Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-24463401-20140309200038/@comment-24463401-20140309202634

Fatal Disease wrote: - OOOH BOOOY. I'M GONNA STRIP THIS DOWN FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM Honestly, guys. Like Ben said. If you didn't like the person, then you shouldn't have voted support on him being bureaucrat. But, in my eyes, he's doing such a good job and cratship OOOHH BOY I'M GUNNA STRIP THIS ONE DOWN
 * 1) The "hack" that he used was a code. Why, SOMEGUY used it on Trollpasta when GMP clicked on the exact same image on Trollpasta. Sure, through this whole entire incident I didn't like the viruses that he posted on there, but it provided a strong balance that the codes on there are fun, but fun can be dangerous too.
 * 2) It wasn't a community agreement: everyone in the chat agreed that Jeff the Killer should be taken down. Sure, it should've been a community discussion, but he did get some consent from the users of this.
 * 3) The chat idea was the bureaucrats idea, which he had a discussion with them and they all agreed upon to close the chat for the whole weekend. Since people were bitching and complaining about it, rather than helping out for once on this wiki or at least doing something productive.
 * 4) I never seen her threaten any of the community in such ways. The only people that I have seen threaten users are the people who created this thread, and the people who are in support of it towards the bureaucrat who is trying to make this community in good shape with all these nice devices, and whatnot.

1. He still threatened to hack users, even if it wasn't intentional he violated the tou. It doesn't matter if it was some sort of code. He still hacked users talk pages. It's still an offense no matter how you put it.

2. Talking to users on chat is NOT community consent. If the founder of the wiki re-uploads it, that gives her no right to delete it again. This caused so much back lash towards Skelly that made him have to leave the wiki for a while.

3. Considering they never even told us how normal users could help, it makes sencse that people were bitching about it. I'm sorry if you thought it was a good idea, but to put it simply it had no planning or co-ordination. Many users didn't even know chat was being shut down, so how could they possibly help? If this was better planned, I may have excused it.

4. I never threatened her, just bringing her to a trial within the community. You can see the screen shots and the logs. I was even there when she threatened to hack the TP wiki. The bad out wieghs the good in this scenario. Maria has done things to help the community, but the ways she accomplised them were without consent and amoral.

5. Many users on the chat weren't even here when she was voted to be a bearucrat. I don't see how it's fair for you to say that when we see examples of this every day in polotics. Politicians may seem like sound leaders before they're elected, but end up going completly against their campain in the end. You never hear people say "Well, maybe I should have considered my options better." They say "This politician completly goes against what he said in his election."

Again, breaking laws and the TOU is not how this wiki should be represented.