RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Line 108: Line 108:
   
 
'''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. {{Signatures/Hallowland}} 23:18, June 3, 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. {{Signatures/Hallowland}} 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. [http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Why_is_Stinkowing_still_an_administrator%3F?diff=1029202&oldid=1028363 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. {{Signatures/Liquidhelium}} 23:18, June 3, 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:18, 3 June 2013

Forums: Yew Grove > Problems with AnselaJonla Part 2

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.

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 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)

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...get this: 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. Divination.png Xsdvd Talk Duellist's cap (tier 1).png 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. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 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. Megadog14Talk 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? -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 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)

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. Magpie.pngHallowlandtalkWoodcutting-icon.png 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. --LiquidTalk 23:18, June 3, 2013 (UTC)