Forum:One Piece Wiki User

This is very tiresome. User:Galaxy9000 has caused quite a few edit wars. The recent image wars with the CP9 portraits, specifically and. He's been very rude to many users, on chat AND on the Wiki itself. He's been talking down to a few users, examples being this and especially this, where a user continuously pointed out his rude behavior and yet he still continued to provoke. His constant edit spamming, filling the Wiki activity with minor edits, proposed projects that never progress, and complete lack of respect is a great problem with our Wiki. Other examples of continued edit wars are, this Hody Jones portrait, , and the Unreleased Content fiasco, which is also evidence of his rude behavior. Even on the chat, his dictatorial behavior is evident as he's even talked down to administrators to do their job. It's clear he has no respect for the Wikia or its community, and seems to make edits for the sake of editing. I'm only surprised he wasn't banned long ago. Now is the time. 05:00, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
You're ignoring that color schemes of the author matter. There is no talking down on that Caesar Clown image talk page. I actually apologized to Leo right after that, because I knew my behavior wasn't really acceptable there. You're linking the Jinbe image from months ago? That problem has long been resolved. The Hody image has long been resolved. The Otohime image that I reverted once... And the unreleased content fiasco, where it wasn't against the rules to do any of that. Oh, and sorry I don't finish projects, but they definitely do progress, but that also isn't bannable. Neither is doing "small edits". Chat is a completely separate issue, so not really something that can be brought up on a forum. Can you cite specific examples of me "talking down to an admin" though? I definitely don't remember ever telling DP, or Sff (the only two admins who chat), to do anything, or telling either of them they aren't doing their jobs. 05:03, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

None of those links you sent broke any of the rules on the wiki. You must understand that when there's an edit war between you two you're also part of it, having an edit war doesn't break any rules obviously so I don't see where you're getting at. About the unreleased content poll, that was SeaTerror breaking the rules, so he had every right to do what he did there. I don't see what you mean when you say he's "talking down" to people, I've always seen that as his way of discussing, whether it'd be positive or negative. Calling it dictatorial behavior is outrageous. About the "editing" spamming. It's not spamming if you put on "minor edits", since you can choose not to show those, it's spamming if you let it be seen everywhere and you can't turn it off. It's like saying a bot is spamming because you turned on the "show bot edits" function. Please continue on how he is breaking rules on the wiki.

Oi oi Nada,you calle those edit wars? I understand the unreleased content thing but only this. Image edit wars? If you opened this forum due to image edit wars go open e forum for me and you too cause I've seen yo edit warring on images many times and image edit wars are kinda funny  And you said gal insulted the dude on the yetis page, I'm pretty sure I saw on the recent activity that Gal apolohized to him,isn't that right? And what's wrong with editing much? 06:00, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

The thing with the edit wars is that he should know full and well that we keep it on the default when it becomes a war. Continuing to revert is continuing a war, which is of course against our rules. Galaxy did apologize for it, but it still seems he's keeping up with the behavior. Doesn't sound much like an apology to me. Those wars being months ago don't make them "unimportant" because you still did them. You were still breaking our edit wars rules. I know those unfinished projects aren't a bannable thing, but they slow down the Wiki's progress especially how the projects don't progress at all. It's unhealthy for the Wiki's stability, meaning you're actually making it worse. These edit wars ARE breaking our rules and these projects AREN'T making the Wiki any better. You also seem to decide on things without discussion, like the portrait being manga colors recently. That's not really how we do things, is it? Inappropriate behavior and edit wars are usually what causes us to ban people quicker. So I question how you survived. 14:15, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Everyone makes edit wars. You edit war, I edit war, Gal edit wars. Also the portraaits thing, he did it because the images were unsourced. 14:22, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the edit wars when it's clearly a war is against our policy. Even he knows that. 14:31, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

I do know we use the default when there's an edit war, but you're edit warring too. You know that we use canon images over non-canon images, and yet you revert. Me apologizing to Leo definitely was an apology. Just because I'm not "nice" to you, doesn't mean I'm not nice to others. The wars being months ago kind of proves that my behavior doesn't happen very often, but isn't it ironic that you're involved in every single one? You're edit warring as well. Nothing is being slowed down with my projects, since I progress each one of them at a pretty moderate pace. Your opinion on what makes the wikia better has no place in this discussion. The portraits were changed because they were unsourced, if you didn't notice. All images must be sourced to be used. Looking at this, I've "mostly" followed all the rules, so yeah. 14:31, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

What causes us to vote ban is when they're actually breaking the rules. Anyway, I really don't get what you mean when you say that the projects slow down the wiki's progress... What? If anything, it helps the wiki's progress. Would it be better if the projects hadn't been started from the beginning? I don't think so. About the portraits, we've always replaced the anime with a manga if some color is incorrect in the anime (like skin-tone, eye color, hair color, etc.), it's nothing new. And finally, the edit warring, where is the rule that says when an edit war is started, who can call an edit war, and that the previous image is default during the war, and when & where were these rules instated? Just wondering.

Just let this forum die. You know it's unfair and pretty dumb to ban gal. 16:47, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy, when it's been reverted on default and it's clearly an edit war, you keep it on default until it's over. You know that, everybody knows that. An apology isn't an apology if you continue. here's where rude statements and behavior is written. Even your constant insulting and offenses in the past are indeed ban worthy. The fact that you "apologized" and continued shows you're not really sorry at all which is even more disrespectful. I'm aware that I participated in those edit wars. But the difference is, one of us kept reverting while it was an edit war. Keep it on default. Your projects are always sudden and are implemented without discussion. When they are done with discussion, you never do them. How's that Episode page thing coming along? Slow progress like that is not healthy for the encyclopedia. Edit warring, disrespect, and edits that aren't good for the site constitutes as ban-worthy to me. 17:58, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It takes two to have an edit war. You are a part of each and every one, and we could make a ban forum for you using these same examples, but of course, that would be stupid, as this is. Your opinion on what an apology is doesn't matter in this discussion. Once again, unfinished projects are NOT banworthy, so your opinion on that is irrelevant to the discussion. Things take time to do, but you probably wouldn't know that since you rarely take on bigger projects. This seems like nothing more than your petty way of getting rid of me, because you don't agree with everything I do. 18:03, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

So you're mad at him cause he doesn't complete his projects? Nice (y) 18:04, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

As far I see, this is mostly about edit wars (didn't read all). But if someone has brought up the topic already, then my bad. BUT, does anyone remember when Galaxy "annoyed" other users to vote on something? That's another reason~ Even though that might have "died" down, it was a big impact on poll decisions. Anyways, clearly there is bias going on here, such as how Sewil and SHL always side with Galaxy, has anyone noticed that? Galaxy is the master of brainwashing! Like seriously? How did SHL get from like 5,000 (last time I checked) to 14,000 edits?! As I remember, Galaxy said that he cared about edits, and wanted to have a lot of edits for some odd reason. These are "silly" reasons of mine, except the voting one. 19:11, April 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't always agree with Gal. I've been involved in quite many arguments with him'
 * 2) Yeah I edit. I started mass editing before I even met Gal. So Gal is the only user here that edits much? I don't think so. 19:22, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

The voting thing wasn't against any rules at that time, so it's not really relevant here. Apparently me being friends with people is a bad thing? Liking to work is a problem? 19:25, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

It's not just about edit warring. It's about continuing the edit war when clearly there's a talk page discussion started/going on. We've put up users like SeaTerror and Genocyber for the same reason. Also for the reasons of complete disrespect and rudeness to other users. It takes time to do things, yes. But it's different when you don't do them at all. You propose all these projects to things that are fine on their own, and don't focus on them at all. I know it's not ban-worthy, but it shows a lack of responsibility and it's unhealthy for the Wiki. I know what it takes for bigger projects. But summaries, adding episode images to articles, etc. are more important than renaming images. Renaming images is like organizing Lego pieces in the box. Sure, they're sorted and easy to find, but it doesn't change the overall look of your shelf, because they're still in the box. As for "the voting thing not being a rule", that still doesn't make it right. You shouldn't be have to be told not to do things. You're not a child. I didn't open this forum to get rid of you because I disagree; I opened this forum because I've seen the way you've treated other users here and the unorganized way you choose to edit. I opened it for the community and the stability of the site. If you want to open a ban forum for me as well, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. 19:32, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Ban ALL the users 19:40, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

You haven't really given any specific examples of disrespect where it wasn't resolved. I work on my projects all the time, so yeah, I'm doing them. It isn't a lack of Responsibility to slowly do projects, especially when I don't spend 24 hours here. Your opinion on how important my projects are is still not relevant, nor will it ever be. The voting thing not being a rule means it isn't bannable (and because it happened months ago. Once again, this is nothing more than a petty revenge sort of thing, but you seem to be the only one who is thinking this way I wouldn't make a ban forum for you because it would be just like this one, useless 19:48, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand. Just because it was "resolved" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Many times we resolved because of a clear majority over your stubbornness. Things like that Yeti talk page were resolved without your contribution, because the whole time you just made it even worse. You apologized, but yet you've still shown rudeness since then. As for your projects' status being irrelevant, they're major projects that are supposed to help the Wiki. No, you are not doing them. Instead you're focusing on trivial matters that hardly fix anything at all. You're not contributing, you're just taking up space. 20:03, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

And is it ban worthy? 20:12, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I work on the projects as I have the time to. There is nothing wrong with doing them slowly, especially when there are a bunch of them. It IS NOT RELEVANT to this at all. I could say most of your edits are useless, and that you're taking up space, but that would be petty, wouldn't it? 20:19, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

un·healthy adjective \-ˈhel-thē\

Definition of UNHEALTHY 1
 * not conducive to health

2
 * not in good health : sickly, diseased

Yeah his edits are totally unhealthy to the wikia. He's giving One Piece diseases! SeaTerror (talk) 22:52, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

not that anyone cares about what i think, but though galaxy9000 is a bit rude i dont think he should be banned just yet, though if he does continue in his behavior then maybe a three day ban would be appropriate

Remeber folks, that EVERYTHING Gal does, he does for the sake of what he feels is for the best of the Wiki, bad behaviour or not. He shouldn't be Banned. As easy as that. Cool new Sig by the way Canuck (Y). WU out - 05:56, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ban him forever. 12:53, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Calu would miss her servant :'(

You can't look at this forum without comparing it to the Forum:Genocyber, because  as you can see these 2 cases are basically the same, the only difference is Gal has a very vocal set of supporters whereas Geno does not. Both kept participating in image-editwars, while using a tone that is just not good enough. So on a neutral basis they should both get the same treatment, which, if you care to listen to SHLs, WUs, or my opinion is a short ban.

ST, I would consider it unhealthy when one editor, in this case Gal, is the cause for several editors completely leaving or reducing their participation in this wikia. 16:16, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Panda here. Gal, you might be a good editor, but you don't always go about doing things in the nicest way, like exploiting that old loophole about the duration of talk page votes. I don't know about a ban, but I definitely think a serious change in attitude should be in order. 16:59, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Panda, Geno is way more ruthless in edit warring than I am. Also, WU said no ban and staw is messing around and saying I should be banned forever. Who exactly is leaving due to my behavior? Seems like people are just moving on with their lives.

DP, it wasn't exploiting a loophole, since it was never written that talk page polls had to last 2 weeks, but this has been resolved in the poll rules forum. An attitude change is fine, even though I think it's good enough, I can easily try to improve it. Some people don't notice that my only real conflicts on this wikia are always with Nada. I'm mostly friendly to everybody else on almost all discussions. 18:46, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Me, Coffee, Jade. 18:58, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

You stopped editing way before I started. Source for the others? 19:01, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Source: They told me. As for me, no, I stopped when you started adding a whole bunch of braindead categories, but that really is beyond the point. 19:20, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. People disagree with me on a lot of things. 19:38, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

The ban is at hand. 19:51, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

This forum itself is proof of his condecending attitude. I'm going to be honest and say that Galaxy has driven me away from the chat on several occasions. He manipulates, exploits, and insults to get his way on every wiki issue. When he fails to win through a biased democratic vote, he makes the edits in secret hoping nobody notices.

And right now he continues, in this forum, to attempt to justify his specific actions while he misses the big picture. He is offending the community and is being very counter-productive. I think something should be done about this. 22:14, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also. To those saying that he hasn't broken any rules: Our forum guidelines say not to be rude to other users on forums or discussions. Galaxy says he's read the rules, he should know this. 22:48, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Chat is a completely separate issue. I am not acting "condecending" on this forum.. so yeah. You've basically restated everything Nada said, so just read my responses to him further up the forum. Also, I'd love for you to prove that I make "secret" edits, because that sure hasn't ever happened. 23:13, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

If chat is a completely separate issue, would you want a ban from that first? Your attitude there and here both constitute it, it seems. 23:20, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Not really, since only you and Ryu have outright stated a ban (and even Ryu is saying "something should be done".). 23:24, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I'll do. I promise I will be nicer. 23:26, April 30, 2013 (UTC)