Forum:SeaTerror

Part 1
While its good that Gal has been blocked, I get the feeling that he's been made the scapegoat. ST, while not quite as bad, certainly isn't innocent of the exact same things Gal did, and as several people on Gal's forum mentioned this I thought it would be wise to reopen this forum and discuss banning ST as well. 13:03, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think ST has done anything ban worthy, he sure is rude to many people and when undoing stuff he never gives a reason causing people to get pissed off but as far as I am concerned, ST actually does edits that are good for the wiki and his overall behavior, even though it's not even close to perfect, doesn't look ban worthy to my eyes. Also please stop comparing his with gal, they are different users with different attitudes. 13:07, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not everyone agrees with you, or his potential ban wouldn't have been mentioned in the Gal forum. Wait and see what other people say. 13:16, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Well I would prefer if neither of them got banned, but since Gal would got banned, ST should as well. & Gal was reasonable and you could discuss with him at least. 14:10, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer if neither Geno,Gal nor ST get banned,but too bad all of them are gonna be :/ ;_;--

He didn't get blocked. He disabled his account. Which is something I'm not going to do. SeaTerror (talk) 15:10, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

^yes we should just let Gal be,the same way we blocked Geno 'coz he asked for it ;/--

"Sigh" I wish for him to be banned but so far he has not done anything banworthy.

Joekido (talk) 15:33, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * Before you wish for another to be banned, think of yourself Joekido. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:24, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

so yeah, st edit wars, doesnt leave reasons when he reverts, and isnt as warm as other users but is that ban worthy?-- 21:44, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say this, but you're acting like a hypocrite. You wanted to ban Gal for starting or getting involved in edit wars, doesn't leave reasons when he reverts an edit or image, and isn't very warm to other users. And now, you don't want to ban ST for exactly the same reasons you wanted to ban Gal. Anyone else hear screaming hypocrisy from this, huh? 22:19, February 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * just cause im not calling for his ban doesnt necessarily mean im defending him, im just stating what ST's done and asking if its really ban worthy. plus gal did more and was worse than ST at least imo-- 22:26, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Alright this is just getting frustrating now. Gal and ST are two separate people and this is the ST forum not the Gal forum, so stop discussing Gal in this forum. Even though they did similar things this is a separate issue and should be treated as such. 23:04, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, when I looked at the reasons Jade listed for Gal to be banned, almost all of them reminded me of ST. 23:35, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

And........ I did say they did similar things didn't I? Again it's separate issue therefore should be discussed separately. Is that really so hard for you to understand. 00:41, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. People are still going to talk about it though, since Gal's ban forum is pretty much the only reason this has been opened. 03:18, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

ST does similar things to Galaxy and so should be treated the same as how people were going to treat Galaxy. 13:04, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, I don't support ST's ban either way. And I'm sure he isn't going to end up banned. 13:11, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

If people are just going to keep talking about Gal then this forum is a waste of time. 13:24, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I already said that since he disabled his account himself. There isn't anything to defend or attack since the forum was only supposed to be opened if he got banned. SeaTerror (talk) 16:23, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, SHB, but I don't think we can avoid talking about Gal in this discussion, considering practically this was only opened was because of Gal.

Now, if Gal had been banned by the wiki community, the verdict of this discussion would probably end up with ST being banned, considering they both behaved in similar ways albeit to different degrees. The same thing would happen if Gal hadn't been banned (probably even no new discussion for ST). However, from what I know, Gal requested the staff to ban him, therefore this community didn't ban him and as such, the verdict of this discussion is uncertain considering this was only opened because of Gal and his similar attitude and behavior to ST, but Gal's ban discussion was cut off with no verdict thanks to his being globally blocked.

If you ask me, I would say kill the discussion, since there's no verdict to Gal's newest ban discussion, and this was only opened because of him. 17:08, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Part 2
I've managed to hold my tongue and not post on this forum for a few days, but I feel I need to post now, and it's gonna be a long one.

SeaTerror should be banned because his attitude and editing practices are one of the greatest detriments to this wiki.

Yes, this forum was opened because of Gal's forum, but that forum's premature end should have no bearing on this one. The fact is that Gal's forum was opened because many users felt that Gal's attitude and editing practices were harmful to the wiki (ironically, many of those same users are now defending ST). This forum is not about backlash or revenge for those who wanted to ban Galaxy, but a separate matter about whether or not SeaTerror's actions merit a ban. It has nothing to do with Galaxy. And for the record, Galaxy's forum was not the first time a user has been put up for ban because of their attitude. If you want some precedence for that, scroll up to Discussion 3 on this very forum. That went to poll, and even though it did not result in a ban, I think the large number of votes for his ban proves that this wiki is not opposed to the idea of banning someone for their attitude and at least should let this discussion move closer to a poll. Also, while a little bit of a different situation, you could also say that Klobis was banned in large part because of his attitude. I think it's clear that discussing banning ST for his attitude and actions is something that we should continue doing, and this forum should not be closed any time soon.

Now, on to my reasoning behind why he should be banned. SeaTerror is by far the most stubborn and grudge-obsessed user on this wiki. There are many decisions this wiki has come to that SeaTerror has disagreed with and many of those are issues he refuses to drop. I think anyone who's been on this wiki doesn't need to be reminded of both forums about "Arabasta" and how ST refused to drop the issue. I've been on this wiki about 2 years now, and even one my very first edits was responded to by a rude ST. In all that time, I've never once seen him admit that he's wrong, or admit defeat on any issue. I've seen him apologize a few times, but only after he has snapped and blatantly insulted someone. Never once have I seen him apologize for his editing practices or attitude. He makes big fusses about issues and refuses to give up, then when the majority is clear or facts have been presented to prove him wrong, he refuses to post on the discussion, leaving it trapped in a state where it can't be closed for a long time. And when I say "refuses to post on the discussion", I quite literally mean "refuse". There have been a number of times when I've asked him to post on those very discussions, and he has refused to do so. That is my biggest problem with ST: Stubbornness to the point where any attempts at progress and moving forward are all halted by his actions. But here are some other examples of ST being ST:


 * Here's an oldie, but a prime example of ST's editing practices. In that link, you'll see that User:NinjaSheik, a user ST is known to hold a grudge against removed a piece of trivia while providing evidence that it was incorrect, and ST not only undid her edit (I can only assume his grudge against NS caused him to have this knee-jerk reaction against her edit) but ignored her proof. This was also the first time that I asked ST to admit that he was wrong. I no longer have a screenshot of this, but in PM when I asked him to post on the talk page admitting he was wrong, he "joked" that he couldn't because he was blind. I was not amused then, nor am I now.


 * Here's a case from a deleted page where he edit warred with me and not one, but TWO admins. It's from a file redirect from a renamed image where ST wanted it deleted before the links were replaced, which would result in the creation of a bunch of broken file links, aka the biggest headaches we could have at the time of image renaming. His grudge against redirects and his own laziness towards fixing the links himself created a big problem there. I think it's also worth noting that pre-ban Galaxy did not even edit war over this issue, only ST was stubborn enough to do so against 2 admins.


 * Anything regarding his behavior surrounding the page on Fansubs. You'll find many ST-caused edit wars on the history for that page.


 * This speaks for itself.


 * Here's one from yesterday!. Here, he's going against the decision in Forum:Redirects and Other Link Issues, a forum stared due to edit wars caused by SeaTerror. And it's a throwback to his edit wars with Meganoide from before we had a rule on the issue. I actually disagree with decision from that forum, but I do not bring it up because I know the wiki decided and the matter is closed. I don't hold a grudge against it, I just move on, ST, not so much.


 * I'm edit warring with him as a write this post right now about File:Diamante Full Body View.png. (Sorry about all the false message notifications, SHB)

These are just some of the examples that stick out to me in recent memory. There's plenty more where they came from, and I hope other users will post them now. They show a pattern of behavior that makes it very hard to believe that ST is capable of any change. If he can't admit he's wrong or move out of the way for progress, why should we allow him to edit here? He's far more trouble than he's worth.

I know if this goes to poll, he probably won't be banned, just like the last time. Too many people from chat like him too much to acknowledge that he's a real problem for real editors. But I want as much of his bad behavior out in the open as possible so that maybe when this forum is opened the 6th or 7th time they will acknowledge that his behavior as an editor is inexcusable. I know that will happen, because I genuinely believe that he's incapable of changing. I genuinely believe he can never stop holding the wiki back. I genuinely believe that he's incapable of conducting himself in a manner that's nice. Maybe by the time this is opened the 8th time we can finally give him the ban he truly deserves. 22:09, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

1) Actually she didn't provide any evidence until posting on the talk page. If it had been a "grudge" or "spite" then I would have kept undoing her.

2) The reasons for that were always obvious. It was easier to elminate those by removing the redirects first especially if they were put on the wanted pages so they could all be taken care of all at once.

3) Most of what I did on the fansub page is removing vandalism.

4) Chat issue so doesn't count towards the wiki (as said by Sff9 before) and also something I also apologized for and never protested the ban. I deserved the ban. Never denied that once. Same thing I said when I got banned by staff.

5) I misread what he was doing and normally when he makes edits like that he is removing valid links from different sections of the same page. Which is how we do it even if the same link. That forum is supposed to be bumped also due to the other redirect issue but it can't since it is protected.

6) Said why it was wrong already.

Most of these are incredibly retroactive (especially the NinjaSheik stuff) so its just looking like an excuse to try to get me banned. The Arabasta thing doesn't count since DP actually protected the first forum when discussion was still ongoing which is why there were two forums about it instead of just one. I have also admitted I was wrong before. SeaTerror (talk) 22:57, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the first Ara/Alabasta forum but the second one just seemed pointless since you were the only one arguing about changing it. You have to consider that you might be doing something wrong if your ban forum has been opened 4 times in 3 years. 23:16, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

1) Her first edit summary opened with "Yes, he has in Chapter 597". Did it occur to you to check Chapter 597 before you reverted? Apparently not. I can only assume that you instantly assumed she had misread the chapter because she's NinjaShiek and NinjaShiek is always wrong.

2) Images say which pages they are used on, even through redirects. Also Special:Whatlinkshere exists. Those are two viable options for dealing with that issue without creating any broken links. Any broken links for any amount of time is a bad thing and should be avoided.

3) "Most".

4) You've already been disciplined for that issue before, but it's still evidence of your bad behavior during arguments.

5) Why did you misread what he was doing? Because you're too busy edit warring him over another topic to actually look at the content of his edits anymore. That's how you seem to be with most people.

6) We'll see what happens when an admin investigates the issue. But the precedent has always been to delete images used only on user talk pages for as long as I can remember. Seems to me you're just trying to protect a needless image from deletion by keeping it in a place it doesn't need to be. You could just as easily link SHB's talk page to the file talk page, which will remain after the image is deleted.

7) It's not "incredibly retroactive", I'm showing that all of these things are part of a pattern of behavior that has not changed over time, right up until the last few days.

8) And as VGP said, you were the only one keeping that Arabasta discussion ongoing. Everyone else agreed, but you wanted to waste their time by continuing to argue about it. Even closing it in one forum still convinced you it was still "ongoing".

9)"I have also admitted I was wrong before." When?

23:30, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

1) Still incredibly old and retroactive so doesn't count. You can find more stuff with her involved that wasn't just me anyway.

2) It isn't a bad thing when it can be solved really fast the other way. Also the only time the redirects are listed show up when the page isn't being redirected so for instance with a deletion template on it.

3) You didn't read it anyway since the edit war was that mini one where I said why it was needed on the talk page. Which I also never added back after the talk page was done.

4) Still doesn't count so just an excuse to show a screenshot of something that is a chat issue ONLY.

5) So now you reveal your true colors and are making stuff up.

6) Then whoever did it first was flat out wrong. The category was originally created due to images used on user talk pages.

7) Actually it is and you know it is. I was much worst before the staff ban and old evidence is still old.

8) Retroactive and something I never brought up again after the forum concluded. Read the 2nd one again and you'll see I wasn't the only one that said it too. Videogame also wasn't around for that forum anyway. He didn't start editing until Moria's talk page.

9) Mostly in chat. SeaTerror (talk) 23:52, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Gal's the reason we opened this forum again. We got that cleared out, now let's call it water under the bridge. As for ST, there's also the File:Diamante Full Body View.png issue, it's an image that we don't need, but he insist on keeping it for some reason. 00:02, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the first forum but they both happened after Moriah's talk page (I just checked the dates). I actually did get involved in the second one just before DP closed it. Even if I didn't participate in the first one, I can still read it and see that you were the only one who cared by the end. 01:46, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Part 3
Okay, I think I'll be the first to say this. Just because it happens on chat does not mean it should be excused or disregarded. The chat is our closest way of communicating, just like the forums. A person who's disrespectful in chat is also usually disrespectful in forums and talk pages. SeaTerror is no exception. What happens in chat does not stay in chat! 03:54, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

If a person is disrespectful in chat, they should get a chat ban. That's why there are separate bans for chat and editing. 04:24, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

technically they arent separate, chat bans are a subdivision of editing bans since in an editing ban you also cant go on chat-- 04:30, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Even Sff9 has said chat issues are separate from wiki issues. If they weren't then a ban forum would have already been opened for literally everybody who has used chat. SeaTerror (talk) 04:42, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know much about that since I don't go on chat. If this is going to be an issue, we should probably open a separate forum on whether to use chat as a reason/support for an editing ban. 05:36, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yup this forum is now completely a waste of time. Chat and wiki are two separate things, always have been. 05:46, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Part 4
1) As I said before, the age doesn't matter. And it's not NS's involvement that is important: It's your involvement. You still haven't said anything about your apparent inability to check Chapter 597/trust another user. It's all about your response to the issue.

2) Only now you're arguing about the topic of the edit war, you didn't even explain your methods then, only undermined the authority of 2 Admins silently. That's a big problem, as it shows how arrogant you are when you think you're right. And for the record, I still maintain that your method is an incorrect way to deal with the problem, as it creates broken links, which should always be avoided. It's all about your response to the issue, not the topic at hand though.

3) The most recent edit war on that page is not the only one on that page, that's why I linked the whole history. You have notable edit wars with DemonRin (about translating Navy) and Nada (about the disclaimer), which as far as I can tell you won only by exhausting the patience of the other editors. Your revision of DemonRin's last edit happened two weeks later during a time when DR was likely not to see it. You never attempted to discuss these in the proper locations, and only edit warred over them, using underhanded tactics to "win". The funniest part is that these issues still need to be discussed. But again, the topic of the edit war doesn't matter, it's your actions during it.

4) A chat issue yes, but people should still see it. Fact is that I'm still offended by it. This is not the only issue in this forum, and I wish other people would respond to any of the other points I've brought up.

5) Whenever undoing anyone's edit, you should always make an effort to make sure that every part of their edit is worth undoing. It's something I do all the time. If a vandal adds the word "poop" to a page, but also fixes a spelling error, you should make sure that you fix the spelling error too. It's why when undoing you still have the option to edit the page too. If you're not capable of the due diligence needed to responsibly revert edits, you shouldn't be allowed to revert anything.

6) I'll address this issue later, perhaps somewhere else. I need to do a few things first.

7) Showing that your behavior has not changed since your staff ban is an important part of this forum. Your inability to investigate NS's edit (before your staff ban) and your recent edit war with Meganoide (a few days ago) are very much about the same issue: Your inability to trust other editors you've warred with in the past and approach every one of their edits without bias and check the integrity of the edit.

8) You bring it up every time you try to type the word "Alabasta", and you have still argued about it in chat. And VGP did post in the second forum, though I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. And I have re-read the forum, and yes, you were the only one keeping the argument going. Of the 9 people who posted in the forum, only 2 supported Arabasta, and it's worth noting that Cheese Lord's post to support Arabasta was the LAST post in the forum. "While I do agree with ST that Arabasta is the correct variant, there's no point in arguing if it's already settled. Cheese Lord (talk) 00:44, September 3, 2012 (UTC) " Only you kept the argument going, my point stands. And I've also just remembered that in the first sentence of that forum, you accuse DP of "lying", a tactic you often use in arguing that is awfully offensive and off-putting to anyone who's ever argued with you. You're calling me a liar in this forum right now, and I'm sure I don't have to link any other examples, since I'm sure people are capable of remembering the dozens of times you've done it.

I've just remembered another example of you ignoring the wiki's spelling choices. In mid-September 2013, on the Featured Article Polls, you tried to nominate "Jybura" instead of the proper spelling Jabra. When we tried to correct the link so that it used the proper spelling, which devolved into an edit war which was eventually stopped by DP. All that's fine, except you pulled the same goddamn trick next month!

9) I can't remember a single instance of you admitting you were wrong. I didn't ask you to link anything, though I think proof would be nice. I just asked you "When?", and instead of saying "I was wrong about this, this, and this", you just said "Mostly in chat". Seems like quite the cop-out to me. You can't even do it in this forum.

In case you didn't get this from reading it a bunch of times in this post: In your response, you should talk about your actions, ST. Not the actions of others, not the topics of edit wars, your actions. This forum is about your behavior, and nothing else. Talking about anything else is just obscuring the discussion away from what it needs to be about. Stop throwing up a smokescreen of small arguments and talk about yourself and why your behavior should be allowed. 18:10, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Can I point out that ST is always ST? Just read the above three ban discussions and you will always find the exact same examples. Although now I'm not sure why this new discussion was brought up (sorry, tl;dr), but if it's for his attitude then why we didn't ban him before but we should it now? Are there specific cases? Do you ban him for the things were already brought up in the past? Or because he was graced three times for his behaviour so now he should be punished? Because I'm not sure why now he should be banned and before he shouldn't have been.

This forum is pointless. ST is a good guy (for the most part) and he's not gonna get banned. Supernova X-Drake aka Roranoa Zoro II (talk) 19:48, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

JSD, I just can't force myself to read those hugeass comments but about the screenshot part, I see an apology and a reply to that. So if you "are still offended", you shouldn't had told him it's fine. Also I see no reason at all why you would link this here. It was a chat issue, ST got banned for it, he apologized and it's over. (But oh well, thanks for the link, it's priceless :D) And levi, it was opened simply because of Galaxy's forth ban discussion which didn't end since he disabled his account. It's not due to a special issue or something like that. 19:58, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Then until he doesn't make another huge mess, I don't see reasons for a ban.

There are current reasons for a ban, Levi and Staw. Unfortunately, you're going to to have to read my posts in their entirety to learn what they are. If you aren't going to be informed on the issue, then why are you commenting?

An apology almost always carries an implied promise of change. At the time I thought ST might be capable of change, so I accepted his apology. Now I find he hasn't changed, and that apology means little to me now. It's not a perfect thought, or necessarily the moral way of thinking, but I'm only human. 20:43, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

He didn't insult you after this issue. 20:49, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

If you're gonna restart a Ban discussion that is never gonna be agreed then why don't you just ignore anything that makes you guys feel insulted and get on with it. If he does something worthy for ban just mentioned along with the reference of your policy page. 21:20, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second, Staw! Why are you trying to summarize for someone the reasons for a forum you admit you haven't even read?! That's some seriously fucked up shit. You should leave summation to people who actually know what's going on. 21:36, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Nice I don't know how to reply argument.


 * I could reply to that in detail, but since you'll probably just say tl;dr to it, I'll just say "Same to you." 21:52, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

@Levi This was reopened because Gal's forum was reopened for doing exactly the same thing that ST has been doing for years and Gal probably would have been banned if he hadn't disabled his account. It isn't fair to ban Gal and give ST a free pass. 03:13, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was already stated numerous times that it shouldn't have been opened due to the fact that Galaxy disabled his own account. SeaTerror (talk) 04:05, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to talk about Gal's forum, we need to talk about ST's behavior, which contrary to popular belief, is in fact the topic of this forum. 06:04, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Part 5
Again, on request.

I've seen a lot of people here and on chat refuse to even look at the above three forum topics or much of the evidence given before trying to defend ST. You know what? You don't have to. Just take a second and think about what that means. There has been so much discussion about the trouble surrounding ST that you guys don't even want to touch it. That alone should be indicative of the on-going issue ST's attitude and work ethics have become. He was globally banned due to his behaviour. He's been banned from multiple wikis for his behaviour. He has already been up for ban three times on this wiki for his behaviour - now four.

I understand that a lot of people here have no respect for authority figures, but when an administrator has opened a ban forum multiple times for somebody - that should say a lot. DP, Yata, Sff and Deva - you guys are the admins. If ST is really a problem than just ban him. You would be entirely within your right to do so. No matter what members of the community may say, these ban forums are only required when someone who isn't an administrator wants somebody banned. I don't think people understand how lenient Yata has been by giving you all the chance to have your say in the matter. Don't waste it.

Right now nobody other than JSD is actually discussing this forum. Most people are blindly defending a user without reading up on the issue beforehand, or trying to deflect this to a defunct forum. Just stop. And if you seriously say things like, "Too long; didn't read" than you shouldn't even have a say in the first place. 07:40, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I said before that a ban forum being opened 4 times usually means something is wrong. I'm just surprised that none of the previous forums resulted in a ban. 08:22, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

What Kuro said is completely untrue. The ban forums are actually part of the rules of this wiki. So the admins can't ban any user except for cases of extreme vandalism which is usually from throw away new user accounts. IPs get banned for the same reason. Plus the people who refuse to look at the others are correct since the first 2 forums are incredibly old and a crapload of people even said the third one shouldn't have been opened. Most of the 2nd ban forum was a discussion about somebody trying to manipulate the poll format to guarantee a vote also. I also did technically got banned by staff partly due to the 2nd discussion's reason for the ban. I also never contested the ban since I knew I deserved it 100%. SeaTerror (talk) 15:54, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we say that if Galaxy got banned then we would reopen ST's ban forum? Well, Gal didn't get banned, he just raged quit and disabled his account. Therefore this forum shouldn't even be opened. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:08, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

@Videogamep: that's because ban forums are actually popularity contests, instead of being a simple way to prevent admins from abusing their powers. (Hence Kuro's post.)

@Roranoa Drake II: your reasoning is wrong, because implication is not equivalence. If there are reasons to ban ST, then we open a forum, Gal has/should have nothing to do with this.

@Kuro: while I agree with your post as a whole, I don't think your second paragraph is true. There are rules and admins have to respect them. Of course, rules can turn out to be wrong, and then have to be changed.

I say we Ban him, too many white people on chat anyways. Man of Myth is Dayman (talk) 21:07, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

I've been requested to post on here, so here I go.... SeaTerror is an arrogant, rude, offensive, and highly disrespectful person, and I feel that the wiki would be so much better off without him.

ST is highly disrespectful and rude to other users, particularly those who go against his opinions, one of the most notables being NinjaSheik. You only merely have to go in his contribution page to find examples of how incredibly rude he is towards other users, which I find alarming on how easy it is to find examples on how rude he is to others. ST is also incapable of letting his grudges go, no matter how old they may be. I've frequently seen him mocking users he dislikes, either face to face or behind their backs, even if their disagreements happened a long time ago, a rather significant example on his inability to let go of grudges. His inability of letting his grudges go and refusal to attempt to work with other users is also clear in his distrustful nature. ST is not capable of trusting another editor to do their work and is constantly checking users' edits (particularly those he doesn't get along with), and very often, reverting their edits without even checking if they are right or wrong, which is a nuisance to everyone.

Whenever ST is in an edit war, he frequently refuses to give a good and acceptable reason on why he disagrees with the opposing side, and most of the time, I find his "reasons" something along the lines of, "Because I say so," or "I'm always right and you're always wrong, that's why." These are not very helpful in discussions, and only makes it even more challenging for other users to state on why they disagree with him. ST is very closed minded, and refuses to listen to other users' opinions, no matter what. ST also often blatantly ignores the community's decisions, which is very frustrating for the rest of the community. His disregard for authority is very frustrating to deal with as well, and even worse, his attitude have encouraged other users to develop similar attitudes, behaviors, work ethics and disregard for authority, because they think "If ST can get away with his attitude, then so can I". So not only is he a tiresome editor to work with, he is also an extremely harmful influence on other users and ultimately, the wiki.

Overall, I strongly believe that his attitude, behavior, and editing practices are highly harmful to the wiki, and he needs to make a complete change to his attitude, behavior and editing practices or he needs to go. And despite rare apologies and promises to change his behavior, three ban discussions, his fourth ban discussion ongoing, multiple bans from various wikis, and being globally banned by the staff, his behavior still hasn't changed at all. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that he is about to genuinely change his behavior.

ST, you're arguing on how old some of the examples are, so here's what I say on the topic. It doesn't matter how old the examples are, because your behavior still haven't changed at all. If we were talking about someone whose behavior changed, then you would be right, the old examples would not count. But your attitude have yet to change, even after rare apologies and promises that you will change, three highly hotly discussions on your ban, multiple bans on various wikis, and a rather infamous global ban by the staff.

Staw, and whoever else who are blindly defending ST, if you didn't read the discussion at all, or only skimmed through it, and you want to participate in it, then for the love of good discussions, read the discussion thoroughly. Otherwise, you have absolutely nothing to offer to this discussion at all. 21:48, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

^I agree wholeheartedly. 23:31, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

It will be easier to break it down in points instead of responding all at once.

1) "ST is highly disrespectful and rude to other users, particularly those who go against his opinions, one of the most notables being NinjaSheik."

Ninjashiek still doesn't count since I was not the only one who undid her edits and it is incredibly old.

2) "You only merely have to go in his contribution page to find examples of how incredibly rude he is towards other users, which I find alarming on how easy it is to find examples on how rude he is to others."

You will now have to actually provide examples of these. Remember though, chat doesn't count for a wiki issue. I admit that I am sarcastic a lot so people might think that its me being rude or uncivil.

3) "ST is also incapable of letting his grudges go, no matter how old they may be. I've frequently seen him mocking users he dislikes, either face to face or behind their backs, even if their disagreements happened a long time ago, a rather significant example on his inability to let go of grudges. His inability of letting his grudges go and refusal to attempt to work with other users is also clear in his distrustful nature."

This also needs evidence to be posted. I dropped a lot of issues before. If this is about Ninjasheik the last times I have mentioned her was 1) using her as an example in a certain forum, and 2) If other people brought her up, such as asking what her edits were. The last time this happened was like a month and a half ago when Staw brought her up. I haven't brought her name up just to say "Her edits were bad" or anything like that for a very, very, long time. In fact I don't think I ever did that except for when somebody else brought her edits up other than when we were having problems with her edits.

4) "ST is not capable of trusting another editor to do their work and is constantly checking users' edits (particularly those he doesn't get along with), and very often, reverting their edits without even checking if they are right or wrong, which is a nuisance to everyone."

Evidence needs to be posted. I check a lot of edits daily (usually IPs) to make sure there is no vandalism or anything like that. I also don't revert correct edits just to make a reversion. There's absolutely no evidence for that. For users who are known to do a lot of bad edits I also check them. I don't check a lot of users edits like Fliu's for instance because I know for a fact he does good work.

5) "Whenever ST is in an edit war, he frequently refuses to give a good and acceptable reason on why he disagrees with the opposing side, and most of the time, I find his "reasons" something along the lines of, "Because I say so," or "I'm always right and you're always wrong, that's why." These are not very helpful in discussions, and only makes it even more challenging for other users to state on why they disagree with him."

Evidence needs to be posted for this. I have never said anything close to anything you stated. My most recent edit war was with Canuck because he was removing the active discussion template incorrectly from still live discussions. One of which the last comment had been made only a day ago at the time he first removed it. Plus the one Just already mentioned in this forum that I already went over in previous responses here.

6) "ST is very closed minded, and refuses to listen to other users' opinions, no matter what. ST also often blatantly ignores the community's decisions, which is very frustrating for the rest of the community."

Major evidence needs to be posted for this one. I definitely need to see examples of where I have blatantly reverted something (except when I made a mistake) that was polled on for instance.

7) "His disregard for authority is very frustrating to deal with as well, and even worse, his attitude have encouraged other users to develop similar attitudes, behaviors, work ethics and disregard for authority."

This one also needs major evidence. I argue with them when they do something that is against the rules like when DP deleted a power level blog that didn't break any rules right after the poll said to allow them.

8) "because they think "If ST can get away with his attitude, then so can I". So not only is he a tiresome editor to work with, he is also an extremely harmful influence on other users and ultimately, the wiki."

This one needs the most evidence out of everything you have said. Show the users who have done anything similar and also show that it was actually due to any of my actions. This one need the most evidence especially since correlation does not imply causation.

9) "Overall, I strongly believe that his attitude, behavior, and editing practices are highly harmful to the wiki, and he needs to make a complete change to his attitude, behavior and editing practices or he needs to go."

I already asked for evidence in previous sections so I'll have to reiterate that it needs evidence. This section sounds more like an opinion than any factual evidence.

10) "And despite rare apologies and promises to change his behavior, three ban discussions, his fourth ban discussion ongoing, multiple bans from various wikis, and being globally banned by the staff, his behavior still hasn't changed at all. Therefore, I find it highly unlikely that he is about to genuinely change his behavior."

Anything that happened on another wikia (unless it actually effects this one) does not count. This is the one time in my response where I will actually flat out say it isn't true that I haven't changed. It is actually true that I have changed since I got in a lot less arguments, edit wars, and even swear a lot less. I have also flat out stated that I deserved the staff ban for what I said and did.

11) "ST, you're arguing on how old some of the examples are, so here's what I say on the topic. It doesn't matter how old the examples are, because your behavior still haven't changed at all. If we were talking about someone whose behavior changed, then you would be right, the old examples would not count. But your attitude have yet to change, even after rare apologies and promises that you will change, three highly hotly discussions on your ban, multiple bans on various wikis, and a rather infamous global ban by the staff"

Nope, it actually does matter how old something is. I already showed in the previous sections responses that what you said isn't true. The old examples don't count for anything especially the Ninjashiek part. It was also stated that this forum shouldn't have been opened since the condition was it would only be opened if Galaxy was banned. You need to post the evidence that I have not changed because it is simply 100%, flat out, untrue.

12) "Staw, and whoever else who are blindly defending ST, if you didn't read the discussion at all, or only skimmed through it, and you want to participate in it, then for the love of good discussions, read the discussion thoroughly. Otherwise, you have absolutely nothing to offer to this discussion at all."

I already told Staw to read it before posting but he pretty much ignored me. The others should read everything too. SeaTerror (talk) 00:31, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

In response to comments of my post being invalid... has anybody even read the rules recently? Assuming I can still read and understand the English language, the only mention of forums is, "For some cases, a forum will be made discussing the reasons for the ban request." I'm sure some of you will interpret that different in ST's defence however. But do you know what else I see?

Purposefully insulting or offending other editors of the Wiki is unacceptable and is a ban-worthy offense. The Wiki is a community of internet users working towards a common goal, and petty insults impair the community's ability to reach their goal.

So now that we're clear on that and have dozens if not hundreds of examples of ST's terrible behaviour towards users directly or purposely impeding progress on the wiki - can we get a poll going (or have an admin just get it over with already)? 00:18, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Oi all you guys keep bringing up the negatives about the defendant. Why aren't people listing the positive things that SeaTerror has contributed to the community? And don't troll by saying that he hasn't done anything, he must have done something good at one point. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 00:34, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Poll can only be opened. Also you're twisting that around since it does not say "A user will be banned right away if they do one of these". Plus you're forgetting chat issues don't apply to wiki issues. You also ignored the steps to a ban section. The last time I blatantly insulted anybody in a wiki issue was what I got banned by staff for. Which I already said I completely deserved. SeaTerror (talk) 00:39, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

You have been doing it for years. I never mentioned chat issues. You are the one ignoring the ban steps. And despite that global ban you have not changed. Say whatever you want ST, it doesn't matter. This is happening and you only have yourself to hold responsible for it all. 02:03, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the ban rules again then if you think I'm the one ignoring them. Admins can't ban people unless they are new accounts (vandals) or IPs without a forum. I have to reiterate what I said in my response to Jade but You need to provide evidence that I never changed. Because I certainty have already provided the evidence that I have. Your last sentence was incredibly arrogant. A poll can happen but a ban cannot just be given out without a poll. SeaTerror (talk) 02:18, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

The ban rules don't say anything about requiring forums. The only times forums are mentioned are "For some cases, a forum will be made discussing the reasons for the ban request." and "Anonymous users (IPs) and new registered users will not be granted the privilege of forums regarding their bans, and they will be banned at an admin's discretion.". It doesn't say anywhere that regular users are guaranteed forums, it is just how things are usually done. 04:04, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is how things are always done. Admins can't ban a regular without a forum first. I will requote myself again about the forum rules. It does not say "A user will be banned right away if they do any one of these." I'm also not denying that I have done anything wrong. I obviously have done a lot of things wrong. I'm just arguing against the misinterpretation of that rule. If enough people want a poll then there will be a poll. If there isn't then there won't be one. It can go either way. I'm not claiming one or the other. SeaTerror (talk) 04:29, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say, "A user will be banned right away if they do any one of these," but you are just inventing, "Admins can't ban a regular without a forum first". The rules only say that in some cases will a forum be made. It is not a requirement beyond an obsessive adherence to what you're used to.

Registered users will be warned on their talk pages, and if they continue to disregard the rules and the warning, they will be banned.

JSD has already done a good job throwing some evidence your way, along with this entire forum serving as a point to what has come from your behaviour, and many regular users including admins, rollbacks and moderators have already expressed their desire to see you banned or gone. Also, there is nothing arrogant about reminding somebody that they are responsible for their own actions. 04:58, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep arguing the incorrect interpretation of the ban rules for something that we have always done. The "many" editors don't exist since a lot of people haven't commented on this forum so if you mean chat then that is still separate as been said before. From what is shown in this discussion it is about even between wanting a ban and not wanting one. Also this is what I was talking about. "Say whatever you want ST, it doesn't matter. This is happening" You are implying that I am getting banned without a discussion or a poll right there. That is arrogance. Also I already responded to Just in my previous comments on this section. SeaTerror (talk) 05:21, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

"Admins can't ban people unless they are new accounts (vandals) or IPs without a forum."

Not true. Sure, you have more edits than them and you're more of a regular, but both are users who have contributed enough to be able to vote on polls at the least. If those users can be banned without a forum, so can you.

"The "many" editors don't exist since a lot of people haven't commented on this forum so if you mean chat then that is still separate as been said before."

I haven't commented because I'm sick of the same old song and dance. I have better things to do then argue back and forth with people who make keep making excuses for you. I don't participate in chat, so I don't care how much of an entertainer you are, but you edit war more than any other user on the wiki. That's more than enough reason on its own to justify a ban. What else needs to be said? 06:23, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

It seems like Sff was right about these forums becoming popularity contests. That seems to be the only reason the previous ones didn't end in bans. 07:42, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

"ST is also incapable of letting his grudges go, no matter how old they may be. I've frequently seen him mocking users he dislikes, either face to face or behind their backs, even if their disagreements happened a long time ago, a rather significant example on his inability to let go of grudges. His inability of letting his grudges go and refusal to attempt to work with other users is also clear in his distrustful nature."

How the fuck is this a bannable offense? Having fun while talking about another user in chat is in no way something you should be banned about... If for example I go on chat and while having fun with other users, I start talking about how roa (Just giving an example here) makes stupid edits, would that be a reason to ban me? And what else, ban me from the wiki as a whole too? I don't think so.

And if you want to take it to chat issues, let's see how many times ST has been banned from in there! Joke ban Joke ban, Oh look! 2 whole times for one day each! So even if you complain about his attitude in the chat, which is something you shouldn't do, there is evidence that his attitude hasn't been considered worth banning more than twice.

K, I'm done posting. 07:53, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is using chat as a reason to ban him. I don't understand why people keep bringing that up in ST's 'defence'. And how do you get "having fun" from "inability of letting his grudges go and refusal to attempt to work with other users"?

Staw - read the ban rules that have now been linked and directly quoted in this forum. It's exactly what this wiki considers a bannable offence. 08:06, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nada is the only one here who brought up using chat as a reason to ban him. Everyone else has been talking about his rudeness, stubbornness and difficulty to work with outside of chat. 08:33, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

At Staw-Hat, "How the fuck is this a bannable offense": it is bannable if he is insulting/mocking others and using past events that are no longer relevant to argue his cases. 08:53, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying chat is a lone reason to ban him. It's just something to consider as the chat is just as part of the community as forums and talk pages. It's my only contribution to this forum here now. 08:56, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, we know he edit wars, he is rude at times, that's two offenses at edits. If he's rude at chats, then he should be banned in chats, that's a separate matter. 09:16, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

I feel as though we've discussed this long enough. Unless anybody would like to present reasons as to why ST should not be banned (reasons that explain why he can be considered a benefit to the wiki and not just tearing down or dismissing everybody who'd say otherwise), we should start this poll and finally reach a conclusion to this forum. 09:39, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

@Kuro I object \( ._.)/ Roranoa Drake II (talk) 15:37, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Sure let's poll and get it over with. 15:39, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

So why now we want to ban ST again? Is that for something recent he have done? Is it for "his behaviour" which after 3 ban discussion didn't changed? Is it for something he did on chat? And don't remind me on another forum, this is the forum about ST so explain it here.


 * I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I think my first post probably does the best job of summarizing this forum, and includes many of the examples other people are citing in this discussion. The examples include older examples of his and examples of similar actions from just a few days ago. Also it outlines my reasons for why this ban forum is truly justified to have now. 17:13, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Part 6
Now, since ST likes the numbered response style so much, I'll respond to his most recent numbered post.

1) "Ninjashiek still doesn't count since I was not the only one who undid her edits and it is incredibly old. "

Uh, yes those edits do "count". We are not talking about the actions of any other users who undid her edits, we are talking about YOUR actions. The actions of others do not excuse your own actions. And as far as I can tell, you are the user with the the largest grudge against her, repeatedly using her style of editing as a sarcastic insult towards other users. It would be an incredible task for me to link examples of this, since the forums or talk pages they were posted on were largely irrelevant to her. Oh wait, here's one. And another! (Note that he posted on 2 sections in the second example, and it's the second one that is important) Reminder: This is not an invitation for you to talk about the content of NinjaShiek's edits, but instead you should respond with why it's ok to use one user's editing style to insult another, in effect, insulting both of them.

2) "You will now have to actually provide examples of these. ... I admit that I am sarcastic a lot so people might think that its me being rude or uncivil."

Uh, yes being sarcastic can be being rude or uncivil, depending on the context. If you are being sarcastic in general that might be considered to be ok, but when you are sarcastic to target another user or respond to their argument, that is definitely being rude and uncivil. It's not civil to argue through the use of sarcasm instead of real words. And if you want examples, some of my earlier posts demonstrate this, as well as the second example I just linked in #1.

3) See #1.

4) My earlier post regarding Meganoide's edit a few days ago is a fine example of this. You believe Meganoide to be a "bad editor", and you stalk his edits and revert them without even properly examining the content of the edit.

5 and 6) I actually have plans for this afternoon, so I can't spend all day trying to track down examples of this. But I will.

7) Evidence of your disrespect was already given. The Arabasta 1 forum was justly closed, and examples of your disrespect towards DP are found in Arabasta 2. Also, the image I linked earlier of your edit war with two admins without even attempting to discuss the issue is a great example.

8) Evidence really can't be given for this. It's too subjective and requires any hard evidence to be posted by people who have been influenced by your actions since we all aren't mind readers. However, evidence isn't really needed for this point. If people believe that your actions are a bad influence on the wiki, then they are more than welcome to use that as a reason to ban you. Personally, I think I could list some examples of other users being influenced by your behavior, but doing so would bring up the actions of other active users and distract from the issue at hand: Your behavior.

9) Yeah, Jade's post is opinion. It uses the phrase "Overall, I strongly believe..." and is used as summation for earlier arguments used in the wiki. It's just part of the structure of her post and I have no idea why you are responding to it like it needs facts and proof behind it.

10) We cannot ban you for behavior on other wikis. However, mentioning that other wikis have not put up with your behavior is something that we are totally allowed to mention.

11) I've said it before and I'll say it again: Older posts are relevant because your pattern of behavior has not changed.

And this statement is total bullshit: "this forum shouldn't have been opened since the condition was it would only be opened if Galaxy was banned". There was no consensus on this, and no rules back this statement. We are more than welcome to judge the behavior of two separate users in two separate forums. The only common thread between two forums is that people perceive the behavior of you and Galaxy to be similarly harmful towards the wiki. This forum is totally legitimate.

12) I'm glad that you agree people should read the forum before they post. I applaud your efforts to make sure people make informed decisions and wish you would urge for this more vocally.

13) Let's say this is about Kuro's idea that you could be banned without a forum. I actually agree with you that this forum should go to poll. The majority is unclear and some users may find your actions to be subjective in their negative qualities. However, Kuro is right that theoretically we would not need a forum to ban an experienced user. In cases where rules are completely and totally against our policies, such as threatening and insulting behavior, and instant ban is more than justified. The best example I can actually think of for this is your staff ban: You insulted and threatened Nada and staff saw this as a reason to initially ban you for 1 year. That kind of abusive behavior should not be tolerated, and admins should not have to wait around for a forum to ban a user who is clearly being harmful to our community.

Regarding your opposition to it though, I have some serious issues with your argument. You basically state "this is the way we've always done it" as a reason why you are right. The rules state otherwise. This is basically the same as the argument we had a few days ago, except with reversed roles. There you cited the rules as written as a reason why you are correct, and I said "this is the way we've always done it" as part of my point. Yet you accuse me of "just making up stuff again" while you are in the right. Why is it ok for you to do the same thing I did? Seems to me your argument there is hypocrisy at its finest.

Also, I'd like to mention that you never did respond to the content of this post, despite my request for you to do so. I understand that the argument evolved a bit between that post and your following post, but I would still like a response to the material contained in that post. I'm going to re-post the last paragraph of that so that others can understand what should be posted:

In case you didn't get this from reading it a bunch of times in this post: In your response, you should talk about your actions, ST. Not the actions of others, not the topics of edit wars, your actions. This forum is about your behavior, and nothing else. Talking about anything else is just obscuring the discussion away from what it needs to be about. Stop throwing up a smokescreen of small arguments and talk about yourself and why your behavior should be allowed.

I also have some words for those defending ST: Please argue about things that are truly relevant to this forum. Particularly ST's behavior. We do not need to argue about rules, Gal's forum, or chat. We need to argue about the behavior of ST. I also believe that posting positive things that ST has done is not relevant to this forum. This forum is about how his negative behavior has negatively affected our community, and no amount of positive edits should excuse his negative actions. I believe the same is true for any editor, not just ST. Before you post please consider if what you are going to post is going to keep this forum on track, or distract it from its true purpose: Discussion of banning SeaTerror because of his behavior. 18:22, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

1) Nope again it doesn't count. You are bringing up incredibly retroactive stuff to try pushing for a ban instead of showing something recent wish would actually have more bearing. I already said that the most recent time I used her as an example was on a somewhat recent forum. You are also using it as examples when I was not the only one who undid her edits which makes the argument invalid to try claiming a ban. Using her as an example like that was also not something I had done in a long time.

2) Sarcasm is real words. Sarcasm can also fit an argument such as using sarcasm to make a point.

3) You're making stuff up again. There is absolutely no evidence that I stalk his edits. If I was stalking his edits like you claim I do then I would literally have no time to do anything else or I would be undoing his edits all the time.

4) Yeah, you didn't even read that section. I asked for actual evidence that there is a disrespect for authority which you never gave and are still using a retroactive forum of something I never brought up again.

5) So then there is no evidence that people "disrespect" authority due to my actions. That takes care of that argument then.

6) She repeated what she said so I repeated I needed evidence for it.

7) That one wasn't just about other wiki bans which still has no bearing on any problem here.

8) I already proved you and Jade wrong when you said I didn't change so this is another invalid argument. Go post the evidence if you think I haven't changed. Also it was said his forum that it would open if Galaxy was banned so when he disabled his own account then it shouldn't have been opened.

9) You're bring up extremely old things again and I got banned by staff for it. Show me threatening anybody right now in my edits any time after my staff ban and then that argument would be valid.

10) Actually people are twisting that "rule" around just to try to force an admin to ban right away instead of having a poll. It was made by obvious by Kuro's comment" "Say whatever you want ST, it doesn't matter. This is happening".

11) The issue with your arguments is that they keep on bringing up old and dead issues like anything that has to do with Ninjashiek. You seem incapable of arguing about ANYTHING recent so you keep bringing up that old stuff. I never once said any of my behavior was right or my edit warring. I never said that my actions were justified. The issue here and now is the fact that you are posting retroactive "evidence" or something from chat which is a completely separate issue as stated by multiple people other than myself. SeaTerror (talk) 21:08, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we just vote on it. This is starting to become repetitive. 22:07, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Any more non-repetitive comments? If not, we can start. Length will be determined if it goes through. 22:36, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

The poll is open. 07:52, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Changing the poll length for deciding whether to ban to one week, per the rules. That's the way we've always done it, so there shouldn't be any objections. 08:04, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was two weeks. My mistake. 16:17, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

Part 7
I know I am not a regular anymore, but this topic seems to be about keep re-listing ST for banment until it happens. Eventually the odds go against ST, there is enough users without long-term experience with him as a user and he'll get banned. But for some of the older editors, who know ST and know who ST is as a editor.. This is kinda a waste of time. Hell I've done worst things on the wikia then ST and I'm a founding member. I had arguents and fights with other editors... I've been a bigger stubborn idiot then most folks. Should I be banned?

If the editor does far more good edits then bad, you can "excuse" a few because their otherwise a good editor. We all have our personalities and we make mistakes - we're human. While banning vandals, flamers, trolls, etc is essential, you also have to consider its not a good idea to make outsider of long-term editors, or to expel them because their not with the current "in" crowd or popular opinion of the wikia. At the end of the day, wikias are about getting a varied opinions and views together and using them to make the best approach on a subject.

Hell, while I regret supporting the side that kept Joekido a editor in Joekido's banments... Ask me to ban him... Still I would be hard pushed since while I now have issues with him, I have some experience of editing alongside him and even his ideas helped shaped the wikia as it is today. This conflicts between editors just result in refinement of wikia rules and guidelines, to make things clear. And honestly... ST's a swell guy... He was when I was a regular and even from a lurkers POV, I don't think any less of him.

Look I have no influence on modern day wikia and its likely my plea for sensibility will fall on deaf ears here; but THINK guys, seriously, on the idea of banning ST. Most of the arguments are dated and if you have issues with ST, you should be addressing them with ST and not just ban him as a solution. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:34, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

The issue is how consistent his behavior is and his apparent inability to change. He's been stubborn and argumentative as long as I've been here and has shown no signs of change. 01:00, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

First off, to Angel I say that I think when the wiki was small those hostile edits needed to be tolerated because the wiki needed those editors to survive. But having a long-term hostile editing environment is probably a major part of what drove almost all of the founding editors away. We're a larger, better wiki now, and if we are to stay that way, we need to hold our editors to a higher standard than "do more good than harm". We shouldn't allow anyone to harm the community.

And I'd like to say that cries that we're banning ST for old behavior are unfounded. Of all the examples I've linked, all but one of them (the NinjaShiek examples) are from after the last poll in this forum was opened. That makes them all recent and very relevant.

More importantly though, I have one more link I'd like to show. It's exactly what ST has said we haven't been showing: Evidence of him being rude and insulting outside of chat from a recent discussion. Here he is, implying that a fellow editor doesn't have a brain. I don't see how this kind of behavior can be excused any longer. 04:46, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Should have been pretty obvious what that image link actually meant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Also no your examples were all actually extremely old so they aren't relevant. Not just the NinjaShiek ones either. SeaTerror (talk) 05:06, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

"Old and silly", etc. Let's face it, ST is currently being offensive. 06:07, February 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I just hope this time doesn't end up as another popularity contest. 06:12, February 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not popularity contest, this is about others trying to get their way and bringing up a issue until they get it. Eventually, the odds get stacked against the person, and by the fact this is the fourth time its occurred, people start actually believing the BS someone is spewing out. No offense, but I've seen this elsewhere on the net, and in real life.


 * Also Yatan, consider also that people are right now criticizing and directly having issues with ST, therefore, ST is going to react both here and elsewhere. If someone has a issue with another, the other person will try and take a stand or defend themselves or their at least their actions and I wouldn't blame ST at this point for being a little rude because he keeps getting this time and time again. You may or may not be intending it, but a lot of what I can see going on just in this forum topic can be counted even as near enough "bait food" subjects. His rude, stubborn,yes, get over it, there are 5% at least edits from him which are good ones.


 * This whole 4th incident is just an excuse to bring ST into the mix because someone else got banned and someone thought it would be a good idea to jump on the opportunity to dig at ST once more. The reason I'm even talking right now is because at this point your taking advantage of the wikia system we have in place if you do this sort of thing and that can be just as bad as someone who vandalizes pages. I may not be a regular, but I can see whats going on here as plain as others.


 * Now I'm not going to say ST is immune to being banned, because if ST does something even I wont' stand by I'll dam well support a complete ban at that point, but honestly, if this ban DOES go ahead its a unjustified ban because its more personnel then it is an attempt to set an example of bad behavior. And unless a punishment is aimed at doing that, its not doing the job a punishment is meant to do; which is put people off of further bad behavior.


 * And since one of the topics of OnePiece happens to be the implications of applying Justice, you guys can draw your own conclusions on if this is a justified punishment. One-Winged Hawk (talk)

Angel, nobody was banned prior to this forum being opened. The person disabled their account before anything was decided.

We aren't taking advantage of the system. The rules outright say that offensive behaviour isn't tolerated. ST, like any other user, is free to be rude, argumentative and stubborn. But we by no means have to put up with it. If the actions of a user creates a hostile environment, they shouldn't be supported because they happen to be a veteran editor. ST has turned away many users through his edits and behaviour, users both new and old. He's not the only one, but he one of the most prominent, and even globally banned by Wikia staff, only to return unchanged and repeating the actions that got him in trouble in the first place.

And as you said in your first post, you aren't a regular user any more. You aren't current on events or the users here. And so far your argument has been, "What you've said is true, ST is all of those things. I've even done worse things. But people make mistakes, so he should just be forgiven." Do you know what else people can do? Change. Improve. When confronted with their flaws, they shouldn't just be ignored or babied by others. ST has been doing this for years now, and shows no sign of changing. It doesn't matter if he's done some good because he's done just as much bad and there is no good reason for why we have to continue to put up with it. 15:37, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

"ST has turned away many users through his edits and behaviour, users both new and old." You have to post evidence for this now. I already proved I changed after my staff ban so that part of the argument is wrong. SeaTerror (talk) 16:07, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

ST, you haven't done anything to prove anything. You have just ignored or deflected and expected everybody to take your word at face value. However there are at least a dozen if not more examples of your unchanged behaviour, as provided by other users.

As for evidence, here's one, me.

As noticed by other users, I haven't actively participated in forums or talk page discussions for a while now. The only reason I started again was because people asked me to. And you're the reason why I hesitate. Any conversation with you, any argument, any discussion, is like we're just running in circles. You have your belief, your sole perspective, and you never change. But you go to great lengths to stall and dismiss anything anybody else says. You are unreasonable, and when it comes to discussing change, unbearable. These are my feelings, and are a direct result of your behaviour throughout the wiki as a whole. If anybody reading this feels the same way, feel free to add an indented comment to this post.

I get that you can be a good guy. I get that you're friendly. But the minute there's a difference in belief, you cannot discuss things rationally. There is never any compromise. Just you and what you think is right. As far as you are concerned, everybody else is wrong. And that is why I think that removing you will benefit the community. It will help reach better conclusions in forums, talk pages and any other issues, as well as avoiding the light novels they now turn into. All because we'll have removed somebody who fights with everything he has to stick his feet in the ground and halt progress.

Feel free to accuse me of being biased. But anybody who knows me knows that I do my best to be reasonable and understand both sides of a situation. While you do make things uncomfortable for me, I would only bring it up if I seriously thought it was for the betterment of the wiki and its community. 16:45, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Part 8
Actually their "evidence" has all been retroactive and nothing recent has been posted except for Just's last 2 points in his initial comment. I already proved I changed in my other comments. Go compare how I was before the staff ban and you will see the actual difference. There are also plenty of things I don't agree with but I never brought up again. You're now making more accusations without evidence. I have compromised plenty of times and if you can find something where this happened that isn't incredibly old then that would actually be nice. So far the "evidence" that has been brought up has been nothing but extremely old or fairly old edits. Forums will always be long and so will some talk pages because they are meant to be debated when discussed. Have I gone too far on some debates? Obviously but so have many other people. Most debates die out since nobody actively discusses them. All I really am asking for is recent evidence and nothing that is retroactive. SeaTerror (talk) 17:06, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

All of these are from after the last time this forum closed, also over the course of the course of the last year:


 * Repeatedly reverting the removal of an image with no reason.


 * Reverting an image with no reason given.


 * Ignoring the newly-created image war rules.


 * And again, but also ignoring a talk page majority.


 * The things here show his problem with authority.


 * Ignoring the decision of a talk page, almost a month after the discussion closed.


 * This one's a doosie. First you've got him showing an intense personal bias against Greg from the OP podcast, who only kindly requested that he be given credit for his work being added to the wiki. It's embarrassing for all of us to be stuck not adhering to request because ST wants to drag out the argument for a personal bias. Then there's the massive edit war over the box template caused by him. It was bad enough for Zodiaque to request his ban in the forum.

Are those good enough for you, ST? They're all fairly recent and none have occurred before the last time your ban was discussed. Pretty clear pattern of behavior, if you ask me. 17:35, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

1) Wasn't the only one who undid those edits. Though this is actually a good example for once.

2) One off edit so this is an example of looking for ban excuses.

3) Best example so far. I don't even remember that one.

4) Was not a talk page majority at the time so that is another excuse. Never reverted it again when the talk actually finished. Plus ironically you're using an example of something where somebody else also reverted it.

5) This entire one is just obviously a joke. MasterDeva was the only one who wanted those changes and kept reverting them to how he wanted THEN protected them. The talk page majority on the original discussion said not to use them.

6) One off edit again.

7) We had our reasons already posted on the forum. The the box edit war was due to the fact it hadn't been decided to use those yet. This is a better example though. So far you showed some good examples and then really bad ones. I would say the MasterDeva one was the worst example. SeaTerror (talk) 17:54, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention one more:


 * Forum:History Section Lengths contains some of ST's "best" arguing and is a prime example of him holding the wiki back single-handedly.

I'm not responding to your posts in the interest of keeping this forum short and easy to read. I will say though that I'm disappointed your reasoning continues to be "other people have done this too" or debating the topic shown yet again. You've yet to talk directly about your own behavior. And now that I think of it, you've yet to supply an example of a time when you have admitted you have been wrong. I'd even give you credit if you could just freshly admit some instances right now. 18:11, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Actually so far you have yet to post something that was me alone other than the third example which I will admit I was wrong about. I also never stated that any of my behavior was inexcusable. I even stated that some of it was wrong. Also that last example is another one where I wasn't the only one that stated something shouldn't be changed but I did eventually drop it. SeaTerror (talk) 18:26, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Another person doing it doesn't automatically make you right. The forum on history section lengths only became an argument when you got involved; until then it was a polite discussion and you kept arguing for your side long after anyone else supporting it gave up. That's also a more recent example of you bringing up NinjaSheik. 21:36, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

"I did eventually drop it." Keyword being "eventually". From my count, you posted 27 times on that forum. And from what else I see only Vaz even hinted at being on your side, but then conceded to the clear majority. However, you still posted sixteen times after Vaz conceded. That's over half of your posts. Doesn't that seem a little excessive? At that point, you've clearly argued past when it should be acceptable for one person to argue. Why should it matter if you dropped it "eventually" when you've already wasted so much of everyone's time and effort? 23:14, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Part 9
For the... (100th? 1000th?) time, SeaTerror undid my edits. In this case, we talk about Magellan's page. First, I've explained in the page why I removed some sentences. Second, I contacted the other user explaining my reasons. But for SeaTerror, nothing is important. He never cares. And you, people, you never ban him. Countless proofs of his arrogant behaviour, and two of you are saying "no, only old examples". Old?? Open your eyes! --Meganoide (talk) 20:03, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your voting for his ban though. 20:09, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are eligible to vote for his ban, if you so choose, Meganoide. 20:14, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I know I can vote, JSD, however thank you. I'm only waiting for Sunday for posting my vote.

Staw, we're not talking about MY vote. I'm talking about YOUR vote. HOW!! HOW!! How can you vote agaist the ban for a user who NEVER, NEVER, listen the other's opinions?? Meganoide (talk) 20:25, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'll decide later if I'll vote or not, but you should remember that "not voting" is also a valid option if you don't strongly oppose or support the ban.

While I dont want ST gone coz he's a nice guy to me,that is the only reason I can think of for him not to be banned,so I dont wanna vote ;_; But his behaviour is certainly banworthy:Most people who voted for him not to be banned came to the forum with an already biased attitude"Fuck the forum,I dont even care for the reasons-I'm just gonna vote for him not to be banned".--

I really appreciate your honesty, Roranoa. But how can you be against his ban, if you know what he's doing? Please, believe in this thing and remember it: not voting is the same thing as voting against his ban. --Meganoide (talk) 14:31, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

No it is absolutely not the same thing, and what a stupid thing to say. Don't pressure people into voting on something they don't want to. 14:40, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Pressuring people doesn't help. If you want him banned that much, just vote yes in the poll. 17:21, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Aw man. Looks like he's NOT gonna be banned, and he's just gonna go back to his old ways of edit war and arrogance. He never gets the message! 18:37, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty close and some people still haven't voted so there's still a chance he will get banned. 19:11, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

This did turn into a popularity contest ;_;--

I noticed pretty early on that most of the users voting for no ban frequent the chat where ST is apparently pretty popular (or so I've heard since I don't use chat). It's kind of funny that that's the case when people always say that chat doesn't matter. 05:26, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

For sure the three users who are saying "only old examples" didn't read the discussion. What a shame. Their votes should be removed. --Meganoide (talk) 11:40, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to repost these recent examples. 12:10, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Oh come on SHB what Roa and Meganoide said is more than obvious. And why should he repost the arguments, they are all written in the text above, if someone wants to read them all he has to do is scroll up.

Vazelos, don't you understand they're kidding us? They act blind and deaf. No example will be valid, for them. Neither yesterday's examples! --Meganoide (talk) 12:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

However: So, SHB, are these examples enough "young"? Meganoide (talk) 12:46, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Here he undid my edit without logic. In each arc we know new characters. There is no need to underline them.
 * 2) Here he adds nothing to the talk, but he only says "you're wrong". I explained my reasons and he ignores them. And, PS, I'm right, as some other user said.
 * 3) Here he says to follow the rule "write more than you can because it's always the best way". Users already decided to focus on what is really important. But he don't cares.

If you are referring to the examples JSD recently gave, all I see is petty arguments/flamewars that half the people on this wiki are guilty of. As for the Greg thing, if that's your reason for banning him then you can start a ban forum for me too because I was just as bad. Well then I guess we are blind and deaf then. Didn't know having a difference of opinion meant we could insult each other, good to know. 12:49, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I've posted MY examples, why do you say I'm talking about JSD's ones? You don't read the others' messages; you're just like SeatError. --Meganoide (talk) 12:51, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Because I wrote the reply before reading your examples and you were talking about the examples above, given most of them were JSD's I was under the opinion you were talking about his examples. Again with the insults....... really? I haven't even said anything hostile and you have already started. Sorry if I'm getting in the way of your personal grudge match you have had with ST which has been around as long as I can remember. And from what I've heard you're just as bad if not worse than ST so I'm not even going to waste my time, I'm blind and deaf remember. 13:04, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I voted for the ban because reading some of the posted examples as well remembering this forum I don't think ST really changed, he still has that incredibly annoying "no, you're wrong, nuff said" behaviour which makes a discussion impossible not matter how much arguments or example you bring on the table. I don't actually think these things are banworthy themselves, but since it's the same old reason why this forum was revamped three times (four with this one), then it's another story. I think he should be banned not for his past events, but because his past events. We can let it go three times and give him three chance, but actaully four? I remember that we gave an user "three warning strikes" before opening a ban forum, well he has four ban forums already... that says a lot.

It's really hard to ask for people to vote against someone they like, even if it's in chat. It can take 15 ban polls but he will never get banned. Not like that..

Ah. So, if I understood, you're saying we're stupid to ask a ban, and we'll ever lose? Probably you're right. We're stupid hoping for justice, and we'll lose even in this fourth poll. Be proud for defending your friend, who attacks everybody without reason. --Meganoide (talk) 13:29, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Personally yeah, of course I am gonna defend ST, we've been here since 2010. I won't support his ban. For you (and whoever didn't join the chat and get to know the people pretty good) ST is just another asshole in the internet.

This forum is been on forever, seriously. Not gonna happen. He just disagrees with everything. Just go against him and prove that you're right. Make other people support you in the argument and it's fine. And still ,all arguments nowadays become polls, so either way more people gonna blend in.

But if you know he's an asshole (your words) why do you defend him? Only because in chat he's nice? If you like him as a friend use facebook. If you don't like him as an editor vote fo his ban. --Meganoide (talk) 14:10, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

How is that my words? Read that again.

You see this seriously so you want him out. I get that. Me I don't really care anymore. I know ST and I don't want him banned(like everyone who votes no on all four ban polls). If I stayed in the forums/talk pages like you and try to make a difference in the details then maybe I would want him gone, yes. Not blaming you.

I'm sorry but that doesn't sounds really good, because apparently you are opposing the ban not because you think he shouldn't be banned, but because you don't want him to be banned cause he's your buddy. I have to think that you also ban people because you don't like them, then. That's not a serious behaviour at all. And OMG people stop bring in the chat in every post.

The examples you gave are really quite ridiculous, Meganoide. The first one is actually valid information and is just a note about the appearance of new characters. The last two are the worst because apparently other people are allowed to disagree with toy but I'm not. That's an incredibly arrogant and biased attitude. Plus your edit here http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:DancePowderer?diff=1128584&oldid=1128233 is actually against the voting rules. You are not allowed to tell people what to vote for. One_Piece_Encyclopedia:Guidebook/Talk_Pages_and_Forums SeaTerror (talk) 15:58, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Like Levi said,not banning people just because they're ur friends and banning them just coz you dont like them is stupid.
 * Also Mega's being incredibly biased and pressurizing people to vote for ST's ban,you should stop that.--

Just want to clarify that there's nothing wrong with asking people to change their votes, so Meganoide's post on DP's wall is fine. From the section ST linked: "They are still allowed to try and convince other users to change their vote, but only through legitimate argument, not in a way that violates the rules above, and not in order to change the opinions of those who have not yet voted."

Also, LPK, your reasons for voting against the ban aren't very sound, and really are hurting the wikia. We active editors want him banned so that editing on this wiki will become an easier and a less disrupted process. You're essentially telling us "nope, you can't have that, because I'm going to be stubborn about this even though I don't edit anymore" Can't you have some consideration for those who still try to edit and improve the wiki? However, I do commend you for actually having the balls to admit the true reasons behind your vote instead of remaining silent or hiding behind false logic. 16:22, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

JSD, maybe for the future it is needed to change the rules for voting. Something like "only users who love this wiki can vote". Half of the no-ban group would not be allowed.

Roa, I actually asked only to have an explanation about his decision. When I said "I'd like you to change idea" was because it was stupid to pretend that my question was "neutral". --Meganoide (talk) 16:27, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

You're next Mega, and your forum will be short and sweet. 16:30, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Me, the next one? It smells of menace. And why? Cause I'm defending my ideas? Congrats. --Meganoide (talk) 16:33, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Because you are breaking rules and being a total moron, but it's okay you will be banned soon anyway. :)  16:36, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Lol, so why exactly wasn't THIS ban short and sweet for four times in a row given the amount of things ST did? This is ridiculous. Sff9 is totally right: this is a popularity contest, what's the point of it then?

Actually Just he is telling people what to vote for which was the same exact reason you banned both Galaxy and DP from voting on this poll. Category_talk:Unreleased_Content/Archive_1 SeaTerror (talk) 16:41, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm ASKING for a motivation. Do you know the difference? --Meganoide (talk) 16:44, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

All the users who are obsessed with banning SeaTerror AND have over 10,000 edits, you really need to find a hobby or pursue a career in politics or journalism. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:46, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Roa II, you aren't helping this forum in the slightest with you bad attempt at jokes.

I'll be the one who tells people the reasons for my own posts, thank you very much, ST. The cases are different. DP and Gal got people who had not voted on the issue to vote for a specific option. Meganoide is asking DP, who has already voted and posted his opinion to change his vote. Read the rules carefully, and you'll see there's nothing wrong with Mega's post by the rules. Though I will admit that he is being a bit overzealous about the issue. 16:48, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Since apparently a forum about Meganoide will be opened soon, can you all discuss the case there? This page is already long enough in my opinion.

Part 10
@JSD I don't have anything against you, but your biased opinions ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvm7GM1qdU. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:54, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that half of the list of users voted for his ban. This means that SeaTerror makes problems. I don't think we're dreaming where we see the problems he creates. On the other hand, the no-ban group clearly admit they voted in that way because he's a buddy. One of the two groups is "normal", the other is illogic. Decide for yourself, if you want to understand who is the first group and who's the second. I only see that a logic vote and an illogic one are treated as the same thing. --Meganoide (talk) 16:57, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not voting because ST is my "buddy", I'm voting because the 4th poll is utter nonsense. If there was more solid reason, friend or enemy I'd vote for banning ST if the reason was justified.  But there are not good reasons here, I've said it before and I stand by my statement; this is not a justified poll.  One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:09, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, take note of the number of times ST has been put up for ban, many of which were issues we resolved without the need to ban him and that there are *some* on this wiki who have it out for him. They'll keep putting his name up for banment until he is banned, even if its like this 4th particular poll, with no good reason at all.  I'm not saying he is the best behaved, but worst editors have been here on the wikia and without facing ban.  The idea is ban is saved for the last resort, otherwise you go to forums and you resolve issues correctly, via discussion.  This is where people don't do things correctly, and instead of jump to get rid of ST because he doesn't behave with their ideal editor situation.


 * Also, may I point out attacking a side for one reason or another is an old trick Meg. We're voting for ST being kept, therefore because we're against your idea of banning him, we're "the bad guys".  I'm not impressed with this tactic and suggest you frame from using it. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:49, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Relax Mega, if people are going to be illogical, you can't convince them with logic. The poll will decide soon enough. And Roa II either contribute something of value or just don't post. 96.229.219.202

^ Sorry, I was logged out for some reason. 18:30, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * So Meg calls everyone voting for ST being kept bias, your calling us stupid.


 * From start to finish, editors of this wikia are surprising me with their behavior.


 * Leave mud slinging against the other side out of the poll discussion, I may not be a beaucrat or mod, but I can ask for us to be at least civilized and act like mature human beings. Because I don't like seeing newer editors behaving like this. Its disgraceful to the community itself. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:56, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Plus it is ridiculous how bias Just is being. I showed an example of Meganoide breaking the rules and he claimed that it was "different" when it isn't at all. It is still breaking the rules but he ignored it just because Meganoide happened to vote for the same option he did. SeaTerror (talk) 20:03, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the rules again, ST. I wrote the part about that, and I know exactly what it means. No bias. Here's the important part, highlighted for convenience. Meganoide's post asks DP to change his vote. Users are allowed to talk to others about changing their vote. In the example you're thinking of DP and Gal took advantage of people who had not voted yet. Do you see the difference? No bias. I'm not arguing about the forum here, only informing everyone of the rules. No bias. 20:17, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

'''I split the page but my edit was undone. To whom ever it concerns, may I request a sensible split between sections, this is getting hard to read and even harder to edit? Pretty please??? :-) ''' One-Winged Hawk (talk) 20:07, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I will do that, though I'd really appreciate if nobody could edit this until I'm done, as that kind of edit can't easily be fixed in an edit conflict.  20:17, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done it. Hope the spots make sense to everyone and flow nicely. 20:26, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Too many headers. If it has to be split like that then split it into 2-3 equal parts. Also I fixed the length issue. Though this forum is still incredibly laggy. I don't know why. Maybe it's the forum header template? SeaTerror (talk) 20:36, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the first, second and third polls by now should be their own topics, otr at least split poll4 from those 3 and link back to them in the 4th polls' topic. This polls length is a essay alone. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 21:01, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just realized what the issue is. It's the poll template. It causes immense lag. I noticed this since I just tested on the archive and source mode immediately loaded on it but it didn't here. Also I forgot to mention that I wasn't sure if I should have created an archive for each one or just the single archive. I went with the single archive for now. SeaTerror (talk) 20:39, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else think it's funny that the discussion has gotten so long that we have to organize it even though the poll has been open for almost a week? 20:42, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of this isn't that useful in discussing the ban, its mostly in-house bickering and everyone trying to get one over the other side. Which is sad. I've had to speak up at this point because I think its getting out of hand.  One-Winged Hawk (talk) 20:59, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we put all discussion on hold until the poll is over. This doesn't seem very productive in changing the poll results and arguing without any result is just a waste of time. 21:03, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about the behaviour, this is not the most civiised discussion I've seen in years, and a lot of it is just uncivilized and at points, borderlining rude remarks thrown at someone else. At this point unless someone has something new against ST there isn't anything to discuss.  Its best to cap a run away argument to let editors cool off for a few days I think. When people are mad or trying to make something personnel, they don't necessary keep a clear head and forget themselves. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 21:08, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Also what little is being kept on-topic is now repeating itself over and over again with nothing new added. There is also the issue of the "evidence" against ST being worth anything, which hasn't been resolved either. Some of it is dated issues that were resolved, which means filtering out whats "useful" and whats "not useful" at this point is confusing, and can leave bad impressions on ST's character, which though may be justified, in this case not due to their resolved nature.


 * How many times should ST be punished on something? Who knows, but this is another issue that those against ST are presenting without resolution.  I wish for some of these issues to be resolved - with a civilized manner.   :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 21:12, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I just split the forum up where I thought the topics shifted around a bit. If anyone wants to consolidate some of those sections, I don't really care. I just didn't care about having them all the same length just because I didn't want the same topic in different sections. And if anything it causing lag, it's not the poll template, but rather all the signatures that have been put on this forum.

And discussion is still important. Especially since the poll is so close right now. 21:17, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

@One-Winged Hawk: "Some of it is dated issues that were resolved" - no it isn't. You are missing an important point: if the issues were resolved he would have been already banned, something that didn't ever happened. As I said before, I think he should be banned not for his past events, but because his past events. His past events aren't an evidence for this ban, but we gave him other chances and he didn't really changed editing behaviour. Think like this: if a referee gives you a yellow card, you are not expelled, but you commit two yellow-card faults, then you are. None of them are worth a red card by themselves, only together. Well, as I see it, ST has already three yellow cards and this is the fourth one. None of them were worth a ban by themselves, but this is the classic "the straw that broke the camel's back" (is that how do you say it?). (about the splitting issue, i don't believe the "part #" sections are needed at all, you splitted the page, that's enough.)

I already provided evidence that I changed. Especially after my staff ban. Most of what was posted was incredibly old or things I don't even do anymore. Some of it was even evidence of a one off edit. SeaTerror (talk) 21:46, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with what Levi's said. Also, where is the "proof" that you've changed? I don't remember seeing any proof. As far as I can tell, this is something you just started saying halfway through the forum after a mountain of evidence showing the contrary was presented. If you've proved it, then please, prove it again in detail, because even though I've read this entire forum several times, the one thing I did not see was a proof. And are you willing to admit that you are wrong about the issue with Meganoide's post on DP's talk? You didn't respond to my last edit about that (the one where I showed an image of the rules). 22:18, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

"It is actually true that I have changed since I got in a lot less arguments, edit wars, and even swear a lot less. I have also flat out stated that I deserved the staff ban for what I said and did." Check my edits before the staff ban and check my edits after the staff ban. You can see the difference. Also old evidence is once again being posted on this forum in the section Angel created. Plus that example of "edit warring" is a flat out lie. A one time edit does not = an edit war. SeaTerror (talk) 23:06, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

You have so many edit's it would take forever to search through them for examples of change. You have to provide the evidence yourself. 23:33, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Evidence gathering
I'm resurrecting this, we used this in the distant past as a method of sorting issues.

For those who don't know how this works, those who feel there is a strong evidence against ST write in "For". Anyone, including ST, who wishes to counter those evidence, write in "against". This is not part of the discussion, but just a bullet point of whats been said to summerise everything. It would be helpful if people filled this in.

Remember, the discussion is u ^, not down here >, your making a list, not discussing it. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 21:16, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

For:
 * 1) Long history of arguing with other users and edit warring.
 * 2) Frequently rude to other users.
 * 3) Holds grudges against users (ie. bringing up NinjaSheik here despite her not editing here anymore and requesting that he stop using her as an example).
 * 4) Continuing his incredibly annoying "no, you're wrong, nuff said" behaviour making a discussion impossible and delaying important changes.
 * 5) Mistrustful of other users, often reverting their edits without properly reviewing their content. Also accuses admins of power abuse.
 * 6) (moved to point 4 since duplicate)
 * 7) Frequently edit warring without giving reasons.
 * 8) Once edit warring against two admins with no explanation.
 * 9) Ignoring the then-recently created Image War rule. Many times.
 * 10) In the forum about history section lengths (third point) we decided to limit ourselves to the minimum. Here he goes against that decision.

Argument against/counter evidence:
 * 1) Arguement on point 1 was resolved in 2012. The name was resolved elsewhere.  This is only relivent if the issue becomes an problem after the name is decided on.
 * 2) Point 2 + 6 + 10; Admins/Beaucrats should handle this, with warnings. If the behaviour gets bad, a band discussion is not really worth doing - because the admins/beacruats can handle this.
 * 3) Point 3; there is no rule against someone having a grudge - unless the person acts out their grudge.
 * 4) Point 4 + 6 (again); The length of a discussion is not a reason for banning. Again, Admins/Beaucrats should be alerted to step in and resolve the issue if it gets out of hand, or if needed voting to end any discussions, theres several ways to resolve this.etc.
 * 5) Point 7; one of those incidents is a one edit undo, it is not a edit war if there is only one set of edits involved.

Evidence discussion
Good idea, Angel. It will definitely decrease the amount of arguing going on. 21:39, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Added a few counters, the first handful of points were not things you should hold a poll for banment over. The rest carry more weight against ST. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:05, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I overwrote point 4 with point 6 since they were using the same example and to answer the counter argument of those: it's not about the length, you can argue all day if you have something to argue, but the keyword is arguing. Even though we provide plenty of arguments and examples he never answer them. He just reply with a sentence-long deny not addressing any of the arguments used before. For example, in that forum he stated repeatedly that those informations were "relevant" while never explaining why we should consider them so. Just compare his replies with the other arguments.


 * Also are you implying that if admins do not solve an issue created by an user, then that issue it's not the user fault? Should we ban the admins then?


 * No, there is more you can do but this isn't the topic to discuss those points in particular. I'll leave a note on your talk page :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:34, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

None of the individual points here are really ban-worthy, but a user who is guilty of all of them should be banned. It's like what Levi said before about the straw breaking the camel's back; enough is enough. 23:32, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Did you even see what forum you linked for the last point. That was BEFORE my staff ban, not after. I never even brought up that issue again. Hell, I even got trolled for used Arabasta in blog comments when all I was talking about was the place and had nothing to do with the name. SeaTerror (talk) 23:33, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I removed these points because the first point is older then the last ban poll and the second point is too vague, please provide links.


 * The edit wars are the thing most ban worthy over, I myself would call anything within the last 6 months-year solid. Anything after that period is too old to be counted and should have been resolved by now or isn't impacting the current wikia workings enough to matter.  One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:50, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Even still, there isn't enough incdents within the last year... We need more then we got to say there is a hge issue with ST and edit warring. this is 3 incidents or so in a year, one is not a edit war at all since one undo isnt' a edit war. If the opposition would supply more,t hey'd help their cause, but alone... Even I've seen other editors enter more edit in the last year then ST's lot mentioned here. So the other side needs to fluff that point out to prove a point. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:53, February 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is the pattern of behavior. If it was just 3 edit wars in the past year that we were considering, I'd vote against the ban but he has a long pattern of rudeness, edit-warring and being difficult to deal with. It's the same with his "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude; one or two instances of that aren't ban-worthy but he has been that way as long as I've been editing here (and maybe longer).  00:18, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but a fleshing out of the point a bit more wouldn't hurt is all I'm saying. Not trying to put the evidence down, I just think its the best wedge the other side has, but they need more. Especially as, don't forget, in between this is dozens of "good" edits and behaviour don't forget. The wikia survived in its early days on editors like ST,being a pain and makng us created rules, so if your going to go for it, you don't hold back anything if you want. Otherwise, the other side ca go so far as to add a years worth of "good" edits to prove a point also, this no one has done either, I've only started off the other side so its not blank, this is a job for others like ST himself.


 * So yeah, the more solid it is, the strong the point it. Don't just link to a few - link to them all . :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 00:25, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Ban Length Discussion
Ok, I have a problem with the length options. I don't think the very short options like 1 or 2 weeks should be on there. First of all, his global ban, although given by staff, was definitely for actions on this wikia. So I would say that this is not his "first ban" here. That was for 3 months, and I think that should be the shortest option on here (and probably what I'm going to vote for). Also, I think that given the literal mountain of evidence cited here doesn't deserve anything less than a 1 or 2 month ban. And because of the 3 month staff ban, and how many times this forum has been opened over the years, I also think permanent should be an option (though I won't be voting for it). So as long as several users agree with me on those points, I think we should alter the the poll. I don't know if we should pause/re-start that section of poll after we resolve this though.

Also, I'd like to urge those who voted against the ban not to just vote for the shortest option by default. The majority of editors here wanted him banned, and no matter how close the poll was, it's still the majority. The fact that over 36 people voted on it shows how important people thought this was. Being truly unbiased is about accepting defeat, and accepting the reasons behind the winning option as things that deserve punishment.

TL;DR: 3 months should be the shortest option, Perma-ban should be on the table, don't be petty and vote for the shortest option b/c you're against the ban. 09:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * Its wrong to take polls that did not lead to a ban into account in how long he should be banned for.


 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User%3ASeaTerror


 * This is what you need. As you can see, he has only been banned for 1 week. The length is based on the number of times he has been banned previously, and has been sorted. Why treat ST any different to anyone else getting banned? He isn't a special case, unless you truly have it out for him. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 11:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

For sure you know this, but it's better to remember you one thing. This is not a poll about "how much time SeaTerror needs to learn to change his behaviour", but "how much time we want to work on this wiki before all things start again as they were before his ban". Because he won't change, you know. --Meganoide (talk) 12:40, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if he doesn't change - we go back to vote an the length gets longer each time. Eventually it gets to the point he leaves through being fed up, or is perma banned. No offence Meg, but now I'm back on the wikia, I'm going to act how I used to act, and if I speak up for something, it means I'm making a point about it. The point is we have rules, let the rules handle ST now, if you don't, this results in someone else abusing the rules later on to their own whim. Keeping to the rules, no matter what, keeps it fair and lets everyone know their rights and where they stand. I like to stand by the rules, because it took a lot to make them in the first place, if you don't like them you should be going to those topics and voting for change.


 * He has never been banned before therefore, Yatan has dished out the correct punishment of week. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 12:49, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Meganoide, cleary you hate his guts. Can't explain it. You act like he is dragging the wiki down. You say we will be perfect for a week, and then when he comes back he is going to do the same damn things. Then you're just saying there will eventually be a 5th ban poll. Cause you can't stop him with another way!!

If I'm supporting ST, you do the exact opposite, man. Come on.

No, I'm simply exposing facts. Meganoide (talk) 13:28, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Angel, but this is just another case where the rules have changed over time. Yata did not ban ST for a week because that is how long his ban should be, but because we now have a rule that if a ban forum says a user is to be banned, they are banned for 1 week while we use another poll to determine how long he should be banned. If you read Yata's edit summary, you'll see that's why he's been banned for a week. Sorry, but you're just wrong about the rules here. 15:31, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is a disappointing turn out then, because it allows for some run away potential politics to happen, especially if too many folks hate someone else. It also means someone who does mroe the ST has done can get a lighter punishment. I'd query this and raise the point, but I think it would get no where.  I really don't like the idea that there is so much fluidity in the ban length time. =_= One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:36, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * @JSD: I disagree, each length should be present since the poll is about choosing it, hence you have to give people a choice. The exception is if there are some sort of rules that I'm not aware about.
 * @One-Winged Hawk: I think I remember something like that, but I don't find it here... but it also make sense, if I go nuts and start blanking all the page on the week, I don't think you would ban me just for a wiki only because it's my first time. Of course that's not the case here, it's fine if you think one week is enough.
 * It wouldn't be fair in this forum, but for future cases I think we should set a rule about who is allowed to vote in the ban length poll: I don't think people who voted against the ban should be allowed to vote there since there are good reasons to think they will just disrupt the outcome by voting the lesser length option. (However this should be discussed in another forum).


 * I disagree, even when it comes down to it, the "for ban" side won by just 2 votes, which isn't a large majority. If not for 2 last mintue voters, it could have gone either way. You would say that 17 people, which was almost half the voters, now can't express a right to vote in the poll. If they didn't want him banned, they didn't think he was as big of a problem, therefore they'll vote for a smaller ban length because of that same reason. Whereas the guys who want him ban are more likely to vote for longer banment, even if its more then is deserved, because they don't like him.  The situation works both ways, you can be bias and vote low or be bias and vote high.   :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:43, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed with Levi's 3rd point,but sadly i dont think such a rule will make it through.--

I'm not talking about this forum, this has to be discussed in another one. If you agree with me can you open it? (even later)

There should also be a rule about inactive users voting since I noticed one user who voted here hadn't edited at all since September. 19:47, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Thats a whole new discussion videogame.-- 20:57, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

I know, I just brought it up since Levi was talking about a new poll rule. 21:18, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

If you guys want to debate on possible new poll rules, there is a discussion on this forum about possible new poll rules ongoing. 21:42, February 17, 2014 (UTC)