I don't agree with Webber that you did anything unreasonable on the April Fool's page. What I'm saying is that, regardless of your intentions, Webber still feels like he was ganged up on and attacked, and if we're going to resolve this situation in a peaceable way, it's important to recognize that instead of treating him like he just wants to troll. I definitely agree that he has been unacceptably and pointedly rude, and definitely has to make amends for that. But both editors involved in this are sincere editors who desire to make valuable contributions to the wiki, not vandals or trolls."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 14:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Ganged up where? You mean with the case between me and Webber22? Or are you referencing back to prank's page? 'Cause the way I read it, no one was ganged up on. Like I said, if you see something I oversaw over there, we can go over it. The page has not been manipulated, as far as I know, since the TheSilentHero's comment about restoring it. If you're referring to the case between me and Webber22, I wanted to talk and resolve things with Webber22 without things escalating, but it was Webber22 who threw insults at me from the get-go. I understand what you're saying about us being editors who just want to make the wiki better and all, but making good edits shouldn't be used an excuse or a crutch to get away with bad behavior. I've seen other communities (rather idiotic ones, truth be told) who uses the whole "hey-he-or-she-makes-great-edits-lol-who-cares-if-he-or-she-said-this-what-a-joke" let users who exhibit hostile behavior to stay on the wiki. Thing is, this whole matter between me and Webber22 has escalated past the point of a simple "Did X insult Y, and should be punished for it?", because I realized something after going through Webber22's previous block logs and the reasons behind them. So, I begin asking the question, "How many times is the wiki going to allow a user to come back on the wiki and knock others down until a line is drawn?" Basically, I'm asking how chances is the wiki willingly to give someone (anyone in general, I'm not just talking about Webber22 anymore) seconds, thirds, fourths, fifths chances until we realize the user's behavior has not improved and is still bullying others, and that all we're doing is compromising our ethics to allow said user to come back time and time again? What message does this send to other users, who count on users with "tools", to help them from cases like these? 'Cause our policy doesn't lay that out, and I think that needs to addressed.--NinjaSheik 20:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- My personal guideline has been to allow any user back, so long as they recognize their offense and make amends. Not many do, out of pride, but that's how I roll. And that's my personal belief, not the community's -- if consensus is to stop giving second chances, I'll go along with that. I'm just trying to point out my own, personal belief that we should try to resolve this without embittering people -- and it definitely should be resolved. I admit that I'm not an expert of any kind here, and I apologize that I haven't done a good job of standing up for you in the past."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have personal guidelines, too, but with Webber22's history and the fact that the community is divided in opinions on how to handle the situation is conflicting with that. Before, the wiki operated with a simple 3-strikes policy. That's why we have the Warning templates. 3 warnings, and if a user doesn't comply to them, we block/ban them depending on the level of offense. I supported that policy, because it was very fair. I've come onto the wiki when I was really young, and had no idea how a wikia was even run. By observing you guys here (okay, technically, back in when everyone was at the Keyhole), and the countless other wikias all over the web, I've come to learn a lot of things and formed a lot of my own guidelines about how I think a wikia should be run. Even the really bad ones that I never even went to, and only hear users are always trashing on different wikias. I think users can learn a lot of wikias like that, namely on how not to act. Thing is, I agree with you and the wiki's idea about second chances. I know for a fact that users are not always banned because they acted maliciously. In fact, I've seen some users being blocked/banned for lesser reasons, even those with good intentions, but I also learned that when it comes to users who have acted out repeatedly, somewhere down the road, a line has to be drawn. Again, I agree with the idea of seconds chances, "so long as they recognize their offense and make amends", just as you said. But here we are, in a situation where Webber22, in fact, does not acknowledge the offense (see above section) and refuses to make amends. Which brings the question: If the wiki is willingly to allow users the opportunity of a second chance, as long as they have recognize their offense and actively try to be better, then what do we do about the ones who don't? The ones that do not recognize their offense and have no wish to come a peaceful solution, and, moreover, has history of getting banned repeatedly for the exact same reason over and over again? What then? What is the wiki's stance on situations like that? Do we allow these types of users to keep coming back again and again just because they make good edits, only for them to continue acting out against others when their opinions clashes and have the cycle keep repeating? Our policy doesn't say, because we - this wiki - never had to deal with this problem because we're such a small community. And the longer this problem drags on, the more complicated it's gonna be for everyone involve.
- I'm sorry things escalated out of hand like this. Please know that wasn't my intention, as I wanted to have things done more quietly. But if we're gonna talk about personal guidelines, if it was just me and me only, I would've perma-banned Webber22 back when he still an anonymous user for saying those horrible things to Maggosh-kun and Neumz-senpai. Even now, given that he been banned 5 times already for personally attacking users, about 95% of me still says perma-banned him, because it seems that Webber22 had plenty of chances already. But this isn't what I want, after all. This what the community wants, too, because it seems that the issue has become quite a big deal that it had gotten almost every active staff member involved. Everyone on the wiki has their differences, even you and me, Kryten. Honestly, I was always kind of afraid of you (still kind am), but I never hated you and I do, in fact, like talking to you. I can also see that you a good user with good intentions for the wiki. Even when users fight, you tried to mediate, and one of things I liked about the KHWiki is how everyone is able to make up and resolved things peacefully in the end, despite how heated some discussions can go. I think when you left the for a time and asked to be demoted because you couldn't come on due to RL, for example, showed a lot of character in you. I saw that as something very respectable. Most users on wikias probably wouldn't even do that, because they simply like having "power" over others. So, you don't have to apologize for not sticking up to me in the past (I don't think there is anything you have to apologize for, as far as I recall?), but we should focus on the now, because this case between Webber22 and me has really gotten out of hand.--NinjaSheik 20:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think we should still decide what to do about this. Do we ban him or let him go? TheSilentHero 14:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you, TheSilentHero. I've been waiting for KrytenKoro to continue the conversation on my talk page, and I kept an eye on ShardofTruth's talk page, too, to see if anyone replies. But it's been two weeks now, I believe, and no one has responded to my questions. I never liked leaving things hanging, but I waited and no one seems to have any interest in continuing the subject. Personally, I still hold onto my belief that Webber22 should be banned. Given Webber22's past offenses, I say that enough is enough, and I really don't like the idea of letting a user who has A.) Refused to acknowledge the attacks while all the while still emitting a hostile attitude and B.) Has been repeatedly banned for the this exact reason, and is still being allowed to edit on the wiki without a proper punishment. Slapping a warning template doesn't sit right with me, because how many times is enough until someone who has slandered many users in the past and has done so again gets banned permanently? I'm asking really serious questions here. But the issue has divided opinions. I'm willingly to compromise, but I still don't like the idea of having a user who has a tendency to insult others and thinking that's okay to edit on the wiki.--NinjaSheik 20:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Although I don't like to (perma-)ban another user, I think if we let him be, it will just be a matter of time before he attacks someone again, considering his track record and total denial of his actions. Besides that, it sends a wrong message to others: "On KHWiki, you can attack other users (and even admins) multiple times and get away with a warning." However, if we decide to not ban him, I will agree, under one condition: The very next time he attacks someone, he will immediately get perma-banned. It may sound a little harsh, but we have to draw a line somewhere. I'll ask Shard and Kryten for their final thoughts on this matter. TheSilentHero 17:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you, TSH. I've seen/heard stuff like this happened before, and the user who's at fault typically gets away with. And, thank you again, by the way. I know I apologized several times, but I'm sorry got you involved in this, but thank you for your input and your attention on the matter.--NinjaSheik 20:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will admit bias in this statement, because I myself have been banned, repeatedly, for personal attacks, and it's taken a long time for me to get to the point where I try to studiously avoid them (and I still slip up, often). If the consensus isn't behind what I say below -- that's fine, and again, I tend to preach indefinite forgiveness for all but the most obvious bad actors.
- In my view -- what happened was a spat due to bad blood. Webber definitely crossed the line and needs to account for that, but I do not believe, from what I've seen, that he engaged in actual harassment that would necessitate a permanent ban -- while he definitely attacked Ninja, it doesn't look his goal on the wiki is to attack or vandalize, so I don't see him as a bad actor. I would definitely agree to an indefinite ban hinging on him accounting for what he did wrong and sincerely attempting to do better in the future, but I don't agree that he's a lost cause.
- Once again, this is coming from the same guy who thought it was a great idea to promote every editor to admin, so I'll be the first to admit it's more idealist than realist."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since I'm already partially involved in this, I feel somewhat obliged to add my thoughts too. It's definitely true that Webber deserves some form of punishment and I would propose a lengthy temporary ban (I don't know how long his previous bans were, so one or two months?), but the fact that he at least to some degree has improved himself after his previous bans gives me the hope that he can continue to improve further. If he shows a sincere willingness to improve (he hasn't so far, so we should bring this topic to his attention), I support a temporary and not permanent punishment. TheFifteenthMember 19:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @KrytenKoro: I'm more a balance between an idealist and realist. As I said before, I agree with the idea of second chances, but only if the user in question feels sincerely remorseful and apologizes for their actions. Remember all that drama regarding EternalNothinessXIII on that forum when he asked his rights back, for example? Everyone got a heated in that debate, and EternalNothinessXIII left the wiki for a time. When he came back, he genuinely apologized for his behavior, and I see him truly making an attempt to be better. Same goes you, too, Kryten. You said yourself, you've been banned repeatedly for personal attacks, but you're making a genuine attempt to be better, too. You know why I'm pointing this out? Because you and EternalNothinessXIII recognized your own misbehavior and are sincerely attempting to be better. But look at Webber22, a user who refuses to even acknowledge the attacks, which were completely unwarranted, and has been BANNED 5 TIMES already. You never answered my question, though, regarding that in my previous posts. 5 TIMES, his longest ban being 3 MONTHS, for the EXACT same reason. Seriously, at what point is a user deemed a "lost cause", anyhow? How many chances should they have before they finally decide to shape up? Again, our policy says nothing about this, and I'm trying to abide to what the rules say.
- @TheFifteenthMember: If Webber22 was given a temporary ban, then his ban has to 4 months, if we're going by his longest ban. Given Webber22 has not shown a willingness to improve (and he has yet to sincerely apologize for his attacks), I still say a permanent ban. That may seem harsh, but I'm not comfortable with having someone on the wiki in which the community allows to come back for the sake of making good edits, only to have said user knock others down repeatedly.--NinjaSheik 20:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, an editor is a lost cause when they make it a goal to be obstructive to the wiki and its community. While Webber has definitely been a jerk to you, I just don't see attacking you as being his raison d'etre."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 21:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, though, if an editor, no matter how good he or she is at editing or how long they've been doing it, has been exhibiting hostile behavior, they should be banned when the evidence shows that they have done so repeatedly, shows no remorse for their actions, and persists on misbehaving even after being warned and/or banned several times. As long as a user is being consistently disruptive in some way to the community, they should be banned, regardless of edits they do on the wiki itself. We're not just talking about Webber22's attacks against me, I want to also keep in mind of Webber22's previous bans and the reasons behind them. Given everything I have gleaned from his previous posts and encounters with others users, I believe that Webber22 should have been permanently banned long ago. I think Webber22 is already a "lost cause", because just look at everything he's done in the past and what he did now. I think 5 times is way too many chances for an editor to keep coming back after getting banned again and again for the same reason. Kryten, what punishment do you think Webber22 should get for his attacks, keeping in mind of that previously stated facts? I did see you blocked one user for 3 months earlier today for vandalizing one page. So, what should Webber22's punishment be as he as A.) Been 5 times now for the same reason and B.) Shows no intention of even acknowledging that he has attacked a user?--NinjaSheik 03:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- That user vandalized the wiki itself with slurs, making it clear their goal was to be destructive to the project. You don't need warnings for that. In Webber's case, I would recommend an indefinite ban until he makes it clear he understands what the issue was and has intent to amend his behavior.
- There's friction and there's acid, and in my opinion the Webber issue is friction. That being said, I speak only for myself, and consensus will decide."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, most trolls do that because they're bored and to prank a wikia for fun. Most of time, isn't banning them for a week or two typically enough, because usually, trolls don't even bother coming back. If the user vandalized more pages, I can understand the 3 months ban, but you banned him after the user vandalized one page with idiotic slurs and after receiving one warning, completely skipping the typical 3-strikes procedure the wiki does. Well, anyway, Webber22 hasn't made any indication that he understands the issue. As he stated previously, he sees the case as "nonsense" so he is treating it as "nonsense", and as he indicated on TSH's talk page, he refuses to understand why he got a warning. If anyone wants to talk to Webber22 about his behavior, they're free to go for it. Is anyone willingly to do so? The case is dragging, and I'd like a final vote since we're deciding the outcome based on consensus.--NinjaSheik 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I banned someone, so if I used the improper procedure for this wiki, go ahead and modify my ban. I think I was using the Digimon Wiki procedure, which is not forgiving of vandalism but is forgiving of friction."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's an idea: Why don't we let Webber decide what to do? If he admits what he did was wrong and apologizes to NinjaSheik, we'll only give him a temporary ban, but if he refuses, we ban him permanently. I'm not sure how long this temporary ban should be, but seeing as he has been banned multiple times before, and the longest being 3 months, I'd say a year or so... What do you think? TheSilentHero 07:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- If he sincerely apologizes, then I'm fine with that, even if I'm still leaning to the perma-ban (personally, anyway. But I agree with your idea, too). That means that someone (not me, of course) should talk to Webber22 about the consequences of his actions. If someone doesn't, then he that'll only make him believe that he has done nothing wrong, and that anyone can get away with attacking users.--NinjaSheik 19:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I can be the one who informs him, if nobody has any objections. Also, does everyone agree with the temporary ban being one year? TheSilentHero 21:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Are you sure you're okay with being the one informing him? *Sigh* I still a hold a firm personal belief that given Webber22's history, he should be perma-ban. After all, a user who has been banned 5 times had enough chances to be more mindful of one's behavior, but I won't oppose to a one year ban.--NinjaSheik 22:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, someone has to, but I'll wait until the others give their opinion on this idea. TheSilentHero 11:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I've said, I support an indefinite ban with termination dependent on Webber addressing his behavior. I'd also recommend that Ninja and Webber simply avoid each other in the future. We should probably get more admins' opinions."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 15:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Avoid each other? This is a community wikia. Users cannot not simply expect to avoid each other when they get into a fight with a clear resolution, and we're a very small community. Isn't that that type of behavior which brews even bigger hostility on wikias, anyway? If Webber22 does not address his behavior and is allowed to continuing editing here, then all that's doing is showing others that the KHWiki is excusing bad behavior and that anyone can come on here and personally attack others.--NinjaSheik 20:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to make this as short as possible. We are no correction institution here, that's why there no real guidelines regarding such cases and it's mostly left in the hands of the mods and admins to deal with these problems how they see fit. Warnings and bans are punishments; you give them to the users that don't see the errors of their way, not to people that apologize and feel sorry. You also don't punish users again because they still don't feel sorry even after receiving a punishment, that's just bad pedagogy. If we're going to Webber22 and say "If you apologize and say you are deeply sorry for what you've done than you will be only banned for a year, otherwise it's permant for things you've said years ago" I can see the outcome of this from a mile away, but maybe that's what you all want, I don't know.
- After reading your responses I think I know how you feel about this NinjaSheik. You don't seem to be really affected by the attack (or at least not anymore), which is a good thing because you really shouldn't. Instead you feel that his behavoir was completely uncalled for (I agree) and now you want to enforce the three strikes rules because in your opinion Webber is a lost cause, especially because of the things he said to Neumannz and Maggosh in the past. Do we know how Neumannz and Maggosh feel about this now? Do they still care or did they ever care?
- I respect your opinion NinjaSheik and I hope this doesn't feel like I want to invalidate it to you, but my own is different. I think Webber22 likes to contribute here, that's why he came back numerous times after bans in the first place, and his contributions are reconginized which is why he even became user of the month. Do I think we (or in this case you) have to endure his rude behavoir? Of course not, but I also don't think we have the means here to correct it, he has to learn that on his own. So in short I don't think a permanent ban is helpful at all, not to him, not to us. I think he should apologize but when did a forced apology ever help? --ShardofTruth 08:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify -- it seems like you're interpreting my suggestion as making sure he says he's deeply sorry, etc. My suggestion is that he be asked to recognize that the behavior he engaged in *this time* is not acceptable behavior, and that he will not do it again. I don't think that's too much to ask, not even for an editor who *hasn't* made a misstep -- it's essentially asking them to understand and agree to the wiki's code of conduct. I do think Webber owes Ninja, and only Ninja (not me or Silent or you) an apology for his behavior, but that's an incredibly lenient request, really."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not really an "apologize or get banned", but more a "realize that what you did is wrong or get banned". I don't think it matters whether the persons who were attacked still care about it, we can't let users go around saying mean stuff to others without doing anything. You say "He has to learn that on his own", but that's the main issue here; he doesn't acknowledge doing anything wrong, and therefore it is unlikely that he actually learns from this. Sure, he likes to edit here and was Featured User at one point, but that doesn't mean he can break the rules.
- I do see your point, though, and I guess we can scrap the apologizing part from the idea. I doubt it would have been sincere in the first place, and if he is really sorry, he can apologize out of his own. TheSilentHero 17:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, what's the final verdict? This is a public talk page. And I do agree that if Webber22 was really sorry and wish to make amends, he would have by now. It's just like you said, TSH. I stick to my belief that no matter how good an editor someone is, they should be punished if they break the rules. And this whole thing about "learning on his own" idea is rather flawed. How times does a user have to be banned until he finally learns that he can't just go around and insulting others? 'Cause Webber22 has been banned 5 times, and time and time again, he has attacked someone, which resulted in bans. And that is also something to keep in mind. Therefore, in my mind, he is a lost cause and should just be banned permanently. No user should be forced to endure this type of treatment from anyone, time and time again. Webber22 is, I'm assuming, a young adult. He should know better to behave this way, even if it's over the Internet. After getting banned 5 times, you would think that a user would learn by now.--NinjaSheik 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unless they're a vandal or troll, I don't believe that any contributing user should ever be banned permanently because there's always a hope that they can improve their misbehaviour; even if it's extremely unlikely, it could still happen so we shouldn't completely write off any user forever. However, bad behaviour has to be punished and with a user that has already committed the same offence five times, we have to be strict about it. Therefore, I support a one year temporary ban, regardless of whether Webber admits his mistake or not. TheFifteenthMember 18:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- This goes against my personal beliefs, but I have stated previously that I'm fine with the one year ban. Any objections? Me, THS, TFM, and Kryten seem to have OK'ed this idea.--NinjaSheik 19:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- We should get on with it. Being the neutral admins in support of this idea, I think either TSH or KK should ban the user and notify him of that. TheFifteenthMember 22:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed.--NinjaSheik 19:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The mighty NinjaSheik has spoken. But of course she believes I'm a lost cause. Now, before I, I don't know, submit myself to judgment, I present a query: On how many sites do you think she has been banned on for "attacking users?" Now, to make this fair, we'll limit it to just attacks on users - we won't include anything crazy like pseudo-modding, harassing, trolling, drama queen-ing....you know, the routine. And also to make it fair, I'll just keep it to the Kingdom Hearts community. Now, here's a hint: A lot more times than I've been banned on here. And secondly, and this is a rather important clarification, I've only personally been banned on here twice, and that was some time ago. So....not five. A while ago, I used a campus network (no longer the case) - you may feel free to check up on the IP - a particular pest was savvy on fucking around with me back then (though to be fair, some of it was my fair - I didn't make use of TOR, partially because I didn't know about it, and because it would've been too slow on the network). And that's just me and my very-much-not-friend. I can't speak for any other assholes who might have caused a stirrup.
So to recap, I've only personally been banned twice on here - and again, some time ago. Secondly, Shiek is literally the LAST person on earth to go around and dig up someone's past history, criticize them, dismiss them, and then judge them given her very colorful history. By that logic, Charles Manson should be appointed to the Supreme Court.
And lastly, regarding this "incident" - am I apologetic about it? ....Not really. This is the part where I ask points for honesty....but I don't have to since I already have a point. Go ahead - look at every discussion between myself and NJ. I have never attacked her - merely pointed out the hypocrisy in her actions. If that constitutes as an attack, then I'm sorry Kryten, but your suggestion to make everyone an admin just as easily labels you as having a drinking problem. Unfit to rule, and operate heavy machinery! Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? So, why do I have to apologize for something that doesn't even make sense?
And then - THEN! - someone here has this magical audacity to give me a WONDERFUL choice. Truly wonderful: Apologize over something that you know I didn't even do, and then get banned only a little bit, or don't apologize and get banned a whole lot! I'm sorry, what the FUCK kind of choice is that? Again with the metaphor - if you drown, you're not a witch, if you live, then you're a witch so we'll have to kill you anyway!
I was asked to speak for myself, so here I am. Speaking for myself, and choosing for myself. I choose not to apologize. And I choose not option A, or even B, but I'm proposing this RIDICULOUS new Option C called "Let's not ban Webber. At all." Instead, I'm gonna go on my merry. You're all gonna go on your merry. When an edit or contribution needs to be done, it'll be done. When a proposition crops up, it'll get discussed - and nothing more to it than that. And just because I don't mince words regarding foolish people undertaking foolish actions does not give leeway for you all to get hilariously, heart-bleedingly overly-sensitive and assume someone is attacking you. Because by golly, you are perfect. No, a tap on the shoulder asking what time it is is not aggravated assault. And no, giving you a smile and telling you "good morning!" is not sexual harassment in the office. Get over yourselves. The victimization routine only goes so far.
Now, as I said before, I will now proceed to be on my merry and carry on as normal. In fact, I'm pretty much gonna try and forget this absolutely ridiculous and stupid discussion never even happened. Actually, I strongly suggest you delete it and be done with it, since all it does is serve to make all of us here look like a bunch of uptight wankers arguing over a useless bunch of nothing, and starting drama over a whole lot of zero. And most of us - let's face it - have had that happen just a bit too much. Now, is this not the smart and rational thing to do at this point? --Webber22 (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And there you have it, everyone. Based on what Webber22 has written here, if we're going by what we discussed previously, indefinite ban it is. Sorry, but after everything Webber22 just posted here now, I'm not giving him leeway by his blatant disregard for the rules and outright rude behavior. Throwing accusations around without definite proof, insulting others, refusal to acknowledge violation of the rules, etc. We can discuss more if you guys want, but my choice is clear. And, Kryten, you said you'll support an indefinite ban given Webber22's response. Well, given this response, I will ban him indefinitely.--NinjaSheik 03:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Webber, you've made clear to me that you do not know how to conduct yourself when talking to other people, especially because you do not see your hostile messages as personal attacks. So that you may understand your mistakes, I'll point out a couple of examples of you being disrespectful and offensive:
- "Not the Stiff-Upper Lip Speech"
- "Contrary to what your parents may have told to you when you were a kid, the planets don't orbit around you."
- "I'm realistically expecting you to get off your high horse and behave like a normal person"
- "The universe doesn't revolve around you or your opinions. In fact, pretty much no one cares for them. You were lied to."
By saying these things, the only thing you can be trying to do is belittle or humiliate Ninja, which is clearly unacceptable. The users on this wiki choose to take time out of their day to come here and edit; they do not come here to be attacked and offended. Maybe other wikis run differently, but if you're going to edit here, we expect you to not go out of your way to spoil other user's editing experiences. I sincerely hope you keep this in mind if you choose to return here after your ban period is up. TheFifteenthMember 13:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, as unfortunate as it is, that's pretty explicitly intent to continue with the exact behavior that started this. I'd still like to request that we discuss the possibility of an unban if he ever concedes that stuff like the tirade above is not the ideal functioning of the community, and makes any sort of attempt to propose a way to keep it from happening again, but as always, I'll bow to consensus on that one."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 13:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but that discussion should probably be held elsewhere, since we've already bloated Ninja's talk page. TheFifteenthMember 16:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- On the notion of furthering a discussion based on Webber22's behavior, I vote no. I'm done putting up with this hostile behavior. My mind won't change. Webber22 has been given enough chances, and have been warned and blocked repeatedly for persisting in his behavior. Webber22, as TFM as pointed above, has a quite a bit of double standards, the prime examples being:
- 1.) Claiming that I am victimizing myself, yet at the same time doing the exact thing he is accusing me of. Victimizing himself, believing he has done no wrongdoing of any sorts, and exhibiting perpetual denial of why he's being punished in the first place.
- 2.) Outright hostile, demeaning, and intimidating behavior. He has, as all of you can see, continues to indulge in this behavior, insulting not only me but the people (KrytenKoro, TheSilentHero, and TheFifthteenthMember) who were actually trying to help him, even after being warned/banned several times not to behave this way. Also, equating "a tap on the shoulder" as the same thing as being assaulted? Kryten, you also pointed this out on Webber22's talk page, but saying stuff like that is not only is just being plain disrespectful to numerous users, he's also completely downplaying the seriousness of the case as, once again, calling what we have been discussing a "ridiculous and stupid discussion".
Also, I don't appreciate having accusations thrown at me, especially said accusations were thrown without proof. Apparently, I have a very colorful past on the KHWiki, when the only wrongdoing I ever done was back when I was a 13-year-old kid with no experiencing on editing or even the wikia's rules back on the Keyhole and I got a warning template because I got into an edit war regarding Larxene's quotes Still, I learned from that single mistake, and never got a warning template again. My archives are there, so anyone can see it. To address this passage: "Now, before I, I don't know, submit myself to judgment, I present a query: On how many sites do you think she has been banned on for "attacking users?" Now, to make this fair, we'll limit it to just attacks on users - we won't include anything crazy like pseudo-modding, harassing, trolling, drama queen-ing....you know, the routine. And also to make it fair, I'll just keep it to the Kingdom Hearts community. Now, here's a hint: A lot more times than I've been banned on here. "
Once again, accusations. Webber22 talks as if he knows my activity on other sites and wikias, but I have never encountered on any other wikias before, so where does get his information that I have been banned for attacking users, more so than "a lot more times than [Webber22] been banned on here"? I have never been banned on any other wikias or sites for anything before, especially for attacking users. I'd be more than happy to pull up my logs on other wikias just to prove it. Even if was true, what right did Webber22 had to say that? What was Webber22 trying to accomplish by asking such a question? That was completely unwarranted and uncalled for. And quite frankly, nothing short than an attempt to, as TFM said, "belittle and humiliate" me. That was an attack, period.
So no. Someone like Webber22 should not be allowed to come back after everything he has said and done. Ever. I'm done. I'm wiping my hands clean of this case. I listened to all of your opinions and even contacting TheSilentHero into this to act as mediator into to remain unbiased. Last night, given Webber22's response to everything he have been discussing so far and once again attacking not just me but all of you guys, too, I made a decision, and I stick to my belief that I made the right call. It's as you said, TFM: "The users on this wiki choose to take time out of their day to come here and edit; they do not come here to be attacked and offended." Allowing Webber22 to come back is wrong, in my opinion. Right here and how, I'm saying no to him returning to the wiki or lessening his ban. I don't want to be held responsible for bringing someone like Webber22 back onto a community, and making other users uncomfortable and potentially leaving the wiki because someone like that is on here.--NinjaSheik 17:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Re:Gamefaqs
Not wanting to stir up offsite drama being said, I absolutely have no sympathy for the gamefaqs side, and painting it as us "stirring up drama" is totally false. Those guys had been mudslinging us for ages and sending vandals over here, and time has only proven us right about stuff like the Lingering Will being a distinct entity from Terra. Or the claim by KootieQ that the novel section for Larxene was reverted to a shitty writeup with a complaint that it was "unprofessional" -- that simply never happened (the history is publically visible, and the closest that happened was that a buildup of objectively bad grammar was *wholesale removed*, as bad grammar, and someone posted a completely new writeup), so it's a lie that that community made up and happily bandied about without doing one iota of fact checking. That lot was a bunch of tryhard edgelords, and hopefully they've been replaced."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 22:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
_1_KHCOM.gif){kind=icon}
_3_KHCOM.gif){kind=icon}
Chainoffire
04:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
_4_KHCOM.gif){kind=icon}
