 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 14 October 2014 by Liquidhelium. |
Hi, I’ve made this thread as a continuation of the two previous threads (1 and 2). These past threads were created to discuss problems with User:AnselaJonla’s behaviour towards other editors on this wiki. As a result of the first thread Ansela was warned that further breaches of RS:UTP would result in her losing her administrator status and receiving a block from editing the wiki. In the second thread it was agreed that Ansela had broken UTP since her first warning, her administrator tools were removed and she was blocked from the wiki for 2 weeks.
I believe that since these actions were taken Ansela has continued to break UTP. I decided to create this thread after witnessing an incident involving Ansela and another user, User:Just cute, which occurred a few days ago. This began by Ansela reverting an edit that Just Cute had made to the page Wild Weekends using the revert summary “There was nothing wrong with this version, and I don't feel like fixing your English-abuse” (18.19 September 29). After this Ansela began to talk about the dispute in S:C and I commented that I thought the use of the revert tool was inappropriate in this situation, but she reacted negatively. The chat logging bot was not present in S:C at the time but I took screenshots of the conversation that occured. Screenshots in chronological order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 (apologises for small text size).
The incident escalated and Ansela left several messages on Just Cute’s talk page:
“To be frankly and brutally honest, whoever was praising you was probably just ignoring the problems in your edits and focusing on the good. Your tenses are a mess, you mix up words quite frequently, and your grammar needs some work. You're good at citing things properly, but your actual ability to write prose is lacking. It's going to take me a while to fix up your recent edits, because no one else is actually willing to, and I was putting it off because of the sheer number of mistakes you made in places. If you could improve upon the points I made, it would be much better for everyone.”
“Actually, after seeing your message on my talk page: You're an arrogant and petulant child, who cannot take any form of criticism or censure. Please go grow up and come back when you're capable of accepting that this is a wiki and your edits will be corrected if they're wrong in any way.”
“I think I have managed to fix all of your mistakes. In future, if you are going to merely paraphrase from old news articles, could you please make some effort to change the tense throughout your whole edit, rather than applying the "spray and pray" approach you appear to have applied on such articles as Sizzling Summer, Mad May and Wild Weekends.”
This is not an isolated incident:
- 1 - “Next time you crop an image, upload it as a new version and change the file name if necessary. You should know this by now.”
- 2 - Reacting to another editor’s query about her reverting an edit: “If you actually bother to look at the diffs, and the page history, you'll see that I rewrote the IP's paragraph for grammar and clarity, and he reverted my edit back.” “No, you didn't, or you wouldn't have needed to ask that question in the first place. You just saw something to snipe about.” “That is what I am saying. You did not read the diff.”
- 3 - “Do you not know how to use the preview button or something?”
- 4 - “I'm sorry, did you just interrupt my attempts at cleaning up a page to tell me that I needed to... clean up the page. Furthermore, I am not aware that "Instead of lists, mini paragraphs" means "put a table in here with even less information than the lists contain". I am afraid that I overwrote your edit with the one I was attempting to do when you decided to edit the page yourself.” “I have now finished with my intended edits on Kingdom. Please do not blindly remove it.”
- 5 - “You might want to check those template links you just spammed, since I moved it before you started spamming.” “Sorry, I forgot you are English-deficient and therefore don't understand slang terms. I will try not to use these in the future. Also, I moved it before you added it onto any pages, as I already said, therefore there was nothing to fix when I moved it. I am so sorry I thought you would notice on your own that you were creating redlinks and make an attempt to investigate why. Or do you not use preview/check the edit you just made?”
And also occurs frequently in S:C:
| Chat logs |
|---|
|
[2014-09-23 17:42:03] <AnselaJonla> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Thinker_boots - erm... anyone able to qc that? [2014-09-22 11:38:46] <AnselaJonla> Dro or Ryan needs to move http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Corruption_(ore) to corrupted ore please [2014-09-14 00:23:50] <Wafflebb> England should break away from the UK. [2014-09-12 13:34:42] <AnselaJonla> Especially such annoying ones as the mlp wikia, which seems to shunt idiots to us on a regular basis [2014-08-16 19:19:10] <Ozuzanna> I want to fly [2014-07-04 13:42:24] <Mido5001> i learned about barbian tuna fishing, now where do i catch it? [2014-06-29 17:52:53] <ChaoticShadow> i'm willing to bet that legacy will be mems only [2014-06-15 00:12:15] <Cblair91> how does that generate keys? [2014-06-14 19:56:45] <AnselaJonla> No... rolling tobacco [2014-06-13 20:32:50] <Bluefire2> I play football for my school, and I rather enjoy it [2014-05-30 09:37:24] <Alchimous> You keep removing it. [2014-05-26 15:01:22] <The_Mol_Man> we should have it in future tense if it doesn't exist or hasn't happened yet |
Due to Ansela's continuing behaviour problems and violations of UTP I am suggesting that she receive a 6 month block from editing the wiki and using S:C. I am proposing this based on RS:UBP which suggests that the blocking time for a user who has repeatedly personally attacked other editors be increased up to 6 month block. 
IsobelJ
21:39, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
Support - I am slowly getting tired of being belittled by her condescending behavior aimed at me, such as "Oh I forgot Susan is stupid", amongst other things. It's about time someone else called them out (again). The aggressive behavior at Isobel recently wasn't acceptable either. – Ozank Cx 22:02, October 1, 2014 (UTC) changed opinion, see below
Support - I would even go to indef, as she's repeatedly shown she cannot work with others. Despite multiple previous threads to curtail the behaviour, she's continuing to be detrimental to the project. There have been too many chances as is. 
@Gaz#7521 22:12, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- I personally oppose indef. I wasn't there at the time, so I'm not really one to talk...but I personally believe The Mol Man is more problematic than Ansela. He's really the only one that never fails to get her angry. Like I said, I'm not one to talk, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 22:31, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Have you seen what she gets angry it? While I'm not perfect, it's less about my being bad and her being vindictive. I can dig up countless conversations where she gets mad at me because she did something wrong, and I told her to stop. Stinko, see also the last conversation in Isobel's evidence, about tense. Her behavior is ridiculous. MolMan 22:33, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I also oppose indef. I mean seriously I know I'm going to get a ton of hate, but I agree with Stinko regarding Mol being a large pain (in S:C at least; not sure of outside). Not only does Mol constantly provoke others (for example calling people "retarded" simply because he disagrees (in S:C at least)). If you're going to block Ansela for being a dick, can you at least block Mol in chat as well for 6 months. --Jlun2 (talk) 23:45, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Comment & Support For blocking Mol. --
Scuzzy Beta
03:15, October 4, 2014 (UTC) - Can you show me calling another editor retarded? MolMan 23:46, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- 1 • 2 • 3 • 4... etc etc.. User:Jr Mime/Signature 23:54, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- First off, doing nothing more than linking a page isn't helpful. The first one was said in jest, and you guys were acting intentionally stupid. 2 of those examples are calling Allen retarded. Can you really count that? The third is calling bronies retarded. Can you really count that either? Find me an actual example. I looked through the logs myself, and I actually found myself calling community central retarded (which is actually a fact), asking ozzy if he was retarded (but we always talk like that), and calling Temujin96 retarded. So really, there are only 3 examples of me actually calling people retarded in the past 3 months. Also, I've never called someone retarded simply because I disagreed. I've been telling it like it is. MolMan 03:40, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- 1 • 2 • 3 • 4... etc etc.. User:Jr Mime/Signature 23:54, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Let's stop this here. The thread is not and should not be about Mol. If you feel that it is necessary, make a separate thread to address any issues concerning him. Let's not make this any more complicated than it needs to be. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:45, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Comment & Support For blocking Mol. --
- Comment - I also oppose indef. I mean seriously I know I'm going to get a ton of hate, but I agree with Stinko regarding Mol being a large pain (in S:C at least; not sure of outside). Not only does Mol constantly provoke others (for example calling people "retarded" simply because he disagrees (in S:C at least)). If you're going to block Ansela for being a dick, can you at least block Mol in chat as well for 6 months. --Jlun2 (talk) 23:45, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose indef - I agree with Stinko, Jlun, Fswe1, and Mime. Temujin 05:29, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Have you seen what she gets angry it? While I'm not perfect, it's less about my being bad and her being vindictive. I can dig up countless conversations where she gets mad at me because she did something wrong, and I told her to stop. Stinko, see also the last conversation in Isobel's evidence, about tense. Her behavior is ridiculous. MolMan 22:33, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'd suggest proposing an indefinite block. This has gone on far too long and doesn't seem to suggest any improvement. She is free to appeal her block via community consensus after a period of time, similar to Hallowland's (recent?) block appeal, but I'd be surprised if there would ever be consensus to remove said block. User:Cqm/Signature
indef probs — Never have I seen someone as hostile and vindictive as Ansela. Her behavior is extremely unbecoming of any civil edit. She is certainly happy to point out bad things that others do (Here for example). Aside: While I shouldn't have to defend myself in a thread about other users, I do have a ban log showing my punishments, but I also don't have 2 threads. I haven't seen Ansela be genuinely nice to anyone. Anything civil she has said simply reeks of ingenuity and formulaic responses (This for example). She is completely unable/unwilling to admit she is wrong. What I already posted is a perfect example of this. Is it really a vendetta when everyone is mad? Or is that evidence that you're an unpleasant person? I stopped counting how many times she has lashed out at me personally because I brought up a problem with her behavior. I'm usually met with a response along the lines of "shut up, ponyfucker". She tried to add CSS that ignored me. Apparently I'm mean or something? Or can we take a look at what actually happened on what sparked the issue? The relevant chat logs are RuneScape:Chat/Logs/29 November 2013 (which I've kindly reduced to the relevant conversation for you:
| Stuff |
|---|
23:18 <AnselaJonla> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:EmileWillows#PSA - think she'll get the message? 23:19 <The Mol Man> that comes off as really condescending 23:19 <AnselaJonla> It's meant to be sarcastic 23:20 <The Mol Man> there's no need to be 23:20 <AnselaJonla> But you guys get pissy when I try and get help with message writing, so I don't bother any more 23:20 <The Mol Man> talkheader is stupid anyways 23:21 <The Mol Man> who cares if someone does 2 edits 23:21 <The Mol Man> it's not spam 23:21 <Kq head> sheesh mol 23:21 <Kq head> "who cares" 23:21 <AnselaJonla> Doing an edit to put just the talkheader, then another to actually put the message in... and a third to remove her unnecessary title because she puts something in the summary box which turns into a section header 23:21 <Kq head> people have done even more pointless shit and you had a problem with it, mol 23:21 <The Mol Man> also, unless someone is using a script, you have no right to bitch about rc spam 23:22 <The Mol Man> I ain't perfect 23:22 <Cook Me Plox> you can ask them to be more efficient for their own sake, but it causes you no harm, does it? 23:22 <Cook Me Plox> there is no edit quota. 23:22 <AnselaJonla> I'm just trying to save her some time 23:22 <The Mol Man> I more have a problem with how you gave her the message 23:22 <AnselaJonla> Making three edits takes longer than making one 23:23 <The Mol Man> so if you actually care, why not try to be nice? 23:23 <Kq head> maybe it's just the way you read 23:23 <The Mol Man> She said so her self 23:23 <AnselaJonla> I. Can't. Do. Nice. 23:23 <Jlun2> What kq said, and sometimes it's really really difficult to be calm in RS 23:23 <The Mol Man> then don't do at all 23:23 <AnselaJonla> Fuck off, Mol 23:23 <AnselaJonla> You just bitch at me whatever I do 23:23 <Kq head> You just read it in a moody way, that's all 23:24 <The Mol Man> :\ 23:24 <Kq head> to me, the italics make it sound almost like marketing 23:24 <AnselaJonla> ^^^ 23:24 <The Mol Man> I wouldn't bitch at you if you didn't give me a reason 23:25 <Kq head> Drop it before you start an argument 23:25 <The Mol Man> Kq, that's what happens everytime 23:25 <The Mol Man> every time it happens like this where the argument starts and she goes off on a random tangent 23:26 <The Mol Man> completing brushing off the incident as if it didn't happen 23:26 <Cook Me Plox> fuck off mol 23:26 <AnselaJonla> Mol - am I not being clear enough? 23:26 <The Mol Man> Cook, answer my damn pm 23:26 <AnselaJonla> I am trying to AVOID arguing with you? 23:26 <The Mol Man> but you don't take anything from it 23:26 <AnselaJonla> And I am doing that by changing the topic 23:26 <AnselaJonla> Stop trying to force and provoke arguments 23:26 <The Mol Man> you should learn from what you're being scolded for and be nice 23:27 <The Mol Man> or be nothing at all 23:27 <AnselaJonla> And then you'll bitch at me for not going to talk pages 23:27 <AnselaJonla> Or bitch at Cook for me not using talk pages 23:27 <AnselaJonla> Or bitch because I'm asking other people to use talk pages for me 23:27 <The Mol Man> I'd actually rather you didn't use talk pages 23:27 <Ozuzanna> time to have some more fun at rorarius 23:27 <AnselaJonla> Then don't bitch and moan whenever I ask if someone can handle talk page, stuff, kay? 23:28 <The Mol Man> handle it properly yourself 23:28 <AnselaJonla> Or ignore me, which is even worse 23:28 <The Mol Man> you lack a vital social skill 23:28 <The Mol Man> it's saddening 23:28 <Ciphrius Kane> Mol, SHUT UP 23:28 <Kq head> i.e. if Mol said to me that i'm a dumbass because i forgot to license something or if i did a stupid edit/upload, i'll just be like "good old mol being a dick as usual" 23:28 <TyA> dudes, all of you chillax 23:28 <Kq head> "nothing new there" etc. 23:28 <The Mol Man> I don't call people "dumb ass" 23:28 <The Mol Man> not for stuff like that 23:29 <Kq head> Go ahead, do it punk. 23:29 <AnselaJonla> Yes, I am so fucking sorry that I have no fucking social skills you self-righteous, stuck-up, hypocritical, neurotypical, paedo pig 23:29 <The Mol Man> no 23:29 <The Mol Man> you're one to talk 23:29 <Ciphrius Kane> Ok let's calm down everybody 23:29 <AnselaJonla> Go fuck yourself with your child pony toys 23:29 <Kq head> self-righteous, hypocritical, yeah probably 23:29 <Kq head> paedo? now you're just flinging insults 23:30 <Kq head> mol i swear you try to start this shit on purpose 23:30 -!- AnselaJonla was banned from Special:Chat by TyA for 86400 seconds. 23:30 -!- AnselaJonla has left Special:Chat. 23:30 -!- Kq head was banned from Special:Chat by TyA for 86400 seconds. 23:30 -!- Kq head has left Special:Chat. 23:30 -!- The Mol Man was banned from Special:Chat by TyA for 86400 seconds. 23:30 -!- The Mol Man has left Special:Chat. 23:31 <Ciphrius Kane> Why Kq head? 23:31 <Ciphrius Kane> What's your defence level and money like? 23:31 <TyA> It looked like Kq was getting just as heated as the rest of him, but feel free to unban him if you want |
What I see is a person who can't ever take responsibility for their egregious behavior and instead likes to blame other people. I may have looked aggressive there, but ya know what, you have to be with her. When you have persistent problems she refuses to address, you're not going to get through it prettily. I had a moratorium placed on myself because Ansela gets upset at being told that she's being uncivil. And that's down right not fair. If Ansela could actually fix herself, I wouldn't have ever had to make these comments. But ya know what, she can't. That's why we have a thread, that isn't part 1, and not part 2. But part 3. Jimbo Wales, the man who founded our glorious host Wikia, explicitly condemned this exact sort of behavior. Ansela is, overall, a net minus. While her contributions are appreciated, they are nowhere near enough to make up for her incivility. Nothing is. She refuses to change and prefers to make up lame excuses. Condoning her is getting really really tiresome.
If you want to talk about me. You can do it elsewhere. I've not been such a huge problem that an outsider party has made a forum thread. Twice. I've taken to heart criticisms against me, and done my best to fix the problems. Yeah, there are more problems, but, unlike others, I'm making an actual valiant effort. I can and have had genuine positive reactions with other people. MolMan 23:02, October 1, 2014 (UTC)
Support indefinite block - This behaviour is disgusting and it definitely won't improve after 6 months. The first thread was created a year and 5 months ago, and you're telling me we should just ban her for a longer amount of time until she comes back and repeats the same thing? It's as if she doesn't even know she's doing something wrong. Haidro (talk) 00:29, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
Indef - The drama Ansela causes sadly outweighs her useful contributions by quite a lot. I'm all for giving second chances, but after all we've been through with her, I don't see any improvement in her behaviour. I don't think it's possible for her to change, so the only solution is an indefinite block. 
Oil4 Talk 05:21, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm a bit of an ass and I like the fact that AnselaJonla calls me out on it. no one else seems to care if I do something incorrectly or if I make a mistake. and more to the point, with a wiki this big with this many editors, its good to have someone with a heavy hand and a no fucks giver attitude. --User:Heavyoak/Signature 06:02, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- While it is good to have someone who can call others out, the way Ansela supposedly does this is completely out of line. She isn't calling others to order with a heavy hand, she is driving away new editors.
Oil4 Talk 08:18, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Support - Ansela has breached UTP and AGF too many times in my opinion. I would not go as far as to indefinitely block her, but she definitely needs some time off of the wiki to think things over and get everything straight. 
ThePsionic 
09:35, October 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Edit - I have seen enough convincing evidence now. From this point on I support indef. ThePsionic 18:04, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Edit 2 - Please note that the support is for an indefinite chat block rather than a wiki block. ThePsionic 18:07, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Edit 2 - Please note that the support is for an indefinite chat block rather than a wiki block.
Comment on the procedure only - There's discussion here about blocking edits and blocking chat. The most significant comments seem to me to be about chat (which I don't frequent, admittedly). I think they should probably be two different decisions, especially if people consider Ansela's article edits generally good and her chat behavior unacceptable. It would also mean one decision can't be used as an argument for or against the other and provides a path of action. For example, if the next step is an indefinite chat ban, given previous history, then future discussions, if any, would be about only article edits and talk pages. In other cases for other people, it may be the other order, but it helps establish (or reinforce) a precedent for dealing with one issue at a time. --User:Saftzie/Signature 00:25, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose indef - An indefinite block, quite frankly, sounds absurd to me. While she's caused a fair share of problems as pointed in the OP, she has also contributed a lot to the wiki itself and thus the benefits she provided to the wiki outweigh any cons. Now, while I agree that this isn't a great argument in that one could abuse it to do whatever they want on the wiki as long as they also contribute as much; I don't think Ansela caused any harm on purpose, meaning that such a concern is irrelevant (though I'm willing to change my comment if anyone proves otherwise). While I can see why overall people are concerned with Ansela's behaviour, an indefinite block sounds absurd to me. Regards, bad_fetustalk 01:51, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- This and
- <AnselaJonla> I. Can't. Do. Nice.
- <AnselaJonla> Fuck off
- Previous blocks were made to give her a chance to change her behavior. She never did. Now the only way to get rid of the behavior is to outright get rid of her. MolMan 02:16, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds to me as if her behaviour has at the least discouraged several users to contributing further. How do we not know that those editors lost would have contributed far more then ansela (or anyone) has or ever will? I'm not happy letting anyone frighten off contributors, maybe a permanent ban is needed to prevent that from happening KDanger Talk 02:37, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds to me as if her behaviour has at the least discouraged several users to contributing further. How do we not know that those editors lost would have contributed far more then ansela (or anyone) has or ever will? I'm not happy letting anyone frighten off contributors, maybe a permanent ban is needed to prevent that from happening
- I don't believe "I don't think Ansela caused any harm on purpose" holds any weight here. If that statement had any truth, the first thread should have been enough to change her behaviour. As this is the third thread, this is clearly not the case. @Gaz#7521 09:31, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
To the people saying chat is the problem - A majority of her nastiness starts on the wiki and is carried over into chat. The only people in chat that she actually has problems with are Mol and Oz. All other incidents start on the wiki and migrate into chat. I can't tell you how many times she's randomly said "f***ing Leon" after he makes an edit or uploads an image. It's not only the established editors though, as seen in Isobel's opening logs.
| Leon & Italay (which quickly spirals out of control) |
|---|
[2014-09-14 15:06:44] <AnselaJonla> ... [2014-09-14 15:06:49] <AnselaJonla> Fuck you, Mr Leon... [2014-09-14 15:06:59] <AnselaJonla> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Kal%27gerion_dungeon?diff=11417598&oldid=11269083 - tries to add a map with a crappy name [2014-09-14 15:07:16] <AnselaJonla> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Kal%27gerion_dungeon?diff=next&oldid=11417598 - I put the correct file name in [2014-09-14 15:07:18] <Urbancowgurl777> Ansela don't be mean [2014-09-14 15:07:45] <AnselaJonla> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Kal%27gerion_dungeon?diff=next&oldid=11417618 - several hours later he removes it for no apparent reason other than that it isn't "his" file [2014-09-14 15:10:20] <Urbancowgurl777> Ansela the image you put was the wrong one [2014-09-14 15:10:48] <Urbancowgurl777> http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/File:Kal%27gerion_dungeon_location.png is the correct one [2014-09-14 15:10:58] <Urbancowgurl777> article says it's on the southwest side. the one on the southeast has the trees in it [2014-09-14 15:11:40] <Jlun2> i fixed it ferg [2014-09-14 15:12:00] <Jlun2> but leon should've at least have a meaningful edit summary >.> [2014-09-14 15:12:20] <Urbancowgurl777> doesn't mean he ever deserved to be told off like that [2014-09-14 15:12:32] <AnselaJonla> He's Leon, he always deserves it |
16:59 <AnselaJonla> I refuse to respond to Italay's message on my talk page 16:59 <AnselaJonla> 1) Because they didn't answer my question. 2) Because they can't fucking spell. ***Hour later, regarding Italay still*** 18:00 <AnselaJonla> He's still not explained if he knows what the preview button is for 18:03 <AnselaJonla> I want to know if he even knows it exists, Mol 18:03 <The Mol Man> then explain it nicely 18:04 <AnselaJonla> No point explaining it if he doesn't even know where the preview button is because he's got the IQ of a fucking mayfly 18:04 <The Mol Man> be nice dammit 18:04 <AnselaJonla> Oh, like you are? 18:04 <The Mol Man> I don't say "he's got the IQ of a fucking mayfly" 18:05 <The Mol Man> do you really think that's acceptable to say even if he doesn't see it? 18:05 <Coelacanth0794> settle down children 18:05 <The Mol Man> I am settled 18:05 <AnselaJonla> I'm not the one being a hypocrite here 18:06 <The Mol Man> I'm not the ex-sysop who breaks UTP every day 18:07 <AnselaJonla> Mol you know what? 18:07 <AnselaJonla> The nicer I try to be, the nastier you are 18:07 <AnselaJonla> To everyone 18:07 <The Mol Man> this isn't about me 18:08 <The Mol Man> you think it's acceptable to say what you said about Italay? 18:08 <AnselaJonla> You are a horrible, nasty person, but you don't care. You shit on everyone, you're a misogynist who excuses it by saying you don't care about the origins of your insults, and you're downright nasty to everyone who doesn't share your interests in MLP 18:08 <AnselaJonla> I have tried being nice to Italay 18:08 <The Mol Man> all that is a blatant, biased lie 18:08 <AnselaJonla> I have tried suggesting that maybe he could take more care with his edits, but he doesn't actually do anything about it 18:08 <The Mol Man> yet you instead debase him behind his back 18:09 <AnselaJonla> Kq head - Mol thinks "c**t" is an acceptable word to use 18:09 <The Mol Man> i think it's an extreme word that should be used sparingly 18:09 <AnselaJonla> Or any other word based on female genitalia as an insult 18:09 <The Mol Man> And for the last time 18:09 <The Mol Man> I'm not the one saying "he's got the IQ of a fucking mayfly" 18:10 <AnselaJonla> Coelacanth0794 - if someone says dick on telly, it's not a big deal 18:10 <AnselaJonla> Heck, it's a fucking nickname for people called Richard 18:10 <AnselaJonla> Someone says "c**t" and they're gonna lose their job 18:10 <AnselaJonla> Mol, here's an idea 18:10 <The Mol Man> No 18:11 <Coelacanth0794> ansela, drop it 18:11 <Coelacanth0794> mol, drop it too 18:11 <AnselaJonla> If you want me to be nice, try to take your own advice 18:11 <The Mol Man> Coel 18:11 <AnselaJonla> Don't rag all over me when you're worse than I am 18:11 <The Mol Man> you're letting her get away with the umpteenth UTP violation 18:11 <The Mol Man> I'm not worse than you 18:11 <Coelacanth0794> you arent innocent either yno 18:11 <The Mol Man> I never had multiple threads regarding my behaviour 18:11 <Coelacanth0794> i dont care. drop this conversation 18:11 <AnselaJonla> At least I don't pepper my edit summaries with swear words aimed at the person who wants to keep what you're removing 18:12 <The Mol Man> coel, can you update logs 18:12 <Coelacanth0794> ansela what did i just tell you 18:12 <AnselaJonla> That was my last point, Coel 18:12 <AnselaJonla> I'm done talking to Mol 18:12 <AnselaJonla> One last thing, and I've said this before but been ignored, but I'll try again 18:12 <Coelacanth0794> >last point 18:12 <Coelacanth0794> >one more thing 18:13 <The Mol Man> coel, update logs yo 18:13 <AnselaJonla> MOL - DON'T FUCKING TALK TO ME, OKAY. DON'T RESPOND TO WHAT I SAY, DON'T ANSWER ANYTHING, JUST STOP INTERACTING WITH ME PERIOD 18:13 -!- AnselaJonla was kicked from Special:Chat by Coelacanth0794 18:13 -!- AnselaJonla has left Special:Chat. 18:13 -!- AnselaJonla has joined Special:Chat 18:13 <Coelacanth0794> please listen when i tell you to stop 18:13 <AnselaJonla> Okay, I get kicked for making a reasonable request? |
These are examples of your average day in chat. She is not being nasty directly to these people's faces, she is doing it behind their backs through the chat medium. You could block her from the chat to prevent her from saying these things, but the malicious thoughts are still there and are reflected on the wiki when she interacts with these people. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:56, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- More wiki correspondences: 1 and 2. New editor scorned. Again disallowing people to speak to her if they cannot type properly. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:39, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- This happened in chat right after this thread was created. It was directed towards the user who created this thread on the wiki and had nothing to do with the people who were currently in the chat or a discussion that was going on in the chat. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 04:55, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - All of the cases listed here seem either fine by me or borderline breaching UTP. Sure, Ansela is not 'nice', but I've not noticed any particularly aggressive behaviour outside S:C in the past months. While she and UTP certainly aren't best friends, the cases presented in this thread have not convinced me that a 6-month-block (let alone indefinite) would be warranted. To anyone. 
Fswe1 
18:08, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- PS. A chat block would be appropriate in my opinion, having read Ferg's thingies above. While I can fully understand why Ansela said those things, she shouldn't have. Her not being in the chat would benefit everyone, I think. Fswe1 18:16, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty sure Fergie is implying (if not outright stating) that a chatblock would not be enough. @Gaz#7521 20:02, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Pretty sure Fergie is implying (if not outright stating) that a chatblock would not be enough.
Support indefinite chat ban I do not agree with an indefinite wiki block, however I'm all for an indefinite chat ban for her. Why? Because over the past few months she has constantly fired insults at me, they can be found scattered over the chat logs; at this point after the blocks/bans I am not sure if a temporary block will be of any use. I am not the only one she likes to insult, either (it's worth point that she uses CSS to block particular users' messages). There's other users, too. She has a lot of contributions, and from what I see the majority of the UTP breaking stuff happens in chat so I feel as though an indefinite chat ban is better suited for the problems as of current, assuming the indefinite block tally doesn't get enough support. But note I'm all for a wiki block as well as per my first post on this thread. – Ozank Cx 18:11, October 3, 2014 (UTC) changed opinion, see below
Support - The fact that this is the third thread we've had about this would seem to show that she is unwilling to change. -- Megadog14Talk 00:14, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose- She just has a tiny bit of a temper. Sure, she can be mean when she wants to, but... She's not Mol. --Scuzzy Beta 03:01, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - Although, that may just be my favoritism speaking... --Scuzzy Beta 03:06, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Strong Oppose- I'm with Scuzzy. Predator Drones (talk) 03:17, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
- A tiny bit of a temper, which offends practically everyone she interacts with, and which has driven away god knows how many new editors. Yep, totally fine. Oil4 Talk 08:15, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Support chat ban - As Ozuzanna and others have noted, the majority of UTP breaches occur in Special:Chat. Despite what Fergie has said, I believe that a chat ban should be tried prior to an indefinite wiki block. I am not convinced that the majority of UTP violations outside of Special:Chat. Besides, give them enough rope… Temujin 03:29, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Support Indef ban Despite my exceptionally long times between commenting on the happenings of things in the community anymore, this one has drawn me out. As I am not very active, I have a very unbiased view on this as I don't know much about any of the parties involved. This is a very evident, textbook example of a UTP violation, in which I have had a major role in banning a few major offenders in the past. This behavior is, simply put, unacceptable and unnecessary. What's worse is that we are on the Third topic of this in how many years? There's no reason why this needs to continue any longer. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
04:32, October 4, 2014 (UTC)
Support Indef ban Per Karlis...even the part about not being that active. 
Atlandy
00:17, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Support (long) ban, oppose indef We're just a community, so s/he can't attack well-meaning users like that (likewise Mol, as stated above). Clearly needs time for attitude adjustment and growing up. But for the same reason, we can't go excluding people without allowing them any hope of adjusting and returning. 
MarshP 
07:28, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't we exclude people indefinitely? We hand out indefinite blocks every week for disruption only accounts. User:Cqm/Signature
- "we can't go excluding people without allowing them any hope of adjusting and returning."
- That being said, it's worth noting the user in question has an extensive chat ban/block log, which has been ongoing for more than a year so the chances of them changing looks slim. Even though I disagree with indefinite wiki block, I honestly doubt they will change after these threads are still popping up about their behavior. – Ozank Cx 09:39, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Oz, why bother opposing an indefinite block if you have little to no confidence that a user will change? That is more detrimental to the wiki than anything. Also, indefinite blocks have a chance to appeal, you know. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:41, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Probably is detrimental in the long run, I agree. Also considering I'm one of their primary targets you bring up a good point; I hereby Support indefinite block. – Ozank Cx 17:11, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Oz, why bother opposing an indefinite block if you have little to no confidence that a user will change? That is more detrimental to the wiki than anything. Also, indefinite blocks have a chance to appeal, you know. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:41, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Notice the "v3" at the end of the thread title? There's been plenty of time for her to adjust Oil4 Talk 14:56, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Support - Since there has been no apparent improvement and small incidents keep on occurring, imposing a lengthy time away from the wiki seems like the next logical step to take here. Many people in this forum suggest an indefinite ban as a solution and I'd like to make it clear that I strongly oppose this. I think that, for various reasons, it doesn't fit as a tool to resolve this situation. 5-x Talk 19:22, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
- How long would you suggest? Oil4 Talk 20:09, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
- As you can see I supported the top post overall, so I think 6 months would be enough. 5-x Talk 20:31, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Enough for what exactly? Oil4 Talk 20:25, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Since the forum is about dealing with Ansela, it's probably his/her opinion on how long Ansela should be blocked for. – Ozank Cx 20:46, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Enough for what exactly?
- As you can see I supported the top post overall, so I think 6 months would be enough. 5-x Talk 20:31, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Support Indef chat block Ansela is one of those people who seems like they are never going to change. Of all the people on S:C Ansela is probably the most toxic and degrading of everyone. Also seeing as this 3rd thread dealing with behavior, I think 3 strikes and your out. It has been over a year since the first thread discussing her behavior, a year is a long enough time and seeing as she hasn't changed in a year, she never will change. So I say indef block. Smartman294 - The blank avatar man (talk) 01:26, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose indefinite block, Support 3-12 month block. - No one deserves to be blocked indefinitely. People can change. Six months is a long enough time to change a person and how they behave, and if it isn't, we extend that duration until it works. What actions one may perform today could similarly be actions that one looks back on and thinks: "What was I thinking?". It's indisputable that a reasonable level of mistreatment has occurred here, hence I leave my support for any kind of block between 3-12 months. 
Rhys Talk 
23:07, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
- It has been over 1 year since the first discussion of her behavior, if she hasn't changed in one year, she will keep being a problem every time she gets unblocked. Smartman294 - The blank avatar man (talk) 03:49, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Being blocked for an extended period of time usually impacts the weight of the message being sent by administration. Just because she had a short block, and continued to use questionable behaviour doesn't imply that a longer block will have no effect. I would rather see a ladder system implemented. Blocks should have their time durations stack. Start with a week for the first incident, move it up to a fortnight, then a month, then three months, then 6, a year... Eventually the message will hit home, or the person in question will essentially put themselves into a corner. I still stand by my point: No single person deserves to be indefinitely blocked. Rhys Talk 21:27, October 13, 2014 (UTC)
- Being blocked for an extended period of time usually impacts the weight of the message being sent by administration. Just because she had a short block, and continued to use questionable behaviour doesn't imply that a longer block will have no effect. I would rather see a ladder system implemented. Blocks should have their time durations stack. Start with a week for the first incident, move it up to a fortnight, then a month, then three months, then 6, a year... Eventually the message will hit home, or the person in question will essentially put themselves into a corner. I still stand by my point: No single person deserves to be indefinitely blocked.
Irrelevant comment - Am I the only one here who thinks that the first event cited by Isobel is nothing but Ansela reacting to a world-class troll? Have you read the stuff JC said to Ans? Imo many of us would have reacted in a similar way (maybe phrasing it differently). This doesn't make the argument above invalid, just pointing out that this particular case is not good evidence. 
Bluefire2 (Talk | Edit me) 
Oil4 I made this 01:22, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
- In many of the incidents Ansela is not the only individual at fault. People have raised issues's with Mol's behaviour above and it doesn't take a genius to guess that he can exacerbate the situation rather than diffuse it. Similarly, Just Cute's manner isn't one I'd associate with harmonious wiki editing. These are clearly more complicated than a single user causing trouble wherever she sets foot and whilst I doubt she sets out to cause these incidents consciously, the inescapable fact is that she consistently involved in them. We need to draw the line somewhere and unfortunately a block is all we have left. User:Cqm/Signature
Strongly Support 6 month block, Strongly Oppose indefinite block - As already stated by the Thread submitter, the given procedure in this situation would be to escalate to a 6 month block, not an indefinite one. If she returns after the 6 month block and still continues to harass people and negatively affect the wiki, then I believe we should consider an indefinite block, but until then a 6 month block is proportionate. Despite her previous harassment and anger towards other users, I believe her contributions to the wiki outweigh the negativity she has caused over the recent timescale, and will continue to do so over an indefinite timescale. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 11:35, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Support at least 6 month block if not more - While I have had no personal attacks from Ansela, I have seen many of the "edit" summaries she uses, which often are semi-veiled insults. Further the argument that she has "Done more good than she has caused problems" does not hold. When new editors (I am semi-new myself) are told to stop being idiots or whatever else she has said to them, they get turned away from the wiki. As per Oil4 this is the third thread about her. Enough is enough. Yayepicyay (talk) 23:39, October 12, 2014 (UTC)
Closed - I've re-read this thread several times now, and it is clear that the community considers this is a clear violation of RS:UTP and warrants a block of some length. The community seems to be divided over whether or not the block should be indefinite. Proponents bring up good points about this behavior getting out of hand, and that Ansela has been given ample opportunity to change. Others feel, legitimately so, that an indefinite block is unwarranted for various reasons, including Ansela's contributions to the wiki and her violations being insufficient for an indefinite block.
At the end of the day, however, I believe that the proponents of an indefinite block have the much stronger arguments. This is not the first (or even second) time that we have been through this, and, to be frank, some of the violations are block-worthy based solely on UTP (that is, without a thread). With such a textbook case of repeated UTP violations, I find that the overall consensus of this thread is an indefinite block for Ansela.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that indefinite is not the same thing as infinite. The latter implies a perpetual block with no chance of return, while the former is simply a state that Ansela will be in until the community decides otherwise. Anyone is able to start an unblock thread if they feel that sufficient time has passed to give Ansela another chance.
Everyone is also reminded that we are a community of people. We may have our differences, but we are all contributors in some shape or form to this communal project. We should strive to build up rapport with each other, rather than tearing it down. Like it or not, we're all in this together.