2b2t Wiki:Ban Status of User Orsond

This is a talk/discussion page concerning the permanent ban of Orsond from the wiki

Unanimity of Staff opinion on the matter
As a staff team, we are obligated to enforce the word and spirit of the Rules. Normally this is incredibly straightforward; activity is encouraged where possible, new pages are brought to a base level of quality, disruptive editors and vandals are banned, etc. Many of us are from the same section of the community. We do not let this govern how we deal with issues in the wiki; we are obligated to be as objective as possible. In the effort to be objective, though, sometimes we allow greater leeway than should be to individuals who had drama with us respectively on 2b2t itself. It is the unanimous opinion of the entire staff team (including myself, Chipoff, Galvatron, Henry, leijurv, and rpb) that Orsond has acted in a manner that is deserving of a ban, and that he has been deserving of a ban for a while now.

Orsond's malicious editing in 2021 and subsequent ban from the wiki discord
We shied away from banning him previously because we were concerned that to ban Orsond represented a conflict of interest for us and that it would cause more problems than it would solve - the wiki is meant to be an unbiased place to document 2b2t’s history above all else. At that time he had been editing maliciously with the intention of disrupting editing through re-editing pages and applying a negative spin on the contents, as well as adding complete misinformation, in an effort to portray the subjects negatively. These edits were reverted and he was banned from the wiki discord for the bad faith drama he was causing at that point. He stopped editing the wiki for a while and did not edit the wiki for over a year, excepting several isolated edits in the summer.

Orsond's disruptive editing to prove a point
He returned recently to edit on November 19th. The contents of the edit pertain to drama concerning a Spawnmason meetup. At its face, the edit may just appear to be a somewhat spun edit. That itself is correct, but there’s more to it than that. It was prompted by a discussion between myself and D_loaded and was put on the wiki in bad faith.

Background
In that discussion with D_loaded, I approached him for the 3rd or 4th time this year to please have some DonFuer members edit the wiki. Thus far this has not led to any actions on his part on the wiki. D_loaded and I are not often on agreeable terms on 2b2t itself, and that’s okay. I was asking him to send DonFuer members to write about some of the recent DonFuer bases, and to update the group’s page. DonFuer is certainly one of the larger groups on the server, and up until a week ago (at my prompting), no members had edited the related wiki pages in many months.

The discussion between myself and D_loaded got heated; we both became annoyed with some of the things the other was saying. The final point of discussion in that conversation was him trying to convince me the wiki engages in censorship. I got more heated than I should have. I challenged him to find an example, and he was unable to do so with as much time as he wanted. After failing to prove his point, he asked me if, hypothetically, orsond made an edit concerning the aforementioned meetup drama, would I revert the edit? Reverting edits willy-nilly based on subject matter is not a good idea, which ruled out a ‘yes’ outright. I also could not answer ‘no’ in good faith as the edit was hypothetical and there was nothing to ponder over. Therefore I did not give a direct answer. That discussion ended at 4:54 PM Est on November 19.

Why these edits are disruptive
Orsond’s edit to the Fifth Column page was pushed a mere 4 minutes later. Orson was clearly in discussion with D_loaded to this effect. Orsond re-entered the wiki community to make a controversial edit to prove a point. He made a purposefully inflammatory edit in the hope that it would be reverted in order to prove that D_loaded’s allegations of wiki censorship were correct. That edit has not been reverted, nor was a similar inflammatory edit Orsond made the same day. These edits spin the meetup drama in a biased manner, and clearly are not meant to be constructive. This comes after months of Orsond bullying and defaming the participants in the meetup and their supporters and friends. With a relationship like that to the subject matter, it is difficult to be objective. He cited no unbiased sources for this controversial edit either.

Instead of reverting these bad faith edits, I have been working on a suitable replacement, and have been collaborating with a large number of community members of many differing viewpoints to replace these biased edits. The wiki is about collaboration above all else, and an event as publicized as the meetup drama ought to be talked about objectively. Orsond has demonstrated he is not interested in being objective on this subject.

Orsond's conduct on the Corner Base discussion
While waiting for others to chip in their opinions on that draft (which as of posting this is still ongoing), I began writing other pages, as well as encouraging the creation of new pages by other wiki contributors. One of the more recent pages is the draft on Corner Base. I wrote the page. Orsond changed the page to say that BIKMUNNI leaked the base instead of zipoffs. After I undid his changes and we went back and forth a few times, we started debating on the talk page. I am quite sure this is the longest talk page on the wiki at this point. It is there for anyone that wants to read the page, but the tldr of why I have brought it up here is that
 * 1) Orsond has been caught outright lying on the page
 * 2) Orsond appears to be cyberbullying BIKMUNNI and is trying to use the wiki to further this
 * 3) Orsond is editing disruptively
 * 4) Orsond is spreading misinformation
 * 5) Orsond is a textbook example of a Single-purpose account. Single-purpose accounts are accounts that exist for one purpose (usually the promotion of a narrow viewpoint or the creation of drama. He fits both of these labels.)
 * 6) Orsond is editing in Bad faith
 * 7) Orsond briefly encouraged brigading from an external platform

The Corner Base discussion is what finally prompted the discussion that resulted in the creation of this page. Orsond withdrew from the discussion, but was wholly unable to refute the arguments made against him editing the page, and furthermore was caught lying and misrepresenting facts. It is the universal opinion of the entire staff team that Orsond ought to be banned from the wiki.

While this header is extremely long-winded, it is done with the purpose of providing all active users an understanding into the staff’s unanimous reasoning as to why we feel Orsond deserves a ban, and why we furthermore feel we should not be the ones to vote on it alone. That is where you all come in. As the active wiki community, you all no-doubt have your own opinions on the matter as well. As a staff team, we are meant to serve your interests. Here we’ve decided that the best way of doing that should not just be to have the staff voting, but to have the entire community as well.

Ground Rules
Votes are governed by global policy concerning global bans. We have elected to use this as a starting point for our ground rules as no comprehensive local policy exists, recognizing that it is not 100% applicable to our situation. As a ban vote is normally conducted by the Staff, Staff voting precedent will also apply. After discussion with stewards, the deciding vote will be 60% and not the standard 51%. This vote differs from a standard request for comment in that we are temporarily transferring what is normally a staff vote to the community. It is still a vote.

As a result of this conglomeration of global policies, local precedents, and local rules, the ground rules for this vote are as follows:
 * 1) A decisive vote deciding to ban Orsond (which needs at least 60% of votes in favor) will be permanent unless overturned by a similar community vote
 * 2) A vote deciding to not ban Orsond will result in a return to the status quo and does not in any way prevent future votes on the same subject after a reasonable time has passed
 * 3) The vote will last 5 days minimum, and can be extended if discussion is still ongoing
 * 4) There are 3 sections comments can be put in - For Ban, Against Ban, Neutral about Ban
 * 5) Only accounts created before the start of the vote are eligible to vote, although new accounts are allowed and encouraged to share their opinions in the Neutral section
 * 6) The use of alternate accounts is strictly forbidden
 * 7) Be respectful

Voting Directions

 * 1) Read Ground Rules if you have not already
 * 2) To vote, place a comment in the respective section that starts with I support banning Orsond, I do not support banning Orsond, or I am neutral concerning banning Orsond. This will make counting votes easier
 * 3) Follow that with your arguments on the matter, please include substantive arguments as opposed to just saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’
 * 4) Sign your comment by typing –~ at the end of it
 * 5) You may also constructively debate other users' points in their respective sections by responding to their posts, please place the response to another user’s point below their post (or as close to it as it can appropriately be put), and state that you are responding to that user’s specific post(s). This will become very confusing very quickly otherwise. Challenging a users point does not invalidate their vote.

Votes and Arguments for Banning Orsond
I support banning Orsond because of the reasoning listed on the header of this document, which I have largely authored. I must also add my personal experience with him to this post, which amounts to him:
 * 1) Harassing me to the point that I was forced to block multiple accounts of his on multiple platforms, and then to block other people that he repeatedly attempted to reach out to me through
 * 2) Lying to third parties about me being racist and antisemitic in order to attempt to damage my reputation
 * 3) Similar treatment to friends of mine (Note, this point and the two above have been ongoing for almost a year and a half)
 * 4) Astroturfing a campaign against the participants of the aforementioned Spawnmason meetup that resulted in rampant unbased allegations of pedophilia against them. He did not make direct accusations of that nature himself, but he presented a skewed narrative that led to widespread rumors that unfairly harmed innocent people.

It is my firm opinion that Orsond is nothing more than a bully, who often starts drama and picks fights for disingenuous reasons. Someone that acts how he does has no place in a constructive environment built on collaboration, and I must therefore recommend he be permanently banned. I must also point out, because I know it will be accused - Orsond, the creation of this page was entirely optional. The staff team is unanimous in its opinion that you should be banned. We could hav banned you today with a unanimous vote and we would have been well within our right to - we all believe you have earned it a long time ago.

We also felt you did not have a fair chance, though, considering conflicts of interest caused by your regular poor treatment of the majority of the staff team for an extended period. This page has been created with significant consultation from the site stewards. Now is your chance to make your case and attempt to convince the wiki community that your actions concerning the wiki have been correct.

--Joey Coconut1 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)