2b2t Wiki:Ban Status of User Orsond

From 2b2t Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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


Thanks to everyone for weighing in.

We left the vote open an additional day more than originally planned in case anyone else wanted to weigh in (6 days instead of 5). After tallying the votes and then subtracting retractions (Joey_Coconut1 and Henry's 'Yes' votes) and accounts created after the beginning of the vote (K3ys3r.s0z33's 'No' vote), the results are as follows:

Result: Inconclusive

Votes Yes Votes No Votes Neutral Votes Total
Raw Count 11 13 6 30
Percentage 36.6% 43.3% 20% 99.9%

A 60% 'Yes' vote would have been required for the proposed ban to occur, this was not attained. As the result was inconclusive, we will return to the status quo from before the vote.

As a closing remark, I would like to paraphrase an observation I made several days back. Because of who voted (more importantly, who didn't vote) and how they voted, this vote became little more than a popularity contest between 5C and friends on one side, and Spawnmasons and friends on the other. This represents a significant problem for the wiki. The nature of a wiki is one of constructive compromise. There is little room for constructive compromise when votes become simple contests over which group has more members and friends with (often inactive) wiki accounts. Henry and myself retracted our votes (Galvatron decided to not post his at all) because we saw this occurring. Bezopasan also voted Neutral partially (I believe) because of this.

In any case, we're all here now, and I think I can speak for all parties involved when I express my hope for future collaboration. Thanks again for coming to vote; I hope to see each and every one of you on the wiki in the coming weeks, months, and years. This page will be locked to prevent additional edits as the vote has concluded. If anyone has anything further to say, please kindly use the Talk page.

--Joey Coconut1 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Original Header and Ground Rules

Rationale for suggestion Orsond be banned

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.


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. You can also use {{Agree}}, {{Disagree}} or {{Neutral}}. 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

Agree'— I support banning Orsond.' It remains my opinion that it is in the best interest of the Wiki and the broader 2b2t community that this platform remain as neutral and unbiased as possible. Usually, blocks/bans handed out by the staff team have been restricted to overt vandals who make no effort to retain the appearance of legitimate contribution, or those who egregiously violate our rules (e.g. posting the personal information of other users). In previous internal staff discussions, I have come out strongly opposed over anything approaching a permanent ban of Orsond from the Wiki and our Discord, despite my acknowledgment that the majority of his contributions to both have been in the interest of agitation and peddling drama. Just over a year ago, Orsond made a series of defamatory and inaccurate edits to the Joey_Coconut article, intended to damage his reputation, as Joey mentioned above. Fellow staff member Leijurv reverted the edits, removed their visibility, and blocked Orsond for a short period. A few months later, Orsond brought up these events to me in a direct message, we discussed the topic to see if we might find common ground, and I believed we came to a mutual agreement. It was my hope that this sort of weaponization of the Wiki would not continue following this discussion. As such, I was dismayed to see his recent edits to Fifth Column and SpawnMasons follow the trend of using the Wiki to propagandize and stir drama. It is my opinion that these edits were not made with a neutral intent to document history, but to spin events to fit a particular narrative he and associates have been pushing. In turn, I have come to the conclusion that if left unbanned Orsond will continue to disruptively edit the Wiki in the pursuit of furthering grudges against other entities within the community.

--Henry (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree 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 unfounded 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 have 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)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. His behavior has caused consistent and unnecessary drama that the community would be better off without. Setting aside any personal grievances, it is clear to me that banning Orsond will be beneficial to the wiki as a whole.

--Chipoff (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond. His edits are usually very biased and I think he should be banned --BrochachoA14 (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. He has a lengthy history of harassment and being a bad faith actor, marketing baseless and defamatory narratives, and sabotaging this wiki to suit his own agenda.

--Beard2b2t (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for ongoing plainly bad faith editing and sealioning. Leijurv (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning orsond for spreading misinformation. --Hovecs (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. --YoMoBoYo (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. This is something that has been an issue for a while, and there is clear proof that orsond is known for changing up stories and being biased, and I would not consider him a trustworthy editor. --Chiekn (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for spreading misinformation and blackmailing others. --Ranlen (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. --Maksitaxi (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond for the reasons listed above. --Alfie05MC (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

AgreeI support banning Orsond. I have read through the arguments against banning Orsond as of December 5th, 2022 at 10AM EST, and will base my argument on that. Orsond makes 4 clear arguments against Joey, categorized as follows: Harassment, Racism and Anti-Semitism, Treatment towards Joey's friends, and the Astroturfing Campaign.

  1. Harassment: First of all, Orsond. You are 30+ years of age, but still cannot spell "harassment". How disappointing. Orsond defines harassment as griefing one's base and taunting the owners about it. This is not what Joey means by harassment. What Joey (and I) mean are the constant contact you are trying to make with him, and those in Joey's group, the Astral Brotherhood. You are frequently seen creating fake stories, such as creating false narratives like framing Bikmunni, a minor, as an insider, or painting Joey as a racist anti-semitist, a point I will touch on later. I agree that taunting a base-owner after griefing their base is commonplace on 2b2t, but I believe there is a line that Orsond has repeatedly crossed. He fabricated a story about Bikmunni leaking a base, and had it publicized through a Youtube video with nearly a million views, damaging his reputation and how unknowing people see him. Orsond has also been seen creating alt accounts and contacting 3rd parties to contact those who do not want to be contacted by him, such as Joey. This is harassment and in Bikmunni's case, cyberbullying, not just taunting.
  2. Racism and Anti-Semitism: Just like griefing bases and taunting the owners is common, on 2b2t, racism and antisemitism is excessive on 2b2t. Just by building something that may be perceived as racist in a space full of it does not mean that the creator is racist/antisemitist. It is what 2b2t is, and in a way represents the culture of 2b2t. May I also mentioned that some members of Orsond's group, the 5th Column, have also displayed acts of racism, such as Dima788, but I have not called him out publicly on his wiki page, referring to those activities as questionable behavior. I have also checked both Orsond's and Zetrax's wiki pages and their history and see no narratives that are false. If you find any, you are free to edit the page yourself.
  3. Similar treatment to Joey's Friends: Vague yet true. I literally just made an example with Bikmunni. Want more examples? I have more. Bring it.
  4. Astroturfing Campaign: This case has its own implications, which I would rather not get into on this page. However, Joey is correct in stating that it has harmed innocent people. I am willing to bet that those involved, as well surrounding innocents, "victim" included, have been contacted on this issue, more than they would be comfortable with. This would be because of the sheer amount of the skewed narrative rumors Orsond has spread throughout the community. And as Orsond himself states, his edit on the controversy is still present on the SpawnMasons' page.

Now yes, Orsond is correct to the fact that the Spawnmasons compose 80% of the wiki admin team. But we are not discussing Orsond's ban because the Spawnmasons' issue those who oppose them, rather the behavior that Orsond has displayed, weaponizing the safe space that is the wiki. Otherwise, he could be banned from the 2b2t Archive server, another "service" run by the SpawnMasons. I am also observant enough to see that no one else has a talk page regarding their ban. It is only Orsond. Many of the arguments Orsond made also have nothing to do with the situation at hand. He is just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

It is also widely known that Fit is not a reliable source of information. He is susceptible and even involved in the changing of stories to add more engagement to his videos, increasing their views. This debate stems from D_loaded's refusal to update the Donfuer page, as well as the Corner Base drama. The arguments that Orsond is making are now easily taken down, Orsond has been lying straight up, there has been a lot of evidence uncovered that Orsond has been cyberbullying Bikmunni and Joey and many others, he's spread misinformation everywhere on a community-wide scale, and just being a bad-faith actor. If that's not a good enough of a reason, I don't know what is.

--Osmobyte (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Votes and Arguments against Banning Orsond

DisgreeI do not support the ban of orsond I will outline some of the points raised by the no votes here.

  1. Harassiment griefing your bases on an anarchy server and taunting you about it is common behaviour in the community. You have done so several times yourself.
  2. Racism and anti-semitism is well documented. You were recorded on a community podcast saying that you were proud of the Hitler statue, particularly the black sun around its base, including the ISIS cube, a gigantic replica of the Christchurch Mosque Shooters AR-15 (complete with writing of the names of other killers on the weapon) and had a Happy Merchant map art at your base. I do not understand how any of this could not be construed as Racism and anti-semitism. As Henry points out, I had edited Joey's pages to show this behaviour as his own edits to his own page spin a false narrative that he was a good faith actor during his tenure in the community. Original edits of Joey's wiki page (at the time, the single largest page on the wiki) did not cover any of these points. However, Joey had edited multiple untruths on my page and pages of my associates, such as Zetrax, to spin a narrative supporting his view of myself and my associates.
  3. Similar treatment to friends of mine this is vague and unsubstantiated.
  4. Astroturfing campaign We uncovered and reported on a serious ethical issue in the community, where 26 year old members of the Spawn Masons group met up with a 15 year girl at a bar, took her to dinner and then hung out at her house late at night. This included taking the child out of parental supervision. There has been allegations from members of the SpawnMasons that one of the adults went into her bedroom. We originally asked for clarification of these events, which resulted in off colour jokes, accusing us of "simping" for the minor, and other ridiculous statements about how adults meeting children from an online video game was normal behaviour. Indeed the leader of the SpawnMasons is quoted in saying "members meet up all the time" and that there was nothing wrong with them doing so. This led to some members of your own group disagreeing with the response, leaking the SkyMasons base to me and other members of The Fifth Column, and the release of the video. The incident has led to very healthy discussion within our community about child safety and the roles that adults play in the community relating to children.

I do not find myself surprised by the administrators putting forward a request to ban me from contributing to the wiki. The SpawnMasons are a well known group who have considerable control over the 2b2t community. This includes holiday events, the map art community and vast in game wealth used to recruit people into the group.

The wiki is no different, with SpawnMason members composing of 80%+ of the administrator team.

Wiki Administrators and their alignment
Administrator Alignment
Chipoff Spawnmason
Henry Spawnmason
Joey Coconut Spawnmason
Leijurv Spawnmason
Rpb7191 Former Spawnmason, Unaligned
Galv Astral Brotherhood, Mason "greyband" recruit.

They are obviously upset that their repeated controversies have let a dark mark on their tenure in this community and that has now been recorded enduringly on the 2b2t wiki. This is evident as on November 20th, Spawn Mason member futsin removed the edits regarding the controversy from the Spawn Mason page but immediately reverted.

If the interaction between the minor and the adults, including the leaking of the base, did not occur or are factually incorrect, Administrators/Spawnmasons could have easily refuted it and changed the page.

I think the vote for the change of my ban status on the wiki goes against the best interests of this community. I strongly believe a new Proposed Changes to 2b2t Wiki Staff is in order to bring back fairness, balance and impartiality back to the admin team.

Orsond (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

DisgreeI do not support the ban of orsond For the reasons stated above. Orsond is a major community member and has access to high quality information and history about the server. The motivation to Ban him is purely political, and is not based in reason or evidence. Furthermore, Joey Coconut's recount of our discussion is inaccurate. I was quickly able to provide the skymasons grief as an example of censorship, the issue that has started this entire discussion. Joey Coconut reacted with anger and began to personally attack me and my group, throwing insults and refusing to give a straight answer. There is a reason most of the 2b2t community don't use this wiki and its because its a well known fact Joey Coconut and the other Spawnmasons are bias-actors, using the wiki to promote their version of events. D loaded (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

DisgreeI do not support banning Orsond, the reasons behind this vote are tainted with drama that has no involvement with the wiki. This can clearly be seen behind the reasons given by the staff team to ban Orsond.

What is seen as malicious editing by some can be seen as actually beneficial by others, no one has the perspective on events especially if those people have a bias towards one another, this being block game drama. Though you state the wiki doesn't have any censorship, the stories on this wiki are through the perspectives of those in power, the current staff team, who all are aligned in some way with the group known as the Spawnmasons which leads to a more bias perspective on events that occurred.

This can be seen under "Orsond's conduct on the Corner Base discussion", which talks about him lying, cyberbullying, being disruptive, spreading misinformation, editing in bad faith, brigading on other platforms, and being a single-purpose account. These all are just ways to push the current team's perspective rather than taking another perspective who has an unpleasant past with the team. You can see this in the votes of Henry and Joey Coconut. Technically we all pushed our agenda on people, that's because 2b2t is anarchy. Anarchy breeds chaos as much as you try to create some structure of history with there being heroes and villains. The fact is on a server like this, that doesn't exist there is no good or bad. This is just another example of Minecraft LARP (Live Action Role Play), and I hope that this ban does not occur.

I would also like to bring up an old video by MrCK10 which shows past censorship and bias by the staff team which should be noted by other voters.

SoiledCold (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)SoiledCold 21:57, December 2 2022 (UTC)

DisgreeI do not support the ban of orsond I do not support the ban for orsond. I have many issues with how this website is specifically run, but these do not matter in the same way that personally disliking orsond or his behavior does not matter. My biggest problem here is that the arguments used often use phrases or terms that in my opinion are way too vague or subjective. Who defines what ‘disrupting’ is, or what ‘inflammatory’ is, not to mention phrases such as ‘bullying’, ‘drama’ and ‘misinformation’. We need to keep in mind how open to interpretation these things are. In real life you could have an extended debate on it, involving experts and judges. This is just a small wiki about a minecraft server. I don’t think the cases presented here are important enough to have never-ending technical debates over. In my opinion moderators should be very hesitant to punish or censor players and only focus on very specific problems that are beyond debate, such as obvious misinformation, spamming, vandalizing, doxxing etc.

Banning is way too heavy handed, considering that:

  • Many of the criticisms are using terms that are way too vague/subjective.
  • The admins are way too involved with ongoing conflicts to look at and act upon this both objectively and proportionally.
  • ‘damages’ caused by orsond are extremely easy to counter and fix.
  • The wiki would lose access to a knowledgeable player and community leader.

Choosing to ban, would set a very questionable standard. I suggest instead a post is made describing the criticisms of orsond. That way, whenever any edits by orsond need to be undone, the editor can just refer to that post to legitimize it.

--Franknificant (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Disgree --- I do not support the ban of orsond I believe that Orsond should not be banned for the reasons about because of the clear affiliation that the admin team has with opposition of Orsond. If he doesn't get to have a place on the 2b2t wiki, what is stopping the moderation team from removing other people who also want to oppose the masons? This is a bad precedent, and overall, the admin team needs to clean it up. --Lukent (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Disgree — I do not support the banning of Orsond. Many of the admins of this wiki are all in the same group, and have the same types of conflicts of interest in this situation that they claim that Orsond has (and he may have).

For instance: In regards to the meetup with a minor, the minor and the perpetrators of the meetup were all in the Spawnmasons, the same Spawnmasons that are the admins of this very Wiki. In regards to the Bikmunni situation, the Spawnmasons are directly involved in this situation as well, and have their own theories about how and why the corner base was griefed. This is a situation of abusing power, by accumulating that power, all within one group (Spawnmasons) and using that wiki power to try and control the narrative.

Banning is way too heavy handed, considering that:

   Many of the criticisms are using terms that are way too vague/subjective.
   The admins are way too involved with ongoing conflicts to look at and act upon this both objectively and proportionally.
   ‘damages’ caused by orsond are extremely easy to counter and fix.
   The wiki would lose access to a knowledgeable player and community leader.

Choosing to ban, would set a very questionable standard. I suggest instead a post is made describing the criticisms of orsond. That way, whenever any edits by orsond need to be undone, the editor can just refer to that post to legitimize it.

--Forceken (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

DisgreeI do not support the ban of orsond For all the reasons listed above.

--Gravi (talk) 00:49 3 december 2022 (UTC)

Disgree — I do not support the ban of Orsond. To me, this seems like a heavy-handed, immature response to an easily solvable problem (The dispute regarding the Corner Base article) by the admin team. As mentioned above by Orsond, the admin team is composed primarily of members of the Spawnmasons, a group known for their zeal when it comes to abusing admin privileges to shut down any criticism or opposition of them. Furthermore, I believe that many of the points made by those in favour of banning Orsond are either bad faith, or do not pertain to actual wiki-related activites. Many of these reasons, as pointed out by Franknificant, are very vague or subjective. Regarding the accusations that Orsond is engaging in cyberbullying by publishing something that the staff team believes to be false, I myself have had false information published about me on this wiki by a staff team member. So, my question to them is this: Did this constitute cyberbullying? If not, then how is the situation regarding Bikmunni any different? If a staff member published false information due to a personal grudge against me, then based upon the above reasons listed by them, should they also face any consequences? Finally, I believe that this situation highlights a bigger issue with the current wiki staff. The 2b2t community is a diverse one with many groups of players at odds with one another for silly or more serious reasons. A neutral space where unbiased information should be presented being controlled by any one group of players is an issue, even more so when this group has a reputation for abusing their power to quell dissent or criticism. There have been and continue to be instances where they censor information that would present individuals or the entire group in a negative light. Therefore, I believe that a new staff team composed of different, more diverse members of the community would be far more effective than the current clique of crybullies composing the staff team.

--Zetrax (talk) 01:18 3 december 2022 (UTC)

Disgree I do not support the ban of orsond passing this vote sets a bad precedent over which group(s) of people have the final say on what is true or not. The spawn mason's unfaithful seize over subjective phrasing of narratives and/or facts themselves is harmful to the future of a free wiki.

--Odpay (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Disgree I Do Not Support The Ban of Orsond. All of the issues being stated are coming from very biased sources, who have in the past on multiple occasions attempted to censor him and as stated banned him from the 2b2t wiki discord. This platform is a public space to document events, the only censorship that should occur is for non-2b2t related events to keep all info unbiased. This Censorship is breaking that rule through and through. The Claim of spreading "misinformation" or lying on the wiki is wholly untrue and claiming that is a contradiction to your own statement above referring to "bad faith". The admin are taking a very immature approach to this situation and this page is proof of that in itself. I support and endorse the claims made above fully and hope the wiki admins can come to realize that they are being incredibly unforthcoming with the purpose of this page.

Decem--Steampunkjax1 (talk) 03:38, 3 ber 2022 (UTC)

Disgree I Do Not Support The Ban of Orsond. For all the reasons listed above.


Disgree --- I do not support the ban of Orsond. If there is a dispute of factual information on a page, such aspects should either be sourced, or have the disputed nature of the facts represented. Even if a moderator believes they know the facts for sure, no sources to back them up makes their word as valid as their opponent. In such scenarios, popular opinion on the issue should be proposed as the primary theory, followed by one or two dissenting theories if necessary.

As for conflict of interest, there simply is not going to be a neutral party to mediate this sort of thing. 2B is a very tightly-knit and highly factionalised environment. Even myself, being the victim of Orsond's griefing on multiple occasions, my own view is a compromised one I have to push past with a professional focus on the precise words used in the wiki rules, and if they were broken. But he still should not be banned for disagreements of the facts on a server where often, the facts simply cannot be so readily found compared to IRL conflicts.

Furthermore, as a former Minecraft Wiki admin with some official training from Curse, I would strongly advise the wiki team against using permanent bans in most all cases that don't involve bots or editors who are an inherent IRL threat to other editors. More a side note. Best practice is that permabans should be handed out exceedingly rarely, and for genuine threats or bots. Orsond does not fit this criteria. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Disgree — I conditionally do not agree with the proposed ban. If these conditions are not agreed upon by both parties (Orsond and Joey) as well as the staff team and implemented in the rules, I withdraw my vote. First of all, I strongly disagree with any comparisons between the 2b2t Wiki and Wikipedia, and citing Wikipedia's guidelines as a result. Even though I have vouched for implementing standards from Wikipedia in the past, the nature of the two sites is entirely different. 2b2t is a server inherently centered around conflict and drama. Most active members of the server (the intentioned editors of the wiki) have been directly involved in a large amount of drama and have certain individuals in the community that they dislike, ranging from distaste to downright despising someone to the point of SWATting them or throwing a brick through their window. Because of this emotional factor, it is extremely difficult to know the exact details of an event. Each person puts their own spin on things, and there are generally no direct unbiased sources concerning any particular thing that happens on the server. For instance, many months ago we had a drama a lot like this one, centered around the removal of the bedrock comet, basically which faction removed the last block. If I tracked down Armorsmith and the Klansmen today, they would still disagree about what happened; this kind of stuff doesn't settle over time. Because of the nature of a wiki, what we have today is essentially a collective history of the server's events, a lot of which is dubious in nature and disputed. I'll go out on a limb and say that most of these disputes will never be resolved. That leaves a large amount of pages in edit-war purgatory until staff become involved. In this case, we have a dispute between a staff member who was heavily involved and a wiki user who was heavily involved, coming off of their last argument which was another very similar dispute between the two. Joey and orsond both virulently hate each other, and Joey raised the question to me of whether or not I think orsond is editing in bad faith. That depends on the definition of bad faith. Orsond does seem to edit only his group's pages, with a strong bias towards the Fifth Column. However, due to the nature of the wiki, only a player that was heavily involved in something (group/base/etc, friends with a player) can fully cover its extent, without an interview, etc (in which case a less-accurate, less-detailed, possibly biased edit is made anyway. Note that I still think interviews are a good thing for the wiki). Malicious intent in particular is difficult to prove and orsond's edits generally point to editing for the sole purpose of lauding his group's accomplishments first, a large part of which involve direct conflict with Joey or other members of the wiki staff, and trolling Joey second. This leads me to behavior that I think orsond in particular can change. Editing with such an extensive bias to the point where the staff end up raging, particularly on pages that concern Joey, does not contribute to a healthy wiki. An edit which does not contain any false information prima facie could still end up being worded in such a way where it naturally conveys bias towards one particular group. Because of this, I thoroughly encourage orsond and Fifth Column editors to word articles/edits with less weighted language, etc, and stop creating intentional flame wars. Past this, the articles and edits are generally formatted correctly, etc, and generally abide by wiki guidelines. I do not suggest that I am some sort of all-knowing god, but orsond does seem to edit with what could be considered malicious purposes and knows it, for the purposes of making Joey rage, however, the argument could be made that the information presently contained on many pages pertaining to him is inaccurate, which would again be difficult to resolve. Because of this, we get to the main point of the Corner Base dispute, differences in opinion over what information is factual. My solution to this problem is simple. A disputed fact can simply be referenced as disputed, and the proponents of each take on the fact can be listed as well as the fact itself. For instance (extremely simplified), "The exact identity of the Corner Base leaker is disputed. While the base's inhabitants generally regard zipoffs as the leaker, orsond and the other griefers of the base claim that BIKMUNNI leaked it by" etc. It would be important in this case to use neutral language and mark the leaker as disputed in the infobox. (For the record, I know almost nothing about Corner Base). For the purposes of the wiki itself, this fact is functionally irrelevant. The average wiki reader will not give a singular shit about the leaker of one of Astral's many bases. What is important is that all the claimed and somewhat possible information is presented, to an extent. If information is claimed that is almost certainly/demonstrably false, of course it should be removed. Here is where my condition comes in. As long as orsond stops editing in demonstrably non-neutral language and starting flame wars with Joey, and edits respectfully for the purposes of making all our jobs easier, and as long as disputed facts are handled as disputed facts by both orsond and the entire staff team, with a slight rule change to boot, I see no reason to ban anyone. If these conditions aren't met, then I assume these edit wars will go on forever and will change my vote depending on what happens, either yes or neutral. --Rpb7191 (talk)

Disgree I Do Not Support The Ban of Orsond. ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. This is honestly seems like its in bad faith as I dont get why this method was the preferred route to have community discussion on what is to some important. I dont know, this is all lame if you ask me. Also, if responses like "I agree with above is ok". Then my vote and reasons should stand. --K3ys3r.s0z33 (talk)

Votes and Arguments Neutral Concerning Banning Orsond

As a general comment, I have noticed several things.

  1. Nearly all votes for banning orsond are from the Spawnmasons and friends, while nearly all votes against banning orsond are from the Fifth Column and friends.
  2. People not affiliated with either group have largely not weighed in on this discussion
  3. As a result of the previous two points, this is nothing more than a contest between the two groups to see who has more members with wiki accounts - it doesn't look or feel remotely constructive
  4. The respective criticisms from one side to the other are largely the same - Person 'A' edited about something Person 'A' was involved in, and Person 'B' feels that Person 'A' misrepresented something in their edit

Looking at all this, I am now of the opinion that if others are also open to discussion to the effect, we should work towards a compromise. --Joey Coconut1 (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I am neutral in this whole situation. This might come as a surprise to many of the wiki members/staff voting for the removal of Orsond, as I am actually very close friends with him and very high ranking in his group, but I believe that the staff has done good by creating a forum for this to be discussed. As Joey stated above, this has become yet another “group contest” to see who has the larger audience of followers willing to regurgitate their stance. I don’t believe that this is in the spirit of the wiki. Personally, being someone who has been involved in this community for years, I see the wiki as a representation of EVERY aspect of the server, good or bad. When one group seizes control of the narrative, it becomes a game to see how far it can be pushed in their favor. If Orsond and The Fifth Column had the same amount of control of the wiki as the Spawnmasons currently do, who knows whether we would be in a similar predicament. It’s a given that since they make up the entirety of the staff, that they wouldn’t want any negative serious allegations to be added to the wiki, regardless of the validity. In any situation where a single group holds power over a large source of information, it is always up to the outside community to keep them in check and provide their side to avoid bias. This entire debacle is proof that this is no longer working. The community deserves a stable, yet diverse set of staff that is devoted to contributing in an unbiased and civil manner. This is not civil. This is not fair to the community. Everyone deserves a voice in this large, ever-expanding story of 2 Builders 2 Tools, because it is not only in the spirit of this wiki, but in the spirit of anarchy itself. By gatekeeping these important decisions and reducing/censoring real events, the staff has gotten the wider community to wake up and finally do their job, and hopefully this will lead to a more fair and balanced wiki composed of a staff that is devoted to a true and honest civil discourse.

Bezopasan (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I am neutral in this whole situation. I did not expect myself to be in this situation pre-reading this article as I figured it would be another instance of a little bit of tomfoolery however I believe, even though I have not been a participant in the community for quite some time, that this is a way to bring up a lot of productive genuine discussion about many things in the 2b2t community. For example, as Bezopasan said, this vote will obviously become a group contest to see how many people from the Masons/Astral will back the admins up and how many people from the Fifth Column/Donfuer will back orsond up. However, in spite of this, I believe we can use this as an opportunity to sit down and have a couple of real talks. Our first real talk: Spawnmason domination. Recently as many people in the community have noticed, as people continue to quit the server left and right and the amount of players who actually still play become increasingly split among group lines, the amount of control specific groups have over the server continues to grow. I believe each major group should have a representative or something along those lines on the staff team so that it would not only be the masons who have a control over viewpoints on the wiki. I believe the admins have also been extremely gentle in their treatment of orsond however I still do believe this vote is in bad faith for the simple reason that 100% of the staff are spawnmasons, the same spawnmasons who have tried to defend their "brothers" ufocrossing and MrPint for their behavior regarding a 15 year old girl at the time, RainAura. The straight truth is that the treatment of children on this server by adults, especially when it comes to real life, is a BIG deal. I believe I have a place to talk as I started playing on the server when I was 13 and am still a child. It's horrifying to me how a girl my age currently had what happened to her happen to her, consensual or not, and I think the discussion around these events that has been brought up in recent months is a very productive discussion that needs to be had. There have been too many high profile instances of grooming and pedophilia and overall weirdness previously in the community, such as JakethaSnake52's testicle incidents, and to this day there is still some discussion regarding how Jake should be looked at. I feel that this type of discussion overall is health as previous to 2020 (the year of the majority of those incidents), the amount of overall strange stuff regarding children that happened on 2b2t was EXPONENTIALLY higher. So for that I thank the wiki team for bringing this vote up so we can educate and help people learn about and protect the safety of children on the server.

Regarding the reasons orsond should be banned, I feel like Joey does not go into detail and leaves things VERY VAGUE with biased wording as to make him and the staff seem very innocent in this entire situation when they are also to blame for this blowup. They reverted edits in order to preserve THEIR viewpoint on an issue instead of trying to talk it out (I'm not talking about the bullshit debate Joey and orsond had on the Corner Base talk page, that is not productive discussion and will lead nowhere).

However there is one point that sticks out to me based on personal experience. Orsond's group, the Fifth Column, DID attempt to censor my involvement in the group in late 2021 on the wiki specifically and tried to contort things to fit their perspective, just like the Spawnmasons tried to do with the censorship of the ufo scandal and the Corner Base article. I feel like for this reason, both sides of the argument are relatively similar in their accusations of the other, and are actually more similar than they are alike. The only thing that differentiates the two is that one has power over the wiki and one does not. This adds on to my claim that this vote is clearly in bad faith despite Joey's claims to prove otherwise.

One last point: Some of the reasoning to do with Orsond being banned has nothing to do with the wiki at all. Personal attacks against the wiki team such as accusations of racism (even though they are true as you can read at orsond's argument) and antisemitism have absolutely nothing to do with the wiki and should not even be considered in a ban vote. Again, this is another example of Joey trying to be vague and make it look like his argument has more points than it really does. At the end of the day however I see the two arguments as more similar than not and see this as an opportunity to have productive discussion which I hope will follow this very long comment.

--therealoofplux (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I am neutral in this whole situation. You know very well that I don't play in 2b2t, it would be a bit pointless to blame me in any way because of that. I just want to make a few notes about this situation. I love the 2b2t community, it's so fair, kind and understanding, especially on wiki platform. And if out of sarcasm, I see that Orsond gathered all his friends and asked them to vote against. Unfortunately, those friends are useless for the wiki, because they registered 2-5 months ago and have 2 edits, and those edits are about themselves. The text written by him is like an angry child's complaint to the kindergarten director. If the Spawnmassons group has excellence in various fields, it does not mean that it is bad. I didn't want to politicize it, but let's remember that after the collapse of the USSR, the world was dominated by the USA. It is normal and it is normal that now there are forces that are fighting against it. If your fight against spawnmassons is limited to wiki edit fights then you better get serious. To Joey's accusations, he starts to divert the topic, saying that the wiki is run by a gang. However, I will remind you that the administration does not have full power. Do you have a complaint? Apply to the meta miraheze stewards! On the other hand, Orsond is right. Almost all admins unanimously voted yes and it shows their one sided thinking SO I AM ASKING THE WIKI COMMUNITY TO ELECT ME AS THE NEW WIKI ADMIN, LET'S MAKE 2B2T WIKI GREAT AGAIN #tigranforadmin #make2b2twikigreatagain. Oof, I got a little carried away. I see that some blackmailing things about edit canceling happened here. However, I must tell you that my edits were also canceled many times in the real Wikipedia. And that is also normal. Joey should of course discuss the edit in the contributor (Orsond) page discussion before canceling, but he did it in the article discussion, and that discussion didn't lead to any constructive end. I think joey, realizing this, consulted with the stewards and decided to organize all this. In any case, I will continue to follow this Somalia level voting with fake electors and kindergarten level conflict and give my final opinion later. Thank you. With respect --Tigran Ovanyan (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I am neutral in Orsond's ban.
I fall neutral on Orsond's ban, but I do think the admin team should be either edited or expanded to create an artificially forged non-partisan court for the 2b2t Wiki. When there is supposed bias swayed one way or another, it is a negative; a loss, an unfortunate evil, a failure, and a disservice to all community members. Bias is the most human action, and as such, cannot be fully erased or negated from the subconscious mind. It is a fact of the world. It is how people function. A larger and more diverse crew of admins would be closer to true, unbiased behaviour. If you pull the rope with equal strength on each end, no one will touch the mud in the centre. Bi-partisan bias in equal proportions is better than inherent and unstoppable bias in one direction, but, of course, the most preferred universe, albeit unobtainable, is one where bias is nonexistent. We must work with what tools reality has given us.
-- Metalbunny (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral I have no particular stance or stake, and instead simply reply to the call from the top of this section.

To the call for compromise: It seems like any compromise here needs to be done with another starting point. I've seen previous discussions of sattelite issues and they seem to have been handled poorly, such as the "Corner Base discussion" linked in the OP (more on that later). I see a lot of inflated statements, for example extensive quotation and linkage of Wikipedia essays to arguably constitute a WP:TEXTWALL and which I honestly believe you aren't quite understanding the spirit of while quoting: Ie, negatively pushing orsond's character by quoting various essays in a stream. I'm not asserting you've done it in bad faith, but the mass draws away from basics and offers nothing. Supporters nod and say yes, opposition sees a wall and says no, and the conversation starts to circle around semantic technicals and not simple facts. I've been very strapped to get those and have needed to dig around to get them.

  • In order to establish orsond's record from 2021 some diffs would have been useful, otherwise it's just a claim and the links provided do not pertain to the claim. It's easily ignored by opposition. Establishing this record of delinquency is important to a vote like this, otherwise what is left later on appears to come down to two incidents which have to be argued exclusively on their own merits. But if we want compromise and growth, digging up this past will not be beneficial.
  • The edits pertaining to the spawnmason controversy quite frankly strike me as being made with good intention: they were done aggressively with little intent to compromise and that is an issue, but you must understand that people can get very antsy when claims of funny business between adults and children are involved and there is enough to say that an incident did happen. The subject, which achieved some notoriety in your ingame group and has been seen by third parties, must be addressed delicately. I believe the conclusion to leave the edit and simply improve its accuracy/neutrality was a good one but it does not appear consistently reflected and addressed in this proposal. Perhaps referencing the official response made here would be of use.
The second incident; the corner base discussion, subject to a standard edit war. Joey says he has x evidence, orsund says he has y evidence. From the start, discussing on the basis of NPOV clearly wasn't useful as the entire affair is measured with primary evidence. It seems a reasonable interim solution from this point would be to mark the section as disputed and offering all available evidence looking either way. This gives third parties more to read while letting them make their own conclusions without having to argue which is absolute fact.
  • From early on it's a problem to see " I barely know BIKMUNNI and frankly do not care who leaked this base, but it was zipoffs and not BIKMUNNI that did so. ". Who leaked the base is the fundamental question that should have been addressed but instead the conversation was too interested in dealing with 'npov' and who is a reliable source rather than assessing the evidence as it existed; the derailment continued from there until the conversation became an exchange of general grievances and failed to substantially progress the original topic. It might have gotten farther if it stayed in one direction, and the conflicts of editorship/administration on the wiki were considered through a different, dedicated conversation. I put fault on both parties equally for conflating fundamentally different subjects in the same sweeping, multi-header and partially detached discussion. Either way it could have been handled better at an administrative level and the whole affair seems like it needed to take a step back and get someone neutral to arbitrate or opine. Instead it escalates to where we are now which makes it further difficult to take a step back.

From this point I suggest approaching orsond with this and seeing what he has to say/wants to do. If we have the fundamentals lets do it, if not lets see what we need.

To orsond and party: There are many conduct accusations thrown around which will probably need to be dismissed or reinforced to meaningfully affect the conversation. I see some of the point being claimed. There does need to be more in the way of specific proposals or specific volunteers for any progress to be made on the 'diversify the administration' issue. I'm not privy to enough context from this side to say more.

Back in general. For context, I was once a platform Steward (I do not enter speaking for them now). I bring it up because well, this isn't the first argument binary I've seen. The reason I suggest pulling out and reviewing from farther back now is because anything less than agreement between key members of both sides is just going to result in a long term problem regardless how this vote ends at a technical level (52%, 63% whatever). This could be an uptick in vandalism, more attacks and bad reviewing across the net, a permanent image of stubbornness that hinders collaboration of the sort described in the opening background section. Attitudes clearly need to change if this will go away because in the end this isn't just orsund and there are clearly a number of people who've stayed away, fairly or not based on past grievances with how incidents were handled. So some way for the management to alter its image and absorb or end its partial appearance as a biased fork of 'spawnmason admins' would likely improve the welfare of the wiki going forward. And I'm not saying this has to be a purge, but perhaps a visible change in approach since there are clearly a lot of unresolved fundamental he-said she-said arguments that are building up the unwillingness to communicate. There's also a lot of spiciness, such as the below comment, which could do with a clear official response on what this wiki does or wants to do to build or maintain the image of neutrality while operating the wiki despite ingame group membership. If this can't be done then perhaps more effort is needed to bring in mature representatives from other or totally unaffiliated/unpartisan groups. Maybe pull in from those highway builder camps? That's my 2c.

--Raidarr (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)