5,652 Pages

This page is for archive purpose, please use Forum:Users to be Banned for new nomination

Forums: Index → Site Problems → Users to Be Banned → Pre Forum Ban
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2614 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
Do not add to it unless it really needs to be reopened. Consider creating a brand new forum instead.

Nomination 1

Username: Joekido
Reasons: Lots of little things, but they all add up:

  • Dramatically changing things without discussing,
  • Reverting pages to own version without discussing
* Taking information from other sites (notably Arlong Park) even after being asked not to.
  • ignoring repeated warnings and advice from other members to back down from arguments.
  • constantly causing fights one way of another or generally annoying other members,
  • threatening other members (but not serious threats like 'I'm gonna kill you... Just edit threats).
  • refusing to co-operate with other,
  • stupid edits (okay a few stupid edits...),

Punishment Time: Only a day or so.
Discussion Closing Date: Wednesday 8th November 2006. Result: No action taken.

Nomination 1 Votes

Neutral: I'm giving gonna give it a few days to see how you behave before my final discussion. You've pushed the limits... But you've done some good edits, therefore I myself am giving you one last chance to behave. I'll decide my vote on Tuesday. One-Winged Hawk 21:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Against: Okay, really, I'm not even going to get into why I think this idea is stupid in the first place... But I do feel that maybe if people, you know, stopped just yelling at him all the time or just reverting stuff he'd stop doing the things in the first place, so I'm voting against this, definitely. --Murasaki 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply: I agree with that, even though I nominated him, I can see the main reasons for his actions which is why I've taken a neutral stance for now. He doesn't vandalise pages deliberately. My main argument against nominating him would definitely the amount of GOOD edits his done as apposed to the silly little habits he has. :/ One-Winged Hawk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Against:He has improved and everything is fine now. We've actually been working on Aokiji's article without problems, adding onto each others edits.

Nomination 2

Username: Cody2526


  • For redirecting many small articles to big articles
  • For getting in fights with other member
  • For refusing to co-operate with other member
  • For casually flaming other member

Punishment Time: Depends, as of now all of these things are small and if he does something major, we will add more

Closing Time: Wednesday, November 8th Result: No action taken.

Nomination 2 Votes

Natural: Since he is not an major pain yet, so I'm fair here and will give him chances to behave. Joekido

Against: I've hard no problems with him. Maybe if you weren't always arguing with him Joekido, you'd have no problems too. One-Winged Hawk 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Against: Like I said for Joekido, I've seen problems from him too, but I don't think they're anything worth punishing... So, I'm definitely against this one as well. --Murasaki 23:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination 4

User: Rufus Band, originally


  • Vandalizing the 4kids page, by blanking it and would write in immature note such as kill them, boycott them, burn them, ban them, etc, etc.
  • He wrote an racist comment in United States by claiming that America hates Japan
  • Ignoring warnings

Punishment Time: 2 month ban

Agree: If he returns before then give him a forever and a day total ban. If he behaves himself after that then do the same. I even linked the replies to the rules. One-Winged Hawk 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination 5

  • User:Genesisnicorobin
  • Reason: Spam account. Also posted a personel file.
  • Punishment: I'm going to leave this one to someone else to judge, they haven't been back recently.

Nomination 6

  • User:Genesis perez
  • Reason: Using the site as personnel/spam space. Not a single serious or productive edit on this site has been made.
  • Punishment; Just ban him, they should know better.

Nomination 7

  • [[User:DarthVaderX]]
  • Reason; vandalsim in Portuguese and random copying and pasting things from pages.
  • Punishment; Ban, while your at it, check out the edits of this [[user: MigueldeVivar]], also noted he speaks in "spanish". If possible; IP check 'em both and it happens their identical - banned both of them! One-Winged Hawk 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Never mind the look up; User: what an idiot...
You can't fool the experienced users... One-Winged Hawk 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the language correction but if it turns out your the same guy it doesn't matter and won't help your cause - your still getting banned. - believed linked to the same vandal. One-Winged Hawk 22:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I've got to stop undoing his edits for a while, I'm too busy laughing at this guy. Here you go; [[Users:Matheusf8]], ah its been too long since we had a vandal this creatative! However I half suspect we may have several vandals here... Better check 'em all out.One-Winged Hawk 22:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination 8

  • Reason; vandalism of articles Monkey D. Luffy, Roronoa Zoro, and Nico Robin respectively; wipes out pages and replaces with unrelated text; has uploaded three OP-unrelated images, one of which pictures a nude woman
  • Punishment; Ban, this user's only goal on this site is to destroy our hard work. I'd recommend IP check as well. We don't need this user bothering us any further. Full ban on both please.

Nomination 9

Nomination 10

  • Reasons: Constants edit wars with multiple users, Refuses to wrk with other users, insults those you don't agree with him or challange him and despite being told multiple times to stop he hasn't. What ever good he's is doing to the site is being greatly overshadowed by his hostile, uncooperative and stuborn behaviour.
  • Punishment; Ban. what little good he's doing is being over shadowed by his behaviour, if he hasn't learned by now he never will.

Session Closed: Nov 18, 2009. No action was taken

Abstain; though I note, Joekido, Buh and myself have done things that SHOULD have seen us temporay banned at one point or another. I'm not wishing to curse anything now. However, what I do note is that I've seen one editor use the "ban" or rather "page lock" to criticise MF and state MF has used it to win an argument. The more reglaur editors should know better though then to get themselves into arguments... :-/ One-Winged Hawk 18:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I would want to agree but I don't think it would work. By that logic we should ban Drunk Samurai tooJoekido 18:37, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
DS isn't nearly as bad as Buh, while he can be a little headstrong at times for the most part he's a good editor, There's harldy a day that goes by where i don't see a page Buh fights with someone over and when he gets going he gets nasty and ends up insulting people --Croc117 19:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be fair get DS and Buh in an edit war with each other, they used to be both a headache. I have next to no cribs with DS as of late so theres no problems there. Buh's only problem really is that out of the 4 of us (DS, Buh, Joe and myself) Buh is the only one who'd fight MF over things. My only REAL complaint against Buh recently was the revolutionary colour scheme between Buh and MF but I tend to view cosmetics arguments as a bit of a waste of time. Other then that, I seldom come into conflict with Buh that isn't resolved within one or two edits to a page to make a real comment on action against Buh. Hence my intial "Abstain". One-Winged Hawk 20:53, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
I was not such a pain as I was now compared to Oct. 2006. (Well I would not be a pain if someone just left me alone) but I recently allowed you guys to do whatever you want and to put yourself(Angel) and me on the the list of "Pain in the ass and should be banned" is quite silly now that were not that much of an pain anymore.

Joekido 20:59, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

In due respects... If you're not banned by now, as above... I think we're in the safe zone Joe. As I said, lets not curse things here. Same goes for me and anyone else who didn't have action taken against them ASAP of being added to the list. This list gets more usage as a "I confess we don't get along" list and ultimately, we get over ourselves in the end. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 23:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for someone finally alerting me of this.

Croc, I don't think you have any right to criticize me, since you've made...what, 30 posts? How much of my work have you even seen?

It's true that I'll get in arguments from time to time, but it's always for what's best for the Wiki. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong; however, getting into debates over parts of the Wiki that should get changed is no grounds for ban. Editors get into arguments over little things all the time.

MF's just been angry at me lately because I've been trying to make many changes at once, such as trying to fix the Revolutionary color scheme, compress all of the tiny Water 7-related templates into one large template, and the Enies Lobby and Impel Down templates. After he alerted me to slow down, I've been waiting to talk to him and the others before taking further action. The Pope 01:49, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well anyone has the right to criticize a person when they become confrontational, start to intentionally aggravate other people. your actions and behavior warrent criticism, dosn't matter if it's from a person who has never made a post or made a million, what you've done dosn't excuise your poor behavior--Croc117 02:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

"Intentionally aggravate"? If that's what you really think, then you need to take a step back and look at the big picture. The Pope 02:41, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is stupid. Croc is an idiot for doing this especially when he hardly even edits. He's no real editor. Drunk Samurai 04:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Okay DS that was completely uncalled for. An editor can be a good editor even if he has very little edits. An editor can also be a bad editor even if he has a thousand edits.
For this nomination, its indeed slightly uncalled for but nonetheless an opinion based on a third party perspective. I'd admit some things that Buh does step on other people's work from time to time however it seems to be all in good faith. The problem is that sometimes what he does breaks procedure and conventions established beforehand. Mugiwara Franky 04:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I think all three of you, Croc, Buh and DS are showing poor behaviour. Croc the nomination is a little uncalled for, however it was proably done with the best intention for the wiki and out of frustrations with Buh. Buh you naturally felt attacked so you struck back in defence. DS you proably fell like sense you've been around for awhile the Croc dosn't have the right to nominate someone, that and given your past with Croc your response is natural, however it was over the line and uncalled for. There is no reason to act this way, everyone should treat everyone with civility--Swg66 04:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ. Both of you haven't been back since the whole Crocodile page thing and now you "BOTH" come back? What a joke and quit lying. You're both the same fucking person. Drunk Samurai 04:38, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

That is a horrible and baseless accusation. Swg is reprimanding Croc. Unless he has split personality, it can't be the same person. Mugiwara Franky 04:40, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
MF can check IP adress if MF knows how... So a second account only goes so far if the admins suspect its the case. One-Winged Hawk 10:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Its easy to fake being another person. I've done it before as an April Fool's joke before. Drunk Samurai 04:47, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but whether or not Swg and Croc are the same person, calling a person an "idiot" in the middle of a heated discussion, only heats things up and doesn't help anybody. So DS unless you can defend Buh properly instead of insulting anybody left and right, don't participate in this discussion.Mugiwara Franky 04:51, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie and say I'm sorry for it because I'm not. Though I won't say anything like that again. Drunk Samurai 05:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

While having no remorse for something as unhelpful as insulting is a bad sign of character, whether or not you'll do it again or not, the damage has still been done. Mugiwara Franky 05:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
Alright I'll admit that the nomination was a little uncalled for, and was mostly done out of frustration. Buh, I would like to make a formal apology, I hope we can get past this incident. DS however I don't appreciate the insults you've been throwing at me, they were uncalled for and weren't even for the sake of the argument at hand, your just being a jerk just because we've had past disagreements--Croc117 05:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. It's worst character to lie and say you feel sorry for it. Sometimes it's best to be brutally honest. So how much damage did it do? -30 HP? Drunk Samurai 05:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

DS, you have no trace of humanlity in you, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You can't even apologize and you are so cold.

As the the for the rest of this debate, the conversation is over and no action has taken place and Buh is innocent in his case. All he need to do is to lighten up his load. Meeting abjorned.

Joekido 05:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. You can't say that something is over because you are not an admin/mod. *puts on jacket* I'm not cold anymore. Drunk Samurai 05:39, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Is that an insult directed to Joekido? While the debate is indeed still going on, it has however strayed from its core and continuing to do so. Mugiwara Franky 05:45, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The first part or the second part? Neither parts were insults. The jacket thing was obviously sarcasm though. Drunk Samurai 05:54, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

DS, Why'd you have to go and prove me wrong... Now in my earlier defence of you I've had to do a full 360 degree on what I said earlier. Thats something even Joekido has never made me have to do. -_-' One-Winged Hawk 10:05, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Nomination 11

Nom 12

  • User:Pharap‎‎
  • Reason; Troll.... Uness. editing of American to Brittish spelling.
  • Nominator: One-Winged Hawk 20:06, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
  • Punishment; whatevers fitting. The guy's a jerk. Tries to pick a fight with me over being "American" (I don't need to HIDE I'm not). Tries to pick a fight with Buh. Won't go to the forums if the issues so important it needs resolving ASAP. Can't take a hint when he's wrong. One-Winged Hawk 20:06, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree 100%. Ban him. The Pope 21:36, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Agree: this guy is a jerk--Swg66 21:48, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Ban him forever, not for 1 month Joekido 22:57, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
This guy definitely sounds like a troll. I agree that he should be banned.--KnightoftheSea 23:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Don't know when MF's coming on-line, but I've left a note on the guy's talk page to get some other edits done besides the whole language argument. I doubt if, he is UK based he could pull it off by the time MF comes on-line, its 23:30 by my clock and he is most likely in bed by now. But this is the only chance I'd give him to drop the issue and not be left at the hands of whatever MF's punishment is going to be, if any. One-Winged Hawk 23:31, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Nomination 13

  • User:Drunk Samurai
  • Reason: Constant editing war, insulting others, putting {{delete}} without discussing in the talk pages first, stubbornly changing pages because he thinks he's better, refuses to change his attitude despite being challenged by multiple people.
  • Nominator: Yatanogarasu 13:07, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Punishment: Life-long ban

Agree:He's a jerk, and never listens--Croc117 18:36, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Abstaining:I frankly don't care either way.The Pope 19:00, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but I'm going to have to agree with banning him. If it weren't for the things you listed, I think he would've been a pretty decent editor, but he just tarnishes that image by being a jerk to the other editors here. And if you don't agree with his edits, then you're labeled as a "f**ing idiot/troll/vandal" in his book. *rolls eyes* Also, he's been warned about his behavior before.--KnightoftheSea 19:28, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Agree: He's been warned before and he didn't listen, this is not out of the blue. MasterDeva 22:27, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Well its late, I'm finishing up on the internet for the night, checking in making sure I've got things in order for my X-mas break from here and seeing whats got to be done when I get back... Reading this. I've got a few things on my list I see to do when I get back it seems.

This is sort of a harsh point for me since he has been a regular editor despite the downs and its like voting to kick your bratty little brother out of the house for always farting and making rude noises. He is helpful at times around the house, but cannot be trusted to maintain it for long without making those farting noises and burping in your face. In this case, calling others idiots, loosing tempers and not sitting down to talk are DS biggest faults. I gave DS some advice not so long ago, I don't really want to take sides against DS because there are some good things in DS's name here as an editor. Nomination 10 on this very page, I said something and DS went and let his side down soon afterwards. I don't know, the odds are against DS and I hate to admit it, you guys are properly right.

DS hasn't made a contribution since the 17th via his account so its hard to tell if he has gotten better, taking a break or whatever and part of me wants to wait it out to see what DS does next, if anything at all. Well I see editors come and go here, and the hardest to vote on are the regulars who come and stay, not the ones who come and go. Looking back on the old votes, I'd have had a hard time voting against Joekido now like I did once upon a time, Joekido's like your visiting cousin here now, comes when he has some bright ideas or feels the need to visit and not everything works out okay, but what does is certainly progress with the wikia family.

Why am I using metaphors, heck knows, its 23:56 PM and sleep got to me.

I'm tired of seeing circling discussions, often over petty things. Though he has still earned a final chance, because of those good things he does do. My conclusion, ban, but leave at leave his ability to talk to us so we can keep the channels open with him. That way if he needs just time to think it through, he can prove himself one last time. If he doesn't, then thats the slap in the face and we'd have no choice to perma ban. But this is my thoughts on the matter. As for my vote, well as I said, only based on the past experiences I can vote only but "agree" since the patience of many ran dry and the warnings to sit down and talk were exhausted. I leave the ultimate verdict to MF to decide. One-Winged Hawk 00:01, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

This may seem a little personal, but DS kept posting "delete" on pages that I wrote, undoing many things I edited, and such. I try my hardest and spent much time on them, dammit. And he just "delete" this, and "undo" that without as much as a discussion. Also, when I put comments and requests on the talk page and use the <!-- --> to ask no deletion, he just completely ignores them and does what he does: being a jerk. My final reason with him is: Ban for life. Yatanogarasu 22:09, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. I know I'm not around much and don't have nearly as many edits as some of you, but I've been here quite a while and I do read what goes on even if I don't always join in on the conversations. And from the one small interaction I've had with him, I've found him to be quick to anger and often very one-sided in his opinions. This wikia is for the benefit of the public and contains several cooperative, hardworking editors, and is not for one person with biased judgment to rule. It is not worth it to have to deal with such behavior when there are many good editors here already. Nothing personal. Sephirona 06:20, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Abstaining:Well he obviusly dosn't like me personally (not going to let that affect my vote), i do believe what he does is for the most part in good faith, however his attituide off sets it quiet a bit, so i'll agree with Buh on this one , for now at least, and wait to see if/how he defeneds himself--User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! 09:10, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

That guy doesn't look like he's gonna respond anytime soon. As he just edits without going to the talk pages first, I don't think it would be anytime soon for him to see his own talk page and take notice about this nomination. Let's just make the vote of whether or not to punish him, and tell MF to do it. Yatanogarasu 03:07, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well 1)You nominated DS so you already kinda voted... Theres no need to double vote, naughty, naughty Yatan. Lol. Anyway 2) We're all agreeing except one editor that action must be taken against DS. 3) The majority agree on perma ban.
Yeah theres only a few votes left to gather if their going to vote at all and its pretty grim against DS. I quick count and 7 Editors (bit hard to count on this one) and 6 say "go for punishment". only two of us are leaning against perma ban. The majority have their way so its just MF's vote left really and then action taken. I wish DS had logged on just to defend himself, this feels a little bad since DS last edited on the 17th and hasn't seen since (I'm only pointing this out, because this is something I can't recall DS ever doing before).  :-/ One-Winged Hawk 11:29, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that based on the comments, the consensus here is for permanent ban. However due to DS not being here for awhile for whatever reason, I'll have to let him be so that he can defend himself here since it might be a little unfair to pass sentence without the defendant himself. This however is a last straw sort of thing. If he comes here and just badmouths everyone without asking for any sort of appeal, well, it'll just prove people's reasons for him to be banned.Mugiwara Franky 12:59, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not here to vote, but I just wanted to say that I've recently seen him over at TVtropes, picking fights on the One Piece and Bleach pages, which may explain where he's been.-- 15:19, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, based on comments found on TVtropes like the one in the One Piece discussion and the Bleach discussion, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to permanently ban DS even if he is not here to defend himself. His attitude here, on the TV tropes and I believe over at the Bleach wikia, clearly outweigh any valuable contribution to this site or any.Mugiwara Franky 17:48, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Its late on this, but can I ask why we need to look up other sites? Example, I'm a reasonable person here, but a giggly fan girl at Arlong Park, at another forum I visit I tend to be shy because the people there aren't nice. Lets see, Arlong Park has a habit of (mostly due to certain biased members) be a bit snappy at anyone who mentions there from here. Joekido got banned from the AP wikia for one reason or another, but we allowed him to edit here still and okay he isn't perfect but he has made some very good edits that made worth letting in here great. I know others others who act like a brat on one website, get banned and come onto the next website with a better attitude because they got banned from one site over it.
Thats the thing, it shouldn't matter what other sites do, its what happens here. In that case, a man who is a farmer in one country shouldn't be let off lightly becasue he visited another and murdered someone. It doesn't matter he was a good honest farmer previously, he murdered now. Okay DS wasn't perfect here either, but the nods at other sites is not needed. He did enough to warrant permaban initially without the ref to other sites needed and had I spotted this sooner I myself would have created more fuss about it then I am now. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 09:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

So, is he banned for life or what? I don't see any changes on his page. Yatanogarasu 03:16, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

While I'd admit what happened maybe a bit of my fault however considering the circumstances the result would kinda still have happened. Everyone as evidence above was going for a permanent ban for DS. The guillotine was pretty much set up. So when somebody said he did this and this in another site, and it greatly resembles what he was doing in this site, then anybody would assume that DS is too much trouble than worth. It's not kinda like a person who was a farmer in one country but became a murderer in another. The case is kinda more like the murderer in one country was revealed to have done more crimes in another country. Presented with such a situation, any executioner would have accidentally let the blade fall immediately.
Though I guess I should lift the ban since it was a mistake, the problem however is will the rest of community allow it? It's kinda been made pretty clear that DS is not liked by alot of people. Lifting the ban may create a community-wide backlash. That said the most civil thing to do would be to have a vote as to whether DS should be allowed to come back. The votes that would count the most would be those from the people who were for DS' ban in first place.Mugiwara Franky 10:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Lift ban on DS

Due to circumstances, this is a poll to see whether or not the permanent ban imposed on DS should be lifted. Please answer with For or Against and give a reason as well. New users and anons can discuss as well but their votes won't be counted.Mugiwara Franky 10:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Against: As I already have said he has been warned (and banned) in the past yet here we go again. Only that he has nominated for a permanent ban says a lot and if you check out the reasons behind it is more than justified. Excluding the links that point to others sites the reasons for banning him where legit. If we allow this to slip now the same thing will be repeated in the future with the same outcome. Even if he is truly and has regretted his actions it is too late now!! MasterDeva 10:35, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

For: Let's give him one ultimate chance. If he will continue to make trouble, he'll be banned again, this time forever. El Chupacabra 11:03, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, but leaning towards 'For' under circumstances: I was the one who recommended he take a break and we allowed it, so DS could freshen up. Mostly, "sorry" is important here, many get banned, but few get banned and return with sorry and the only other person to do so was Joekido, who never got banned. BUT it would be DS's last chance. If he screwed up after this, there would be no second chances. If he slips up this time, we can't even allow him to edit his own talk page to ask to come back, it will be an all-out super permaban. Ultimately, the general rule MUST be that if someone undoes his edits, and does it more then once, he must without fail talk on the talk pages and not crib with small petty issues. Part of me thinks DS is simply loosing his temper too much here. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 12:30, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it . --New Babylon 13:51, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm dyslexic and so not picking "For" and "against" is excused, whats you excuse though NB? Lol. :-P One-Winged Hawk 14:42, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, is it me or there is less edit war since he is not here? :-) Well you seems to agree that he made good work in the past and I must admit, his ban was made a little behind his back which is quite unfair. Also he wrote some apologizes two times which makes me think he really miss doing some work here. So I would say For, I just hope we won't have to regret it and that he will behave more like an adult now. Kdom 19:06, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
He was warned may times and didn't stop. He's only sorry now because he's at risk of being banned. He's not sorry he' just trying to cover his ass now that it's in danger. --Croc117 19:31, January 6, 2010 (UTC
He was a good sort when he wasn't excited . I do trust he will behave himself . --New Babylon 10:42, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Against: I'm sure he was given warnings before. He didn't heed them, he knew this was coming. After all, he did not consider our feelings when he said things like "shit", "fuck", etc. Considering all of our hard works, he just puts {{Delete}} without a discussion. Yatanogarasu 15:33, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is the problem with allowing DS back, even I can't deny this much. If we did allow him back it was have to be under conditions, but would those conditions be ones DS stuck to? Thats why I won't go for an all out "for". :-/ One-Winged Hawk 23:49, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
It is understandable Emfrbl that you want to give him an other chance but you can take the time after his first ban (a whole month for offending a user) until now as his trial period "under conditions", before a permanent ban. His constant edit wars and behaviour has caused problems and frictions between the members of our community as well as this wikia's function. That's more harm than good.
By giving into his desperate pleas you will only come out "exposed" (for lack of a better word). The same thing happened to me when I had to deal with a same person in an other community, they had warned my about it but I said, "I can handle it, let's give him an other chance". It didn't end up well and I regretted it because I was seeing what I wanted to see and not the truth/facts. MasterDeva 00:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well lets put it this way, I'd be the one to come down on him if he so much as spoke out of line, I'm not THAT soft, despite what I'm saying here. I am quite bitter over the edit wars, since we have to admit its been so quiet without DS editing. For me, this really IS the law chance for DS, and I can spare no love for anyone who took a chance and screwed it up. Don't give me wrong, I'm still going by a "3 strikes and your out" system of my own. Greg for example, as earned my life long disappointment at AP for not understanding WHY I visit that site... To the point where I have nothing nice left to say to that guy. My father just recently lost my respect he cost me a lot of hassle that almost drove me to suicide. I have very little love because of it.
This is simply the last ounce of willing to endure DS speaking and I have a VERY high tolerance of others (see my aforementioned father), but even I have my limits. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 01:36, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
At least you agree that Drunk Samurai has passed the limits. ;P MasterDeva 01:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Well you could put in the OP context, when the reaction to DS's edits first came out, it didn't matter who was right or wrong. But a battle was fought between members and outcome was decided. One-Winged Hawk 02:44, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, DS got all the chance he already deserved, and he screwed them all up. So ban for life. Yatanogarasu 19:41, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Well, he lost the battle, but now he apologises for his behaviour and ask for a second chance. If you put this in the OP context, he begs on knees to be allowed to re-join his crew. Is it really such a problem to forgive him and to give him a last chance? If he has changed, he will not make new trouble, and if he will we can still ban him forever at any time and he won't have the right to complain then. However, if his regrets are honest and we are too strict, he might feel himself unjustly treated. El Chupacabra 15:44, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
We aren't too strict nor we treat him unjust. This is the only logical result caused by his own actions. I intended to write him a message before all this happened (when I first realized the kind of person he is) but things happened and I never got to, so I'm writing it here now.
Drunk Samurai I don't know if anyone has ever told you about this, but even if they have, it's my responsibility to say too at least once. Your behaviour and way of treating anyone besides yourself is horrible and the way you insult others is detestable.
You can be as much as asshole you want (his own words) you have every right to be as anyone. BUT your actions have consequences and if you realise that then it's fine by me if not then face it. You can do anything but NOT to say "I'm sorry" at the very end! Sometime you will cross the limits of someones patience and you will get yourself banned (permanently this time) and that would be only your fault because YOU have chosen this by yourself and by the way of your actions will be brought it upon you!! I can forgive your behaviour as long as you can understand this, you have made your bed, now sleep in it!!! That's all I have to say. MasterDeva 18:30, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
El Chupacabra I won't tell you to change your vote since it's your own right to abide by what you believe in but what I ask of you is to understand the feelings of all the people Drunk Samurai has caused problem to (I have putted it in a very "nice" way of saying it) and how to say this... Try not to insult them (I'm not trying to offend you but this is as close as I can describe it). I think the others can understand what I mean. MasterDeva 18:30, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that we were unjust when we banned him, His "crime list" below shows that he deserved to be banned. However, now he came back and says that he's sorry and want to be pardoned, and for me the only logical result is to trust him and give him a last chance. Don't you believe that people can change and become better? I do and therefore I think that Drunk Samurai, who was indeed exactly as you described him, now honestly repents his bad deeds and will not repeat them. The ban was a lesson for him and he learned it well. Now it's our turn, and we should lift the ban and allow him to return, and if we will not do it, this will be cruel and unjust. Of course it's also possible that he hasn't changed and just lies to us about his regrets. Then he is even worse then you thought. However, in this case he will sooner or later show his real nature and start making trouble again and we will ban him permanently without any right of pleading for another lift. PS. I also had some edit wars with him, e.g. about Roger, Karakuri, my minor edits on talk pages or the Funimation episode list. He didn't insult me personally, but I can understand that people who were attacked personally can hold a deep grunge against him. However, I also think that people are able to show real generosity and forgive their former enemies who are sorry about their deeds. There are a lot of examples for this, both in One Piece and in the real world. El Chupacabra 12:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I have moved my response to you down below. MasterDeva 17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Against: I agree with MasterDeva the reasons for banning DS where legit. Replace Tvtrops with OnePieceWikia and provide two internal links that reveals DS attitude and that’s it. Oh, I forgot does my opinion really count? Because according to Drunk Samurai I am a "dumbass". Tipota 00:01, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yup, DS just doesn't consider anyone's feelings, and makes insults. Kick him out hard. Yatanogarasu 23:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Against: after seeing his defense "I'm sorry" i think he should be banned, i don't think he's sorry. Lets consider this, would he ever of apologized if he wasn't in danger of being banned? i doubt it, if someone just said "hey cut it out" he'd ignore them and continue on his ways. If he had said "I realize now how much my actions affect others and will try to keep my temper in cheach" I'd probably stay neutral, but I fell like he's just lying to save himself--User:Swg66-Cambria ne'er can yield! 10:57, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for Banning Drunk Samurai Permanently:

Edit/Image Wars (Year 2009 only)

December 2009 - 7 [1]
November 2009 - 18 [2]
August 2009 - 1 [3]
July 2009 - 5 [4]
June 2009 - 1 [5]
May 2009 - 1 [6]
April 2009 - 5 [7]
January 2009 - 1 [8]

Due to his constant edit wars and by result big number of protected pages, part of this wiki's progress was halted, as I can't even begin to count the number of times people couldn't edit because Drunk Samurai was in edit war with someone. That's half the problem.

Refuses/ignores to discuss his reasons for doing (anything he does),[9] and it takes an Admin to have him even properly answer you back.[10]

Constant insults to other editors and users in this wiki.[11]

He has been banned in the past for one month because he insulted a user and has been warned for a permanent one before[12] but he didn't change his attitude before or after his first ban.

To name just a few, this is a typical behaviour of a vandal,[13] (this list can be expanded)! MasterDeva 22:09, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well regardless, there too much of a strong dislike towards DS for it to happen and to top it off, the circumstances for a return just keeps getting stricter it seems. Looks like this ones a definitive "Against". The majority still say "no" to a return. Its up to MF to decide though if he should or shouldn't be kept ban. Well, should we call this one a closed case? Theres no closing date been selected already. One-Winged Hawk 22:23, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I kinda thought about leaving this discussion open for about a week, however based on the responses it's rather clear on what the majority of the community thinks of whether DS' ban should be lifted or not. I guess that's karma. Step on enough people's shoes and eventually you'll create a large enough mob with sore feet that hates you.
For fairness sake, the discussion from this point on can continue on as other things related to DS' ban can still be discussed about. One proposal from DS, which I personally don't think is being stated sincerely due to past experiences, is lessening the ban to 1-2 months. Though based on people's responses here, I'm not sure if that would be considered.
Anyway, the ban on Drunk Samurai is a consensus. Other little details as whether to lessen the ban or not can be still discussed. However, by next week, the whole matter will be closed.Mugiwara Franky 15:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to specify that it wasn't my intention to encourage DS's ban by pointing you towards TVtropes. I agree that a person should be banned by what they've done on this site, not others. Since people had were saying that he hadn't posted on the wiki in a few days, I was trying to suggest a place where he might be found, so people could inform him of the discussion.-- 13:38, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

DS is asking for a trial period to prove he can be a better editor then he has been, but looking over this it seems he should have asked sooner. Well this is entirely in the communities hands, the verdicts already out. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:09, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

The previous time he was banned for a whole month and nothing changed and now he asks for less!? If he wants a break then a permanent ban would suffice and nothing less. Enough is enough. MasterDeva 19:22, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yep, answer is predictable. There is basically nothing more to add to this other then the punishment we gave is appropriate but more serve then even wikipedia would have done. Not that counts for anything. I'm only relying the message here though from DS's page because DS can't put it here. One-Winged Hawk 19:42, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
The previous time he knew that the ban will be lifted after one month and saw no reason for a cahnge, but now he should have realised that he is banned forever, and this scared him and made him think about what he did. He regrets his behaviour and asks for a new chance, and I think we should give himit. In our voting about this we currently 3 "For" votes and one "neutral tending to for". This means that there still are some people who thrust him. He should be allowed to prove that he is worth to be thrusted. Please don't forget that lifting this ban doesn't mean that he can't be banned again. If he will do any of the things listed above again, he will be banned for the third time, forever and without any right to ask for forgiveness. I ask everybody here, Do you really think that people can't change? And is it really so difficult to show mercy??? El Chupacabra 15:48, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, show mercy to the people who deserve it but not on the ones who prey on it and on people's good will to get away! Another thing is that mercy is shown to people on their first offense and if' they repeat it again they are punished for their first (that was pardoned) and their last!!
Being generous and being just though are entirely different things El Chupacabra and according to what he has done by our rules he must be punished. I can't gauge him for what he might have done or not, I gauge him for what he did, his actions speak louder than his words.
Believe me if it was any other person I would have shown all the mercy and support I could because under the right circumstances people can change but not all people can. That of course shouldn't be used to discriminate between people but is a truth of this world and we have to accept it!!! MasterDeva 17:35, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that he deserved to be punished because of what he did. However, it seems that the punishment had some effect on him, and he has learned from it, and that's why he asks for a new chance. I think it is both just and generous to give him on (Only One) chance in order to find out if it's true. He was punished in accordance with our rules, but he came back and asked for forgiveness, and we have no guidelines on this. My opinion is that if a penitent comes back and asks for a a new chance, he should get one. If he proves the trust, he will stay and if he will continue his previous actions he will be banned and will never get any new chances. I didn't claim that all people can change, some cannot, but I think that DS has changed, because otherwise there would be no reason for him to ask for forgiveness. MasterDeva, why can't we give him one try? El Chupacabra 10:39, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you've picked up on something I'll have to open up discussion on the forum for. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 12:22, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
A little correction Chupacabra since you agree that he deserved the ban then it's completely justified and it will not be lifted that's fact. What we can discuss further on is if it should be reduced but definitely not lifted. People who are permanently banned have been, for serious reasons, it's not your typical youth vandal who uploads you know what pictures. That's giving him a chance and not giving away for what he has done.
I will paraphrase what I said in the forum, you don't kill someone in cold blood and then say "I'm sorry" and expect to get away. If that happens then our guidelines and rules (please excuse me but I'm going to borrow Drunk Samurai's favorite word) are bullshit. I am sorry for using such language and even though I can't justify it, a lot of problems will arise from an action like this leading to our whole system falling apart and everything leading back to chaos, that would be the result of it.
Now, for people with smaller penalties a "plea" system should indeed be made to evaluate the situation and move accordingly. I wrote about it in the forums. MasterDeva 18:22, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that he he deserved the ban because of his actions which rooted in his egoistic personality. His ban was justified, but this discussion is not about the justification for the ban. The point is, if we should show mercy and lift the ban. I alway said that even if we'll do this, it will not mean that everything he did will be forgotten, and any repeated action of vandalism should be punished with a second, definitely permanent ban. However, I think we should lift the ban because he claims to have changed and says that he's sorry and the only way to find out if it's true is to lift the ban and see how he will behave. You said, one cannot get away with a grave crime by just saying "I'm sorry". I agree with this, but I believe that he claims to have sorry not just because he wants to be allowed to return, but because he honestly regrets his actions. I would give him a last chance because he is not a young vandal. I have the impression, that although his behaviour was unacceptable and some of his actions qualified as vandalism, his intentions were not those of a typical vandal. I think that he really wants to make useful contributions to this wikia, and the fact that he made a plea proves this. At least, I can't see any reason for him to ask for forgiveness unless he honestly repeats what he did and wants to be allowed to contribute again. And even if there are some reasons, we can't find it out until we lift the ban and see how he will behave. However, since we have opened a more general discussion about the plea system, we should stop this discussion until we've figured out a guideline how to treat banned users. El Chupacabra 13:38, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think that's about it. We have talked enough and provided insight into each others perspectives and views on the matter so we can have a clear view on what each of us thinks. I'll summarize some things because it's too much for someone to read this wall of text. MasterDeva 19:34, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

  • I did not like the idea of lifting the ban from the very start because the reasons behind it (minus the links from TVTropes) were legit and the ban was justifiable. That's why I made a list of Drunk Samurai's "crimes" here because this "lift thing" somehow gave the idea that they where not!
  • Lifting the ban would be against our rules but at the very least reducing the sentence would be a small loophole that could be exploited without we breaking our own rules. That's a big step from permanent to not, please note that!
  • Drunk Samurai's history and past of actions have been made known and clear so anyone can vote having knowledge of all the facts.
  • Both sides have fully presented their opinions on whether should or shouldn't allow Drunk Samurai to return back to the wiki. There has been extensive discussions about this matter and both sides have come to understand and respect each others decisions while all the facts and views on the matter were presented and made clear!
MasterDeva 19:34, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination 14

Nom. 15

  • User: User:Mattc2911
  • Reason: Uploading porn
  • Nom; One-Winged Hawk 21:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Punishment: just ban him, they should no better, and if it was just one image a warning would have been enough. But this sicko uploaded several One-Winged Hawk 21:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination 16

  • User:Mehdontgiveadamn
  • Reason: Kept uploading extra unneeded trivia in Boa Hancock at least 5 times, despite the Trivia Guidelines and multiple removals. Also, changed her age to 27 to 36, when the math clearly shows 27 to 34.
  • Nominator: Yatanogarasu 17:59, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
  • Punishment: Warning ban, for several days or months maybe? The admins decide.

Nomination 17

  • User IP :
  • Reason : Constant Spaming and insulting characters, making up facts... basically slandering
  • Nominator: Mehdontgiveadamn 22:12 May 2, 2010
  • Punishment : Ban
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.