Supernatural Wiki:Archives/Archive: The Infinite Ban of ImperiexSeed

As most of you no doubt know, ImperiexSeed was blocked for years and has been blocked six times for the same offense. He hasn't stopped his practices and even has had the nerve to slander and harass the admins and users when they do their duty, or revert his bad edits. The purpose of this forum is to infinite ban him and to gather the support for said motion. Several of you have been victims of him and have even cleaned up his messes. I have no doubt that we will free this wiki from his negative presence and continue our growth and rebuilding our damaged reputation and provide a reliable resource for all of our guests, users, and perhaps even, one day, the cast and crew of Supernatural themselves.

To support, oppose or be neutral you may either simple state that in a clear manner or type Support/Neutral/Oppose. DO NOT copy and paste that, wiki text was disabled so I could show you how. The brackets should be founds near the "Enter" key and "Backspace". You will need to press shift and then the keys that show them. Zane T 69 (talk) 15:58, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Support - I support the infinite ban of ImperiexSeed. SeraphLucifer (talk) 18:07, February 17, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

Support - I guess I support? I have little experience with ImperiexSeed, but I trust Zane and Seraph's opinions. Kajune (talk) 19:04, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Support - I support. Gabriel456 (talk) 19:09, February 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral- On second thought, I may have jumped the gun on my support, so I'm retracting it, and becoming neutral to the matter. Gabriel456 (talk) 14:08, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Support - I support. If so many reliable users think this guy needs to be banned then do it.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:13, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

Support - Having had to deal with his biased edits that clearly skew what actually happens to what Imperiex thinks happened for about two years now, I support a permaban. If not then you'll have a most three months before he starts up again. Kaestal (talk) 00:39, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't stand people who do things like that. I might have only achieved Rollback recently here but I hold the rank of Admin on a different Wiki and edit on many different ones. On the Law and Order Wiki we've recently been dealing with some moron who's doing the same sort of thing and he got banned for awhile as of today.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 00:43, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * If you watch The Flash then go see his rants on Wally West over at the Arrow wikia, or just search for his Sam Winchester hate blogs which did spill over into the pages here. Kaestal (talk) 00:50, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't watch either of those shows. That's more my best friend Andrew's type of thing which he literally can rant about for an hour to people who could care less. I was one of them fyi.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 01:00, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Wow. This is sad and pathetic. You guys really just want me gone, don't you? Even though I haven't done a thing wrong since getting unblocked. I haven't started fights, haven't gone around hating, and have made edits that I think are in accordance with canon. You all just hate me for my past mistakes, and just want to use them as an excuse to ban me now. EmpyreanSmoke's done worse, and yet, no one's all on him trying to get him permanently banned. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:29 PM, February 17th 2017

Imperiex, I would appreciate it if you didn't try to redirect all of your issues to me. It appears that, recently, every time you are faced with something you mention me and try to shift the blame of the matter. We both have made mistakes in the past and we have both been given another chance, but it is the way we are going about it that differentiates us. I accepted my ban and kept out of the Wikia until my time was up, at which point I sincerfuly apologized for my trespasses and asked for another chance to regain the trust of the new and old users. Before your ban was over you, as I have read, created another account to bypass your ban. Once again, before your ban was completed, you attempted to have your ban lifted, saying that they must do it because they did so for me (which is not true). Since my ban has been lifted I have been peacefully editing and trying to steer clear of any drama or trouble. You on the other hand have continued to be consumed with paranoia, claiming that the admins are "stalking your edits" as you did with me in the past. You aren't taking this second (more than second) chance seriously, but instead are stirring up some of the same trouble you did before. I am trying to put that past behind me which is why I am abstaining from this vote, but it is apparent that you want to dwell in the past and your past behavior. If the community decides to ban you, I respect their descision, and if they decide to leave you be, I will be happy to edit along side you, but please, stop trying to drag me through the mud that you have created. Thank you. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 04:55, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Your not on the Law and Order Wiki under a different name are you??? Because you sound exactly like some jerk from over there!!!--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:44, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep this on topic. Calebchiam Talk 05:16, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * I am. He simply reminds me of someone with a different user name who has been causing trouble there over the past few days and got a ban. One of the people I was working with there found out that that guy was banned on at least one other Wiki and has caused trouble on an unknown amount of others. I was wondering if this was the same guy with a different user name.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:58, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think there is a real case to be made for this, then by all means, investigate this further by getting Wikia Staff to run a Checkuser on the accounts, and present your findings here. Blindly spouting accusations that Imperiex certainly won't admit to (given the lack of any evidence) is not relevant to the discussion. Calebchiam Talk 04:26, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * I have since discovered that I was wrong though there is eerie similarities. When I brought it up on the other Wiki, the person I was talking to there looked into it and found that they are not the same person. Ironically though he did discover that the guy has an account here and somehow has avoided getting into trouble. Neither of us can understand that.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 05:19, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I know a lot of users have had problems with ImperiexSeed over the months and years (myself included) and I've seen his behaviour since he made his first edit to the Wiki. But to be fair to ImperiexSeed, I think it'd be best if the thread opener (Zane) and all the supporters provided evidence for the claims being made here. Due to the serious nature of the allegations and the gravity of what is being proposed here, a strong case needs to be shown here to systematically show that ImperiexSeed poses a harm to the Wiki and the community, that he has been given multiple warnings to no avail, and that his behaviour is irreparably bad such that a permanent block has to be given, as opposed to a 1-year or 2-year block.

Right now, there's a lot of 'he said, she said' and general claims about his bad behaviour, as well as some users taking our established users' support as sufficient proof that ImperiexSeed should be banned. This is not sufficient, and the burden of proof lies on those supporting this proposal to provide the evidence that ImperiexSeed's behaviour has been a long-standing problem in this community. I think this is only fair to ImperiexSeed and to all users who are participating in this discussion (some of whom have not really seen the full extent of his behaviour themselves.) Only by grounding our claims in evidence will this thread seem less like a venting session for those who dislike ImperiexSeed (like ImperiexSeed is implying above), and more of a legitimate demonstration that concretely shows that he cannot be allowed to stay on the Wiki.

I'll get the ball rolling by pointing to the desysopping thread for ImperiexSeed - which did not pass, but demonstrates some of his classic behaviour and might serve as useful context. Calebchiam Talk 05:35, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

From my perspective, ImperiexSeed's latest crime is putting in information regarded as false or speculative, which isn't usually accepted here. I'll go with whatever result comes out, ban or not, but ImperiexSeed hasn't been back here long enough or done enough edits to supply evidence. This is just my personal opinion. I'm against no one in this. Kajune (talk) 07:14, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Support - I said this back when there was a discussion to lift his ban: he does not learn from his mistakes or change his attitude. This is blatantly obvious from his edit history across multiple wikis, with Supernatural being one of them. I fully support a permanent ban for him, followed by the removal of his edit rights for his talk page and profile, as well as a permanent lock on both those pages.

As far as I know, he has not positively contributed to this wiki once, and that's saying something. -- Orion  ( T - B -C) 14:28, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Well, since Caleb does make a good point I'll just cite Imperiex' edit history. Look here. All he does is speculate and put outright false information into articles, that everyone else has to clean up and when we do "We're picking on him!" or "Bullying him!" or "Stalking his edits!". In his mind, everyone else is at fault, but never him. Imperiex I don't care what you did before I was a user here, I care what your doing now. All you have been is a negative effect on this wiki that Seraph and I have built back up and everyone knows it and can look at your edit history to see it. It is unfair to the users who joined this wiki to suffer Imperiex vandalizing their work.

For some evidence of his paranoia: My archived talk page. Just CTRL+F then type: Imperiex. You can see that he didn't keep his word for even a week. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:14, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this guy sounds like the guy from Law and Order Wiki under a different user name. There the guy I'm talking about has been banned for his actions in the last few days and is acting paranoid about his previous bans even though they were all clearly his fault.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:18, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I hate to be rude, but please stay on topic. It may or may not be him, but discerning that isn't the purpose of this thread. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:00, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll stop. For the record, I was bringing that up as proof of a pattern of behavior if they are the same guy.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 19:32, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I suspected that reason, but we don't have proof and we couldn't really charge him for crimes on another wiki anyway. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:00, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Caleb he's had A LOT of chances and has wasted them, he hasn't demonstrated genuine remorse for his actions and hasn't shown that he has changed. As Kaestral stated, permaban is the only way, but I will add why: Even if we ban him for five or ten years, I doubt any of us will be here then. That will leave him alone with a wiki full of people who don't know his tricks and lies and we'll be pushing the problem off on them. That is why I pursue an infinite ban, because I want to protect other users and this wiki first and foremost. I prioritize the needs of the many over that of one person, and who quite frankly just wants to do whatever he wants, get away with it and be thanked for his misbehavior.

He thinks he's right and his actions are justified and even constructive, that is the opposite of remorse, regret, or understanding that his actions are wrong. He has been blocked many times, more than three and for years at time. He has betrayed the trust this wiki placed in him and almost ruined it.

I urge this wiki to unite and protect our shared work together. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:11, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * I actually have apologized two times for my past actions on your talk. And I'll say it a third time: I'm sorry for my past behavior. I haven't started Sam hating, I haven't started fights, I'm trying to be a different person. The thing is, right when I got unblocked and started editing, you guys pettily sought after me jumping down my throat already with threats, not even giving me a chance. I'm not intentionally adding speculation to articles, and I can back up everything I've posted since I've gotten back with evidence. Also, you guys allow a whole page on canon discrepancies to be here, when most of it's interpretive. Please, I would like to keep editing here. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:22 PM, February 18th 2017


 * Yes, you apologized, but you haven't truly changed and I'll cite evidence. You may not have re-wrote Sams page to fit your views but you tried adding bias to the Cain Article, which made it seem like Dean should have just dominated a demon with thousands of years of combat experience. As for your slander against the Admins, we do our job, and strive to make sure everything is factual, and ideally referenced and doesn't contain bias, speculation or outright false information. When we do that, we're automatically targeting you, (in your opinion.) If your not adding speculation, then your certainly wording it like speculation. We revert and modify a lot of users edits, not just yours.


 * You say your trying to be a different person, but I've yet to see true evidence of this alleged attempt. You say your sorry, but do the same thing repeatedly and then insist your right, when you have been proven wrong. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:34, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * Zane's right and I'll add that this paranoia that everyone is out to get you isn't a good sign either. Also, you only apologized when your facing the threat of a ban. If it takes a threat to make you apologize, can we be sure its not just you trying to get away with your actions???--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:01, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Imperiex, this is exactly the same thing that happened when you were last unbanned, you apologize to everyone for your previous actions and then inevitabley start up again and are banned again. Then, when you're unbanned, you come back and do the exact same thing again.


 * You also claim to have changed, but I was there on the Arrow wikia, you haven't. You just added your biased opinion elsewhere despite all evidence to the contrary. Do I really need to link your "Barry Allen Sucks" and "Wally West is Best" rants? Which, btw, is just your Sam and Dean thing given a different face? Kaestal (talk) 21:06, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a big fan of that show (my best friend Andrew ruined any interest I may have had by ranting about it for an hour and he's a fan of the show!!!) but that sort of rant is not something I'd want to deal with either.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:25, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

How much more consensus do we need here??? I'm not really seeing much against this, so how much more arguing about this is necessary???--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:25, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


 * It's only been like a day, WG18. It'll probably last a week or until Caleb closes it. I decided to leave that to him, he seems more impartial. Zane T 69 (talk) 21:44, February 18, 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I really don't know how this sort of thing works.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 21:57, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'll be trying to present evidence against ImperiexSeed. An example of Speculation: An example of bias: An example of his slander and paranoia: Example of False information/removing content from pages, unless Uriel sudden was promoted to become an Archangel: And here: is EmpyreanSmoke cleaning up his mess and defending the wikis integrity. Here is Seed trying to get his way again:[] Edit warring/speculation and a warning, here: Feb 3-5. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:37, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

That was just page one his recent edit history, by the way. I'll publish the second tomorrow, times limited tonight. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:43, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Support- I thought about this, and I have just had enough of the drama. No more second changes or extra lives. Plus Calebchiam, unless I'm wrong is ever creating another account during a ban, cause for a permanent on the original and sock-puppet accounts?&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 04:10, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * This guy's probably right about this.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 04:14, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet accounts are always permanently banned once discovered. As for the original account, sockpuppeting is grounds for either extending the original block or changing it to a permanent ban. It's not necessarily a permanent ban. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 04:18, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Figured something along those lines. Well as a year ban didn't temper his ways of editing, plus creating another account which he admitted on record, I feel is grounds for an infinite ban. Normally I don't issue more than a year long one. But I feel we need to nip this in the bud.&#91;&#91;User:Twilight Despair 5&#124;&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;The God of Creation&#93;&#93;) (talk) 05:38, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

That note I made on Castiel's wings was completely valid, we didn't hear the sound that angels make when they teleport and Death noted that his true form was altered. The edit I made to Cain's page was not be trying glorify Dean, I just at first simply thought it was impressive that Cain was able to easily beat Dean at hand-to-hand combat when Dean's trained in Purgatory, a place worse than Hell, however, Zane, you made a good point that Cain's trained for thousands of years. I guess I didn't see the archangel part there, and thought that it said that Raphael's the only angel to use African-American vessels. Actually, regarding my request for deletion of the Omnipresent page, it was quite the opposite, I just shut up and let you have YOUR way. The statements I made on the Horsemen page were pretty solid. Kajune just going along and supporting my ban because SeraphLucifer and Zane do, not listing any valid reasons of his own, proves the true motive behind this whole forum. -- ImperiexSeed, 12:44 PM, February 19th 2017


 * The reason for the revert of your edit in regards to Castiels wing, disproved that. If what you claim about your edit to cains page is true, then you poorly worded it. It looked like Dean-worship/bias. I refuse to believe that you didn't see the "archangel part", it was pretty obvious and stood out. You restarted an old matter you were involved in and defeated in, and expect us to believe you weren't trying to get your way? You lost that debate twice. Your Horsemen edits were a joke. Kajune can vote however he wants, I only referred him here because I confused him for someone who complained about you. He can even change his vote to neutral or against your ban.


 * Your paranoia is truly concerning, Seed. I don't care about you, I wasn't here when you ruined the wikis image. I care about your recent actions that negatively impact the wiki. I have more important things to do than target you, this forum is to protect the wiki from your behavior which hasn't changed. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:02, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * Zane's right about this "everyone's out to get me" mentality being truly concerning. It means you haven't learned your lesson and see this as everyone else against you with you being right and everyone else wrong.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 23:01, February 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that I want to defend Imperiex, but he's right that the examples you've listed are weak. You are forgetting to assume good faith on his intentions. While he has a history of conflicts and biased edits, the ones you've highlighted don't really show this. In order of the evidence listed: 1 is arguably a solid edit and possibly merits inclusion. 2: I'll grant because it's blatantly a non-neutral point of view. 3 shows a single instance of a user's frustration at his edits getting reverted - you haven't demonstrated a continued 'paranoia'. For 4-5, it's rather unreasonable to call this an example of inserting false information. And I'm surprised that no one else is willing to call Zane out on this. Isn't it entirely possible that Imperiex genuinely misread this and thought that Uriel was relevant in this article? For any other editor, we would be willing to assume good faith on this and call it a genuine mistake, and so we should here as well. For 6, the issue here is that Imperiex is dredging up an old argument with no new points. He then however cedes the argument to Zane when the previous arguments are restated. While reviving an old argument with nothing new to add is inadvisable, this lone example doesn't do much unless you can demonstrate he's been doing this over many other discussions and is continually trying to 'get his way'. Finally, for 7, I'm seeing a series of useful edits to the article by Imperiex here. Even the supposed 'speculation' isn't really so much speculation as it is a deeper analysis of what the show is presenting the Four Horsemen as. This is actually a useful edit and worthy of inclusion in the article in some form or another (perhaps in trivia.)
 * Again, I have no interest in keeping Imperiex around unless he's contributing usefully to the Wiki. And this is not me coming to his defense either, I've seen his behaviour plenty and can understand why many users would want him to be permanently banned. But I've had no choice but to play the Devil's Advocate here because the evidence being presented is shoddy and the case for him to be permanently banned is not being made. Many seem to be forgetting that the Wiki is not a democracy where votes are tallied and the majority vote decides the outcome. The Wiki operates on consensus and the strength of arguments counts for more than the number of voters on either side. Voting Support or Oppose literally means next to nothing unless you provide a justification for that stance. I think many users could do to keep that in mind. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 03:31, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * If your being impartial maybe its true but there's just too much risk it seems to not do something here. Remember, we've had past issues with this guy and he never learns. That's the main point of this Caleb: he gets into some kind of trouble, disappears for awhile and then returns and the cycle starts again. This is a pattern in at the very least that the guy keeps getting into serious trouble but manages to somehow weasel out of it without a permanent ban or in one other case, loss of Admin privileges. I mean he got threatened with that, managed to avoid it and clearly hasn't learned his lesson. If this doesn't end here there's a good chance we'll be having this discussion again in the future. I think that's why no one's spoken against Zane, because we all know it to be true.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 03:45, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is, you have to be impartial. You may dislike his attitude, behaviour, and generally his editing. But this is not sufficient grounds for a permanent ban. Universal dislike is not sufficient. If he's making small changes here and there that piss others off, then I'm sorry, but we'll have to put up with it. Imperiex is a problematic and complicated user, but he's not a vandal or a troll, and within his contribution history, he has made some genuinely good edits to the Wiki (when he's not possessed with his hatred for Sam and whatnot.) If your case is that he really is not changing his ways from what earned him a 1-year block in the first place, then by all means, provide the evidence. Shoddy evidence is still shoddy evidence - no matter how you slice it. Calebchiam Talk 03:56, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

You want us to assume good faith when he is an infamous liar? That's insanity. His actions show he is quickly falling into his old habits, and will likely worsen. Haven't demonstrated his paranoia? He thinks the world, and this wiki is out to get him! His deeper analysis? On what facts is he basing said analysis on?

Yes, you did just come to his defense. Worst of all, all these people who obviously distrust and fear Seed are having their concerns ignored by you. What was your response? The wiki is run on consensus, and then twisting said definition for your benefit. Here is the real definition everyone:. We agree that we want him banned, but I sense you don't care, and I will have to do what my conscience has been screaming at me to do for months. Rest assured it isn't against rules in anyway whatsoever.

No one trusts him or feels safe with him on this wiki. That is perhaps the most important part of this matter. WG18 is right and even had the wisdom to see the deeper matter of this, yet another reason why he should be an admin. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:51, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy. This is what we're trying to say Caleb: there's too much risk of reoffending in the future. So maybe he didn't do so bad this time. So what??? This is a clear pattern of behavior. Maybe he's limiting what he's doing wrong so in case something like this happens, he manages to get away with it on the excuse he's not really done anything wrong. Its the pattern I'm more worried about here than anything else. Anyone with a pattern of misbehavior that keeps reoffending is not likely to stop any time soon.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 16:57, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * And his paranoia may cause him to simply decide to forget changing and outright vandalize pages. I've seen it happen, people think everyones out to get them, and then "attack", so to speak. Zane T 69 (talk) 17:04, February 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Paranoia is not good unless your Burt Gummer and then its kind of humorous.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 17:07, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

I am still trying to remain impartial about this decision, but I would like to state my concerns with the current system. I agree that it is unfair to force a Wikia to make its decisions under this nearly impossible standard. First of all, the definition of a consensus is the general agreement or majority of opinion. That is literally what the word means and if that is how we are to run the Wikia, then majority vote is affective. Also, the consensus page that CalebChiam linked us to was not even on Wikia. It was on Wikipedia, a completely different website. So this false definition of consensus isn't even unforced on this website, unlike what we've been told. I am unaware as to who created the rule page, but the only edits I could find were made by CalebChiam. If I'm wrong Caleb, then correct me, but from here it seems like you implimenred this false sense of consensus on this Wikia alone, when Wikia has said no such thing. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 18:41, February 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * If this is true, then that rule needs to be repealed. This represents a monstrous betrayal of this wikis trust, and his actions could destroy the trust this wikis users have in all of us. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:46, February 20, 2017 (UTC)

A digression on Consensus
First of all, I hear and understand your concerns and apprehensions but I think there's some misinformation here that is causing some overreaction and needs to be corrected.

I'll do my best to address each of this point-by-point, I ask only that you keep a level head and an open mind.

As a short introduction: Hi, I've been editing Wikis since 2008. I've been around for a long while and amassed a ton of edits (like most of you), though mainly on my home Wiki. My home Wiki is the RuneScape Wiki, and last I checked it was the first or second largest Wiki on Fandom. I passed an RfA there to become an administrator and later an RfB to become a bureaucrat. I stopped playing the game a long time ago and diverted my Wiki time to places like Supernatural Wiki, partly because the RuneScape Wiki was so fully-developed in its decision-making processes and policies, and I felt my time would be better spent working on other projects.

So that's all I am: an ordinary guy, just trying to do his part in building a knowledge base for a show we love. I'm just like the rest of you.

I've been on the Supernatural Wiki since 2009. There were very few editors / daily edits then and there were no policies for editing in place. Very little administrative supervision and it was a place where 'anything goes'. It needed an active bureaucrat to overlook the place and settle disputes fairly, and that was the role I took on. Over time, I copied over policies from my home Wiki to set an editorial standard. My hope was that with common guidelines, the community could continue to build the Wiki together with the policies as a tool for resolving disputes. Wikia (or Fandom as they've rebranded themselves) is an off-shoot of Wikipedia. A lot of Wiki policies (not only on Supernatural Wiki, but on other established Wikis) are copied from Wikipedia - because the editors there had learned early on that these policies were necessary for the project: policies like Don't Delete Discussions, Neutral Point of View, and All editors are equal.

So to answer your question Zane, I created the policies. These are standards with common-sense principles that are helpful for editors to abide by so we can work together constructively. Wikia (Fandom) doesn't actively enforce these principles. With thousands of Wikis, why would they? It's logistically impossible - and for better or for worse, each Wiki is left to develop its own policies and principles.

Each policy we have on this Wiki has a clear logical principle behind it. Neutral Point of View gives us a basis for articulating why we don't allow statements like "Sam is an awful character" in our articles. Don't delete discussions reminds us that discussions on the Wiki are part of the Wiki's history. Talkpages serve, in a sense, as an archive of a user's behaviour and temperament. Discussion archives give us something to refer to when we want to explain to future users our decision to delete Wincest and merge the information there into other articles.

Why do we have consensus? The hardest policy for most users to wrap their heads around is consensus. Plenty of Wikis operate by it and no doubt we were influenced by Wikipedia's own consensus policy in the early days. But why do we keep it around?

Consensus is basically 'a general agreement' within a group of people. But what is 'general'? What is 'agreement'? If one person disagrees, can there still be 'general agreement'? There's a lot more to the term than the dictionary definition, which is why, EmpyreanSmoke and Zane, both of you are confused about its meaning. Have you read the policy on Consensus? If you haven't, do. If you have, you'll understand that the points you've raised are moot and already addressed within the consensus policy.

"Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions."

- Supernatural Wiki:Consensus

The basic idea behind consensus is this: We have a group of people trying to decide on an issue. One half of the group has stance A. The other half has stance B. How can they resolve this issue?

If you think a vote is the answer, then you cannot resolve the issue. A and B each gets 50% of the vote, and there is no resolution. Worse, either group can create sockpuppet accounts and simply call on their friends to vote with them so as to gain the majority. Let's say the group for stance A does this, and actions according to stance A are carried out. What does this mean? Well, if stance B had raised good points that weren't addressed by A, then the Wiki loses out. What if A and B could have been combined and compromises made so as to create a better solution overall? Wouldn't the Wiki benefit from that kind of collaboration? This is the core idea behind consensus: It is better for us to discuss constructively and rebut each other's ideas, rather than simply vote for one idea or another. In the process of discussion, each side learns more about the other's viewpoints and realises how their previously-held positions could be improved. In this process of negotiation, ideas and proposals are refined so that the best elements of stance A and B can be combined. Of course, there may be die-hard proponents of stance A and B that reject the compromise, which is why sometimes rough consensus is the best thing we have. '''Consensus is not about unanimity after all, but a 'general agreement' with the best from all sides of the issue. This is what consensus is about.'''

Hopefully, the above sufficiently demonstrates the merits of consensus. But I can go one further and point out that consensus is necessary to maintain the integrity of our discussions. In the absence of a consensus decision-making process, what do we have? Voting? Like this and this? Remember that all editors are equal - meaning that we will hear arguments and points from each other without discriminating between regular user and administrator, newbie and experienced user - but I think we all agree that when a user chimes in with his stance and provides strong, logically-argued reasons for his position, that this is so much more meaningful than a user who simply posts "Support/Oppose" without any justification. Well, vote-counting demands that you treat both votes the same. Worse, vote-counting has the implication that a single user with a group of well-hidden sockpuppet accounts or any group of users (even those not part of this community) can spontaneously decide to join a discussion and force a decision in one way or the other. Does that make sense to you?

This is what we have on some Wikis, but in a different form, where the administrators call the shots, and anyone not within the "in-group" and proposes something different from the group-mindset is shot down or blocked without reason. As a result, the Wiki loses potential users who see so many ways of improving the Wiki but know that their lone opinion means nothing without a majority to back them up. So realise that consensus is the harder option, but it keeps us honest. Consensus says that even if you are part of a clique or an "in-group" or you simply have more friends to back up, that's not what's important. You can bring in all the sockpuppets you want, but unless you're making good arguments for your position and actively trying to reason and reach a common understanding with the other side, you won't be able to get very far at all.

I've been here perhaps the longest, but notice that I'm talking to you person-to-person trying to show the logic of my position. I cannot rule unilaterally and say "I won't entertain your disagreements, and you can go ahead and enjoy your block". Consensus looks out for the minority opinion that is being shouted over and keeps those with "power" in check. And when you have that lone single user arguing for what is right (say a user who wants to keep the Wiki encyclopedic while everyone else supports including speculation in our articles), then consensus is needed most of all. Wikipedia, who has been in the business of creating a free knowledge base purely through the work of volunteers for the longest time of all, calls consensus the "best method to achieve [their] goals." Now you know why. Calebchiam Talk 06:34, February 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Caleb, for taking the time to inform us on why this Wikia is kept under control by consensus. I did not fully understand what this entailed or why we were using it so thank you for enlightening me. I see the points you made and can see why his kind of system might be more effective than a majority rules system. However, since the Wikia does not enforce this system, and you are the one you placed it, don't you feel that the user's should decide how the Wikia is run? After all, you are almost never active on the wiki and we are the ones who have to live with the system in place. It's only fair to have the wiki govern itself and collaboratively choose what system it should run by. EmpyreanSmoke (talk) 07:31, February 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly. If someone emphatically believes that there is a decision-making process that the Wiki would better operate by, they should go ahead and start a discussion and involve the rest of the Wiki. Consensus itself is not a policy that's set in stone. Calebchiam Talk 07:48, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Back on topic
Zane, you are being too emotionally involved and combative here. I'm saying this as a friend, you need to take a step back. If my rebuttal of the evidence you provided seemed like a personal attack, I apologise - it was not meant to be. But you need to keep your cool.

Right now, in your anger, you are making false accusations about my actions and my intentions. You stated that I am ignoring users' concerns because I had issues with the evidence you presented. Does this seem fair? Notice that I am not opposing his permanent ban, all I did was point that your argument for his ban and the evidence you provided is not airtight.

You went on to accuse me of "and then twisting [the definition of consensus] for [my own] benefit". This is nonsense. Exactly how do I benefit from having Imperiex around? I dislike his behaviour and character, from his paranoia towards those who revert his edits (see his behaviour toward user, MisterRandom2), to his bratty juvenile attention-seeking actions and I've openly berated him for his actions. I respect your contributions here, Zane, but you do yourself a disservice by making these speculative accusations and it reflects poorly on you. If he's gone from the Wiki, then my stance is 'fine, his good edits, few as they are, aren't worth all the trouble and drama he continually causes.' It's no sweat off my back.

You may be wondering then, if I'm so nonchalant about him not being on the Wiki, why am I not actively supporting his permanent ban? Why am I giving you, Zane, such a hard time about the evidence you've presented?

It comes down to consensus and precedents. Chances are that this will pass, given that no one (myself included) opposes the permanent ban of Imperiex. But it sets a bad precedent. Imagine you are a new editor, reading this discussion, you see the thread opener list Imperiex's problems, many users back him up, others don't really know exactly what he's done but jump on the bandwagon because other established users said so. "Well okay," you say to yourself, "Let's see if he's as bad as everyone says he is." But then you can't because all these claims about his awful behaviour are being made, but no one's actually sat down and said: "Alright, I'm going to assume you know nothing, and I'm going to give you a history of Imperiex's editing, his previous blocks, the reasons for those blocks, and how his behaviour manifestly hasn't changed at all over the years."

The problem with this thread is that that's not being done. To the experienced users who are supporting this thread, you are not wrong in wanting Imperiex banned and I am with you on that. I can easily recall the times complaints have been left on my talkpage regarding his behaviour. But it's only good process that we take what is assumed knowledge of his behaviour and make it explicit so that users like Kajune and Gabriel456 can make sense of the evidence and come to a conclusion themselves, rather than base their support on hearsay. It sets a good precedent so that in the future when we have disruptive users, we know that we set high standards of evidence to show that a permanent ban is necessary. And it only makes sense because whichever administrator has to close this (which is not going to be Zane, due to conflict-of-interest) has to be able to weigh the arguments and see whether they are justified. Unless he is already biased towards permanently banning Imperiex, he will need this evidence to see if the claims being made are justified - only then can he close this discussion fairly.

So I ask that you do not misunderstand my rebuttal of your evidence as me coming to Imperiex's defence. It should be obvious that I have no vested interest in wanting to keep Imperiex around. As for your other points, I don't wish to quibble about his specific edits. I maintain that some of your accusations are not in good faith, and that there are many other edits that more convincingly show poor behaviour. I also wish to point out that we would be setting a dangerous precedent by blocking him not because he's done anything wrong, but because of the potential to do wrong, as WG18 has suggested above. When we say that something like this is okay, we are giving administrators the permission to block editors based on perceived character flaws that might 'potentially lead to some harmful behaviour' as opposed to an actual act of vandalism. If that isn't oppressive, I don't know what is.

In the worst case scenario that he suddenly decides to go on a vandalism spree, realise that such edits are flagged by Wikia and cross-Wiki counter-vandalism users are on-hand to rollback the damage quickly and even give him a block, assuming he isn't first caught by one of our admins anyway. There's nothing he can do to harm the Wiki in the long-term. Can we not demonise (pardon the pun) him and start a witchhunt here? Imperiex is a pain in the ass, but no one here literally fears him. Let's not be melodramatic here. I only wish to promote that we be more logically rigorous (and therefore fair) in this proposal to permanently ban Imperiex, nothing more. Cheers. Calebchiam Talk 07:48, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Heya dear Supernatural Wiki users, finally I am avaiable so I would like to adress my opinions and suggestions on this topic

I am not here for a long time, more than just a year. I always used the wiki for obtaining knowledge about the series. I realized that there were many mistakes on some articles, so I started editing on to fix them. When I was just a new user, I witnessed the conflict around the wiki. Trolls were unstoppable, edits were not being watched constantly, and the edit wars of course. ImperiexSeed, was a user who constantly keep harrasing people, characters and edits. He was creating his own "canon" and putting on the articles. I guess that forced EmpyreanSmoke to create "Q/A" blog. Anyways. After months we finally could blocked ImperiexSeed and started to re-write articles based on canon, non speculation based informations and without adding emotions. Blaziken and I started working on the articles and I am serious it took months us to clear the Wiki out of speculation, non-canon informations. It was a real mess. Since TD5 and FTW were not involving too much on the edits etc. there were still trollers, vandalizm etc. After Zane became and admin, I decided to be one in order to keep preventing trolling and vandalizm so that the Wiki would never suffer again. I tried to my job as best as I could and I approach every user the same and in a nice way. This January 31st, ImperiexSeed's ban was over. I just hoped that he'd learn his lessons from the last time and won't repeat that again but as Zane said, he hasn't changed a bit. He was still trying to re-create his own canon and put biased info on articles. We gave him several warnings but no good came from that either. As admins, I and Zane took our jobs seriously. We want to protect the Wiki and the users. ImperiexSeed's behaviours are a serious threat. He attempts to provoke people, including me. As he did in every time, he tries to apologize when it comes to that point but after that, if he is not punished, he keeps doing the same thing over and over again. That's why I think he deserves a perma block. He kept bad-editing and didn't change his behaviours and I don't think he ever will. No other users should suffer from that. I think it is OK to perma block a user who caused serious issues to the Supernatural Wiki and keep doing that even if not as he used to do. These are my opinions, thanks for reading. SeraphLucifer (talk) 13:52, February 21, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer

I appreciate your contributions Caleb, don't misunderstand that. Your recent actions I disapprove of, especially your subtle suggestion that you know best, because you've been here longest. I even approve of not deleting discussion and took it one step further, I made them easier to find:, , I created that to help the process, otherwise you have to manually search for them or know what your looking for.

Now, to address your talk on consensus. I read the consensus page, and am about to address matters:

Inclusive and participatory: As many editors as possible should be involved in the consensus decision-making process. '''Six in support of infinite banning Seed, seven if you count me. Yes, I want far more users involved. I want this wiki to know they count and trust on me.'''

Cooperative: Editors in an effective consensus process should strive to reach the best possible decision for the wiki and all of wikians, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority. '''We are all united in preventing a possible future vandal and generally untrustworthy user from harming the wiki further. He is a PROVEN threat to the wiki, on any other wiki he would have infinite banned far sooner.'''

Egalitarian: All editors in the consensus decision-making process should be afforded equal input into the process. All users' opinions have an equal weight, and have the opportunity to present and amend proposals. '''No one is denying them equal input, I wish more users would involved. Sadly, or fortunately (depending on your POV) our small community has several experienced users who know how to use this older more obsolete forum.'''

Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making process strives to emphasise common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group. '''We have a solution. We have a common agreement. Well seven against two, one of which obviously won't support his own infinite ban.'''

Most logical: This happens when a solution appears to be impossible to execute because of the lack of support and co-operation. '''Infinite banning him is the most logical, he's a time tested and proven liability to this wiki. He thought so little of it that he ignored the possible consequences of his actions and broke rules, again and again. The risk he poses is obvious to all but one. We're all simple wanting to nullify that risk, and we won't run around handing out infinite bans like candy because we believe someone poses a risk. We'll create a forum, let people decide. Honestly, Seed has set the benchmark, so someone would have to behave similarly and rack up large lists of offenses.'''

We are convincing others using reasons. We have consensus in the "thinnest sense". We're discussing, have formed a proposal, (infinite banning Seed), have begun gathering consensus. We have identified and addressed the concern. There can be no modification of the proposal, there are too many in favor of infinite ban.

How much support is enough, Caleb?

We have consensus for an infinite ban, these are pretty much the only users who ever get involved. They're the concerned citizens who realize the importance of becoming involved in the community. Apart from Gabriel, no one has changed their opinions. Some have remained silent and according to the rationale section of this that means they still seem to agree with their previously held opinions.

The support for the infinite ban is greater, Seven against Two.

Now, as for your implications that there is an in-group here. There simply isn't. They are all concerned and involved users who care about what's best for the wiki.

Yes, the users should decide how the wiki should be run and such discussions shouldn't be delayed so one user can get his way, which has already been defeated. We have an overwhelming support for the Infinite Ban of Seed, while I don't expect Caleb to instantly close the matter he seems to be saying it doesn't matter, because it's not consensus. My above rebuttal disproves that.

I'm not emotionally involved, and I'm not too combative. I genuinely deem Seed to be a threat, you don't, and we're just almost arguing. In light of my googling the definition, and Smokes research it genuinely appeared your intent wasn't noble. The evidence suggested it. I was wrong, and I do apologize and hope you can forgive my understandable thoughts. I'll admit, I was somewhat angry, and thought it was a possibility. I suppose, I even overlooked your great disdain for Seed while defending my position in this debate. I am sorry about that, I am a passionate person, especially about justice, security, and the well-being of a site I have duties and obligations too. I just want to protect everyone's work because I have a duty too, one I volunteered for, and is unpaid, but a duty none-the-less.

My accusations appeared to have some merit if you'll recall, but I agree, they could reflect poorly on me. As I said above; This is a severe case, I won't run around infinite banning people or trying to get lots of people infinite banned. This is a very rare, and extreme case. I want to take this time to reassure the wiki and all of it's users that I am not trying to bully or compel you to support me blindly.

Even you, yourself believe Imperiex should be banned. There is literally no-one who can remain impartial in this discussion.

Again, this is a one time thing for an extreme case. We won't run around infinite banning people because they could be threats to the wikis stability. Seed is a PROVEN threat and presents a genuine and known possible threat. I'm sure several user fear he can destroy, damage or interfere in their work. I'm not trying to demonise him, or start a witch hunt, he presents a genuine threat.

For proof, evidence, please see testimonies by Seraph, Blaziken or other users. Unless I'm mistaken you can simple CTRL+F those listed names on this page. Zane T 69 (talk) 16:59, February 21, 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging your error - it takes maturity to do that. Though again, I don't understand what there is to disapprove of in my recent actions, as stated above, "I only wish to promote that we be more logically rigorous (and therefore fair) in this proposal to permanently ban Imperiex, nothing more." You saw how I systematically denied any vested interest on my part and showed you that I categorically had no interest in keeping Imperiex around, only to improve the quality of the evidence being provided here. By listing example by example, I made it very clear what the truth of the matter was and thus convinced you that your previous stance was incorrect. This is what good evidence does - it lets the reader see for themselves what has happened and reach their own conclusions. If I had simply stated flat-out that I have no interest in keeping Imperiex around (as I did earlier), would it have been as effective without the evidence? Clearly not. The question is can we do the same for this thread?


 * Secondly, if it seemed like I was implying I knew best because I've been here the longest, I apologise, that wasn't my intent. I know better on some matters simply because of experience. Because you are relatively new amongst the administrators, there are parts of the Wiki's history that you aren't aware of, e.g. how policies are created, what consensus means, or even the fact that Imperiex and I have had fundamental disagreements many times in the past, which is how you could make the error of accusing me of twisting consensus for "my benefit" - a notion that wouldn't make sense if you'd been around longer and aware of our history.


 * You've also gone ahead and analysed this thread according to what was written in the consensus policy. You seem to be implying that I think there isn't enough consensus. But as I've acknowledged earlier, "Chances are that this will pass, given that no one (myself included) opposes the permanent ban of Imperiex." Did I say that there was insufficient support? No. I merely pointed out that we ought to present the best possible evidence so that posterity can see the justification for Imperiex's ban - by seeing clear examples of his unacceptable behaviour. And so that users (like Kajune and Gabriel456) can see with their own eyes what he's done and make a judgement based on that, rather than base their input on secondhand opinion. Does this sound reasonable? I hope so. To clarify, I'm not saying it's necessary for us to have this to achieve consensus. We can move forward without the evidence and just everyone's agreement, but it sets a poor precedent and we can do better.


 * Also, as stated on the consensus policy page, discussions are left open for at least a week to allow for as much community input as possible. Furthermore, if discussion is still ongoing, the thread will not be closed to allow the discussion to run its full course. So do not misunderstand the fact that this forum is still open to mean that consensus has not been reached.


 * Next, some clarifications. I never implied there was an "in-group". Please re-read what I wrote - it's pointing out what happens when the system of consensus is perverted and run based on majority opinion and popular standing. I don't think this is happening here, and you are misreading my statement.


 * "I want this wiki to know they count and trust on me" - while this is generally a good sentiment, this is not what the thread should be about. What's better is if "everyone on the Wiki knows they can count on and trust each other". Remember that you are not this Wiki's leader, and neither am I. You have been trusted with extra tools to maintain the Wiki better, and are also trusted to have a level judgement and fairness in settling disputes, nothing more. Perhaps you meant something more innocuous in this statement, but this is suggestive of a cult of personality, and is not something that should be encouraged.


 * "Even you, yourself believe Imperiex should be banned. There is literally no-one who can remain impartial in this discussion." I think you misunderstand what 'impartial' means. It means to "treat all rivals or disputants equally". In a court of law, there is no judge who doesn't have a personal opinion about the defendant being tried, some of whom have done the most awful things. Yet they are called on to be impartial, that is to say, they must do their best to disregard their personal feelings and look at a case to see what is most fair and just. As humans, we cannot help but instinctively make judgements towards one stance or the other. Likewise for administrators who have to close these threads, they will instinctively have a bias towards one side or the other. To do so is only human. Yet, they must do their best to be impartial and see each side of the case on its own merits, and this is what I've been trying to do here, in pointing out that we can do better in proving to all users old and new (not just ourselves who are very acquainted with Imperiex's behaviour) that there are just grounds for permanently banning him. This has been my main point throughout this thread - a point that unfortunately has been misunderstood many times this thread as me coming to Imperiex's defence. If anything, I want the case for Imperiex to be banned to be stronger. Calebchiam Talk 01:40, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Well, despite our lengthy responses this debate ultimately seems to be going no where. All I can do is reiterate that Seed has proven himself a threat to the wikis reputation, stability, and credibility; users have testified that it took MONTHS to clean up his mess once. While unlikely to happen again, it proves he has and could damage it again. In summary for this paragraph; he should be banned for posing a proven threat, and Caleb knows he can't refute this point and that's why he avoids bringing it back up.

Yes. You created several policies and rules, some of them are even good. I'm aware of what consensus means. As for clarification of my saying you were "twisting things to your benefit," I meant the benefit of your position in this debate. You seem to believe he can be trusted or that he deserves another chance, several people feel he can't be trusted. and should have been infinite banned in the first place. But again, this debate isn't going anywhere and after this I intend to let the the current level of consensus against Seed to stand.

I felt you were implying I created an in-group, and then making a subtle jab about it. If this is not the case, then I apologize.

I'll clarify my statement of my desire for the wiki to know they can count on and trust me. I want them to know I can and will help them, do my best to prevent and revert vandalism, and that I will strive to protect them from potential future threats; as much as the rules allow. This forum was created because you told me I would too.

I assure you, I have no desire whatsoever to acquire a cult of personality.

Perhaps you could explain how you will decide the result of this thread/motion? It might ease some minds that you won't discount the general support for the infinite ban. There are just grounds to infinite ban him, protection, and stability.

Anyway, our debate obviously isn't going anywhere and won't achieve the desired result for either party. We both have clear ideas of what is right and best for the wiki, unfortunately the ideas conflict and present the obvious conclusion that further debate between us is pointless. We obviously won't convince each other to abandon our current positions, because we both feel we're correct. Zane T 69 (talk) 02:41, February 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * "In summary for this paragraph; he should be banned for posing a proven threat, and Caleb knows he can't refute this point and that's why he avoids bringing it back up." Zane, I think it's best if you would read what I've said. I've not said that he shouldn't be banned. I think I've already made it clear that I am in fact supportive of Imperiex being permanently banned. Can you please stop misreading my statements? Do you not understand nuance when I say that I want only for the case for him to be banned to be stronger? Let me state categorically that I support his permanent ban, and what I've been arguing for this whole thread is for the case for his permanent ban to be as airtight as possible.


 * If you read my arguments closely instead of taking the reservations I've highlighted as a personal affront, you'll realise that we are on common ground here. I understand your position clearly: you've seen the damage Imperiex has caused, he's brought much personal drama to the Wiki, and his presence is an overall harm to the Wiki. You should think carefully and consider whether you understand my position, which is that I agree with all of the above, but that we should be presenting the evidence for this clearly. Don't you understand that we are arguing for the same thing, and I'm merely pointing out that we should back these claims up further with evidence?


 * It boggles my mind that you still think I "believe [Imperiex] can be trusted or that he deserves another chance". For goodness sake, the world is not as manichaean as you seem to believe, and my issues with how this proposal to ban Imperiex is being presented does not mean that I am against it.


 * I think you need to take a moment to realise that your comprehension skills are not all there. We, in fact, do not disagree fundamentally on what needs to be done. However, whether it's because I haven't expressed myself clearly enough or otherwise, you do not seem to realise this and imagine that I oppose his permanent ban. Your intentions are good, but your thinking is too rigid and your understanding of language too basic that you don't realise that all I'm saying is that you've provided evidence of his bad behaviour poorly even though there's an abundance of it to be cited.


 * I will close the thread as per consensus, which as I've already pointed out above, means that this thread is likely to pass as no one other than Imperiex has opposed it. I believe obstinacy can be overcome by reason, so I hope for your sake at least that you learn to be clearer in your thinking, rather than imagine disagreements where there are none and dismiss the possibility of resolution when there is some. Resolution is always possible when each side is willing to carefully consider the other's position, and seek the common ground underlying both positions. The cause of conflict is you not realising that we are in agreement here. Calebchiam Talk 04:03, February 22, 2017 (UTC)


 * PS: Even if we are not going to Perma-Ban him, he still should receive a punishment. Ignoring admin warnings at least on 3 occasions for inserting false information, speculation on articles and it should be more than a year considering his latest block's length. SeraphLucifer (talk) 19:02, February 22, 2017 (UTC)SeraphLucifer


 * Read just above your statement, Seraph. The motion is passing, unless everyone suddenly changes their minds. We can't hardly ban him for infinity and a few years, but thanks for bringing this up anyway. Zane T 69 (talk) 19:09, February 22, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - ImperiexSeed will be permanently banned from editing the Wiki. Calebchiam Talk 03:03, February 24, 2017 (UTC)