RationalWiki:All things in moderation/Resignation chat

Resignations

I'm done with being a mod, and done with the drama. An inbox full of creepy, foul and threatening e-mails is a little too much for me. I came here a hundred years ago for the smart and the funny, and I don't want to give that up. So I'll see you in the smart and the funny. Suggest LX as a replacement, but y'all do what you think is best.^{— Unsigned, by: P-Foster / talk / contribs}

Note for others: the runner-up in the election, MordantMaenad, has succeeded P-Foster as a mod.--^talk 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Me also...

Being a mod is lame and stupid. Fit only for geese and oily elephant seals who feel it good manners to suffocate their mates after coitus. For the record though, Foster, those emails were meant to be sweet and humming with pubescent musk. Ace^{of Spades} 14:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Blue

I hereby resign from the position of moderator, effective immediately. I will stand for election. Blue (is useful) 06:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This should probably be archived or deleted or something, as it's pretty misleading left hanging here while you're back in office. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Moderator succession

We need to figure this out as soon as possible, even though we'll probably have fewer resignations as people get a better idea of the position. Personally, I don't think by-elections should become a regular occurrence - we should treat all the candidates from the primary election as potential alternates. Blue (is useful) 03:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Elect 7 mods and 2 alternates at the regular elections. If the number of mods drops below 5, hold by-elections for the empty seats + 2 alternates (so we're back at having 7 mods and 2 alternates). Otherwise though it out with only 6 or 5 mods. -- Nx / talk 04:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Why would we elect two alternates at the regular election if we're not going to install them? Or do you mean to allow for a maximum of four resignations/removals before a by-election? Or would the first alternate only serve until the second original mod left? Or am I overthinking this? Blue (is useful) 04:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, basically to allow for four resignations before we need another election. We could also elect 4 alternates I guess. The point is, I'm not sure it's a good idea to move down the results too much, so I'd like to avoid that. -- Nx / talk 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still think this is the best plan.--^talk 06:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Which one? -- Nx / talk 06:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I'm bust-down tired. The "7+2, with a minimum of 5" plan.--^talk 06:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

And the brouhaha with the latest election shows why it's not a good idea to do alternates with STV. That's why I suggested 2 alternates plus letting the number of mods drop to below 5 before requiring another election instead of 4 alternates. Maybe someone who understands STV better can chime in. -- Nx / talk 10:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I like Nx's plan the best, as well. Blue (is useful) 20:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx proposed we elect 7 moderators and the next candidates on the results ladder as 2 alternates. However, a by-election would not be called unless the number of total moderators drops below 5, from resignations or removals or what have you. Blue (is useful) 19:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds very sensible. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Blue (is useful) 22:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen no objections or alternative suggestions (from mods or the mob) so should we consider this plan adopted? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure voting for alternates is a good idea with STV. -- Nx / talk 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not the most efficient solution, but it is the most practical, I think. Blue (is useful) 20:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an alternate proposal: we elect 0 mods and 0 alternates. Otherwise the plan looks fine. I'll look at it more closely when I get done with work. 20:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean a return to bureaucrats? Blue (is useful) 20:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

how about 5 mods no alternates and elections when everyone quits ? Hamster (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about 1 mod who chooses her alternate and no elections? Blue (is useful) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing issues

Rogue Moderators

Something I really wanted to address was the issue of rogue moderators. In the first round of mod elections I went rouge and started a whole host of problems before I quit. Then there was Nx continually blocking me for 3 month periods and stripping rights when there was no need/reason. Although I never abused my mod powers I still created HCM when the role is to specifically moderate such things to avoid HCM. Nx did the same and used his mod powers in a way he shouldn't have. In each case (Blue locking Human's talkpage might be another but I don't want to reopen that here) nothing was done and the mod carried on as they saw fit. I don't want to suggest that mods behave differently from other users (i.e. not get into disputes and/or not swear etc) but there also needs to be a line where if a mod is creating an HCM or a user has complained about a mod's actions/abuse then there needs to be a process. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps I haven't made myself very clear....Ace^Moderator 22:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mods aren't super users. so if they want to be dicks, they can just the same as the rest of us. If they are only using sysop powers. If they are using mod powers to be dicks, then maybe we need to talk about how you suspend mod powers, or giving warnings or who knows what. Being a dick seems to come naturally to people on this wiki. all of us. but you can't use mod powers to enforce your particular dicky mood.--GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Mods are the same as any other user except when it comes to actually needing to be a mod. Of course, mods can be dicks. I am a dick and a mod. But there is nothing in place to censure/discipline a mod if they really step over the mark. I think at the very least, if someone has a complaint about a mod then the other mods should be duty bound to look at the issue. Ace^Moderator 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i just worry that it becomes one more "game people play" here. Take you and Nx before. You both wanted a particular outcome, but it was troll v. troll - neither of you was more right or wrong. So if you say "Mods need to intervene", aren't you saying "choose sides in our petty fight?" Ultimatly, that's my concern about this power system in the first place. It just becomes one more level in the same game. I know of at least 3 longer term "fights?" going on around here, at this time, mostly involving well known editors. how do you keep from just making this "let me control the wiki by pushing buttons". and i'm NOT accusing you, nx or anyone else. :-) just saying this is what happens here daily....GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but here is the issue... I believe my Nx complaint was valid (as was the complaint against me when I was trolling Maratrean) but not one other mod said "Cut that shit out" when the complaint was made. Ace^Moderator 23:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not exactly sure how this could ever change, what do you suggest (ps, should we move this?)GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

All I am suggesting is something really fucking simple. If a mod is causing an HCM of some kind and another user raises to moderation then the other mods should be duty bound to look at it and either dismiss it as frivolous (i.e. so Ace called you dick? Get over it) or recognise it is causing a serious disruption (i.e. using mod powers to harass or creating a certain level of HCM) wherein the other mods can tell them to cut that shit out. Do you see what I mean? Ace^Moderator 23:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And what happens when a sysop is causing an HCM? -- Nx / talk 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Moderators are already tasked with moderating HCM's and policies which covers users/sysops. I am talking about people complaining about mods. Ace^Moderator 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us used moderator powers in the incidents you mentioned. -- Nx / talk 23:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So? What has the got to do with what I am suggesting? I am suggesting that if I go rogue as a moderator again and someone complains about it then the mods have a duty to look into the complaint. Ace^Moderator 23:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and you did use your mod powers to block and take away rights 9 hours after the fact....but I ain't going to get into that again. Ace^Moderator 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you were abusing your rights. -- Nx / talk 23:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That has already been discussed and closed off long ago. This topic is about how to handle complaints against moderator . Ace^Moderator 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A policy about users going rogue and abusing sysop powers that only applies to moderators doesn't seem logical to me. -- Nx / talk 00:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not like anybody cares what I say, but as I have been bitching about this for almost the whole last term (of course I thought the community would get that too and elect theright people, but I've been taught something), I thought I'd drop by my turd. You have two options: (1) letting it stand and do nothing at all, which would probably cause more HCM and wrangling for mod places, because essentially mods would be above the law rules then or (2) with the combined forces of all other mods punish those who go rouge. Now as we are allready asking for number 2, I'd say you should come up with some kind of protocol how to deal with it (for example: complaint goes to other mod, other mod brings it here, all mods talk about it, make decision carried out). If nothing ever happens to those mods that are causing HCM rather then stopping it, there is no reason for them to stop. The details are your problem. Well, there's my turd, hope it doesn't stink that bad. --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am basically saying what UHM is saying. What to do about mods who incite and perpetuate the very situation they are supposed to be moderating. If no one complains well, then nothing I guess. But what if one or more users complains? Ace^Moderator 00:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean like Human posting someone's e-mails and Blue locking down his page and repeatedly reverting with no discussion? Not to open newly-healed wounds, but that was a perfect storm of moderator abuse and an HCM caused entirely by the people who are supposed to prevent it. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 00:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it again. Blue (is useful) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you're really not very good at your job. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. And Blue - you a) did exceed your mod powers and b) admitting you'll exceed them again doesn't help your cause. Ace^Moderator 01:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want six more months of this, you'd best remove me, then. Or Human. Blue (is useful) 01:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Human didn't use his mod powers but if you want to create a coop for him (or take it to moderation) create the relevant section. Ace^Moderator 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You realize there's no such thing as abuse of mod powers, right? That's why we will continue to have this problem. Blue (pester) 01:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, are we through the looking glass yet? This is why I started this thread. What to do in this situation. Fuck man. Ace^Moderator 01:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I want this policy as much as you, even if I'm only to be its first victim. Blue (is useful) 01:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well good, lets see what some other mods have to say. I might just point out that using your rights in a fashion you know will sooner or later be considered an abuse is pretty fucking lame and stupid of you, right? Ace^Moderator 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can hardly see how one can say there is no such thing as abuse of mod powers. Though it is true there is no policy in place concerning such abuse. I've been saying for eons there needs to be accountability for mods, as well as a process for removing them in extreme circumstances. I'm glad there's finally a little movement on that front. DickTurpis (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not as fucking lame as what dear Human did, but I'll give you that.

Dick, I meant that without a policy, it's hard for anyone to claim someone abused their powers.

For the record, I proposed a moderator policy a while ago, and it went largely unnoticed. Blue (is useful) 01:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Who did what worse than the other is a matter of opinion, Blue. Ace^Moderator 01:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

EC Relevant to this discussion: One was a user who happens to be a moderator pulling a dick move; the other was a user using moderator powers in an inappropriate way. While I feel that moderators should, as moderators, try to minimize the number of dick moves they commit, it should really be an issue when mods use their powers as a weapon in a conflict that they are embroiled in. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace"

Well, lets get off the "who did what" and focus on the way forward. Ace^Moderator 01:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. Anyway, if we want moderator accountability, we can't wish it into existence and/or rely on the inherent good nature of people. We need clear rules, a clear redress mechanism and a very simple enforcement mechanism. Blue (pester) 02:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer seems simple, the implementation seems impossible. If someone uses mod powers to settle a personal issue, they should get a warning, then if they do it a second time, be removed from moding. implementing that - or figuring out who used powers wrongfully is where the trouble comes. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Way Forward as I see it: first, write this incident off as water over the dam. Then, to make we don't see more of this kind of shit, we get a drawn out, convoluted policy discussion going on moderator behavior, accountability, and removal. Or, since most of us aren't really anxious to get a bunch more rules on the books, and are suffering from mild policy-fatigue as it is, we simply do nothing and hope for the best. Neither option is actually all that great. In the meantime everyone chill the fuck out. Blue, don't send condescending and patronizing emails to other mods. Human, don't post private discussions on your talk page, especially when it serves no purpose but to create more drama on the wiki, it being your one and only job to try to prevent such conflict. Blue, when another user does pull a dickish move, don't unilaterally use your mod powers to try to sweep it under the rug, and be mindful of the Streisand effect. DickTurpis (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I meant the way forward in creating mod policy but that'll do Dick. Does water go over a damn though? Or through? Anyway, I also think that any user should be able to bring issues concerning a moderator's behaviour to the mod group and the mod group should be duty bound to address it. Ace^Moderator 02:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the problem is, even when mod issues are brought up, we have nothing but ad hoc policies for dealing with moderator abuse. There's no system of recall, except a letter from Trent to his nephew I came across which hints at the possibility. Maybe I'll make a go of that. DickTurpis (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha nice. Ace^Moderator 02:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Dicks's Way Forward post is dead on the money; another policy debate would be painful, and the status quo won't work because we behave like jerks. Given that impasse, the mods have to fucking step up and police each other as much as they work to ensure that the site works smoothly. Two mods engaging in HCM and drawing in others from the community was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the way it's supposed to work. Next time one of you fuckers pulls that kind of shit, you will find yourselves staring down the throat of the beast we'll call the Revolution. You have powers--as I think you should have, I'm not MC calling for bullshit "freedom," a community needs guidelines and a mechanism to enforce those guidelines--but no more using them to start what it is you're meant to prevent. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 02:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you just threaten a "revolution?" After decrying all-consuming HCM? Sure, mod/mod conflict is bad, but fuck man, do we need another May/June 2011? Blue (is useful) 02:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ad hoc really can work. Or, it can create HCM (? did i say that right? damn dyslexia). You just don't know till it happens. But as p-foster KEEPS SAYING, if you just ignore something, it has an amazing way of going "under the bridge". If you focus on it, you guarntee that everyone will come out of the wood work to have an opinion on your issue. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)ed con

For now all I can see working is for this sort of thing to be brought before the mods as a group, who perhaps should see this sort of thing as more of a duty than a right, so we can hash it out like the adults we allegedly are, and, in the end, hope cooler heads prevail. I think that's sort of what happened here, a little. Now, is this Blue/Human matter settled for good, or is there still an issue of oversighted (if that's the operable word here) edits? DickTurpis (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also endorse the Dick Way, and think we don't need procedures. We've started to develop an idea of the moderator's role, and any "rogue mods" should be dealt with as they come.--^talk 02:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Long before he became a mod DT seemed to be articulating my own thoughts in resolution disputes. He has done so once again so I can do little more than endorse them. Генгис^pillaging 08:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to bring up the Blue/Human thing in order to hash out the event itself as much as to point to it as an example of the moderator system needing some attention. AFAIC, as far as being an issue in and of itself, it's in the past. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 02:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rouge moderators

There has been some talk on this page about moderators going "rouge". This is completely unbecoming of a mod and should be treated in the severest way possible, probably calamine lotion. Генгис^pillaging 08:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Tisane

This shit is eating up the wiki. I am inclined at this point to cut the vote short and block him for a year, since otherwise Abd will continue to push the envelope with his contrarian defense of Tisane, while other folks become increasingly impassioned and violent in opposition. We already have people reporting to law enforcement, literally. I'd do two months, but the vote's only barely in favor of that at the moment. Would other mods support this action?--^talk 04:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. This shit is been going too long and Tisanes weird habits should be roundly decried. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Need not a radical solution. We're currently at 64% approval to ban. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If Abd is causing a problem, blocking Tisane seems an odd sort of solution. Nevertheless, I won't oppose this if you think it's the best course of action. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abd isn't the only problem, he's just one of them. It just seems like this is already trending to a final consensus and it's best to just get it over with and bootstrap us on past it.--^talk 07:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

RW has long been an upholder of free speech and opposer of censorship, but this issue is becoming very disruptive so I am minded ed to support AD's suggestion . However, as a community we really need to decide how we wish to shape the site's values and what is permissible in Essay space. Ad hoc subjective decisions of what is good taste are not a good way to proceed. But if we are going to come down heavily on those who espouse ideas that we might think are repulsive then we should also look at how we respect each other. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

As for the wider issues about what is okay for the essayspace, that problem isn't going to go away by putting it down in writing. Rules can be stretched to breaking point and so end up as a series of ad hoc decisions anyway (most nations have countless pages of law, but that doesn't stop court cases dragging on for months and even years). ^{d hominem} 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As Tisane has already demonstrated he has other methods of hosting that particular essay, it's not a freedom-of-speech issue; it's about what RW plays host to and endorses. Boot him for however long, and then block or bin any whiners who insist on dragging it out for a few days to a week, that should let everyone get bored of it so it dies down.

As for the wider issues about what is okay for the essayspace, that problem isn't going to go away by putting it down in writing. Rules can be stretched to breaking point and so end up as a series of ad hoc decisions anyway (most nations have countless pages of law, but that doesn't stop court cases dragging on for months and even years). ^gnostic 11:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a majority of support for my proposal here.--^talk 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have archived the Coop and blocked Tisane for one year. Any broader questions raised by this issue, such as what is allowed to be in essays or whatever, should probably go to Standards and be addressed cleanly, I think. I left a message when archiving asking that people not start that discussion up immediately, though - it seems smarter to let things cool down for a little bit. I hope my actions merit everyone's approval, and let us get back to things that are more important.--^talk 11:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have far less patience for this crap, I suppose, than you all have. I would block both of them for 2 months, just for being instigators. I don't understand trolling, and I really think if you step on it, you take some control of it. My opinion has changed on this over the year, watching ThinkProgress struggle. As far as I can tell, the only additions Tisane has made to the wiki are ones about raping little kids. So why are we even asking this? yes, block him.GodotRIP original "muahahahah". 1...2....3...4...muahahahahah 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but, I think AD took to correct action here. We don't need shit like that screwing up everything here. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this. Haven't been following this closely. Assume AD did the right thing and a couple people cried authoritarian fascism. Blue (is useful) 00:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ace McWicked

Ace McWicked went rogue in a big way a few days ago and remains without moderator and sysop rights. What he did was remove several people's sysop rights and all moderators' bits without warrant, apparently because some people were attempting to get in the way of him vandalizing Brx's user and talk pages. I suggest we hold a vote on stripping him for a certain time of his rights, and return them if he wins the vote. If he loses his mod rights, the standard procedure would be to bring in the first alternate, Human, as a moderator for the remainder of the term, though Human may cause as much as or more trouble than Ace in the position. Blue (is useful) 03:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I accept that there should be a vote on Ace but it doesn't help if you cast aspersions on Human who is currently uninvolved in the whole issue. I know you have differences with him but it's better if we can keep personal animosities out of site business (for as long as possible). Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take my punishment, if any, like a big-boy. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just got back, sorry I missed the beginning and development of this. Taking Blue's summary at her word (haven't had a chance to go back through logs) I would support removal of mod rights. If folks want him back, they can vote him back in, next election. I hedge here, though - it may be that things are more complicated. But as it stands, that's what I'd say.

Ace, you are usually reliably level-headed about yourself - what do you think would be fair?--^talk 04:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Considering Human's stated purpose in running for moderator was to dismantle the system should be he elected, it's not just my personal animosity that could be of concern. But your point is well taken and I can save this for the election season. Blue (is useful) 04:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I should save everyone the trouble and stand-down. So that is what I'll do. Don't worry about a vote. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But Abd went completely outside his remit also which may need addressing. But not by me due to a conflict of interest. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Was Abd the one who blocked you when you couldn't unblock yourself? Blue (pester) 04:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Both Abd and Nx. Abd for 9 hours, Nx for 1 hour. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I wish Recent Changes could display more things at one time.--^talk 04:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay! So: it seems like Rpeh was a petulant child and merits annoyance from everyone but nothing more, Brx took his typical delight in martyrdom and deserves no sympathy, Ace was a knockwurst and is gonna step down so that's fine, Nx and RNS have reminded us that techs need a mandate and associated process, Abd depresses me just in general, and Ty did nothing wrong yet mysteriously is the only one up for a vote. It all actually seems to then be settled and over, and we should probably just relegate continuing conversations from the Coop to a drama dump. But maybe I missed something - y'all take issue with any of the above?--^talk 04:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks about right. Particularly this bit: Brx took his typical delight in martyrdom considering his first actions were to post to your page with "I hope your happy" (as if it were somehow your fault) and to email Blue. Also this part Ace was a knockwurst I like too. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Two corrections. I was only a tech for a few minutes, after Ty stopped Ace. I was a mere sysop during the whole drama, and Ace took away my sysop bit several times, and I used NxBot to get it back, before Sterile desysopped NxBot and me, and blocked me. Second, I did not block Ace after Ty took away his sysopship. Ace is trying to spread the lie that I somehow blocked him so that he couldn't unblock himself and that it didn't appear on Recent Changes. The truth is that it did appear on RC (it's there even on the screenshot Ace posted), and the reason he says he couldn't unblock himself is probably because he tried to modify his block (which is no longer possible after the software upgrade) instead of going to Special:Unblock. -- Nx / talk 05:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I may have stepped down as mod but am I supposed to still be in the sysoprevoke group? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it; no funny stuff please. I've also changed Human to moderator & left a note on his talk page to let him know. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No funny stuff? I certainly won't be posting that ribald joke I heard earlier. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the matter of Ace's moderator bit is settled. If anyone wants to push for a further penalty, they are free to do so elsewhere. Blue (is useful) 17:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)