Forums: Index > Chat discussion > TheodoreRowy and his disruption to chat

Admin abuse

As it may never go unnoticed by us now, TheodoreRowy has re-joined our chat community almost four days ago. The actions of TheodoreRowy have caused me to open this forum to discuss on our next action toward the dictatorship and abuse of power from our fellow founder. TheodoreRowy, or Throwy as I’ll call him since we’re all used to calling him so, hasn’t officially taken part in our chat community for 3 years until now. And his return wasn’t very pleasant as his use of his rights against users and mods alike has caused havoc in our chat. His actions include warnings for absolutely silly reasons, such as a user mentioning drugs, and kicking for the exact same reason, which happened to a few of our mods in chat. These were a few of his actions and now it has extended to various bans and blocks to various users due to a mention of drugs or another silly reason. This, to me, is an abuse of power and should be dealt with immediately.

Throwy has not only kicked, banned and blocked people for reasons that seem completely thrown out of proportion, but he also seemed to have created his own rules to follow by, which seem to be catering toward a younger audience. While there is a young user or two, most users on this chat are 13 and above. We may not enforce COPPA but this does not mean our chat should only appeal to kids and below as we know our chatroom well and the users that visit it. This said, the rules he has seemed to have created are as if he is rewriting the function of this chatroom, which is working smoothly with very little error. This has disrupted the way how mods and admins nowadays work with the chat, as well as how the rules function. This is the most havoc he’s brought upon us with his unwelcoming return. And this has led to make disputes in the chatroom that he ignores or either kicks the mod(s) or user who is standing up for the sake of the chat and another user. This is an overwhelming problem that is reoccurring day by day he is on the chat and I think this should be taken care of first.

Coming back to his direct actions inside the chat such as kicking and banning excessively for no logical reason, he seems to have targeted certain users, such as Scp-1471 , who was the most kicked, banned and warned of the users and is now currently blocked as I type this forum up. Scp-1471 only joked about a few things, and said “kush” which resulted in Throwy warning him for a drug reference. Never did Scp-1471 insist on the use of the drug, just simply saying kush granted him the warning. I never have seen a mod warn a user for a very silly reason, as we are not pursuing the use of drugs among us. He is not the only one as many mods have been kicked for defending him, or mentioning a drug as well. Throwy also directly ignored actual disruptions to the chat when many users ping for a mod or ask for it to be dealt with and only would warn when a user like Scp-1471 makes a drug reference, even in the middle of the disruption on chat and would still do nothing. I think this is worth a mention as it was brought up by many users.

I was not here actively three years ago but I was told that Throwy had his bureaucrat rights withhold from this wikia for reasons similar. This may or may not be true but I did want to mention it. Therefore, I am unsure of what actions we may need to take now toward him but many users have suggested that we revoke all his rights by contacting the staff on Wikia directly. But I am sure of one thing and that is the fact that actions must be taken against him for the disruption of the chat’s order and his abuse of power. I ask of you to discuss the situation and the appropriate actions that must be taken here, as we cannot sit and let him go on like this.

Evidence for his actions can be found in the following screen caps: From Smith B. From Aphelion112

Thanks to both, two situations were highlighted today and a few days ago.

More evidence can be found in the logs. It’s literally everywhere.

Thank you for your time,

FANMADE Moonshine Stars heart ponyMoonshine StarsTalk 11:40, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

There is a major problem with the chat mods' behavior. Examples:
  • Novabomb1 and SublimePie posted sexual content 2015-05-12 16:54:01. They were given warnings. SublimePie agreed that the behavior is inappropriate, but this is indicative of the mods' general disregard for the guidelines.
  • Novabomb1 planned changing his avatar to a sexually suggestive image to disrupt the chat, 2015-05-12 23:48:23 and changed it, then claimed he didn't know what counts as sexual conduct. 2015-05-14 22:19:09 It's bad enough that a mod violates the guidelines, but Novabomb1 planned it in advanced and encouraged other users to violate the guidelines.
  • When the mods were warned about unbanning their friends despite this logged and documented behavior, one of them responded with "bite me" 2015-05-15 09:43:15 while most other mods (and chat users) chose to keep disputing the bans in the chatroom and repeating the same accusations of abuse. This naturally deteriorated to name-calling and so on but was only replied with reminders to dispute bans in talk pages, precisely because disputing bans in the chatroom is not productive.
  • Due to the other mods unbanning users despite logged violations of the guidelines and because of their unwillingness to discuss the bans on a talk page, I blocked a user for a day in order to enforce their chat ban. While this was happening mods continued to immediately remove bans instead of discuss them on talk pages.
Thankfully there are full logs, every kick and ban is documented, and even one mod admitted to trying to disrupt the chat while encouraging their friends to do the same.
Oh, and no one was kicked or banned or warned for "no smoking", it wasn't directed at anyone. You should also note that there is a chat log which is much easier to read than screenshots. Throwy 11:56, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my delayed reply, as I was dealing with a few other issues and was gathering evidence for this forum. Onto the topic, I’d like to address the fact that most times you’ve pointed out on the logs did not correspond to what you were saying such as with here:
“Novabomb1 and SublimePie posted sexual content 2015-05-12 16:54:01. They were given warnings. SublimePie agreed that the behavior is inappropriate, but this is indicative of the mods' general disregard for the guidelines.”
“Novabomb1 planned changing his avatar to a sexually suggestive image to disrupt the chat, 2015-05-12 23:48:23 and changed it, then claimed he didn't know what counts as sexual conduct. 2015-05-14 22:19:09 It's bad enough that a mod violates the guidelines, but Novabomb1 planned it in advanced and encouraged other users to violate the guidelines.”
Firstly, I’d like to point out that were no actual sexual references made by Novabomb1. The avatar was, you said it yourself, sexually suggestive. It could have been hinting it but it wasn’t directly sexual or as the rules state, sexually explicit, hence going under the radar. The chat rules themselves dictate:
Sexually explicit - Any content posted in chat must not contain sexually explicit material. The type of content (videos, pictures, references or posts) does not matter, this is strictly prohibited.”
The material posted was not sexually explicit, by both SublimePie and Novabomb1, they made have made sexual references but they broke no rule. I’m fortunate they are innocent. Also, I’d like to point out that discussions like this have become normal as long as everyone is consent with it and it does not bother them. Also, I see no point in the log where Nova is encouraging users to break the rules, only stating that there will be issues if a mod is kicked by you.
I should move onto your second point where you banned users for silly reasons such as mentioning drugs, which is not against the rules, and mods such as Rainbow LSD Gorilla and myself, kept unbanning the user due to your misconduct and your failed understanding of how chat works and the actual guidelines.
“When the mods were warned about unbanning their friends despite this logged and documented behavior, one of them responded with "bite me" 2015-05-15 09:43:15 while most other mods (and chat users) chose to keep disputing the bans in the chatroom and repeating the same accusations of abuse. This naturally deteriorated to name-calling and so on but was only replied with reminders to dispute bans in talk pages, precisely because disputing bans in the chatroom is not productive.”
He had the right to do so and friend or not, you were unrightfully banning the user under the accusation of misconduct which he did not perform as the “misconduct” he performed was not even in the guidelines of the chat. I also suspect a grudge against this user from you as you refused to acknowledge other actual disruptions in chat, screencapped and posted in my opening statements of the forum. Refusing to acknowledge a screencap is almost like refusing to acknowledge evidence, which is just plain denial. Your excessive use of misconduct in the chat caused us to go into a discussion about your banning and later on your blocking, which seems fair to me.
Your final point made in your reply to my opening statements was the exact reason that triggered this forum to be made. You blocked a user for the exact same reason they were banned. You kept accusing them of misconduct that is not even a part of our chat’s guidelines. It seems fair that we should be allowed to discuss it as mods as this is how the chat would work when deciding a ban or block or seeing as it fits fair which in the case of Scp-1417, it was not.
Also, may I point out this forum is about your misconduct? This forum is not intended for the misconduct of mods and users. It was created specifically toward your misconduct and abuse of power in the chatroom and the consequence that should be derived from it. Your misconduct, which you have avoided answering on, including as stated above, the banning and blocking of a user that was accused of misconduct that is not a part of the guidelines, the kicking of users and mods alike for the exact same reason (Seen [1] from a screencap, as well as documented repeatedly in logs.), your failure to understand the rules and your insistence to bend them to your will. This is a correct accusation and a well backed up one. You have abused your power and I have asked the people of the chat to discuss the situation as well as decide on an appropriate consequence. If there is a problem with a mod, it would be brought up with them first before being blocked or banned or kicked.
I’d also like to highlight that the “rules” of the chat are guidelines. A guideline is not to be strictly obeyed but to be taken and follow along, allowing exceptions and of course, discussion on them. To directly and strictly follow them seems wrong if the majority of mods do not as the chatroom relies on the direct contact between users and the discussion of their punishment if they have disrupted chat. The guidelines are there to keep chat stable and happy and to minimize disruptions, not to cause more of them by what you have done such as bending them and strictly following them as you please. This statement is a fact and not an opinion or a personal attack, so do not accuse me of such.
I ask of you to explain why you kept going on with your misconduct and your stubbornness to follow the new structure of chat, as well as the various actions of the results that followed. You keep dodging the actual point of this forum, as you keep accusing other moderators and users, justifying no action you have done. FANMADE Moonshine Stars heart ponyMoonshine StarsTalk 10:44, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
  • Re: sexually explicit: This comes down to the poor rephrasing of the rules. If you check the abuse guidelines, you can see that sexual conduct is considered inappropriate. Unfortunately when the rules were "reworded", and despite explicit claims that "I've not added any rules or removed any, I've just reworded them in a way that looks more professional and makes our rules easier to understand", the rewording actually suffers from grammar and spelling issues, it's overly specific and overly verbose, and as such some of the rules were left out while others became overly specific. The chat guidelines are still subject to the wiki guidelines and it's unfortunate that the chat guidelines have been made overly specific. In this case, clinging to the specific phrasing "sexually explicit" is bad since it only encompasses "unsimulated sex acts, sexual intercourse and uncovered genitalia". Mods (other than me) have been kicking and banning for non-explicit sexual conduct. For example recently 2015-05-08 00:09:45 a chatter was banned for linking to very mildly sexual material, sanctioned by an admin, Callofduty4, and a mod, EHAN. Please don't claim that banning for far more sexual material is "abuse". Especially considering the amounts of warning given. [example added on 12:52, May 16, 2015 (UTC) Throwy]
  • Re: "unrightful" bans: Use a talk page. Immediately unbanning users repeatedly ("ban warring") is not acceptable. For example when Oz banned someone for a week, I reduced the ban to a few days, then he used the talk page to talk about the ban instead of creating a "ban war". In general when there are disputes you need to use the talk page, and certainly not hurl insults at whoever your dispute is with. You kept saying "no warning" and "single offense" when there were multiple warnings and multiple offenses. Regardless, immediately unbanning a user after they have been warned and banned is not appropriate.
  • Re: ignoring evidence: I repeatedly asked that disputes be handled in the talk pages. Repeating "abuse!" over and over is not a discussion. Snide remarks are not a discussion.
  • Re: unfair block: see below. Multiple warnings were made. The block was only made because you prevented enforcement by repeatedly removing the ban or "ban warring". If you or Scp wished to dispute the ban you should have used a talk page. "Ban warring" is not a valid form of ban dispute.
  • Re: Scp did nothing wrong: see below.
  • Re: Don't mention other people's misconduct: the entire point you're making is "admin abuse" through unfair kicks and bans for perceived misconduct. If I can't address their misconduct how can I show the kicks and bans were according to the guidelines? With SublimePie, he immediately admitted inappropriate conduct; you may not count pictures of dildos and insinuations of rape as "inappropriate behavior" but if you wish to dispute that you need to use the talk pages. With Novabomb1, he explicitly states he will try to get banned. The guidelines explicitly mention "the deliberate act to offend or upset users and this comes in all forms" (bad grammar aside; bad grammar and poor phrasing is why the rules need to be rephrased). With Scp see all the warnings and inappropriate behavior documented below. These are the issues of my "admin abuse" and I am addressing them. Throwy 11:26, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Making up rules

I'm sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that you are making up your own rules. Hi. I'm Nihilus, and while I may not currently be able to access chat, I have heard of your every action, and I am most certainly NOT IMPRESSED.

All of us here know better than you do, because we have not been inactive for the past three years. But what are you doing? You are disregarding the chat rules, which have worked for the three years you have been gone, and are enforcing the most, frankly, petty and pathetic rules I have seen in a long time.

And what of the mods and users who are trying to set you straight? Hmm? You're punishing them! Where the hell do you get off doing that? You need to have a serious review of your actions, because right now, the entire active moderation team and several admins are looking to get rid of you due to your incompetence, founder of this wiki or others.

Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 12:03, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to the wiki. Making personal attacks and making accusations without backing them up does not weigh in a discussion. Please if you want to discuss any specific case of abuse then cite it. For example see my post above that details each and every instance that I refer to. Throwy 12:09, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
A welcome to the wiki is not needed. I have been a mod here for almost a year now. And everything I am annoyed at you about has already been stated.
What I said was not a personal attack, I merely summed up the feelings of the entire currently active moderation team from what I have seen. We do not like keeping a place running near perfectly fine for three years, and then have someone come back with no knowledge of this place that is up to date and basically run over our toes with a damned steamroller, and enforcing rules that, basically, do not exist.
At least take time to catch up, because right now, you are acting with the same finesse and subtly as a sledgehammer to the face. That is not a personal attack either, merely a statement. Do not classify it as such.
Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 12:21, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
If you have a complaint please address it specifically by naming the exact time in the logs. Citing feelings and emotions is incredibly vague. Throwy 12:27, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
General drug references are most certainly not against the rules here and have not been for as long as I have been here. Nobody but you will ever support that being a rule. Ever.
Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 12:49, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Please indent your comments and keep a single topic in a single nested thread so your comments can be easily followed.
Please mind that all my moderation actions are in accordance to the abuse guidelines and that the chat guidelines are still subject to the wiki guidelines. This point has become slightly lost because of the murky rewording of the chat rules, but it is still explicitly stated: "The chat is still subject to the wiki's guidelines". Throwy 12:59, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Heyo, I'm Madnessfan34537, and I do not approve of the manner you are moderating this chat with. Frankly, it's driving away chatters, and causing a lot of unnecessary disruption. The chat has been going smoothly day to day, for months. Sure, we had our problems, a troll coming on, someone spamming, invasions from time to time, the usual. It happens.

But you know what doesn't happen? When the founder of a wiki disappears for a couple of years, then returns and becomes the wiki's dictator. All you've seem to do here is implement (or re-implement, in your own words) a set of rules to put on a daycare's playground. In your recent time here, you have 1. Kicked two mods without legitimate reason (Sorry, I don't think simple reference to a drug is satan's work, especially considering there was no positive aura brought with it.) Without a warning (yet you gave countless warnings to actual disruptive users before a kick/ban). 2. Blocked a user for no reason (There was absolutely no need to block a user who was simply "causing trouble" on chat. That's chat's business, not the rest of the wiki's.) 3. You let two users break the rules in chat constantly, with warning from non-mods (as there were no mods around) per the screenshots above, plus the logs that are recorded everyday.

From what I can see, your new revision of the chats rules is causing more problems than fixing any. Why fix what's not broken? Also, unless I'm mistaken, I need to note the fact you're kicking/banning the users mentioned in your reply for reasons that are not yet valid, considering your forum to update the rules has not been implemented yet. With this, I only see more and more trouble coming if this keeps up. Madnessfan34537 lL5xjBH.png 12:34, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

The revision has not been implemeted yet, all my moderation follows the current rules as they are worded. The problem is that they are poorly worded. If you would like to discuss this, use the other thread. Throwy 12:43, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Blocking users for a single innocent reference to drugs

This forum is a mirror of a previous forum about strictness of moderation. The main feeling I'm getting about this one is strictness of moderation is too much, and like the other forum I'm of the same opinion too. There comes a point where blocking users for mentioning things which aren't offensive or malicious at all (like saying "420 smoke weed", p.s. it's a meme) is where we have heavy censorship; however the wiki is not a dictatorship, so one user's actions should not override everyone else's. In fact, it's kind of interesting how this has only started occurring recently as the user in question did not regularly visit the chat for a long time.

When several moderators are complaining of a certain moderator's actions, you can tell something needs to change whether it be the wiki rules or the moderator in question. And I believe in a wiki where one user should not have the final say on everything when a large portion of other users disagree - those with power like the user in question disagreeing. Moderator discretion only goes so far, and it shouldn't go as far as like the wiki might as well be labeled a "secret state". B0lGGoQ.gifOz   12:35, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

The moderators are complaining because they are trying to protect their friends and deflect attention from breaking the guidelines themselves.
No user was banned for a single drug reference. Users were banned after multiple drug references and multiple warnings.
As an admin I expect you to address the issues instead of relying on general gut feelings. Throwy 12:46, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
It's not just a gut feeling for me, a warning for saying "Chat's up in smoke", something that was widely ambiguous at the time plus legal if it meant tobacco or just general smoke that is not related to drugs (you don't know if it meant marijuana or not), is beyond a joke, and I genuinely believe the moderation used is being strict. If you assumed it meant marijuana, and do that for all ambiguous smoke related situations and willing to warn before the topic was clear, then I do not think you have the right mindset to moderate the chat. The user rights I have myself is irrelevant to the situation, and I am addressing the issue(s) as I see fit. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   12:57, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
You didn't even read the thread. No one was warned. Please read the thread before continuing. Throwy 12:59, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
I'm quoting the image link I provided of evidence of moderation. What I stated is still relevant to the thread title. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   13:02, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
You are saying "a warning after saying 'chat's up in smoke'" when literally no one was warned, not to mention kicked or banned. The comment was not directed at anyone. If you had read my first reply you would have known that. Please read the first reply and note:
  • mods were posting sexual imagery
  • mods were engaging in sexual conduct
  • a mod was encouraging other chatters to break the rules
  • another mod immediately went to personal attacks and unbanned each user that was banned even after multiple warnings
Each of these claims is linked to the logs. Of course the mods are going to be angry that they can't keep engaging in this behavior. The easiest thing in the world is to shout "abuse" and then back it up with spurrious image links claiming "a warning" when no warning was given and so on. Throwy 13:10, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

My point is not related to those; I'm talking about your view of the rules where you seem to give off the impression of that users should not be allowed to say drug names without advocation or suggestion. I want to address this more than anything else - everyone else is welcome to say their areas too, and this is my specific one. After all, the forum is about your conduct so I don't see why I can't address this. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   13:18, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

This is not "users" in general, this is specifically one user who had posted sexually suggestive comments, drug related comments, and gore/violence related comments. The user in question is Scp-1471 (and to a similar extent Novabomb1) who throughout the past few days would not cease making sex, drug, and gore references in the chat. If you would like I can count the number of warnings they were given. Their friends come to their rescue, and since it's much easier to say "he said no smoking and then banned a bunch of people" than actually looking at the logs, people, like you, will immediately cling to these untrue statements instead of reading the logs or at least reading the pertinent parts where multiple warnings were given.
I can't stress this enough: it's not one-time-offense-and-ban as you are trying to make it out to sound. It's multiple offenses over the course of several days that were ignored. The only reason these users are still on the chat is because some of them are mods and they unban each other. The only reason Scp is blocked is because he would not stop his disruptive behavior, and the other mods would not let him receive a ban. He proceeded his abusive behavior after being blocked by using my talk page on another wiki
So please, when you say "you warned users for saying 'smoke'" or "you banned a user for saying 420" please get the whole story. Which is available in the logs. Throwy 13:37, May 15, 2015 (UTC)


You do know that bringing this up as an example of my abusive behavior is irrelevant, what I do on this wiki does not effect the other wiki in the slightest, you IP blocked me how can I possibly Rebuttal you in that case? it's not like you would actually take the time to read my rebuttals especially on my talk page. It has been stated many times that the rules are followed loosely, you follow them too strictly it's nothing but a buzz kill, that and calling me out as a rule breaker for obvious jokes like "George Kush" and "Wherethekushat" are jokes it does not condone the use of drugs, your argument that the show is geared towards little girls is terrible, just because hypothetically there might be little girls on the chat means they should be banned not the other way around. You're enforcing rules that people don't like, what you're proposing is the change entirely of how the chat works, no one in that chat room is oblivious to Sex, Drugs, and Gore the sign up age is 13 if anyone is below that they should not be on the wiki, I'm not going to accommodate myself for the slightest chance that there is a little girl in the chat.  SCP-1471  Talk   e8zQ4md.png    14:07, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

First thing, read the thread, I am not enforcing any new rules, I am not arguing the chat is for little girls, I am not proposing any substantive changes to the rules, only phrasing changes, because the current phrasing dropped some important information and is too verbose and too specific (see the rules thread). My proposed change has not been implemented yet, I am enforcing existing rules. This is exactly why complaints should be made on talk pages, so things won't not have to be repeated and repeated and repeated and twisted out of context. Yet I find myself repeating the same answers to the same false accusations. In short: No, I'm not enforcing new rules. No, I'm not saying the chat is only for little girls.
The link illustrates that you are abusive and use harsh language, which is against the rules of the wiki. Here's some excerpts from the logs from the chatroom on this wiki:
  • [2015-05-11 20:58:17] - sexual conduct, linking to suggestive images (you and Novabomb1)
  • [2015-05-12 01:23:42] - reference to violence/gore
  • [2015-05-12 14:28:46] - several references to drugs and gore/violence, followed by [2015-05-12 14:42:11] first warning, [2015-05-12 15:06:20] further harsh language and sexual conduct, [2015-05-12 15:54:36] second warning, [2015-05-12 15:58:54] third warning, [2015-05-12 16:07:33] fourth warning and a kick, [2015-05-12 16:18:20] sexual innuendo, [2015-05-12 16:18:20] Novabomb1 asks if drug references are inappropriate and I tell him yes, Scp immediately makes a drug reference and gets warned, [2015-05-12 21:03:15] sexual reference, [2015-05-12 21:15:24] sexual reference, [2015-05-12 21:34:33] drug reference, [2015-05-13 13:11:09] innuendo and warning, [2015-05-13 19:39:41] drug reference, warning, kick, long spiel of drug and sex references followed by a warning [2015-05-13 20:30:05], [2015-05-13 20:36:20] kick for referencing violence/gore, complaints that it's just him that's being targeted, riling up the chatroom because kicking someone for ONE SINGLE violence/gore reference is so unfair
If anyone counting that's eighteen instances of inappropriate behavior in two days, and that's not even counting the last two days after Scp and Novabomb1 decided to try to get banned (see my first reply)
After the first two days the trouble with Scp and Novabomb1 intensified. Don't insinuate that no warnings were given or no leniency was shown. This is repeated offending behavior. Leniency was shown over and over and the user simply refused to stop behaving inappropriately. Throwy 15:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

"The rules have changed"

Ok, so allow me to put in my two cents. Throwy, you come back from years of inactivity and just because you're the founder you expect to be able to do whatever you want? This community has developed past what you remember. The current Mods have tried to show you how things go nowadays, but you're to stubborn and egotistical to see it. You can't just come back from inactivity and instantly enforcing rules that are A. Outdated and B. Plain stupid. And do you not take any responsibility? When someone questions the rules you're inforcing, do you even stop to explain where you're coming from? No, you instantly go "Don't question me and if you do, I'll ban you." These are NOT qualities we want in an admin, let alone the founder. So excuse me for being blunt, but I'm tired of all this crap. So get it together or get out. Colt_Mystic.pngOmnom408px-Stallion_mystic.png 14:58, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I explained several times that ban disputes need to be handled on talk pages, so things don't get repetitive and as to not flood the main chatroom. If you want to dispute a ban use a talk page. It's in the rules. I'm not going to chat with you for an hour back and forth about "That's not sexual conduct!" "You put a dominatrix as your profile picture after explicitly saying you're going to try to get banned for sexual conduct." "But that's not sexual conduct!" [2015-05-14 22:19:09] ... it's a waste of everybody's time and that's why you do it on talk pages so people don't repeat the same thing over and over and over. Get the facts, decide, no dragging it on in the chat, getting personal, getting angry, and so on.
There is a problem with the mods in the chat and that's why it's coming as such a shock that a user gets kicked or banned after four warnings. I am being seriously lenient. Throwy 15:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

That still does not give you any right to randomly come back and try to control the wiki. The community has evolved since you last were here. So either you evolve with it, or just go back into inactivity like you always do. Colt_Mystic.pngOmnom408px-Stallion_mystic.png 15:32, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that it does. An admin's responsibility is to uphold the rules as they stand; it is also a Mod's responsibility to do the same. As far as I've been able to tell by following this thread, it is Throwy's problem that the rules haven't been kept and that some Mods are leading the charge to break them whenever they can. If you feel that the rules aren't relevant anymore, then start a thread advocating that they be changed. Don't talk about 'evolution' that isn't reflected in the rules. That's just turning a blind eye to rule-breaking when it's convenient.
BenRG - Not sure if he dreads or longs for Episode VII (talk) 15:39, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
The rules have changed, and the current rules ARE being kept up. However Throwy comes back and starts enforcing rules that this community decided weren't needed and enforcing new rules that he decided on himself and have not discussed with the rest of the staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmniWill (talkcontribs)

Changed in what way? In how they're upheld? Because over the course of the past couple of years, the rules have undergone very minor changes. They've been reworded some, but at their core they've remained largely the same. What "new rules" are allegedly being enforced here exactly? furdklZ.png 2xoHxMt.gif 15:59, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
It intrigues me how many opinions about the chat community people that aren't actively involved in said community have. That would be like me, telling you guys how to edit the wiki. Colt_Mystic.pngOmnom408px-Stallion_mystic.png 16:05, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
And do you guys take the time to talk with the community to find out what actually would be best before formulating such opinions? Colt_Mystic.pngOmnom408px-Stallion_mystic.png 16:06, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

This probably comes as an immense shock to you Will, but the chat isn't a separate site. It is bound by the same rules and is under the same admins as the main wiki. As I said above, if it's the Mods' collective viewpoint that the current chat rules are unenforceable or outdated, then start a conversation with the admins about updating them. Don't just stop enforcing the ones you don't like in the apparent belief that Chat is somehow a separate site unanswerable to the main site's admins. It doesn't work like that.

All it takes is co-operation and consideration. That isn't what seems to be happening here. What seems to be happening here is some Chat Mods thinking that they are a law unto themselves and running Chat how they please. Maybe, ultimately, they know best but don't go it alone. Work with the admins, don't try to circumvent them!

BenRG - Not sure if he dreads or longs for Episode VII (talk) 16:13, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I know chat isn't a separate site. But still the communities between the two parts are different. Still doesn't mean Throwy can just come here and institute what he wants and throw everything to chaos without DISCUSSING IT with other staff first. Now I know I'm not a mod/admin, but I can think of 5 who are off the top of my head that agree with me. I have seen Very active wikis get destroyed by this issue. Colt_Mystic.pngOmnom408px-Stallion_mystic.png 16:18, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Please note in the thorough list I provided in the first post how Novabomb1 and SublimePie were violating the guidelines by posting sexual images, or how Novabomb1 has no problem dishing out a ban for a single occurrence of sexual conduct [2015-05-10 16:34:47]. This is not about me enforcing any "new rules" or "instituting" anything or being "too harsh" or whatever. It's about mods being really mad that they are being told to stop violating the guidelines and that their friends should serve out their bans for violating the guidelines. So they put it in a spin cycle in the chatroom (where the topic cannot be discussed properly but baseless accusations can be repeated over and over, and the disruption cannot be dealt with because the mods unban their banned friends) and when it comes out it's "admin abuse". You have bought into the spin. Throwy 16:25, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

Backseat modding

Also I forgot to mention that calling users out for backseat/minimodding when they say "Mods" to get moderator's attention so they can deal with a situation is not minimodding. No one at all in the past has called it this, and there's nothing wrong pinging mods to handle a situation; it's the best thing a non-moderator can do in regards to trying to maintain peace in the chat. I don't know if that is personal arbitration of Throwy or what, but that should not be labeled as minimodding or backseating in any situation. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   17:19, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I can agree on this, it's not strictly backseat modding, but it's still more disruptive than asking a mod in private to assist in the situation. The specific user was posting "MODS" quite a lot to no positive effect. Throwy 17:35, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
I can understand that, but the problem is PMing does not "ping" users, unlike saying it in the main chat, which is most often faster. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   18:33, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I have read and tried to understand everything I've read here. I haven't been on chat too much recently due to life, having some problems atm. However, Throwy, to say it's disruptive to say "mods" I find somewhat unbelievable. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing this at all and infact, I encourage it. Because it pings me and it alerts me that something is going on in chat - I don't get pings for personal messages. It's quicker and simpler.  343TheGuiltyProphet - Contact - Contibs
18:37, May 15, 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Throwy 19:11, May 15, 2015 (UTC)


Checked the logs for myself. I've yet to find evidence of me posting sexual conduct in the chat. The only link that I even provided during that moment had nothing to do with your so called remarks. Unless you are able to find an actual quote where I said "I don't know what sexual content counts as" then you are providing false information. I can understand your concern for the sexual content rule but if you are just trying to say that I've broken it at any time in the chat then you are sadly mistaken. In fact there was a moment when you called me out for sexual content, I looked through the previous posts and asked you of what would have counted for that. Yet you ignored me after I brought it up not once but two times in the chat. And to be frank it is not the first time that you've ignored a valid point made before. This Pastebin comes from a PM you sent me not too long ago. Notice how after I explained myself in great detail you decide to just ignore the conversation like it never happened. While many of us can bring up strong points as of yet you've went out of your way to brush them aside as if what we say does not matter.  Princess Nova  MLG   SbDj1Wk.png  

How can you possibly claim I'm ignoring you? I've addressed every complaint you've made. You seem to want endless repetition. In that pastebin you simply cut the top part of the conversation where I explain to you Wikia's stance on admins enforcing COPPA ("Novabomb1 here's the discussion from 2011 User talk:PonyNews/Archive 14#Users under 13 years of age".) Then you repeated the same accusation of "bending the rules" over and over. There is no need to repeat to you the exact same answer when you've been given a detailed, official, Wikia-endorsed answer. I was not ignoring you.
Since you're forcing me to spell it out, here it is.
SublimePie posting sexual material, Novabomb1 joins in (but does not post sexual material)
[2015-05-12 16:53:08] <SublimePie> >Theres a snake in my boot
[2015-05-12 16:53:16] <Hylian_Warrior> why you do this Pink? (sad)
[2015-05-12 16:53:20] <Pinkgirl234> There is fragrance in my taik
[2015-05-12 16:53:26] -!- Horizonfudgy has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:53:27] <Pinkgirl234> Hylain, yu told me I'm lame. (soon)
[2015-05-12 16:53:29] -!- Horizonfudgy has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:53:34] <Pinkgirl234> So I went ragefire man! (fire)
[2015-05-12 16:53:36] <Novabomb1> Nice one, Sub
[2015-05-12 16:53:37] <Hylian_Warrior> well yeah
[2015-05-12 16:53:41] <Horizonfudgy> Do I have a distinct smell
[2015-05-12 16:53:47] <Hylian_Warrior> but at least I tell ya the truth
[2015-05-12 16:53:49] -!- Horizonfudgy has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:53:51] -!- Horizonfudgy has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:53:52] <Pinkgirl234> Li
[2015-05-12 16:54:00] <SublimePie> I have more Nova
[2015-05-12 16:54:01] <SublimePie>
[2015-05-12 16:54:06] <Pinkgirl234> The lie detector said that is a lie
[2015-05-12 16:54:07] <Hylian_Warrior> thats better than lying
[2015-05-12 16:54:13] <Novabomb1>
[2015-05-12 16:54:13] <Horizonfudgy> G
[2015-05-12 16:54:15] -!- ShadowedButterfly has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:54:17] -!- ShadowedButterfly has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:54:22] <Novabomb1> wait
[2015-05-12 16:54:27] <Novabomb1> XD
[2015-05-12 16:54:28] <Hylian_Warrior> for your own good D:
[2015-05-12 16:54:36] <Amgnismo> Nice, I just ranted about advertisements blocking yt subtitles
[2015-05-12 16:54:47] <Hylian_Warrior> but fine
[2015-05-12 16:54:55] <Horizonfudgy> That figure in the background looks kinda familiar
[2015-05-12 16:54:56] <Hylian_Warrior> go psycho on me for no reason 9yuno)
[2015-05-12 16:54:57] <Horizonfudgy> Oh guys
[2015-05-12 16:54:59] <Hylian_Warrior> (yuno)
[2015-05-12 16:55:08] <Novabomb1> hmm, Dudgy?
[2015-05-12 16:55:08] <Valkryie247> Favorite CMC gooo
[2015-05-12 16:55:11] <Horizonfudgy> Is it a good idea to collect bootleg anime figures ?
[2015-05-12 16:55:11] <Valkryie247> (applebloom)
[2015-05-12 16:55:23] <Amgnismo> @Horizon Depends
[2015-05-12 16:55:37] <Novabomb1> Piracy is okay as long as you aren't caught
[2015-05-12 16:55:44] <Amgnismo> 69% of my toys are bootleg
[2015-05-12 16:55:46] <SublimePie> Nova
[2015-05-12 16:55:48] <SublimePie> warning
[2015-05-12 16:55:49] -!- Horizonfudgy has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:55:50] <SublimePie> bad pic is bad
[2015-05-12 16:55:54] -!- Horizonfudgy has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-12 16:55:57] <Scp-1471> jesus
[2015-05-12 16:56:02] <Scp-1471> that is demented
[2015-05-12 16:56:02] <SublimePie> don't click if you're innocent
[2015-05-12 16:56:12] <Horizonfudgy> * Sub is banned *
[2015-05-12 16:56:16] <Pinkgirl234> What was that?
[2015-05-12 16:56:18] <Scp-1471> Sub, I'm a delicate snowflake
[2015-05-12 16:56:19] <Novabomb1> Why does that remind me of candy
[2015-05-12 16:56:22] <Pinkgirl234> I haven't seen it snow Lol
[2015-05-12 16:56:37] <Amgnismo> I think I am getting interested in the scp foundation quite lately
[2015-05-12 16:56:38] <SublimePie> Nova
[2015-05-12 16:56:41] <SublimePie> that's not candy
[2015-05-12 16:56:45] <SublimePie> that's not candy at all
[2015-05-12 16:56:48] <Scp-1471> Amgnismo good
[2015-05-12 16:56:51] <Novabomb1> ikr
[2015-05-12 16:56:56] <Amgnismo> Yep yep
[2015-05-12 16:57:00] <SublimePie> and this isn't candy either
I would like to emphasize that SublimePie acknowledged this was inappropriate while Novabomb1 simply went into endless arguments.
Novabomb1 announces he is going to engage in inappropriate conduct
[2015-05-12 23:48:23] <Novabomb1> Hell if he wants to get mad over an avatar I'd change to one of my more questionable ones
[2015-05-13 00:19:42] <Novabomb1> If I'm banned by tomorrow
[2015-05-13 00:19:44] <Novabomb1> I wuv u all
[2015-05-13 00:19:46] <Novabomb1> ;-;
[2015-05-13 00:19:47] <Starkiller131> xD
[2015-05-13 00:19:49] <Halo_the_pokemon_handler> do you like chicken express (stare)
[2015-05-13 00:19:53] <Aerostar> Lol, by Rowy?
[2015-05-13 00:19:54] <Starkiller131> Nova no ;(
[2015-05-13 00:19:57] <Novabomb1> yea, Aero
Novabomb1 encouraging other chatters to engage in inappropriate conduct
[2015-05-13 00:24:21] <Aerostar> If Throwy kicks a mod like me then there'll be issues, huh (hm)
[2015-05-13 00:24:25] <Hylian_Warrior> no Nova
[2015-05-13 00:24:28] -!- Surprise the fun loving pony has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-13 00:24:31] <Hylian_Warrior> you cant do that (stare)
[2015-05-13 00:24:32] <Novabomb1> Hell yeah there'd be issues
The entire conversation is about skirting the rules and how mods should not be kicked or banned.
Novabomb1 engages in inappropriate conduct and then tries to argue over it, just like he's doing now
[2015-05-14 22:19:09] <Novabomb1> Class is in session
[2015-05-14 22:19:14] <Novabomb1> Everybody take a goddamned seat
[2015-05-14 22:19:24] <Novabomb1> Jesus Scp
[2015-05-14 22:19:27] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> you're not even my teacher
[2015-05-14 22:19:39] <Scp-1471> Nova, what if i don't? :3
[2015-05-14 22:19:44] <Novabomb1> Then uhhh
[2015-05-14 22:19:50] <Novabomb1> EVERLASTING RECESS
[2015-05-14 22:19:53] <Novabomb1> >.>
[2015-05-14 22:20:07] <Scp-1471> Not the answer I was hoping for
[2015-05-14 22:20:17] <Novabomb1> Scp atm I'm scared of Cel seeing my avatar
[2015-05-14 22:20:39] -!- ShadowedButterfly has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:20:48] <Aphelion112> nova jesus
[2015-05-14 22:20:50] <Novabomb1> Like all focus is on changing it before that fool sees it
[2015-05-14 22:20:52] <Novabomb1> aph ik
[2015-05-14 22:20:56] <Novabomb1> Hey Shadowed
[2015-05-14 22:20:57] <Hylian_Warrior> now screw you too Scp (yuno)
[2015-05-14 22:21:03] <Scp-1471> Nova, look up crookedtrees
[2015-05-14 22:21:06] -!- D374-trap has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:21:11] <Novabomb1> lol alright
[2015-05-14 22:21:20] * D374-trap walk's into chat and open's lighter
[2015-05-14 22:21:40] <Hylian_Warrior> I mean just...
[2015-05-14 22:21:43] -!- ShadowedButterfly has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:21:43] -!- ShadowedButterfly has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:21:44] <Hylian_Warrior> look at her
[2015-05-14 22:21:48] <SublimePie> That moment when you realize where Nova's avatar comes from
[2015-05-14 22:21:52] -!- Aphelion112 has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:21:53] -!- Aphelion112 has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:21:54] <Hylian_Warrior> so flawless (and sexy (hue)
[2015-05-14 22:22:01] <D374-trap> yo all
[2015-05-14 22:22:06] <SublimePie> ay D3
[2015-05-14 22:22:09] <Novabomb1> Sub if you realize it then it means that I forgot
[2015-05-14 22:22:11] -!- Feargm has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:22:11] <Aphelion112> ponies are not sexy
[2015-05-14 22:22:15] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> aph
[2015-05-14 22:22:15] <Hylian_Warrior> I like that shot of her
[2015-05-14 22:22:20] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> Um
[2015-05-14 22:22:27] <Hylian_Warrior> yeah Aph, except Pinkamena
[2015-05-14 22:22:29] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> What about humans
[2015-05-14 22:22:36] <SublimePie> humans are so last generation
[2015-05-14 22:22:40] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> Bruh
[2015-05-14 22:22:40] -!- Feargm has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:22:43] <SublimePie> ponies are where it's at
[2015-05-14 22:22:43] <Hylian_Warrior> humans?
[2015-05-14 22:22:45] <Hylian_Warrior> eww
[2015-05-14 22:22:46] <SublimePie> Bruh
[2015-05-14 22:22:48] <Hylian_Warrior> no hooves (eww)
[2015-05-14 22:22:52] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> Aph
[2015-05-14 22:22:54] <Novabomb1> HAHAHAHA my god
[2015-05-14 22:22:58] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> These people are denying their own species
[2015-05-14 22:23:02] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> I can't even
[2015-05-14 22:23:11] <Scp-1471> Octavia s seen in japan
[2015-05-14 22:23:15] <SublimePie> Actually I like anything with mammaries
[2015-05-14 22:23:15] -!- Novabomb1 has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:23:16] <Scp-1471> as*
[2015-05-14 22:23:17] <SublimePie> so
[2015-05-14 22:23:20] <D374-trap> 0-0
[2015-05-14 22:23:22] -!- Feargm has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:23:24] <SublimePie> I don't know which category I fit in
[2015-05-14 22:23:35] <Novabomb1> You'd fit under uhhhh
[2015-05-14 22:23:38] <Novabomb1> idk
[2015-05-14 22:23:41] <Novabomb1> something
[2015-05-14 22:23:41] * Hylian_Warrior joins Sublime's club
[2015-05-14 22:23:47] <SublimePie> woo
[2015-05-14 22:23:49] <SublimePie> 2 members
[2015-05-14 22:23:52] -!- Feargm has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:23:56] <Hylian_Warrior> Nova
[2015-05-14 22:23:57] <Hylian_Warrior> stop
[2015-05-14 22:23:58] <TheodoreRowy> Novabomb1, sexual conduct in chat, warning.
[2015-05-14 22:24:05] <Hylian_Warrior> friggen stop (yuno)
[2015-05-14 22:24:05] <Novabomb1> what conduct
[2015-05-14 22:24:17] -!- D374-trap has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:24:30] -!- D374-trap has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:24:47] <Rainbow_LSD_Gorilla> I'll be right back, I have to do something
[2015-05-14 22:24:50] <Novabomb1> Okay, call me out but don't explain why
[2015-05-14 22:24:55] <Novabomb1> Lonk i can't :p
[2015-05-14 22:24:57] <Scp-1471> TheodoreRowy, I detest your existence
[2015-05-14 22:25:07] <Novabomb1> Scp is this your DA account
[2015-05-14 22:25:13] <Scp-1471> lamo no
[2015-05-14 22:25:20] <TheodoreRowy> SCP, harassment, warning.
[2015-05-14 22:25:23] <Novabomb1> lol alright
[2015-05-14 22:25:47] -!- Scp-1471 has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-14 22:25:51] <SublimePie> Guys we all remember Lonk
[2015-05-14 22:25:55] <Novabomb1> So Theo tell me what counts as sexual conduct?
[2015-05-14 22:25:57] <SublimePie> but do you remember Lank?
[2015-05-14 22:26:01] <Novabomb1> As far as I can tell I said nothing of the sort
Novabomb1 changed his avatar to Cherilee in fetish gear ("Class is now in session", "Like all focus is on changing it before that fool sees it", "That moment when you realize where Nova's avatar comes from"). He had said the day before he is going to do it so he gets banned.
If the mods weren't a clique that prevents their friends from getting unmodded or banned Novabomb1 would have been gone and probably banned indefinitely. Unfortunately other mods simply did not allow actual enforcement to take place (see chat ban log where every ban given is immediately removed).
Since other admins are here now, I suggest blocking Novabomb1 entirely, and letting other mods know that they are not above the rules and they will be blocked indefinitely if they keep up this behavior. Throwy 07:53, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
In that pastebin I copied everything that was provided.  In the log section where it says that I posted sexual content it is clear that I did none of the such.  You've been trying to implement me in several of these "sexual content" incidences and have yet to provide actual evidence on the matter.  In that entire sexual content log section the only link I even provided was nowhere near sexual.  But you want to incriminate me for something of which I did not have part of.  You are willing to provide false accusations in order to try and get an advantage over me in that regard.  The log section that says that I am going to engage in appropriate conduct is hilarious.  You went out of your way to clip a fraction of that conversation in order to try and make it seem like damning evidence.  Which can be considered worth a try, I presume.  Then the next log section says that I'm trying to encourage other users to comitt inappropriate conduct.  Where do you even see me trying to rally some group of people.  All I see in that section is a friend of mine wondering of the result of being banned by you and me providing an answer.  I do not see how you can find some secret message saying that I am telling others to become part of inappropriate behavior.  In fact I seriously doubt your ability to judge what can be considered inappropriate because of that.  There is no way anyone can mistake answering someone's curiosity with trying to incite bad behavior.  Big news on me having an avatar.  I'm literally not even the first person that you've had a thing against because of his or her avatar.  Here is one incident of you telling a user on his talkpage about his avatar And here is another of you going for a different user.  And may I point out that another user joins the discussion and tells you that the avatar does not violate ToU in any case whatsoever.  Of which you blatantly ignored that user's reply.  This forum has been dedicated to your actions in the chat, and yet you are so keen on trying to detract attention from yourself and onto other users.  The other thing is that the users you've been trying to call out in this forum are also users that have opposed your authority in the chatroom.  Because as far as I can tell you're way of trying to avoid the points that other users have been making as of now is by trying to create as many scapegoats as possible.  If the users on the chat have called you out for a serious offense then it is best to actually address them to the fullest degree.  This is not some political game where we can just blame other people just to try and escape the already existing debate.  As far as anyone is concerned this is not a game of "Point the Finger" nor is it a political argument where we can just try to avoid the facts given to us.  When it comes to trying to maintain a secure chatroom the moderators and admins try to work under a cooperative spirit.  But over the course of this week you've been trying to issue sole dominance on how the chat should be managed.  As far as I'm concerned a system that goes under the authority of a single person is absolute ridiculousness.  But if I am mistaken then let representatives from Russia and North Korea make profiles just to tell me otherwise.   Princess Nova  MLG   SbDj1Wk.png  
  • re: COPPA: The pastebin does not have the link to the discussion nor earlier explanations to you about COPPA.
Missing from the pastebin
[2015-05-12 16:47:37] <Novabomb1> And not being rude or anything but if Wikia policy states that users have to be 13 years or older to even have a profile here it's not really beneficial to cater to users that actively break that policy to create a profile. I'm not babysitting children if they want to purposefully come to a chat to discuss material online. It's their decision to pass as a 13 year old and they'll be treated as such: Teenagers
[2015-05-12 16:48:24] <TheodoreRowy> Novabomb1 Wikia made it clear they are not enforcing this rule.
[2015-05-12 16:49:16] <Novabomb1> If that's true then why do they still include the 13 or older policy when one has to create a profile?
[2015-05-12 16:49:48] <TheodoreRowy> Novabomb1, that is a good question for Wikia.
No "bending the rules" took place. You just didn't like the answer so you kept accusing me of bending the rules. Similar to how you accused me of ignoring you when actually I gave you a full official answer.
  • re: "the only link I even provided was nowhere near sexual": You're right, here's a more accurate wording: SublimePie was posting sexually suggestive images and Novabomb1 was playing along by saying "Why does that remind me of candy". This was an example of mod's clique behavior where mods let each other violate the guidelines. See 2015-05-08 00:09:45 for someone getting banned for far less sexual images. Mods posting inappropriate content and other mods doing nothing about it is my point - the clique problem.
  • re: "That pony in fetish gear - not appropriate. Please remove it. –Throwy 15:59, April 7, 2013 (UTC)" - this is "admin abuse"?
  • re: "you're way of trying to avoid the points", "called you out for a serious offense" - I have been "called out" for admin abuse by kicking and banning without merit. I am showing that my kicks and bans have merit. I've given ample warnings, in this case to you and Scp. Then I'm showing that because of mods revoking bans ("ban warring" without discussion) I had to give a block instead. I'm also showing that mods (like you) deliberately violated the guidelines and should be immediately revoked of their mod status and perhaps banned. Throwy 15:29, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
No, I have no idea how you can conclude that me linking the fetish gear link is of you committing admin abuse. I believe you are misinterpreting the point trying to be made here. That was not an example of admin abuse whatsoever, just you misunderstanding the basis of what avatars can be used in the chat. If you want to go out of your way to take every single speck of information in the wrong light then have at it. Otherwise I see that trying to debate anything with you is of a futile decision because the information never seems to come to you. If you do not wish to take any of this seriously then there is no point in debating it any further. There is more fruitful things to take part in and childish games such as this is not worth merit.  Princess Nova  MLG   SbDj1Wk.png  
Alright, since this particular part of the discussion is over I guess it's time that an admin decide what to do in your case. Throwy 16:11, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Since avatars are over all wikis, and not just this one (something pointed out to me by Callofduty4 once when I made the mistake of asking a user to change theirs), you don't actually have any right to order a user to change their avatar, unless it actually breaks the Wikia terms of use. Sexually explicit in THAT particular case would require the avatar to be actually pornographic in nature, which, since I actually know what kind of person Nova here is, I very much doubt the avatar was.

You have no right to order a user to change their avatar, Throwy. End of. Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 18:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Even though profile images are global on all of Wikia they can still be inappropriate on a specific wiki. It's not uncommon for wikis to block users for inappropriate usernames and profile pictures; if a certain wiki, for example, is about a show aimed at children, it may wish that contributors' profile pictures would be as inoffensive as possible. Throwy 19:10, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Points of information regarding "Admin abuse" and other violations

Theo, the reason this forum is up is regarding you abusing your admin priviledges. Many users have brought up important points to you, yet you keep throwing them aside and the reasons given don’t really justify your actions.

- For starters, let’s talk about you bending the rules a bit, especially the rule regarding the discussing bans. As you can see in the screenshots, as well as the logs, the comment generally given by you is that we must use your talk page – This however directly contradicts the rules where it says and I quote “Bans - Talking about bans excessively in main chat isn't allowed and if a user has any questions about bans, they should contact a moderator via a talkpage message or PM.” In each instance where a ban has been brought up, you have decided to ignore this rule, instead focusing rather on the fact that one CAN use the talkpage (however this is optional). Not once have you mentioned that one can discuss it in PMs, and you have completely disregarded the fact that we MAY speak about it on main (albeit it not excessively).

As for your kicking and banning - They have been without merit seeing how not only did you kick a user for merely mentioning a drug, but you also kicked a mod who called you out on that – if any other mod had acted like this, chances are they would’ve been demoted by now as this does constitude “Admin abuse”. Seeing how you’ve disregarded every point being brought to you, you have officially entered that category and have throughtout this entire forum have merely stated facts that don’t explain or give any legitimate reason for said bans or kicks - As for banning, as the logs would dictate, you tend to first kick then actually warn the user, with the next offense being the direct ban. Since the time I’ve been here (and before) the main protocal all mods online (as well as the admins who are usually online) is to warn first, then kick (depending on the situation) which would lead to a ban (Which again, depends on the situation)

Another point that I want to raise is that at times it appears you’re targeting only certain users, which can be seen in the 2 screenshots as well (and can be backed up by logs as well).

- With regards to Aph’s log, you were pinged numerous times when a certain user was in fact breaking chat rules and did warrant an official warning – he had been excessively Rping for about 30 minutes and told by other users to actually stop. Considering that you seem to want to focus on certain user’s past actions, that specific user in the screenshot had just recently been banned as well by you personally

- With regards to the screenshots I had taken, we can clearly see you targeting certain users by constantly either kicking or giving warnings that don’t have any valid grounds (such as Rainbow LSD’s statement regarding the manner you were treating users on chat as well as enforcing the “rules”. With his statement you immediately replied asking if it was a request for his mod rights to be removed – something that anyone can see from the statement, WASN’T the case.

As for the supposed sexual conduct that’s supposedly been commited, allow me to take an extract directly out of the rules ~Sexually explicit - Any content posted in chat must not contain sexually explicit material. The type of content (videos, pictures, references or posts) does not matter, this is strictly prohibited.

Nova’s avatar, while borderline, did NOT break this rule as it was not explicit. Your argument is that it broke this particular rule, however, as many before me have said, this didn’t happen and seeing how you keep suggesting that a rule was broken as well as threatening to demote a user, who by all accounts hadn’t broken any rules, count as admin abuse.

Let’s take a look at the guidelines given here too: ~ Moderators do not "outrank" other users. All users shall receive equal treatment. ~ Before a kick is given, a warning must be given to explain to the user what is wrong with their behaviour. Likewise, a warning must also be given before a ban.

~ The sole exceptions to this are offensive content/spam, and sockpuppet accounts.

~ Do not use threats to make a point.

~ Give bans only when necessary, and keep ban lengths as short as possible. Bans are at the discretion of moderators/admins, however they must still be kept appropriate.

~ Communicate with other moderators. If there is a disagreement, for example, about a ban, a civil discussion in a PM should ensue before any ban is undone.

~ If you feel uncomfortable dealing with a situation for any reason, do not hesitate to ask another moderator for help

^so far, most if not all of these guidelines, have been broken by you with the exception of maybe one or 2 occurences, instead of communicating with other mods, you have instead disregarded them completely and as I said before, have even kicked a number of them for delivering their thoughts/opinions to you. In the end, this counts as “admin abuse”, which the chat has been suffering under since the 12th of May 2015, we have tried to get these points across to you, but in turn we haven’t been given legitimate reasons and instead have been given simple “answers” that don’t really explain anything. The fact that you had also tried to take focus off yourself to another user doesn’t help at all, and instead keeps making things worse as we (the users of the chatroom who have been online more than you have in the past 9 months) keep getting the worse end of the stick in this regard. Regards: V7JdFq2.gif   Smith B Wanna leave a message? dX0xJs3.gif

  • re: ban discussion: I gave a warning, then a kick or ban. If the kicked/banned party or anybody else has any questions they need to use a talk page.
  • re: "kick a user for merely mentioning a drug" - see #Blocking users for a single innocent reference to drugs. These things get repetitive which is exactly why I refer people to talk pages, so I don't have to repeat everything five times.
  • re: "kicked a mod who called you out on that" - I presume you refer to AppleJon. AppleJon was kicked for using the main chatroom to dispute a ban instead of a talk page. He was warned previously to drop the subject. If he wanted to dispute the ban he should have used a talk page.
AppleJon kick
[2015-05-13 19:40:16] <TheodoreRowy> SCP, no drug references, you've been warned before.
[2015-05-13 19:40:20] <ScootyWolf> Cartoon Lover
[2015-05-13 19:40:21] <TheodoreRowy> Your next ban will be indefinite.
[2015-05-13 19:40:44] <AppleJon> indefinite? the hell?
[2015-05-13 19:40:50] <TheodoreRowy> "Without a definite end"
[2015-05-13 19:40:57] <Scp-1471> Umm
[2015-05-13 19:41:20] <Cartoon_Lover8902> @Scooty
[2015-05-13 19:41:23] <Scp-1471> TheodoreRowy what do you thing me referencing drugs will do? Like seriously
[2015-05-13 19:41:26] <SublimePie> Cartoon Lover
[2015-05-13 19:41:35] <AppleJon> his last ban was 3 days and overturned
[2015-05-13 19:41:36] -!- Surprise the fun loving pony has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-13 19:41:36] -!- Surprise the fun loving pony has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-13 19:41:43] <Hylian_Warrior> do you folks like coffee
[2015-05-13 19:41:47] <ScootyWolf> What? @Cartoon Lover
[2015-05-13 19:41:48] <Hylian_Warrior> real cofee
[2015-05-13 19:41:49] <Cartoon_Lover8902> OMG my rain gauage is going now
[2015-05-13 19:41:51] <TheodoreRowy> Like I told you yesterday, I'm not arguing with you. Either behave or be banned, that is it.
[2015-05-13 19:41:54] <AppleJon> you want to overhaul the chat rules but did you bother to read "keep the bans short"
[2015-05-13 19:41:55] <Hylian_Warrior> from the hill of Columbia
[2015-05-13 19:41:55] -!- Surprise the fun loving pony has joined Special:Chat
[2015-05-13 19:41:56] <Cartoon_Lover8902> its going up
[2015-05-13 19:42:06] <AppleJon> saying the word "kush" isn't bad
[2015-05-13 19:42:06] <Cartoon_Lover8902> oh wait no
[2015-05-13 19:42:08] <AppleJon> it's a joke
[2015-05-13 19:42:13] <ScootyWolf> I'm hungry...
[2015-05-13 19:42:15] <TheodoreRowy> AppleJon, you're warned too.
[2015-05-13 19:42:15] <Cartoon_Lover8902> its still 0.00inches
[2015-05-13 19:42:17] <AppleJon> this website is 13+, he's not selling the drugs
[2015-05-13 19:42:22] -!- Haloking7410 has left Special:Chat
[2015-05-13 19:42:24] * ScootyWolf looks at Warrior (puppy)
[2015-05-13 19:42:26] <Scp-1471> If someone does drugs from me saying "kush" maybe they shouldn't be on the internet.
[2015-05-13 19:42:28] <Okaminarutofan999> *hugs jon*
[2015-05-13 19:42:34] <AppleJon> he's not posting pictures or videos of it being smoked
[2015-05-13 19:42:35] <TheodoreRowy> Both of you drop it. Warning kick.
[2015-05-13 19:42:42] -!- AppleJon was kicked from Special:Chat by TheodoreRowy
  • re: "you tend to first kick then actually warn the user": see #Scp
  • re: "it appears you’re targeting only certain users": see #Scp
  • re: Aph's log: what are you trying to say, that I was targeting Dam Sentinel, or that I wasn't targeting Dam Sentinel? I had kicked him and banned him after receiving numerous complains about his behavior and had given him ample warnings.
Dam Sentinel warnings, kicks, bans
[2015-05-11 18:45:00] -!- Dam Sentinel was kicked from Special:Chat by TheodoreRowy
[2015-05-11 18:45:21] <TheodoreRowy> Dam Sentinel, do not harass other chatters
[2015-05-11 18:52:50] <TheodoreRowy> Dam you seem to be disrupting the chat, please be considerate of other chatters.
[2015-05-11 19:35:57] <TheodoreRowy> No linking to profanity, Dam Sentinel.
[2015-05-12 15:14:50] <TheodoreRowy> Dam last warning.
[2015-05-12 15:56:32] <TheodoreRowy> Dam, that's harassment. Last warning.
[2015-05-12 16:01:12] <TheodoreRowy> Dam, since three people already complained about your repetitive posts, please do not be repetitive.
[2015-05-12 16:05:59] <TheodoreRowy> Dam, you do understand you're not supposed to repeat the same word over and over, right?
[2015-05-12 16:11:40] <TheodoreRowy> Dam, I've had two more people complain about you. Gonna have to give you a warning kick. After that it's a ban.
[2015-05-12 16:11:45] -!- Dam Sentinel was kicked from Special:Chat by TheodoreRowy
[2015-05-12 16:19:12] -!- Dam Sentinel was banned from Special:Chat by TheodoreRowy
[2015-05-12 17:52:03] <TheodoreRowy> Dam you are bothering people. You know what comes next.
[2015-05-14 16:09:45] <TheodoreRowy> Dam if you purposely aggravate/harass other chatters you will be kicked or banned.
[2015-05-14 16:15:00] <TheodoreRowy> Dam, warning.
  • re: "sexually explicit": See #Admin abuse and the wiki abuse guidelines, also the following recent ban 2015-05-08 00:09:45 by Callofduty4 and EHAN for far milder sexual content.
  • re: "instead of communicating with other mods, you have instead disregarded them completely" - see #Novabomb1. No mod was ignored. Instead, mods chose to hold field court in the chatroom when they specifically should have used a talk page. Throwy 17:34, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

The thing is with these kicks and bans is that they're justified. Throwy has routinely backed up his actions with policy citations and the fact of the matter is that if the rules forbid discussion of drugs (why would we need to do that here???) then Throwy is very much justified in giving kicks or bans... even more so if people are purposefully flaunting the rules or testing people's patience.

If you guys want to loosen the chat rules then start a discussion to do that. While I don't think Throwy has to be so strict, he's not abusing his powers. He's actually acting within what the rules dictate he may do. This isn't a constructive forum and while I don't agree with the way Throwy is very fast to give kicks and bans, I also don't agree that he's abusing any powers.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png 

After reading through the entire forum finally, I rescind what I said about Throwy being quick to kick or ban, he's actually been very lenient with warnings. I mean the proof is right there - he may be quick to warn but he does warn and does it a lot. Indefinite bans and demotions for mods who purposefully flaunt rules and encourage their breaking isn't really that extreme of an idea, it's definitely no more extreme than the idea of a mod or admin encouraging rule breaking. If you don't like rules, then start up discussion to improve them. Don't break them.
To make it clear as can possibly be, I don't agree that Throwy is abusing admin powers, and I totally agree with him that the chat rules are essentially garbage. I furthermore understand that he is enforcing the sitewide rule of "no mention of drugs". That is a sitewide rule and therefore applies wholly to the chatroom as well. The chat rules are very specific and specificity in rules is not a good thing. To me that is the problem, and not their enforcement.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  04:18, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
First, for the record, my kick was entirely unfair. I tried to reason with Throwy on his warnings against SCP, and I was warned and then kicked without cause. If you say the chat rules are "essentially garbage," at what point were you or any other admin going to bring it up in a fair discussion? What Throwy has done is burst into chat trying to perform a reverse coup d'etat on the moderators without any consultation. This is no different than a teacher giving his/her students an "F" without giving them a rubric or parameters for the assignment. If we're going to fix the rules to prevent something like this forum from ever happening again, let's do it. This entire forum is a giant clusterhell of back-and-forths and a complete lack of seeing eye-to-eye and needs to end. And this point, it's not right or wrong. We just need to smooth things out. Anyone going to start the thread? 6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 02:20, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
The current rules as they are phrased make that clear: "if a user has any questions about bans, they should contact a moderator via a talkpage message or PM." The new phrasing will make that even clearer. Before you were kicked, the ban discussion was flooding the chatroom and should have been handled in talk pages. You were disputing Scp's warning/kick/ban and I warned you; I can see that I didn't make it clear that the warning was about disputing the warning/kick/ban (I just said "both of you drop it", I wonder if this could have been avoided if I had said "both of you stop disputing the warning/kick/ban in the chatroom, use a talk page"). As for "failing students without giving the parameters of the assignment", Scp and Novabomb1 were warned repeatedly. The parameters were known. Nobody was failed, everybody was given second (and third, and fourth, and fifth...) chances. Throwy 08:42, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

"I furthermore understand that he is enforcing the sitewide rule of "no mention of drugs". That is a sitewide rule and therefore applies wholly to the chatroom as well." ┌──────┘
Which schedule[s] or category/ies of drugs? Alysdexia (talk) 06:08, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Whatever a particular admin or mod finds inappropriate. Please take further discussion and questions about the wiki into another forum. I particularly suggest starting a thread about any guidelines you might want to discuss. Throwy 07:10, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Unfair avatars

I've recently seen avatars from some moderators of thrown away TV's and this is suppose to target Throwy. I think this is no acceptable, no matter what is going on right now, I'd like to see this changed as yes, it is a form of harassment.  343TheGuiltyProphet - Contact - Contibs
19:24, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
No, it is't. 6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 02:13, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
Actually I can say it is. Even if you do have some dislike at a certain person, you do not really have to harass them in any way possible.
P.S. - Wait, which of the mods are having avatars of thrown away televisions?
kBh6dCt.gifPinkgirl234 Sweet Treat 5DbANvV.png 09:15, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
If Throwy has an issue with it I am sure he can tell people about it.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  10:29, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Two cents

So, I'm not active in this Wikia and neither do I partake in the chat. However, having skimmed over this topic and such...

Throwy, in all fairness; you may be the founder and I respect you for that... but don't you think coming back to a community that grew and went on without you, after years of inactivity, and trying to enforce your authority on members, mods and admins who, mostly, clearly aren't being receptive of your presence and actions, and are wholly unused to you as a part of the community... may be just bad? Ha³ (talk) 13:12, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Another Opinion

Between what I've read here, what I've read on your talk page, and my own brief interactions with you, there's ample evidence of a problem. It's either one of two things: Either the wiki has moved on and changed in your absence, and you have not. Or you are, as we tabletop gamers put it, being a rules lawyer: Using the rules against other unless the situation applies to you. In both cases, it comes down to control. You want it, and it's coming at the expense of the other contributors. And when you're confronted about it, you write them off as more infractions or people merely being ignorant of supposed rules or guidelines instead of accepting the criticisms and attempting to adapt to the environment as it is now.

Whatever the root of the problem is, I think it's becoming obvious that you need to step down from your positions as an admin and a chat mod. Your presence and actions are both disruptive in the short term and toxic in the long term. This is a community effort, and you are actively damaging that community with how you treat them. --NeoSilverThorn (talk) 16:11, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

I accept criticism. I think the only proper way to run a wiki is through discussion and consensus. For example in your case, there is an edit dispute and you are invited to discuss it. You're suggesting I'm using the rules "against you", but what I'm doing is using the rules to keep broad similarities off the allusions page. Throwy 16:27, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Throwy, you're requiring 'specific' to the degree most professional, peer-reviewed academic research papers don't use.  The American Psychological Association doesn't require the sheer level of detail your definition is asking.  The fact that the allusions are best kept brief does not allow that kind of detail.   I could write paragraphs on the similarities between Apple Bloom's shadow and the boss shadows of Persona 4.  I could write an essay on the resemblance of Starlight Glimmer's town and the settings of other well-known works depicting dystopias.  But the format permits neither, and you would likely delete them because a generality would have to be made at some point.
You are, in short, enforcing the rules to the letter and thus proving my point.  You take no consideration for format, or that the detail you're asking for would be considered ridiculous by professional standards, let alone be something an average wiki contributor would be capable of.  You refuse to be flexible or admit that you might need to broaden your definition, and you use the rules and guidelines as justification for your refusal.
You do it when you moderate the chat, too.  You stand by the rules to the letter, and use them as justification for your actions when confronted with the fact that you made a poor call.  This is a consistent, habitual behavior on your part, one you show little interest in changing.
As such, I recommend to the other admins that if you don't step down from your positions voluntarily that you be removed from them for the good of the wiki's community.NeoSilverThorn (talk) 17:12, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Then please use the talk page if you can show that the shadow fear monsters in Bloom and Gloom are specifically similar to the shadow fear monsters in Persona 4 and not merely coincidentally similar becuse they're both shadow fear monsters. For example Sonic is blue and fast and arrogant and loyal to his friends and Rainbow Dash is blue and fast and arrogant and loyal to her friends.... Look at these four specific simularities, could it be that Rainbow Dash was crafted as an allusion to Sonic? It could, but upon closer inspection those similarities are very broad. Nothing specific about Rainbow Dash alludes to Sonic, these are all pretty broad descriptors: blue, fast, arrogant, loyal to friends. Similarly with the example of Rarity Takes Manehattan on the talk page. In the time you wrote these four paragraphs you could have written four paragraphs about what you believe are the specific similarities that you tried to point out. Throwy 17:37, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Throwy, you ignore my point.  My issue is not with the guidelines, nor providing proof regarding my claims. 
It is with you, your continued adherence to the letter of the guidelines and rules without exception, both in making page edits and your moderation of the chat.  It is about using those rules and guidelines as justification instead of admitting you were wrong or made a poor judgement call.  If you read a lot of the complaints people have left here, you'd notice this is a trend in all of them.  I picked up on it just from reading your talk page.  Whether consciously or unconsciously, you are abusing your position of authority.
What's more, instead of paying attention and heeding what we're trying to tell you, you deflect, you change the topic, you hide behind the guidelines for both editing and the chat and claim others were the ones in the wrong, you do anything that doesn't involve admission of wrongdoing regarding this tendency.   You certainly make no attempts at changing your behavior, nor do you make any attempt at amends.  You simply see fit to ignore or make excuses for any wrongdoing or poor choice you make, even when it's your fellow admins calling you out.NeoSilverThorn (talk) 18:48, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Do you want to talk about me or do you want to contribute to the wiki? Throwy 18:52, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
As before, yet again.  You continue to prove my point.NeoSilverThorn (talk) 18:59, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

No seriously, why not discuss the specific similarities instead of writing paragraph after paragraph about how bad a person I am? Throwy 19:01, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Because sitting and arguing the point on the allusion page's talk page doesn't fix the underlying problem.NeoSilverThorn (talk) 19:10, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I reminded you five times now (three in this thread, once on my talk page, once when undoing your edits) that you can discuss this matter, and you chose not to. Throwy 19:23, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
Throwy, I'm discussing you.  I'm discussing behaviors of yours that I've noticed despite having been a member of the wiki less than a full day.  That's why I'm here in this thread, that's why I keep harping.  But I can see that my words, and everyone else's, seem to be falling on deaf ears. NeoSilverThorn (talk) 19:43, May 27, 2015 (UTC)
You're not, actually. There's hyperbole ("you're requiring 'specific' to the degree most professional, peer-reviewed academic research papers don't use"), mudslinging ("Your presence and actions are both disruptive in the short term and toxic in the long term"), tons of anger, but not a single bit of addressing any actual events.
  • You made your first contribution to the wiki.
  • The contribution was undone with the explanation "broad similarity"
  • You proceeded to undo not only the edit that undid your own edit, but other unrelated edits (wording and grammar for example, that had nothing to do with your edit dispute)
  • After the second undo, a third undo was performed with a detailed explanation of why the similarity is broad ("Shadows representing fears is not specific; examples [...]")
  • This was accompanied by a message on your talk page warning of edit warring.
  • This was followed by further undoing of unrelated edits (wording, grammar, other broad similarities)
  • You claimed 90% of the content of the similarities pages needs to be removed under the current guidelines.
  • I claimed it's closer to 10%.
  • You refused to actually discuss your edit and posted in this forum instead.
So you're not actually trying to solve anything. You had tons of chances to discuss this and you avoid it, and you prefer to demand that I lose my admin rights for the injustice of undoing your edits.
Did I call you names, insult you, make fun of you, condescend, attack? No.
Did I try to help you understand why your edit was undone and did I offer that you discuss the edit? Yes, repeatedly.
And so you say I should lose my admin rights over this. Throwy 20:19, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

My Opinion On This

Well, I've been seeing this forum going on for a while now. There's been so much talk here about disruptions TheodoreRowy is supposedly making, and it has created a very huge post. Now, I don't go to chat at all, but I am an active contributor on the wiki and have been so for a few months now. It seems that when I first joined, TheodoreRowy wasn't active, but now he is, and a lot of people have become upset, saying "he's making up rules", "he should lose his rights", and "that things have changed". And, I can see the anger in some people, and so many are trying to push their point. My thought is this:

Of course things have changed since he left. Things always change, no matter what happens. The community will always grow, no matter who's in it. It's like living in an actual community; things change in the community no matter who moves in or out of it. And if the person moves back in, he/she has to adjust to the changes. They have to get back into the feel of the things going on. But, so do the people who stayed the whole time.

In my own opinion, instead of just saying, "Throwy needs to change because the community changed" or "Take away his rights because of something", both two sides of this story need to face some form of change, because Throwy is here, and he's not going. From this forum, I can see many people upset at his return, saying he made some mistake. If he did, he could live and learn from it. Making a mistake or doing something wrong isn't the end of the world. Even if rules have changed, they can still be followed by anybody. And that also applies to the people saying things have been done wrong; these rules are in place for a reason, and can still be followed by anybody. That being said, if claimed that he did something wrong, instead of writing about it here, check and see if you followed the rules, or try to talk to the person directly about what they did. There's an easier way to resolve a conflict than writing about it and trying to get people to go against someone.

Look, change happens. Things come, things go. It's the same with people. People will leave the wiki, and sometimes they come back. But regardless of who is here and when, there are still rules that need to be followed. There's no reason to call someone out for what they did, or write about how you don't like them or what they did. Rules have changed, and the people have changed too. Sure, maybe a disruption was caused. However, that's no reason to try to get rid of someone.

Being on a wiki means working as a community; if there was a disruption, we'd work together to get through it. However, from this post, I'm not seeing this. I'm seeing an argument that has gone on for a huge amount of time with no resolution. There's got to be a better way to do this. If some form of change needs to happen, it won't just happen to one, it will have to happen to all of us.

That's my opinion on the matter, at least. TheGuineaPig45 (talk) 21:24, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Request for close

The discussion has been open for two weeks and inactive for three days. I request closing the discussion by a non-involved admin. Throwy 13:41, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

A forum passed a while ago that said admins involved in chat forums can close them, so I've took the courtesy to do that to this one. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   14:03, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I just noticed this is also classed as wiki discussion. B0lGGoQ.gifOz   14:15, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.