Forum:Problems with AnselaJonla

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Problems with AnselaJonla
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 May 2013 by Suppa chuppa.

Hi everyone. This thread is to discuss some issues with AnselaJonla's behavior. It is not a desysop thread, nor is there currently a proposal attached to it. However, after reading this thread and looking at the evidence, I think you'll agree there's a problem and that something needs to change.

Ansela is consistently in violation of the user treatment policy -- creating and escalating conflicts, getting into edit wars, and really just being extremely rude and disrespectful to people who she disagrees with. This most often occurs on Special:Chat but can at times spill over to talk pages and revert wars on content pages.

Some examples:

  • 1 - Berating an anonymous user for not using proper format in trying to write a quest guide for a quest that had been released in the last hour
  • 2 - Launching into a tirade after she couldn't agree with another user over what world times to use for an article
  • 3 - More general rudeness after Blaze apparently categorized some images incorrectly
  • 4 - 20:31
  • 5
  • 6 - 17:55
  • 7 - 1:24
  • 8 - Someone else warning her for UTP -- she later says "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"
  • 9 - Edit warring with an IP and then protecting the page for, well, edit warring.
  • 10 - More edit warring, January 18th
  • 11 - More unnecessary rudeness towards a new user
  • 12 - More timezone stuff

There are many, many, many more examples in the chat logs. So my question is, does anyone see this behavior as remotely acceptable? To me it seems like she's taking personally any perceived "incorrect" action by another user, and reacting accordingly. Every piece of evidence here shows her to be completely in violation of UTP. It's unacceptable for any user to act the way she has, let alone a sysop, someone who officially represents the wiki and (whether we acknowledge it or not), we hold to a higher standard. Others have taken issue with her style before, yet she seems to brush them off (take for example the 8th link, or Blaze's response to the 3rd link, or this. She's annoying and scaring off users, new and old, and making the wiki, especially the chat, a difficult place to be.

Now, whenever something like this would happen, I would privately confront Ansela about it in chat, and she would tell me something along the lines of the other person was asking for it, nobody else is working hard enough and she has to deal with these people, that kind of thing. She would say she was working on being nicer but that she had a short temper. Nothing bad would happen for a couple weeks, but then she would do something else. We'd have the same conversation with the blaming of others, I'd threaten to make a thread about her, and then we'd move on. This happened probably ten times. I guess the breaking point was two days ago (17:16) where she told some new user she was feuding with "Fuck you, you're never fucking satisfied...Get this through your skull: no matter what your tiny brain is insisting, people WILL associate an evil twin reference in RS to the random". It's completely malicious -- she has done, numerous times, what no sysop in the last four years has come close to, in terms of rudeness, inappropriateness and policy violations. Regardless of what you may think of Ansela personally, you're kidding yourself if you don't see a major issue with the way she's behaving. And regardless of what she's said about trying to be better about it, it's not getting better. This thread has been my last resort for a long time, but just chiding Ansela privately is not working.

So, if we acknowledge there's a problem, what do we do about it? If it were just about anyone else, I would have no problem with desysopping her. That still might be an option, but it's complicated by the truth that she has done, in the last year, more than probably anyone else on the wiki to keep it going strong. She is a hard worker and very dedicated to her tasks, and I worry that if we were to desysop her it would have a negative influence on the overall direction of the wiki. That being said, her behavior is also having a negative influence on the direction of the wiki, driving promising editors away and alienating many others.

What I want is for her to just be nicer. Stop having these incidents, stop taking things personally, cut the vendettas. Continue to be a great contributor, but get rid of the negative side effects. That's what I've been asking for the past year as I've tried to work with Ansela to reach a peaceful conclusion to all this nonsense, but it's fallen on deaf ears. If that's really so difficult, more practical solutions may be necessary, whether that's some kind of probation, a block from chat or in the worst case scenario losing admin rights altogether. I think everyone would prefer this be settled amicably and without consequences, but that hasn't been the case so far.

I should add that my personal involvement in this is minimal -- I have tried working with Ansela in the past to be nicer, but I don't recall ever being in much of a feud with her personally. I was encouraged to make this thread by a few others who had gotten tired of the deteriorating situation and asked me to intervene. I have no ill will towards Ansela and it's not my intent to embarrass her with this thread.

So as we have this discussion, think about the following questions:

  • Do you think Ansela's behavior is an issue that needs to be dealt with, or should we continue without addressing it?
  • If the issue cannot be resolved simply, are there better solutions than the ones I've mentioned?

This may end up being a contentious thread, so please think about it pragmatically and be respectful of everyone else. Thanks. ʞooɔ 05:48, May 6, 2013 (UTC)


Let her take a break from S:C - Ansela is one of our most excellent users and I'd like to re-emphasise what you said above about her huge contributions to the wiki as I feel it's important to acknowledge her hard work.

I'm not going to waste time bitching about her behaviour here, as I'm sure there'll be plenty of that below, but I'd like to advise Ans to just take a break from going into S:C for a while, which is the medium in which nearly all of her outbursts take place. I'm not implying a ban or anything here; I don't feel she deserves anything like that. She can be trusted to take a voluntary break from chat for a period of a month, or perhaps two, and should have ample oppurtunity in that time to cool down and reconsider rash behaviour.

It's disappointing that there has to be a thread about this, but I fully trust Ans to see things clearly and change her ways if the community makes her realise that her actions just can't be tolerated forever. One month break, taken voluntarily as an effort to help, not punish, pls. Ronan Talk 08:05, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with Flaysian's overall point that we should endeavour to help her improve rather than punish her. We have trusted her with sysop tools thus far and she has not destroyed the wiki. If she is willing I would second a break from chat for a month, allowing her to edit as normal.

I have never had any conflict with Ansela myself, but have noticed she has increasingly shorter fuse. If we look at her RfA, we can see a more or less unanimous support based on the effort she puts into the wiki but mild concerns of her temper and how she handles conflict. In all honesty, I don't think she handles conflict well. Whether this is down to editing more often than a lot of us, particularly in anti-vandalism, and thus increasing the amount of potential conflicts that could arise, I'm not sure.

I cannot deny she put a lot of work into the wiki and we would lose a good, experienced editor should she leave, but frankly the current behaviour she displays need to stop permanently. Small things like the talk page headers she adds to those who leave messages on her page but lack the experience of wiki-ing to know to add a header too. The small things add up over time as this thread evidences. She has little respect for those who are confused by or inexperienced with editing. Whilst it is not a policy we have here, perhaps bearing Wikipedia's Please do not bite the newcomers would be beneficial here. I agree with Cook that sysops are held up to higher standards of behaviour, regardless of whatever equality we might try to imagine. You cannot be in a position of authority without keeping to the rules yourself.

As for the resolution of this thread, I feel this should serve as a final warning to her. If there should be another incident where she is found to breach UTP I would suggest, regrettably, that her sysop and chat moderator tools be revoked. Should she desire to receive the tools again, she will need to pass another RfA. Unless these incidents stop I don't see what other course of action can be taken. cqm 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

it's a bit foolish to consider desysopping her before she's even had the chance to give her version of events Ronan Talk 09:41, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
It is considered in the proposal, not just in my comment. However, desysoping is a last resort in my mind, when all else fails. If her behaviour does improve and stays that way, I see no reason to remove her tools. cqm 10:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I don't see how Ansela's version of the events could make it any better. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 12:24, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
it's always helpful to know both sides before making any serious judgements Ronan Talk 12:39, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
Her side is stated in the thread and I can vouch for it. It's nothing but empty promises of change that are broken shortly thereafter. MolMan 19:08, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying she is not allowed to state her own defence herself? That's what it looks like to me What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:12, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
I'm simply vouching for what Cook has said himself. I've done my fair share of intervention and (attempted) remediation, enough so to understand her side to a certain extent. Please don't mince my words. MolMan 19:19, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Likewise suggest a little break from chat - I'm hardly ever on anymore, but I've been on chat for multiple occasions of Ansela taking things too far, and even one incident which I remember considering a blatant violation of the user treatment policy (though I wasn't keeping notes or anything, so sorry for the lack of concrete examples). I'd like to hear her side of this before going further, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 11:58, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe it will be good to take a short break from the chat. She knows full well she's not good with others, so that is why she prefers to use templates. Maybe you guys can help her out by intervening and dealing with the problem before she has to What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 18:46, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

That's not a truly viable option. It's ridiculous and impractical to ask for her interactions to always be mediated by some other user. Actually, that's only a bigger problem for us to have to watchdog her every move. Part of being a sysop (which she is) is being able to trust that user to interact with others in a civil manner. I cannot trust her to do that, not now, but I wish I could. I want this thread to end with some sort of solution that includes Ansela being able to speak for herself and politely not "Ansela is rude and we can't change that, thus we should always speak on her behalf". MolMan 19:19, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
that's absolutely ridiculous, she shouldn't need to be babysat Ronan Talk 20:57, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
The whole point of sysop tools is that you are trusted to be capable of making your own decisions. Babysitting and sysop tools don't mix in my book. cqm 23:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Did I mention babysitting? No. Did I mention an anger management that is recommended by psychologists ie letting somebody else deal with stressful situations that the person cannot deal with calmly themselves? Yes. So kindly stop making up bullshit about what I said What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:34, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Um, you quite clearly mentioned babysitting. "Maybe you guys can help her out by intervening and dealing with the problem before she has to". Needing to be constantly watched over and intervening in difficult situations is babysitting. And Cam is quite right - someone passes an RfA on the assumption that they can handle themselves in tough situations. Nobody else is getting worked up over this - I suggest that you try to adopt a more aloof attitude rather than resorting to swearing, caps and angry remarks. It will make your argument look more credible. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:36, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
Ciphrius quit shortly after this thread commenced, so this doesn't matter. Ronan Talk 21:00, May 16, 2013 (UTC)

Take a breakEveryone needs one once in a while. Especially the most active of editors. I can bet you'll feel better after one and perhaps more malleable as well. MolMan 19:08, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

A break is needed - Everything gets monotonous after a while and I think that may be starting to cause some problems to AnselaJonla. Magpie.pngHallowlandtalkWoodcutting-icon.png 19:46, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

So she starts fights out of boredom? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:49, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
To my understanding, English is not her first language. Perhaps she didn't mean that Ansela gets stirred up to stir things up? MolMan 19:53, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
I didn't state that (@Ciphrius Kane), I am saying that work in long-term may cause sequelae. Magpie.pngHallowlandtalkWoodcutting-icon.png 19:54, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
Ok just so you know: monotonous = dull, boring and sequelae = illness as a result of another illness, but I fail to see how either of those cause her to behave as she does What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:58, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
It's called lost in translation. Please ease up. MolMan 20:02, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
I knew that, it is something called "metaphors". It means the same thing in my language. "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." - Albert Einstein. Magpie.pngHallowlandtalkWoodcutting-icon.png 20:08, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As Ronan mentioned, it may be better to hear Ansela's thoughts on this before a decision is made. Real Nub 20:01, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ansela, I'd like to talk to you before you post on here. I'd like to explain my reasons for you taking a break in private What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:03, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

I have a few concerns:

1. Why is it, when Ansela suggested taking a break, Cook said it was a bad idea? Are you that fucking desperate to see her hang Cook?

2. Why deal with this in such a public manner? Why not deal with it in PM? Are you that desperate to appear to be a hero Cook?

3. Mol, why is it that when Cook suggested you speak in place of Ansela, you were up for it but when I suggested it, it was the worst idea ever?

Seriously, am I the only one wondering this? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:34, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is what I meant about contentious. Addressing your points in turn:
  1. You asked me about this privately, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Ansela never suggested taking a break to me, nor did I discourage the idea -- I think it's a good one so long as she still has ways of communicating with others when needed. I absolutely do not want to "see her hang". I want her to stay here (at least in the long run) and continue to be helpful while working on the behavioral issues.
  2. As I stated earlier, and as you probably know, I've been trying to fix this privately since at least last May. That has not worked so far so this is my alternative.
  3. I can't address the last point directly but it sounds like a misunderstanding.
I asked you not to take this personally but it seems you've done just that. Don't make this into something it doesn't have to be. ʞooɔ 00:41, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Ok let me reiterate my second point: WHY DID YOU NOT ASK HER TO TAKE A BREAK IN PRIVATE? Could it be that you had already rejected the idea, or had intended on taking this public all along? And as for taking this personally, I was thinking, and these just kept on nagging me. I cannot help but wonder whether you have it in for Ansela, else why would you drag up shit over a deletion that had been dealt with 4 months ago? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:47, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
I asked her in private to be nicer and to treat people the way she'd like to be treated -- that was kind of the gist of my conversations with her in the past. It didn't occur to me to ask her to take a forced break, as I thought the idea could be unfeasible logistically. I understand that you are not exactly a neutral party here, but please assume good faith when I tell you that I don't "have it in" for Ansela, and that my only objective is keeping this wiki at the top of its game. Ansela is both a huge help and a huge detraction to that mission, so I want to get rid of the detracting part. At this point getting rid of her forever would not be conducive to my goals or the wiki's goals. If you try to look at the logs and evidence as if you were someone else, you would see gross violations of UTP, instead of some guy who's out to get someone. As to the dates of the evidence, I wanted to mostly use recent material, but I wanted a few older things to show that this is a repeating pattern. ʞooɔ 01:01, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Oh I'm not arguing that she can be mean at times or that she needs to take a break. I'm trying to find out why the fuck you decided a great big public court hearing was needed. And she told me that she suggested taking a break and that you rejected that idea, which really does make me question your reasons behind this. Or is it that you think that you have to shame her into taking a break? IS THAT WHY THIS IS SO FUCKING PUBLIC? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:07, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Ciph, please calm down. I highly doubt anybody wants to see Ansela go. She's a great editor, and I certainly want her to stay in the community. Cook already mentioned that he had spoken to Ansela privately several times in the past, apparently since May of last year. If this was a fairly common occurrence (I don't know, I never spoke with her about anything like this) then that would mean that speaking to her privately would not work. The only thing I believe this thread is trying to accomplish is stir up ideas to help Ansela. Maybe you should take a step back and try to look at this from the viewpoint that we only want to help. Again, I don't think anybody has it out for her. Suppa chuppa Talk 01:12, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Did I say anybody wanted her to go? NO! Did he try speaking with her privately? Yes, but he rejected the idea. Am I denying that there is a problem? NO! And I have suggested an idea, only to have it fucking shot down, by those who don't even bother to read the suggestion! And still Cook does not say why this needed to be done in such a public forum What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:16, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Wow, maybe you want to sit this one out a minute. First of all, to my knowledge she never suggested taking a break of any sort and I would be interested in hearing what she had to say directly instead of having it translated through you. Your entire line of reasoning is based on a false premise. Secondly, look at this from my point of view -- I have been trying for the better part of a year to get Ansela to shape up, privately, without any effect to speak of. I've talked down at least two or three different people from trying to get her desysopped -- in fact the catalyst that led to Fergie nominating Hair for adminship in December was the thought of desysopping Ansela and the need for more admins. I prevented the worst of that from happening, because I'm a practical guy and I know that it wouldn't be helpful in the short term. I have been extremely delicate with this thread, avoiding any proposals and simply stating evidence. I want this entire thing to be resolved as simply as possible but you are making it quite difficult. Realize who your friends are. ʞooɔ 01:18, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Since we're yelling here:
@3, Cook suggested this originally as a solution, and I actual didn't like it too much; however, after conversations with him in private as well as some personal reflection, I conceded. You're suggesting it now when it's been blatantly clear that it does not work as a solution. MolMan 01:21, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
What evidence do you have for this Mol? What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:26, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
I don't log all my private conversations, only ones I deem important. Nor do I keep a diary of all of my thoughts of each day. There is no solid proof that this ever occurred but why would I make this up? Can you not try to put me on trial about private conversation and just give me some merit? After all, I was a part of these conversations and thoughts. MolMan 01:29, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

She seems to have taken a break on her own accord What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 01:26, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Kay - First of all, I asked Cook to make this thread. So the BS about him out to take over the world or whatever is completely false, he didn't want to make the thread. I have been asking him to make a thread about this for nearly a year. If you know him at all you'd know how reluctant he is to do things like this (or maybe that's just me because I like asking him to do my dirty work (which he hardly ever does)). It's been done in such a public form because nothing else was working and because I asked for it. So if you want to yell at someone for making it public, yell at me. Or yell at the one who is making these public outbursts on a daily basis. What tipped me over was Ansela's comment on May 4th to User:Event Nexus in the chat. I was so astounded that I didn't even say anything - I didn't know what to say. I, too, have been asking Ansela to tone it down. Usually when I ask she stops, but it keeps happening. Over and over. Every day.

Regarding getting professional help, I have suggested that as well. Never in my life had I seen someone give me so many excuses as to why they couldn't do something. This is a serious issue, Ansela. You're my friend and I don't want to see you gone or desysopped but this needs to be addressed asap. You don't even deny being hateful towards people, instead you blame their ignorance which sets you off. Come on now. I know your circumstances and I realize how difficult it will be for you to change, but honestly, it would make everything in your life so much better. Not to mention the lives of those around you.

The Internet can fuel small fires extremely easily. I know this firsthand - if you compare the me from 2 years ago to the me now, it's like we're different people. It would be beneficial for everyone if Ansela took a break to recollect herself. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:44, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Ansela - If what Kane has said is true and you really have taken a break under your own discretion, then kudos. It is perhaps the most mature thing you can do to accept that your behavior is unacceptable and thus decide to take a break (like suggested by your peers). I tried posting some of my own unsightly behavior here to show you there is no shame in taking a break when you've realized you need it, regardless of how you administer that break. It seems to have been lost in the drama of this thread, so there it is again. And here it is a third time.

I genuinely believe you can change. I'll candidly say that I used to think your behavior was a lost cause, but with some recent private conversations with you, I see that you can be a sincerely sweet person. Look, we all have problems, we're all human; except me, I'm a squirrel. But even squirrels, like humans, have flaws. The first step to fixing a problem is accepting it. No, not just accepting that you're mean – You've done that – But also accepting that your behavior negatively affects others and negatively affects your reputation more so than most others' flaws.

I think you can change. I really, really do. I think you can change, but not when you're trying to change whilst constantly in the vicinity of the source. I can't say I know about the entire last year, but I do know that for the majority of my wiki career, you were in the chatroom daily. I think you're under too much wikistress and feel a complete, willing break from the wiki will only do you good and only serve to help clean up your act.

And please remember: We don't hate you, Ansela. We want to like you, but sometimes you make that really hard. We care about you Ansela, that's why there's no proposal. We don't want you permanently blocked or desysopped or banned from the chat; we want you fixed. You're brimming with potential to be one of the greatest editors to have ever contributed to the RuneScape wiki, just there's a demon or two to cleanse. MolMan 01:59, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment - Why are there all these suggestions to take a break from the chat considering only a quarter of the examples provided are from Chat? (Or am I missing out due to my preference for IRC) It would seem that the issue at hand is occurring regardless of the medium so taking a break from certain parts of the wiki will not solve the problem. I agree that she has been a valuable contributor to the wiki, and although treating people with disrespect is unacceptable, like someone said above, she hasn't "destroyed the wiki". Thus, we can probably take some of the more serious options off the table and have this discussion serve as a formal reminder to Ansela that repeatedly violating UTP is unacceptable and further actions can be taken in the future. In the meantime, she can take a break or some other action on her own initiative. 222 talk 02:04, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

There are a whole ton of examples from the chat. A large number. I don't want to be that guy who digs up all the evidence though. I will if I must though. MolMan 02:06, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
I'll take your word for it. But my question is, is the chat the location for the majority these reported issues? Or are they prevalent wiki-wide? 222 talk 02:18, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
If she is to take a break, it should be from all corners of the wiki. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the issues escalate easier in chat. Whilst Ansela was never the most eloquent of writers (I have warned people about things for her on a few occasions), I think the live chat medium gives quicker responses and can just cause more problems. cqm 09:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - Why do I have the feeling that if she was just a normal user, instead of an Admin, that noone would really care about her behavior? I know according to RS:SOW, that Admin's have no extra authority on others opinions, but it seems like this tag creates more drama attention to the user's actions than its worth. I mean, if say, I did something wrong, all I get is a warning that'll eventually lead to a ban. It won't result in a thread discussing about my behavior or anything. :P --Jlun2 (talk) 04:25, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

I think you've got it quite backwards -- if she wasn't an admin she'd surely be blocked by now. ʞooɔ 04:36, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of we know she is capable of being better. She didn't start out like this or she would have been blocked before then end of her first month. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't remember her being like this when I started out here. cqm 09:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

At this stage I think it's important for Ansela to give some input before we go any further. Fucks are flying above and there's no need for what should be a calm discussion to turn into a prima donna dramafest. I'd like to specifically ask Ans to give us her thoughts before this thread becomes too long and tedious. Ronan Talk 15:23, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I have heard Ansela say on the Chat that she has trouble being friendly towards other users. Just saying. -- Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 19:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)

ok Ronan Talk 19:57, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't make it ok. If she realizes that she has issues in interacting positively with other users, then it's up to her to do something about it. Regardless of her contributions to the site itself, it's not permissible for her to continue berating users.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 21:17, May 7, 2013 (UTC)
I lol'd RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 03:25, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
Please stop trying to start further issues, Rhys. It's unconstructive, to say the least.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 20:45, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
He's not intending to, Scimitar -- Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 06:50, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - A few points to consider. I'm not presenting an argument for anything.

  1. If an admin were not an admin, but was applying now, would it pass? (Aside: How many admins would withstand the standard?)
  2. If you have no reason to believe things would be different after a suspension (or any other measure), then there's no reason to consider the suspension (or whatever measure).
  3. As unfair as it may sound, in the "real world," people under review don't usually have input into their own review process. They do usually have an advocate of appropriate supervisory rank, however (e.g., a junior executive would have a senior executive as an advocate). An exact analog for the wiki may be difficult given the (lack of) organizational structure.
  4. In the "real world" even suggesting that someone seek professional help is something their lawyer would use to hang you in court if they're subsequently dismissed from their position. The court would order you to re-hire them, with all back-pay and benefits. At that point, you would have a very hard time finding justifiable cause for a dismissal. (You'd be assumed guilty of reprisal for any further action and have to prove your innocence, essentially.) You may be genuinely concerned for their welfare and IANAL, but don't ever do it. --Saftzie (talk) 06:30, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
  1. I don't think so -- I think most of the (active) admins could, though.
  2. Things seem to be better right now, so I think we do have reason to think it's at least possible that a break could do some good.
  3. In almost all threads that could be considered 'analogous' to this one, the subject of the thread has made a comment in here. It's her right to do that, but it sounds like she doesn't want to.
  4. I guess it's a good thing this isn't the real world. ʞooɔ 06:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - This needs a proposal or it will accomplish nothing. Temujin 14:32, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm... No it doesn't. MolMan 14:33, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Then what do you think it will achieve? Temujin 14:35, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does. If we close this thread as "well she's changed for now", then what can we do if things start up again? We need to set some sort of rule. Otherwise we'll be doing this all over again, like we had been with private messages. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't need a proposal because one was already implicitly in place. MolMan 21:49, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ansela has expressed an interest in not commenting on this thread. She also would like to not be bothered by this request. MolMan 18:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

But is it better to kill an ox in an attempt to straighten its horns, or let the ox play to the full of its ability with its horns as they are?
Temujin 14:04, May 17, 2013 (UTC)


Ansela is aware of this forum and has expressed that she has no intention of commenting, believing arguing over this would not benefit anyone. Whilst I disagree with this opinion, I have not attempted to advise her to do otherwise, though I'm sure others have tried and failed to do so. She has also said she has taken the concerns raised on board and has tried to take measures to resolve the potential issues. A break from chat, initially suggested above, was attempted, but given the current methods we employ for communication it has proved impractical. No more do we rely on talk pages and RS:AR for our administrator needs. No more do we report every vandal to RS:CVU. The notion that Ansela can be useful as an administrator who cannot be found in either chat or IRC is, sadly, no longer plausible.

Removing Ansela's sysop tools has not gathered any support as far as I can see, although Saftzie's question of whether Ansela would pass a RfA today echoes concerns I have seen raised prior to this forum. I, like Cook, doubt she would comfortably pass an RfA today. This raises a question: if someone cannot pass an RfA today why are they still a sysop? We do not hold any sort of formal review of sysops, although there are instances of sysops being reviewed. Never has any such review led to being desysoped. I am not going to suggest implementing any sort of review as these threads are thankfully rare and are normally resolved within the confines of the thread.

I completely agree with Fergie when she says there needs to be some sort of measure set in case this happens again. Perhaps this will get through to Ansela, perhaps she will go back to old habits after this has closed. I hope it is the former. I question why we are so hesitant to take any sort of action against her beyond stern words up until the creation of this forum. Does her work on the wiki outweigh any policy she may violate?

So, in the interests of bringing this forum to some sort of resolution, I would propose that Ansela be given a final chance. If she is found to break RS:UTP again, her sysop tools will be removed and she will be blocked for a 2 weeks. Should she continue to violate RS:UTP after this, blocks lengths may escalate at the blocking admin's discretion. I will point out here that RS:BLOCK states users who have engaged in personal attacks 5 or more times should be blocked indefinitely. If we were to follow the letter of the policy Ansela would have been blocked already. She may apply for rollback or custodian tools as she desires, and may request sysop tools by passing another RfA with community consensus. cqm 21:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Proposal amended - see below. cqm 23:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Breaking UTP is kinda subjective and using just any breach of it is basically just guaranteeing a block for her. "Becoming nice" is certainly not an immediate process, we have to acknowledge that. That's not to say we should go back to our our old way of practically condoning her behavior, but we need to give her a little bit of leeway. I mean, if she's being really despicable just end her malice with no mercy, then we should, but if she's only just started and we're able to get her under control, we're making progress. I know this sounds contradictory to the goals of this thread, but we can't expect her to be functional under a such a tight grip, nor can we simply let her get away with this shit. A middle ground is the answer: if she starts getting mean, I'd rather just give her harder and harder slaps on the wrist instead of jumping straight to the block. It kinda sounds like I'm pussying out, but I'm not; this is just the way people work. It may also sound like this is just another coda for the old way of how we dealt with her, but it's not. Ansela (hopefully) now realizes every consequence with which she's been threatened is becoming a reality. She sees nothing was an empty threat and we've had it up to "here" with her behavior. She sees that we're really fucking serious about this, and I'm sure that'll help her shape up. MolMan 21:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
I agree UTP is a subjective term, but on this occasion I have found myself questioning what UTP actually is. It is more or less a common sense policy, left up to admin discretion. I would like to define it for the purposes of this topic, as vague guidelines serve little purpose.
I will grant that this process is unlikely to be immediate, but another empty threat is lacking motivation. cqm 22:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
My suggestion is not an empty threat ;) I'd like to give Ansela another small chance or two, but she better not fuck it up. MolMan 22:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
are the fucks necessary Ronan Talk 22:19, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Don't question my rhetoric. MolMan 22:20, May 12, 2013 (UTC)
Well, who gives a fuck I guess...k I'll stop it's not funny anymore Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 16:40, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I had typed out my own proposal idea, but looking at Cam's, they are pretty much the same. The problem is defining what breaking UTP will mean. Honestly, I think that should be left up to the individual. If there are a bunch of small instances and no major instances, I would see that as progress not being made, and I would support a desysop. If there is one huge incident, obviously we should make a desysop thread. If there is one small instance... I think people should discuss things like that amongst themselves. So with that in mind, I support Cam's proposal. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:57, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Also I wanted to comment that it is perfectly acceptable to not be involved in the community but still do tasks on the wiki. Last I checked I didn't need to be in chat to revert vandalism and block people. Ansela checks the RC frequently in any case so she would be quicker than someone pointing out a vandal in chat anyway. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:59, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - We will be wasting time if we attempt to define UTP. Every case is different so it will be best to leave it up to the administrator at the time to determine whether a desysop and block are warranted. Anything that is similar to the previous significant incidents should warrant action. Finally, a question. Will there be a sunset clause for this particular contract? I would hate to see in 3 years time, someone attempting to get Ansela blocked under these conditions when the circumstances would be massively different to now. 222 talk 11:17, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

In the initial draft of my proposal I considered a 6 month probation. If she has managed to not get herself blocked in that time then I would consider her improved. If she has managed to last 6 months, then surely however long she may be around for should come easily enough. An indefinite probation is probably not the best idea in the world, but adding a time limit suggests that if anything significant happens in 8 months/1 year/etc. then we will simply ignore it. I don't want to send out the message that this is tolerable behaviour regardless of when it happens, hence I neglected to include it above. cqm 11:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Support in principle - The proposal seems fair enough, if a little strict. As Fergie previously said, if this thread is closed without something concrete having been agreed to, then we'll likely end up doing this all over again. Temujin 08:20, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

I find the proposal in its current form too severe to support. Temujin 13:02, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative suggestion? cqm 13:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Why did you randomly change your mind? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:48, May 16, 2013 (UTC)
No, I do not have an alternative suggestion. However, I believe that there is a very real possibility of Ansela being desysoped and/or blocked for a significant amount of time. I think that would be neither an efficient nor an ethical solution to the problem at hand. I have an issue with the follow sections of the passage in particular: "I would propose that Ansela be given a final chance", "Should she continue to violate RS:UTP after this, blocks lengths may escalate at the blocking admin's discretion". I do not think this should be Ansela's final chance, nor do I agree with idea that the power to determine the length of any block that she may face be at the discretion of a single person. My change of heart, if you will, was not at all random. My support was always rather mild (hence, I only ever supported it in principle), and upon reading the proposal again with a clearer mind, I decided that I could not support unless it was amended. I am also wary of the fact that many people have said that Ansela has expressed a sincere desire to change her attitudes to other contributors. In my humble opinion, the proposal, as it currently stands, would not be of benefit to the wiki or Ansela. Temujin 07:27, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that line of argument is this. If Ansela were a "normal" user, a sole administrator would have been able to block at their own discretion. Not only that, a block would have been applied much earlier. Personally, I expect administrators to be held up to a much higher standard of behaviour when it comes to interactions with others on the wiki. Administrative tools are not a reward, and losing them is little punishment. If you cannot support this without amendments, then what kind of provisions do you think would improve this proposal? 222 talk 07:59, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
I have discussed my opinion at great length in Special:Chat with Cook to no avail. I will therefore not elaborate any further on this matter at present. Temujin 09:01, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Mild support - But I agree with Mol that there should be a little leeway. (even though Ansela's probably broke UTP against me more than 5 times by now) Plus, we'll really need to redefine UTP if Ansela's broken UTP (as it is now) after this thread multiple times. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 16:40, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be defined, community consensus on a desysop thread will define it. Also, this thread is the leeway. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:04, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
This isn't leeway per say. MolMan 18:43, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Per se*. That is a cardinal spelling sin. Ronan Talk 20:49, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
I did that on purpose because I was bored and because Google doesn't recognize Latin. MolMan 20:59, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
That's what they all say. Ronan Talk 21:08, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Leeway per say. Am I the only person who likes the little things like that? MolMan 21:10, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
She may violate UTP by accident at some point. Then a block would be verging on unfair. And in my opinion a desysop thread is silly. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 18:57, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
How do you accidentally treat someone like s***? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:59, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean it like that. I mean something like a mere "shut up, moron" when it's needed. I guess that violating UTP can be defined differently by different people. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 19:32, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so let's say something like that happens and that this proposal has passed. An administrator won't be able to desysop Ansela and block her for 2 weeks. First of all, a 'crat is required to remove her tools unless she does it herself. Secondly, a desysop requires community consensus. This thread does not propose that Ansela may be desysopped at any admins discretion, so if it's something minor or a slipup, it most likely would not lead to the removal of her tools. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:42, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to state. Just that I'm borderline illiterate. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 20:00, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Question - How is "found to be breaching UTP" defined? There seems to be some confusion relating to this point. I was under the impression that this would require community consensus, but it seems that others did not understand it as such. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:05, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

The proposal does state that consensus is not required. I would like to apologise for this oversight, forgetting that removing tools should always be done through consensus.
What one person might define as a breach or UTP, another might not. Even with the wiki's different chat mediums, where the same rules more or less apply, there are different interpretations and how they should be applied. A prime example of this is the differences in moderation between Special:Chat and IRC. A breach of UTP, especially with one with consequences such as this, should be defined by consensus. cqm 23:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I support the amended proposal. Temujin 12:30, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - So what was actually proposed was that Ansela gets a final chance, then next time something happens, we make a thread to desysop her? Then in that thread, there will be 12+1 exhibits of evidence. If that's true, then I've clearly been supporting something completely different. That last section of the proposal was quite the omission. 222 talk 03:23, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Can we all just stop and agree that if things get bad again, or if progress isn't made, someone will likely make a desysop thread? That's it. No rules or standards, just the knowledge that a desysop thread will be made at the thread creator's discretion, and the desysopping and possible blocking will be at the discretion of the commenters on the desysop thread. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:04, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

With Cam's clarification, this seems to be what the proposal now resembles. I support this, mostly because it expresses the same thing in only a few lines. 222 talk 10:52, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
I too support this streamlined approach. cqm 18:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - I've also personally had a problem with Ansela. I was a bit surprised when she was so rude to me as she was an admin. MahjarratInfo101 (talk) 06:54, May 26, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Should Ansela be found in violation of UTP, a thread may be created to determine the severity of her breach. If the community determines that the breach warrants a block, her administrative tools may be removed and she may be blocked for a duration to be determined in the thread. Note that this closure does not allow for an administrator or 'crat to block or desysop her without consensus. Suppa chuppa Talk 15:45, May 29, 2013 (UTC)