Forum:The End of Everything

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The End of Everything

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5200 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

All of the following has come with a great deal of deliberation between multiple admins over the course of the past week.

It is no secret that there has been a lot of tension over several incidents in the past few months revolving around a small subset of users on Uncyclopedia. In varying degrees of culpability, these include An Ape that only Exists On Thursdays, E|M|C, and Dexter111344. The extent of this largely stems from their involvment in several activities, including, but not limited to:

• Harrassment of users (IRC and wiki)
• Harrassment of Ms. Amanda Rivkin
• Acting, without full approval, on behalf of Uncyclopedia on several sites, including Facebook and Stupidpedia
• Acting in an inappropriate manner on sites such as Facebook, giving Uncyclopedia a bad image.
• Generally disruptive behavior that is tracable to and associatable with Uncyclopedia, including, but not limited to, consistent trolling of other IRC channels.
• Fostering a significantly less amenable environment on the wiki.

All of this really came to a head on 7/29, when Mordillo was informed by Andorin Kato of their disruptive behavior. This was initially characterized as "cyberbullying;" E|M|C gave ops to numerous users, including Dexter and ApeonThursdays, who then took over the IRC chatroom and proceeded to kick/op users at will. While an occasional op war is acceptable, this unfortunately extended outside of the IRC chat, as Andorin was invite and ctcp spammed multiple times even after leaving the chatroom. We will take it on faith that their actions did not target Andorin, however, the fact remains that this is one of a large series of disruptive behaviors, and is not limited to the IRC. Indeed, these actions include questionable and detrimental behavior on the wiki and beyond the wiki.

This behavior "beyond the wiki" includes the tendency to act on behalf of the wiki without consulting admins. EMC is most notable in this regard, specifically his self-portrayal as a representative of Uncyc on Stupidpedia and his handling of Facebook. With specific regard to facebook; although they are accompanied by Spang and have explicitly offered access to important data by admins, very little overt discussion has taken place regarding how the facebook page is run. In fact, disparaging statements against a recent feature have a decidedly unfriendly and disparaging tone. This prompts concern among admins as to their activities off-site.

Returning to matters wiki, it's very clear that Dexter, E|M|C, and, Ape conduct themselves in a way not conducive to getting along with others on the wiki. It is not a blatant or outrageous issue of conduct, like noob harassment, or rude backtalk at every user, but a more subtle form of action. These users have demonstrated a propensity to harass other and display deliberate obtuseness in discussion. This manifests as a tendency to seem unquestionable in their opinion and that anyone that vocally opposes them is not only wrong, but something far worse: "whiny." We have heard this label applied to several users, including Andorin Kato, whose efforts are largely for the benefit of the operation of this wiki, and Hyperbole, who, despite his tendency to participate in flamewars of his own creation, does not deserve the level of scorn he has endured at the hands of these users.

The adminship has suffered partly in this regard, and because of the actions of these three. There is a palpable tension within the adminship because of their personal ties to some of the admins, as well as because of several instances wherein admins have superceded other admins without prior discussion. Personally, because of their severely negative reputation among the adminship, I have become very active in the past two weeks to ensure that there is no overwhelming bias against them in our discussions. This has been particularly taxing, for me. Despite having been given chances to redeem themselves, E|M|C, and Dexter seem to be incapable of acting appropriately in the face of an agitated environment.

In the course of the past few months, it has become clear that the current trend of behavior exhibited E|M|C, Dexter, and Ape will turn them into greater liabilities than assets to the function of Uncyclopedia. Recent trends indicate that they cannot be trusted with positions of authority. It is unquestionable that they have abused their op privileges on IRC in several instances, but questions of ourtight abuse still need to be considered for the Wiki. While there is no explicit abuse of power by these users on the wiki, their behavior leads us to believe that their leadership positions on subgroups such as PLS and Poopsmithing are likely contributors an inflated sense of self.

Despite all of this, we want to clearly note: E|M|C, Dexter, and Ape are all users that have contributed very well to the wiki, and their accomplishments are not any less impressive or valuable. However, at this time, all of this comes with a great deal of controversy and drama, which stems from a series of incidents involving them specifically. In summary, we feel that, if nothing is changed, the reputation and environment of the wiki will continue to degrade as a result of problematic actions by these users. We do want them to stay around, but we want it without the hefty cost of their disruptive actions and attitudes.

As such, we are acting as follows:

• EMC, Dexter, and Ape are to be banned for 7 days each
• EMC is to be stripped of his role in PLS
• Dexter is to be stripped of his role in Poopsmithing
• EMC is stripped of his rights as IRC op
• IRC oppage is now strictly enforced, limited to users with explicit rights to be channel ops
• EMC and Ape are required to write an open letter apologizing to Ms. Rivkin for their role in her harassment, to be approved, but not edited, by admins, and signed by them on the wiki by the end of 7 days. This letter will be relayed to admins during the period of their ban, be it by e-mail or other means. If this letter is not to admin approval, they will be banned indefinitely until it is as such.
• We will not revoke facebook administration from EMC, since it appears he is doing well enough with regard to the majority of its handling. In light of recent comments, we are reevaluating this decision. In the meantime, we urge extreme discretion, especially in the face of the aforementioned contentious comment.
• Ape will not be banned an additional week, as we believe it would be unfair for him to sit out another week for a similar ban.
• We are instating UN:OFFICE rules for these three users in an attempt to elicit better general behavior. We are a humor wiki, but we won’t stand for behavior that foments bad faith and discontent among our users.

There will inevitably be a lot of talk about how the adminship is a Cabal and that we're acting Unfairly, and at an inappropriate time. However, we explicitly came together to deal with what is perceived by a majority of the adminship and a substantial part of the more active userbase as a set of problematic users. We have spent the better part of a week going back and forth about what is and isn't fair, and what has and has not happened. With regard to these three users, we can no longer sit back and give them the second chances and warnings they have taken advantage of. While I'm sure it's of little merit to those that disagree with this decision, I want to ensure you that we have all approached this with open minds and good faith. It is unfortunate that we have to do this, but we hope that this will be the final link in this long chain of events.

Administrators that approve the above message

• --Flammable 19:04, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• --ChiefjusticeGameCube 19:06, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• -RAHB 19:07, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• ~ 19:11, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• --T. (talk) 19:12, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 19:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• --UU - natter 20:15, Aug 6
• --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|NS|+S 20:26, August 6, 2010 (UTC) Does not want to get involved with drama.
• --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:30, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
• -- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 21:36, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

I know this is probably a contentious issue, but please try to keep a cool head with regard to discussion. Outright trolling on this page will be met with a brief ban. However, we would like to hear back from the community. Please:

1. Assume Good Faith
2. Don't be a dick

--Flammable 19:04, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

So, does this mean that we've finally capped the well? Sir MacMania GUN—[19:17 6 Aug 2010]

Also, the title scared me because I thought you folks were going to have to shut the Internets down. Sir MacMania GUN—[19:18 6 Aug 2010]

Unfortunately Al Gore still isn't responding to our requests to make him an admin. We'll get him one of these days though, dag gummit! -RAHB 19:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

He'd have solved all of this with a slideshow and a bunch of statistics, and you know it. "The temperature of the Uncyc IRC has been steadily rising one degree Celsius every day—" Sir MacMania GUN—[19:22 6 Aug 2010]

RAHB, tell him about your thing for Frank Zappa. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at19:26, Friday 06 August 2010 -

I think its important to reiterate that we are keen to have our established contributors back producing the great work they have in the past, but it is also important that everyone feels as though they can work here without an overhanging feeling of resentment or persecution (no matter how trivial people feel that is). As an admin on this site my "job" is to try to protect and to serve the community. All of the community. I sincerely hope that all parties will return back from this renewed and with a much improved attitude, particular to others. It really saddens me that we have had to take these steps in the hope that that will happen. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I think the forcing them to apologize is too far. A strongly worded letter stating that they were in no way representing the wiki, perhaps? They can apologize if they're really sorry, but forcing one does nothing but demean those concerned. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at19:20, Friday 06 August 2010 -

That's a fair point. I suppose that would be a better recourse. Additionally, we've recently found out that there has been some settling of the matter between one of the two and Ms. Rivkin, so we'll certianly be adjusting our actions appropriately. --Flammable 19:26, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one that caught my eye. Leaving aside the issue of people acting inappropriately towards her, I continue to believe that Amanda Rivkin doesn't deserve an apology to any greater extent than she deserves a flaming bag of poop on her doorstep. You know, like, it would be wrong of me to put a flaming bag of poop on her doorstep, but if Jesus came back to life and pooped in a bag and lit it on fire and put it on her doorstep, I would totally convert to Christianity. pillow talk 19:38, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Several Points

1. Users should note that there was zero transparency in this decision. Decisions were made in secret by admins excluding both those involved directly and the wider community, including I believe at least one and possibly two admin(s), who were those most amenable to our "side". The decision has now been presented as a fait accompli. No attempt at mediation was made at any point. Instead Flammable spoke to the three of us on Skype, and our words were presumably passed on to our superiors in the cabal who then discussed them in secret. This is not an acceptable method of decision-making.
2. Note also that TKF and Olipro have been unilaterally de-opped, again with no consultation with the community. Ops work for the community and unless their remaining in power constitutes an immediate threat to the site they should not be deopped without consulting us. Meanwhile, several inactive ops have mysteriously reappeared to sign their name to the decision. Since Olipro in particular has made public his dissent with the way this whole incident has been handled, I strongly suspect the motives behind these de-oppings..
3. In particular, Mordillo has proven on several occasions that he is incapable of moderating in a fair and level-headed fashion. In the past month or so he has handed out disproportionately lengthy bans to myself and others over an article making fun of Jews (with subtle references to himself) - immediately assuming bad faith over what was intended to be a joke. He has repeatedly refused to respond to my emails, defriended myself, e|m|c and dex on Facebook (which, while he is obviously not obliged to be friends with any of us in the real world, is clearly a carefully chosen symbolic action), and has deliberately ignored my attempt to bury the hatchet (again, a calculated action). When approached by Andorin over the IRC incident, rather than attempting to mediate in what was a dispute between users (in which I fully admit we went too far) he immediately created a huge public drama. While we're in the business of randomly deopping people, perhaps we should consider whether Mordillo has the required temperament to continue as an admin.
4. In general, users need to learn to take a joke, and to assume good faith. We are not in elementary school, our immediate response to behaviour that we don't like shouldn't be to run to the admins to get someone banned, nor should the admins immediately resort to exercising their authority just because they can. If you think someone is being a dick, chances are it was just trolling/a joke that went too far, and the situation can be resolved through discussion (admin mediated if necessary). This is not targeted at a specific user but rather a general culture that seems to be emerging. This is a humour wiki, there will be jokes, some of them may be at your expense, some of them may go too far, learn to deal with it.
5. Attacking e|m|c for "acting, without full approval, on behalf of Uncyclopedia on several sites" seems a little unfair. If e|m|c had not taken the initiative, we would not have a functional Facebook, a shop providing us with a small income, nor would PLS have been able to go ahead. Without Dex's initiative there would not have been a conservation week this year. He seems to have been doing a perfectly good job as poopsmith, I don't see any particular reason to remove him from the role, which is basically a load of janitorial work.

All of that said, I do recognise that my behaviour was outside of the bounds of what is acceptable, and for that I apologize. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 21:15, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Detention—stop doing your toilet cleaning. Huh, the irony only struck me when you mentioned it. Sir MacMania GUN—[21:37 6 Aug 2010]

1. There is no "our side", and that is key to the whole thing. No attempt was made at mediation? I can't speak for others but I'm pretty sure I have had a few conversations with a number of individuals involved in this, including yourself. Again the strawman argument of the "cabal" appears to be used here. We DO have admins whose job is to protect and serve this community, and they do speak, and they do have to make decisions based on what they feel to be the best course of action for the whole community.
2. You can suspect as much as you like, I'm sure Oli and TFK will have their say on the matter.
3. Defriending people on FB is his own prerogative and again appears to be little other than a straw man argument, I really would have thought better of you, Ape (see what I did there?)....but again it just appears that you are making a whole series of assumptions based on not really very much. But other than that you are completely correct, we ALL have to have accountability, users, admins and crats alike, which is exactly what we are in the process of put together a working construct to that end.
4. Correct, but please see my note above about accountability. Your right to edit here come with a basic level of getting the fuck along with everyone. If you want to cyberbully, troll or anything else that detracts from the community then we WILL give you a helping hand towards the nearest exit.
5. What bothers me most is that EMC has done so much good, just as you too have in the past been a great contributor. As I have said to you privately that carries a lot of weight with me. What is doesn't do is give people cart blanche to bully other users. I want to see you all get back to what you were, and to put this whole sorry situation behind us to be able to move on.

I know you are going to have to deal with a lot more than just the ire of a few users on Uncyclopedia, you have been a regular contributor for a long, long time, and though we recognise that certain behaviour is more than wrong we do have a lot of sympathy for your current plight. No one here is anyone's enemy, no matter what you may think. Again I look forward to seeing the people I have known and written with returning to the site without the attitude from any sources. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm not going to talk about my off-site troubles and I'd appreciate if the rest of you would refrain from discussing it here. Anything you say can only make things worse.

1. There's clearly sides in any issue. There's no such thing as an objective way of presenting the facts of a situation, everyone is influenced by their own personal biases and relationships with individuals involved. That's why proper consultation is essential. Transparency is important too. It's very worrying that decisions can be made in this secretive manner, and then presented as a fait accompli. Yourself and Flammable made efforts to find out our side of the situation, and I'm quite thankful for that, because it prevent our voices from being entirely excluded, but nonetheless, this whole thing was discussed in private emails between admins with no opportunity for us to input directly into the discussion. Frankly its bullshit to say there's no cabal after the admins behaved precisely like a cabal.
2. Having spoken to both, my suspicions remain.
3. We all have to have accountability, and that includes our de facto head admin. While he's perfectly entitled to defriend whoever he wants on Facebook, it does indicate an inability to separate the personal from his role as admin. Note that once again I was the one who attempted to extend the hand of reconciliation and was quite clearly ignored, which in my book is a "fuck you". It seems Mordillo is exempt from the need to try and get along with people on the site.
4. The point is, in a healthy community, people are able to accept a bit of trolling from one another, because good faith is assumed. If someone crosses a line the dispute can be resolved without resorting to childish histrionics. That doesn't occur here. I'm willing to accept my part in that, but it seems the only ones expected to be held accountable for our actions are myself, e|m|c and dex.
5. Removing dex as poopsmith and prohibiting e|m|c from running PLS benefits no one. It seems to be done out of spite. Moreover its a slap in the face after all the work they put into the site. If I were them I'd be pretty pissed off.

Please be aware that most of this is not directed at you. I've never had a problem with the way you do your job and I think we get on pretty well on a personal level. But I am seriously unhappy with the way this decision has been made, and in a broader sense with the power structure and culture that seems to have emerged on the site. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 22:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Psersonally, I find it's hard to have good faith in an environment where everybody is worried about being victimized by the the wrong three users trolls banana wagons. They drive their crazy fruit-themed vehicles willy nilly and cause all manner of trouble, justifying it as people being intolerant of fruit-based conveyance. Worse, if you cross them, some combination of them suddenly leap down your throat, set up a jacuzzi and invite all their friends. And then one of them throws the dog into the pool and the other vomits on the couch and the last one does something unholy with the ottoman and no amount of steam cleaning will ever make it feel not dirty. Yeah, that was a wild party, but I always woke up with a headache the next morning. So much fun, but god was it a headache when the neighbors made a complaint, too 'cause there's a noise ordinance, so I had to pay a fine and well, it's all terrible. I've never had to clean so much hair out of the pool. Teeth. Teeth Teeth Teeth Teeth Teeth Teeth. --Flammable 23:11, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be facetious (and inflammatory) when I'm trying to raise genuine concerns. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 23:16, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I was just kind of typing, no malicious intent was.. uh.. intended. I started on a point, but I'm really really tired. More seriously, I think, though, the biggest problem I have is with you saying there's something wrong with all the admins getting together, deciding there's a problem, and then working toward fixing it. Given the sway and pressure you three can exert over IRC, I think a "community-based" discussion might just make things worse, especially if it devolves into a flamewar, given the environment that we've had lately. Furthermore, why the "bad faith" on the part of admins? This is probably the first major consensus we've come to in a while, and is a direct consequence of some very questionable actions. Also, I should probably also emphasize that some of this (apology letter, specifically) is fairly fluid, since we now know that already has been some action taken toward resolution regarding you and Ms. Rivkin. --Flammable 23:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Again I can only repeat that as far as I am concerned there is no cabal, there is only admins acting like admins. If you choose to interpret that as a cabal that is your opinion, certainly not mine. For my part in this, and from what I have seen from everyone else involved is that there has been specific issues which have led to this and we wanted to act in a fair and objective way. I could not in good faith supported any action that did not have these values at their core. I have also been very careful not to rely on hearsay or groupthink in any of this, but on what I personally have seen, over a prolonged period.

There is no de facto head admin, and again I cannot understand your issue with focusing on one single admin in all of this. Mordillo could just as easily have decided that recent actions of certain individuals represented a juvenile attitude that didn't sit well with his own and chose to defriend people he had little in common with? Who knows? Again it is just your opinion and you have filled in the blanks assuming bad faith. From what I can see you appear to have considerably more of an issue with him than he does with you.

The site has grown massively in five years and so far we've managed, with a few exceptions, to survive any major dramas, but now I believe we are at a stage where we really need to have some basic guidelines for interaction, not just between contributors but between our admins as well. Whilst wanting to retain the flexibility which we have always had at the same time we need to recognise the responsibility and accountability of our actions, for all of us. We should all welcome this. Also we have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Simply stating there's no cabal doesn't refute the substantive argument here, which is that decisions were made in secret in a way that excluded our input. Similarly saying that Mordillo is not de facto head admin doesn't get rid of the fact that Mordillo has a massive amount of power, and that other admins seem to be afraid to challenge him. I can't prove this of course because there's no public record of any of the discussions that took place, but this is what I have gleaned from talking to several admins. Defriending us might be acceptable in itself, but I don't think you can separate it from the context of growing animosity coming from Mordillo. He's not the only admin I have a problem with, you are all complicit to varying extents in the secrecy surrounding this whole debacle. Am I assuming bad faith? I would point out, again, that I extended the hand of reconciliation on Mordillo's talk page, and was quite publicly and clearly snubbed. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 00:37, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Again you are making assumptions that that is the case for each point. No single admin has any more "power" than any other, the only difference may be that a few are more vocal in what they think. But to return to your point you seem to be implying that all this is some kind of Zionist plot against you of which we are all complicit. My action in this is my action and more than justified, as much as I have resented having to take it. No one has coerced me into anything, indeed it could be argued that I was the instigator of this in banning you a week ago. If someone is wrong, be they a user of any degree of rights believe me I am not afraid to challenge people. Likewise I would expect no less from others. Again your "proof" of bad faith is that someone has not taken the time to respond to you....please take a look at my talk page and see how many times I haven't got around to responding to comments. I'm not going to stand here and say I agree 100% with everything that any other Admin has done, but I can assure you that everyone I have spoken to has not had any personal issues with anyone and behaved in an objective manner over the whole situation. You can believe it or not but we have ALL resent and regret having to take this action. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I'm just going to respond to one point here - your mention of that article, and assertion that Mordillo simply lacked a sense of humour over that issue. I read that article, and as far as I was concerned, it wasn't an article making fun of jews with "subtle" references to Mordillo, it was a very thinly-veiled and quite hostile attack on Mordillo which went way beyond the usual friendly vandalism on this site. I said at the time that I would have banned on sight of that article, and I stand by that. There's acceptable banter and jocular insults between acquaintances, and then there's that rubbish. Simply saying people should have a sense of humour about it is disingenuous to say the least. Saying that people need to be adults also misses the point. That was just nastiness, from where I stood, and it indicated that some people have failed to grasp the difference between "getting older" and "growing up". People on here make jokes about each other regularly, fine. We accept and even tacitly encourage a level of what might be considered trolling in the name of banter and friendly piss-taking. But there is such a thing as going too far, and just saying people need to "deal with it" misses the point too - it's putting the onus on them to grow a thicker skin, instead of the people who went too far to take responsibility for their actions and admit that they were out of line. In that context, I don't think Mordillo acted in a poor way.

Now, I'm sure people will respond to this by saying that Mordillo's my friend, and I'm bound to take "his side". But I hate the idea of sides - in my experience, there is a certain amount of truth on both "sides" of an argument, with very few exceptions. And I'm normally cursed with the ability to see both sides. And the fact is, Ape, that I actually like you, EMC and Dex. True, this issue has left a nasty taste in the mouth, but as Mhaille says elsewhere, you're good guys, who have done a lot of good things for the site, and we sure as hell don't want to lose you. And I assure you, if I thought Mordillo was out of line, as his friend I would be the first to tell him, not the last. Because I've always thought that's one of the most important things a person does for a friend. I don't think he was getting too big for his boots, I think some people were trying to see how far they could push him, and they found out. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a busy weekend, and I'm off to enjoy it. I hope you have a good one too. --UU - natter 07:40, Aug 7

Listen, if Mordillo wants to come here and explain why I'm off the mark on this one, and how he's not holding a personal grudge against me, I'm very happy to listen. As it stands however, I feel justified in my previous assertions, and my previous call for us to consider deopping him. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 14:20, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Again the only person who is coming across as having a personal grudge is you. Again I don't see any need for Mordillo to do anything. Again I can't see why you are focusing solely upon him. It seems evident that no matter what is said to you you will maintain your current stance on this. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Again I'll point out that none of the issues I've raised have been adequately explained. Again, it seems the only ones being held to account over their behaviour are myself, emc and dex. Once again I will point out that I attempted to engage in reconciliation with Mordillo and was ignored (he can hardly plausibly have failed to notice the huge picture of a pint glass I posted on his talk page). I am not "focusing solely" on Mordillo. As I made clear from the start, the issues I have raised regarding Mordillo are a particular instance of a wider issue. Clearly there could not be the kind of secretive cabbalistic behaviour from the admins that I spoke about if there was only one admin who wanted to approach things that way. Since we are being so publicly disciplined I think its entirely reasonable to raise these issues publicly. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 15:30, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

ZOMG PARANOIA

I realise in these rather uncertain times there's an inclination towards paranoia, but you're really misinterpreting the situation.

1. Don't Panic
2. Get a towel!
3. I still haz ops
4. All will become clear very soon, there's gonna be a whole topic on it and shit.

PS: No inflammatory/aggressive statements from *anyone* or mofos are gonna get banned

-- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah, hoopy frood ops restored. Also, trust the computer—the computer is your friend. Sir MacMania GUN—[22:11 6 Aug 2010]

I have a minor point. I presume the unsigned comments are from Flammable. Is that what it means to be the supreme deity? No need for a signature?? Just so that any passing noobs know this too. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:22, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

He does have a sig, it just doesn't contain any links. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 23:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

IT TURNS ME INTO STEALTH OP, but not really since that's a product of me being lazy. :3 --Flammable 23:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think this should weigh into the issue as well

It's "Stupidedia", not Stupidpedia". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:29, 6 August 2010

Eek. I tapped on the first one and within seconds an ad covered the screen. Never again. If ads ever come here that will be "The End of Everything" Aleister 23:32 6 8

AdBlock for the win. I see no such ridiculous ad (though that color scheme is almost as offensive). --Andorin Kato 23:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Stupidpedia lives up to its name beautifully. Also, the adminship is not Cabal, seeing that Cabal is Neil Gaiman's dog. Sir MacMania GUN—[23:33 6 Aug 2010]

Does that mean I can still be Cable? Or is it Bishop? Which is the one that's not terrible? --Flammable 23:34, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Skull and Bones or Opus Dei wouldn't be too bad. Sir MacMania GUN—[23:38 6 Aug 2010]

I think it could be a coven. They dance around a bonfire throwing bans into the flames and devour the souls of blankers. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

EMC's comment

It’s great to see that Todd Lyons and MoneySign were opined for their thoughts on an issue and have returned to throw their weight behind a decision that I feel they were ultimately not neutral on since neither I, nor Dexter, nor Ape, were approached by them to discuss this matter. I feel that the role of the administrators as mediators was trumped by their unwarranted duty to make contempt of my actions prior to investigation. But that attitude does not surprise me considering the administrators who approved of the message and decision themselves did not approach me, and Flammable stated that I [we] would be granted the opportunity to share our explanations or defense of ourselves to those making this backroom decision. In the end, we were not prompted to do so.

What further concerns me about this is the degree to which the issues have been applied with a double standard of public and private presence. My feeling is that the admins involved made a public statement of my offenses per backroom discussions, and that the few admins I did discuss the issues with insufficiently represented my thoughts, making any consideration for me simply hearsay. And then, of course, the ban which was given to me without allowing for my retroactive discourse on this entire matter, either to the admins themselves or the community, further demonstrates to me that my thoughts and explanations for any of my actions are not of any interest to the community or admins.

The statement of my culpability in the Amanda Rivkin issue in this forum is absurd on the pretext of my having any involvement, of which there is no evidence to support this within the site or the blogs (perhaps from a refusal to involve Uncyclopedia, but that’s speculative of course), and on the pretext that it is any responsibility of Uncyclopedia to police or hold users accountable for their actions outside of Uncyclopedia from issues that may or may not stem from Uncyclopedia. That Amanda Rivkin has asked to not be associated with the site in any fashion (which would include her name appearing on a forum of ours), and that implicating certain users in the debacle further catalyzes the issue regarding her and the libelous things posted about her makes this the most contestable point brought against me. Additionally, I will not be writing a letter of apology to Ms. Rivkin.

I recognize that I was catalyzing and perpetuating the IRC kicking and ping/invite spamming of Andorin by opping everyone, including the assailing parties. For those who regularly visit the IRC, they’ll know that I’ve never kicked or banned anyone out of spite or in an attempt to harass, and I regularly opped users who I either deemed responsible enough to have these “powers” (such as EugeneKay), or I opped everyone for a short period of time for fun (and I always cleaned up the mess, fixing the topic, user/chan modes, and deopping everyone). I apologized to Andorin for my demeanor towards him after the incident in which I stupidly expected him to come to me about the issue at the time if he felt he was being cyberbullied. The lapse in judgment that I had regarding the issue has been taken out of context and I’ve been conscripted with the abusive parties unfairly. To address the trolling of other channels on freenode with users quite succinctly: the issue was addressed and handled by sannse and other involved parties peacefully, and the matter was laid to rest. I adopted a “no trolling” policy and urged several users, including Dex, that trolling other channels on freenode was not permitted. I care not for my status as IRC op, and I welcome its revocation with indifference.

As for the stripping of my role in the PLS as organizer: I believe what they mean to say is that I am barred from running it again as this “position” is up for grabs prior to the PLS. It’s not something that’s assigned or designated. I was the only person who took the initiative to actually run it. The controversy that happened during the PLS regarding Hyperbole’s “Suddenly, Raccoons!” article was addressed and resolved with a category extension. I never used my position as PLS organizer to stir controversy or act contrary to the spirit of the site, so I fail to see how there is any basis for barring me from organizing the PLS regarding the issues mentioned in this forum. My attitude toward Hyperbole may have been unfavorable at times over issues, but I never insulted or intended to make his contributing on this site more difficult. I’m curious as to what “level of scorn” I have given him. I defended and made an immediate change to his article per Amanda Rivkin’s request, which I took upon myself to confirm with her and her publisher via a phone call. I felt that Uncyclopedia had the capacity to deal with a copyright claim on its own without oversight or intervention from Wikia, and the matter of the copyrighted image was handled by the community with great stride per my confirmation that she indeed had copyrights to the image in question.

Regarding my founding of the Uncyclopedia Facebook (which I enforce standards on regarding feed spamming and engaging with our fans): in the event that I am permanently banned from the site or retire, I will gladly hand over access of it. The same goes for the store and Uncyclopedia’s money. If this is an issue for the admins regarding handing out a ban for me, in that I have access to these important aspects of Uncyclopedia, then I’d like to let any reluctance or fears rest. Furthermore, I am not the only person with access to the store or Facebook, so I’d also like to quell any fears that I am running these unilaterally. JockePirate, Spang, and Olipro have access to the store from when I asked them for their design assistance. The list of users on my article of “HowTo:Tell who is posting as an admin on the Uncyc Facebook page” (or whatever) lists all of our current Facebook ops, with the recent exclusion of Dexter and the recent inclusion of Mhaille.

I am not responsible for the posts on the Facebook page of those who choose to abuse it, but I delete them and have removed people as ops on the Facebook group for blatant abuse of it. The Facebook page is not a place to whore your articles, gain reader consensus, or make disparaging comments about other users or their articles. I have never allowed it and have taken serious issue with it before.

Furthermore, I do not welcome the idea that I am awarded favor because of my contributions to the site. What’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander. I expect be dealt with on the basis of whether or not I have violated the rules. I think this can be pertinent in both respects because, from what I understand, my earned lack of credibility is being taken into account on this matter. I would expect that a users’ previous record of good or poor behavior is ultimately irrelevant, but that’s just me.

As for the contention about my handling of the Stupidedia issue: while I myself did not consult de.uncyclopedia, I thought it irrelevant for interwiki linking and made it quite clear to the communities involved that they would not be replacing with, or merging with, de.uncyclopedia without de.uncyclopedia’s consent. I aimed for nothing but consensus on this matter and on the project inclusion with UnAnswers from all communities involved. That we choose to have interwiki linking with Stupidedia is none of de.uncyclopedia’s business. I aimed to promote a discussion between them about possibly merging their content and community, but de.uncyclopedia has opted against it.

I have always aimed for community consensus in my endeavors, including the store and project/wiki relations. On issues where I felt consensus was needed, I always provided transparency to the community and allowed for the community to give their thoughts on the matter. On issues where I was unsure if consensus was needed, I consulted people.

Summarily, this is not a sensible decision based on any tangible record of my attitude towards other users, and I’m greatly confused as to why these issues have been compiled into a great listing of misdeeds for a generalized and communicative cabal-like decision. That I choose to refer to any user as “whiny” off-site, or that I have a heightened and pompous sense of self fueled by any sort of authority position (which is a matter of opinion), is not any matter to the community if it is not reflected tangibly. It is my belief that this decision is itself not consistent with Uncyclopedia’s spirit and was instead arrived at through gut instinct and with absolutely no regard to whether or not rules have been breached. This has resulted in double standards which have increasingly become a basic requirement for this self-respecting wiki. That an accord was reached, literally behind my back, over issues that could have been otherwise addressed on their own merit without these senseless hyperbolic generalizations, is concerning to me and I contest it. I’m asking the admins to reconsider their handling of this and all other future issues of similar contexts. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK]

I haven't read your entire argument here, Electrified_mocha_chinchilla, but I will after this.

I just want to say that I stumbled upon back into Uncyc whilst casually browsing the Internets, and found myself having to ban Colin "All your base" what's-his-face for goatse'ing the front page. I then stumbled into mIRC to see if Colin was there and to ask for any clarification of his actions. It was then that someone (I forget who) linked me to this here forum section. I read what was there, and based on who wrote it and who signed, I decided to sign as well. Indeed, I did not confer with you or with Ape, but why should I? The author who I know well enough would not post lies and does make rational decisions. It's almost like politics, I guess, but on a non-corrupt level.

There was this other negative vibe I had about you specifically that may have swayed my vote, namely the asking for money for PLS on both the wiki and on Facebook. I will not clarify why, nor do I want you to defend that action, as it in the past and it was just my opinion (after all, I can't be considered active at all anymore, and the wiki was surviving without me just fine). I'm just being honest & complete here.

In closing, I guess I'm just trying to say that nobody asked me to vote for anything. Except for the link, I voted simply because I know that some of the people involved in making the decissions, are good people and definitely are looking out for the "greater good".

Kind regards, ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|NS|+S 18:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Inactive admin whored to on IRC, seals fate of users, confirms whoring is still an issue. -- 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 06:02, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

And you don't see a problem with weighing in on an issue you know nothing about? Doesn't seem wise to me. Anyway, welcome back to Uncyc. Are you planning to stick around now? -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 13:16, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

There was this other negative vibe I had about you specifically that may have swayed my vote, namely the asking for money for PLS on both the wiki and on Facebook. I will not clarify why, nor do I want you to defend that action, as it in the past and it was just my opinion (after all, I can't be considered active at all anymore, and the wiki was surviving without me just fine). I'm just being honest & complete here.

That's a bit of a contradictory statement you've got there m'lad; on one hand you're saying you don't like something without explaining why and on the other hand you say you're being honest & complete, which, whilst evidently honest, is certainly not *complete* and gives off the smell of the beginnings of straw-man setup. Anyhow, moving on from that, By and large, I'm for the majority of points outlined at the top of the article, but since a few are in contention I'm not going to commit to it (or indeed oppose it) because I consider it more of a working draft than a final statement (even though it has been written as if it were as a final and binding statement, I don't think that's the way it was intended to be).

Ultimately I think the issue that seems to be cropping up time and again is the question of consensus and what level of consensus is considered appropriate for any given issue (i.e. unilateral decisions, 'crat consensus, admin consensus, user consensus or everyone). So therefore, where there are tiered levels of power there need to be tiered levels of responsibility/restriction: When can a 'crat invoke their powers? when can an admin invoke theirs? what behaviour is acceptable, what isn't, how should it be dealt with?

Then there is the issue of handling information; is it always appropriate to make a general announcement of something if some people are going to pick up on it for the wrong reasons (i.e. cause drama) - is it better to avoid that drama or take it head on, risk an escalation of a situation and have to scramble to clean it up.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, in due course there will be a new forum topic that sets out a lot of this stuff, but (as far as I am aware) it's going to be more of a draft that seeks consultation and opinion from everyone else, so consider what I've said above as something to mull over in the meantime and hopefully come up with some constructive suggestions. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 16:46, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Jack Phoenix. -- 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 17:55, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Awwww, shit. Never mind! I'm sorry!!!! Vote, be gone! ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|NS|+S 21:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental issue

I think the biggest problem here is the fact that you guys (EMC, Dexter, Ape) tend to take humor a bit far sometimes. I can't say that I think that Amanda Rivkin was being far, but a lot of stuff about her went too far; even if she was overreacting quite a bit, it still isn't very fair to her to get all over her (lol) like that.

Furthermore, if you think Mordillo is hotheaded, don't you think it wouldn't be a good idea to mess with him? I think what frustrated him more than the fact that you were joking about him and making little references was the fact that you did that rather than fight a vandal. Basically, you kinda violated UN:CBN, and just because it was about an experienced user doesn't make it any better. I understand that you were joking, but you were still egging somebody on a bit more than necessary.

I don't know exactly what happened with Andorin, but from what was stated here, I think you were joking but taking it a bit far, again. It's important to understand that some people feel victimized when you do stuff like that to them; you have to make sure they're laughing with you and that they aren't getting upset. That's bullying.

Remember that jokes are funny, but upsetting people is not. When joking, you should ask yourself: Could this be taken the wrong way? Is it damaging a person or thing? Am I taking this too far? If the answer is yes, you shouldn't just go through with it.

Maybe I just take things too seriously. I don't know. But from my one experience with EMC and Dexter, which I don't wish to go into to avoid drama and stuffs, I think that this is the issue.

I rally don't have a place arguing this. I have no real reason to just throw my weight around. (I feel like an asshole now...) But you should consider this.--HM (T) 01:51, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is with specifically targeting an individual as well. Uncyclopedia and the world of comedy in general have long operated by the idea that just because something is offensive, that doesn't make it inappropriate. In fact, outside the comedic realms of absurdism and surrealism, most humor can not come to fruition without offending someone. The difference being that this is done in good faith, is not directed at someone in particular, and it is not a requirement that the offended party partake in and acknowledge the "offending" material. Bullying is a realm of humor (and I use the word "humor" shakily) that does not follow these loose guidelines, because it is a form of intentional abuse. It's a murky area of the ethics world, but somewhere there is a line, it's easy to tell when it's been crossed, and it has been crossed here. -RAHB 02:02, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making sense of my ramblings.--HM (T) 02:10, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should be bullied, obviously, but nor should we become the Stepford Wives Wiki where everyone just writes and doesn't have any fun outside the context of writing articles. The main issues here, as I've identified several times, and have thus far been ignored, are 1) the secrecy regarding decision-making, 2) the failure of individuals to assume good faith and 3) the immediate recourse to authoritarian measures rather than making any attempt at discussion. Also, if you are referring to the Jew rat kike article, please bear in mind that we tried in good faith to turn that article into something good and funny. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 02:23, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the thing with Mordillo was mostly a miscommunication, but you guys still egged him on a bit more than necessary, I think.

Fun is important, but at some points "fun" and "annoying" meet up, and efforts must be made to tip more towards the former.

I hate the secret decision making as much as you do. I think it's ridiculous to not inform the people here about issues that affect the Wiki, as it simply leaves many in the dark.

I always try to assume good faith, but at some point, it just becomes too irritating to care whether it's in good faith or not.

I think the third thing ties into my response to the first one. --HM (T) 02:42, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Issues regarding "the cabal"

It seems to me that the issue of whether or not the admins are operating a secret cabal has become a murky and skewed area on the website. It is no secret that this whole decision has been made in private emails amongst the administrators. It is no secret that we have come together collectively to quell what we believe to be a significant problem in the community. And it is no secret that, despite our efforts and those of the community to make adminiship "not that big a deal", there are still many instances in which the rights of administrators have superceded the rights of regular users, and we have made decisions that do not take the community's direct input immediately into the final outcome of a decision. This is understood, I make no effort to hide this fact.

I think that the issue, then, is not that this action is being taken, but more related to whether or not it is seen as an acceptable way to run the wiki. This is subjective on so many levels that it is impossible to describe them all. It has been brought up many a time that the administrators themselves have a bias leaning towards the idea that the above detailed actions are acceptable, and beyond that I think that there are more or less equal amounts of regular users who are proponents of either side of the issue, and some who choose to stay neutral. This is something that I would like to have a community discussion on at some point soon. And by community discussion, I do mean the most democratic form of possible discussion. I realize that that does not happen as often as some people would like, which I will address in a moment.

The important thing to keep in mind through all of this is that a wiki is not a government. A wiki is not a tangible group of individuals who exert influence on world issues, concrete ethical precedent, or the immediate fate of any group of individuals. A wiki is run for a defined purpose, and at the advent of the wiki are the advent of particular ideas on how to most properly regulate its existence. One of those ideas is a very familiar one, one of the two simple rules of Uncyclopedia: "Don't be a dick." Quite frankly, the users involved in this debacle have "been a dick", and that is in violation of the rule. That is how the wiki works. You were informed of it on coming here, you have seen it in action on numerous occasions, and trying to change the way such a situation is handled only after you've had the chance to have it exerted on you firsthand does not yield the greatest argument for us to comply. It is understood that the admins exercise a certain amount of power of the decisions and actions of the community, and it is not something that is hidden. Throughout the existence of Uncyclopedia, the idea that some situations must be handled in an authoritative way, for lack of a better word, has been adopted by those in positions of power, and by several of those who are subject to such power, and that is the way the wiki has functioned from the very beginning. As the welcome template says: I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If not, the door's right over there.

On a less-related note, I understand that some people reading this may excercise a tl;dr standpoint on some of the discussion above. I encourage anybody who is genuinely interested in this issue to carefully read the postings of EMC and Ape, as they bring up valid points in their defense, just as anything the admins say is a valid point in our defense. If I've undermined the validity of any of the three users' statements throughout this process, I apologize, and if any other administrator (or regular user, for that matter) has done similarly, I would like to apologize on their behalf. However, throughout this process, any decision I have made and any input I have given on the situation at hand has been weighed on all factors possible, and because I have come to a decision that is conflicting with the ideas of EMC, Dex, and Ape, does not mean I have not taken their words into heavy consideration. Unfortunately, this is something that appears to be the case in any sort of situation like this, because any time there are two clear sides to something, each side is going to figure that the other side has not actually taken into account their argument, because their argument makes sense to them, and it is assumed that if the other party has taken this into account, they would also see sense in it. This is not always the case, in fact it is very rarely the case, and this mindset does not take into account the varying environmental factors that surround every and any decision made by an individual. This statement also is in no way intended to undermine the previous statements of Ape and EMC, other than to address the concern that the admins have not properly heard their appeals. I have, and I cannot speak for the other admins, but from what I've observed, they have as well.

This wall of text is also not intended to reflect the opinions of anyone but myself. I'd hope that they're worth something to somebody. If not, that's fine, because they're worth a hell of a lot to me. -RAHB 02:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

RAHB why don't you post the logs of the conversation we had where you sought my views on these issues? Oh wait, you can't because they don't exist. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 02:43, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

You've made your views on the issue clear in the forums, and to Flammable who has relayed them to me. I don't see why a direct correspondence is a necessity in this situation. -RAHB 02:46, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that until a few days ago, I was a member of the Skype channel in which Flam made the majority of his mediation attempts, and was witness to much of the ensuing dickery in response to that. I have not turned a blind eye to anything. -RAHB 02:52, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've made my views clear in the forums after the decisions have already been finalised. There's a reason why a court generally hears a person's defence before the verdict and sentencing. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 02:56, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

There have been forums made before the decision has been made, and you've posted in them. The current forum we're speaking in is not indicative of what I mean by "the forums". -RAHB 03:02, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I posted exactly once during the period of my ban; I was unbanned by Olipro for five minutes to post this, which argues the need for more sysops and does not in any way relate to what we're talking about. I'm going to assume good faith and say that you don't know what you're talking about rather than you're self-consciously lying to everyone. -- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 03:12, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

And I'm going to assume good faith that you're trying to get to the bottom of things, and your continued hostile tone isn't a way of trying to defame me through accusation. It appears you didn't post anything relevant to this discussion in any of the past forums, so you're right. This, however, only specifically addresses the "forum" part of my statement. -RAHB 03:23, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

EMC says the following to me: "If Flammable can be considered our attorney, or as close as a judge can be to also being your attorney, then I'd certainly demand this be ruled a mistrial for I've been poorly represented if any of my dialogue with Flammable was interpreted as stubborn, neglectful, full of asshattery, or lacking in mediation. One admin acts as not a liaison, but as a one-sided messenger, and that's considered substantial and sufficient consulting of me? You've got to be kidding."

I second that.-- sumptuous Ape (tear) (Riot Porn) 03:27, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

If misrepresentation is capable through one end then, it's capable through the other. During my time in the skype chat, what I witnessed appeared to be diplomatic and fair on the part of Flam. -RAHB 03:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have to make it clear that I'm not condoning Ape, EMC, or Dexter's actions.

OK, now that I've gotten that out of the way. I think making backroom,, secretive decisions is unfair and pointless. The people that do this may do it to avoid drama, but this reminds of the child who lies to the parents, if getting in trouble was drama. The child hides something bad they did to avoid getting in trouble, but the parents find out and get even angrier than they would at the child than if he had said what he had done in the first place.

That may not be the perfect analogy, but I think it makes a point. Hiding things to avoid drama only makes for more later.

I don't see why else it would be hidden, but I may as well address it anyway.

I understand that the admins have authority over us whether we and them like it or not; but that doesn't mean we should never know anything. We're part of this Wiki, too. A big point I'm trying to make is that Decisions that will affect the community in a major way should never be kept from those involved.

Why exactly are these decisions kept secret? Why can't there be an announcement, or at the very least a discussion with those involved, when decisions are to be made?

I'm not saying this stuff wasn't discussed with those involved, because I have no idea whether that's true or not. I'm just saying that making backroom decisions helps no one.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe I'm crazy. I don't know. I just have these opinions and wanted to share them.--HM (T) 03:04, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Of course your points made are valid. To address them, however, in my two years of adminship, this is the only decision of this nature that I'm aware of having been dealt with in this way, certainly the only of this magnitude, and rarely do I check my gmail inbox to find messages from the other admins about what we should do to the unwitting users of the site to make their lives more miserable.

In this instance, the users involved were heavily consulted, particularly by Flammable who has tried to make efforts to make the outcome of this all the most neutral possible. Unfortunately, this was responded to with stubbornness, neglect to respond at all, or just plain asshattery, and very little actual mediation.

I don't think it's a secret that the admins were deliberating on some way to make this decision in the background this whole time, and the things that were kept "secret" were merely the nature of the actual discussion, the space from point A to point B. It was decided this would be the way, I assume, not to circumvent drama, but to make it easier for the admins to string together coherent ideas and act in a calm and decisive manner, about a situation that is incredibly pertinent.

Anything else, I've addressed in the first post under this header. I'm sure you disagree with some of these views, and that's fine that you do. I look forward to discussing this with you further in the ensuing community discussion I've alluded to. -RAHB 03:15, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

A little header to help breakup the shitstorm

I'm personally curious about the timing of all this. This seems a little out of the blue. Was there any additional "incident" to inspire this forum? I mean, as far as I know, EMC and Ape have been quiet the last few days. Dexter had the whole thing with the Romania article, but he was banned for that and served his punishment. Can we consider it wise to just lump them into a group together and condemn them all, especially after EMC explained his recent discussion of change and no more IRC trolling? Since the discussion with EMC, for example, has there been any more trouble on IRC with EMC, Ape, or Dexter? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't even seen them on there. For those who might say that this question is irrelevant because of their past history, I have to ask you to imagine a scenario: You're back in high school, the teacher catches you doing something wrong, and gives you a warning. You behave yourself. Later, the teacher changes her mind and gives you a detention. Even if you have a history of having the worst behavior ever, can you honestly call that fair? What if this is the one time you decided to change and now you are getting punished for it anyway? How are you going to react? If I were the student, I'd say, "Screw this, I'm getting in trouble anyway. I might as well at least have some fun." I really think we should do what we can to discourage the "well fuck it." attitude. Apologies by the way guys for comparing you to high-schoolers. It's just a metaphor. Don't look too much into it.

Like others have said, I don't necessarily condone certain actions, in fact it's painfully annoying to others how neutral I am at times. I'm just wondering if fingers weren't a little too quick to the triggers this time. If the hand's not in the cookie jar, you really can't do anything without looking like a one-sided jerk. UN:OFFICE is probably the best decision on here. It's in black and white. Draw the line. If they cross it, you have objective proof. Otherwise, you're just wasting time with allegations that cannot be proven. The letter of apology is probably the idea I disagree with the most here. It is humiliating, there is no documentation (correct me if I'm wrong) of EMC's participation in the alleged event, and making somebody write a letter is not in my opinion something admins should have the power to do. What if he doesn't? Is he permabanned? "Reason for ban:Refused to write a letter." Looks a little fishy, yes? I think dropping that request would be for the best for all.

Okay, now that I've spoken my peace, I'm gonna go do some vandalism. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 04:11, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

As stated at the beginning, the reason we did this now is because we actually needed to talk this out among ourselves. I made it clear that their ban on IRC was for the incident. However, I believe that this action has been long past due. The IRC incident is, quite honestly, the last straw for many of the admins, and because of the drama that erupted from it, a very obvious wake-up call to many of us.

I'd also like to note that we are listening to what users have to say, and that if the letter is a particularly contentious point, we would be willing to let that go in favor of moving on to more relevant discussion. --Flammable 04:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that, no one is going to end up permabanned over any of this, and the sanctions imposed themselves are not set in stone. I want to see the decent contributors we once had back without any of the accompanying drama, and if in time it is seen that the issues which led to this have been addressed then I can see no reason why duties cannot be reinstated if people are still interested in involving themselves. I would be happy to amend the request for an apology to just that, a request. If people chose not to that is their business, a forced apology in my book is no apology at all. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

All of these words are making me tired

Can't we all just get along? -- 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 08:24, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, these pretzels are making me thirsty. -- 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 08:24, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

YOUR POSSESSION OF PRETZELS IS IN VIOLATION OF ETHICAL CODE. CRUSHERBOT IS ANGRY. --CRUSHERBOT 18:21, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally with ftk/tfk/tkf (I usually mistype so I'll just offer a range of options in the hope one hits the nail on the head). Let's get along, hopefully regress to some form of illiteracy (to aid my hurting eyes) and eat pretzels. - [18:49 7 August 2010] TheYet•Talk

Just go settle it by the swings after school like the rest of the big boys do. PISSING CONTEST. --Tired of all parties involved Co-ed MMA