Forum:Vote to unban Madclaw
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Vote to unban Madclaw
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3741 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Remember to update the score once you have voted. Remember, this is Uncyclopedia.
Score: +1
- Nom and for. Deserves to be unbanned. —
(talk) (contributions) 21:13:36 2014/08/03 UTC 
Support! #FreeMadclaw Goodwood (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)- Strong For He should be unbanned, his vote should get unstruck, and I think he is owed an apology for this whole debacle. -- The Zombiebaron 21:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Free my nigga Madclaw HE DIDN'T DO NOTHIN'! #freemadclaw
- Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 21:16, Sunday 03 August 2014 - 
WTF? Madclaw is a highly unproductive editor who has shown every sign of having a vendetta against me. He repeated essentially the same thing he did that got him blocked, and he got blocked again for a little longer. There is nothing here that makes any sense as a reason to unblock him aside from the idea that he was joking, and if it was a joke, it was a really bad joke; and everyone knows that you don't repeat stuff that got you blocked the first time around. Hello? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:18, 3 Aug 2014
- Need I remind you of this? — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 21:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't get blocked for that, silly. Because, you know, I was actually willing to have a constructive discussion about it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:36, 3 Aug 2014
- Whether or not you were blocked for that is completely beside the point. I was posting those logs in reference to your lovely assertion that "if it was a joke, it was a really bad joke". — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not beside the point at all. I was willing to discuss my actions constructively, whereas Madclaw was not and just attacked me. That is why he got blocked and I did not, which is entirely relevant. However, your dragging up of something I did that was unrelated to Madclaw is not relevant at all because it doesn't prove anything except that you can't seem to find an argument against my block that holds water. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:53, 3 Aug 2014
- The only part of his vote that could be considered an "attack" is his response to you striking his vote in the first place. As for your supposed willingness to discuss your actions constructively, I don't see how threatening to create more sockpuppets after your first incident is constructive, but again, that's not at all the point of posting those logs. When you threatened a legitimate attack on the wiki and then later dismissed it as a joke that only you would get, stating such things as "if it was a joke, it was a really bad joke" in response to Madclaw's supposed attack is nothing less than hypocritical and only weakens your defense. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's not beside the point at all. I was willing to discuss my actions constructively, whereas Madclaw was not and just attacked me. That is why he got blocked and I did not, which is entirely relevant. However, your dragging up of something I did that was unrelated to Madclaw is not relevant at all because it doesn't prove anything except that you can't seem to find an argument against my block that holds water. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:53, 3 Aug 2014
- Whether or not you were blocked for that is completely beside the point. I was posting those logs in reference to your lovely assertion that "if it was a joke, it was a really bad joke". — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 21:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't get blocked for that, silly. Because, you know, I was actually willing to have a constructive discussion about it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:36, 3 Aug 2014
- If MC's jibe was a joke then I'm the King of Siam. If that's Madclaw's idea of "funny" then I can see why he doesn't write humor. Snarglefoop (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Need I remind you of this? — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 21:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
— SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)- Permablock him. Obnoxious dead weight like Madclaw we'd be better off free of. Throwing insults at an admin is always an adequate reason for a block -- why would anyone think this guy should do anything but serve out his time? Snarglefoop (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You are an idiot and a sockpuppet, hence this vote does not count
- Against. Haha, no. Got me banned from quite a few channels, and also hasn't really done anything too positive. Basically, dead weight. -- 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Against. Insulting the Admins and users thinking its funny Chaoarren Chaohead (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Insulting the admins is funny, though. - RAHB sucks balls through a wide-mouth straw.
- Especially when they're being stupid faggots. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Insulting the admins is only funny because we get to block you for it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:40, 3 Aug 2014
- RAHB you are fucking stupid for for saying insulting admins is ok, and your touching of the children, while less bad, is still probably something we should address as well. Don't be a dumb fuck anymore RAHB. Think of the children!
- No, but seriously, you should probably stop thinking of the children. The Woodburninator
Minimal Effort ™ 22:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Questioning an admin? BAN! BAN BAN BAN! -RAHB 03:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't questioning how unapologetically imbecilic you are. Your actions, such as the time you stuffed your underpants full of Pop-Rocks then peed yourself, speak for themselves. Nor did I question your not-so-innocent love of innocent middle schoolers. Your actions, such as that time you stuffed your underpants full of Pop-Rocks and peed yourself again in front of a group of 7th graders, speak for themselves. It's a problem, and you need to get help. Please! We are practically on our knees, begging you. Like children or something! Oh God! No! That's not what I meant! NO! RAHB, NO!!! The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 04:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't questioning how unapologetically imbecilic you are. Your actions, such as the time you stuffed your underpants full of Pop-Rocks then peed yourself, speak for themselves. Nor did I question your not-so-innocent love of innocent middle schoolers. Your actions, such as that time you stuffed your underpants full of Pop-Rocks and peed yourself again in front of a group of 7th graders, speak for themselves. It's a problem, and you need to get help. Please! We are practically on our knees, begging you. Like children or something! Oh God! No! That's not what I meant! NO! RAHB, NO!!! The Woodburninator
- Questioning an admin? BAN! BAN BAN BAN! -RAHB 03:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Insulting the admins is only funny because we get to block you for it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:40, 3 Aug 2014
- Especially when they're being stupid faggots. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Insulting the admins is funny, though. - RAHB sucks balls through a wide-mouth straw.
- For. Claw doesn't mean no harm. Radical Rocko ❤ (I'm listening...) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Against. That Madclaw was here in the first place is a clear indicator that Madclaw shouldn't be here. And the same goes for the rest of you. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Strong for. This is ridiculous. Whether or not the whole aspie thing was a good or bad move, this alone was uncalled for. Madclaw is well within his right to oppose Denza. I feel there's a major conflict of interest here, if this is anything to go by. -- Lost Labyrinth
• (t) • (c) • (a) 22:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have no issues if anyone wants to revert the latter diff, and Madclaw is not within his rights to oppose Denza with reasoning that consists entirely of an attack on me. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:42, 3 Aug 2014
- Then what about Madclaw's initial oppose vote? Okay it allegedly might have been a misinterpretation on his part but he's still allowed to oppose as much as the next person. As for attacks...this diff doesn't help your cause much. I'm not saying that either of you were right or wrong here but there's clearly a bigger issue behind all of this. Either way this could have been handled a lot better and I move that both Madclaw's vote is rescinded and his ban is lifted for the sake of fairness. -- Lost Labyrinth • (t) • (c) • (a) 23:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Then what about Madclaw's initial oppose vote? Okay it allegedly might have been a misinterpretation on his part but he's still allowed to oppose as much as the next person. As for attacks...this diff doesn't help your cause much. I'm not saying that either of you were right or wrong here but there's clearly a bigger issue behind all of this. Either way this could have been handled a lot better and I move that both Madclaw's vote is rescinded and his ban is lifted for the sake of fairness. -- Lost Labyrinth
- With all this mess I thought he was banned for a month or year or something. It's a lousy week. An uncyclopedian can do a week standing on its head. Maybe chop a few days off for community support. I think we have a vendetta on uncy and it's like a starving mother eating her starving cubs, so just stop this before the cubs are all gone and you're looking at each other for fresh meat. Aleister 23:56 3-8-14
- I'm sorry; was there a vote buried in there somewhere? Snarglefoop (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm not an admin so I can't vote, but I'd suggest cutting the sentence in half. He should serve his three days or so and be proud of the scar. I've banned myself for three days for being a dick before. I don't know if Mr. Claw thinks he was a dick, but if he does, then take your glove and mitt into the hole and spit at the wall. Aleister 00:06 3-8=14
- Errrmmmm ... Just about nobody voting here is an admin. Snarglefoop (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- But an admin banned Madclaw, so users can't vote to unban him. Doing that makes no sense. The law of constant motion would be violated, and the bubble universe (it's bubbles all the way down) could tip a little in the direction of heat, so naw, non-admins can only give an opinion, imnho. So calling it a vote already nullifies it, I would guess, but am not sure. For me it all hinges on if Manclaw thinks, himself, that he did a dick thing. He's the only one who knows. If so, a ban is appropriate and he should know that. If he didn't think he was a dick, maybe he can talk it out if Lwyr would give him a chance. From what I know of him, which is very little, it wouldn't surprise me any way he goes. He and I have never hung out, nor have I read his stuff and talk pages and journals (diaries must be pryed open with those hair things). So I dunno. Aleister 2:37 4-8-14
- For sure. Well reasoned. Unfortunately the forum exists none the less, and the voting is taking place, and it's mostly being done by non-admins, with no reference to consulting the original blocking admin, which violates policy on multiple levels. As to Madclaw knowing or admitting that he acted like a dick, I don't think he does that. (Ever.) But I suppose I could be wrong. Snarglefoop (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Like my comments in the other forum, a community vote is very rarely ever unprecedented. I understand the concern that some users will be voting from an emotional place, and some users not fully educated on all the goings-on are going to relish their chance to cast a vote and make some sort of a difference whether it's something they understand or not, and that is definitely going to happen. But that's an example of one of the drawbacks of democracy that unfortunately must happen if the system is going to work fairly overall. Calling for only a certain subset of opinions on a case-by-case basis isn't going to ingratiate any of the non-admins to the cause, either. -RAHB 03:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- For sure. Well reasoned. Unfortunately the forum exists none the less, and the voting is taking place, and it's mostly being done by non-admins, with no reference to consulting the original blocking admin, which violates policy on multiple levels. As to Madclaw knowing or admitting that he acted like a dick, I don't think he does that. (Ever.) But I suppose I could be wrong. Snarglefoop (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- But an admin banned Madclaw, so users can't vote to unban him. Doing that makes no sense. The law of constant motion would be violated, and the bubble universe (it's bubbles all the way down) could tip a little in the direction of heat, so naw, non-admins can only give an opinion, imnho. So calling it a vote already nullifies it, I would guess, but am not sure. For me it all hinges on if Manclaw thinks, himself, that he did a dick thing. He's the only one who knows. If so, a ban is appropriate and he should know that. If he didn't think he was a dick, maybe he can talk it out if Lwyr would give him a chance. From what I know of him, which is very little, it wouldn't surprise me any way he goes. He and I have never hung out, nor have I read his stuff and talk pages and journals (diaries must be pryed open with those hair things). So I dunno. Aleister 2:37 4-8-14
- Errrmmmm ... Just about nobody voting here is an admin. Snarglefoop (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, I'm not an admin so I can't vote, but I'd suggest cutting the sentence in half. He should serve his three days or so and be proud of the scar. I've banned myself for three days for being a dick before. I don't know if Mr. Claw thinks he was a dick, but if he does, then take your glove and mitt into the hole and spit at the wall. Aleister 00:06 3-8=14
- I'm sorry; was there a vote buried in there somewhere? Snarglefoop (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have no issues if anyone wants to revert the latter diff, and Madclaw is not within his rights to oppose Denza with reasoning that consists entirely of an attack on me. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:42, 3 Aug 2014
- Sure, whatever. -- Thankful Kippy
Share blessings Bountiful harvest 01:27, Aug. 4, 2014 - Sort of For and mostly Against, but neutral vote overall. While llwy's response to Madclaw's voting in the forum was completely overblown, Madclaw relished the opportunity to stir up some shit and just kept coming back with the one thing that started it all to begin with. Knowing he'd hit a sore point, he didn't just blindly and innocently replace what he'd said, assuming the original issue was a mistake. He knew that the more he pushed back, the more push he was going to get, and at any point he could have just rephrased his vote to avoid further drama, but he chose the obviously contentious route, as he is wont to do regularly. Adding to that some of my comments I've made in the other forum about his history with llwy, and his history of trollish and unapproachable behavior otherwise, I think we should leave the one week block in place, de-op llwy and give her a one week block as well, per both of them contributing, as I can see, equally to this issue. However, this hinges on what the outcome is with llwy, and the original ban was indeed put in place misguidedly and wasn't really for a very bannable reason. So there's my opinions and that basically evens out my vote score to a zero I think. -RAHB 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Against. Whilst I have no problem with Darthipedia editors hanging out here, but enough is enough. Llwy acted in a way that is befitting of being de-opped and probably blocked for a while too, but Madclaw not only provoked her (and yeah I admit her reaction was exactly how not to handle the situation) but kept on going. Madclaw mainly is on IRC, has little to do with the Wiki and when he does is one of a very long list of editors that stir up drama for drama's sake and verbally masturbate in the forum namespace. Two drama forums have come about from the fallout of that little shitstorm. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)
03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC) - Against. A total troll and breaks rule number 2 a lot. --ShabiDOO 19:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Against Pasta (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- lol The Woodburninator Minimal Effort ™ 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- lol The Woodburninator
Boner. Good guy, he doesn't deserve this. Madclaw @ talk 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)- For. --EMC [TALK] 16:38 Aug 11 2014
Support! #FreeMadclaw 
WTF? Madclaw is a highly unproductive editor who has shown every sign of having a vendetta against me. He repeated essentially the same thing he did that got him blocked, and he got blocked again for a little longer. There is nothing here that makes any sense as a reason to unblock him aside from the idea that he was joking, and if it was a joke, it was a really bad joke; and everyone knows that you don't repeat stuff that got you blocked the first time around. Hello? 
good lord
- Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 22:59, Sunday 03 August 2014 -
indeed Aleister 3:17 4-8-14
- Against. --Argylesocks (talk) 05:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
**FUCK YOU HATERS, I SHOULD BE UNBANNED!!!!! Madclaw @ talk 10:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)