
 * 4) the poll duration is really short
 * 5) it takes two to edit war, why is Klobis the only one being accused?
 * 6) in comparison to the behavior of other editors, Klobis' is benign: he does not insult those who don't agree with him, and he actually has reasons for his edits…

Sff9 has a point (more than one). I especially agree to the fact the poll was started while the discussion was still going (and I would have included the ban length too, to avoid doing a second poll, but that's not a problem).

Poll closes tomorrow and if you want Klobis not to be banned, I suggest you to vote for it instead of just talking about it...

I'm fine that way, I wanted to abstain in the first poll, I'm not really against his ban anyway. I was only criticizing the way the poll was made, so that we won't do the same next time.

First Poll
Whatever, time for the poll. You know the drill, the initial poll will end in one weeks time on the 6th of September (UTC +10:00). You must have 300 edits, and been active for three months to vote. If a ban is decided, the next poll shall decide the length.


 * Ban
 * 1)   14:21, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  Galaxy9000 (talk) 20:55, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  Generally disruptive editor. Cheese Lord (talk) 01:01, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  necessary ban. Besty17 (talk) 01:03, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) It's for lack of peaceful cooperation, not the content of any edits. 04:01, August 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) for old time's sake.
 * 7) SeaTerror (talk) 01:22, August 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:50, August 31, 2012 (UTC) Honestly, if this was months earlier, I would have practically nominated you as admin.
 * 03:22, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 16:03, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm not really an editor, but from what I've seen on the forum a ban seems like a merited solution.


 * No Ban
 * 1) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 16:30, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  05:16, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  16:59, September 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  10:29, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  10:29, September 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  10:29, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Second Poll
Okay, time's up. The community has voted in favour of a ban. This second poll will determine the length of time. This poll will run until the 13th of September (UTC +10:00) and you must have 300 edits on top of being active for three months minimum to vote.

How long should Klobis be banned for?


 * One Week
 * 1)  01:10, September 6, 2012 (UTC) He don't deserve to be banned, in my opinion. So I'm going along with the shortest ban length for him.
 * 2)  02:00, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:15, September 6, 2012 (UTC) Two weeks seem a LITTLE lengthy, especially with how much he still contributes to the Wiki. One week is enough.
 * 1) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 06:18, September 6, 2012 (UTC) again only one week poll. ridiculous.
 * 2) i dont think he deserves to be banned, so i am going along with the shortest ban.
 * 3) 1 week is fine.
 * 19:02, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 19:04, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This defenitly doesn't ask for more than a week.
 * 19:04, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This defenitly doesn't ask for more than a week.


 * Two Weeks
 * 1)   01:02, September 6, 2012 (UTC) As Klobis has become much more vocal since this forum opened, I feel two weeks is now all that's needed to get the message to last.
 * 2) Galaxy9000 (talk) 01:05, September 6, 2012 (UTC) anything more would be too harsh. He does provide us with translations and raw images.
 * 01:06, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:09, September 6, 2012 (UTC) Just a little time to reflect and come back with a changed attitude. Please don't leave us forever, Klobis.


 * One Month

Discussion Two
Okay, time's up. Klobis is set to be banned for a single week. 00:43, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Hope you come back with a better attitude Klobis. Galaxy9000 (talk) 00:49, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Klobis is a great contributor to the wiki, it's just the attitude is why this ban is being done. Like I said, if this was months earlier, I would pretty much nominate Klobis as admin, and I'm not completely off from my offer. 01:29, September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Well, he had it coming. The result will be the same tho, he won't change, he'll still undo your things and won't talk about it.

Looks like Klobis has reappeared in the form of http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:El_Baal. Looking at his contributions, and join date, it fits Klobis perfectly. Gonna keep an eye on this guy and see what he does. Galaxy9000 (talk) 01:56, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

It's simple, we kill the batman. 01:59, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

El Baal even edits at the same time as Klobis... I'd say it's fairly likely that they are one in the same. Having multiple accounts is against Wikia's policies. If we can confirm that Baal is Klobis, then ban should be lengthened, and the second account should be permanently banned (or deleted? Is that a thing central can do?).

Also, if Klobis comes back and continues to remove non canon images without talking, that should warrant the re-opening of this forum. I even explicitly asked Klobis to make a forum about it if he wanted to change things, and even offered to help here: User_talk:Klobis But I was ignored. Klobis removing those images creates an edit war, and unlike most edit wars, the fault for creating them falls one person 100%, and in that case it's Klobis. It's early yet, but I haven't really seen anything that hints at a change so far. We'll see, I guess... 03:40, September 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would go even further: Creating a new account to bypass a minor ban - and backstabbing everyone who supported him with reducing the ban - should result in banning both accounts indefinitely.
 * El Baal should be banned instantly as we've already declared that such a behaviour is inaccaptable. And if a third account spawns, I think that Wikia could be convinced to run a checkuser, and if then it turns out to be Klobis (with a high probability as checkuser doesn't simply say "yes, they are the same") - he has to go.
 * IIRC: Central could join both accounts into one if they turn out to be one and the same person. But they won't do that unless both accounts confirm to be from the same person. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 07:05, September 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki Central views Klobis actions as an form as "sock puppeting" and unaceptable. If it contunies we should report it to them Besty17 (talk) 23:41, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 3
I've noticed that Klobis has been doing the same things that he was banned for the first time. Reverting pics with no reasons other than it's anime. (http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/File:Jinbei_tattoo.png), changing infobox pictures with no reason other than it's anime (Luffy, Absalom, Kaku.), and removing valid categories from pages. (can all be seen http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klobis). Since the previous ban did nothing to change his attitude, I'm calling for a ban with a minimum time of one month, because like this, he's just being a very counter productive editor. 23:29, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

That's not really different from people who uplaod anime picture just because there is a manga picture. He can update a picture for no reason, because everyone does that the first time. The point it's if he start edit wars without give any kinds of explanations, if that's the case post some links, but if just updating manga picture is not really a problem especially if other users agree with that choice.

The problem is Levi, is that he isn't giving any reasons at all. His previous reasons for replacing an anime image were just because it's anime, but now he's just replacing them without even telling us why. You can see in the Jimbei Tattoo link the reasons he doesn't give. Look in the history of absalom and you'll see that Klobis has been replacing his image with the manga image for months, even after being reverted over 10 times. 23:50, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm running out of patience. Klobis is not giving us reasons for most of the edit wars he get involved in. Frankly, it's frustrating when we can't even understand why Klobis did this edit or that edit. If we at least just know why he removed something, added something, use manga files instead of anime files, he won't be as much as a problem for this wiki. Look at this edit, and this, and this. He's removing valid categories that should be on the character's page. Not only that, but the files as well. Here is an, and this. All without giving any reason. You can look in his contributions for even more edits without reasons.

I wholly support this purposed ban for Klobis. Enough said. 00:15, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Giving us no reasons... Doings of Galaxy and Jademing are same, and they oppress others because they want to have everything their own way. --Klobis (talk) 01:32, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Uhh no Klobis. We actually give reason when we edit, but you do not. Don't lie to cover for yourself. 01:55, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

But when I get in an edit war, I do give reasons why I think it should be like that. When I'm undoing people, I sometimes tell why I am undoing an edit. You hardly give reasons, despite previous users asking you to give reasons. Okay, you give out reasons more often than before, but it don't make up for all of the edit wars you got in, without even giving a reason.

And on a second thought, I will be neutral on this nomination for the ban. 01:58, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

There have been several examples of Klobis doing the same things again. But here's another: Plus you can find earlier examples of post-ban counter-productive edits on the talk pages of DP, Klobis, and Kuro.

After the ban, I also reached out to Klobis in order to make sure he was aware that in order to make changes about Manga images over Anime, or non-canon anime shots being used, that he needed to make a forum about the issues before he could go off making lone-wolf changes to all these images. I also offered assistance in making the forums, since one thing I've been told about Klobis is that his English is not good (though from what I've seen, your mastery of English is rather good, Klobis). That request, which I think was kindly worded can be seen here. I've yet to receive any kind of response from Klobis about either request, even after posting in the section twice. Again, regardless of the legitimacy some people may see in Klobis's edits, the ones that are commonly warred over (images) should require a forum or some form of conversation in order to be made, as they would be a large change in the wiki's policy.

Also, for those of you who said in the first parts that the lack of an administrator warning means he shouldn't be banned, look here. For clarification, I asked DP in chat if he considered that an "administrator warning" and he said yes. I don't think we've seen much of any of a change in attitude since his first ban, which is why I think a second is warranted. 05:32, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly believe you are a bit biased because he simply don't do things your way... as far I can see, most of the users, most of the times don't give reasons to their edits because this is just a wiki that anyone can edits. Reasons should be given for significant changes and when you are opposing another user's edits. I'm not saying that Klobis did everything perfectly correct, I'm just saying that I don't think it's weird at all. I'm starting to see this forum as a quick-way to restore anime images without using talk pages at all, since it's faster to directly ban the user who uploaded them. You brought up File:Jinbei tattoo.png, but in the talk page other users agree to Klobis' choice too so reverting his edit just because is the same reason you guys opened up this forum. About him removing the categories I don't understand really well, but I know there is a big problem about categories, here we add all the subcategories to a page, I mean if a DF is a Logia the it's obviously also a DF no need to add this one since "Logia" is a subcategory of Devil Fruits, it makes categories pointless.

All this because Klobis doesn't talk AT ALL. He doesn't explain shit, does whatever he wants and doesn't even care what other people think. IF you sit down and explain your shitty edits then you'll argue with them on that, not argue if you're getting banned or not. Also returning back from your ban to do the same things that you got the ban for at the first place is not a smart idea.

Even though Klobis apparently wasn't actually inactive while he was banned - and man, I'm still pissed about that - I still don't see why his actions are ban-worthy while SeaTerror's actions (edit warrior, foul-mouthed) were always excused until he was banned by Wikia. But okay...

The explanation for is pretty simple anyways: Klobis' image shows that Zeo uses TWO chains. The anime version is apparently errornous as he only uses one there. And ... The anime image is from episode 393 - but it's both only an excerpt and completely without any details. There's a better one from some seconds before but I don't see why Klobis should've used that if he only has the manga version which is just fine.

BTW, about "giving explanations"... Watching at several other user contributions I don't really see many explanations in the edit summaries either. I have them in my own contributions, too. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:44, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there's no way I could've noticed that about the the chains. All that I saw going in was an image being changed with no reason given. In my edit summary, I ask what the reason was, and had he told me about the number of chains, I probably would have supported the manga image. (in fact, I'm about to go do something about it now.) But the words never came from Klobis about it. I only found out in a ban forum, of all places, and not from him. But that's just it, I didn't know the reason, because Klobis never talked. It really doesn't matter whether his edits are good or bad: Not talking about them creates confusion, which is bad for everyone. 16:05, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I just found the answer for Klobis changing the image on "Zeo using the chains" by looking on those original pictures, not only the thumbnails. ;) Even as full image, the anime picture is very unclear about that. Maybe a different frame may look better. But that's another topic.
 * The thing is... Klobis actually doesn't behave that much different from other users here who are nominating him all along, while some undos of his edits sometimes seem to be too automatically. Edit wars are more like consentient behaviour here. ;) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 16:51, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually did look at the full versions of the images beforehand, I just lacked the observational skill to see the difference in number of chains. I did just give Zeo and Anime and Manga differences section with both images in it. 16:57, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Levi and Defchris. Seems to me that since he's come back, he did not edit war without giving reasons. As for giving reasons for all edits, that's going too far… Only Defchris does this AFAIK… By the way, his category changes were fine. He was merely removing redundant categories (parent categories of already included categories). I had seen them and agreed, though I was certain he was gonna be reverted—because eh, he's Klobis. Anyway, yeah, it would be better if he explained his edits when they're unexpected, but failing at doing so is not banworthy.

Causing as many edit wars as he does warrants a ban. He doesn't communicate, he reverts aggresively. This is counter productive and very banworthy. 20:46, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'll just say that from the point of view of a third user, it doesn't matter who revert who, it's just a pain to see so you shouldn't just blame him, because any time he does an edit he is instantly reverted. Because he didn't give a reason? Then you should provide a reason to revert the edit, like why the new version is not acceptable, something that's not "it's klobis". If the new version is acceptable, then you have no reason to change it too.

Not like I'm defending this guy or anything since I don't know him, but on the wikis I've edited before, a lot users don't give reasons in the Summary box because they expect other users to obviously see why he/she did that edit in the first place. This goes especially for users who had worked alongside each other for a while now. Perhaps the reason why this Klobis fellow doesn't give a reason is (again, I'm not taking either side here, I don't know this guy) because he has faith that the users will be able to see why he did his edits without actually typing out his reason. At least, that's what I think. Sometimes edits can be glaringly obvious that stating a reason isn't really necessary.-- 21:40, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Klobis (for the most part) refuses to explain his actions even when it's become an edit war. And the few times he does, it's nothing more then a preference rather then legitimate reason. Nobody is expecting the initial edit to have a summary as most of us do not do it either, but after it turns into a war some level of communication will be required to avoid an extended undo spree. This is what separates Klobis from the rest of the users, and is what makes him a counter-productive user.

As JSD has pointed out, several of us have made attempts to communicate with him on his talk page, even try to help him despite our differences, only for him to blatantly ignore us. He was banned over this attitude originally, only for him to then create a sockpuppet in order to continue his own biased edits (which despite being a ban-worthy offence in itself, Klobis escaped any punishment for that), and once he returned he only went on to display no change in attitude whatsoever and continues to edit war.

I really don't care to discuss this after the first forum, as most of the users "defending" Klobis only drag their feet and be as difficult as possible, so I'm just going to refrain from further comments until we go to poll. 02:00, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Levi, Defcris and Sff. Galaxy you should read what Defcris said about Kolbis's edits, from my point of view it look like you are just undoing Kolbis's edits and starting an edit war ( like Kolbis edited something and you just undo it without checking that if his edits makes some sense or not ) and then asking to ban Kolbis..... You should start to check peoples edits insted of just undoing them. ( by just seeing that it was done by Kolbis ). 06:19, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen in all the edits used as examples here, Galaxy and other users have generally given reasons for their undoing of Klobis's edits. It's completely false to say that they haven't. Klobis hasn't given reasons for them (at least originally). And if other users were making the same edits Klobis was, they would probably give reasons in their original change.

I feel like some people in this forum think that the people who support the ban are people who just have it out for Klobis and are unfairly prosecuting him. From what I see, those who support the ban are those who are active editors that monitor the wiki changes. Those users are just more likely to monitor the edits of everyone here, and they would try and make sure everyone's edits are good, not just those of one user. Galaxy is on this wikia for a lot of time, and he takes care of a lot of vandalism, much like I do. He's just statistically more likely to undo any editor, not just Klobis.

Klobis also seems to use his opinions when he does his original edits that start wars. Look at my posts on his talk page. I and other users have told him that he should not be editing based on those opinions (like for anime and non-canon images) without making a forum and getting the agreement of the wikia. And this forum has made it clear that reasons are needed in the kind of edits he makes. He still makes them anyways, doesn't give reasons, and doesn't acknowledge the posts on his talk. He just blames others for the warring and refuses to consider that he also partially responsible. IF he somehow magically suddenly gets this concept right now in this forum and agrees to try harder, then I wouldn't vote for the ban. But if he just once again blames others for creating the conflicts, and refuses to any credit for causing them (and I mean any credit, he doesn't need 100% of the blame. I'd be happy with any partial responsibility) then I will continue to support the ban. 07:02, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Creating a general forum about anime/manga images should be a first priority before starting a second poll. Otherwise we'll up with another Meganoide situation, with the user being banned for a long period despite the behaviour later being agreed upon by users. In this case, a lot of the people who have been undoing Klobis' edits have done so because they feel that anime images should be used in preference to manga images, in all circumstances. I've seen people citing this as a rule as well, even though it isn't. The user User:Genocyber is particularly guilty of replacing images with anime equivalents that are objectively terrible, just for the sake of having an anime image, and yet I haven't seen anyone nominate him for a ban.

As far as categories go, the Category/subcategory system exists for a reason. There is absolutely no point in putting all of the Shichibukai in the World Government Workers category, because Shichibukai is the former is a subcategory of the latter. There's even less point in putting them in the World Government category as well, for the same reason.

Aside from that, the fact remains that Klobis is one of the most useful editors on this wiki, and banning him for a significant period of time would greatly impact on this wiki's credibility as a One Piece encyclopedia (particularly given Jopie's extended absence). I'm aware this doesn't excuse poor conduct, but if you compare what Klobis has done with say, SeaTerror (who engaged in more edit wars, but was less useful to the wiki), I'm struggling to see how the benefits of banning him would outweigh the costs. 07:42, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

@Kuro "most of the users "defending" Klobis only drag their feet and be as difficult as possible" It would be best to avoid this kind of "argument", thanks. It's not the first time you do this, judging from this forum. That's highly unpleasant. Anyway, those dragging their feet would be those who claim he's edit warring without providing explanation, and don't show where. As I already said, since he's come back, he did not edit war without giving reasons, as far as I know. And every time he was told to stop, he did. If I am wrong, then examples of this behavior should be linked on the forum. All examples given by Galaxy and Jade weren't of such behavior and weren't banworthy, as Zodiaque clearly showed in the post above mine.

JSD you said that Kolbis edits something and then when someone ( like galaxy or any editor ) undos his edit then he starts an edit war with them and dosent give any reasons, but why should galaxy ( or any other editor ) undo his edits in the first place if they make some sence ( as for the examples galaxy and jade provided for his edits defcris explained everything about them - and to me those seem like legitimate reasons . )

I know some time ago Kolbis didn't gave any reasons for his edits after an edit was but now he tries to ( at least thats what I can see ) and, from what I can see why are the editors ( like galaxy and some others ) undoing Kolbis's edits...( you cant undo someone's edits just because he didn't gave a reason for it - lots of users dont. - its not like Kolbis told defcris why he made those edits but defcris still carefully checked them - and as you can see all ( most ) of those are legitimate edits. ) I dont think its Kolbis who is starting the edit war but the people who are undoing his edits. (I mean if ; for example make an edit on some page ( and it makes sense ) but someone is undoing my edits again and agin just because he thinks that I did some thing wrong ( because he probably didnt checked (or i didn't gave a reson) my edit of just because I am ( me ) undid my edits ) so then who do you think is the real cause of the edit war - ovoiusly its not me but some user who is undoing my edit again and again even though it makes sense). I dont think there is even any need for a poll. 08:14, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Defchris this isnt that ban worthy has you guys make it seem, even though i agree that Klobis could be a LOT more helpful if he discussed the reasons to some of his reverts and undos. User:X-RAPTOR 09:22, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

I know I said I'd refrain from commenting further, but this needs to be asked. For those defending Klobis, just as you require links proving his detrimental behaviour I'd like to ask you all to show proof that keeping Klobis would be beneficial to this site. Rather then just dismissing arguments against him as your only means of defence, please be a little more proactive and show concrete evidence of Klobis' benefit to this website. Something he provides that isn't easily replaced. Something that might actually outweigh his detrimental aspects.

From my personal perspective, and from dealing with him directly more so then you who defend him, Klobis comes off as nothing but aggressive, non-responsive and biased. He plays to the support of others, but then stabs them in the back when all else fails. I (and others) try to be open and communicative, only for him to blatantly ignore us.

If you really want this forum to end, convince us he's not. If that's what you really believe. 10:22, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then go on with this forum. With that kind of attitude to boast into a wiki and kick out users that know One Piece like not many others here no one can really stop the nominators from starting another poll anyways.
 * Klobis already has been very much benefitial to this wiki through his edits on World Timeline as he was the one who corrected the fandom crap and by bringing up and correcting original writings . Every edit of his that is not reverted is beneficial - but it's easy to ignore them if you only concentrate on your edit wars against him. It's not like his beneficial edits are unhidden only to those supporting Klobis.
 * On the other hand, supporting a completely useless image now really is meaningful work in this wiki. I mean, I hate being backstabbed. But what really makes me puke is this complete hypocrisy on "being beneficial". -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:26, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks have no place on this site. I'd be careful of what you say and imply. 15:52, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then go open it NOW as I'm not going to back off while you constantly ignore what I'm actually trying to say. Maybe that's why Klobis refuses to talk especially to you? We all can see here how you turn other users' words like the way you want. BTW, it's been you who crossed the ad hominem line in this discussion. Klobis has 11.000+ edits - more like most of us while you brought up the part on being "benefitial to the wiki" which is simply downright nonsense as you completely ignore that he already prove to be benefitial to the wiki and we would have to ban many blog-only users for being not benefitial. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 18:34, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to ban users that are considered non-beneficial to the wiki? What the heck? This is not the question. We're banning users who don't respect rules. It's up to those wanting to ban him to prove his behavior was unacceptable.

@Jai: Nobody isn't looking at the content of Klobis' edits. Nobody is blindly undoing them simply because they are edits made by Klobis. We aren't undoing him out of petty grudges. His edits are undone because the content of the edit should be undone. I think that every image image I've added back into an article because Klobis took it out should be in the article, I think that (most of the time) when he reverts an image to a manga one that it should be the anime as long as the anime image is good enough (though I don't generally do those reverts myself, that's more Galaxy). We aren't being catty and prejudiced against his edits.

In regard to the edits over categories (specifically the World Government ones) I don't think those should be taken into account here. He undid edits on their first day (Galaxy had freshly added the categories hours before) and I actually agree with him. Since at least two users disagreed on the issue, a a forum was edited to address that issue. And the edit warring over the categories has stopped while the forum goes on, which is what should happen with any user. Klobis has done nothing wrong in this issue. That being said, I still think the edits regarding images warrant the ban alone. 17:13, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

You have been given evidence. The problem is, your stance will not change no matter how much evidence we give. 23:45, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

There has been no evidence: changing pictures is not forbidden, changing categories is not forbidden—and that's all I saw on this forum. He was first banned for edit warring without giving reasons. As far as I know, he stopped: he gives reasons when people disagree with his edits, and if they still disagree or take it to the talk, he stops. If you want to ban him, you need to prove he did wrong. Otherwise, it's all too easy to ban someone that's generally not appreciated. There needs to be real reasons, and there needs to be evidence.

You can continue to deny the evidence all you want. He is edit warring still and we have linked several sources above. 13:31, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Not even answering my arguments? Oh my. I looked at every link above and saw no edit war. If they're so easy to find, just why don't you show them? I don't get it.

Sff9 is right, as matter of fact you are complaining about him uploading manga images, the fact he think they are better is his personal opinion as well the fact the anime images should be preferred is your personal opinion. I, for example, sometimes prefer the anime version and other times prefer the manga one, I do not thing a rule can be ever set. This forum looks like to me that just because in this wiki more users prefer anime images you decide to directly ban him. If you think about it, Klobis could have nominate all of you for a ban for the same reasons you stated here. If you don't like a picture uploaded, you revert iy, if your edit is reverted back, you try again give a summary, if that's just go on, you add Edit war and open a discussion on the file talk page and try to get consensus and if an agreement is not reached then you start a poll. You know what? You convince me, Klobis should be banned again because he didn't do that... he should be banned along with all users who reverted him, for the same reasons. That would be actually fair. Please note that this is not a personal attack or whatever, I'm trying to point out the relativity of the situation and reasoning by absurd.

The problem is that he is reverting these images for no reason at all. We revert him with reasons and he'll revert back without one most of the time. We don't cause the edit wars, he does. A recent thing he did is http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Fishman_Island_Arc?action=history. Check JSD's revert that has a reason ,and then Klobis's edit afterwards that doesn't have a reason. And really, the things linked above are evidence enough and it's only you and Levi who don't see it. If Klobis had posted in this forum that he would start giving reasons, stop reverting without reason, and stop EDIT WARRING then this would be called off entirely. Go ahead and try to leave a message about it on his talk, he'll just ignore you. Oh, and I guess you guys just ignored the fact that he sockpuppeted through his last ban? 14:01, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'll give you that, but I see many times in this wiki important edits or reverts without summaries, so a ban is over-reacting in my opinion. What about SeaTerror case then? He did much worse then klobis... I won't say since he wasn't banned (by us) then klobis should not be banned too, but than I just don't understand the ban criteria we are using, that's all.


 * By the way, here, here, here and here I can see summaries in klobis' edits.

@Gal, I too blame Klobis for not explaining his edits enough, but as Levi said, that's not enough to get banned, really. Thanks for trying to give proofs—but I'm still waiting for evidence of edit war. About the sockpuppet thing, it's a different matter, it should not be discussed along with other grudges—it's important to not be fuzzy about ban reasons. We must settle these matters independantly (but if you think it should be discussed now, feel free to open a new section).

I'm willing to let this die, since Klobis has stopped, but the sockpuppeting section will remain open until we find out. Klobis please just admit that it was you so that the punishment isn't as harsh. If anybody has any oppositions to this section being closed, then feel free to continue posting in this section, but I'm done until he starts doing what he was being nominated for again. 00:06, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. In the days after this forum got a lot of attention (aka when it was really bitter) Klobis has started being more reasonable. The explanations and the like have been helpful. I'd love to get a bit more communication out of Klobis, but it's definitely not at ban-level proportions anymore. If you're reading this Klobis, I am pleased. 02:54, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting
Another issue that came up with Klobis was him sockpuppeting through his last ban. If you check User:El_Baal you can see that it was blocked and had the same edit habits and the convenient join date of the day of Klobis's ban. He was never punished for this and I feel it needs to be addressed here too. 00:35, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, we can't just suddenly assume that just because the user has suspicious traits it is automatically a sockpuppet. It could be simply mere coincidence and nothing more. Remember to always assume good faith. Imagine every molecule in your entire body spontaneously exploding at the speed of light (talk) 00:50, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.. no. It's not a coincidence when someone joins an hour after Klobis is banned and acts just like him. 01:18, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

And it can still be a coincidence. 01:20, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

He edited at the same general times of day as Klobis, and made the same kinds of edits as Klobis. When that user made the account, I assumed good faith, but after looking at his patterns of edits for a couple days, that good faith was broken. The only way to really 100% know would be if Klobis admitted it was sockpuppeting (not to say that he could get away with it by denying it, either) of if we did some crazy IP lookup that I think only staff can do. With all the evidence we have at this moment, I think it is safe to assume that Klobis and El Baal are one in the same. 01:25, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

@Weirdo, this post does you credit, but really, the coincidence is highly improbable. Just check his edits. Plus, neither El Baal nor Klobis ever answered these accusations (neither confirming nor invalidating them). I would be less surprised to learn that ST is actually Eiichiro Oda in disguise than to be proven that El Baal's edits don't come from Klobis. However, Weirdo is right in that it's problematic to punish someone not based on facts… I think before deciding anything, we should have the staff check IPs. But then they would probably take a decision themselves, maybe harsher than ours. Still, it would be fairer than just assuming. What do you think?

I can check that user, but: I'll let you know.
 * 1) First I have to check with the staff that I can tell you if or if not it was Klobis or not. I absolutely cannot reveal IPs for privacy reasons, but maybe I can just say if they are (probably) the same person. This is not VSTF do, but since I'm also an user here I can just avoid you the usual procedure of asking the staff.
 * 2) For technical reasons, the IP record may be not available anymore (I mean the oldest records). This should have been done before.

Will the IP even be the same? He got IP banned in the first place so wouldn't he have to change his IP address in order to sockpuppet? 20:20, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, it appears I cannot tell you this information... :P Please ask an admin to send a request to Special:Contact, if you want to know.