Forum:Request to ban user

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Request to ban user
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 March 2009 by Karlis.

User requested to be blocked per comment on his talk page. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As a community consensus is required to ban a user per RS:BLOCK, I request that User:Btzkillerv be considered for a permanent ban. Over the past several weeks (completely excluding his past behaviour and ban), he has shown extreme cases of violence, obscene language, constant flaming, harassment, and aggressive behaviour towards others. Simply viewing User talk:Btzkillerv will show how incredibly unpredictable and prone to blowing up he is. He shows no concern for others, and takes no responsibility for his behaviour. He has made threats toward others, constantly abuses his talk page and that of others. This is not acceptable behaviour for anyone, and I feel a ban is necessary. He is nothing short of a nuissance to the community, and I believe things would be more calm and people would feel less tense/upset without him.

He has been blocked several times for the same issues, and has not changed at all since his first, other than possibly becoming more violent and vulgar. Should any more examples other than his talk page need be provided, I will gladly do so when I get off work. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence as promised

Below are 73 pieces of "evidence" if you will showing Btz's behaviour since last June (the time when he was first banned). These will prove that, through 6 apologies and 4 blocks, he has not changed one bit. I ask you all to read both the edit he made, as well as any edit comments. Many show his vulgar language and incivility towards others. Some show him "retiring", flaming, harassing, threatening, etc. other users. Please, look at them all and honestly told me he has changes since he was banned the first time. Not blocked, banned.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Apology #1 - [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] GTS - [23] [24] [25] “Things are fair” - [26] Apology #2 - [27] Really? - [28] [29] [30] Vandal - [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Apology #3 - [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Apology #4 - [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Blaming - [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] Apology #5 - [67] Un-apology #5 - [68] Blaming - [69] [70] [71] [72] Apology #6 - [73]

The last apology and discussion with myself go to the very end of his contributions at this point in time. I now must ask everyone. Would any other user, troll, or vandal be allowed to treat people like this over the course of the year andnot be banned? He is overwhelmingly abusive, and must be banned. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support: I have seen first hand Btz's inappropriate behavior. He has blatantly violated RS:UTP on numerous occasions, and as of late has not been making many constructive contributions to our wiki. It seems that as of late, users who have become discontented with the wiki and its policies have been taking their anger out on other users. I find this to be unacceptable. I will say that a perm ban could be a tad extreme, perhaps a year would be enough time to let him cool down. I am not opposed to a perm ban however. users who harass others and make this wiki unenjoyable (sp?) have no business here. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 19:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following message may contain disturbing language Weak Support- Although I have not fully experienced his behaviour, I have seen/heard it. However, maybe a 6 - 12 month ban at most. He has not been following AUAE, his attitude is very rude. Some memorable, and disturbing quotes such as ill be quiet when you fuck off and mind your own business. you admin-worshipping turtle girl , and good, you can fucking get lost then, coward, and remember to get the hell outta my userpage and talk. I find that almost every conversation he gets into turns into a flame war. I think that he over-uses words such as fuck and shit, I will not say those words again as they show immaturity. To sum my comment up: Btz should get a 9 month ban. ço¬Ø 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose permanent, soft support to temporary - Permanently banning someone is essentially saying "Get out of here and never come back to our site, you scumbag. You will never be welcome here and we hate you". There aren't many people that we would say that to, and Btz definitely isn't one of them. He has made violations of UTP, yes, and because of that he would get blocked for a temporary ammount of time. He has much potential in redeeming himself. I would say a one to six month (one being nice and six being unforgiving about it) block would be appropriate. Though, have we all forgotten the age old mantra about blocking and banning people on teh interwebs? "Ban to protect, not to punish." Blocking Btz won't be protecting the Wiki, which wouldn't be beneficial to the site. Blocking Btz to punish him gets us nowhere, and if you guys haven't noticed, punishing someone to teach them a lesson or whatever only works in real life. Blocking someone on the internet doesn't work anywhere near as good. While they can't use their account to edit or post on the forums, they can always go play RuneScape or whatever they feel like doing. They aren't forced to spend their days in a jail cell with nothing to do. What it would do is piss them off, which could lead to more blockings and eventually a total ban. Do we want that? I don't think so. Telling someone how close they are to get banned and then offer redemption if they watch their act often works much better. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 20:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I 100% disagree with everything you said Chia. First "Get out of here and never come back to our site, you scumbag. You will never be welcome here and we hate you" is nowhere near what I said nor intended. What I said and intended is that he is nothing short of a nuissance to the wiki, and is far too abusive to users. He makes dozens of users uncomfortable, and isults just as many. You can easilly look at his block log and see that his minimum block should be at least 1 year, if not longer. This is not to punish him either, sorry to say. Please explain this to me. You have a child who has a very disruptive kid in his class. This kid constantly yells, screams, curses, throws tantrums, abuses others and then blames everyone else for it. After a few days, the kid asks to be forgiven because they "realize they screwed up." The next week, the cycle starts all over. And again and again and again. What I am saying: The cycle needs to stop. This is protecting the wiki by keeping the community safe from his vulgarities, threats, and insults. We would not allow other users who have a track record and talk page like his to continue editing, so he shouldn't be either. Telling someone how close they are to get banned and then offer redemption if they watch their act often works much better. For the previous, please refer to RS:GTS. Btz knows he can do whatever he wants and can get away with it, as he has done multiple times. A shorter block in this case is unacceplable as he shows no signs of wanting to change, and is doing nothing but relapsing every time he gets what he wants. Again, I feel you are 100% wrong on this topic, and I feel that you are being far to socialist on the matter. We're not here to make people happy and offer 100 chances, we're here to provide a factual, friendly, safe community. He is not. It's that simple. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment-What do you mean by "violence?" 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot dedicate the time to research in that at work, I will do it when I get home. For now, I was referring to flaunting his "knowledge of kung-fu", threatening users, etc. Again, read his talk page. I will work tonight on finding multiple sources to use as evidence. Unfortunately I have unpredictable free-time at work to fully answer. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Karlis, ONE YEAR!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?!? How about 6 months. ço¬Ø 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I read Chia's 1-6 month comment, and disagreed with it. I then commented that it should be at least one year, given his constant blocking for the same issue. I still stand by a ban 100% though. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
How many times has he been banned? Average length of time for his bans? 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

His block log:

  • 10:53, 16 March 2009 Karlis (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Continual violation of RS:UTP, extremely vulgar language, harassment, and misusing talk page. Repeated personal attacks and lack of concern for others.) (unblock)
  • 12:13, 8 March 2009 Karlis (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs) ‎ (You can now make your café page)
  • 12:57, 1 March 2009 Karlis (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Clear violation of RS:UTP with no concern for others. User has been talked to on his talk page, and has been warned after being unblocked from a ban. Take this time to cool down Btz.) (unblock)
  • 09:09, 24 December 2008 Azaz129 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 5 days (account creation disabled) ‎ (Removing content from pages: Sigh...Do I really need to explain this?) (unblock)
  • 14:07, 3 December 2008 Clv309 (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) ‎ (personal attacks.) (unblock)
  • 11:25, 8 August 2008 Azaz129 (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Don't blow it.)
  • 05:45, 17 June 2008 Robert Horning (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Btzkillerv (Talk | contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Self-professed desire to be blocked and leave the wiki. Also, disruptive and offensive langauge) (unblock)

Retrieved from "" Karlis (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The bolded section was because he requested to be unbanned, and promised he would not act up again. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
That special is Admin-Only. :P Ah, well, anyone needed to be blocked 7 times and uses such language, I believe ought to be blocked for good. 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-administrators can view and verify the block log here. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Btzkillerv offers his sincere apologies for any disruptive behaviour he may have caused. You can read his apology here. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why only apologize one he has damning evidence to get him banned? He's "apologized" before, and promised not to be vulgar after he was banned last time. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it either. He sounds exactly like another wikian who unfortunately didn't live up to his apology. (no offense if you happen to read this)  Tien  21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - For the time being I'll remain uncommitted, however here is the original unblock agreement.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

21:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all who wish to comment - I strongly encourage everyone to read what Azaz has linked. Btzkillerv has already been given one final chance, and has been blocked 3 times since. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"One final chance". Exactly. 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One final chance - I'm probably the last person that you would expect to show remorse in a case like this, especially considering the way I was treated by Btz in the past on the wiki and the RuneScape Clans Wiki, and regardless of the fact that he still hates my guts, I read his apology and I feel that he deserves one final chance. However, if he blows it then I will be in full support of a permanent wiki ban. Andrew talk 23:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One more chance and that's it - I totally agree with the "One more screw up and you're out of here" idea. This will absolutely be his last chance. I think if he violates one more policy, he should be permanently blocked, which (to me) is totally fair to him and the community. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that he'll be any better to the community? He's already been given a last chance. A last chance ought to be a last chance.
-- 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I'm not the only one who thinks he's been getting away with too much. I think he should be indef'd, because of his constant "banishment" of users from his talk page. Anyone can talk on a talk page. You can't tell people not to. Support.

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but indefinate? Nah, 6 months.

Support on one last chance - Per soldier. If he fails, a permanent ban is in order.Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support on ban - Seeing so many offenses is more than enough to change my vote. 13:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block - After reviewing everything posted, I feel there is no other choice. Through numerous blocks, he has shown that his attitude will very likely not improve through another block. His behaviour is not acceptable - so I urge you all to stop taking it laying down. Giving him a second, third or however many last chances he begs for is just ludicrous. He already had his last chance and blew it three times, that alone warrants the proposed permanent block. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 01:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block Changed to support on last chance after reading his apology - Btz is quite offensive, but his apology seems genuine. I'm willing to give him one last chance, but following that I support an indefinite ban. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The last apology apologies seemed genuine too. In my opinion, a last chance should be just that: a last chance. Consider the fact that he already had a last chance and broke his promise. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block - per byte master. he has already been given a last chance, many times now.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness17:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Support Perm block - I read first his apology, then all his offenses, then his apology again. He has a history of apologizing then recommitting the same offenses again and again. And again. And again. --Degenret01 07:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support one FINAL chance - Per all above who support one final chance. If Btz violates this last chance then perm ban. Btz, if you get this chance don't blow it. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support immediate and indefinite block. I would rather be part of a community that actually enforces its user treatment policy than one where you can make comments like this and get a slap on the wrist. To not ban someone who does these things over and over again sends a message to newer editors that you can do whatever you want (short of vandalising pages) on this wiki without getting banned. Btz has already had "one final chance" and has since blown it. I find it upsetting that many editors here are more than willing to let trolls run wild and that a long term block is always met with controversy. Dtm142 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support indefinite block - The evidence is overwhelming, he can't control himself and wont change. We really need some peace and quiet around here, so I support the indefinite block proposed by Karlis. Administrator Hurston (T # C) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Indef block See above for all the reasons...they are countless ‎Easter egg.pngAtlandy 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Ban - I support a permanent ban. I'm not going to say the that this ban will bring peace and quiet because I don't know that, and based on the User Treatment Policy, although we are discussing a ban of a user who has violated this, I feel that by stating the wiki will be quieter and more peaceful is in itself a violation of this policy, as it has only one target, and it directed towards one user. Saying the wiki will be more quiet without this user is a direct attack against him... let's simply stick to the facts and keep comments like that to ourselves.

Bonziiznob Talk

16:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suport infinite ban - Btzkillerv has received far too many second chances are far too much time to clean up his act. The hand has been extended to him many times to help him back up, and warm cookies where to be served on the way (metaphorically speaking). Even then, he continuously chose to bite the hands. If we do not perm ban him from the wiki, people in the future won’t take us seriously. We can’t dish out one-hundred second chances or nobody will have a reason to stop slipping up. I support an infinite ban from the wiki and the R S Wikia cc. I am sorry. {{SUBST:Nosubst|Signatures/Stelercus}} 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support infinite ban - User has shown that he(?) cannot control himself (?) not only on the wiki but even in the clan chat. He has broken his promise to many times. What is to say he won't do it again.--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support temp ban I am shocked to see some of that evidence. I do know that he's pretty homophobic, though I haven't experienced anything that I would call "abuse" from that point of view. I prefer to accept that people have their opinions, and for the sake of working towards a common goal, I have been happy to ignore it. However, in light of the evidence cited here, I think a temporary ban might make a valid point, and Btz may then choose to return and be more careful vis a vis the User Treatment Policy, or he may decided to leave the wiki of his own volition. But I think a permanent ban with no "warning" (by which I mean action that speaks louder than words) may be too rigid an approach. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Support perm ban - Sorry Btz, but the evidence is rather overwhelming. It's certainly more than enough to show anyone why you should not be given another chance. I think you need to learn to have discipline and self-control. C.ChiamTalk 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User requested to be blocked per comment on his talk page. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's take a Consensus

I know that the Wiki isn't completely democratic, however I think this follows along Ignore all rules -- ço¬Ø 01:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If anybody disagrees with the poll method which I, CoNgRaTzItSaCoLo, am using, then please take it down and make a vote.

<poll> Give BTZ a ban of this time period... Last chance (COMPLETE LAST CHANCE) Permanent Ban 1 Year Ban 9 Month 8 Month 7 Month 6 Month 5 Month 4 Month 3 Month 2 Month 1 Month No ban None of the above (Please take a note below) </poll>

Comment - I really don't think this is necessary to reach a verdict in this predicament. I suggest removing this. Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, a poll is not a consensus (or anything to the like). Secondly, this discussion as should be able to tell is heading quite smoothly to a consensus with unnecessary and foolish things such as a poll (nullifying RS:IAR_. Finally, a poll is easily manipulated by anybody, you can literally log out to vote twice in a poll, only a fool would put his fate into the hands of such a flawed device, and for as little sympathy as I have for Btz, it's unfair to use this unnecessary step.-- 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel embarrased :( ço¬Ø