Forum:SeaTerror

SeaTerror has been arguing against the final results vote polls lately, even with the votes are clearly against what he wants personally. He insists on using the extra "u" simply based on "Hyouzou" when it was already decided to not use the extra "u" unless Oda states otherwise, and among other things. He stubbornly makes changes without first explaining, leading to editing wars, and his attitude of response is not exactly polite. It has been suggested that he is to be banned for one month. Please discuss about your opinions on how to deal with him. 07:50, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
Can you go into detail regarding "among other things"? Preferably with links so people can exactly understand what you are referring to?

Because he didn't edit the Hyozo page for months and there is no talkpage activiy either? 10:00, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Since Hyouzou was romanized shortly after the discussion ended, he tried to argue that all names should have the u in them with Hyouzou being the basis. He's been rude on forums, like the raws and scans one. He starts edit wars without talking about anything first. 20:35, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

The trouble I would have is that I've been out of it, I don't quite like talking about memebrs I vaguely known and while you've spoken out, we've got little evidence in front of us from recent memories. From the incidents I have had with Sea, yeah there have been disagreements more so then most members but its not constant. Heck when it comes to that, I've been more of a problem recently since I popped back into existence from out of no where due to net loss. If there is a problem with Sea, we need his side of things here. One-Winged Hawk 20:46, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

DP > That's not true, he did not argued that all names should have double u's, he wants macrons, and that makes sense. Here is the discussion. About rudeness, I don't recall him having been more rude recently than before, and ditto for edit wars—but I wasn't really active lastly. What are you and Yatanogarasu referring to exactly?

Where is this forum even located? I only saw it because of luck. I don't see anything wrong with arguing against poll results. By that logic every single person in every single country should be arrested for arguing that their elected leader should not have been elected. Also show me where I was rude in the RAW discussion. I did argue that before and still think they should be all double u's, however I flat out said macrons should be used because it is the most neutral. SeaTerror 02:55, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, you keep insisting us to do it your way, even after polls have been passed. You keep talking about it, complaining, to the point that we cannot ignore, and not in a nice way. 04:16, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't like a decision that's been passed by vote without discrepency doesn't mean you can argue against it. You gave your opinion in the discussion section, the poll was held, after that you can't do anything. A decision was made, even if you don't like it. A while ago you complained about Klobis moving pages without supplying reasons. By getting rid of what is potentially interesting or relevant trivia without a reason why, you're doing the same thing he was doing. Then someone undoes it, and then the edit war starts. Your latest example would be the bit of trivia on Soran's page. Decisions that get passed are finite, and unless there is something seriously wrong with the decision, like one that could affect the whole wiki, there is no reason in arguing against them because it won't accomplish anything and only makes you look like you don't care what the outcome of the vote is. 05:37, August 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Hm, I'm not sure, but it seems you mean one cannot discuss once a poll has been held. That's not true, you can never forbid people to discuss even after a vote. Especially when time has passed and new elements have appeared, like in the Hyouzou case. And if you think voted decisions are finite unless there are serious problems, it would be quite important that you discuss it here.)

What I meant was he's argued against polls almost the second they're over after a decision has been passed, as if it weren't over and done and no decsision was made. He just ignores the results and presses his argument. 14:45, August 13, 2011 (UTC)

"Just because you don't like a decision that's been passed by vote without discrepency doesn't mean you can argue against it."

So you mean you want a totalitarian wikia instead of a democratic one. Big Brother does not belong on here. There is nothing wrong with arguing against results. The only thing that would make it wrong is if I changed everything back to the way it was after a vote passed. SeaTerror 05:57, August 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguing is one thing, but arguing non-stop and clearly going one argument (yours) against 10 people who voted against you... The way you argue is cynical and rude. We try to be polite and accepting here. 06:51, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

I just got one more thing to add now: look at SeaTerror's comment in Talk:Black Rhino FR-U IV, where he had suggested that all vehicles are to be merged into one page. He said a "small discussion" in the Talk:Vehicles, but in truth he simply placed a statement and nobody talked about it anymore. That's a sign of arrogance and rudely expecting everyone to follow what you say. 21:08, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

That is how you interpetate (correct?) it. I disagree, I think he is misunderstood on many occasions.

What other way is there to interpret it? He lied and said a discussion took place to try to get his way. If a discussion didn't take place, then why say that one did? A statement is not a discussion. 18:31, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

No I did not lie. That was your fault for not even looking in the right place and then trying to claim I lied about it. http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Fighting_Techniques SeaTerror 21:43, August 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey,when does the vote end?--

Never it seems. SeaTerror 18:04, August 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * There should have been a date on this... Why don't we vote to just close it now? Lol. One-Winged Hawk 19:34, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

HOW LONG??????????????????...can I assume the poll is closed?....--

So he got lucky. 17:23, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a 9-5 poll "lucky". 17:52, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Voting
POLL IS NOW CLOSED

Should SeaTerror be banned for 1 month?


 * Yes
 * 1)  20:11, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:06, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Klobis 11:21, August 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Imhungry4444 09:24, August 23, 2011 (UTC) im just being an ass seaterror, its nothing personal
 * 5) Ruxax 09:07, August 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * No
 * 1)  (I don't always appreciate his attitude but that's not worth a ban)
 * 2)  20:47, August 19, 2011 (UTC) (There is no rule against arguing and "he is rude" is too subjective, especially without clear references, quotes etc.)
 * 3)  23:06, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree with Jinbe
 * 5) Yountoryuu 16:53, August 21, 2011 (UTC) I think one month is too long. I say one week max.
 * 6)  06:04, August 22, 2011 (UTC).//not a good idea//
 * 7) One-Winged Hawk 08:56, August 23, 2011 (UTC) Rather then banning, someone should be talking to Sea and getting any matters settled. I've seen worst editors around the wikia system.
 * 8)  (..doesnt matter ok)

Part 2 Begins
Due to his insulting ways and editing war on World Timeline, SeaTerror is facing another ban. Please discuss. 10:28, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Part 2 Discussion
Yes, SeaTerror was a good editor, like DrunkSamurai, but as time goes, both of them start to insult others and arrogantly change things back without good reason, causing conflicts. The prime example is [ history of this page], you can see his insults above his editing war. 10:39, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, first, there are always one or more parts involved in an edit war, and unless one party strictly acts against a vote/decsion made by the community, the problem can't be simply placed on one's head alone. As far as I can see it, there is no decision made on the matter, and we all know that a vote is necessary if the regulars don't agree. And ST is certainly a regular. So the topic itself can't warrant a ban if we are honest.

Now to insulting other users. I browsed through the history and the revamp discussion and filtered what I think could be regarded as "insulting".

From the discussion:

1) You're the only one who considers them approximate. You ignore the fact that if he wanted it to be approximate he would have said the word about. Look up the word about in the dictionary. You might learn something in your life for once.

2) You're a retard who doesn't know what a troll is. Quit being a fucking idiot. Jesus Christ. If Oda intended it to be approximation then he would have implied so by putting the word "about" before every date. You want to change Roger's death now too?

From the history:

Quit drinking so much and read the talk page for once.

Klobis is the troll who ignores ongoing debates.

So, uhm...I'm usually against banning people, and especially not trusted regulars like SeaTerror..but I understand that the second comment goes a bit far.

Personally, I think if Seaterror would (honestly) apologize to the users offended a ban isn't necessary. However, I was not the one insulted and I think only they can accept or decline an apology.

If he doesn't, one week should be enough. 11:41, January 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I added another sentence.
 * Ah it was already listed, sorry Jinbe...

I agree with an apology from ST towards the ones he insulted, he should just with a warning this time. A troublemaker from time to time he is, but getting him banned is still a little too much. I would go with an apology and a warning, and only if he doesn't agree on some conditions, I will agree with a ban.

And just to clarify, with an honest apology I don't mean showing up on the forum with a "sorry". Talk pages must be visited, preferably leaving more than one line of regret. 11:57, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Not a ban. He is a regular user, a ban would be bad. Not a good enough reason to ban him. If you warned him he would have stopped. I know its bad to talk like that in a talkpage, but if you warn him, he'll understand.. He is not a kid. I dunno what happened with DrunkSamurai, but SeaTerror only proved his point strongly.. Talk to him and he'll understand. No need to ban him, even for a week.

I think a big issue is his way of handling a discussion, well I don't know if he deserve a ban for this reason, but I think is far more important that a random insult. I think it's a problem, because when he stubbornly keep his position while negating everybody's opinion and never provide some reasonable argumentations, he just stall the discussion for weeks and force the community to vote on matters that can be solved just by talking (and still complaining after the issue is solved). I off course don't expect that everybody agrees on the same thing because we can have different opinions, but when I was involved in discussions with SeaTerror I often received a "Nope, that's wrong, you have to prove it"-like answer every time I tried to argument my opinion. Here all his answers on the World Timeline talk page: Other examples are Mt. Colubo and Shirley discussions. Sincerely, after a while you fell like giving up and I start wondering if he is mocking us (obviously I hope he doesn't). In a discussion you argue your opinion and try to convince the others that you are right, but you should take in account that you may be wrong too (of course it counts for me too) and if things don't go your way get over it, I think everybody in this wiki has one or two things that don't like but the wiki agreed to do so. I don't like having a tense relationships between users, so I hope we will solve this issue soon enough.

I think that this is the second time that he has been nominated for a ban, and if the first time acts as a warning (and he didn't change his ways) a ban is what we need. We need consequences for people that do something wrong, or else people will know that they can get away with it. SeaTerror is a great editor, but sometimes he is counterproductive to the interests of the wiki, as shown several times in various edit wars and talk pages. A straight ban might take off the desire to argue the way he does. 13:30, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Mermaid Princess was a recent page I had a go at Sea for. Everyone on the talk page discussed and decided for merging it with Poseidon. I made the move after it was forgotten and while I did check things were alright, I also had to improve Poseidon so it fitted in with the rest of the wikia better. A little while later to my shock the link from Poseidon to Mermiad Princes, which I had removed due to the redirect, was back on its page, I followed the link and foun Merimaid princess was restored back to its unmerged stage. Sea had undone my edit.

Sea's excuse for undoing my edit was I hadn't moved all information over, however, I had checked everything related to the subject matter was on Poseidon before the merge. Still, simply undoing the entire redirectfrom Mermiad Princess to Poseidon was not helpful and Sea should have just edited and moved anything I left on Mermiad Princess when I redirected it to Poseidon. This is the most logically solution to the problem; undoing my edit just caused me to get peeved and have to repeat my edit to correct his undo.

Still, as annoying as it is, its still no grounds for me to side against Sea. We can't ask all editors to be perfect or to always do the sensible thing. I've already told Sea myself I didn't like what he did and as I am concern, its a minor issue in this case and not something I've found worth either arguing with or wanting him banned over.

HOWEVER, I've encountered this problem with Sea before, in that rather then just sort and discuss things with the editor or even correct the mistake, he rushes to undo the edit. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 16:47, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

First one obviously no excuse. Second one you can read the edit history for that one. I snapped after he kept calling me a troll without even reading the talk page. Third one isn't as bad as it could have been but still something. I don't see how the 4th one can count as an insult, however. Also Leviathan we are allowed to bring up past discussions after about 3 months I think was decided. Maybe it was 4 or 6. Or that was just the blog edit debate for all of those months. Now obviously this isn't the place for it but I'm just saying. Also what about Shirley? SeaTerror 17:42, January 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think some of this is to do with a clash of egos and opinions, nothing more. I haven't seen Sea led a campaigne against anyone so while the insults are uncalled for and rude, I think its a little weak to call up the insults. Even then, the most its worth is a minor offence and honestly... Those insults from what I read here aren't that big of a deal. Sea isn't stringing a hundred swear words together in a line or anything. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 17:55, January 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but is an apology really too much to ask for? 18:13, January 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry Shirley has nothing to do in this discussion, I instinctively put it together with Colubo. I just bring it to remark that you usually don't explain yourself very much and keep denying everybody's opinion while not provide counter-argumentations. As I said I fell this aspect more a "problem" then just some random insult, since it's this behavior that leads to "harsh terms" by both parts, although I don't know if a ban can be issued for this reason.

Not good reasons for a ban. If users have a problem with his behavior just tell him to not doing it or to apologize.

Just Give Him A Warning And Make Him Apologize

I don't care about him getting banned or not, and forced apologizes wouldn't change anything. I'd just appreciate that he learn how to debate.

Levi perfectly summed up the problem. I spent a lot of time trying to explain each point using different formulations, considering each of his arguments... just to get one-liners totally ignoring any point I made, and even enjoining me to check a dictionary so I learn something for once... Seriously? That's called trolling—even if his motivations are sincere. For the wiki system to work, we're supposed to ignore this.

Attention: that does not mean we're silencing him, not at all. Nothing keeps him from disproving our arguments. Nothing keeps him from opening polls to question something. But if we must open a poll before taking any decision just because one single person says "do not want!!!!11" without even discussing, that's just not possible.

That's why I asked the admins to tell him to stop reverting. This wasn't a ban request; that would be useless anyway. I don't know what makes you think he's not a kid LPK, but in my opinion he totally behaves as such—and I don't think he'd understand why he's banned anyway. There's no solution, he just needs to learn to be less self-centered and closed-minded; only time can do that.

I don't really have a problem with the reverting, but the thing that bugs me is the utter refusal to negotiate. There have been a few cases when it has basically been SeaTerror vs. five or more editors, even if they have decent evidence. While this is not "traditional" trolling, it is still inhibiting progress and preventing the wiki from operating smoothly. I don't know if this warrants a ban, but I think that he should at least consider reconsidering his behavior. 23:44, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

This is by far not the first time this kind of thing has happened, and I'm not just talking about the first time banning him came up. @Tuckyd and LPK, if it were that easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This isn't something that can be solved with something as useless as a miniscule slap on the wrist like you're suggesting. It needs something a little heavier. I don't know if banning will help, but it's sure as hell worth a shot. 01:07, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well, its only ban or no ban... Seems like this arguement is gonna lead to another vote.. I understand how Sff feels as he was the one who argued with him.. But, ban is just too much. Unless its only for 1 week.. I dunno.. And S eaTerror is not a new user, or some random troll. He is here more than a year.. Its just the same thing as the previous discussion..

I think 3 day ban is resonable

Nothing's gonna change in 3 days, so no.

Somehow i doubt that SeaTerror will change no matter how long of a ban we give him. 03:13, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

Your Probably Right lets say (since he has 2 strikes) 3rd stike yer' out! ok

Well, stubborn as he is, if he insists on editing war and even insulting people, and refuses to apologize (or apologizes and then does it again) then who agrees that is unacceptable behavior? 03:23, January 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * You will have to open a poll on this matter, but if he doesn't apologize (honestly) in the next 3 days, one week seems fine by me. 08:43, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yatanogarasu on this one. 03:44, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree

Ok then, what is the punishment going to be? 04:08, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

1 week would do nothing to him. But let's take a vote like before.

A vote on whether to ban him or not, and decide the consequences depending on the result of the poll, right? 13:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

We should structure the poll so that a vote for the longer bans also counts for a vote for the shorter bans if the longer ban doesn't pass. Otherwise the shortest ban might lose to the no ban faction despite the ban faction having more people because people can't agree on exactly how long they want him banned. Bastian964 01:28, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Also as people have said this is based on a long history of reverting while refusing to talk to the others (with occaisional insults, I can look some of them up if anyone doubts me). He has had many warnings from Yata warning him that he might be banned if he continues to a failed banning (which only encouraged him since he basically learned that he wouldn't be punished for his behavoir). I'm for a nice long month ban, but I'm aware most people only want 3 days to a week. Bastian964 01:41, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Shall we take a vote then

@One-Winged Hawk: Last time we voted you said instead of a banning, someone should talk to him and get him to change his ways. Well, he was talked to and nothing changed. I don't know if this will effect your opinion or not but I felt it needed to be said.Bastian964 01:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... you guys forgot to write when the vote will end...

Every vote lasts 2 weeks I think. The vote "rules" are "illegal". That is not how any poll works on this site. It wasn't even started by an admin. Remember the voting rules forum? You're saying if somebody voted for 6 months then their vote would have also counted for 3 months. SeaTerror 19:11, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

No, their vote would only count for three months if six months did not succeed. Think of it as they are voting for you to get banned for as long as possible but if they can't get that exact length they are willing to settle for less as long as you get banned. As for the rest of your complaints, they are quite frankly ridiculous. Admins don't have to start votes and vote structures depend on the specific matter at hand (not to mention that DancePowderer has voted and thus read and implicitly sanctioned the rules). Bastian964 00:48, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Now it is 4 days longer until the 26 not the 22 you happy?

It ends on 22.. Dont change it... Its plenty of time to decide..

The date had to be changed. SeaTerror was right on one thing atleast, whoever put up the original vote time did so in violation of voting rules. Votes must last 2 weeks, whereas the time given was ten days. Bastian964 01:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It ends on 22.. Plenty of time to vote. And doesnt matter if the 'creator' changed it..

I was the one who originally put the date up stop your bickering and I do think 10 days is plenty of time Bastian

LPK: We have rules on this wiki on how long votes must last. If you don't like those rules, you should start a forum to get them changed. Until such time as you succeed at that, votes must meet the required time. Bastian964 01:28, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of any voting rules aside from the 3 month/300 edit requirement. Link or it didn't happen. 01:30, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Bastian... What?? -- We have rules on this wiki on how long votes must last-- We decide that when we choose a date. You just cant change it when the fuck you want? Ok? You just cant decide to change it to 4 days longer like that.

You will note that the date was added long after the vote was started. However, I really don't care whether the vote is ten days or 14 days, as long as it meets forum guidelines and if I remember correctly (and SeaTerror of all people seem to agree with me) votes must be 2 weeks long. If that is wrong, I'm more than happy to have a ten day vote. Bastian964 01:41, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

If you won't link that 'forum' then no, sorry..

As I said, I really don't care how long it is, I just want to make sure it meets guidelines. As I seem unable to find any guideline related to how long a vote must last, I was clearly mistaken. Sorry for the confusion. Bastian964 01:50, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

No I am right. Basically if it was reversed you would say that 5 people voted for 2 weeks while 2 people voted for a month. So you're saying their vote counts like that. Then if somehow no ban got say 8 votes but 2 weeks got 4 and a month got 7 you would count the votes altogether. That is now how voting works on this wikia at all. SeaTerror 02:31, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

The voting method now that I look at it looks completely stupid! It should go like this:

Do you want ST to be banned?

Yes

No

If you have chosen yes, then for how long?

Period of time 1

Period of time 2

Period of time 3

First ask if the answer is yes or no! Some people might think that all option votes are EQUAL, to avoid confusion and to have a normal and good decision, I demand a revote!

I agree with Rici on this one. On the current vote, if each section of the "for the ban" gets less votes than the "no ban", but the total amount of "for ban" votes is higher than the "no ban" votes, who wins? 02:58, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

If the no ban gets more votes than the ban for a month but not the total amount of votes for his banning than the votes for one month go to the next level, 2 weeks, if that doesn't beat no ban than all of those votes are taken and combined with ine week and so on and so on.

Nope. That is not how it works. The votes only count for that one particular poll option. Of course the person can change their vote if they want to until the vote is over. SeaTerror 04:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Technically, you're the one on trial, so you cannot go against the rules. Anyways, if the number of people wanted you blocked exceeds the number of people who want you to stay, then regardless of how long each person wants you blocked, you should be blocked. 06:02, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * This wiki does not tolerate vandalism and edit wars without proper negotiations. You got off lucky that we even put a no ban option to give you a chance altogether. 06:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * "Lucky" that we put a no ban option up? Keep your personal vendetta out of this Yata. 12:13, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. That isn't the rule since that was never part of the voting rules. If you do it like this for this vote then you do it like that for the rest. Plus Bastion was the one who did it. Not an admin so it doesn't count for more than one reason. That is not how a vote works. If the person votes for one thing that means they are voting for that one thing and not the other thing. SeaTerror 06:12, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

You guys are quarreling on nothing... there is no problem in the current poll. Actually it's pretty clever, Rici said that it should be like "Do you want ST to be banned? If you have chosen yes, then for how long?"", but that's exactly what we are doing, since everyone who voted for a ban option would have voted for "yes" in the first option. The aren't any specific rules on how to make a poll. As I said this method is pretty clever, since it spares a question, my praise to who came up with it. If you think about it, if you don't put the first question (Do you want ST to be banned?) nor count the votes as we do now, the poll is unbalanced in favor of the no ban option.

Also, there is no rule that only admins are allowed to open polls or start ban discussions. Even if we had such a rule, it wouldn't work with the wikia's system of a being a community based project. Just imagine an admin going power crazy, who if not the regular editors would host a discussion and a poll to remove him/her from the position? Central wiki is full of stuff like that. 15:02, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

You totally misread that. Bastian made the cumulative "rule." Which an admin did not. The voting rules were only for how many months, edits, and if blog votes count or not. That is not how a poll works on the wikia. SeaTerror 17:57, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a condition necessary to vote, it's only a matter of how make the poll. We could have ask before if there is the need of a ban, then asking for what length, but wouldn't that have the same results of this? I don't understand... are you thinking that this is "not fair"? It's the same.

I already said why. If 4 people vote for one month and 6 people vote for 2 weeks but 9 people vote for no ban that means you are combining poll options to make it 10 votes instead of the 4 and 6 votes that are actually there. SeaTerror 18:08, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem, since if we do like we did for the first time we voted or as Rici said (first asking ban/no-ban, then what length), in the case you mentioned, it would be 10 votes for banning against 9 votes for no ban, then 6 votes for two weeks ban against 4 votes for one month ban, result two weeks ban, the same result of your example. If we decide to add the first question, it's fine to me since it's the same.

You are missing the point once again. When somebody votes for something that means their vote only counts towards that option they voted for. Of course the person can change their vote up to until the vote is over. This is not how voting works on this wikia because there were only ever 3 rules voted on. I should have said this before but here: The only rules that were voted on were how many edits, how long the person was here, and if blog edits counted or not. SeaTerror 17:50, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

... Well I already said what I have to say, am I the only one who think there is no problem at all? I still can't follow you there.... It's just a matter of question wording to me, I don't understand why are you talking about major wiki's rules, as I said it's the same as asking separately if ban you or not and then for what length. (forgot to sign)

It isn't the same at all. The way the poll is now is implying if the no ban has 10 votes but 1 month has 9 and 2 weeks has 2 then that means you are trying to combine the votes. If somebody holds a vote to change Luffy's color scheme to black and 5 people vote to keep it as red but black gets 7 votes are you saying that those 5 people actually voted for the color black? SeaTerror 17:47, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Your example is off: it should be a vote for changing Luffy's colorscheme with No change, Version 1 and Version 2 as options, so if 10 people votes for No change, but 8 people vote for Version 1 and 4 people for Version 2, then it's obvious that the majority doesn't want to keep the colorscheme. We don't combine votes since those options are sub-options of change the colorscheme, we just skip asking if you want to change the colorscheme first, if you want a new version naturally you want to change it. Then what do you think is the correct method to hold this poll? I bet it's If it's this what you think, then everybody who vote for any ban length will consequentially vote in favor of the ban in the first option, there you go.
 * Should SeaTerror be banned?
 * Yes
 * No
 * If yes, for how long?
 * 1 month
 * 2 weeks
 * 1 weeks

The vote is fine as it is. There's no need to discuss it. It will give you the same results.

Nope. The poll is fine how it is minus the (or less if this doesn't pass) part. When you vote you only vote for one option. Your vote does not automatically go onto the next one. That is the only invalid part of this poll. SeaTerror 02:51, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I changed it when the poll was made, but 'someone' undid me..

Ok, let's clear this up. If there are 11 people voting for a ban (but of different lengths) and there are 7 people voting for no ban, then that means 4 MORE people want a ban than the people who want no ban. So no matter what, that is a ban. The length of the ban is what needs to be settled. Supposing "ban him" does win, and one length has 7 votes, and another has three votes. the one with seven votes is the time that will pass, correct? 03:21, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

You would say the same thing if no ban was the one that had the most votes. If somehow no ban gets say 12 votes and 1 month gets 10 votes but 2 weeks has 4 then you want to combine both poll options to make it so 2 weeks has 14 votes. That is not how it works. SeaTerror 03:44, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the poll option states "One month OR LESS if this option does not pass"or something along those lines. Or maybe it did when I voted. What I was trying to get across is that if there are 10 votes for "one month" and 4 votes for "2 weeks" and only 10 for "no ban" then you will be banned for at least two weeks. I probably could have said that better. 04:07, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

As admin, I support this voting method. Now let's ask DancePowderer. 06:36, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

ST did you read what I wrote? Is the example above what do you think it's the correct way to vote? Then I have already prove to you that there is no difference... you said this is not fair, but it's actually the opposite, since if you don't count the ban options all together then the poll is not balanced, since you should just add 10 more options of length to increase the chance of split the votes of those in favor of the ban. The poll is meant to ban or not to ban you, the lengths are just a secondary poll, it's not like asking what is your favorite character. If you really don't want to accept this, then let's add the straight question "Should SeaTerror be banned?".

It doesn't matter what you support. It only matters what the community supported in the original voting rules vote.

It is not the opposite at all. You cannot merge options just because you want to. A person who votes for one option isn't voting for the other option. Unless of course they later change their vote which anybody is allowed to do. SeaTerror 17:55, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

ST is actually right, if we are honest we can't simply conclude that people automatically jump to the next lowest banning length. Especially comments like "1 month ban, anything else is pointless" make this clear. 18:35, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Px15 even commented in this manner: (I don't think a short ban would solve anything.) 18:37, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Then let's separate the two things, but the point here was if the majority want to ban ST but no ban option win why he should "get away"? Jinbe it's not a matter of "jumping on the lowest ban" (the one month is the most voted anyway) the present poll is just saying "if you want to ban ST vote for a ban, the ban with most votes will win", in a poll with two separate questions if you vote for ANY ban you HAVE to vote in favor of the ban in the first question (otherwise your vote is contradictory and then one can argue if it is even valid) so again what's the problem? The "jumping on the lowest ban" as you said it's if a shorter ban gets more votes than a longer one, but in this case even in normal poll it would win. Removing the first question was meant to simplify things, but shall I add the first question and ask everybody who voted for a ban to answer that?


 * "It doesn't matter what you support." - you can just reject what I said by principle, I'm just using logic. The "voting rules" are those written in the poll's task, if you read it you are aware of how it works and then give your vote, that's all.


 * I see.
 * And I think this "It doesn't matter what you support." was directed to Yata, who said that he, as an admin, supports the vote. ST is right that him being an admin makes no difference. However, it is sure weird that his first argument began with the poll not being opened by an admin, and now that an admin supports it, its not good enough as well. Seriously ST, why is it so hard to apologize to the people you insulted? I understood your reasons and you probably really felt provoked by Klobis, but calling people fucking idiots on wiki related discussions is simply a no go. 19:27, January 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah I thought it was referring to me. Then about the poll? The no ban option is tied with the one month anyway.
 * How about we just leave it as it is for now, and then we are done, we can compile the votes for ban (every one of them) and the votes for no ban (all of them) and see which one wins. If ban wins, then we will decide the length afterwards. How does that sound? 19:53, January 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should simply go for no ban or one month ban, since they tied anyway. It was always common practice to start a new vote if there is a tie, and this way ST can't argue that we are going against the usual process. 19:58, January 16, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, that sounds ok to me. Honestly, I don't see what is so terrible about this, but I am open to change. 20:10, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Its too late to change the vote now anyway. That would mean people would have to revote all over again. What I have been saying is people can change their vote when they want so they can change it to 2 weeks even if they would prefer a month just so a ban happens. It isn't the same thing as how the vote is now and I would not care if they changed their vote that way because that is how all votes work on this site. SeaTerror 21:12, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Why is it too late to change it? We can give the new vote like two weeks, and post a message on the community messages asking editors to revote. 22:15, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to go that far, we can simply add the question "Should SeaTerror be banned? (yes/no)" and ask everyone who voted for a ban to answer that or change their vote accordingly, the deadline can remain the same. This way we will simply move the votes for no ban in the first no, that's all.

Nope, we wont change it now.. And if its a tie between 'No Ban' and 'Ban for 1 month', the users that voted for the other options will change their mind if they want to ban him or leave him alone.

So what, if the "No Ban" gets more votes despite more people want him banned, then SeaTerror gets away and can start insulting people and edit war all he likes again? I can't stand for such injustice. Sometimes you have to bend the rules to stamp out the bad. 02:45, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yata, no offense, but that is hypocritical. "Bend the rules?" Don't start anything. If you want him banned so bad, do it fair and square. And no, if "no ban" get one more vote than "ban for a month" but there are more overall votes for "ban him", he will be banned. 02:50, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

We cant change the vote now. When I deleted it and said we should wait and talk about the options first, Bastian undid my work. And im pretty sure if he insults people and starts edit wars again, just warn him on his talkpage and if he doesnt listen, just ban him. No need for a 3rd forum.

Right, my thoughts exactly, a third strike and he gets no more nice forums that he himself refuses to start up. 03:14, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many strikes. Different situations lead to different opinions and outcomes.

But it seems that you get what you want anyway, when I look at the current votes. 16:21, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, as the poll is now the "no ban" must win against all the bans put together, it's stated at the beginning so if you have voted you accepted this, then why don't we just add the first question like this We have simply to ask the people who voted for a ban to answer yes on the first question or change their vote accordingly, no need to reset or extend the poll's time.
 * Should SeaTerror be banned?
 * Yes
 * No
 * If yes, for how long?
 * 1 month
 * 2 weeks
 * 1 weeks


 * The problem is that people who would like a short ban are not likely to vote for him to be banned if it is likely he would get a longer ban than they want. As it is now, the poll can not be changed without more votes than the poll currently has, so discussing it is rather useless (even SeaTerror admits that changing the vote isn't really possible now).. Bastian964 16:56, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

So what about now? How will the votes be counted?


 * How about we knock off users in votes that mainly do nothing but commenting blogs and don't have 300 article edits? Special:Editcount can be used to check the quota. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 16:26, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Forum:The_Magic_1000_rule, it has already been decided that EVEN blogs comments and edits are to be counted. You should start of by not knocking off users that respect the rule, but by trying to change the rule.


 * No, that was decided that all kinds of edits count, my question is: since the poll is asking that the "no ban" must be higher than the ban votes, we should always stick to that. Or have we changed mind? I don't want polemics on this...

You already know how I feel about blog edits but you can't do anything about it unless you try to get the vote changed. SeaTerror 17:57, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well the vote is over now and it's a tie, so what's next?

No, there were more votes for "No Ban" Than "One Month". So, I think ST will not have a ban. Evanalmighty 11:52, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

The "no ban" votes must be higher then the "ban options", it's clearly stated in the poll... I suggest to make a definitive poll, with simply "Do you want to ban ST? Yes/no", this way there won't be complain on the result. Just a note, I find somewhat funny that while there is a discussion about ban him Sea still writes this kind of things "You are ignorant. You really cannot deny it. You are ignorant for saying "ou" is wrong when it is a main form of romanization." (SeaTerror 17:26, January 21, 2012 (UTC) - Forum:Name Spellings). It can happens in a "lively" discussion, but while we are thinking of ban him? It doesn't show he want to change his behavior...

I have never known the voting rules, but since you said that "no ban" must be more than "Ban options" so it is still a tie, and the worse case is that the vote is closed. How are we going to deal with it? Evanalmighty 12:16, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Leave these two sections only. And tell the others who vote for less, to vote or for 'no ban' or 'ban for 1 month' ...

How? Do they include those who have been active in this wiki for less than 3 months? Evanalmighty 12:23, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Eh?.....The others who vote for 1 week or 2.. To vote for these two only sections.

Done. 13:30, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

So, 11-10. Is ST not going to get a ban? Evanalmighty 13:37, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

...Fine... can't believe you people support this edit warring editor though... But one warning to SeaTerror: if you edit war or insult once again, you'll be banned without so much as a forum. 19:41, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense yata, but he won't. The community has decided for the 2nd time now that they're fine with it and you need to respect that. This is not the place for your personal issues with him. 19:48, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I also find it incredibly disrespectful that you're invalidating the point of this forum again. Last time you claimed he got lucky, and now you say you will ban him without further discussion. That's not how community decisions work. 19:51, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, alright, just wanting to prevent any future edit wars... they're just too counterproductive... 19:55, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to reword myself: from now on, can SeaTerror (and everyone else) please talk it through in a civilized manner via talk pages/forums before they do so many counterproductive edit wars? Thank you. 23:08, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Vote Again
A Vote for banning SeaTerror has opened.

Note on how this vote works: If the longest ban is less than the no ban or a lesser ban vote then upon tallying it is rolled into the next highest ban. If that isn't higher than the no ban or a lesser ban vote, it is rolled into the next highest and repeat until either the current highest ban vote has the most votes of any single vote section or the no ban vote wins.

Note2: If people wish a different ban length than one of the available options, they are encouraged to start a section for that ban length.

You must have/be: The Vote Will End on January 22, 2012
 * 300 Edits
 * 3 months here

For one week (or less if this doesn't pass)

 * 1) Troll King Imhungry4444 00:40, January 13, 2012 (UTC) (trust me a week off this site will go a long way for the more frequent and loyal users and editors.)

For two weeks (or less if this doesn't pass)

 * 1)  Ahou King MDM  Oi  Need Help?  02:01, January 12, 2012 (UTC) (2 weeks are enough to prepare for a new start

For one month (or less if this doesn't pass)

 * 1) Bastian964 02:03, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:05, January 12, 2012 (UTC) (I don't think a short ban would solve anything.)
 * 02:43, January 12, 2012 (UTC) What Pacifista15 said.
 * 1) Klobis 08:24, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 21:26, January 12, 2012 (UTC) again starting an edit war
 * 3)  04:17, January 13, 2012 (UTC) I agree with PX-15 and DancePowderer.

No Ban

 * 01:37, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:45, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) One-Winged Hawk 16:38, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Zoro-san 18:43, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15:19, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Pi ec e • En ri k •     talk   co   15:49, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:29, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 15:19, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  Pi ec e • En ri k •     talk   co   15:49, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:29, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:29, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 13:29, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

See the top of the vote for voting rules.

More discussion
Sea does do some good edits occusionally, I just want to note that. Regardless, the nuyumber of voters wanting a vote currently rests at 10 against 6, although not all of the 10 are wanting the same length of time, thus is pretty much certain sea a ban of some sorts. In fact, you guys should have first voted on if he needs to be banned or not before you slapped a vote on for length of time. The scernario you've created here in the poll is that you could have 15 people wanting a ban, but because there is 8 people on no ban and only a thte most, say 4, on any other option he could slip by without voting. Least thats want this poll gives the impression of. One-Winged Hawk 16:42, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * You miss the note at the beginning: Note on how this vote works: If the longest ban is less than the no ban or a lesser ban vote then upon tallying it is rolled into the next highest ban. If that isn't higher than the no ban or a lesser ban vote, it is rolled into the next highest and repeat until either the current highest ban vote has the most votes of any single vote section or the no ban vote wins. This is to avoid asking if you want the ban or not too, there was a little discussion on this in the last part of the discussion above.


 * I didn't miss it, it was confusing and hard to understand why you did it. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 19:00, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also as to why I'm confused... We do actually have old banning rules *somewhere* on the wikia, thus rendering the need to vote on "how long", a straight "for and against" was all that was need, the rest follows the rules until Sea renders himself in a complete ban if he kept doing the same thing. I'll try to find these old rules. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:05, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait I just remembered the other thing why this bugged me when I read it it hit me again just a mo ago. Just because the guys voting "no ban" don't want to ban Sea, doesn't mean if he is to be ban don't want to say how long he should be banned for. The poll completely shuts any further voting out by them, thus they cannot say anything else on the matter. If you had done a flat out "ban or no ban" poll, then the length poll that would have followed would have allowed the "no banners" to keep within the game and say "oh well, his going to be banned, guess all we can do is add our thoughts how long for". One-Winged Hawk 23:35, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

A proper list of edit wars and "user insults" should be created linking exactly to his edits in the history page in chronological order. We will use that to decide if he should be banned (for how long?) or not! What do the Guidelines say (we need your help Hawk) about the way to deal with this? Was SeaTerror warned beforehand about a ban for his behavior? The question here is not in regard to a yes or no answer. Everything I've noted above should be made into a table or list so that it's perfectly clear and neat about what we are talking about. Similarly to the one I made for Drunk Samurai, and although he gives me the same vibes, SeaTerror is nowhere near the level of DS. MasterDeva 17:32, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * SeaTerror was warned at least three times by Yata alone, he has already been put up for a ban once, and if there was a week where SeaTerror wasn't editing warring with someone, I will be extremely suprised. I'll look for a few examples of his behavior but an exhaustive list would take a long, long time to make. Bastian964 18:42, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not ask for an exhaustive list though. Just a simple and clean interface where people can see in a clear and simple way what we are talking about. Sure people can say anything they want but there should be link references backing up their statements. SeaTerror also raised a point about blog votes counting or not. These things should be discussed prior to that, One-Winged Hawk could also be of assistance since she is the oldest editor since this wikia's creation. MasterDeva 18:52, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think we have that much of a guideline to support this, its not really come up. There is a user guideline for banning vandlas and flamers, but not disacplining editors like this based on the fact they disagree and take matters into their own hands from time to time. If Sea was an obivous troll, then we'd have a call though. I think after this though you guys might want to then consider making it. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:00, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

sorryu for the multiple editing, I'm actually quite ill today and I'm remembering things as my illness lets me... Treatment_of_Vandalism is all we've got to act as a guidelines for banning someone. -_-

Yeah, after this poll sorts it out, we need to sort out the banment rules - ASAP. I read this page and its waaaay out of date to the wkias modern day needs. I don't blame anyone for this but its just its never really been that much called up on before. Its like the Image Guidelines not covering anime over manga images perference, something we just didn't think about at the time that would be a problem. So this page literally covers only vandalsim, i.e. as I mentioned, trolls, vandals and flamers. One-Winged Hawk 19:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly why I asked for your help. In a recent read of our Vandalism Guidelines I've found myself bewildered by some things. Or rather I remember them being more simple or used to be simple some time ago. A revision would be much needed to prevent future problems or misunderstandings. MasterDeva 20:01, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * The wikia will have to sort it out after Sea has been dealt with I think... Based on what happens here will likely effect it otherwise. ~When you consider I can't edit Image Guidelines anymore, which I created, without consenting everyone else and looking over the history of that page, theres been a few edits that should have been thrown in front of the rest of us to discuss first. When the wikia was small we had to make do, but now there is muliple egos here and you have to have a agreed rules that everyone has voting on. The "make it up as we go along" stage is gone in regarding the guidelines and rules. The only general edits that can be done without consent of the rest of the wikia should be ones correcting spelling and gramma, though you can't reword something to change its meaning entirely in the process. One-Winged Hawk 22:14, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

These are just a few of the recent ones that I bothered to look up. This is by no means as exhaustive list especially the ones older than a few days old (some of which were just looked up because I knew he insulted someone). Also note that most of the insults came from the page history. I didn't bother reading through the talk pages.

Edit Wars
 * -On the 12th Laughter Style (because apparently Chapter 0 wasn't a good enough source)
 * -On the 11th Void Century (page had to be protected and his edits reverted)
 * -From December 20th until January 10th World Timeline
 * -January 5th to 6th John Giant (solved by Yata)
 * -January 4th Template:Redhairedcrewmembers
 * -November 12th to 14th Usopp/Personality_and_Relationships
 * -November 12th to 14th Sanji/Personality_and_Relationships
 * -November 12th to 14th Tony_Tony_Chopper/Personality_and_Relationships
 * -November 6th to 9th User:SeaTerror/Fighting_Techniques
 * -November 6th to 9th User:SeaTerror/Superhuman_Strength (both of these because he was breaking the rules by having his personal pages in categories. Stopped by Yata.)
 * -October 22nd to 26th Template:Strawhat (stopped by Yata)
 * -October 10th to 11th and then November 13th to 15th First_Mate

Insults
 * -January 8 "How's your bridge?" World Timeline (Calling Defchris the admin of the german OP wiki a troll in response to Defchris's reversion note of "rv - Troll" as well as the discussion on the talk page.)
 * -January 8 "Klobis is the troll who ignores ongoing debates." World Timeline
 * -January 8 "You're a retard who doesn't know what a troll is. Quit being a fucking idiot. Jesus Christ"World Timeline
 * -January 4th "No you go to the talk page where it was already discussed you lazy ass" Template:Redhairedcrewmembers
 * -December 31st "Quit drinking so much and read the talk page for once." World Timeline ‎
 * - December 21 "You might learn something in your life for once." World Timeline
 * -November 14th "You deletionist scum are the only lazy ones." Tony Tony Chopper/Personality and Relationships (the lazy bit, but not the scum comment, does have some context because he said something couldn't be deleted until it was moved. I told him it already was in another page. He said prove it. I said he should read the page himself and then asked him "How lazy are you?")
 * -Octover 25th "Are you Stevie Wonder?" Template:Strawhat

Bastian964 19:44, January 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be a good start, I'll fix these later so they are clickable. Albeit some of the above can accurately reflect SeaTerror's usual attitude cases were he was provoked "Klobis calling him troll?" should be explained as such. MasterDeva 20:11, January 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to edit my post to post links or add entries, you can.Bastian964 20:20, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

The first 2 that you mentioned were not edit wars. I bet you didn't even actually look at it. John Giant was not an edit war either. Calling somebody a troll is not an insult so your first 2 are wrong. Also Angel, when I mentioned blog edits I was talking about the voting rules and not if the edits count or not. SeaTerror 17:50, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * My illness prevents me from thinking too straight right now on anything... Though I don't mean any disrespects throughout the whole process, your best adressing people directly next to their last messages otherwise they don't know what your talkingt about Sea. I don't know, even tha 1 event between you and I has no reason to be held as a gudge from me since someone else did the same a day later (reverting Mermiad Princess). I think the whole thing is just a case of someone just not settling the matter correctly, if they had disagreements with you Sea, they should have asked the rest of the edtiors to choose a side via voting. If everyone sided with you they were stuck in the cold and if they sided against you Sea you would be the one left unable to fight them. One-Winged Hawk 12:37, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

Part 3
SeaTerror's action in Talk:Krieg: he brought up an argument referring "Don" being Krieg's family name, a matter that was settled four months ago, and even after evidence obviously pointing "Don" is not a family name, he blatantly ignored that and stated otherwise. This is obvious trolling and vandalism. This is his third time, so another ban is in order, this time a longer one. 09:46, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Part 3
I don't know how he evaded punishment in the past two offenses, but this one has to take the cake. He is bringing up a long-settled problem, and deliberately going against the already given evidence (the bounty poster does not say "Don"). This is obvious trolling and vandalism, so I am asking the people who voted for his acquittal in the above polls to look clearly at this and just accept he is deliberately going against the wiki. 09:55, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the File talk:Scarlet Defeated.png. I mean, he wanted to keep a crappy name when we can simply rename it and make it easier to locate, interpret and gives the wiki a better outlook. WTF is with that? 10:03, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * And according to Sewil, ST tried to extend a poll without permission just because the results did not suit him .  10:04, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yata I just want to point out to you that the whole wiki is aware that ST trolls, this isn't news to anyone. 10:18, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, but look at the polls above, people didn't wanna ban him for his past offenses for whatever reason. What the hell is with that? 10:21, February 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * He was banned for 3 months by staff so I guess people felt that he has been punished. He does have a fair few friends on chat including myself so sometimes I guess people just don't want him to be banned. Other than that I have no idea. -- 10:27, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up long-settled problem is not really trolling or vandalism, you can do that if you have valid argumentations. Although the last cases mentioned by Yata are not ban-worthy in my opinion, the main problem is that his discussions are often counter-productive and with that I mean that he basically reject others' opinions without caring for explaining his reasons or just answering with a plain "no". This is counter productive and honestly a bit annoying too, because you cannot have a discussion like that with the only consequence that the wiki "stops for him". This behaviour was the main reason why this forum was already revamp two times, so although the last actions aren't so severe, as I said before, it looks like he still has not learned how to have a proper discussion. That's the real problem.

Correct, since he is insulting with poor discussion skills, that is the main problem. Thanks for pointing it out. 11:20, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I sometimes have the feeling that ST argues things just for the sake of arguing and being complicated. It sometimes is good to have a devils advocate, but recently he overdoes it. 13:28, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Panda. ST seems to me to be like that kind of person, not that I mind it anyway though. He can argue if he has a decent reason for arguing, that's my insight when it comes to this kind of case. I think you've maybe been going too easy on him before, and now you see what that results to. Anyway I don't see how he has changed on the subject, if not just growing worse... WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 15:11, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

When's the last time he had a decent reason? His argument on the Krieg talk page was basically opposite the very notion that got it moved to Krieg the first place. It was decided that it was a title months ago with generous evidence given in support of it. Then here he goes and just says it's wrong and should be moved back, for no actual reason. Devil's advocate or not, it was obvious he just revived that topic to piss people off. And I doubt he'll stop there. And leave chat opinions out of this, that is a separate space from the matter entirely. 19:29, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Granted, a lot of this stuff is really stupid, I haven't really seen anything that makes me think "ban ST" yet. None of it seems malicious (or at least in a way that can be proven) or anything, and it's mostly just stuff said on talk pages, not during edit wars. I'm not saying that he should or shouldn't be banned or that his actions are sound, just that I haven't seen any that is "ban worthy" to me. 21:12, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Jesus this guy comes from a 4 month ban and after he has this minor argument and someone gets butthurt over it and opens a 3rd part for this,srsly this is getting old quite fast :/ ... User:X-RAPTOR 22:38, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why the hell does everyone stand up for that guy, he makes these annoying and obviously rebellious arguments and nobody wants to stop him. 00:00, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I think in the case of the Krieg talk page, another user renamed the page back to Krieg, so SeaTerror wasn't the one who started that one. That being said, he did act pretty immature on the talk page about it. 00:16, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

So if he didn't start it, why did he argue that Don Krieg was right when it was clearly wrong for any other reason besides wanting to be bothersome? It's this under the radar shit that pisses me off the most. Like Pandawarrior said, he's just doing it to be difficult and waste our time as we try (futilely, and for reasons beyond me) to tell him otherwise. Also, if we know he trolls to such an extent, why do we deal with it rather than getting rid of it? If you have a splinter, you don't decide to live with it, you pull it out since it's not doing anything useful and is just annoying. 03:02, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * To help that analogy, the longer you keep a splinter in, the more difficult and painful it is to take out. (I learn from experience)  04:08, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Then why did people decide to keep that splinter in, rather than pull it out right now? He's being a really big pain, with all these counterproductive edits and wars. 04:13, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, he's digging himself deeper and people in the above polls did nothing but support it. I wanna ask: WHY? 04:15, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Ban polls are usually voted on due to personal preference. Most of those people didn't want him banned (they were either his friend, enjoyed talking to him, etc). Community bans always work like that if the user is known. 04:18, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Gawd, he got so much underworld support. We really have to find a way out of this loophole and have the proper punishment placed on ST. 05:06, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * Executive privelige? 05:17, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's not biased on his favor, then why not? 05:20, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not opposed to his ban out of bias or anything, just simply that I haven't seen him do anything since his last ban that I think is ban-worthy. But what I'm really curious about is why he hasn't posted in here to argue with us... 05:25, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently arguing on this wikia is now trolling and vandalism. By this logic we should be banning every single person who has ever commented on a forum/talk page/blog. I even stopped commenting on the Krieg talk page yet people kept it going. Besides the fact I wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. The image file name was fine how it would have been named and you never even read the talk page since you broke the rules due to the fact that multiple people wanted it named the other name. I also didn't try to extend the poll without permission. DP was the one who said it first and the fact that votes are supposed to be 2 weeks is why that was going to be extended in the first place. Underworld support? You're trying to make me out to be John Gotti or something. The other two ban forums were justified. This one isn't. You only made this new section because I called you out on stuff you did recently. Such as deleting the emoticon image for no reason and letting your extreme hate for fansubs/scanlations cloud your judgement. Also there has to be a vote first regardless unless there is obvious vandalism. That is the site rules. Also, Just my computer is screwed up right now. I'm in safe mode. I'm going to attempt to see if my sister's Ipad can work tomorrow. SeaTerror (talk) 05:33, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

(Damn edit conflict) Ban worthy: he is going against us by bringing up a long settled argument deliberately going against evidence, one edit war after another, insulting remarks hidden under subtlety, and he even rudely barked at me for deleting a useless image and renaming another obvious one. Why he isn't participating, I don't know. 05:34, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

He's been telling me all day in chat he'll do it "later", and he replied above. His computer is messed up. 05:36, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

@ST, The evidence was clearly against Don, four months ago. You brought that up after the storm died down, and went against obvious evidence. 05:37, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sonic2479 I didn't bring it up. SeaTerror (talk) 05:41, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Irony. It doesn't matter if people thought the image name was ok, it went against the image guidelines by having an improper name. You can't name an image something cute, it has to be systematic first. The way you commented on the Krieg talk page it seemed like you were just trying to cause trouble. If you had an actual point or clarification (of which I saw neither), then you should have said it. It makes me wonder why you even bothered. 05:44, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

I still think that this a bit too much since he did come out from this 4 month ban,also there are many arguments in this wikia but it just seems like some of you guys now have a personal grudge against SeaTerror,i wont defend him from his past actions since most of them were clearly wrong but i cant help but feel like this is wrong since he only had a minor argument. User:X-RAPTOR 20:03, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Where in the image guidelines does it even say that? This forum never should have been opened anyway. This was only made because some people are trying to invent a new definition to the worlds trolling and vandalism to try to ban me since they dislike me. That's all it comes down to. SeaTerror (talk) 22:37, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm not really "knowledgable" in all this "One Piece Wiki ban ST"-stuff, but I do wanna give my two cents. The way I see it, ST's actions that you guys claim is banworthy for a third time, are not banworthy per se. Both situations, Don Krieg and the image thing, aren't really vandalizing OR trolling (okay maybe a little trolling, but w/e), they are however very counterproductive. I'd stop here if that was all there is to it. A user not violating any clear policies, not clearly spamming or vandalizing, but simply contributing to the Wiki in a bad, quarrelsome way is tricky to handle. If it's a regular user, a warning is enough. But this is ST. And looking at his past and present Wiki actions, participating in fora, commenting on talk pages, blah blah blah, the way I see it, many of them were counterproductive, being difficult when it's not needed and not wanted, often angering other users in the process (though I do wanna say, "calm yo tits"). So sometimes, in these occasions, biased decisions from the community or even just the chain of command (admins and such), is perhaps the best decision. If the "moderators" of the Wiki think and agree that they don't want ST on the Wiki, that it's only for the best that he must be stopped getting involved in stuff like this, then yes, I think it's justified. Sometimes solving special situations like this one must be solved with an unorthodox solution, with the admins saying "No, we don't want you here, you're doing more harm to the Wiki than good." If that's really how the uniform attitude towards ST is, then I think that's just the way it is and he should indeed be banned. 00:24, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure only Yata and DP feel that way. We have ban rules for a reason though. A user cannot be banned straight away unless it is obvious vandalism. Like Fronky and a few other users did. SeaTerror (talk) 01:16, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what I said, you didn't commit obvious banworthy actions, but I do think something has to be done, wether it be a warning or some unconventional countermeasures, like a ban that's not issued for vandalism, but simply for the good of the Wiki. So yeah, "A user cannot be banned straight away unless it is obvious vandalism.", I disagree, think more out of the box. 01:42, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

No that's a fact. That's the wikia rules. There has to be a ban forum open for regular users. Then there's a vote about if there should be a ban or not. If the vote says yes then the next one is about the length of time. Both polls last a week. Ban forums are the only ones with double polls like that. I didn't do anything wrong except for argue a few times. I already said why this was made anyway. The other two times this was opened was justified. This time it wasn't. SeaTerror (talk) 01:46, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ST, I am aware of how the Wiki handles their bans around here. And frankly, it's what I think is causing this Wiki trouble functioning right. You guys might be way too fixed on all these rules and structures. Of course, rules exist to be followed but as I said before, think out of the box. With regular vandals, bans like that can work but you, ST, aren't just a regular vandal. I've said it before and I've said it again, in my eyes this calls for a unconventional, unorthodox way of dealing with a ban, the way I explained above. Also, don't just neglect your past offenses when you say that your actions that are on the line this time aren't justified for a ban. Just because you were banned for your actions before doesn't mean they just go away. They can pile up and now that you've committed these "minor" counterproductive offenses, a ban might just come up once more, not just taking Don Krieg and the image name into account, but like it should, every offense you've made. 02:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Very well put. 03:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm not a regular vandal since I never vandalized anything. There's some things maybe a long time ago that can be called vandalism but there is absolutely nothing that can be called vandalism this time. You ignored every single point that was made because you haven't even been here that long. This time the ban forum was not justified and it was only created because somebody cannot let past grudges go and the fact that I recently called him out on some stuff he did. He didn't like being called out so he made a new ban forum and tried to claim that I trolled and vandalized when I did neither. Now you will just once again comment and say you know what's happening but you shouldn't since you don't. Rules are rules and they need to be followed exactly. SeaTerror (talk) 03:30, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here is the part of the Image Guidelines about proper naming. I don't intend to start an argument about it, only clarify that the rule exists. 03:43, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Well ST, I'm just gonna say that I agree that your actions this time were not vandalism. I said that in my first comment, I don't think I claimed otherwise. But a ban can be justified with something else than just vandalism. Your specific case isn't listed in the Ban-Worthy Actions so if you're gonna be narrow-minded, then no, you shouldn't be banned since you don't deserve a ban, looking only at the policy. But *sigh* again, special case, special countermeasures, blah blah. And look, I don't know what goes on with you and "this user", but if it's come to this, then I don't think this whole matter is just a quarrel between you two. 04:05, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

There are no special cases. I literally have done nothing to deserve a forum to be opened. Many users have also said that. I already said the other two times were justified and that even my Wikia ban was justified. This one cannot be justified at all. This time it is just a personal grudge that Yata has. Just read his comments throughout this forum. SeaTerror (talk) 04:18, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Grudge or not, you can't deny that it was you constantly being difficult, like the reasons listed above, that got you here. This is what happens when policy is treated with such a cut and dry mindset. Just because there are no special cases doesn't mean there can't be or there shouldn't be. What you did was not vandalism but was still an impediment upon general progress overall. I think Bereisgreat made some good points that should be considered here, and I encourage everyone to do so. That being said, I agree with his ideas about things other than vandalism warranting a ban. 18:56, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

What got me here was a grudge. I argued for something then dropped it. I find it funny because you all kept it going. Bere's "points" are really quite bad. They say admins should be able to ignore all rules and outright ban a user they don't like. (Which is why this forum was made in the first place) The other times this forum was opened was justified due to edit wars and other stuff. I would love to see anybody TRY to justify it this time. If we want to start considering simple debate/arguments vandalism/trolling then we need to ban the entire wiki. There is no "special case" or anything like that. I have literally done nothing but debate and argue a few things and this forum was opened. I have done nothing this time to deserve a ban. This is literally just a personal grudge due to the fact I called Yata out. SeaTerror (talk) 19:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I never even said that they should be able to ban a user "they don't like". I never said or implied such a thing. I always said that users who they deem bad and malicious for the Wiki, that they should at least be able to do something about it. Just position yourself in their place for a sec, they're trying to build a good-working Wiki and you're making it especially difficult and annoying for them. So the way I see it, it's not that they want to ban you for who you are, but for what you did, not just now but your overall history on the Wiki. And no, that's not the same thing. Oh and I also didn't say to just blatantly ignore the rules. I'm just saying that special cases DO exist and that when they occur, then a ban should be an option, even if those actions aren't specifically listed in the Ban Policy. For the third time, don't think so narrow-minded. 21:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

"So sometimes, in these occasions, biased decisions from the community or even just the chain of command (admins and such), is perhaps the best decision. If the "moderators" of the Wiki think and agree that they don't want ST on the Wiki, that it's only for the best that he must be stopped getting involved in stuff like this, then yes, I think it's justified." You implied it right there. You are basically saying the admins can ignore any rule and just ban anybody they want. The ban is always an option anyway since this forum is created. But first the "Does this user deserve to be banned?" poll has to be created. A poll can't go straight to a ban poll and even if it did there would still have to be the no ban option on it. I didn't do anything at all this time to justify this forum to be opened. Arguing isn't vandalism nor is it trolling (as much as people want to claim it is). Once again, we have these rules for a reason. They cannot just be blatantly disregarded. Just go to OPN's forum. That is how a proper ban forum is run. SeaTerror (talk) 22:03, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't imply that. What I meant and said was that that they should have the right to ban anyone who they think is bad for the Wiki. I didn't say or imply that they should ban anyone who they think is not a nice person. I don't know why you think that Wikia stuff always directly relates to personal issues, but I see it like this: my view on this, my standpoint is the right to issue a ban to anyone who is bad for the Wiki, that's only, purely and exclusively "business"-related. My statement that you quoted before is just that, business. Nothing personal whatsoever. You may see it like "Oh they can't work with me on the Wiki, so they don't like me and they are going to ban me because they don't like me". It's not like that.

Also, again, I agree that your recent actions weren't vandalism or trolling. I said that before, you don't have to prove that to me again. But like I said then, even if they aren't, there's still counterproductive and bad for the Wiki. Also, about the rules that you so dearly adore, it doesn't say on the Ban Policy that those actions are the only cases in which a ban is considered. They simply show a list of actions that are warranting a ban. While you can think that if it's not on there, a ban shouldn't be an issue, but the opposite is true as well. Just because it's not on that list, doesn't mean a ban isn't an option. I don't see the phrase "These actions and only these actions can bring about a ban." anywhere on the policy. Just pointing that out.

Oh right, one last thing. Why? I think that by now, you know well enough what not to do on Wikia, that it causes annoying situations (not only annoying, I know you've been good as well) and pisses some people off. So why don't you just... Be good? And this is not about some sort of ban. Wether or not it's ban-worthy or not, you gotta admit Talk:Krieg and the filename isn't particularly "healthy discussion". Just curious. (Lol, sorry for the long message btw) 00:30, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is obviously just back and forth bickering. Someone should go ahead and get a poll up for the "should he be banned" aspect. 06:20, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It would be a better idea just to get the vote going now. SeaTerror (talk) 07:23, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this is in poor taste to post since people have asked to just start the poll, but I really wanted to post this yesterday but was unable to before I had to leave for massive blizzard preparation. But here are my thoughts about this: Basically, I think the idea that Bere has proposed (banning someone for being a continued disruption) is sound, but only in extreme cases. That being said, I would have to think long and hard about actually banning ST (I presume it would be a perma-ban, judging by the context, inform me if that's incorrect) and I have not made up mind about how I would vote in a poll. It of course, would have to be done with a vote, and not just the decision of admins (and I don't think anyone is advocating for the latter). Yes, there's nothing in the rules that says we can do that, but I think if we vote to ban ST, then we have voted to make an exception. I do think though that a situation like this would be so uncommon that it should not even be written into the guidelines. If a ban happens here, it is because we decide to ban SeaTerror, and ST alone, not to open the door for more bans like this in the future. This is a very extreme case.

Now, I have a few words for ST: I think the best option for you would be to try and One thing you bring up a lot is something like "this wiki doesn't know what trolling is." Maybe you're right there, and maybe you aren't, but I don't think that's really important in the long run. What I think would be best for you would be to stop "trolling" by the wiki's definition, since it is clearly upsetting people. I would define "trolling" as any statement that's said to bait people into responding to something. Now, you could troll by posting something incorrect and watching stupid people believe you, or as I think is mostly the case here, to bait people into arguing further with you. I don't know if you say some things like "If you support this, then you support (insert extremely ridiculous thing that nobody would ever support here) as well!" because you're trying to be funny, or if you're trying to argue, but regardless, statements like that piss people off. I (and many other users here) don't care if that's not really "trolling", but it makes us upset regardless of what it really is. And I think it would also really help if you would stop arguing after it's become clear you're not going to win an argument, and not bring it up again in the future. It also helps quite a bit to admit when you're wrong, instead of never posting anything, so that you don't create the idea that you only ever argue. I don't really want to see a user banned without giving them an opportunity to correct their behavior and apologize for what they've done. If you honestly don't want to apologize and change your behavior, then I guess you should be banned, because you are going to keep on being a disruption. 15:09, February 8, 2013 (UTC)