Forum:Is an indefinite ban too long for an "established user"?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Is an indefinite ban too long for an "established user"?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4575 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

While I usually like to lurk in the dark, hidden amongst the shadows and darkly coloured embroidery of a senior citizens bedroom, attacking with my razor sharp talons only when deemed necessary (much like a pot plant), I can’t help but speak out about something that’s bothered me for some time.

Obviously, this is directly influenced by a very current drama and a few older ones too. I should also point out at this time that this is not a crusade to get a certain stray user reinstated, nor is it an attempt to castigate other contributors to the current quagmire as everyone is both wrong and right depending on whose side you happen to be on. However, I feel that this incident should be disregarded in the interest of an open discussion so please don’t refer to it.

So, err, I can’t help but feel that indefinitely banning someone, especially a well liked and prolific user, isn’t exactly being beneficial to the site considering that the community is the lifeblood of the site and the community is depleting itself (rapidly it seems) through various dramas.

There are two reasons I can think of for banning people. 1. They’re a complete fuckwad (vanval, jerk, arsewipe, or Cuban boot smuggler), or 2. They’re a productive member that’s fucked up in some way for whatever reason, big or small. Both are quite reasonable reasons. If, in the second instance, we have a good user that’s fucked up (majorly in my opinion), wouldn’t it be more beneficial for some sort reasonable length ban followed by a parole period rather than an outright death penalty?

There was recent example and I won’t mention names, where a long term ban was lifted for a certain user only for the banned user to come back with mouth flailing like a madman which resulted in a permaban for said user so I can see why people would be reluctant to welcome back disgraced users. As disappointing as this was for the community that fought so hard for his/her re-admittance, at least he/she was given another chance at redemption.

So anyways, I’m asking the community, do we really need to indefinitely ban arseholey users? Can some people possibly pick up the pieces of their shattered user profile and redeem themselves after numerous phallic incidents? Or does a leopard never change its spots? Is a dickwad destined for a lifelong dedication to dickwaddyness? Or can it be turned inside out for the benefit of Uncyclopedia and paraded on Medical Mysteries for all to see? Maybe you think an indefinite ban is't long enough for some exceptional self-styled wankers? Why is there a goat on my roof? Well? What say you, dammit?

In my opinion Personally, I’d like to see the maximum ban length for a “good user” reduced to three months. A “good” user being someone that writes articles, does reviews, reverts vandals, votes, or commits themselves to forums or the community and is well known, whatever their preference may be. In the worse case scenario, a banned user comes back after three months, acts like a U-gay, and gets banned for another three months (which would take less time than to revert a vandal attack.) Best case scenario, wankish user comes back with a clean slate, chip firmly removed from shoulder and starts off fresh, with a positive attitude and new lease on life.

In summary, we should be trying to increase our userbase, not drive them away. Treat so called “cock smoking faggots” like prodigal sons/daughters and welcome them back into the community and see what happens (and then fart in their general direction while they’re not looking). But I digress. GOOOOOOO WILDCATS!!! I understand and I wish to continue. . 13:09, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't contribute here very often, but I am a bureaucrat on two other active wikis. I would never ban someone for more than a year and the only time I even went that far is when one of my wikis was besieged by an organized attack by twenty vandals at once (I'm not even exaggerating that number). I even regretted handing out those full year bans a while later (but didn't retract them, they still have 6 months left). I agree that 3 months is sufficient. And even if they do act like an idiot upon their return, you can ban them for another 3 months with a couple clicks of the mouse and not even break a sweat. ◄► Tephra ◄► 14:25, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Nice preamble lol. I agree, permaban is a little too stiff there. If the banned users still are assholes after their ban, just another stroke of the banhammer will do the trick. For example, let's see the punishment gradation recently dished out: 1 day, then 3 days, then 1 week, then permabanned. For a guy that's been here for some years and did a lot, that's arguably too much. A month or 2 would be more reasonable IMHO. Mattsnow 14:45, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

They can be paroled unless they are Australian. Australians are born evil and corrupt because they are descendents of criminals. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 15:06 May 9 2012

Yes. Per EMC. Max ban of 2 weeks unless they are Austrian. I used to trust Arnold Schwarzenegger you know. He was so cool. What with all the taking all the steroids and being a Nazi and such. Now I find out he is working for the Americans running California!?! What a sellout. Although saying that... It's people from Belgium that really cause the trouble. I mean, they are either "Flemish" which I KNOW is a throat illness, or "Walloons"? I mean, what the hell is a Walloon? Sounds like some kinda really gay balloon. I mean, balloons are gay enough as it is, but a Walloon? That's just too gay. MrN  Fork you! 16:15, May 9

It seems they want their independence to form a gay Kingdom, imagine that! "Walloon" is composed of the word "wall", as in "hitting the wall", and the word "loon", as in "Look at the homosexual loon!". That's telling. XD Mattsnow 16:45, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Lucky for me I'm the soar-throat kind of Belgian. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:08, 9 May 2012

Apparantly socky isn't a waloon, but is a Flem instead. I believe, from my short time living there, that a flemish person is just a dutch speaking and rich version of a waloon, which means, Socky is a rich-dutch-speaking-gay-love-slave. --ShabiDOO 17:19, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Dutch" was Arnold Schwarzenegger's nickname in Predator so that further proves my point. MrN  Fork you! 17:33, May 9

And we know what they do best: smoke weed. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Giratina CUN|IC Kill | 07:05, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

There are bans, and then there are bans

As I understand it, there are two bans in question. One ban was measured and was imposed on a finding of incivility, which is a matter of opinion. The ban-for-life was imposed on a finding of sockpuppetry; that is, evading the first ban; that is, flouting the ability of Uncyclopedia to temporarily control access to it by people who, in someone's opinion, make it difficult for everyone else. I do not claim to know the right penalty for any offense, nor the details behind either ban; only that the second ban is for conduct that is of a much higher order than the first. Spıke Ѧ 17:26 9-May-12

Spike said it well. I didnt agree with the first ban (nor did TKF who over turned it), but after a couple weeks of grinding drama a one day ban was not a big deal. Yet there was no relent and also clear and open sock puppetry and so a week ban. And worse, there was the manipulative sock puppetry. After three bans, the user decided to play on the good faith of users and decieve us in countless ways and waste our time on help and tips and welcomes into the community because he was incapable from the beginning of waiting out a one day ban, and wouldn't give an inch over a silly disagreement over an unimportant non-issue. Even worse, the user is "still" sock puppeting and acts as though there was absolutely nothing wrong with his behaviour. How do you deal with a user like that? --ShabiDOO 17:41, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently people want to be serious for a second... OK... It was not about having a sockpuppet. The user in question had created a few of them, and they were just banned, and the user in question had their block slightly increased. It's not having a sockpuppet itself which is considered the death sentence causing problem. Although it's frowned upon, and anyone who does run a sockpuppet is risking a hell of a lot (don't do/risk it kids!) it's what you do with it, and the intention/motive behind it that matters. To me anyway... MrN  Fork you! 17:47, May 9

The punishment is just too much considering what the guy has done for the wiki. As a comparison, some guy whose contributions are exclusively vandalism vandalized my user page a couple of times and he gets banned a second time for one day. There is no chance in hell this guy will ever do anything good here, yet he'll be back tomorrow. I'm not asking for this guy's ban to be extended, I just wish a guy that did a lot for the wiki be given a second chance in a couple of months. Mattsnow 18:04, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a life-long ban is wise...but neither is a set period of time in this case. Would you care to have a user re-join the wiki while they still think its okay to f*** around with everyone and has showed zero interest in getting over problems or even admitting what happened was not cool? --ShabiDOO 18:11, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Shabidoo you are not impartial on this as your immature actions on the talk page in question indicate. I suggest you leave this discussion to the grown ups. I actually consider myself impartial as the user in question was one of my closest friends on Uncyc. Someone I have battled on behalf of many times in the past. Mattsnow... I don't think you understand the severity of the crime. Go and do some more research... I'm not going to spell it all out. Not here anyway. Also, there is a difference between blocking an account for ever (which we have done), and blocking an actual real world person for ever (which is impossible on any wiki). I have already said too much... MrN  Fork you! 18:20, May 9

Oh dear, which moment of childishness are you refering to? I've been banned a dozen times so far in 2012! --ShabiDOO 20:58, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

That would be the dancing banana you put on the talk page of the banned user, by way of celebration. MrN  Fork you! 00:01, May 10

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. The dancing banana was pretty childish. You have to admit, it really really knows how to dance! --ShabiDOO 00:12, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

If the user was one of your closest friends on the internet, how, exactly, does that make you impartial?

1234 ~ 18:24, 9 May 2012

Yep. That's the kinda attitude we need. Well done Lyrithya. Keep up the good work. There are still some users you have not driven off the site yet! I'm impartial because I'm his friend and I'm arguing that ZB's ban is justified. I would have thought that was rather obvious. MrN  Fork you! 18:33, May 9

That post had me a bit confused too, though. Maybe I've been suffering from too much gay-love-slaverism lately. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:45, 9 May 2012 18:45, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't be a dick. Your terminology confused me, and I apologise if that was construed as an attack - that you are his friend would mean you are probably biased in the opposite direction (and may have only felt more betrayed at what he did as a result), so impartial just isn't the right word, you know? I do agree that it is indeed a valid point that you are supporting the ban in light of that, however, whatever the right word would be.

1234 ~ 18:52, 9 May 2012

I'm being a dick? Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol. MrN  Fork you! 18:57, May 9

More to the point, however, an indefinite ban need not be life-long; it can be appealed at any point. Specifying a period after which appeals would be most considered and suggesting what a user can do in the meantime to prove themself elsewhere can help, but Shabidoo is right - there is no guarantee that any set time will make a difference.

1234 ~ 18:28, 9 May 2012

*wonders who everybody is talking about* *looks at the logs* Bwuh? Puppy was permabanned??? *dies of a heart attack*
Um, yeah, so could anyone explain what exactly happened the last couple weeks? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:35, 9 May 2012

After dropping out of VFS, PotR started causing drama. I banned him for 1 day to give him a chance to cool down. He proceed to evade his ban several times and I ended up increasing his ban to a week. While banned for a week, he created a new account and posed as a new user, receiving nominations for both WotM and NotM. He is now banned forever. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 18:54, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

He is now a contributor on the mirror site, where sockpuppetry is irrelevant (since there is no voting on anything and no forums there) so if you want to say hi, you can do so there, but be prepared - the server is slow as a slug, and there are lots of articles there that would get huffed here. I don't know if he checks his talk page here or not anymore. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 19:06, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Some things:

• No user is above the very, very few laws this site has. Puppy violated them with fervor, then continued to do so, then continued to do so. Punishment fits the crime in any case, as I believe it does here.
• Holy shit MrN, I understand that perhaps you may be mad that one of this site's fine users and a good friend of yours turned Cylon, but for the love of God try not to be so dismissive and condescending about it. You are shrinking this discourse down to personal, petty levels in an incredibly dickish way. Turn a mirror on your words before you comment again.
• What Lyrithya said about indefiniteness not being infiniteness in all cases. Even though it ended up being a bust, with enough hand-wringing on Romartus's part got Zana Dark unbanned after a lengthy time. Yeah, this isn't the best example to cite, since her freedom was quickly squandered, but it's precedent to show that the mere hope of altering one's dickishness as a legal argument is not without the realm of possibility. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:59, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

As Zana's attorney, the claim that she did nothing wrong still stands. Puppy is as good a user as I've seen here, speaking not as his attorney, for I wouldn't defend his action of voting twice on an award (his reasoning was that he won it already). His sockpuppy didn't nom itself for anything, but in 9 days it got nommed for Writer of the Month, won Noob of the Moment with a record level of votes (even when removing his two, lol), and was close to getting two features. This was a standard nine-day output for Puppy, but we just quit noticing it because it was like clockwork. All that said, Puppy's value to the site supercedes (imnho) what fun was had by his sockpuppet (I "wasted" my time too, but it was a very well done sockpuppet, no?), lots of people were dicks (MrN is the current newest dick? lollololol i can hardly type htis I'm laughing so much)(twenty secondes later, still laughing) I better sign off here...Aleister "Why can't we all just get along?" 23:53 9-5-'12 still lol everyody just make up, please.

He may not have nommed himself, but he did vote for himself... twice. Plus, he entered the Pee Buddy Awards which he was both hosting and judging for. That's down right cheating and a disregard for Uncyclopedia itself. By blatantly cheating, he shows that he cares more about his sockpuppet winning an award than he does for the way the site functions. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 01:50, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

TKF I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm also not "mad" with Puppy at all. Not one bit. I think you are missing some key facts here. I'm also probably twice your age, and do know something about interpersonal communication and judgement. I don't attack users personally unless they have attacked me, or someone else, and I certainly don't do it without thinking. I take nothing back which I said above with the possible exception that I appeared abrupt with Mattsnow. I did not mean to appear aggressive towards him (which I did), so I apologise to him for that. I was actually just trying to end this whole thing without dragging it out more. I'm also confident that Matt was not offended by what I said, as he knows I respect him far too much. This is not my bag of worms. I did not cause it. I tried to fix it. I have been trying to fix it for weeks. If my help as a sysop is not welcome here anymore I'm happy to step down. I actually would not mind at all. MrN  Fork you! 00:01, May 10

Do you carry worms in bags MrN? I thought they lived in tins or sandwich boxes for fishermen to absent mindedly crunch into whilst waiting for a tickle by the river bank. And boy do fish tickle if handled over enthusiastically and dropped inside rubber waders. Hmmm..now I can write like Aleister, it's easy if you know how, imagine there is no Uncyclopedia....--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:37, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

As a service to you, I will now highlight the troublesome parts of your last post: "I'm also probably twice your age, and do know something about interpersonal communication and judgement." This is condescending. "If my help as a sysop is not welcome here anymore I'm happy to step down. I actually would not mind at all." This is dramatic and passive aggressive. I, too, would like it if we could all get along and all that bullshitty whatnot, but you certainly don't assist the progress to undramatic ends when you load your statements with sentences such as those. --121.83.253.68 08:20, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Might I say that I for one was extremely pissed at what Puppy did and think an infinite ban is completely justified. What is it he did now... Something about breaking rules like don't sock and don't be a dick. Also something about getting half the user base to vote in favor on NOTM just so he can dodge a pathetically short ban. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:54, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

The rules say don't do things with your sock that are vandalism and other imaginary limits, not "don't sock". He did not get half the user base to vote in favor of him at NOTM, because he didn't nom himself or lobby for himself. People voted because this "new guy" did such good work and added value to the wiki, something Puppy does every day, so he was already dancing like he'd never danced before and just kept doing it and not really hurting anything. Voting for himself as Puppy, that's the worse he did, and like he says, he'd won the award already. This is Puppy we are all talking about, not some vandalizing IP. And if anyone thinks I'm only standing up for Puppy because I think he's one of the best of us here (and that everyone here knows it, hence the value of allowing him to stay against the massive devaluing of the site for kicking him out over what amounts to him thinking a week's ban was extremely unjustified), I have a tendency to stand up for someone who I perceive as under an unfair attack and piling on. Or on unfairness in general (like Puppy's putting up a forum to deop Lytyheiya). Aleiseter 11:05 10-5-'12

Friends, Romans, Countrymen

Can you wiggaz please chillax the fuck out like the wiggaz you is? Put away da Atomic Bomb, and pick up da Atomic Bong! This motherfucker will sort itself, if everybody unfurls and takes a toke. Peace and axle grease, my brothas. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, May 10 '12 1:26 (UTC)

In da immortal words of da Jah-blessed Rasta philosofarian Cornell Iral Haynes Jr., "Light It Up and Take a Puff, Pass It To Me Now".

Hippie freak. You know what peacemakers are good for? Shooting. That's a pun, see... 'cuz the peacemaker is a revolver... which you shoot... like you normally would do with a gun... unless you're a fanatical anti-violence hippie freak who needs to be shot... with a peacemaker. ◄► Tephra ◄► 01:35, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Just another day of camaraderie and comedy writing at Uncyclopedia. Mattsnow 02:24, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'll have you know, punching an incorrigible punster will only incorrige them. ◄► Tephra ◄► 04:44, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ahem

I’d hate to sound like a douchebag but this forum wasn’t meant to be an excuse for a shit slanging match, or a puppy kicking contest for that matter. All this fussin’ and a feudin’ is completely unnecessary. I can understand peoples need to vent but what’s done is done. So, err, do we still want permabans? Or are we happy to let people hang? And now I’m outa here before Carlos punches a hole in my screen. I understand and I wish to continue. . 10:29, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Permabans for persistent dick moves sound good to me. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:38, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

You should see my persistent dick move. *snicker* ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, May 10 '12 10:45 (UTC)

Personally, I think permabanning is a dick move. And I'm not talking about the puppy that shall not be named, I never really know him, so have no attachment, plus I don't like puppies. It is just so easy to re-ban a repeat offender that it is ridiculous to ban them for life. This isn't like the real world where a repeat offense will require judges, court dates, prosecutors, blah-de-blah, etc., etc., etc., where a life sentence actually makes sense when someone can't be rehabilitated. And the "appeals" argument is pretty lame too, because you know some people would just prefer to walk away rather than be forced to fight for their redemption. A permaban is a big screw you to the perpetrator, so why wouldn't their first reaction be well screw you too then, I'm gone? Three months is long enough for any crime, and if they return to commit more crimes, another three months is long enough for any crime, and if they return to commit more crimes, another three months is long enough for any crime, and if they return to commit more crimes, another three months is long enough for any crime, and if they ... I mean seriously, this need some more emphasis, it is easy to re-ban someone. Easier than it is to create a @#&%ing sockpuppet. ◄► Tephra ◄► 11:14, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Unununium. «either we get a vote going or we stop posting, as it won't change anything to continue arguing. Mattsnow 21:13, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Mattsnow, both Aleister and SPIKE said things (below) worth listening to and thinking about. Having various users give their ideas or opinions also gives you an idea how the community feels (those who chose to post) and their reasons and motivations. Unless the posts are angry repititions of the same thing (which right now they aren't), I don't see any reason to cut off dialogue or debate, especially on a question that no one has brought up before (at least for more than a couple years). My opinion has already been modified three times while reading this forum. --ShabiDOO 21:58, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Personality, contributions, and value

Each productive user, and nobody can say Puppy is not one of uncy's most productive users, comes to the site with a unique and often quirky (aka creative, subjenni, discordant) personality. From this personality flows his or her work. In judging site-value as compared to devalue, productive users should, imnho, be allowed to bend the rules because that's what their personalities hardwire them to do. Puppy bent a couple golden up-on-a-pedestal rules, so I think all of us agree he should be whacked with a ban (I would have given him two weeks). But a permiban? That hurts the site. It devalues the site. Puppy did more some bad things Alcohol (likely fueled by the same), but we are a satire group and should take it as satire. He played a part like an actor that only he knew about, and if anyone was really upset that they helped him, the jokes on them too. I was very good to alcohol, and gave him advice just like a lot of the rest of you. I'm not put out a bit though, because this is Puppy, who, once again, is one of our most productive members. Value added every time he logs on. And now that he's permibanned, where did his personality take him? To help with the uncyclopedia mirror site. I would ask all the admins to calm down over this during the next few days and then to make a decision for the good of the site and let that dog back into the yard, where he may bark and nip at some hands and poop near the garden, but will then landscape, design and install fountains, and code in a new way to holograph the garden so it becomes three times as big as it is. And then he'll poop near the garden again, for that is the personality of a dog and we sure do have lots of room and enough open minds to keep a value-adding dog playing here for as long as we are lucky enough to have him (12-13 years is a good run, and then he can be put down, or taken out back and shot). Aleister 16:39 10-5-'12

---

I am happy to argue the other side of this, as I write stuff elsewhere that, no matter how long it takes, is supposed to mean what it says. A society that believes the same thing--that is, embraces the rule of law--gives its members the security that all they have to do to keep doing what they are doing is to follow the stated rules.

The alternative, in which we review punishments depending on our global opinion of the transgressor, gives members no security that they can keep doing what they are doing. "One of Uncyclopedia's most productive users," when evaluated by a spectrum of users of differing integrity and ages, might mean: (1) He helps me out, (2) He votes my way and vice versa, and (3) He joins me in vendettas against other users. Ultimately, if you reject a system of stable rules, you embrace a system where the only way to survive is to suck up to the powerful--no less on a wiki than in a nation.

Most productive users? Returning from a ban and starting a campaign to de-opp an Admin, soliciting other users to join the crusade, and even this third-party page where non-Admins debate a punishment that we have no power to change (and even before Admins started calling one another dickish) are totally time spent not writing funny stuff. Spıke Ѧ 20:31 10-May-12

Agreed, the only beneficiary of all this is the Dog over the Water. So instead of trying to stab each other anymore with quilled pens, let imagination return and article productivity increase. Navelism begone..--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:44, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I love you guys.

1234 ~ 00:27, 11 May 2012

SPIKE, are you saying that Puppy has not been one of Uncy's most productive users? Wha'? And if we didn't talk about this we could do more for the wiki with our time? And both you and Romartus are actually equating a few people spending a couple of hours discussing this extremely important issue with the loss of someone who does so much that when he was a sockpuppet he was nominated for WotM and those other things in nine days! If we lose him then a whole lot of productive days are lost, productive weeks and months and years are lost. This is what an infi ban means in this case - and that's what the page is about - that extending Puppy's ban from one week to infinity is going to cost the wiki dearly, every day that Puppy is not around doing what he does. So please don't use the excuse of "nothing to see here guys, move along, let's do some work" in this instance because that does not hold up. Losing Puppy's work is losing a guy whose sockpuppet was nommed for one of our most important awards in nine days, because Puppy does that every nine days. We just don't notice because we are so used to it. Regarding my point of creating value for uncyclopedia, infi bans against major users in general seem counter-productive and devaluing, and in this instance extremely damaging to the wiki. Lyrithya, I think you may know I'm right, and it would really help if you would help with saving Puppy. You are the one he said he'd like to bash in the face or something, and you are the one he vented at (and of course he knew, everyone knew, that you wouldn't be deopped) and you are the person who got into spats with him and helped to escalate those fights. Well, overall, like in most cases of this type of thing, lots of people keep their heads down. But since SPIKE didn't address any issue I brought up, let's do one of those survey votes. Hopefully in this format people will say what they feel. Aleister 1:49 11-5-'12

Question: How long would you have banned Puppy for?

• Six weeks. Three weeks for creating a sockpuppet while banned and voting on pages (first offense), and two weeks for being a dick toward Lyrithya in word and deed. Then I'd add the week that he should have served - even though he kept asking why he was banned and couldn't get an answer - when he was a sockpuppet. Maybe time off if he apologizes for some of that stuff and also a few hours off for "community service" and good behaviour by working on the mirror site. That's what seems like a reasonable ban to me. Aleister 1:52 11-5-'12
• One week for making a sockpuppet, zilch weeks for getting their sockpuppet nominated for N0tM, and two weeks for beeing a douche-bomb towards Athyria. -- NotReallyMyUsernameOnTheRadıo 2012-05-11T02:00
• Three months. One month for ban evasion, one month for dickery/drama, and one month for sockpuppet-related cheating, first offense. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:53, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Six weeks. One month for sockpuppet, two weeks for ban evasion. Couldn't care less about drama. If drama was a crime, we could execute all teenagers, which would be nice for a while, but ultimately deplete the human population (still maybe not that bad of an idea).◄► Tephra ◄► 03:08, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• One month for dropping out of VFS while he was winning and thereby wasting my vote for him. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 03:18 May 11 2012
• One month & two weeks for various reasons already given and because I'm different. --Roman Dog Bird (talk) 03:59, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• 2 months. Mattsnow 04:04, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Two months for being a colossal dick, then infinite for ban evasion. Also, because someone has to say this, this unproductive pining needs to stop. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:22, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• A week for stirring up drama and being a dick and then infinite for ban evasion again and again, and here we all are. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:42, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Infinite. Per TKF and Romartus... There will always be controversy over blocking someone who is ranked as a GUN - This episode and it's consequences remind us that no one is 'above' the repercussions of their actions and behavior within this community. That is a good thing for Uncyclopedia.--Sycamore (Talk) 06:58, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
• Two weeks for ban evasion, but none for insulting Athyria, because I think that Athy should be de-opped so he (she?) can come back and do more stuff on Illogicopedia. And now I'm probably going to get banned for saying that. ~Pleb the magic! 12:49, 05/11/2012
• (Haha, spaceman.) I'd say an "infinite" ban for "PuppyOnTheRadio", for being not just a whiny, ban-evading douche, but being a whiny, ban-evading douche who cut off his own nose to spite his own face. Now, if (who am I kidding, it's when) he comes back with another account, I'd be perfectly fine with it, if he kept up the following conditions for at least twelve months:
     1. He creates ZERO forum posts (and keeps any forum replies under 200 words)
     2. He posts ZERO comments to other peoples' talk pages, excepting technical questions, congratulations, and assistance with collaborations
     3. He has no communication with Lyrithya at all. Not even if she initiates it. (Oh, and a nice ban for her, if she does)
     4. He posts ZERO comments to talk pages in the Uncyclopedia: namespace
     5. He declines any awards
     6. He doesn't nominate or vote on any of his own articles (hey, if I can do that, he can do it)
  Of course, I'll bet my left ...uh... shoe that ain't gonna happen. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, May 11 '12 12:52 (UTC)
• Because he's been a productive member (no pun intended) and all that jizz (still no pun intended), I would've confronted him with the facts and depending on his reply, I would've
  1. permabanned him.
  2. permabanned him along with explaining to him what he'd need to do before I might unban him or shorten the ban.
  3. made him feel so guilty that he'd want me to permaban him. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:15, 11 May 2012
• Personally, I'd ban him for:
  • 1 week for ban evasion;
  • 0 seconds for owning multiple accounts, this is (by what I've heard) permitted; and
  • -1 week for being so helpful to both myself and to the wiki as a whole, and for apologizing over at Mirror.
• This totals to 0 seconds. -- Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 19:55, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Kids say the crapiest things

“Emotion is a complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves "physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience. "Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality, disposition, and motivation. Motivations direct and energize behavior, while emotions provide the affective component to motivation, positive or negative.”

Err, I stole that from Wikipedia by the way, but what the fuck does it all mean? Basically, (and maybe I’m reading into things too much), it means that all of us are capable of any physical act you could ever imagine given the appropriate biological and external impetus to do so.

And I’ll stress yet again that this has nothing to do with puppy and his various piss poor acts. Very piss poor acts if you want my opinion. If you have ever experienced losing someone you love or had your nuts caught in a bicycle chain you would know that emotional stress causes the best of us to act like (language warning) cunty McCuntholes…Cuntfuckitycuntballs. And this could happen to anyone on this site. We don’t know each other in real life and can’t possibly understand each others stresses and motives. This forum was never meant to defend puppy, it was meant to defend all users, some of whom may have emotional problems medically diagnosed or otherwise. So what I’m basically saying is, we all have the ability to be cunts (and whatever the opposite of a cunt is), so why hang some of us when all we might need is to have our nipples hooked up to a car battery and have an angry cat thrown at our faces from time to time to keep us in line.

@SPIKE – You (and a few others) raise an excellent point about the need for rules and the need to enforce them and I couldn’t agree with you more but the fact is, laws are never black and white. If they were, our courts wouldn’t have the need for a tiered appeal system. <INSERT A STORY ABOUT A MAN STEALING A LOAF OF BREAD TO FEED HIS STARVING FAMILY AND APPROPRIATE MORAL DILEMA>.

What I’m seeking here, is not a pardon, not an excuse for dickish behavior, but the rights of users to make amends. And in this particular case, puppy owes a “whole lota amends.” And I’m sure, if puppy was to take a break from the wiki and reflect on his actions, he would admit to being a major fuckknob, and if he doesn’t, maybe he really is just a giant fuckknob… with AIDS. Oh, and sorry for the long rant too, I don’t get much of a chance to edit here, I’d rather read some funny shit. I understand and I wish to continue. . 15:09, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Haunted, I think very few people really believe that Puppy sould be banned forever with zero chance of returning. That is fairly extreme. It's equally extreme to say "hahaha, it was funny, why are you so bothered by it, just laugh it off" as Aleister philosophizes. Im sure some time in the future if Puppy says, "I could have done things differently...sorry about that", that most people will admire the gesture and forigve and forget. There is no "specific" time frame for something like that. Its more likely to happen whenever the admins are ready to listen (or give into pressure) and when Pup is prepared to say "oops, I take most of what I said and did back".

You are right, any experienced user should be given the same chance if they go kookie and get banned indefinately. --ShabiDOO 17:18, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, sir, and need a headlice cleansing at your earliest opportunity. Look above at the section of "How long would you have banned him?" and I figure six weeks seems just about right. Six weeks without Puppy is like a year without sunshine. The "just laugh it off" attitude is my personal attitude, for to me it doesn't seem all that serious a situation or a lifetime bannable thing. Puppy had a shit attack after he felt blindsided at VFS. Everyone here should remember what Puppy does on the site, how much he cares for it, and how much he has done for it in the past - I think that's all he wanted us to do. Just because we have admins or crats who have the power to ban someone forever doesn't mean it's right. That power should come as a nuclear option, and be used as little or hopefully never with an established user (And Puppity is probably the most established user this has ever been brought into play with). Yes, I would personally have given him a slap on the wrist, and then slapped his other wrist and maybe one ankle. But to break all his legs, crack his spine open, mash the brain, and then leave him for the buzzards seems a bit much considering the fun and value-addedness brought by the poor creature's loyalty to the site. Aleister 18:37 11-5-'12

Ali, you are utterly and totally wrong. Seriously super super wrong: I don't need a headlice check or crabs check, I shave my head and balls at least once a month, sometimes twice. Now say sorry and admit you were very super extra wrong!!! --ShabiDOO 18:52, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

He can make amends and is welcome to do so convincingly at any time; channels are open. Until such time as it is convincing to the admin corpse, however, he will remain indefinitely banned. Suggestion at this point would probably be for him to wait at least a couple months before trying again, as it can often take about that long away (and when I say 'away', I mean away) for users in similar situations to get some perspective.

Now can we please drop this matter for the time being? Folks have screwed up around the board, but PotR's actions have likewise been inexcusable and he needs to realise that before anything will change. Meantime we have an encyclopedia to build... or loiter around slapping smiley face stickers on each other's bums, or whatever it is people do these days, but this isn't really helping matters.

1234 ~ 20:42, 11 May 2012

Jesus Christ, for the first time here, I find myself agreeing with Lyrithya. Armageddon is coming. I can feel it in my bones. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, May 11 '12 21:04 (UTC)

This discussion is revealing the different opinions and ideas everyone has on a difficult topic. It must be stoooooooooped!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! --ShabiDOO 21:08, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

People are free to read Puppy's apology here for anyone who's interested. Now, to paraphrase Mordillo, "shut up and go write something". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:22, 11 May 2012

My 2 cents: I seem to recall a certain admin once stating that the admins' "amazing superpowers" put them "below users", and that their actions should be based on "the general opinion of the community". Now, note that I really don't care about all of this, since I'm practically not active here; I don't care if Puppy remains permabanned or not, I never had a conversation with him or anything, so I didn't really know him, and I'm not arguing about whether it was right or wrong to permaban him or anything of that sort. But it strikes me as odd that this banning turned out to be so controversial that there is now a whole forum going on about it (regardless of the fact that HauntedUndies clearly stated that he/she did NOT want this forum to be about this specific incident), yet there are comments like "this unproductive pining needs to stop" or "Now can we please drop this matter for the time being?", especially considering that, out of the 13 users who participated in the above vote, only 5 voted in favor of indefinitely banning Puppy. Schamschi, 17:25, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in that admins serve the will of the community, but we also must protect it, even, if the case may be, from itself. We are not blind, after all, and we must make our own decisions out of the madness that is 'consensus'; that was part of what we were voted into this position to do so as to keep the entire site from bloody imploding. So this ain't odd. This is completely normal.

1234 ~ 18:30, 12 May 2012

Dicks, dicks everywhere.

You people are messed up. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at02:48, Saturday 12 May 2012 -

I knew that already. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:50, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that unicorn's horn looks like a tiny dick. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:05, 12 May 2012

God damn, why did we have to bring MLP into the conversation? Now Kirb will turn this forum into a pony thread. ~Pleb the magic! 03:43, 05/12/2012

Who?

Also, HOLY SHIT IT'S MRN! I thought you'd disappeared forever. How ya been man? -OptyC Sucks! CUN19:31, 12 May

A little note about government systems

Obviously, no government is perfect. Where Zombiebaron's from, they've got a socialist parliamentary democracy (I think) which, as we know, socialism doesn't always work. But they manage to do some cool stuff. They've also codified into law that ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin: Ignorance of the law is no excuse) which means that you can't just pretend not to know the law and be innocent for something.

Where I'm from, we've got a democratic system where Congress is supposed to make laws that make our lives better. But of course, it's not perfect.

Both of these are representative democracies - governments in which the plebeians are represented oppressed by elected officials. For a while, I've viewed Wikipedia as having a pretty good form of government which is more like a direct democracy that gets stuff done through consensus (reaching a middle ground) rather than voting (doing what the majority or wealthy think).

Anyway, we should probably try, in the future, to emulate a direct democracy, even if we stick to our current system of voting rather than reaching consensus, which takes a very long time. Let's not go back to being a really crazy dictatorship where the admins rule over the plebs, or an anarchy like Mirror.

This means that when admins make a really important executive decision, such as banning a really helpful guy like Pups for life, they should weigh the benefits and consequences of such an action. Rather than singlehandedly carrying out the action without consensus, decide together what should be done about an issue. -- Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 21:23, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe how much this shit spread. I never read any forum post longer than 3 lines. I'm a nice guy, I GUESS. Mattsnow 02:56, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to make sense of the above discussions so I know what to archive. I even added the nutshell tag to the top to prevent ranting and shit like that. We need it to be at least somewhat organized so we can get ready for a possible court hearing. -- Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 03:01, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Why would you archive any of it? Nobody ever archives forum pages. Also, please don't add {{nutshell}} to forum pages, especially not when the content of your {{nutshell}} contradicts the original purpose of the forum as put forth by the O.P. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:46, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Heheheh. "Nutshell". -OptyC Sucks! CUN03:54, 13 May

Forum:Count to a million gets archived all the time. I just feel that this discussion has become really confusing and I don't know where the current thread is. So I'm copping a little here to make sure nobody starts any riots. I might need some help. -- Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 03:58, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

This forum is one big riot. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 04:01, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

I did suggest semi-locking it a while back. -- Sir CuteLolcatOnTheRadio [CUN • PBJ'12 • PLS(0)] 04:14, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection prevents IPs and new users from editing a page. If you're having trouble finding the current thread, just check the page history. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:19, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

A little note about your little note

Qzekrom, nothing you wrote is either true or relevant.

1. Congress is not "supposed to make laws that make our lives better." It is supposed to do a limited number of things (Art. I, Sec. 8, mostly) and nothing else (Am. X).
2. The US is not a democracy. The Founders hated the concept and the word does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. We do not democratically elect judges or the President, and we were not supposed to elect the Senate.
3. The differences in the Canadian government do not reflect on this Forum or probably any other. We are not American writers burdened by Canadian Admins.
4. Private organizations within Government X do not have to have the structure, or guarantee members the rights, of Government X. The Democratic Party does not have to be democratic any more than the Libertarian Party has to maximize its members' liberty. They are there to get a job done. If you were to get a job, you will not have a right to vote on how the work is done (though something tells me you will demand it). Similarly, Uncyclopedia is not bound to practice Affirmative Action nor issue Food Stamps.
5. Your concluding thought, implying that Admins making the ban did not "weigh the benefits and consequences," does not follow from anything you wrote or anything I know. Your statement that Admins should have sought your input is not true in theory, and in practice you would have had nothing to add apart from your feelings about the individuals. Spıke Ѧ 15:05 13-May-12

Gee willikers, Mr Jenson!

There sure are a lot of words on this page! What does it all mean?

Well, you see Jimmy, There was a lot of talk recently and this is classed as "drama".

What does drama mean?

Drama is when two people are passionate about a topic, but look at it from different perspectives. Like both you and Sally like ice-cream, don't you?

Golly gee Mr Jenson. I love ice-cream, and Sally does too!

What's your favorite flavour?

I love chocolate, but Sally likes it vanilla.

And I bet you could eat chocolate all the time if if was up to you.

Would I ever!

But when your Mom buys the shopping, does she get it chocolatey, or does she get it vanilla?

She buys chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, because she says she likes it any way she can get it.

I bet she does. Now, when it comes time to eating your ice-cream, do you spend time arguing with Sally, or do you eat the ice-cream?

Well... I guess I just eat the ice-cream.

So you see - it's not worth fighting over the flavor of the ice-cream. You just need to stop all the fussing and fighting and get down to what you are at the table for - to eat your dessert.

I guess so.

But some people think it's more important to fight over what the best flavor is, rather than get down to what they are actually at the table for. And that is what's called drama. You see, Jimmy, even though the ice-cream is still sweet, people think if they can have the ice-cream the way that they want it - and only the way that they want it - then the ice-cream will taste so much better. But what they fail to realise is that the ice-cream is still there on the table, and while they are busy arguing about it, the ice-cream is just melting away. And if they don't stop arguing then the cat will come along and just lick up all the cream.

Or Mom would. She says she loves eating all the cream.

I'm sure she does. Now if people would stop arguing and creating drama, and just get on with what they are supposed to be doing, then the world would surely be a better place for it. Do you see what I mean, Jimmy?

I guess so Mr Jenson.

Then you guess rightly, young Jimmy. Now - would you like a chocolate to suck on right now?

Would I ever!

Well, all you have to to is reach into my pocket here, and if you can grab the chocolate I put in there earlier, you can have it. That's right, you'll have to feel around for it. When you think you have it start pulling it out. Ah - that's it. You're a good boy, young Jimmy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.164.7.165 (talk • contribs)

The narrator is gay, Jimmy is gay, his sister is a gay man and their mother is the faggiest fag that has ever existed. I suspect that 41.164.7.165 is gay, but I've never met him so I can't tell. --ShabiDOO 12:09, May 13, 2012 (UTC)