Forum:Permaban Rolandius open comments

;This is an open comment forum page for Forum:Permaban Rolandius?. ''Since the above forum page is protected from editing by non-admins, asking for comment from non-admins seems kind of silly, so this page is for non-admin comments. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 3:40 PM PST 20 Jul 2009''


 * Why should non-admins comment?-- 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why put it on the forum? -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 9:46 AM PST 21 Jul 2009
 * Good question, allthough votes are democratic, sites such as this need meritocracy for votes to work. Let the admins sort it out between themselves. But...that's just mho. TherasTaneel (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the rules were changed on how this proposal becomes ratified, what is the rule on how this proposal becomes rejected? Is it open for a year? A week? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Active admins who have not voted: Starlightblunder (Foxlit) (seen July 17),  Mikk (absent since July 14), Gryphon (absent since July 9, intermittent in June), Tekkub (absent since July 3),Varghedin (absent since May 26), Montagg (absent since May 21), Sancus (absent since Feb 27), User:Hobinheim (absent since Nov 28)
 * It would be reasonable to close the vote in the usual fashion (IE give a week to change minds) once it is evident that the remaining admins are not going to register a vote. IMO, the admins above should be prodded to vote or abstain, to ensure that if they don't vote, it is by choice, not simply missing that it was happening. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should non-admins comment? - for the same reason you call your congressman. 'The people' have opinions, and those opinions have relevance to the decisions made by 'those in power'.

My opinion is that Rolandius contributes greatly in pointing out inconsistencies in the wiki. (And sometimes in policy, or the application thereof.) In 'being bold' his edits irritate many who view them as erroneous at the time. Cleaning up the same takes effort, and many of the admins are tired of doing so. He engages in disputes with admins, and calls them on it when they are inconsistent. Many admins are tired of this too. Both parts. (Admins are only human, remember.)

I am not, myself, "tired of cleaning up after him", but I can empathize with those who are. On the whole, I would regret his being booted from the wiki. He looks at things differently than most people do, and I value that. It comes with a cost, though, that I do not, alone, pay. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The main problem that I find is that sometimes he does mistakes (like most people including me) but he made them in 10-20 articles in a single hour. You may not be tired of correcting this mistakes but you haven't been here as long as the admins, that's why they are tired. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You want my thoughts? I think not everything Rolandius does is bad. In fact, I have found a few of his edits useful (as opposed to just 'fine'). I think he honestly wants to help. He is not a vandal, which is where the controversy about banning him is rooted. The problems he has mainly stem from comprehension and relevance. He does see things differently than most people do, but it seems he sees things differently than everyone else alive. This allows him to point out inconsistencies that no one else sees, but he also points out problems where there are none. Also, whenever he points something out, he is an arse/ass about it.

Whenever he corrects something on a page, he will correct the same thing over several pages, and these corrections are often wrong (but not always). Such a volume of edits (bot-worthy) would be impressive if they did not have so many minor and stupid issues hidden within. Hidden even more so by the fact that (Corrected spelling/grammar) can mean anything when he uses it. Following his contributions becomes tedious to anyone who does it for extended periods. When confronted about any errors in his edits, Rolandius refuses to understand or heed the advice, and often starts a fight. These fights may have been augmented in ferocity by what I meant when I mentioned "irony" in the mentorship review. What I meant was, he often sounds (for lack of better words) "rude", "snotty", or "snide" in his responses/comebacks, but as tone is difficult to carry through text, I, and others, may have misinterpreted his comments (it would need to have been a lot of misinterpretation).

Does Rolandius even see what he is doing wrong, or does he dismiss it as "I can't win, everyone else is just mean and crazy"? At one point I was pretty sure his actions could be described as "Rolandius thinks at the end of the day, he is still right".

I have thought about it (mainly thanks to Eirik), and agree that certain issues may have been handled in a was that was unnecessarily rude by both sides, and that things may have gone down a much different path if more initial patience was given. I disagree, however, with Fandyllic's policy of "Rolandius was treated in a way that is not perfectly proportional to his offence, so all offences are negated". Perhaps Fandyllic thinks each minor mistake and rude comment by Rolandius is not a bannable offence on its own. They aren't, like that one thing Adys cited (which was just the final straw), but they add up. "Whatever" is not a good defense.

The biggest problem? I could have said the most of the same things about his first bans if I was there and put my heart in it. Little to no change.

In a perfect world, I would like to keep Rolandius on the wiki and try to fix his problems due to the beneficial things he does, but his problems are recurrent and annoying, and Rolandius has shown that his problems will not go away, despite the attempts of many users. There has been way too much controversy. My vote is: End the madness. The method used to do this is up to the Administrators.

-- 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What Sandwichman said is mostly true, he has little to no improvement since his first ban and, actually, he comes back more resented for the actions before the ban. I would also like that Rolandius stay but, as Sandwichman, his edits often use "Corrected Spelling/Grammar" as a description but also do another thing, such as removing or adding a category, and I'm also tired of checking all his edits whatever the description given to verify if his edits are correct. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * you haven't been here as long as the admins - more appropos, I haven't been following up on Rolandius as long as the admins have. I suspect there are one or two admins I predate... :)  But yes, at the end of the day, it is not I who has borne the brunt of correcting the errors.  And thus I limit the breadth of my approval.


 * at the end of the day, he is still right - and the difference with me is "I accept that I have not prevailed, without (much) further argument". Another part of why I sympathize with Rolandius.


 * I'm thinking, from what you two have said, that the problem is largely one of scale. (With a will, one can put a hat over the arguments and ignore them.)  That is, Rolandius hasn't developed sufficient reflex to ask "I see this recurring problem, I would like to correct it in this way (see sample page XXXX), is that correct/acceptable?" despite mentoring.  Anyone (Rolandius too) have any suggestions on how to make that happen?   SWM, consider this an action that can be taken while the Permaban is still in the air, with perhaps more immediate positive results.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you predate some admins but your archived talk page says you were welcomed the "2 January 2009", while Rolandius was welcomed the "10 May 2008", that's why I told it. But whatever I don't want to go too much off-topic. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You should go by the contrib page, not his talk page... Eirik was actually around before me. 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * he comes back more resented for the actions before the ban. - Interpretation question: "Rolandius is more resented after the ban, for things he did before the ban", or "Rolandius is more full of resentment after the ban about things he did before the ban"? Who is doing the resenting? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time I say something I end up making someone mad, so hopefully I can avoid that in the following comment. By the way, I tend to write a lot in my comments so this will be long. I agree with a little of everything from the comments of users. I do know I have made mistakes but no where near "vandalism". Like some people pointed above, I edit a lot but I don't see how that is bad overall when I have created so many articles that did not exist yet. With edit summaries, I do write "corrected s/g" a lot because that is what I usually am doing. Sometimes I forget to write more because 80% of my edit will be correcting spelling/grammar and the other 20% will be something else and I edit a lot. The thing is, I actually write something in the edit summary. Some people write zero comments so I don't see how you can just point to me because I write only a "few" comments. Like Coobra said, just look at my contributions. I have tried to expand my comments in the edit summary of my edits. If I correct spelling/grammar mostly then I am not sure what I should write in the edit summary besides "corrected s/g". I also have created many NPC/mob articles that did not exist, like I said above, and just in these past few days I created more than 20 I think which were missing. The "Broken links / Wanted pages", I noticed, has more than 1000 (it won't go further) red links. The top thirty of those are Warcraft III type articles and the Warcraft III template is 50% red links. No one has said much about that, and I tried pointing it out, but I make a red link here or there and people get mad at me. I am sure you can see why I am confused about things I get blamed for when it is happening everywhere else. If someone asks me why I did this or that I try to explain to them. When I ask certain people why they did this or that they just ignore me or tell me "because I said so". I also have gotten in trouble for many crazy reasons. For instance, I made some articles for NPCs that were then deleted. The reason was that the NPCs "are not important" but I don't see how I would know that. Aren't all NPCs sort of important and should have an article on WoWWiki? Another time some people argued with me trying to say I had confused my mentor and they wrote it up as another "bad" thing I did. Later, my mentor commented on the talk page and said "Rolandius did not confuse me". As you can see, it goes both ways. I have been said to make little corrections which make people mad but then on the other side people have found problems with me that don't exist. I have tried to correct my "problems" and I think I have improved a little more than some think. I have followed the advice on how to improve and still gotten in trouble. I have been blocked during times I didn't even edit any of the main pages. I was just in my sub pages of my user name. Also, one suggestion was to make articles in my sub pages to see if they could get approved. I did this. Many of my articles were approved and of course many were not approved so I had to let them stay in my sub pages. Lo and behold, a lot of my denied articles have shown up on the main page of WoWWiki. I, of course, don't mind this but am a bit confused on the whole thing where I was denied the ability to make the article but then another user could make it. If my article was so bad or whatever then why is it okay for another user to make the same thing, sometimes with even less info then my article had? I guess, like Eirik said, some of it is because of scale. I think I have the most contributions by a non-admin so there will be a few bad, some average, but a lot of good edits in my opinion. Another thing I noticed by some user comments is that they don't agree with how everything has been handled but just want this over with. I don't see why all the blame would fall on me for this and be a reason to permaban me. Like the saying goes "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Well, just look at my contrib page and you can see how either bad, good, or in between I am as a user. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Every time I say something I end up making someone mad" is a defeatist attitude. It is true most users do not often write edit summaries, making it somewhat hypocritical, but you were specifically asked to expand on them, both because they are often wrong, and because it would have made your edits easier to keep track of. You did not really follow this repeated request much. That Warcraft III issue is new, and I do not think you have been scolded for creating any pages related to Warcraft III units. The status of the template itself is another issue. You did point it out, and it is getting done hopefully/eventually. Your "red links" were a different and much larger issue. Not all NPCs need a page. I have no idea about the confused mentor thing. Sometimes these "denied articles" show up because some were a lot less denied then you think, and it is easier to shrug off a trickle than a flood. It is a bit because of scale (I do not know if that word is being used in the same way by all users here), but do not think you are the only user that gets pages he makes deleted. If you can expand on a page in a way that makes sense, then do it. Most of these issues were attempted to be fixed in the past, but both sides failed at noticeable improvement.-- 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to expand on my edit summaries though. Once in awhile, I even fill up the edit summary box so that it won't let me add anything more. I was just pointing out that I have gotten in trouble for making a dead link here and there. Compare that to Special:WantedPages where the top 37 articles are Warcraft III related, and that is not counting the links to each one. "Raider (Warcraft III)" has 120 links, Banshee (Warcraft III) has 120 links, Abomination (Warcraft III) has 120 links, etc. Multiply that by 37 articles and that is more than 4000 links that are affected just having to do with Warcraft III. So to me it looks like "Hey Rolandius you made this red link" look a bit overstated. You said "...it is easier to shrug off a trickle than a flood." but if I make for example 10 articles that get denied and 5 other users make 2 articles each and they get on WoWWiki then I don't see the difference. It looks like an enviroment where it is discouraged to make a lot of edits or articles. It is saying "just make a few edits but don't contribute too much" it seems. Unless this is just the policy for me as a user. I would think it would be encouraged for a user to make as many edits/articles as they can like 10 instead of just two. I don't mean bad edits/articles either. I mean edits/articles that are going to end up on here anyway. Pretty much, and I have been told this verbatim so I have proof, some admins want me to just stick to my user sub pages and let other users make the edits that I was going to make in the first place. Or permaban me if they can. I don't see how that is right. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you're probably right re some admins. And other admins simply want a chance to see what you're up to and prompt corrections before the affected page count skyrockets.  Not much can be done easily about the former, but the latter can be worked on.  The latter is also why I let some of my edits sit for a day or two before echoing those changes to other related pages, and why I come to the forums with things quite so irritatingly often. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this whole page is really just for musing, since a bunch of admins are determined to ban/block Rolandius permanently. I'm glad that some discussion can take place at least before it happens. This all kind of reminds me a little of the Iranian election. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 7:06 PM PST 23 Jul 2009
 * Your analogy is laughable and insulting to Iranians. Everyone here appears to be agreeing with the fact that Rolandius at least needs to be dealt with except for you and Rolandius.  The admins have given Rolandius plenty of opportunity to shape up.  It is nothing like Iran. -- 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dealt with doesn't indicate the specific action and definitely doesn't indicate everyone is agreeing with your recommended action. You're right, it isn't like Iran specifically, but it still reminds me of the Iranian election. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:25 PM PST 30 Jul 2009


 * Small note. Everyone here appears to be agreeing that I can improve in some places but that some admins also need improvement, yet there is nothing they can do about that part, so they want it all to just end. They are hoping that the aforementioned admins can improve themselves though because they would like for me to stay on WoWWiki. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This vote is not about the admins, it is about you. I believe the admins have overall been more than fair even though I admit some of us have been rude at times. -- 02:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This vote is about me. The admins are the ones voting. So it is six of one and half a dozen of another to me. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll let the "insulting to Iranians" pass, as inappropriate to fasten upon as the original analogy. The vote will say something about the admins, as they are doing the voting.  What it says, is different for each viewer of the events.  And both parties are reflecting upon it, and amending their behavior in light of it.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, ever since this vote started, I have noticed Rolandius is trying harder to improve... since talk, mentors, and reviews didn't seem to do much for him, perhaps something like this was needed to kick him in the rear and get his attention. 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This may well have helped, but I thought I had seen improvement beforehand. If nothing else, it kicked over the status quo. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Helped or hindered, is there some kind of actual date when the voting closes? I already know it closes "effective immediately" if it is ratified. What about the "rejected" angle since it has been more than 7 days since it began? I was just wondering because I am contributing on WoWWiki, yet any day now I could be permabanned. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am have been poking the admins by e-mail. Rest assured nothing will happen until we get a better representation of the admins. -- 02:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most people would agree that 7 plus days is a lot of time. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think we should close the vote now... -- 02:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin. I am asking when does it close. Someone mentioned 7 days. It has been 7 days. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I really would prefer if more of the admins would vote, either way. Probably when a majority of the active admins have voted. -- 03:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a majority of the admins who are going to show up though if it has been already more than a week. We don't want a kangaroo court right? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh. A kangaroo court implies a loss of due process in the name of expediency.  I am trying not to rush it.  Are you wanting to get it over with? -- 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A kangaroo court also implies that a decision has already been made and everything else is just for show. Asking "Are you wanting to get it over with?" is sort of like asking someone if they really want an axe not be held over them anymore. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly hasn't been decided. This has been tossed around in admin e-mails for a long time.  And the vote is currently not in your favor, I was just asking why you wanted it to close now. -- 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you read what you wrote in the voting article, but there is no "in your favor". As soon as a "simple majority" is reached the thing is ratified "effective immediately" and I am banned. Yet, there is nothing about how the voting ends if the "simple majority" has not been reached or a given time when the voting ends. I want to contribute to WoWWiki without an axe over my head. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I meant a majority of active admins. -- 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It already said that with the whole "...five would be about half of the active admins." but the whole thing about the time the voting is open until a simple majority is reached is missing. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rolandius, this might sound strange but I wonder if you are actually very much like me. You pay really close attention to detail, almost seem to have a sick fetish for making some "bot-like" edits, and do struggle with the line between critical and offensive. So I'm telling you this from the heart because I see that similarity - if you were doing this at work, you'd probably get fired. People get fired all the time who do good work. But if you annoy the leadership too much, especially if they are accountable for whatever you are doing, or if you just plain make them look bad, it's what happens. Just the other day the architect for our division had a sit down with me, that sounds oh so familiar to these forums. The difference is, I've just figured out how to reign some of this stuff in better. But I still slip up from time to time.

So if you don't get banned, the first thing you need to do is really prioritize making accurate comments over faster edits. When you're done with an edit, you must (a)preview, (b)show changes, (c)put in an accurate comment, (d)save. I know it's an extra step and slows you down to do show changes every time, but you're going to have to start doing that if you want to gain any respect back. And if you ever become a coder out there in the real world, you'll appreciate this habit - wiki editing is very very similar to the every day tasks of a developer. That's what good coders do before "commiting"/"saving" their code changes to their "repo"/"wiki."

Second, if you make a change, and people are unhappy with it, especially if the change applies to more than 3 pages, you need to undo it. These "cleanup" activities are the primary reason I can see for the permaban being brought up. The time and effort it takes to "support you" is not worth the "value" you're bringing. Again with the reference to the job world, that's exactly how it works there, too. There are people I have worked with who suck away so much time from everyone else, even though they get their work done, they bring a net negative. You're clearly creative and detail-oriented but you need to respect when you're outvoted. And trust me - if the boss says you did something wrong, he sure as hell won't fix it - you'll have to fix it yourself. When you think of the time it takes to do and then undo something, maybe you'll reconsider before starting at all.

Lastly, I think your attitude may be improving as this disciplinary action has progressed, but use the "would I speak that way to my grandma" filter. It's a little extreme, but if in doubt, it's a good measuring stick to keep you out of trouble. Obviously take this with a grain of salt - no one is that polite 100% of the time. But just because people giving you advise slip up occasionally doesn't mean you should disregard what they're trying to say entirely. Again I feel this is still a worthy life lesson, because you will have write things to your boss, or to a potential employer, or a customer, or a client, and you'll be pissed at them. And if you want to get your way, use sugar not vinegar. It doesn't matter if you weren't offended/don't mind/or even flat out like the vinegar, you can't talk to other people that way. Websites aren't free. So someone out there is paying bills, more expensive than you might think, but they lay down the rules. We're just lucky enough one of those rules is we can edit for free if we're good. 11:47 PM, 24 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Compared to what I have been called, anything I have said to someone is like throwing flowers around a person. Let's just say, if there was only one rule in all of WoWWiki and it had to do with what you said to someone, I would be pretty safe on here and a lot of admins would be gone. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But that isn't how it works... nor does the "real world." 12:39 AM, 25 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Well this isn't "work" or the "real world" as we know it. This is a wiki where people contribute to expand it and it is run by a group of admins and not just a minority of admins. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 10:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I am doing "(a)preview, (b)show changes, (c)put in an accurate comment, (d)save." but they just wait for one time I write a short summary and get all mad like I do it everytime when some people do this instead "(a)preview, (b)don't show changes, (c)put in zero comment, (d)save." you see? Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 10:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a lot of cases of things that are not inherently bad (in description, and usually in practice), gone bad. I mean, look at Rolandius' talk page and really read the dialog, if everyone has not already.-- 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that things described here are not equal to 'what went down', because they are things that are not inherently bad, gone bad. Also, I am increasingly concerned with conversations on the alternate talk page of Fandyllic that Pcj linked. I do not see how it is a Kangaroo court.-- 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even read the description of a Kangaroo court that I linked? I'd like you to explain how it isn't. The vote was created with arbitrary rules by a subset of the admin population with no basis in policy. Please xplain how it isn't a Kangaroo court? I invite anyone to read what was said at w:c:answers:User_talk:Fandyllic. It could easily have been discussed in private, but unlike some admins, I like my deliberations to have some transparency. I invite some admin to post the e-mail deliberations that lead up to the vote in the first place.
 * I also find it ironic, SWM that your first comment here was this: "Why should non-admins comment?"
 * -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:17 PM PST 29 Jul 2009


 * Well, there is no rule as to how this proposal is "rejected". I see no "duration" rule for the proposal. It seems to be created so it can be open until "ratified" but no way for it to be "rejected". For instance, it has been more than 11 days since it started. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pcj explained this above. Personally, I took it as once all administrators vote, whichever side has the simple majority wins, but do not hold anything to that. Would you rather it end now and lose?-- 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added an arbitrary deadline for this vote since you seem to think it needs one. -- 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Fandyllic, I did read that page before posting that comment. The vote has arbitrary rules and no basis in policy because such controversy over a ban has no precedent. This "subset of the admin population" is just the ones with opinions about the topic. If everyone got together beforehand and planned this out, then it really would be a Kangaroo court. It is about gumption. So what if some had opinions beforehand? The only way to prove otherwise would be for on of the "Yes" voters to be swayed by the comments here and change their vote to "No", giving your defense more power. Any vote will likely be a subset of admins because not everyone will vote on everything. Since when do you have to motivate all admins to start a vote? Also, how can you be that blind and ignorant of the "deliberations" that lead up to this vote? Regardless of the content of any inter-admin non-wiki media, Rolandius' actions are no secret. You may disagree, but it is hard to not even see the problem, or the opinions of the others here. My first comment was "Why should non-admins comment?", as this was between you all, but my second comment was "You want my thoughts?", which was supposed to sound like an exasperated sigh or shrug, which I then gave. Fandyllic, instead of complaining about the procedures, why not defend Rolandius? Of course, getting this vote scrapped would defend him from a ban.-- 00:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It was set up ahead of time. You just didn't know because it was on the admin mailing list. A subset of admins got together and proposed a vote to permaban Rolandius on e-mail. For some reason Pcj decided it should appear on the forums. As far as I know this was not discussed on the mailing list, he just did it. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:13 PM PST 30 Jul 2009
 * It was your idea for it to be open. Quoting from your e-mail: I would suggest the vote be open, but with the current discouraging of an open debate including non-admins, we might as well just have admins vote. This is a vote I expect to lose, but at least it will be public and I'll be able to air my points.  I'd prefer to wait until the end of May to have the final vote. We should require a quorum of admins, though. Perhaps a minimum of 10 or 12 votes.
 * Then Gourra and I talked to Kirkburn about it and he also suggested a vote, so we did it here, since here it would be most visible. And we considered the active admin thing and decided to initially require a majority of active admins.  I have repeatedly poked all admins on the e-mail list on this in the interests of fairness, and added a closing date at Rolandius' request. -- 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You completely misinterpreted my meaning of "open". By open, I meant including non-admins in the vote (which seems clear to me, but you missed it). I said nothing about posting it in WoWWiki. By "public" I meant public to the admins on the mailing list. Please find me the e-mail where you asked, "Hey should we put this vote on WoWWiki?" I missed it. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:25 PM PST 30 Jul 2009


 * That makes no sense. It already was being discussed publicly with all the admins, and you were already airing your points publicly with the admins. Also how could we include non-admins in the vote if it were not posted on WoWWiki?  You want one thing then you want something else which negates it.  /boggle -- 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm making no sense? You posted the vote on WoWWiki, but locked it so only admins could vote. How could we include non-admins in the vote if you locked the voting page? -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:34 PM PST 30 Jul 2009


 * You capitulated that we should have admins vote but still maintained that it should be "open" and "public". This method was about as open and public as I could make it while keeping it to admins. -- 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No more capitulating from me I guess. It doesn't mean I approved of the method. It just means it got rammed down my throat. Consensus be damned, I suppose. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:06 PM PST 31 Jul 2009
 * Consensus? Actually you were the only admin who was even somewhat opposed to an open vote. -- 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to voice my opinion: I don't find it fair that the policies should be altered just for this vote, with just the majority instead of a margin of five. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in this case it's because most vote involve the entire community, in which 5 votes is a much smaller percentage. Whereas this vote is just the admins, of whom there are about ten, which would require an almost unanimous vote. Especially with two admins abstaining, which brings the quorum down to seven or eight. As a side note, I do agree with Fandyllic that this really should have been a private vote. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Would you rather it end now and lose?" I don't really see how "I" would "lose" if it ended now since it does not have a simply majority. The way it is set up "I" will "lose" because it is open until a simple majority reaches the "ratify" requirements. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There actually is a simple majority right now: four in favor, two against, and two not voting. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk)
 * It isn't a simple majority of people voting. It is a simple majority of "active admins". That is the way Pcj set it up. It has to be a simple majority of "active admins" which there are about 10 admins active currently. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The voting is open until a simple majority of all admins reaches something. You are contradicting yourself Rolandius.-- 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...You can't have a simple majority of people who don't vote. That doesn't even make sense. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not contradicting myself. That is the way it was set up. The whole WW:VOTE was thrown out and changed to a simple majority of active admins. If some admins don't vote that isn't my fault. You still need a simple majority. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk  -  contr ) 02:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dark T Zeratul, I meant after they do vote, if they do. Rolandius, if you are counting this vote even if some admins do not vote, then a simple majority has already been reached, and not in your favor.-- 02:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What math does that come from? Last time I checked, 4 was not a simple majority of 10. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but it is a simple majority of six, which is the number of votes thus far not counting abstentions (which don't count), which is what matters. If the other admins don't vote, their non-votes don't count against those who did. As I said earlier (to Rolandius, SWM, not to you; I got what you meant), you can't have a simple majority of people who don't vote. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That isn't how the rules go. It says a simple majority of active admins. By your logic, if the vote was 1 yes and 0 no that would be a simple majority and pass? I don't think so. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one else voted then yeah, I'd think it would. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, here it is in simpler terms. The procedure says "Vote yes to permaban Rolandius, effective immediately..." which means that as soon as one person voted yes or no the vote would have ended already. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 04:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the rules keep changing on the voting. I guess you can't even follow your own made up rules. When the procedure first started it said a simple majority of admins. It was then changed to a simple majority of active admins is all that is required. Now after 2 weeks it changed to a simple majority of votes is all that is required. So in theory it could be Yes 1 and No 0 and it would pass? I don't see how changing the rules after 2 weeks and making a procedure be able to pass in theory by a vote of 1-0 when there are many admins on WoWWiki is at all near fair. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the procedure was created by someone who violates rules himself. For instance, just today he violated WW:3RR...and it wasn't with a vandal or a new user. Interesting, some admins say I don't "listen to what an admin says to me", yet some admins don't listen to anyone at all. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just being honest, but Pcj was either being lazy or wasn't counting. Either way, some people voted to make him an admin (which always confused me, because his admin vote looks he lost), so I guess the community has a general faith in his abilities. All the same, it would be better if the admins in general tried to set a better example. I realize you're all human, but if you read between the lines in some of Rolandius' rants, he makes a few valid points, that do not need to be stated again at this time. 1:35 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Mentioning that vote was a bit of a low blow.-- 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that shouldn't be a low blow if he was choosen as an admin by fair ways. If there is another archival of votes or was decided in a private discussion I would like to know where, if there is I just can't find it.
 * Note that I'm asking this question because I think we should be allowed to know the truth, not because I have something against Pcj nor any other. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant. Has this derailed into 'Pcj is not a good admin because he made this vote, so we have to roast him'? Rolandius has been the final straw for too many admins already.-- 23:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait SWM don't misinterpret my comment, I just want to know the truth, I'm NOT against Pcj nor I'm criticizing his way to act. If you check my comment you will note that I didn't even mentioned Rolandius. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, a minority of active admins is not "too many". You make it sound like it is most of the admins of which so far only 4 voted No. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't "irrelevant" because Pcj is voting as an admin. Like others mentioned above, that voting result says nomination failed. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am an admin. -- 02:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a known fact, what I don't know is where is the archival of the vote where you won or were you choosen by another method? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was appointed by Kirkburn with approval of the pre-existing admins. This is irrelevant. -- 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Partially true. You were appointed by Kirkburn and admins weren't asked whether they disapproved, so it was a fait accompli. At least I wasn't asked. Initially, I gave you qualified support (the only person, mind you), but your actions and attitude made me switch to oppose. You're an admin, but not an elected one. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:06 PM PST 31 Jul 2009
 * I think this voting procedure, on whether or not to permaban a user, has lower standards then a voting on whether or not to move an article from one name to a new name. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the answer Pcj I just wanted to know how it happened. I know this is irrelevant for this forum but I tried asking in other talk page and no one answered. I'm sorry for the inconvenients. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally archived pages are ignored. 02:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was roasting Pcj - that wasn't really the intent. I just wanted to point out that we are ALL human and ALL choose to follow the rules sometimes, and not follow them other times. Some people more than others. Some people get in more trouble than others (probably because of which rules they choose to break and how often). It was just an aside about Pcj's vote. I know he's an admin. I certainly appreciate his work.

Just to be clear, the non-admin editors do notice when admins don't follow policy. Some people point it out; others do not; doesn't mean we didn't see it because we turned a blind eye or pouted quietly. All of the admins could probably stand to do a better job at actually following them - that should not be directed to one admin in particular.

Since it probably sounds like I am hinting the opposite, I think the voting rules put forth for this case only seemed reasonable. 4:42 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I am one of those users who seems to point them out when admins don't follow policy. Hence, this permaban voting. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rolandius, you are saying that you doing that is the main reason for this vote?-- 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr But on a more serious note, this is EXACTLY why I refuse to edit anything for fear of being wrong... In saying that, thanks for creating the Forums, where I can contribute to this great site without fear of screwing things up! :D As for Rolandius, he seems like a cool guy, but thats obviously not the point of this discussion and not a good enough reason to get him to stay. So I'll just say Good Luck Rolandius, whatever happens! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.


 * It is long and hard to read. If you have an opinion of Rolandius, then it does add to this discussion.-- 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

*Sigh* I wish this was a bad joke... You're a problem Rolandis, but you don't deserve this imo. I find your relatively calm handling of your impending doom in intended public view further testament to you not deserving it. This feels like televised executions ffs. :/ -- 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is part of the reason for this vote Sandwichman. Some of the same people who are voting against me have said on talk pages that they don't like me because I know (or think I do) a lot of the rules. They just don't want me pointing out when they are not following a policy. Call me arrogant or courageous. I could see where this vote was needed if all I was doing was "causing problems" on WoWWiki. I guess that is how some look at it, "Rolandius just logs in and tries to mess up the site" or something. My perspective is that I am not a vandal and I have nearly 30,000 edits. I make some bad, some good, and some obscure articles. I, indirectly at times, help other users on here as I have seen many articles under my username inspire others to create them on the mainspace. I don't think this warrants permabanning a top contributer. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zeal, I think that is one of the signs of the fall of a civilization i.e. the Roman Coliseum. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An earlier comment was to the effect "a majority of 5 was too hard, so we went to a simple majority". I submit that if a majority of 5 is too hard to acquire, perhaps either the vote was badly structured, or the proposal did not have sufficient consensus in the first place. I point to the number of issues currently put to a vote, and that the permaban vote currently has more votes than many of those. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The 5 vote majority is scaled to the entire wiki, the admin group is much smaller - plus a 5 vote majority would sway the balance too deeply in favor of no action by default (an action not indicated as desirable by the majority of admins and which has in the past resulted in wheel wars and other ugly behavior), a fair vote was called for and that is what I attempted to set up. Admins have voted because they want this resolved (and because I've poked them repeatedly). -- 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that two active admins have not even voted. Also, there should be a Yes or No vote and not an Abstain option as that does not show what their thoughts are on the situation. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 23:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The 5 vote majority is scaled to the entire wiki, the admin group is much smaller..." you said. That isn't much different than the number of admins I think. You have said yourself a few times that the number of users who make significant edits on WoWWiki is close to the number of admins who had a problem with me and that those admins made up the core group of users on WoWWiki. So Eirik Ratcatcher is correct according to what you have even said in the past. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Although an attempt was made to make this a fair vote, I don't agree that it is a fair vote. This whole effort has occurred under protest (even if it appears to just be me). I think there is a clear problem with WoWWiki administration if there are so few active admins or admins that are not involved enough to vote Ye or No on this issue. We probably need to start demoting admins who aren't active enough and promoting new ones who are active. Having such a large percentage of admins inactive or nearly so is making WoWWiki moribund. -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:28 PM PST 4 Aug 2009


 * There seems to have been more debate about the vote itself than the fate of Rolandius. BTW, the 'core group' thing comes from here.-- 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As this is a unique occurrence, SWM, it is proper that there be debate about the vote itself. Whether we individually like it or not, this vote sets a baseline for any future bannings.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I tried to say on Forum:Block and Ban policy, I abhor the concept of a vote to ban a user. You, however, are fairly certain this will (sadly) come about again. Back to the point at hand, how many comments here can be boiled down to "I think Rolandius should be banned", "I think Rolandius should not be banned", or "I think we should do [this] about Rolandius"? Please note I am not questioning the outcome of this vote, regardless of my opinion. I will not look a gift horse in the mouth, as it could be worse. Also, due to the continued displeasure some parties with the outcome, it is my hope that someone does not disrupt things further to illustrate their vague points.-- 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Fandyllic, and I find it ironic the discussion is centered around banning a user who at the moment is probably the biggest reason the wiki hasn't fallen into disuse/disarray. I dread to think about the lore section's future if this banning does go through. I did intend to stay out of this issue but reading that just made me want to break my silence. I'm completely against the idea of banning someone who contributes so much to the wiki, and i won't be convinced otherwise. There, i've said my peace. 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Staying out of the way of a stampede keeps you alive until the stampede turns. I have been weak in my defense because I haven't been carrying a good share of the "cleaning up".  Lore isn't my strong suit. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm sad that this has happened, I couldn't enter the wiki for two days because of excess of homework and I now see this. I know that I couldn't have made anything even if I had entered to the wiki, neither can I do something now. So I'll just say that, in my opinion, Rolandius didn't deserve this. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)