Forum:Banning Consensus

Hello everyone from the community! Well this is not my typical friendly post, so don't feel shocked. I have been thinking about this for a while now, so I want community consensus on it. The issue is with BBilge. He has done nothing for our wiki but bring chaos, problems, arguments, anger, and dramatic squabbles. I will be linking many pages to you guys so you can see the real BBilge you don't know about. The following are on his talk page just so you can see his behavior. This was when he had downloaded 37 photos all at once just for his own benefit. You can see the aggression and desire to fight in those messages. Here you can see the way he treats our fellow bureaucrat, Sam 3010. Sam is simply trying to help him with a template and BBilge automatically responds with curse words and aggression. I want to also point out how all his blog posts include "This site really needs". The reason I brought that up is because he is trying to intimidate all of us to fight and for him to sit back and laugh at the way we give him the power to lay back and be entertained by us. The 3 most disturbing blog posts are this, this, and this. All he does is complain about how things don't go his way. Also, the most recent issue is completely pathetic. First off, he made a forum, instead of making a blog post just for this. Then after he finished with that, I had sent this to NeonSpotlight, BBilge did not find that to go as planned so he made this. Over all, even if you clicked the links or not, I am making this forum in order to have consensus on a permanent ban on BBilge. He brings nothing to the wiki except a bunch of problems. He whines all of the time and is trying to break apart our community. I don't see a need for him to be allowed in our community anymore. Voting will end on August 13, 2011. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

Voting

Support

1. Strong Support — As nominator. User:Technology Wizard/Signature
2. Support — I don't think I've ever seen anyone like this. This guy can't take constructive criticism at all. He seems to consistently prove that he can't work with others. Interdictor 08:23, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
3. Support — I have read it all and during his career on this wiki i seen he has done a few things stated here and 1 of his blogs read that if u do not like the attitude on a wiki make ur own. --LoLisNumbaWan 08:05, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. Support — What a temper. What next? Death threats O.o? Ilkcs ^_^ 08:15, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
5. #1 supporter — Free me from the temptation to stomach any more of this bullshit. --BBilge 08:18, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
6. Support — I agree, If he wants wiki go his way, He should make his own Wiki. I'm tired of his naggings like Removal of adminship of Tech, Yelling to Sam, and the Blog regarding wiki attitude or some sort. Paul Levesque 09:54, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral — - Eh, I'm not getting into this one. Although I will say that BBilge has had some great moments, in my mind, namely here, here, and his his opinion here. Also I will say that I think the whole renaming war was just... shameful... While I do think BBilge should've told Tech why he was persistent in renaming it, I can't say that Tech's course of action was the right one, even with the warning. No actual communication going on in that situation outside of an ultimatum, that isn't how productive things get done. I'll end this by saying the actions taken by both parties involved were detestable, and neutrality is the best thing I can provide.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  08:44, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — I respect your decision. The thing is, he reverted my warning and is using 4 different IPs now. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

Comment — I don't blame him for using different IPs, to be perfectly honest, it is unfair to bring something up like this when the one who it affects is unable to defend himself or even explain himself.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  08:51, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — Either way, he reverted a warning, which is definitely not acceptable. He even supports this forum... User:Technology Wizard/Signature

I agree with Neon here at least unban him so he can write back. --LoLisNumbaWan 08:55, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — You'll find I already did.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  08:58, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment — Yeah I noticed, but if he acts up again, he will be blocked again. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

I didn't have a chance to explain why I moved the pages, I was banned faster than that. Then he promptly created this propaganda and rallied everyone in the chat room to vote with him. --BBilge 09:02, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oh don't act like you're the poor victim. I warned you and you removed my warning. You have time to remove my warning but not explain yourself. Wow, just wow. LOL! We have been talking about everything in the wiki, not just this drama you love. Either way, where's your proof? User:Technology Wizard/Signature

Tech convinced me over ur own arguement.... --LoLisNumbaWan 09:18, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral — - Although I agree with most points brought onto this forum, I would not feel confortable voting in any way as I am one of the affected parties. I think this forum is the right way to proceed with this issue, but I don't accept the course of actions regarding its publication, specially the ban of BBilge while this took place. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 18:31, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — sk8bcn I clearly don't like what he writes, and I don't feel like he should have adminship. But that's not worth a ban. IMO, he should be allowed to moan. After all, 90% of the posters moan here (about OP/UP of a character). He does about the wiki. Whatever?
2. Oppose — I clearly think he is a detestable human being, and I have jokingly made references to having him banned for the conflict he brings. However recent events have not been been one-way with a clear "bad guy" as past events were. Currently we are getting a little bit of over-zealous moderation and that is causing conflict. Asperon Thorn 16:25, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose — This should not be under consideration. Please see comment below for argument. --Mr Lovely 21:21, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. Oppose — The argumentation for this proposed bad is, I'm sorry to say, funny. He's trying to make the wiki better, he's encountering problems, he tries to voice them, and you gang up on him for being bad... All he was trying to do is make wiki better. And no, Tech, he's not trying to break the community apart, only a selfish individual such as yourself would see it that way. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 23:13, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose — While I may not like his attitude or his abrassive online personality that assumes 'his way is the right way' and anything else is wrong, I havn't seen him do anything that is worthy enough to warrent a ban. «Texas Snyper» (My Talk - Contribs) 02:36, 8/14/2011
6. Oppose —} No, no never! This is not a demonstration of who has the bigger gun. Strongly oppose. - KazMx ( Message me! | E-Mail me! | [[Special:Contributions/KazMx|Special:Editcount/KazMx Edits!]] ) - ( 16:05,8/15/2011 )

Comment — Wow so you go from "Hey Tech, to what do I owe the honor?" to this, that's what I call funny! And I am the selfish one when I create pages that you were supposed to create and then you don't want anyone to see them so you remove them from the template just because you didn't get the credit, niceeee. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

1. Strongly oppose this proposal. You really just need to grow up and learn how to deal with people - something which admins should be able to do. ajr 17:31, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Also, he has recently been using different IPs to edit even though I have temporarily blocked him, meaning that he won't stop trying to troll our wiki at all costs. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

"LOL" As in Laughing out Loud, is not an appropriate form of debate. And should be excluded from comments or counter-comments, especcially when one side holds all the cards. Neon, or other Bureaucrats, I would move for an Acquittal or dismissal considering that the party proposing this was also a party of the wrongdoing. Further, I don't think that making an open forum topic about a ban is appropriate either. Admin's, Bureaucrats, etc make bans as appropriate, but it is not for a public lynching. Asperon Thorn 17:49, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the rephrase, I was in a hurry and needed to say something quickly. Anyway, the reason I "LOLed" was because of the assumptions he keeps making. I mean do you read his comments? Also, the reason there is consensus needed on this is because there has to be enough argumentation and agreement that the ban should go forth. I could easily just sysop protect this for only admin+ to vote, but everyone should have a chance to voice themselves if they feel something should be justified or not. I mean BBilge has done some good things recently, but his actions (reverting my warning, insulting me and others of the community, renaming a page like 5 times, using 5 different IPs, et cetera) are building up and it's too much at this point. I mean how do we know if he isn't using multiple accounts since he can easily access different IPs. I would consider reducing the ban only if he proves he actually cares about our wiki. The only good thing he has done in my eyes is remake the home page, but what is the big deal...I remade the forum page. He even supported banning himself. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

This sort of consensus is a farce. It is a popularity contest against someone who was unpopular to begin with. Justice is not the same as popular opinion. Frankly, I am embarrassed that this is a discussion. It should be immediately closed.'Crat's and admins could take it offline if they wish and determine what to do. But I completely disagree with this form of throwing mud, and mob mentality for an issue such as this. Asperon Thorn 20:03, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do, just block him? This isn't a popularity contest, no voting section is. People can vote for whatever they want, they aren't forced to do it. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

Discuss it offline with the other admins and Bureaucrats. Asperon Thorn 20:34, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

But then that would make us look like we have more of a say so than everyone else, when's that's not true. That would be saying "If you want a say so in something, apply for admin+ rights". Eeveryone should be able to discuss what they want. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

But Tech, Admins DO have more power... it's why they are admins, so ofcourse they have a bigger say in things. Deshiba 14:02, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

As much as I hate getting involved in these kinds of things...Well, I must urge those making any sort of decision in this issue not to set a precedent with this decision. There are certain things which, in the interest of a system which promotes justice or sanity, I don't think can be decided by "community consensus." And to create no dramatic suspense, community consensus as it applies to this wiki really only involves the select few members who are actively concerned with the intricate details of the wiki's progress and not the majority of people who actually use this wiki for its intended purpose as a source of information and discussion about the game they like to play and can't be arsed to get involved with the politics. And that's well and fine in general if active contributors have more influence in the direction of the wiki.

When it comes down to the individual rights of users, this discussion does not need to take place. That is what the rules of any community exist for. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/League_of_Legends_Wiki:Simplified_ruleset (By the way, get a clear consensus on this and put a block on this page already) Did the individual in question transgress upon the rules set forth? If yes, then punishment is dealt accordingly. If no, then no action need be taken. If unclear, then the authorities confer and make a decision. There is a line between considering input from the community and tossing people to the mob and making this decision would cross it. If you wish for there to be a rule which states that any member of the community may be removed due to popular consideration, then I suggest our bureaucrats settle that issue first and foremost. --Mr Lovely 21:18, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Thank you Mr. Lovely. Asperon Thorn 21:24, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oh so now the bureaucrats have the last word? So since I am the one bringing up the issue, should I just go apply for bureaucrat, no. If anything, then the admin and crats should be talking about this. I still think that everyone should be able to decide on this, but if you guys think it should just be the admins+, then fine. I'll be messaging the admins+ to go on a chat and discuss this issue. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

I don't intend to suggest any specific chain of command on these kinds of issues. Allow me to mean "bureaucrat" in the general sense of the word. I'll condense a facet of my argument: Rules have been outlined, but if no one is following them, they do not exist. Whoever it is that are supposed to make these kinds of decisions to enforce rules should probably get to enforcing.--Mr Lovely 22:03, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

@Lovely, those aren't rules, "This page lists some of the overarching guidelines that have helped make Wikipedia a success. You may like to consider them for this Wikia." If those were the actual rules, and were to be enforced, this place would be a lot different, especially with this: "No personal attacks. Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or insult him/her (even if (s)he is an idiot). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it. If possible, fix it yourself," which is a policy I believe should be put into practice.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  23:25, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neon, I think the point that Lovely was trying to make is that there are not actual rules of conduct to be violated. And that the community should make some, through consensus, and then rely on the "staff" of LOL wikia to enforce those rules. Rather than use an individual to establish those rules through a Mob Lynching. Asperon Thorn 23:34, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

I just want to thank Asperon Thorn and Mr Lovely for taking the time to add their comments and add that I am in total accord. --BBilge 23:43, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, he should've just said that instead :x Regarding this page as a whole, I'm closing the "vote," as said before, bans are not something that should be dealt with by a "popularity vote," especially one that is open to regular editors who can not even use the block feature. Also, this whole discussion has shown me how immature Tech is, and how much he lets personal opinions and bias cloud his all-too-eager judgement. This is not to mention how he deals with being called out or insulted, with personal attacks, as can be seen with his response to Anti, which was not only crude but also ridiculously inappropriate to put in this sort of setting. In the end this discussion has dissolved down to a mixture of personal attacks and bullheadedness on behalf of Tech.

Oh, before I forget: "This isn't a popularity contest, no voting section is. People can vote for whatever they want, they aren't forced to do it." That is just wrong, pretty much every voting section we've ever had, especially those regarding users, has been a popularity contest. How does people having freedom of vote make this any less of a popularity contest?  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  23:57, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Might I add that that the same thing goes for the stripping of Tech's admin rights. Really where 2 people fight there are 2 who hold blame. If you close this one close that one too... Deshiba 13:58, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

I think in both situations the popularity thing helps out a little because it gives people's opinions from which those who do make decisions regarding the issues can use in their decision making. Get rid of the public voting and just have comments and I think it would be quite a bit better.  NeonSpotlight  Talk  Contribs  14:14, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. --BBilge 15:06, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this yet? Neither players won their pissing contest. «Texas Snyper» (My Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 8/18/2011

It has been closed there is a closing date at the top. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

Uum, is it just me or i see this like a Drama BBilge build to drive Technology Wizard out of this Wiki. Where he would start with the Removal of Tech's Admins, then Tech would get mad and start this. BBilge himself even support this. Then, some Admin and Bureaucrat would protect BBilge and berates Technology because he acts like a little kid. And when he does removed from his Right as an Admin, Tech maybe will leave the Wiki, leaving a spot for a New Admin. Well, im just saying, i'm not supporting anyone, cause i never met them both in the Wiki. But, i saw this like a Drama.......Sudarsono 21:22, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. It is drama, that got fueled by both users in question, however both had different motivation for it. All of this was strongly based on personal distaste of one user towards another, but besides that some valid points were brought up. And you saying "start with the Removal of Tech's Admins, then Tech would get mad and start this". I'm sorry you're talking about a former admin here, if one user is able to get an admin "mad" that admin does not deserve the position. Not because due to inability to professionally handle the situation but allowing to be manipulated by others in such a way where he makes bad decisions. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 22:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would just ignore this type of manipulation, but since you are dishing out false information, I have to step in. It is a bit obvious that you didn't even take the time to read this forum's topic. I made many valid points and have linked all concerning issues to it. I could have made this forum before or after the other user made the RfRA, but either way, your argumentation would have been invalid and false as it was presented above this comment. Either way, trying to send out a false reputation about someone is not accepted on this wiki, and I would suggest to discontinue doing so before it becomes any worse. Personal issues are not to be dealt with with a community, but with the individual it was started with. User:Technology Wizard/Signature

So, you have to step in, but you fail to mention which part of whose statement was/is false information. You should probably try to step in with a little more thought in mind, because this whole paragraph you wrote is very ambiguous. --AntiZig (talk, contribs) 21:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)