Forum:De-rank doucher4000

Forums: Yew Grove > De-rank doucher4000

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 26 September 2009 by Calebchiam.

He ruins the clan chat and kicks people who have opinions different to his.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidcu96 (talk).

This is obviously just you holding a grudge because you were kicked. Unless you can produce screenshots of power abuse I will be closing this. Andrew ^talk 20:28, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

No Soldier, don't close it. There is evidence. I was sent a pm by a few users just now, so this is a valid thread.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

20:30, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Without screenshots there is no way to prove a thing. I just asked D4k and he said he didn't even kick anyone. Andrew ^talk 20:32, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

He didn't kick anyone, but he did say a few things to some users, and I myself have issued him a warning regarding some behavior I have seen.

I am however opposed to his rank reduction. Sometimes we gotta learn to hold some opinions to ourselves, for the betterment of things. I think this is just one of those cases where that censorship wasn't taken.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

20:35, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

If we had a Yew Grove discussion every time someone said something questionable... Andrew ^talk 20:41, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Can you come online for a bit?

Bonziiznob ^Talk

20:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4597/greenshot20090905124458.png

http://i489.photobucket.com/albums/rr253/bonziiznob/CCDiscussion.png

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3654/d4kwow.png

User:Stelercus/Signature 20:46, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, now that there are screenshots I can begin to formulate an opinion. Feel free to ignore my above comments now that there is evidence. Andrew ^talk 20:57, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Support for now - From the screenshots it looks likes he started out by overzealously defending someone who only joined to advertise their vandalism, and then got irritated at being challenged and started throwing out insults. Not very mature behavior. TEbuddy 23:33, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Sure, this was rude behaviour. But, Doucher probably did this out of anger rather than to flame/troll the chat. Amethyst II ^Talk 23:45, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - That is no reason to allow it. Rule breaking is rule breaking.

Support - I think two weeks with no rank one rank down will fix the problem. if it continues after that, I support his rank being removed forever. User:Stelercus/Signature 00:07, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - although D4k's behavior was unacceptable, everyone has their bad days and this doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence. It isn't like he's the first ranked user to say something bad, so as long as he apologizes and promises that it won't happen again I see no reason not to let him off with a warning. Andrew ^talk 00:32, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Full Oppose - Changed to full oppose per myself and Soldier. Amethyst II ^Talk 00:59, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I never seen him doing anything wrong other than this time. No one's perfect and sometimes, on a bad day, they might get a little pissed. Just let him go this once. 67.161.7.132 02:37, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Pending - I'd like to see D4k say something before I give my opinion. Butterman62 (talk) 02:52, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—D4K is often in the cc when I am, and I'm impressed with how seriously he takes the responsibilities of his rank. Everyone has dark moments, and I see no reason to single out D4K here. Horsehead ^Talk 04:10, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It may be just me, but I think that when D4k is in the cc, most of his actions are in bad faith. He puts others down, even outside these three instances. if you see his talk page, he got a warning from Bonzii over the Global Warming event not to far back. I do not see why we should not take a step forward and remove his rank temporaraly. User:Stelercus/Signature 09:22, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've seen D4K in the clan chat numerous times, making jokes with users and being, all around, a nice guy, and as soldier rightly said, everyone has bad days. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 11:50, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Though he should act a bit more friendly sometimes. Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 13:56, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Ps, why is my name crossed out in the screenshots. Hapi007 ^{Talk! Sign!} . 13:57, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that is because they didn't have anything to do with the discussion. Don't mind it...--

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

23:32, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - He has to be aware of this thread, where is his Hey I'm sorry/I was having a bad day message? TEbuddy 18:05, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Horse and Andrew. Every rose has thorns, and this was one of them. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 19:51, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I remember the incident with the vandal showing off, and I was in favour of that kick with no warning. However, it is essential to put this in context. This was soon after a similar incident involving Vimescarrot, in which he was accused of unfair kicking with no warning and then had his cc rank lowered (though not for just that one issue). I haven't seen Vimes in the cc since. I can totally understand why D4k thought it was hypocritical that a fuss was made about Vimes kicking without warnings, and yet other people in the cc were seemingly continuing to do the same thing with no repercussions. I disagreed with him because I think the two were fundamentally different cases, but the fact remains that D4k should not be de-ranked over this. He is allowed to have his beliefs and opinions (as everyone in the cc is), and whilst D4k should maybe get less heated in political discussions (and stop calling people names for their opinions), anyone can have a bad day. De-ranking is an extreme measure that is not justified here in my opinion.  :-) Leevclarke ^talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 22:34, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

comment - I just spoke with D4k. I stated that I would change to oppose and let this go if he apologised for some of these comments. He said that he in no way regrets these comments and therefore this was not "a bad day" or "a dark moment" as others have been saying. User:Stelercus/Signature 23:24, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Ohhh, I remember the first discussion, though it didn't make much sense to me. IMO, I don't see what is wrong with what he said in that conversation about that vandal, as he seems to know what the rules are, and what his job is. As for the second one, everyone has their opinions, and D4K felt the need to voice his. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

23:32, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If he wont say sorry than I see this as nothing more than him being overly stubborn and thus proving that he is always and always will be one way. It surprises me that everyone is so quick to assume they know exactly what was going on and even if they don't they automatically assume he was just having a bad day. Could it be possible that in general he just doesn't handle pressure or stressful situations well? TEbuddy 00:03, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Changed to oppose per only my own observations, as per Techie Elite amd Stelercus. Amethyst II ^Talk 11:43, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Why would you site two supporters as reasons to oppose? User:Stelercus/Signature 18:33, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - There's no way that he should be De-ranked for something as trivial as this. Ceno Flame^{Talk • Contribs • # • Sign} 16:35, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Even though it's shocking considering the amount of Opposes, I'm supporting a deranking. What if we let this sort of thing slide EVERY time someone "had a bad day"? Plus, Stelercus's comment of him talking to Doucher and Doucher himself not being repentant for his rather rude actions...that's just not right. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 18:52, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Quite funny, since I've never kicked any of those people. Doucher4000^******r4000 20:07, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Simply giving you a warning when you yourself think you have done thing wrong would be a waste. This is, imo, in place of banning you from the cc for two weeks. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:58, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

In addition to that, I think I can speak for all of the supporteres that if you would just admit that you did something wrong, apologise, and not do it again, we would all swich to oppose and this thread would be closed under the snowball policy. I cannot see any way you can translate your past actions as acceptable, and I know of nobody on this thread that thinks otherwise. the only reason most of these people are opposeing is because they think you where sorry for those actions in the first place. We bolth know this is untrue. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:27, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, talk about assuming bad faith. >_> Butterman62 (talk) 22:06, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

When people call others idiots, imbeciles, and say "screw you all!" They are not acting in good faith. User:Stelercus/Signature 13:18, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Mike Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 20:33, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

the only reason most of these people are opposeing is because they think you where sorry for those actions in the first place. We bolth know this is untrue. Nice to know that you speak for us now, Stelercus. That's not why I opposed at all. If you take the time read the reasons everyone has opposed you'll know. Andrew ^talk 21:50, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Yea, he was rude. Quite possibly had I been there I would have kicked him for it. But that's the most he should get, a kick. An hour later it's over. This is utter nonsense.--Degenret01 22:31, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed

File:PenguinHD fmv.png

Yingpingu_{Talk • Contribs • #}

File:Mining spot map icon.png

13:49, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - People with rank in the clan chat are the equivalent of moderators in my opinion. They are not allowed to let their anger get the best of them or lash out at someone or not handle something correctly. The reason we appoint them is because they show beyond reasonable doubt that they can handle those situations in a calm, cool, and collect way. The reason I am still supporting is because instead of just apologizing and admitting he was wrong when he was, he acknowledges this thread only with a smug stubbornness reserved for elementary school kids. TEbuddy 22:41, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Keep on calling people smug elementary school kids and tell me how that works out for you. Or enjoy some nice reading time, I hear RS:AEAE is a very well-written article. Doucher4000^******r4000 23:40, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

3 is enough. Also, from your link:

"Wikis are not based on any form of hierarchy. Administrators and bureaucrats are trusted members of the wiki community who are recognised for reliable edits and fairness in dealing with discussions or arguments." And make no mistake, telling everyone to screw off and stomp around like you could ban anyone if they got too annoying is a violation of AEAE in itself. This discussion now is more of an example of your inability to be a tiny bit mature and simply apologize for losing your cool. TEbuddy 02:37, September 19, 2009 (UTC) TEbuddy 02:33, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Wait up here, before you go on about how he is (I'm assuming your context means never) mature. Let me tell you, since I use the Clan Chat, where most of his administrative actions take place aside from the little-used forums, more regularly than (I can safely assume) you do, D4K is very responsible there, and keeps the Clan Chat troll/flamer free. A good number of times, he is the only rank online, and moderates chats so that they run smoothly, and stops any flamers or trolls from continuing. Sure, he may not warn them every time, but that is irrelevant right now in this thread. Any regular to the Clan Chat has seen D4K keep it safe, social, and hospitable for all. The Clan Chat doesn't run perfectly, yes, but when he's in there, I can say I like it because there's not constant spam, or things talked about that are against policy. Just two cents from a regular. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 02:50, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Agreed with Chaos, I have not seen him act like this at all. He's allways either afk or talks normally. And he does help get rid of phaser spammers.

File:PenguinHD fmv.png

Yingpingu_{Talk • Contribs • #}

File:Mining spot map icon.png

13:49, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

So whats your point, that he so far has displayed maturity or in the past handled kicks and bans? We know that. The issue at hand is that he has been warned in the past, and that now after clearly being incredibly insulting to a huge group of people he is willingly being stubborn about an apology. His only replies in this thread have been dripping with overconfidence in his position and how secure he is in it. Its just ridiculous. TEbuddy 05:32, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

If I learned my counting correctly (and assuming I haven't missed another), he responded once. He didn't mention his position, and he responded to your name calling. Maybe if you hadn't basically called him an insolent child, he wouldn't have responded in such a way. No one likes being called anything close to what you called him, and in my opinion, his response is justified. He mentions RS:AEAE, and if you are going to follow code, RS:AGF also comes into play, so until it's proven he's not just retaliating to your name throwing, I don't see what you're talking about. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 16:01, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask this, according to both of you, per AGF and AEAE, he can be justified in telling an entire clan chat full of active users to go screw themselves and selectively call some of them idiots and tell them they are acting like 10 year olds while at the same time inform another ranked user that kicks should be handed out if anyone else gets annoying according to his standards? I also find it annoying that in the pictures above you can see someone brought up AEAE in the middle of the discussion and d4k shot it down citing it irrelevant and being sardonic. Yet when I call him on having more power (he does, ranked users do) he cites AEAE like it is relevant. The reason I said what I said was because he was clearly aware of this discussion(per steler's message to him and his talk page) and knew some of us were looking only for a "Hey, I acted kind of silly, my bad". But instead of just doing that, he chose to respond to each individual comment like he is completely right. His past clan chat moderating is completely irrelevant when you are deciding whether or not he should keep his rank or not. Why does good make up for bad, he hasnt apologized or expressed any remorse, and recently he has been warned for violating the UTP and insulting other users (funnily enough hes against swearing). I don't care that he has done good in the past, I care that for a second time he hauled off and insulted a group of people for no reason. How is what he did not in violation of the UTP or AEAE or at least not deserving of an apology? TEbuddy 19:57, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is why I avoid this CC nowadays, it's always full of crap and people whose "power" as gotten to their heads.  Jedi ^{Talk HS Log Tracker}  04:00, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

OpposeAs per horse and hapi (rofl, hapi) we can be in a mad mood sometimes also he is responsable and worth of that rank.-- Waterkunai1 ^{Talk # fluffy bunnies}[[File:Armadyl Symbol.png|25px]] 14:30, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per horse, hapi and water. some people can get mad sometimes, that's natural and shows that nobody is perfect, but it's too harsh to simply derank after they do it once. Brux ^Talk 14:40, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Change to even Stronger Support - I don't have screenshots of the chatbox, since I thought to get them AFTER they disappeared off the chatbox, due to people in Public Chat talking...but Doucher has crossed the line. Today, I simply brought up User:Wejer, saying I had left a message on his talk page that said basically "If you come back to the wiki, consider removing your so-called philosophy forum". Wejer is athiest (and though I shouldn't, I have a dislike towards his kind), so I mentioned that in the CC as a (albiet personal, I admit) reason as to why I posted the message. Doucher immediately said "Userspace, can't do anything about that". I told him it could still offend people...and eventually, I asked him who had told him he could be so rude in his answers. He replied with "basically a n[i]mrod". This was likely directed at me, since he usually lashes out at those who talk to him in a negative way. I told him he would never gain an oppose from me for this discussion if he treated me like that. His retort was that what I said was totally irrelevant. "You called me a nimrod...how I what I say irrelevent"? I asked him. He denied it, then told me that I was acting like a troll.

WTF? I am NOT a troll. I am a respectible member of this wiki, not some petty vandal who trashes pages. That blatently power-corrupted comment soon evolved into an arguement with Doucher reiterating the "fact" that I was a troll and Waterkunai, Brux and Chess trying to get us to stop and calm down (Doucher took a shot at one of them, claiming that "telling others to shut up doesn't really help").

Overall, I'm SICK of Doucher and his devil-may-care attitude. I support NOT ONLY a rank reduction, but also a banning from the CC for at LEAST a week. This cannot go on. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 16:21, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

You are not only a troll but also a liar. You came into the clan chat complaining about Wejer's forum and crtisicising his ideals. When I said that his responces (judging by your perspective) are nimrod-like, you went off. You immediately brought up this thread in a manner that was very troll like and akin to how Tebuddy brought up your deranking all that time before. After I mentioned that to you, you got even more mad and proceeded to call me "rude and mean". If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. And yes, I do mind when people tell others to shut up. So out of the two, you are the one deserving a block. Doucher4000^******r4000 17:28, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

I do genuinely apologise to Mrsquishynut for calling him an idiot. It was rather impolite and inconsiderate of me to say that. Doucher4000^******r4000 17:35, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

so how is it ok to treat others the way you treated mrsquishynut without a similar apologie? what about those situations excused you from that? User:Stelercus/Signature 18:33, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

I don't need an excuse. Your evidence's biased and faulty and skips half the dialogue. The first set of the "evidence" is me discussing technicalities with Max, which he has explained himself. "Cudavid" is nothing but a racist troll, whom I kicked for blatant racism three times. There are numerous trustworthy wikians who can testify to that. I do not plan to apologise to a troll, especially a racist one. In fact, he came into CC twice last couple of days to troll me specifically. You yourself need to lose your tone. For one, you can stop ordering users, myself firsthand. You're in obvious violation of RS:AGF, as is proven that you screenshoot everything I say. Doucher4000^******r4000 19:22, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Simply calling the evidence "biased and faulty" with no prove to explain why is a big mistake. Also, the more you call ME a troll, the more I realize that that it's YOU who is the troll, Doucher. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 01:47, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose rank reduction -Although he was rude in those screenshots, he didn't abuse his power or anything. I do hope that this will only be a single occurrence though. D4k, may I suggest that, if you are still angry, you take a short wikibreak to calm down?  Tien  19:29, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. This is not power abuse. User:C Teng/sig 01:03, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Cont

the discussion with Max has little to do with the situation at hand. As for your comment about Cudavid, I also fail to see what that has with the thread, as I am unaware of any of it. As far as the last of my three pictures, I am sorry that I got upset. I was not paying much attention to the cc when I saw that, but I did see your comment "go play wow and gtfo." I regret making any comment about that, and think a kick to whoever you where talking to was in order. my only issue was how you responded to me asking you to cool your tone. As for the Global Warming related issue, your response to my comment was un called for. Me taking pictures of things you have said was not in bad faith. if somebody says something that I think is may be useful to the comunity later, I take pictures of it. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:47, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Very Strong Support per Stelercus, I think D4k is very rude and quick to use his powers. I'm not sure I can call this a "bad day" every time he does this, because it tends to happen quite a bit, and at the first sign of arguments he usually kicks several involved or slightly involved people.--Cheers, Yoda 20:01, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe in second chances. — ^En_ig^ma 14:12, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Everyone, please remember to remain civil. Andrew ^talk 16:20, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is ridiculous, all this arguing about a little spot of pixels next to your name in a videogame.  Jedi ^{Talk HS Log Tracker}  18:12, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not about the fact he has a star, it's about the fact that some see that d4k kicks without justification. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 18:56, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While Doucher4000 may not be the nicest person when he disagrees with you, he's still one of the most mature clan chat moderators we have. He takes the job more seriously than a lot of people, and while this can get in the way, we cannot allow it to make us forget how big of an asset he is. On top of that, he's still doing his job, and he does it well. Everyone can have a bad day, so D4k deserves to keep his job.-- Mirror - Talk - Sign 03:42, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

changed to oppose - He has been acting much better now in the cc, and I feal this is no longer needed. This, however, does not change the fact that I would like an apologie for his actions in the second picture above. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:23, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

Note of intent - Unless any opposition arises, this proposal will be put into effect within two days time.--

Azaz129 ^{Talk Edits Contribs}

22:35, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Since we're somewhat divided, I have an idea that kind of comes from Wikipedia's ArbCom (yes, I know we're not Wikipedia, but it's just an idea).

Right now, how many people are seeing the issue is either "he didn't do anything wrong, and doesn't need to be deranked", "he did do bad things, but that's not enough reason to derank", and "he did bad things, and therefore should be deranked". So far, no one's given the opinion that "he's done bad things, but he helps moderate the chat. Don't derank him, but make it clear that we shouldn't do this and that if it happens even more, he may be deranked".

Basically, as a compromise proposal, I propose that we give D4k an admonishment and warning (if people who are about to be kicked get warnings, people about to be deranked should get warnings as well), but not derank him yet. Therefore, we let him know as a community what he's doing wrong, while at the same time allowing him to exercise his good qualities of moderating the clan chat. The wording of the actual compromise would be:

"Doucher4000 is admonished to avoid using personal attacks, intimidation, and offensive language in the clan chat. He is warned that continuing to do so may result in loss of the lieutenant ranking."

I think this is a good compromise for the supporting and opposing sides, and will ultimately be the best for the clan chat. Butterman62 (talk) 19:32, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - in the hopes that we can pass some kind of proposal on this issue, I will support this. Though none of us have mentioned it, I think most of us feal that he's done bad things, but he helps moderate the chat, as you said. I suppose this is better than nothing. User:Stelercus/Signature 20:48, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

No Steelercus, I bet most of us don't, you need to stop being so negative. That comment in no way at all what so ever could not possibly in any way what so ever in the slightest bit help this topic which we are trying to bring to a close, but can indeed lead to more arguing and bad feelings and dragging things out.--Degenret01 15:26, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was pondering suggesting something similar yesterday... :o WWTDD? 21:10, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Good compromise is good. Andrew ^talk 21:13, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - And we can get this off the Yew Grove. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  22:50, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all supporters this far. Maybe this will be a solution for issues such as this in the future. - TehKittyCat (talk) 23:02, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Sounds like a justified conclusion. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 01:03, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Ceno Flame^{Talk • Contribs • # • Sign} 15:09, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Ok then,an official warning. Fair enough.--Degenret01 01:29, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I still think an apology is in order, but hey. TEbuddy 01:31, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all.-- Mirror - Talk - Sign 19:56, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all.  @Gaz#7521 20:00, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I believe he's been much more friendly lately, but having this in effect won't hurt.  Tien  21:31, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per All. Also I would like to apologize for my strong opinion. D4k has been more polite and pleasant lately, and has allowed me to see a better side of him, yet this effect cannot hurt to have.--Cheers, Yoda 23:51, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Time to close this? It has been two days. User:Stelercus/Signature 11:27, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - Doucher4000 is admonished to avoid using personal attacks, intimidation, and offensive language in the clan chat. He is warned that continuing to do so may result in loss of the lieutenant ranking. C.Chiam^Talk 11:46, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to End Warning

It has been about a week since the original event which sparked Stelercus to begin this argument occured, and I have seen no outburst of any type from Doucher4000. I believe that it is only fair to him that at this point that his slate is renewed, as an appropriate amount of time has passed.

While Doucher4000 may occasionally seem harsh or rude, he is usually only trying to follow and enforce the rules. Because he seems to have turned over a new leaf, he should no longer be patrolled without a further incident. I word the proposal as this:

Doucher4000 has passed a full week without any outburst or argument in the RS Wikia Clan Chat, and is therefore relieved of his warning until any further outburst. Note that this does not make Doucher4000 exempt from any De-ranking yet, however instead of an immediate de-ranking, he must have on outburst to regain his warning. This proposal may also be altered to be executed one week from the signing of the compromise, or two weeks from the incident.

Everyone deserves a second chance, and seeing as Doucher4000 has had no more outcries in a measurable stretch of time, he is deserving of his. There is no reason to let this issue linger if there is no more need for it. Support - As nominator.-- Mirror - Talk - Sign 03:57, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The above warning hasnt technically even passed yet. Besides, why would a warning expire? Its not a punishment.

You can't just go around an ongoing proposal because you don't agree with it. We are in the process of gaining consensus for something and you're trying to cancel that when we're on the verge of concluding this discussion for good. Andrew ^talk 04:09, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I urge all wikians to totally ignore this insane counter proposal and focus on the one above, where consensus is being achieved by all sides.--Degenret01 15:00, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

RS:AGF ftw?TEbuddy 19:38, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it insane. I think he does care about the wiki and d4k and is only trying to help, but, I do agree. We are in the process of another consensus.

Bonziiznob ^Talk

18:15, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I apologize. I was under the impression that the above consensus had already been reached and was in effect. Please mark this conversation as void and do not comment on it any further.-- Mirror - Talk - Sign 19:54, September 23, 2009 (UTC)

Removed strikethroughs. In the future, please do not add strikethroughs to other users' comments. State your point and leave it alone, they will add a strikethrough themselves if they see a need to. C.Chiam^Talk 11:46, September 26, 2009 (UTC)