Forum:Removal from adminship/archive

Unrelated non-policy discussion
There is one thing about this thread that I find particularly unnerving, no insulting regarding the recurring theme at the beginning of this thread revolving around various individuals particular dislike for me. I find that extremely rude, especially in justifying a discussion like this. As if everyone else here is perfect in their own right. Get real. All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc. However, if those were your motives, then congratulations are in order, otherwise, uncool, very uncool. --Alan 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. I made no comments regarding your behavior, your actions as an administrator, your following polices, etc., in opening this thread. I made a single light hearted comment later, but with the intention of steering this thread away from being about you, since it wasn't. The only reason I included anything about our disagreements in the past, and the fact that we often do not see "eye to eye" was to dispel any notion that this was an action of some "inside club" of people who just like you, Alan, and are only acting because we like you. In discussing the actual policy itself, and recommendations pertaining to it, we've made no mention of you at all except in a complimentary fashion about how when you returned once from an absence, you did not show any difficulty continuing your job as an admin and enforcing policies. Nor, should I add, did I present myself as a saint (not that it matters anyways, my behavior issues are not justification for anyone else, especially since I am not an admin). If you are referring to our arguments over the last few days on IRC, then I hate to say it, but "tough." I've been careful to keep that on IRC, and not bring it onto MA. As you pointed out earlier this evening, you can always put me on "ignore," right? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to offend you, and I do apologize for it. I too only mentioned you insofar as I was not talking on behalf of you or protecting you personally; I was somneone who came along and saw that you were wrongly blocked.  I certainly am not perfect and do not claim to be.--31dot 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I, too, thought certain users' references to their dislike for Alan was in poor taste and unneeded. If they were meant to be innocent jabs or even compliments, I didn't really get that, and it's clear Alan didn't, either. I also don't really understand what all the dislike is about, anyway. Yes, he's sarcastic, but he's a good guy, IMO, and a damn good contributor. Certain people may not agree with his sarcastic style of commenting, but he has never breached policy (although some claim he has, I have found no direct evidence of it), plus he has over 98,000 edits, so, yah. Anyway, Alan's point still stands, let's try to leave personal dislike for other users out of the forums. It's counter-productive and disrespectful, to boot. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've outlined specific examples (with links) of Alan's violation of policy over a year ago elsewhere. 98,000 edits is not justification for anything, unless you can find me the policy that gives an edit threshold at which the rules no longer belong to you. Regardless, this thread isn't about Alan. I'd appreciate if you stopped turning it to be about him. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, I saw, I just didn't really see where the violation came in. You're right, though, this forum isn't about Alan, by apologies on that. I just thought I'd speak my mind on the subject before we fully moved on. --From Andoria with Love 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We'd already moved on, and now this page has become so cluttered that discussing an actual policy, which is needed, is going to be very hard to have happen. Gee, thanks. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thank you for further cluttering the page to tell us it's cluttered. :) The main reason for my concern is, if this proposal goes through, I'm sure you will go after Alan and Defiant may follow suit. That said, in light of certain actions I would say a removal from adminship policy is definitely warranted. I just hope I'm wrong that you don't have some ulterior motive in supporting this proposal. --From Andoria with Love 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. As I even said at the beginning, I have not seen anything recent, and it makes no sense what so ever to go after Alan for something from a year ago. That Alan and I do not get along is not grounds for his removal from being an administrator, certainly not by what I proposed. That Alan and I argue regularly on IRC is immaterial to his performance as an administrator on site. Defiant may follow suit, but he would not win any such nomination (I would vote in defense of Alan, and from this thread and situation it is obvious that you, 31dot, and Cid would so the same). If anything, Defiant would be putting nails in his own coffin. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's very hard not to take the above as personal, OuroborosCobra! Both I and Alan have suggested that this forum not name individuals nor criticize their possible faults, but instead discuss the possibility of the "Removal from adminship" system. Anything else is personal and is veering into "attacking" behavior! --Defiant 01:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alan suggested no such thing, and if you don't like your behavior being called out, try not grossly abusing and misusing administrator tools. Yes, you have been called out, because you were a terrible example of how MA editors, let alone admins, are supposed to behave. This thread and the policy suggested was created in direct response to a need created by your actions. Even Cid called you out on them. I don't expect you to accept that, nor does it matter to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Quote: "There is one thing about this thread that I find particularly unnerving, no insulting regarding the recurring theme at the beginning of this thread revolving around various individuals particular dislike for me. I find that extremely rude, especially in justifying a discussion like this. As if everyone else here is perfect in their own right. Get real. All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc. However, if those were your motives, then congratulations are in order, otherwise, uncool, very uncool." This disproves your theory that Alan didn't suggest/ask that this forum not name individuals nor criticize their possible faults. Please stop making this personal - it's not about me, nor any other particular editor, and never has been, so please refrain from your personal attacks! Back to topic, I agree with the idea, suggested above, that this should apply to users who obtain admin status and then disappear for (a) prolonged period(s) of time! --Defiant 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. It says that he didn't find it cool. It says nothing about what was said about you, it says nothing about the suggested policy at all and therefore says nothing about the thread discussing that, as opposed to individuals actions. It is one thing, and one thing only, a defense of himself. As I made this thread and the proposed policy, I definitely know better than you what it is about, and it is most definitely about you. You screwed up, you have been told this by other administrators, and by the bureaucrat, and it is your screwing up that has highlighted the need for this policy (unlike the suggested policy of removing inactive admins). I entirely oppose your idea that this policy only apply to admins who have been absent and then return, and then screw up. Whether someone is abusing their authority has nothing to do with whether it comes after vacationing in Tahiti or not. Also, can you stop abusing the exclamation point? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can use punctuation in whichever way I choose on talk pages, as it's not personally insulting to anyone! However, I'll choose to respect your wishes. As for Alan's statement being "only" a defense of himself, he stated, "All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc." His reply was clearly therefore about more than a specific case, since he generalizes it by stating, "All comments like that[....]" Also, if you reread what I state in my last post, you'll see that I did not suggest the condition of absence as the only condition, but it seems like you maybe didn't understand that. That's okay and I'm not about to attack you for it, as you have done to me. I'm sure the other admins will deal with your behavior accordingly. --Defiant 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, you've attacked me, 31dot, and Alan just as much, if not more, than we've ever said anything about you during our entire editing careers, let alone in the last few days. You are also pulling one sentence out and quoting it out of context. In addition, while you have the legal freedom of speech to abuse punctuation any way you want, you should not expect yourself to be taken seriously when your composure and decorum is so marred by your method of communication in this, a text only medium. We can't see the look on your face, we can't see your body language, and when you misuse exclamation points every other sentence, you have to accept the low level of maturity and high level of "whineyness" that comes off as. I'm glad you are reconsidering how you are going to use your English. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point, OuroborosCobra - it's not always easy to tell when people are joking, being sarcastic, etc. when not speaking in-person. I would suggest that all personal attacks, insults, etc. stop here - in the words of Picard, "here, no further"! :) Just because one user unintentionally attacks a second editor, that doesn't mean that the second editor should respond in kind. --Defiant 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not changing a lick of what I have said or behaved, I have not broken policy by pointing out your abuse of administrator rights anymore than when any of us go to a vandals talk page and warn them to stop vandalizing. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to clarify that I'm not asking you to change what has happened in the past, only that the maliciousness be discontinued immediately. I'm trying to extend an olive branch to you (as I have done with Alan and Cid Highwind, recently). My intention has never been to personally attack anyone and I've made my utmost effort to avoid doing so. I admit that I made a mistake in banning Alan earlier, as it was against the rules and regulations, and have already admitted this elsewhere. I certainly don't think it's productive to launch into a witch-hunt against me for making this mistake, though, as I've been an admin for four years and never been personally attacked by so admins in all the time I've been here. I'm willing to try to come to an amicable solution and see no reason why this wouldn't be true of every other admin. --Defiant 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll re-iterate to you, I've done nothing wrong in my treatment of you, I will not change what I have done or how I will continue to behave. I have not been malicious towards you, I have not done something like call you an "ass" or "idiot," I have pointed out specific examples of your misuse of administrator rights. If you do not like me doing that, don't misuse administrator rights. I do not accept your "olive branch," as I have done nothing wrong that needs changing. I do find it humorous you claim you've never been attacked by admins in all the time you've been here, since your very talk page shows you complaining about supposedly being attacked three years ago. Lastly, as I told you before, I'm not an admin. Not that it matters, being an admin yourself does not give you special rights over me, only some tools I do not have. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys realize that it is just the 3 of you discussing here your personal feelings/grudges/dislikes for Alan and Defiant, right? You're not speaking for the community here. Nit picking and splitting hairs over semantics and punctuation (I didnt read all of it). This is supposed to be a community and people are supposed to come here because they enjoy Star Trek. What's up with these attacks every now and then and constantly creating adversity and animosity? This just makes this an uncomfortable place to be and is a disruption.
 * Anyway, I will stay out of this cause it reeks of pretty much all the fugly things you dont want in a place like this; it is biased and not objective at all. But let me just say this: Alan is a fabulous contributor. He really is helping to expand MA and he truly contributes to make this site better. His presence and contributions to MA are an asset from what I have observed thus far and he has always been very polite and courteous and helpful. I cant believe anyone would think of getting rid of him here as an admin and attacking him based on obscure evidence from last year or whatever. What is this, a witch hunt? The entire premise of this thread is based on personal dislike and personal attacks and insults, creating animosity and just a negative atmosphere. Why dont you all just meet up at the Star Trek Convention in Vegas and see each other in person. Makes getting along easier. – Distantlycharmed 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read any of this before commenting? No one, not a single person, suggested removing Alan for anything. Not a thing. Well, except for from Defiant, and this thread was started because of his wrongful and policy violating actions against Alan. This entire thread is based on the action of one administrator (Defiant), out of the blue and with absolutely no warning or stated reason or anything, suddenly banning Alan for a month. This thread is in defense of Alan, and his wrongful block from editing, and deciding how to deal with administrator abuse of power (which Alan is not being accused of, and is in fact the VICTIM of). Seriously, you could not have gotten this thread any more wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Arguing kills my buzz...– Distantlycharmed 04:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll bet. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think one thing that some people may be forgetting is that we should all be here for fun and are united in our interests in Star Trek. The matter that supposedly started this thread (the same issue that has been stated for its continued existence) has otherwise been resolved, with a warning issued to the guilty party (myself) and apologies from the guilty party both made and apparently accepted by others. If anyone has any further problems, communication should be conducted via the relevant user talk pages, so we can avoid the form of witch-hunt (against anyone) that Distantlycharmed mentioned. That goes for both myself and Alan - forum posts should not contain personal attacks, regardless of who they are targeted at. --Defiant 09:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with warning someone to "behave, or else..." is that doing so only makes sense if an else-part even exists. Currently, it doesn't. This either makes the "threat" very empty, or leaves any further action to the discretion of the guy who would actually be able to hand out more than a slap on the wrist (which just happens to be me). I really don't need that exceptional position, but I don't like emptry threats, either. -- Cid Highwind 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally don't have any problems with such a system being introduced, just the way in which it has been - the execution, but not the concept. As I stated in my second post, "I do find fault with naming a user and discussing/criticizing their negative attributes when coming up with said policy, since the topic need not to be personal so it is illogical to steer it in that way! I do regard the notion of creating such a policy as being admirable, however, since the intention is to better the environment of MA!" Also, if such a policy is introduced, its existence and implementation will likely continue after any current problems have been dealt with, so this sort of trivializes the present climate, which the system will most likely outlast. Discussion can therefore be kept more relevant to present and future readers by focusing on the system itself, rather than any current potential targets. --Defiant 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to first say I didn't read all of what is said above, but the intro was what struck me. I totally agree with OC that there should indeed be a clear cut policy for the removal of admin rights for any user who goes off the deep end.  We have had several cases where admins on this site have abused powers and clearly acted with personal feelings towards other users.  My personal opinion is that this stems for the age of those involved,; I think that most of the admins I have run into are about 20 to 24 years old and I think we might have some as young as 16.  I am not saying that’s actually a bad thing (it’s the internet so more power to you), but as a 33 year old married naval officer it is hard to have conversations sometimes with someone operating with such a different background.  But, hey, like I said it’s the internet and we have to try and I’m sure there are some 30+ and 50+ admins who act the same way.  Anyway, about this situation, at the present time I actually don’t have a negative word to say about Alan although in the past we really have gone at each other.  But he worked through it and so did I and I’d be happy to edit with him anytime.  He should not have been blocked for no reason and the admin who did it should be held responsible.  That’s my 2 cents. -FC 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it was heavy-handed of me to ban Alan. I messed up - for that, I take full responsibility. Sorry. --Defiant 14:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)