Forum:SeaTerror

The current poll on Monet's talk page is still going on as I type it, and the recent heating up of the discussion is fresh in our minds.

The topic of the discussion will be left behind here, but SeaTerror's behaviour is clear. He wants something, and nothing is going to stop him from doing it. This attitude of combined stubbornness and failure to counteract the arguments of his fellow wikians is highly disruptive.


 * Avoiding other's arguments by using comparisons like Pekoms


 * Continuously mentioning that something is speculation, over, and over, again (fun fact, he's used the word speculation 9 times in this talk page)


 * Calling out someone is manipulating the poll without wanting to talk about it first


 * Refusing to further talk about Kaido's statement and constantly referring to it as a lie


 * Calling out on someone who personally attacked him, we will not discuss this here, but his reaction to that: "What I said wasn't rude anyways" referring to "Says the person who hasn't had a real edit since April. Also no you're just being ignorant as usual" is something to be noted.

A thing that is constant in his replies is that they are rarely longer than 2 sentences. ST is refusing to cooperate in a discussion by staying stubborn and is incapable of producing arguments and reasons to back up his opinions, only doing so rather meakly, if at all.

Of course this isn't the only one example. Here's the Purin talk page. We see the same thing happen here. ST is bringing up irrelevant (and simply wrong) arguments in only a few sentences, most notably Shiliew. ST's behaviour made an incredibly simple discussion into a hostile environment that has yet to be finished.

Here's the infamous Tankman discussion. "That's speculation", "it's speculation" etc etc etc. ST never bothers to explain his own viewpoint, preferring to catfight with Rhavkin throughout the entire talk page, then shamelessly saying "This is why people should actually do their own research instead of blindly voting on polls". I found this the most hypocritical statement I've heard this entire year, never mind the fact that it sounded incredibly provocative.

Last but not least, I want to refer to the Totto Land Arc talk page. For having opened the discussion, ST seems content to use (and reuse, not to mention) his so loved argument which I'm quoting: "This isn't Naruto". He never even gives any proper counter arguments himself to people arguing against him, using these infamous one/two sentences which satisfies his apparent needs to cause disrupt throughout the wiki.

I'm saying it lightly here, but I'm simply sick of his overall behaviour. Every time, again and again, the same behaviour that isn't useful, isn't necessary, and only does more harm than good, turning normal discussions into a shitstorm by keeping a highly stubborn attitude and causing ruckus. We are supposed to be a community, a team, working together to make this the best place it can be. Disrespectful comments and refusal to cooperate in a sane discussion is NOT IN ANY WAY desirable in this wiki. This is a cooperation. If he can't cooperate, he should go. It's simple as that. And it's what you should think about.

Oh, might I add this is the sixth time his ban forum opens?

18:59, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I wasn't too active in those talk pages, but it looks like ST's back to doing what he's always done: stubbornly refusing to give up, assuming bad faith and making short/mocking posts instead of actually trying to debate. He was better for a while, but he always gets back to this a few months after he's warned. He's better than he used to be, but this is still disruptive and unnecessary. It got a ban before, it should get one now. 19:18, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, permaban sounds good to me. I dislike the word cancer, but it's the closest approximation I can come up with. It's either nothing or gone, because if we give him some slack then the tumour will grow again.

19:19, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

This is his sixth banforum. His sixth. It's like it's a yearly tradition at this point. I haven't really been involved in the talkpages AoD brought up, and I'm basically inactive at this point so I'll refrain from voting, but this is his sixth fucking banforum. I've defended ST in the past, I voted against banning him in most of the previous discussions, I worked with him and agreed with a lot of his points on the wiki, hell, when he's not being a dick I still think he's a fantastic editor and I even sorta like him.

But he's never going to change. So the question really becomes, do we want to continue to put up with his shit? If this does come to a poll, I also suggest that the options are either no ban or permaban. It's a) pointless to ban him for a couple of months. and b) his sixth fucking banforum. How many second chances does somebody deserve?

19:36, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

I always wanted him to go away. He never listens, he has good pages deleted, he always gets in fights with us, he never know when to stop. He does need to be banned but permaban would be too harsh

Joekido (talk) 19:39, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

What panda said, basically 20:55, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

^ I think we're going to get a consensus that SeaTerror should be banned. The question is if we move up the ban ladder to 6 months or whether this is the last straw 21:02, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

Well like panda said, there's really no point in temp bans anymore because they clearly aren't working. It's either we suck it up and deal with him or we permaban. We can also always give him one last chance to redeem himself (he promises to change his behavior, if it happens, keep him around, if it doesn't, ban with no questions). Nothing personal btw, ST. 21:08, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

I actually noted some of the discussione we had since last ban forum where he didn't add anything to the discussion:
 * Talk:George Black
 * Talk:Vivre Card
 * Talk:Vinsmoke Family
 * Talk:Charlotte Family
 * Talk:Cosette

As aurora said, the main problem is that arguing with him is like bashing against a wall. No matter what kind of arguments you bring on the table, he always dismiss them without really explaining why or by giving an half-assed example. Like when talking about names he keep refusing anime/external references arguments even though there is no "canon" name to begin with and a page was created using a romanizations without any reason, yet he defend that romanization as if it was canon or something.

Not going to defend my actions but I need to point some things out. If you're going to mention things about people repeating things then people constantly saying somebody getting stabbed in the heart = death automatically is the same exact thing. Using Pekoms was also not unrelated at all nor was it avoiding arguments. I was also willing to talk about it. The only response to my comments was a video of Trump. You can see that in the history before it was deleted. As for that not rude comment that was entirely my fault since I forgot I even said that second part to it. I was referring only to the first sentence. Second one was rude. What I said on Purin's page is accurate: We do not use anime pronunciation for names. We have only ever used credits as a source. Kasagoba is an example before Oda himself spelled it out. SeaTerror (talk) 21:30, November 8, 2016 (UTC)

As was mentioned in the previous post, a major problem (imo) with how ST contributes is how short, blunt, and repetitive his comments are. Sure, not every topic needs a response consisting of ten paragraphs and a thesis, but when pretty much everything someone says is 2 sentences long and refusing to ever concede ground or say anything different than the previous point, it gives the impression that said user doesn't care about something beyond the point of stirring up shit about it - which, as far as I can tell from my 2 years on here, is just about the only thing ST does these days. Quite honestly, I'm sick of his terse, inflammatory, and ultimately pointless contributions on every talk page ever, and I fully support permabanning him for not learning his lesson after 6 years of activity on here.--Xilinoc (talk) 00:45, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

He gave me the "it's speculation" non-answer on Talk:Marine Base for half a year.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 02:48, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget about Talk:Kanjuro/Archive 1. Less than a month after his last ban forum was closed, he spent over a month doing all the kinds of things mentioned above, acting on the basis that he could just keep edit warring and spouting lies until I gave up and left. 167.160.116.135 11:24, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

Rather then pick on Sea (who was the start of things as someone got fustrated on him) for the Monet discussion.

http://onepiece.wikia.com/d/p/2873149792777667957

I did suggest this. This would stop everyone reacting, including Sea, but this is for a different discussion... Sea cannot be th only one told off in the Monet discussion, the wasn't the only one to through insults.. But this is the only softness I will show here. Let me get off the Monet discussion specifically for a moment.

On Sea himself.

In the last one of these on Sea, I was in chat with him. By the end when it came to voting, I began to realise he almost seemed to think he could manipulate result from me or get me to influence the result... I was really uncomfortable as I wasn't attempting to be a regular here then as I am now. Given how he kept trying to steer me last time, I felt, I will not be soft this time as I do not appreciate this sort of thing. I did not believe I could vote too much well on the last poll, so I could only vote for a lesser punishment. I was not happy people took it personal, but I was becoming more understandable why everyone wanted him gone so bad, and even then... The last vote I was in was some time ago; why is he not changing?

Given he has always been like this since day 1 and punishments do not resolve his behaviour... I think anything this time short of a long punishment would be wast of time. It has to be at least half a year. If it is not a lengthy period of time, at the bare minimum, a point will not be made. If he has, however, been up 6 times and not improved I have to ask; why is he here still?

He his been here since 2010 nearly 6 years. By now he should know better then to edit war, us h=limited evidence for discussion... Respond to insults and disrespect with more insults and disrespect. I now it takes about 2 years to get used to a community and I do regard this as period of grace for new editors due to experience myself. But after 5 years, you should be well fit within a community.

I don't think guys here should attempt to make this whole issue personnel, or use this topic as as revenge. But I don't think anyone can honesty will find defending him this time easy. even though he make good edits, and I myself am just as stubborn... I do live by the rule of "if the greater community" which means if I was ever out voted, I let it be even if I wasn't happy with the result. I will say there are times stubbornness is a blessing in disguise, but it does not become that every time.

Either way, the bare mini-punishment this time if banment comes can't include "1 month", etc and has to be 6 months to a year, with permanent ban on the table, in my opinion. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 11:49, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series. Donald Trump was elected president. Can ST be permabanned? We shall see.

The main problem with ST's behavior is that once he has an opinion on something, he will not change it. All talk pages involving him have ended with his side winning or him getting overruled. Let's use Monet's talk page as a prime example; based on his behavior surrounding that, it's clear ST's opinion on Monet's status has progressed into some kind of obsession. I don't want to make this into a personal thing, but it was because of him that the Monet poll turned as toxic as it did. He called my reasoning a lie, using circular reasoning to prove it, and blatantly declared it to be manipulating the poll. Contrast this to Ryu's point in the Poll Discussion and you should see very well. And yes, I will admit that my last response was a bit immature, but at that point poll comments had been closed and ST was still trying to accuse me of manipulation, which had pretty much caused me to stop taking things seriously.

The same has happened in other discussions, like the Kanjuro one and the Cosette ones mentioned above. ST has a habit of throwing the word speculation around in response to any sort of argument, even when sources are provided proving otherwise like in the Ryunosuke discussion. He loves to draw out discussions that are long dead and do have the majority to close, like Cosette and Film Z's talk, the latter of which he was trying to keep a point with no source, going against majority to keep a disussion open to get a source that we don't even know is real or not.

So yes, I do support a ban based on his behavior in talk pages and editing articles. How long, I'm not sure. But, I will tell the rest of you to think about one thing if ST is banned: ST is one of the only people who undoes bad edits/small vandalism like the addition of small speculation or sentences with bad grammar in them. This was made very apparent when he was gone for a month from February to March this year. If we do ban him, the rest of us to make a better habit of actually going over everyone's edits and making sure all the articles are properly written. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 13:36, November 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * A agree with the problem over vandals and speculation. One of the reasons I left in 2009 was I couldn't keep up. When you have hundreds of edits a day on a wikia, things get impossible to follow at times. And with hundreds of pages... I think this is why its taken so long to really get to the point with Sea.


 * I do, however, note upon my return we have another issue to focus on that could help. I noticed that a LOT of repetition occurs on larger pages. For eample, I have noted that often "personality" and "Relationships" instead of summing up things have a habit of repeating entire storylines when "history" should be covering them. This opens the door for conflict of information and errors. I think the next year should be focused on reducing done some pages. i will set up a project to do with this in Jan, so its not a rush right now - but it will help later on by making pages easier to follow. So bare this in mind when you come to judge Sea that it may not be as big of an issue. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 14:04, November 9, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite ready to permaban him, but I think ST does deserve a ban of at least 6 months. We're all guilty of doing what he's done at some point, but the problem with ST is that he's always like that and hasn't changed as long as I've been here. He's not quite as bad as he used to be, but Angel's right that he should know better after 6 years here. 08:33, November 10, 2016 (UTC)

The thing with the reverting vandalism is that he's like an overly aggressive immune system. Sure, he gets rid of some bad edits, but he gets rid of a lot of good or acceptable ones too. If people aren't on the ball about controlling vandalism without him around, then it's just as big a problem that people don't rein him in when he undoes stuff that isn't vandalism.

Oh, and there's also the pointless edits like [ this] that he keeps doing, that accomplish nothing besides clogging the feed (hypocritically, at the same time that he complains about other people for changing links). 104.238.32.55 09:29, November 10, 2016 (UTC)

I've already said what those edits are for before. They keep source mode cleaner and they don't clog the feed up anyway. There's a reason why the "hide minor edits" button exists. Plus the ones I brought up were actually against our own rules SeaTerror (talk) 09:58, November 10, 2016 (UTC)

I support banning ST for as long as possible. 11:14, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

I'll just take the 6 month ban so I can think about my behavior anyway. It's better this way and closes this forum faster so people can move on to working on the wiki. SeaTerror (talk) 17:31, November 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work like that hasn't for a long time. You can't act like a victim when you sort of are a jerk at times. I an't say I'm the best editor, because of my absence, but at the same time I do notice a lot of edits from you when I o long on. The others have a difficult time dealing with some edits over others. Its like this... you seem to have 1 in every 50 edit people just didn't like. Or a response people didn't like.


 * To be honest... A true reflection period doesn't jut happen within 6 months and actually occurs over years. Which makes 6 month sometimes even too short as of a punishment. :-/ One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:28, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to end the forum faster so the wiki could move on to other things faster. It would be obvious if I was trying to play a victim. Obviously I deserve to be banned. If I was playing victim then I would be accusing people of whatever and then saying I DON'T deserve to be banned. SeaTerror (talk) 18:33, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

No.

NO NO NO.

YOU DO NOT JUST SAY OH BAN ME FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN COME BACK ALL HAPPY SMILING.

THIS IS NOT A JOKE.

We are going to discuss this properly, and then you will either be banned for good or not at all.

18:43, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "Permaban or nothing" is a good attitude here. If he's willing to take a 6 month ban we could just go with that. 19:16, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kage. We move up the ban ladder like we do with everyone else. Plus he's still a good editor, he just needs some time to reflect on stuff 19:18, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

He kind of brings out an ugliness in all of us, eh? Boot him for 6 months. Let's try, in those 6 months, to be productive and civil. Let's put the burden on all of us to keep the talk pages healthy. And after those 6 months are up, ST can rejoin us. If there's no room for him in our healthy discussions, well. then I guess there's no room for him. I'd be lying, though, if I said I wouldn't miss him if he was just gone forever. 20:00, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I missed out on a ton and just jump in. But I guess I have to agree on no Permaban yet. But wasn't he already banned for 6 months once? Shouldn't we up it by a year or something? 22:39, November 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * His last ban was 3 months, so this one would be 6, which sounds fine to me. He hasn't done anything worthy of a permaban and 6 is long enough, especially if he's okay with it. 22:48, November 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, 6 months sounds like a good way at this point. But if he does not improve, should this be his last chance, or jump up to a year next time? 00:01, November 12, 2016 (UTC)


 * It's probably better to just deal with that when/if it happens. No point dealing with a problem that might not happen in the first place. 08:05, November 12, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we are bound to choose "six months" as next ban length, it's just a rule of thumb, I believe several times in the past we have perma-block people without going through all the "steps", depending on the case. The ban should reflect the severity of the problem and/or the compatibility with the community, therefore it should be "at least six months" due the past discussions, but then let people decide what to do next. At this point I think the choices are "six months", "one year" and "perma ban". I don't think any definite time more the "one year" make sense at this point.

While Nova could have said it in a better way, I do agree with him. This is the sixth ban discussion we are having, and he has been banned six times on this wiki, as can be seen in his ban logs. He clearly hasn't changed his behavior at all, so why should we continue to tolerate him?

He disrupted the wiki countless times just because he's too stubborn to talk it out with other users. Oh sure, he reply to users. Like this. Or this. And this. How are any of them constructive at all? He's been hostile to others, as can be seen in this edit summary. Or this edit. Or what about this one? All of the examples are from between today and his last ban. All of the examples are exactly the same kind of behavior ST has been exhibiting throughout his time on this wiki.

You would have thought that after all of the bans and warnings, ST would have improved for the better. But noooooooooooooo, he hasn't changed at all. So yeah, I'm going to support a permanent ban for ST. It's time for him to go. 04:51, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

ST can't go with the shortest ban possible, we need to poll his ban period. i'm pretty sure most will vote for perma anyway. 17:11, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

Lets put it this way... if a Perma ban doesn't occur this time, next time would be unavoidable. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:28, November 15, 2016 (UTC)

According to our ban forum rules, we have to first poll whether or not to ban him before we can discuss how long to ban him for. So I'm doing that now.

17:44, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember, do we have to do that and then the ban length? Can't we do both poll at the same time? If the "no ban" wins then the length poll will be void.

General consensus is that ST should be banned, but there's some disagreements over his ban length. Since most people agree that ST should be banned, why don't we skip that part of the poll and just poll the ban length? 18:08, November 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Rules is rules. You never know, he might convince enough people that he shouldn't be banned for this. With his shining rhetoric.


 * 18:09, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

He already agreed to take a ban (6 months), so the first poll is unnecessary. We should be polling the length 18:10, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the first poll should be done anyway. My question was if we really had to wait its conclusion before going to the ban length. I believe we can do both them at the same time. I'm not suggesting this for just SeaTerror case, I'm suggesting this in general. I feel like doing one poll after the other is just a waste of time.


 * Just checked and we did that in the past, so please add the length poll as well.

People say nothing about my actions have changed which isn't true. You can see from my edits that I don't even do those edits that I did to get banned in the first place anymore. If it's about behavior I have also changed that too. I'm not as bad as I once was which is also obvious from the edits that got me banned in the first place. SeaTerror (talk) 18:37, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Rules are rules. There will be a first poll. 19:10, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Also, I support Levi's proposal, it saves alot of time. Any objections? Also, I'm planning on having the second poll start at 6 months, since that's what the ban ladder's at right now. Any objections to that? 19:14, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

I think the two polls should be done consecutively, not concurrently.


 * That means one after the other, not at the same time.

That way people aren't so tempted to vote against and vote minimum length at the same time.

19:19, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yes. For now, we should just follow the rules. We can change it afterwards should we want. Too late to meddle with them now. 19:25, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

"That way people aren't so tempted to vote against and vote minimum length at the same time." - nothing stops them for doing it anyway and we already run the two polls concurrently in the past. Doing them consecutively seems just a waste of time.

But if we mix the two polls into one, the results may get twisted by his ban length (some want 6 months, some a year, some perma-ban, etc.) and those who do not want him banned to begin with. Those who want a ban may get spread too thin from differing length, while those who do not want a ban will have the highest number as a result. 20:30, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding or I didn't explain myself correctly. I'm proposing something like this. Basically "Do you want to ban ST? - yes/no" and "If so, for how long?". It doesn't really matter I suppose.

That I can't deny as time-saving. But I also think it would be much more helpful if people can rethink their choices once they see how much wants him banned. Putting two together can affect how people think. 22:45, November 16, 2016 (UTC)

Let's just do them consecutively then. Mine was a suggestion for the general banning process, not specifically for this case.

Let's not forget to add the updated polls rules that we voted on before and used on his previous ban forum "To vote you had to have had a registered account here for at least 3 months and have at least 300 edits, and have at least 10 non-blog edits in the past 30 days. SeaTerror can not vote on this poll" This will prevent the off chance that his friends come back from inactivity and vote for a no ban at the last minute or vote for the shortest ban possible 15:22, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Length Discussion
Based on how the poll is going, this needs to be discussed now. We never got a clear decision on what options should be available. I'm personally undecided on what the length should be as well, so I would like to see some argument for times.

I propose that 6 months (required minimum based on last ban), 9 months, 1 year and permanent are options. Anyone want to add or remove anything? 20:57, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

6 months, 1 year and permanent, yeah. Not sure about 9 months, has that ever been an option before? 21:03, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with all of the options, but why 9 months? As far as I know, that was never offered as an option before. Is it even possible? o.O 21:04, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

"Is it even possible?" - you can set whichever length you desire. I don't think it really matter which options you add to be honest as long they range from 6 months to permanent. That said, 9 months seems a bit odd. I personally thought we would've set 6 months, 1 year and permanent, but if you want to add another options probably 2 years is the more logical one. However I think people will either choose the minimum ban (6 months), a moderate ban (1 year) or a permanent ban. Don't really see much point in other options, but hey, if someone wants them I don't mind.