Forum:Problems with AnselaJonla Part 2

Forums: Yew Grove > Problems with AnselaJonla Part 2

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 18 June 2013 by Sacre Fi.

Previous thread is located here.

Per the last thread, this topic has been created to address AnselaJonla's repeated UTP violations, and determine if they warrant a block and/or desysop.

Here are some examples of what has happened since the closure of the first thread:

May 29 S:C:

• 10:13, 11:50 - calling someone an idiot multiple times for asking a question on a YG thread (which is weird, since she didn't bother responding to her own thread, but is willing to repeatedly criticize a random user for single question on a thread. She then asks someone else to respond, because she says she can't refrain from calling them an idiot, and would presumably get her in trouble again)
• 12:07 - angry at editors in general who might start a "fucking move war again"
• 12:10 - calling Ben a moron (caps lock ftw)
• 12:15 - when an editor asks for clarification, she says she's busy "ignoring you because you made no fucking sense"
• 12:17 - user "fucks off" in her opinion (lots of "fuck" today)
• 13:27 - defends calling people names (obviously not just her getting angry - she think's it's acceptable behavior)
• 13:30 - "Fix your own fucking faults before lecturing someone else" (ironic IMO)
• 14:32 - Ben asking her to fix her mistake. Response: "Find another admin to do your work for you"
• 15:22 - "illiterate fools" in reference to new editors
• 16:34 - in regards to a new editor making a mistake: "This is why I fucking hate people and think humanity should throw itself into a fiery fucking pit" (...alrighty)
• 20:39 - user asks why she deleted page instead of moving. Reason being: "Annoyance at everyone"

May 31 S:C:

• 12:40 - "Fucking Leon..."
• 14:55 - "Jlun2 - tone down the off-colour jokes please" (aware of the rules, but only willing to enforce them against certain users)
• 15:12 to 15:19 - flames users and threatens to lock pages they've been editing due to their own alleged faults (but not Ansela's, of course)

Notice how this sort of behavior started again when discussion had died down for quite some time. I don't think this is a coincidence. I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that she noticed the discussion drawing to a close (and therefore the likelihood that she would be blocked/desysoped) and reverted to her old behavior, as opposed to her following UTP while the thread was active. She said in chat that she had read the thread and was aware of it, although she didn't care to respond on it.

Furthermore, when she was warned for UTP on her talk page, she said "Okay, so someone who never comes into chat and has absolutely no sysop powers has decided to go all wannabe-sysop on my talk page". This clearly shows that she doesn't care much for anyone's opinion except those who can desysop/block her. Overall, her behavior has not improved. I think it's time we add teeth to UTP enforcement and decide on a course of action. --Shockstorm (talk) 01:19, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Desysop & 2 week block - She has not changed, and she does not appear to care about changing. We need to stop tiptoeing around the policies and take action. Remove the tools, as she is no longer able to carry out administrative tasks with a neutral mindset. Block her for two weeks, we all need a breather. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 01:31, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify why I support a desysop. I support a desysop because of the way she treats people. But wait, she makes good use of her admin tools! Okay, every argument she gets in is over a deleted image or a reverted edit or a blocked account. She doesn't use edit summaries and tends to delete things without saying why. People ask her why she deletes their things, she says something like "it's unnecessary". They question her further and she accuses them of not being able to read. She protects pages of edit wars she either started or participated in. She reverts good faith edits because of spelling or grammar errors and tells the editor to learn how to spell before editing further. Her UTP violations revolve around her administrative edits. You cannot separate the two. Her own edits are what is causing the strife. CLEARLY she cannot handle conflict well. How many people have we opposed on RfAs because we believed they couldn't handle conflict? What about immaturity? My own RfA failed because people believed I was too immature to handle the tools properly with a neutral mindset (as I stated above). Ansela cannot handle the tools in a proper fashion. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:13, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Per Fergie. User:Jr Mime/Signature 01:35, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Block only - (Originally wanted to just Ctrl-V my comment from the UTP thread but then realized this issue has gone further than it should and an appropriate statement would be absolutely necessary for this thread.)

I would support a block but definitely not supporting desysoping her. As a fair and lenient person I don't think Ruri deserves to have her tools taken away from her. Despite many examples of violating UTP, she has otherwise used the administrative tools to the best of her ability. She has been a great asset to the administrative team and the wiki overall, the flaw only being the UTP breach.

I believe in second chances, and blocking her is enough. Only if UTP continues to be breached shall she be removed of her administrative status and an additional block.

-- Spine^Talk 01:55, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

You believe in second chances... Okay... How about every time someone warned her in chat or on the wiki to stop her disruptive behavior? How about the last thread we had, which she had no significant change over the course of? There's no reason to give her any more chances, she's had enough. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 01:57, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

please don't add linbreaks before your signature when signing posts Ronan ^Talk 08:08, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 2 week block and desysop - I was leaning towards Spine on this, but I read Fergie's response, and she's right. There hasn't been a change in behavior, and action should be taken. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 02:32, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Per fergulz -Convince me otherwise, I dare ya. I am severly disappoint with the lack of genuine effort on Ansela's part to actually try to change. I can't even put her into perspective without getting some bullshit against every argument I'm trying to make. She seems to have a textbook case of "I am right and you're a dumb fuckwit for not adhering to my way". This disease usually needs to be quarantined. Luckily, it isn't too contagious. MolMan 03:44, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused - If this thread is to determine whether or not AnselaJonla has violated UTP enough to warrant a block, then what the hell was the LAST massive textwall thread for? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think the outcome of that thread will no longer be occurring in the future once this thread passes. Well I hope so at least. 222 ^talk 06:34, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Desysop and 2 week block - Her behaviour is clearly not up to the standards expected of administrators and all editors. This isn't her second, third or fourth chance. She has had plenty of opportunities to improve her behaviour which culminated the previous thread regarding this matter. If that discussion wasn't a direct enough notification that you're doing something wrong and you need to change it, I don't know what is. 222 ^talk 06:34, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop + 2 week block - I thought she might've stopped with this unacceptable behavior by now, but clearly not. I support for her to be blocked for 2 weeks, but not desysop. she is a great editor regardless. I'm surprised to see her still continuing this unacceptable behaviour, and should absolutely be dealt with appropriately. She has been given many chances. (Thebrasin222, you convinced me on your point, so i changed my opinion). MahjarratInfo101 (talk) 08:12, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Explain how being a "great editor" gives her immunity from losing administrative tools. Being a "great editor" is as much interacting with the community as it is churning out edits. Clearly she has emphatically failed to interact civilly with the community. 222 ^talk 06:56, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop + 2 week block, also question - Ansela's behaviour has not changed. I was really surprised when I saw the recent chat logs regarding her behaviour. I thought she would have improved, ever since the previous thread, but clearly she has not. Also, if Ansela is desysopped, does she still get to keep the custodian and rollback rights (I think she should anyway)? Haidro ^(talk) 07:07, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe there is a set pattern for whether she would have custodian and rollback rights. Technically it would not be "keep" because she only has sysop. Sysop tools overlap with custodian and rollback tools of course. I would suggest that if she does get desysopped and wants the custodian and rollback tools, she may go through the normal processes on those to obtain them. User:Haloolah123/Sig 23:15, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Support 2 week block from editing and a further 2 weeks from chat - It's disappointing that she doesn't care enough to make any kind of an effort to genuinely alter her ways. It really is, and that's all I can say about it. I support a 2 week block plus an additional 2 weeks from chat, as this is where the vast majority of her outbursts take place. I do not support desysopping. Yet. Ronan ^Talk 08:08, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The statement regarding Jlun2 should ^{(Edit): If what Ciphrius Kane said is correct)} be regarded as incorrect. Ciphrius Kane has stated that he asked AnselaJonla to ask him to stop. Sources if needed: (statement) (additional ratification) (worded better) Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 14:30, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

14:31: <Ciphrius Kane> I asked her to talk to Jlun cause I felt that if I'd done so Jlun would take it as me harassing him, and other users might view it as me attempting to enforce Jagex's rules. That better?

Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 14:43, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop and...: a month-long block - Why a month? Because Ansela recently put ME down. It was in a private message, right after the Farming update, and was about the fact that "I didn't look for the article before I made it (something about the reeds plant, but that's irrelevant). What IS relevant is that she treated me with disrespect and even though I do my best to not hold grudges, I still have to bring it up. Maybe I'm being too harsh here, what with asking for one month. But really, I'm tired of this being let go as if it were a minor problem; I'm glad we're taking action now. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 17:11, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

If the entirety of the reason you want her to be blocked for a month rather than two weeks is because she was mean to you, then you're despicably biased and you might want to do some reconsideration. MolMan 18:38, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but calling my reasons for a block/desysop "despicable". Maybe I worded what I said wrong, but don't you DARE make me look bad when I was hurt by Ansela. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 21:10, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Likewise; don't try to make me look bad either. Don't expect flowery words as a response to something that comes off as blatantly vindictive and don't get mad when you see these blunt responses. MolMan 21:19, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop and 2 week block - An administrator should be an exemplary user, respecting the policies of the wiki and showing other users how to work on the wiki. Treating new users like this should not be done by anyone, but especially not by administrators, who should help them instead of scaring them away. Ansela has been given enough chances by now, and especially with the last thread on this subject, but she ignored them all. Action is needed. If a normal user would have been blocked for this kind of behaviour (and I'm sure they would have been), then an administrator should be too. Policies and rules are there for everybody, and everybody needs to treated equally if they break them. Being an administrator or a good editor should not be an excuse for not being punished. Xsdvd ^Talk 17:21, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I can't say I understand this 'Admins shouldn't be disrespectful of other users' attitude that some (and not necessarily all) people are taking. The whole point here is that no user should be breaking the user treatment policy, independent of adminship. Doing so may justify banning the user but should not, on its own, have a bearing on the user's rights. What is relevant to adminship is if the user is using their admin rights in an incorrect fashion. In this particular case, Ansela has done so in the past, and so a desysop may be justified. However, It is not right to say that a desysop is justified simply by poor behaviour. If people do truly see adminship as 'just another user right' rather than a call to be some sort of superuser, then they should judge the assignment or removal of these extra tools only by how these tools were used. --Henneyj 18:44, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Amen. Ronan ^Talk 18:50, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that statement is generally understood the way it should be. Admins are the people whom we most expect to uphold policy because we've explicitly "honored" (for lack of a better word) them with our trust. As for the case of her rights, all I can say is I was amazed that she would decide to delete the page mentioned in the 29 May logs. It's still good to say that she's not getting desysopped simply because of her behavior, though. MolMan 18:52, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

So it's okay to have an admin that is periodically blocked for breaking UTP? Is it okay for a wiki to have an admin that treats the wiki's users horribly? Why would we want an admin that is going to be blocked and might be blocked more than once? I'm not saying you're wrong, but her blocks & deletions just result in UTP wars. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:52, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's not ok to have any user doing those things, and any user who does should be dealt with accordingly. Adminship shouldn't come into it unless admin tools are being abused alongside this behaviour. In an RFA you judge a person only to gauge how they are likely to use the extra tools given. However, if someone has been an admin for however-long then you can judge how well they can use the tools involved based solely on their past actions with those tools. In this case Ansela's use of tools has been questionable, but I do think the issue of her adminship should be argued based on her use of the tools. --Henneyj 19:12, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. RFAs tend to judge far more than that. I'm not going to support a candidate on an RFA if they are nasty towards other users yet revert tons of vandalism and requests blocks all the time. That aside, she hasn't exactly been using the tools...completely correctly. Very often she will resort to fully protecting pages for a period of time when there was an edit war that she started. I'm not saying she's the only one, I've probably done that a few times, but it seems she does it often. She also tends to use revision delete when it's completely unnecessary and should not be used. And this is not to say that this alone is sufficient evidence to remove her tools. In any case, just because someone can or will use the tools isn't enough to say that they should be given access to or maintain access to the tools. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 19:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

We could get bogged down in details and theoreticals here but the crux of what I was saying is that being desysopped should not be based simply on something such as the user being rude. There should be more to it. I know there is in this case, but that does not come across in some of the arguments presented so far. Also, in addition to what you have said, I would suggest that threatening to use admin rights in a clearly abusive manner is in itself an abuse of those rights. --Henneyj 19:39, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

So it's okay for admins to call many people on any given day an illiterate f****** idiot. Okay, good to know. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:46, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

No, but it doesn't matter that it is an admin. --Henneyj 19:56, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support 2-week-block, oppose desysop - If it were a random IP, they'd have been blocked after a warning or three within a day. In a way, this situation bears similarities to Parsonsda's a while ago: we've given Ansela numerous (no, really, très nombreuses) chances to improve. Why? Because we love her; UTP violations aside, she really is an awesome editor and losing her would be a significant blow to us. That sasid, she has stated to understand the outcome of the previous threat thread, id est, that she would face a ban or desysopping should she continue her, at the lack of a better word, 'evil' ways. She's been given (more than) enough chances, and it saddens me to see she strayed from the righteous path so soon, and at such frequency. Personally, I've never had a problem with Ansela, but there is sufficient evidence she does not treat others well - there is, unfortunately, and I mean that, it is very unfortunate, no way this thread can be closed without a form of punishment. Nothing Draconian, but Ansela needs to know we're being serious, and she does not stand above the policies (I doubt she thinks this, nor that she is incapable of change. If you ask me, she is not making a good enough effort, which is disappointing). Thus, I am in favour of a not too lengthy block, say two weeks, as that seems to be the tendency here.

That being said, allow me to explain why I do not think she should be stripped of her sysop tools (deliberately not using the word 'rights' there). They are extra tools for those that have deserved them and I have not seen Ansela abuse them in her warpath of UTP violations (charge!). Obviously, this raises the question whether she still deserves them. In a way, yes, for she makes excellent use of them and is a valuable contribution to the wiki. On the other hand, she would definitely not pass an RfA today, the reason for that being her violations etc. etc. etc. Does her being so rude (and other assorted aggressive behaviours) impact on her ability to put the sysnub tools to good use? I think not. She, despite everything, is a good editor and we do love her.

In summary, yes, this cannot go on anymore and Ansela knew of the consequences when she began anew after the previous thread (we haven't considered the possibility that Ansela considers her behaviour normal and not/very slightly in violation of UTP, although I doubt this personally. Either way, it is in violation with UTP, whether someone, be it Ansela or not, thinks it isn't). As such, she should face a punishment in the form of a block so that she may reflect on what has happened. She is one of the best editors out there, but not indispensable. And this ban is not permanent (now, at least, and I sincerely hopoe this is the last discussion on this subject), so she will return. Desysopping her, however, seems very irrelevant and I think it should not be done.

In addition, I have written this entire thing on an Ipad. Applaude me. You've read my comment and have proven yourself to have a higher attention span than a decomposing gopher's - kudos! Also, my text wall appears to be the largest to date. Good for me. Fswe1 20:00, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support Desysop + 2 week ban- How she's able to break UTP so much without penalty is beyond me. Megadog14^Talk 22:37, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I would prefer to not have a say in this but I'll express my thoughts anyway. Although she has been mean to me in the past, I believe the cumulative hate towards her has made her behave this way. I would say her behavior has been evaluated in a poor manner because of this. She hasn't really said much to me and I'm not sure why everyone is still SOOO against her. If she was a problem, she would have been desysop'd already.BrenRS (talk) 22:46, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

... User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:48, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

No ʞooɔ 22:51, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

So you're pretty much saying she needs a break, and she doesn't deserve to have her tools removed? -- Spine^Talk 22:58, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't say that at all. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:59, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Actually... Spine is right. If anything, a block would be ideal but she shouldn't get her adminship removed... Let's grow up and move on everyone. She's a great wiki contributor, heck.. she's uploaded/trans'd more images than me. The last thing we need is someone dedicated like her to leave because you guys won't leave her the hell alone. BrenRS (talk) 23:05, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Won't leave her alone? Are you serious? So we should just allow her to tear up policy because she's good? We've already said that's not acceptable for any user. We've also already tried to get rid of just the bad part of Ansela. It didn't work, that's why this thread exists. MolMan 23:07, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

He's trying to say we're terrible people and that we drove her to this. MolMan 23:01, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

No Mol, what I'm saying is she obviously gets a lot of shit from people. BrenRS (talk) 23:05, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

You sure have a poorly choiced set of words. MolMan 23:07, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for this? I feel like everyone's given her a number of chances. ʞooɔ 23:08, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

To be quite frank, I would be just as pissy as her if I was in her shoes. You guys can hate me all you want for siding with Ansela but I'm simply being realistic here. I agree with Spine 1,000%. A break is what she needs. The only real way that is possible is through a block. A desysop isn't the solution. BrenRS (talk) 23:15, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for this? I feel like everyone's given her a number of chances. ʞooɔ 23:19, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain how you went from this to your current comment that she has not said much to her and you don't understand why people are against her? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:54, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Not even going to argue anymore. Like I said, I can understand where she's coming from. Not even sure why I'm still here lol. Jagex version > Wikia version tbh --BrenRS (talk) 00:26, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7771818/Butt-Hurt-Report-Form ʞooɔ 00:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

No seriously Bren lol wut http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 07:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop and 2 week block - I know I've nearly always had problems with Ansela and I really thought before deciding this. Ansela is an excellent user really, but her exaggeration when facing difficulties is what condemns everything. I've told her, along with many users, millions of times to respect the rules and the user treatment policy and I must admit she had her time to change, but didn't. If we compare, if anyone new came in the chat with her type of behaviour, I am almost sure that she would block them before even 5 minutes passed; yet, she could overreact at them and not have any consequences at all, breaking the status and opinion weight policy. Since I joined the Runescape wiki, she has always been the epitome of inconsistency to me and to many users that complained about her in my private chat. Now the reasons for 2 week block: She, as I said, is excellent at editing, reverting speculations, vandalism, creating pages of recent game items, welcoming users, etc. But a 2 week block is necessary in order to incentive her to think about her acts and hopefully review them. I really hope we don't get further problems of that type coming from her, I really do. Hallowland^talk 23:18, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop and block - Firstly, I'd like to address what others have said about "second chances." Whether or not we believe in second chances is not the issue. I would contend that she is on at least her 10th chance from a cursory glance at the previous warnings and previous thread. That should be too many for anyone.

As for the desysopping portion, I would contend that this does not deal with what she does with those tools. We can all agree that she has not abused her sysop tools, so that shouldn't be a factor in this discussion. Regardless of how much good she does with her sysop tools, the issue at hand is whether or not the UTP violations pose reasonable grounds to remove the tools because they serve as a poor representation of the wiki's community.

Before I go further, I'd like to apologize in advance to Andrew (Stinkowing) for dragging him into my argument, since I can see that he has been the target of some of the violations from his comment above. However, he's the only precedent for this. For people who aren't as well versed in happenings of the wiki from four years ago, read up on Forum:Why is Stinkowing still an administrator?

To be succinct, between the examples cited in Forum:Desysoping Stinkowing and the aforementioned forum, the incidents cited there are very similar to the incidents that we have seen with Ansela recently. This was what actually caused the removal of Andrew's sysop tools, at his request. While we haven't seen anything like this from Ansela (I mean something involving hurling expletives directly at multiple members of the community in an official forum), I believe that the other aggregate infractions constitutes a similar case. Given that the behavior has not subsided despite repeated warnings, I would support acting in a similar fashion in this case. Thus, I also support a desysop.

Given grounds for a desysopping, I would also support a block of at least 2 weeks. If the desysopping does not occur, I would also support a block of at least 2 weeks for the infractions. Blocks are used for preventive fashions, and I believe that it is clear that a block is the only way to prevent more UTP infractions given what has occurred. --Liquid^Talk 23:18, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

You know what..? - Why the hell has she been around this long if you guys hate her SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much????? --BrenRS (talk) 00:29, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

You might want to go ahead and leave. ʞooɔ 00:31, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I actually enjoy Ansela's presence. One reason why I hate to see this happen, and that I haven't given my input on this (I don't plan to either, as it would end up a biased comment). Personally, I want to say we are giving her second chances because we all know she is a good editor and a good person. I dislike the fact you are provoking her to leave as well through her talk page and on here. Hair 00:43, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody here hates her. We all love her as an editor, but, considering her behaviour as a person, we can't idly let this go on without consequences. I promised myself not to post any text walls here, since I figured I would be biased (liking Ansela as a person as well). I did anyway, but it turned out okay. Trying to blame us for winding Ansela or shortening her fuse is ridiculous, though. To answer your question, she's been around so long because we've given her second/third/fourth chances, because we felt she deserved them to improve her behaviour. She did not make use of them, unfortunately, so here we are now. Fswe1 05:52, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Comment All right, take her rank away, blah, blah, blah, but whoever does it gets to patrol the Recent Edits page, and be the backbone of the chat 12 hours out of the day. Seriously, sure she swears and gets pissed at everyone, but she really helps keep the chat licked into shape, keeping spammers off it, etc. Besides, if you block her, all hell is gonna break loose, because she really one-handedly holds parts of the wiki together at times.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 06:32, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, because telling numerous people to fuck off, in the examples given above, and I'm sure in countless times before, is definitely a good thing. I haven't said much about this whole Ansela thing, because frankly, I feel like I'd end up too biased against her because she and I have had small disputes in the past but seriously? You're acting as if she's a goddess who singlehandedly is holding the wiki together by very fragile bits of code. And, I'm not saying she's a bad editor. Seriously, she's great, but she isn't a goddess. Nobody here is, Ice, and you really shouldn't be acting as if she is. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 07:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

That's not a get out of jail free card. And believe me, the wiki ran fine before she was here, it will run fine when one day she quits RS as well. Sure, sometimes we hate to see people go, whether it's RS or a real life job or whatever, but the point is things go on. I don't care how good of an editor you are, when you're causing other people to have this much animosity towards you because of your behavior, it's time for something to change. User:Haloolah123/Sig 23:26, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I find it highly concerning that numerous certain editors seem to be willing to discard all reasoning and yell, scream and otherwise appeal to emotion in defence of Ansela. You sound like a bunch of children who just got told off. 222 ^talk 06:45, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am deeply concerned by the fact that certain other editors would like to see Ansela banned for an additional two weeks simply because they themselves have personality been the victim of a breach of the UTC by Ansela. Users do not simply receive a block length to double that of the original because an additional accusation has been made against them. Such undue vigilantism is reminiscent of a child demanding the overly harsh punishment of a sibling when telling a parent what occurred. Editors who, in your opinion, defence Ansela beyond reason are not the only children to have commented on this thread. Temujin 09:21, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Corrective action should be that and only that. Punishment is generally futile. The idea is to stop whatever you don't want to happen and, possibly, to start what you want to happen. That's a universal generalization for any situation, not just the issue of the moment. You're not going to change people, so don't try. (You're especially not going to change people through the use of technology.) So, still generalizing, the standard that should apply to any admin should be:

1. Would the admin pass an RfA now?
2. If the admin were a normal editor, would the editor be blocked? --User:Saftzie/Signature 08:50, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

1. I think we already decided the answer was no.
2. Yes, last year. ʞooɔ 09:47, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

You're talking about one admin one time. I'm talking about all admins all the time, then apply that standard to this instance. --User:Saftzie/Signature 16:40, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy block, no desysop - Ansela has demonstrated that she is able to use sysop tools to great effect. I strongly believe that a break from editing has the capacity to prevent further breaches of UTP by Ansela. If I were in her situation, I can imagine acting with similar disregard for other contributors. If she was given some breathing space and a little bit of time to do other things, her behaviour could improve. Hence, I'd prefer to see her blocked for three weeks rather than two a longer period of time than the proposed two weeks. Desysopping her at this point in time is not the right way to go about it; for all we know, a three week long break could work miracles. Whilst history, and biased opinions, tell as that Ansela does not want to change, a three week long break could be the catalyst that forces her to do so. Despite the fact that numerous users have expressed the belief that Ansela does not appear to want to change, I still believe that she is not an inherently unkind person. The fact that one is able to have an entirely pleasant conversation with Ansela is evidence of this. I highly doubt that Ansela ever so maliciously reverted to her past behaviour upon noticing the likelihood of her being desysopped rapidly decrease as the discussion drew to a close. I have not personally witnessed any a dramatic change in her behaviour between now and when the previous discussion was ongoing. As such, I do not support the suggestion of Ansela being desysopped at this point in time. Obviously, my opinion is subject to change. Temujin 09:53, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

“

Ansela has demonstrated that she is able to use sysop tools to great effect.

”

This is not entirely true. She has used her admin tools to her advantage in editing disputes multiple times: here is an example, where she was edit warring with an IP and then locking the page herself. No attempt at neutrality whatsoever. Furthermore, I've had to stop her from blocking other users she's had disagreements with (namely Leon Art) at least twice, when she was more or less doing the same thing he was. There is ample evidence that Ansela has been letting her personal feelings get involved in her sysop duties, so the basic premise that "she's been fine with sysop tools so she shouldn't be desysopped" is false. ʞooɔ 10:00, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

“

the basic premise that "she's been fine with sysop tools so she shouldn't be desysopped" is false

”

I wasn't focusing on any such premiss, rather pointing out that there are other steps that can be taken before desyssoping her. It's great that certain individuals have made massive efforts to help Ansela overcome her issues, desyssoping her now would be overacting as we have other choices at our disposal. Whilst admins supposedly have the "full trust of the community", they are fallible. Ansela is not a lost cause. Temujin 10:45, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Would she pass an RfA today? In a month? The answer should be self-evident. ʞooɔ 11:07, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

No. But I agree with Temujin that an enforced and lengthy break could work. After that, a desysop is ideal. Now, I have to think of an inferior paragraph to support a month long block. I hate being mentally incapable sometimes. Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 15:25, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Why are we suddenly supporting blocks of arbitrary length on the off chance that it will make her act better? ʞooɔ 15:49, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that you had a "pleasant conversation" with her isn't really evidence of anything. Read the logs if you're skeptical. Simply because you didn't "personally witness" UTP violations doesn't make them nonexistent. Secondly, you say that history supports the case against her, but in the same sentence blame "biased opinions" for wanting action taken against her. Finally, it isn't the job of other users to look out for her, as detailed in the last thread. The culpability of a user rests squarely with them. --Shockstorm (talk) 18:05, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact that I have had pleasant conversations with Ansela does not prove anything other than the fact that she isn't inherently malicious and has the capacity to change. I have never said that because I have not personally witnessed any breaks of UTP in recent days by Ansela does not make them nonexistent. I am not at all sceptical of the case against her, I just see an enforced and lengthy block block as a penultimate option for dealing with Ansela's behaviour. As for what your mention of what I said concerning bias, that was in reference to one comment in particular. Whilst it is true that it isn't the job of others to look out for her, it is important that this issue is resolved in the mindset of "How can this issue best be resolved for all involved?" If it is not tackled in such a way, then the possibility of the issue being resolved in a manner that is not the best solution to the matter at hand is greatly increased. In my reference to those have tried to help Ansela, I was for the most part recognising their effort and commending them for it. Temujin 06:28, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Desysop - Considering the fact that she'd most definitely fail a RfA if she was to have one now, it's evident that she should not be trusted with the tools. bad_fetus^talk 21:43, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with other user rights - Ansela had passed a request for chat moderator prior to passing her request for adminship. Should this thread end with a desysop consensus, what do people want to do about her CM rights? Applying the principle from the RSW clan chat (as decided here and here), she would keep the chat moderator rights as she passed it independently. However, this isn't the CC, and I'm pretty sure Chat has different rules.

Personally, since this several of the infractions took place in the Chat, I believe that this matter warrants an explicit discussion from everyone about what, if anything, should be done about her chat moderator rights in the event of a loss of sysop rights. (Obviously, if sysop rights are retained then this issue becomes moot.) --Liquid^Talk 02:27, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you sound a bit silly for asking that. If you really must, ask yourself the same question as with adminship: "Would she pass an RfCM currently?" Not a chance in Hell. Anyways, I made this edit on my iPod and it was a pain in the ass to scroll all the way down here. MolMan 02:52, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can call me silly for saying that. My point is that I would rather have this out in the open now and discussed about now, rather than be a potential complication after the fact. --Liquid^Talk 03:05, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Given the nature of the circumstances of the drama surrounding her desysopping, it's probably not on anyone else's mind. Seeing how, especially in this case, adminship is a sort of "step up" (I am once again lacking a better phrase) from chatmodship and how chatmodship is more enabled by everything about being civil, the answer is a stern "no"; Ansela should not retain her chat moderator rights. I need to stop scrolling all the way down here. MolMan 03:19, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Considering the majority of the issues occurred in the Chat, she should definitely not keep her chat moderator rights. However, the "automatic" (For lack of a better word. Our vocabularies have gone to hell in this discussion a lot haven't they Mol? ) rights i.e. rollback and custodian should remain. 222 ^talk 05:58, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "automatic," but as my position is that rights unrelated to the issue at hand (exempli gratia rollback and custodian) should be kept and that rights related to the issue at hand should go (exempli gratia CM), I see that we have the same stance on this issue. --Liquid^Talk 06:25, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

What I was trying (and failing) to say was that to get those rights all you have to do is ask and meet a measly edit count requirement. I guess they are automatic in the sense that there's little to no scrutiny. 222 ^talk 07:00, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

As the majority of UTP breaches seem to have occurred in S:C, it would make sense that if Ansela were to be desysopped she would also lose her chat mod rights. Temujin 07:22, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Since you all are soooo sure that Ansela should be blocked/sysoped/put up with, why not have her retake her RfA? It was seriously considered in another YG for the CC, and was only put down because it would be too lengthy for all ranked clannies, I'm sure it would be a proper test for Ansela. And if there is an approximate balance on votes, it will just be a two week block. Another thing for y'all to consider; if you can put up with CERTAIN DICKS I KNOW, how is it you can't stand people that say something like "f*** you" or "f******* hell"? -Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 16:06, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Because we haven't condoned her behavior for over a year. Also, I have a mouth like a sailor and I'm pretty fucking tolerated. MolMan 16:13, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

We're discussing her adminship right now. It seems foolish to create another discussion about the same topic. Hair 16:35, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, the closing admin will determine which side of the discussion makes the strongest points. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:01, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

“	…the closing admin will determine which side of the discussion makes the strongest points.	”
	— User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:01, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to look at this discussion. There are no "sides" arguing that Ansela should/shouldn't be blocked. Rather, there is a community discussing breaks of a policy be one its members. Who makes strongest points is not particularly important. Consensus, on the other hand is very important. Temujin 11:37, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

(2)

Oppose desysop - What good will desysopping her do? None that I can see.

“

*14:55 - "Jlun2 - tone down the off-colour jokes please" (aware of the rules, but only willing to enforce them against certain users)

”

I asked her to do that cause 1) I consider there a difference between a light hearted joke and a malicious joke (and I count wishing cancer on somebody to be malicious) and 2) I asked her to deal with it because I know certain users would likely have objected had I done so.

“

*20:39 - user asks why she deleted page instead of moving. Reason being: "Annoyance at everyone"

”

What relevance does this have? None. So she didn't move a page. This has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. She didn't irreversibly damage the wiki. Maybe she was trying to get the person to put the subpages where they belonged.

Also, I've had a look through her talk page edits, and aside from one time when she posted the same template 3 times for 3 different image moves and her attack dog warning, I have seen NO evidence of UTP violation since the start of May. And aside from this, I haven't seen anything wrong with the Talk page contributions either. So unless sarcasm is UTP violating then clearly she can control herself.

As for the logs, there's this and this, which seems to be more from frustration and is hardly a breach of either admin tools or UTP. She hasn't inappropriately blocked or banned anybody, and hasn't made any inappropriate page moves or uploaded any inappropriate images or file names. In fact, aside from that one time Cook mentioned, has she abused her admin powers at all? Not from what I can see.

All the evidence is from Special:Chat. So rather than strip her of adminship, ban her from the chat instead, and possibly the IRC too. It's obvious that she has trouble with the real time face to face interactions and that's all. Why lose a good admin, and one of the few admins who deals with the mess of new updates, when there's an alternate solution that will deal with the problem? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 10:29, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that breaches of UTP in chat should not have any consequence when on the wiki? I will respectfully disagree with this premise. To suggest that your actions outside of editing do not impact how you are perceived as an editor is wrong in my mind. RfA's are judged on criteria like your contributions to the wiki, how you interact with other people, conflict resolution and decision making. You need to fill all four of these to some degree. RfA's have failed because we have not met someone, because they don't have many edits (although this is not always the case), because they got into arguments with other people and because they have made the wrong choice causing a lack of faith in their ability to make the correct decision. Due to the way Ansela has interacted with others in chat, and to some degree on the wiki, it is more or less agreed that she would be unable to pass an RfA at this time. If someone cannot pass a RfA now, why should they retain their tools? The community has lost faith in them.

Ansela had repeatedly broken UTP prior to the creation of the previous thread. It appears that you agree with this, based on your comment here. UTP is a subjective policy; we more or less decided that it was waste of time trying to define a UTP breach in said thread. Something you might perceive as fine, others might take offence at. Without this trying to turn this into a personal attack, have you considered that you are not even slightly neutral in this instance? I would not expect you to support a desysop here, but your reaction to the previous thread, and to this thread, suggest you have taken this personally, apparently more than Ansela herself has.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Oh I wondered how long before the "You're not neutral so you have no say" train would come along. I know I'm not neutral! But where does it state that cause of that that I shouldn't have any say whatsoever? That my opinion shouldn't be heard? That I'm blind to reality and therefore my views are corrupt? I know full well what I'm putting down.

And was I saying that there should be no consequence on the wiki? NO! Did I say she shouldn't be blocked? NO! Stop twisting my words to discredit what I'm saying! Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 13:19, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with you stating your opinion, merely hoping that you might look at this as if you were on the receiving end.

I cannot see any reference to being blocked from the wiki in your comment, so assumed you did not support it.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

You get points for your creative interpretation, but you're still wrong. She has abused her tools, and no amount of arguing can change that. --Shockstorm (talk) 18:38, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. Where does it state that admins MUST deal with every instance of rule breaking? I've never heard of this policy. And where does it state that pages MUST be moved rather than deleted? I've never heard of this policy either. Last I checked it was voluntary and not as you seem to be implying mandatory to apply the use of the tools in each and every single case, or is it the case now that NOT using the tools is counted as admin abuse? Cause if that's the case then we got about 80 odd admins to desysop Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:58, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. This isn't a case of her not using the tools. It would be helpful if you approached this issue in a more rational manner. --Shockstorm (talk) 22:06, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

So you tell me that I'm wrong, and I question why that is, and that's being irrational? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:08, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

No. It's your behavior in the this thread, the last one, and in chat. Your constant use of profanity in lieu of actual debate and your paranoia regarding people being "out to get her" certainly isn't rational. --Shockstorm (talk) 22:14, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so let me get this straight: I counter what evidence I can, post a counter proposal, and try and counter those who counter my proposal, and that's irrational? And what has my behaviour in the previous thread got to do with this? As for my behaviour in the chat, so what if I don't feel like being sociable? Is that such a big crime now? I have reasons other than this thread to not talk to people you know. And as far as I know, I have not sworn ONCE on this thread Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:20, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

You just attempted to give the RS money Mol gave you to all the people in chat who had yet to comment on this thread, because Mol's money is 'tainted' or whatever because he supported the thread. Is it a reward for not supporting the banning/desysopping of your girlfriend or something? You are CLEARLY being irrational. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:26, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the money was meant to be given to me because he didn't want to be indebted even though I relinquished any misconception of "debt". But it was still completely irrational and stupid. 'Twas my idea to give the money away, but I'd like my retelling of the story to fergs not to be misinterpreted. MolMan 22:29, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. I gave the money back because I do not like Mol, and I do not like his attitude towards me, so therefore do not want anything to do with him, hence returning the money. Returning the money had NOTHING to do with this Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:33, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

You also refused to give the money to Cook and Fergie. Cook, I can understand maybe, but Fergie? Who the hell doesn't like Fergie? Wait... Didn't Fergs support a desysop? MolMan 22:36, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I don't like Cook or Fergie either. I dislike their attitudes as well. Please stop with this line of attack. This is of nobody's benefit Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:38, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Mutual. Please act irrational elsewhere. You've only shown that you act on instinctive bias here, I'm doubting that anything you say will be truly constructive; rather it'll be more ironic rhetoric or asking for evidence which you have easy access to yourself. Search her name. MolMan 22:40, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Really? - You think it's no big deal that she deleted that page for that reason? I found it completely inappropriate and was at a loss for words. It is completely relevant that it happened and the fact that it's not "irreversibly damaging". Literally anything can be undone here one way or another; it wasn't the damage that matters, it's what the action says about her integrity and her temper. It also seems you've missed Cook's evidence being a single example, what with the protecting? She's done it multiple times, I've witnessed it firsthand. No, she hasn't blocked anyone inappropriately or uploaded porn or something to my knowledge either, but those aren't the only abuse of tools that exist.

I'd be more inclined to believe that she was just having a bad day or some other for those inappropriate actions were it not for me knowing that she actually has a temper. This is something that she'll actually admit, though I question whether she sees how bad it reflects on her.

We're not trying to lose an editor with desysopping her, we're trying to prevent further misconduct and abuse. I in no way want to see Ansela gone forever. I actually can't see her leaving over this. I don't think that she's any sort of butthurt, whiny quitter; I think I know her well enough to know she's not a quitter and to know she doesn't think we hate her. She's a wonderful editor, but the fact of the matter is: I cannot trust her to use these tools appropriately at all times.

I wish I had a solid grounds on which to vehemently oppose her desysop, but as it stands currently, her behavior has simply been too atrocious for me to put all my faith in her. I want to see her come back after some "cool down" time and resume editing as mostly normal. Hopefully she'll have shaped up and eventually, when she's truly ready, she'll run another successful RfA. MolMan 19:18, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Care to provide some evidence for this? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:58, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, no. Any evidence I've mentioned is either apparent or found easily within her logs. I'd rather not explicate anything with you because you've been acting inappropriately with this thread and the accusations against Ansela. MolMan 22:01, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

How? By asking to see the evidence? Or is it because I don't want anybody communicating with me in private? Last I checked, communicating with people was NOT a mandatory part of this thread. Mol, as you keep saying, this is about Ansela, not me, and my decision not to talk with anybody is mine, not Ansela's Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:06, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about: you trying to twist words to make anything we say invalid or ad hominem against you/Ansela. I'm tired of you, to be quite honest. It'd be nice if you could just leave this issue alone if you're going to continue to act with such bias and contempt. MolMan 22:09, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

How am I doing that? How exactly am I twisting things and making them invalid? Or is asking for evidence considered to be twisting words? Or is asking for more details an attempt to "make anything [you] say invalid or ad hominem"? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:20, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Please reread what you've just posted to see my latest evidence. MolMan 22:22, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so asking you to be more specific is actually my attempts to discredit what everybody is saying? Unbelievable! Why don't you just provide the evidence I asked for and end this farce? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:33, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I do remember closing something earlier that established that UTP violations in any area of the wiki shall be extended to cover the other facets of the wiki also. While the thread in particular dealt with the CC, it was later established that despite my poor choice of words in the closing of the first forum, that the principle applied to other chat mediums also (in that particular case, the IRC). This principle can be extrapolated to Special:Chat also. The fact that it didn't exist at the time of the two fora I cited does not mean it's exempt from the principle at hand. Thus, your proposed solution of banning from the onsite chat for said UTP violations is cause for a wiki block too. --Liquid^Talk 05:16, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

Support 2 week ban and desysop - Ansela has been aware of how thin the ice is and despite this, continued with the behaviour that led to the original thread's creation. The infractions in S:C easily merit a ban from chat, and naturally this carries onto the wiki itself with the result of a forum from a while ago. For the duration of the ban, the wiki would lose a valued editor, and it is a great shame to see such a capable and hardworking editor being the subject of a banning discussion. Although her contributions have been nothing but helpful, a precedent was established in blocking Megan and Parsons; if any other user had committed the same offenses they would be faced with a block immediately, and even though in this case the user is a sysop, this cannot be overlooked. When Ansela put herself forward for an RfA, she signed the following:

“

If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my tools because I realise that this is a serious offence. If the community finds that I have done so, my tools will be revoked, and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban.

”

Ansela was fully aware that her tools were not to be used for personal conflicts, yet she has abused the protection, deletion, and has attempted to abuse blocking tools as well. In addition, her conduct is unacceptable, and even after the first discussion closed everyone was reluctant to take any sort of action, even a simple warning. The fact is that she has proven herself to be unfit to continue as an administrator, and as such she should not be able to carry on in the manner she has been. The previous discussion ended with her being given an absolute final chance at changing, but ultimately she has run out of chances and it is time to stop giving her a slap on the wrist and a stern look, and take serious action. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:13, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to be all harsh and judgemental on Ansela, you will have to do the same for all admins currently abusing their rank, too, otherwise that would be targeting a user of the wiki for the sake of targeting.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:11, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Don't be vague. Give us names. MolMan 22:12, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that by asking for a name, you're asking me to stick my neck out for all admins to hack at? Besides, I don't spend much time in the chat when it's most active.Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 22:17, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If you believe there are other admins abusing their ranks, please make the appropriate desysop threads rather than blindly complain. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:18, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Go on! Sing! Sing like a canary! MolMan 22:19, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

"18:24:09 Cook Me Plox ice rush...wtf man" He sounds upset that you asked this. Is it Cook? Is Cook the evil sysop? MolMan 22:25, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If you have any names, please take it to another thread Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:33, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Mol Temujin 03:52, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Tell us on this doll where the bad cookmeplox touched you JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 21:09, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

You guys are such immature jerks. ._. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 22:03, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

And pointing it out like that is appropriate? You could be nicer... Afterall, it was completely ludicrous idea to purport. MolMan 01:04, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Except that that "tell us on this doll" comment was completely uncalled for and completely irrelevant. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 18:26, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Continuing this argument is irrelevant. Take it elsewhere. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:29, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support for desysop and 2 week block I know that I don't spend all of my time in S:C, but of the time in there, I've seen enough. An edit count shouldn't matter when deciding someone's fate. Even if I was an admin, and had a huge edit count, I can tell you right now that if I pulled HALF of the shit she has, I would have been long gone by now. If the fact that she has contributed so much is the main point of your argument, then you have no argument at all. I've seen multiple UTP violations just being in the chat, and I haven't even looked at the edit war kind of stuff. I'm basing my decision on how people would treat me if I were her, because I know that's pretty fair. Okay, sure, she's "neurologically atypical." I'll give her that. If you can't handle the stress, then you need to do something. I digress, though. She's broken UTP on multiple occasions, she's had more than 10 chances, and she's abused her admin tools because she can. I wanted to make it a 1 month block, but I feel 2 weeks gets the point across pretty well.User:King kolton9/Signature 22:46, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I wonder why AnselaJonla hasn't posted in this (and the last) thread? While I admittedly haven't read through every single line, a quick search with "Ctrl+F" doesn't seem to return a comment signed by Ansela. Is she unaware of this or just ignoring it?--Jlun2 (talk) 22:48, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

I believe she's well aware. If she wishes not to comment, we should respect that. MolMan 22:50, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

She is. I've not bothered asking why she doesn't want to comment, and I'm not going to. It's her wish to just observe from the sidelines Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 23:03, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - further examples of sysop tool abuse and UTP violations:

June 8 S:C:

• 1:42 - “And I'm not allowed to just block all of you until you agree to stop it and talk it out properly” - expressing her desire to ban individuals in a rather odd way. Seems she's more interested in the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
• 1:44 - “I have neurological problems that I can't get help for because I haven't tried to off myself yet - what's your issue?” - apparently prevents her from behaving like a “rational adult”, as she says. Yet another example of her refusing to be personally held accountable for her behavior.

June 9 S:C:

• 0:46 to 2:12 - repeatedly deletes an image because it's "ugly" (made in MSPaint, a program she personally dislikes (2:05), therefore it must be objectively bad) and she apparently cannot stand an image being on "Special:UnusedImages" for more than 5 minutes. As the uploader and Cook explained, it was uploaded for use in an upcoming guide. She finally relents when it's time for her to to bed. --Shockstorm (talk) 06:22, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

please explain where there are UTP violations in any of your given examples -- unless I missed something quite major I don't see any Ronan ^Talk 07:44, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Except for maybe 1:44, there's nothing there that would constitute UTP violations or a continuation of denying any problems with the individual concerned's behaviour. 222 ^talk 14:38, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, was looking at another example. Corrected. --Shockstorm (talk) 22:39, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I do think that Ansela should stay, as she has renovated some articles completely, if I remember correctly. Her actions in the chat, however, cannot be ignored, but she really hasn't done anything other people haven't done, without being tried and judged. I propose, then, that her adminship shall be held vi cogere for a week, starting within a few days, during which she will be judged as a completely un-ranked wiki user, as what is stated by UTP, and she be given roughly two weeks of continued revocata licencia, no matter what judgement passes. The reason I propose this is because despite all that we all are saying, we(including me)are judging her as an admin.If you were wondering, the italics are latin.-Ice Rush12^Talk_Hiscores 05:04, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

So you want to make another thread where we pretend she is an unranked user just to get a fair judgement? According to UTP, she should have been blocked immediately long ago without a thread. However, because she is a solid member of the community, this thread was created - not only for a block but also for a desysop (which is generally done with community consensus). Why should we go through the trouble of another thread again?? User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:22, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

The very idea that we need to judge her "as a completely un-ranked wiki user" implies that sysops have some sort of exemption from UTP. We already know that's not true. No need for convluted, complicated, silly proposals. Also those aren't really legal termsʞooɔ 05:32, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for any of this. The previous UTP thread has already reaffirmed the grey area we had before, and if someone had brought it up before this, Ansela would have been blocked by now. She is lucky that so many people allow previous contributions to cloud their decisions. 222 ^talk 07:02, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

“	She is lucky that so many people allow previous contributions to cloud their decisions.	”
	— 222 talk

Exaggeration much? Temujin 09:35, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, the only reason she hasn't been blocked for UTP infractions is because of her status as an active contributor. I'd urge you to read the threads regarding Parsonsda and Ikin as those have been very similar in principle to this one, with opposition to disciplinary action based on contributions. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 12:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Per the Real Nub. Even as someone advocating her desysop, it's a foggy trip for me… but it's just gotta be that way. I love the good side of Ansela. No matter how this thread ends, I'm not going to like it. MolMan 14:45, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support on De-Sysoping and Bans - What I mean by "bans" is a week long ban on Wiki and another week ban off the Chat after that. Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 03:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Support ban + De-sysop - If the Runescape Wiki community would stop sitting on their arses whilst some of their most popular users consistently break the rules, and instead just invoke the correct punishment first time around, we wouldn't be in this current mess. It SHOULDN'T take 9001 pieces of different evidence for this to become clear. Pathetic. Rhys ^Talk 04:52, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

You know what Gradiush? I 100% agree with you on that one, I'm glad finally someone stated it. MahjarratInfo101 (talk) 10:49, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

If it were actually that simple… MolMan 15:33, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Intent to Close - If no more meaningful discussion takes place within the next few days, I'll go ahead and close this thread. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:06, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Support permanent ban from the chat, Oppose de-sysop - I do not think Ansela should be de-sysopped or blocked, as we gain nothing from doing so except possibly losing a valuable editor. Ansela has not abused her sysop tools in any way to my knowledge, and as such she shouldn't have them removed due to reasons that do not involve their use.

I am in no way condoning Ansela's behavior, and I agree that it should not be tolerated. However, instead of desysopping her, I propose a permanent block from the chat, as that's where nearly all of her "outbursts" take place. Wahisietel (Talk) 15:54, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

You know, I might actually support this under a few conditions. 1.) The ban from chat with be originally 1 year long. If, however, within that time, she decides to start up another edit war, she will be banned for 5 years, and will be desysopped. 2.) She will still be able to be sysopped again, but if at any time later, she is able to get sysopped again, then her chat ban will stay. User:King kolton9/Signature 18:17, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

A five year block? My account isn't even five years old. Most accounts aren't even two to three years old. That's a bit excessive, I think. You might as well make it an indefinite block if that's what you're getting at, or reduce it to a timeframe that's more reasonable for an eventual unblock. --Liquid^Talk 19:40, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

1 or 2 year block, desysoping, how does that sound?User:King kolton9/Signature 10:25, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

There's really no need for a punitive block of such arbitrary length. ʞooɔ 10:54, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Fine, then, you know what? I will oppose the block, but I will support the desysoping. Since Ansela is always complaining that being an admin is hard, I think that a desysop will help her cool her tool. I want to see if it's really abuse of power and see if she's still mean to everyone.User:King kolton9/Signature 23:00, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop - I've lost faith in her ability to be neutral as a sysop, and in her ability to treat other users with respect. She takes minor slights very personally and starts little grudges that are annoying to have to calm down. More importantly though, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any of this changing, not over the past year and certainly not in the past month. She is content to blame other people for the issues brought up in this thread, content to blame Shockstorm for being out to get her...those are not signs of someone who realizes they are the problem. I suspect very strongly that if she's not desysopped now, we'll have this same drama-filled thread in another month, and if not then, the month after that. To me it's just gotten to the point where her being a sysop is no longer a net positive.

I'm not really sure what a block would do at this point, though. ʞooɔ 00:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Support desysop - I have never really understood why she had any powers, to my knowledge (whenever I was in the chat) she has always behaved as if name-calling was the way to address people and talking down to people was how to explain everyone is wrong and stupid. Shinigamidaio (talk) 12:39, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Closed. Well, this is certainly one of the most interesting threads I've ever closed. That doesn't say much, since it's rare that I close a Yew Grove thread. Having read everyone's posts, I have determined that there is consensus for the following:

• AnselaJonla's conduct with other users is unacceptably harsh. Many editors have taken to this thread to complain about her treatment of others. Examples of her violations of UTP are a dime a dozen.
• Since the first thread that formalized the complaints against her, AnselaJonla has not improved her conduct.
• Positive contributions, however numerous or high in quality, do not excuse a user from the consequences of policy violation, particularly when the violations are so frequent.
• As a result of the above, there is consensus for a two-week block for frequent and flagrant UTP violations. If she continues her abrasive behavior when she returns, she will be re-blocked with a longer duration. In this manner, Ansela is treated as any other user.
• Per existing policy, this ban shall extend to Special:Chat and the wiki's IRC channel.

On the subject of AnselaJonla's administrative position... well, this is the trickiest of this thread's subjects. It appears that the greatest amount of disagreement in this thread is whether or not a user's conduct affects their suitability for adminship. As far as I know, there is nothing official in the policies about this -- we do not have written guidelines for desysopping administrators. We do have a list of former admins, but the only one that has been desysopped over conduct was also abusing his powers (namely, unblocking himself). Too, this incident was five and a half years ago; the wiki was a different place. The other former sysops have had their rights removed by request, or after gratuitous abuse of the tools.

People who are both for and against the desysopping of AnselaJonla for her conduct are making compelling arguments to support their positions. Many of you believe that a rude admin is more likely to abuse their tools, or that admins should be held to the highest of behaviorial standards due to their position in the community. Some of you agree with my personal opinion that the standards for a successful RfA can be used to gauge whether or not an existing sysop is still fit for the tools. On the other hand, others among you have made the arguments that adminship is not a big deal, that it is a technical position rather than a social one, and that the only metric by which to measure an admin is how competently and responsibly they have used the tools. I am not prepared to dismiss these compelling arguments in the face of majority opinion to the contrary, and I believe that this issue warrants serious consideration in a dedicated discussion thread. Yes, I know we've had a lot of threads about this situation lately, but to my knowledge this is a somewhat unique situation -- this is the first time that a (potentially successful) desysop thread has been made over an admin's conduct. For the time being, however, there is no consensus to desysop AnselaJonla based on her conduct.

That leaves the question of whether AnselaJonla should be desysopped based solely on her use of the admin tools, and in that regard, none of you have produced compelling evidence that she has abused them to the point that a desysop is justified. The examples presented in this thread are not major incidents that caused considerable disruption to the wiki; they were relatively minor incidents such as this and this. While I acknowledge that Ansela's use of sysop tools is imperfect, and that she could stand to review the page on admins, the blocking policy, protection policy, and the deletion policy, I don't think these are desysop-worthy offenses. It's also worth pointing out that most of the outcry here is about her interpersonal conduct, rather than her actions as an admin. As a result, AnselaJonla shall retain her sysop tools.

For those of you who like short summaries of a thread's outcome, here is one:

• AnselaJonla will be blocked for 2 weeks for UTP violations. Further violations will result in longer blocks.
• There is no consensus to desysop based on said UTP violations. Furthermore, there is not yet any official precedent or policy as to whether or not UTP violations can result in a desysopping. However, I have created a thread to discuss this matter.
• There is insufficient evidence of abuse of administrative tools for a desysop.
• Should a future discussion conclude that UTP violations may result in the forfeiture of admin rights, and should AnselaJonla be blocked for UTP violations after that discussion has been concluded, she will be de-sysopped in addition to being blocked, and will have to pass another RfA in order to regain admin rights.

--Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:09, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. Consensus here is overwhelmingly clear, and remains so regardless of your valiant efforts to stretch out your closing statement as long as possible to dilute the blatant actuality that you're determining your own outcome. Ronan ^Talk 15:47, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Reopened -- In light of the numerous votes of no confidence that I have received with regards to my closing decision, I have reopened this thread. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:17, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The above closure made a good point: there wasn't an abuse of sysop tools that, in itself, would have led to removal of the tools. With that said, there is more to this thread than considering abuse of tools. Though we contend that being a sysop isn't a big deal, there is nonetheless a degree of trust that we place in those with the tools. We trust them not only to use their tools properly, but also to follow policies any other user would be expected to follow (in this case, UTP). If we didn't have a problem trusting people with the tools, no one would have trouble with RFAs, and we wouldn't need RFAs at all. Clearly, not everyone passes an RFA, and not just because people think they will abuse the tools. In fact, I cannot remember any instance of someone using fear of tool abuse as a reason to oppose an RFA (though I'm sure there are a few instances); most of the time it comes down to the user's conduct, particularly in their treatment of others. It is clear that the community has lost faith in Ansela's ability to treat others properly and thus follow wiki policy, so in addition to a two week block, her sysop tools will be removed. --Sαcrε Fι ^{(edit my sig) | (edit my user page)} 05:10, June 18, 2013 (UTC)