Forum:Rehabilitate problem users?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Rehabilitate problem users?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4890 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

• Thread renamed from Forum:I have a proposal... Spıke ¬ 14:10 4-Dec-10

I'm willing to adopt both NXWaveTthunder and Gomphog and make them better Uncyclopedians if someone'll unban them. And if I fail, you can ban me for a week. I know it sounds crazy, but I always attempt to look at the best in people(since quite a while back on another forum people didn't look at the best in me), and these two are definitely redeemable. So what do you say? --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 20:55, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

No, because neither of them are reasonable nor were they short on chances before we banned them, case closed. We are not unbanning either of those two fuckwits. --ChiefjusticePS2 21:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

With honestly no offense, I can guarantee that I can rehabilitate at least one of them. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Two admins agree: Nope. -- The Zombiebaron 21:11, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else? Cause I personally disagree... --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:13, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it. I could use a good laugh. --Retarded Ding Bat 21:14, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the Chief. The first is hungry for legitimacy and the second is desperate for attention. They don't follow our rules and they are not interested in what's best for Uncyclopedia. The last time I commented on a notorious Uncyclopedia vandal, the Chief deleted my remarks for the reason that merely discussing him gave him part of what he wanted--The same may be true here. Meganew's assertion that he uniquely can "look at the best in people" and thereby transform chronic miscreants is vanity and it will fail for exactly the reason Obama's use of the same theory has failed to turn around the world's rogue nations. Spıke ¬ 04:04 4-Dec-10

Why can't you love Obama, he's a fucksite better than what you SPAM people previously had;)--Sycamore (Talk) 12:59, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That's a separate issue for a separate web site; here I only use him to show why Meganew's proposal is likely to fail. Spıke ¬ 13:23 4-Dec-10

At least we have changed our head of state in the last 50 years. --Mn-z 13:39, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are we spending too much effort striking down bad, and possibly not even serious, proposals. --Mn-z 04:23, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

It's just you. Really. It is. Definitely.

Now, I could propose something really stupid... hmm... but what would be stupid enough? Eh, this could take some thinking. o_O ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101204 - 04:41 (UTC)

This is Uncyclopedia. Nothing is too stupid. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:04, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I could prove you wrong... except I would probably get banned in the process. So guess it comes down to... hmm... there must be something sufficiently stupid that would not get me banned, surely something... ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101204 - 23:35 (UTC)

Meganew, what if you took the same amount of time and tried to convince two of your funniest or most prolific friends or classmates to contribute here? What about a monthly award for recruitment? Spıke ¬ 12:21 4-Dec-10

No, don't do that. I did that and I lost all of my friends. --EMC ^[TALK] 13:51 Dec 4 2010

They too busy writing articles now Spıke ¬ 13:56 4-Dec-10

Gomphog wrote me yesterday on my talk page, and I though he was unbanned. Little I know. If he was just a better writer I'd go for his coming back, but he seems to come back when he wants to anyway. Oh well. And if he is reading this, keep well hidden little buddy, and never tell them that you are one of those running the Lyrithya sock. Aleister 13:18 4 12

Meganew got a one day ban for starting this forum (check blocked users log) which seems a bit harsh but he was going up against two admins. Are we doing wrong to block people who come here to insult other users, blank pages or generally try to mess this website with their childish behavior? I don't think so but I agree there isn't a mechanism for rehabilitation. I don't know what the ban tariffs are or where they are kept so we can all look at them to see for ourselves but I would defer to the judgement of Admins in these particular cases (NXWave and Gomphog). --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:43, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why have NXWave suddenly become an issue in the last couple of days. Most of you were not present when he was and saw the amount of havoc he caused and how he managed to troll people off the site. Stay off the issue as you don't have the details and you didn't have to go through the amount of shit myself and several other admins had to deal with. As for Gomphog et al, I refer to the message I left on your page a while back. We are not a rehabilitating institute, if your only goal is to fuck around and create more trouble for the admins to deal with, you will be looking for another place to do that. Editing here is a privilege, not a right. ~ 21:54, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

this is uncyclopedia, the wiki that anyone can edit, not uncyclopedia, the wiki that you gotta be privileged to edit. --58.165.6.198 05:29, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

+1,000,000 --Roman Dog Bird 05:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

In a "prefect" world everybody who comes to Uncyclopedia would recognise a common goal and the importance of working collectively, in our own individual ways, to create something greater than our parts. This takes the ability to recognise that other views of comedy exist other than our own and to accept those as just as valid. It also requires that people behave in a civilised way when dealing with each other. If people are happy to live by these rules I don't personally have a problem with letting past issues drop and moving forwards. Life is too fucking short... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Me neither; but the two users in question have recently demonstrated again their continuing disregard for our common goals, as set out above. Spıke ¬ 13:30 5-Dec-10

I thought our common goal was to be The Worst? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:52, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

We need to try harder. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101205 - 23:20 (UTC)

I just like to say

If we were trying to rehabilitate users, it should probably be done by an admin or a user that we trust more and has been here for a while. I.e. socky, spike, hyperbole, et cetera. --Mn-z 21:43, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why are people even going on about rehabilitating the banned ones? We have plenty of not banned users who could definitely use rehabilitation as it is... ~ 00:52, 7 December, 2010

To coin an old cliche...Rehab is for quitters. - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 05:40, Tuesday 07 December 2010 -

So it is. So it is... and they cannot make us quit until they catch us! *grabs a torch and dashes off* 1234 ~ 05:47, 7 December, 2010

Also, I'd like to reiterate what I said either just to avoid any confusion: this is a stupid idea to begin with. --Mn-z 18:30, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Aye, that it is. On the plus side, this also means I don't have to go on a blanking spree... 1234 ~ 18:49, 7 December, 2010

Thanks to Mn-z for his expression of trust. I have evidenced hereditary patience for teaching every new arrival on UnNews a little English and journalism, on the way to the obligatory abuse of both disciplines on the page. But I have no comparable patience to wait for users whom we know are not of good faith to grow up. Spıke ¬ 18:54 7-Dec-10