Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
| ||This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.|
"The fact that he feels that the guidelines "only apply to editing" is a sign of a poor admin."
My comment about the one guideline asking for good faith to be assumed for bad edits was all that this was about, do not try to skew it to such a degree as to imply that I said all guidelines only apply to editing, that's stupid and very out of context.
So many people here have a problem with the fact that democracy can be ignored when it's convenient, so what is the point of holding a two week vote if you're going to ignore the result and say no anyway? And what is it I've supposedly done wrong apart from where my quote has been taken out of context? Argue about Fallout 3 months ago? Using sarcasm? Have a reconfirmation based on completely faulty grounds of "fairness" despite not throwing my administrator position up in the air like the other involved party did (the actual reason for his reconfirmation)?
Well, thanks for this blatant miscarriage of justice. It's good to know that somebody can operate completely within the rules, merely stating their opinion and defending themselves when their character is publicly attacked, only to be dismissed for the ambiguous charge of "conduct unbecoming" (which has still not been explained). This ridiculousness shouldn't even be allowed and I'm ashamed with the fact that my former fellows can even consider this entire debacle to be any kind of justice at all. -- 00:52, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Simply put, you are not a good admin, you do not act in a professional manner nor do you even treat the users right. The way you address people is improper and out of line. Also, we are not a democracy, we are a meritocracy and the average user can't necessarily understand all the issues in a vote. I'm not going to spend my time explaining something that you refuse to deal with. You are argumentative and condescending. You have been like that all along. And if you cannot understand what "conduct unbecoming" means, I'm sorry. It was not a "miscarriage of justice" as you say because the votes are 13 for losing admin rights and 11 for keeping after myself and J's votes. To come here and basically to tell us (myself and J) to fuck off is fine by me. You have once again shown your true colors.--Kingclyde 01:19, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- So basically I'm not a good admin because I used to argue regularly about the game universe without actually breaking rules? I should be allowed to be as argumentative as I want, and if I think someone's position is weak I should be allowed to attack it -- the thing you're probably viewing as "condescending". I've argued the meritocracy point before and it's amazing how the preference changes when it's convenient. And no, telling someone their conduct has been "unbecoming" is no kind of explanation alone at all, I'm sorry you can't see that.
- As for the "13 to 11" point, then what is the point in the whole "bureaucrats abstain from voting" farce? As it happens it seems that this hasn't been looked at from any kind of unbiased standpoint as should be expected, rather than seeing the community opinion and acting accordingly it's just "hmm nope, we think this is a better course of action", so why even pretend that this entire situation was fair at all with the joke of a reconfirmation vote? And if you're going to continue supporting the position that you abstain because you "don't want to sway the vote", how do you think this result is any different to that outcome?
- Listen, I haven't told anyone to "fuck off", I just couldn't reply on my reconfirmation anymore so I replied here. Your insistence to placing words in my mouth is astounding. The fact is you have either deliberately or mistakenly misrepresented what I said about the guidelines, and I just wanted to explain that. Why the "true colours" comment? It's so obvious that you simply don't like me and I don't see what these true colours are supposed to be when all I've done is explain a comment of mine. I'm not going to get anywhere with this at all, both you and Jspoel apparently don't like the fact that I'm not as emotionally detached from a debate standpoint but when it came to actual duties that never got in the way, and as the final say rests completely on your unbiased shoulders there is really no hope for me, as you just simply don't like me. I applaud this case as a shining example of justice and fairness. -- 01:48, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Ehh... The part about the "It's so obvious that you simply don't like me" really "blew me off". Simply to say, an admin/bureucrat must remain objective, not letting his feelings get in his way to make some actions, like giving the admin powers. If they were really to do their work based on their feelings, then they have no right to be an admin/bureucrat, which I doubt they do. MS: Destiny conquers all. 18:20, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
If I may, there are some things I would like to say, Cartman.
First of all, I do believe this whole issue started back in my forum, when I expressed my belief that everyone should have a fair, equal say and should be allowed to vote regardless of who they are in the community. And I do believe you protested that. You said that not everyone should vote because not everyone is equal, and only people with a high standing in the community should be asked to weigh in on important decisions.
Yet now, when the two most important people have weighed in, you protest it. Entirely hypocritical that now when what you were defending back in that forum is used against you, you'll have none of it. In fact you ridicule it. Doesn't really make you look all that fitting to be an admin if you only want the rules to benefit you.
Secondly, it's unfair to blame Kingclyde and Jspoelstra for the reconfirmation request when it was Scarface who set it up in the first place. Clyde and Jspoel had nothing to do other than lay down the verdict. I don't believe anyone other than Scar, not even myself, had the notion of calling your rights into question, so to blame the Bureaucrats for something they didn't do is in bad form.
And finally, just to make this page and tell the bureaucrats that they're doing a bad job is the exact same thing that I was chastised by the community for - making a scene. My suggestion is that you own up to responsibility for once, instead of blame others for your actions and make it seem like you are, once again, the victim while the other party is the bad guy. Don't complain about fairness when you can't treat another human being the same way.
Oh, almost forgot. I thought every weekend you were off "adventuring", as you put it... so what gives? You said it yourself that you were unavailable every weekend yet here you are. Curious, that. 06:21, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
Err, devils advocate, I think the confirmation on Cartman was raised after a suggestion from J that it would be appropriate. A suggestion in full disclosure I did agree with (although I will point out that initially I voted to keep powers).
Cartman, that exchange with Yes man, and the subsequent comments in your confirmation request seem to be a part of a larger pattern of behavior - You're rather famous for your communication style - and not in a good way I might add; heck the last time the community had to look at your behavior/communication style was less than a month ago.
To me, the line was finally crossed in your own confirmation vote, but the warning signs that something had to change had been visible for some time (which is why I suggested in the inital yes vote that you may need a little help in learning where the line is).
Lastly, for me at least, in most cases I have no problem with your opinion (I may disagree with them however), but I do have issues with how you choose to express them. Agent c 12:23, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, I want to clear something up so there's no misunderstanding about why Scar opened the vote. I'm not certain if I was the only person asking why there was no vote for Cartman!, but directly after I asked Scar in chat why there was not one, he opened the poll. If anyone wants to blame someone for Scar's actions, other than Scar, let them blame me, not Js or anyone else. Also, "conduct unbecoming", I believe, comes directly from that conversation I had with Scar. You can put the onus on me for that too. 13:57, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you only asked that in the best interest of equity, Gunny. Cartman!'s reconfirmation request was set up purely because Yes-Man's was; it was more of a counterbalance than anything else. I will express how I am disappointed with the outcome of it, as well as its continuation after Yessie's was cancelled to due his departure. After that, there was no point in further Cartman's reconfirmation since its existence had been dependent on Yes-Man's. Cartman had no initial wrongdoing in the events prior to the reconfirmations, and I believe a majority of the no votes were cast due to his past "behaviour", as well as being in some way influenced by Yes-Man's unfortunate resignation. SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 16:49, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with your reading of this being a counterbalance Sig... I can't speak for Jspoel but his comment on Clydes archived talk page In response to Scar's setting up of the yes man vote suggested that his motivations in favour of a vote were based on behaviour, not about balance (feel free to correct me J if I read that wrong). Also it is right that cartmans past behaviour was considered both good and bad, just like it was for Yes Man - past behaviour can indicate if something is a one off or a pattern. It was also right for it to continue after yes Man's resignation as these were never a choice between the two, it was about the suitability of both admins individually to continue in their roles. Agent c 17:06, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
- This has gone on for too long. No one should've lost their sysop rights. A heavy reprimanding would've been enough for both of them. The result has been delivered, and no matter how discontent some of us may be about it, it is what it is. It's really time for us to move on. SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 17:12, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
(←) Me asking for a reconfirmation vote for Cartman! had a combination of reasons. It's not from the past few weeks I've had problems with the way Cartman!'s handles things. Just checked back on my admin vote for him at the end of June. He had been very edit-active when the achievements got introduced and that was a good trait to vote yes on. Around summer he got much less active and I started to take more notice to his blog comments, like the one on the mutual understanding forum. I remember when talking to him about it, left me with an unsatifying feeling. After that I noticed several more inappropriate comments for an admin and I kept being rather annoyed by that, but knew I would not have much influence on him changing his behaviour. He also made some ban misjudgments in my opinion. Then a few weeks back the Zerginfestor incident. As I saw it, something like that was bound to happen since Cartman! had gone chat-active a few weeks earlier and he hadn't changed his attitude. Then the Yes-Man - Cartman! fight on the mutual understanding forum thread. When Yes-Man bursted out like that, I could understand why he spoke so emotionally. A reaction like that isn't made just like that. It needs to have a large background, a sum up on things happening on the thread and accumulated negative experiences in chat and blogs. I was surprised to see a reconfirmation vote for Yes-Man because reading the insulting comment, I just thought a 3-day block for the insult would suffice, but other than that, nothing more. At that specific moment, everything added up for me and was the time for me to ask a reconfirmation request for Cartman! as well. It's not specifically a counter-balance, but like Agent c says, the result of a sum-up of Cartman!'s behaviour, which I feel has been inappropriate for an admin for a long time. And reading all votes and comments on his request, technically the voting is in the balance, but I mean, getting almost half of the votes as a no, that's very serious for an adminship reconfirmation. Those votes weighs heavy. And they were mostly well argumented. And even some people favoring you had noticed shortcomings, like your bluntness. You have not made effort enough to set the good example as an admin and act according to guidelines like being polite and not being rude. Jspoel 19:14, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to agree that I find this forum a reflection of Yes Man's outburst. The bureaucrats decided, and believe me, they have a hard decision, without bias and solely on the votes. So really, if there is anyone you want to be mad at, be mad at us, the users who voted on your request. Not at Clyde and J, because honestly, they're just doing their job, and doing it well.-- 19:21, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
Quite Frankly i find this to be rather childish, for starters your not even an active admin so why your getting upset is beyond me, yes you became one back in June but IIRC you "moved" with The Vault over to curse thus your an active admin there, while here we started from scratch promoting new users to adminship and those who decided to stay behind either became a B-Crat or stuck around as an admin such as Kastera. Were not a democracy, Scarface even made that clear when dealing with Saint Pain some time ago, this you should know, end of the day its the B-Crats that make the final judgement, if you don't like it Cart then tough luck. Me personally im glad with the outcome, it was long over due, you have always been a hostile like user towards new comers and its not allways about the "edits", why you still try to insit on changing things around here when you are clearly inactive is beyond me.TheNemesisx 02:31, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
I must agree with most said on this page. I believe it is rather childish to call out a bureaucrat for making a decision on removing the rights of a certain user. Clyde and J have done what they thought was the best for the wiki, so your rights were removed. Calling them out will not make your situation any better. --07:52, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Okay Yes Man. At this point it's hard to believe that you aren't just misunderstanding me on purpose as I have explained my view in full multiple times. My only "protest" was regarding anonymous voting, I think everyone else should have the right to vote but hold the opinion that admin votes should be considered more important on matters of site maintenance and that there is some merit to holding admin-only votes/discussions. Nowhere did I say ONLY people with a "high standing in the community" should be allowed to weigh-in on important decisions. And no, I don't think everyone is equal because I'm not completely delusional. Nowhere do I support or encourage bureaucrats to pretend to be unbiased agents who act as catalysts for the will of the community and pretend to withhold from voting when in reality this is just a farce and they choose to do what they want to do on a supposedly "community" based vote. The two don't contradict each other.
And I'm not ridiculing Clyde and Jspoel for setting up the reconfirmation as I know Scar did because some people apparently suggested it, I'm ridiculing the fact that I was put up for reconfirmation despite not doing what you did for yours to be called. I'm ridiculing the fact that a reconfirmation can just be called for such silly reasons and that there are no guidelines at all regarding them, something I was going to propose when the vote was over as I foolishly believed the result would be fair.
I didn't make this page to tell the bureaucrats they're doing a bad job, the primary motivation was that Clyde quite simply either lied or was mistaken about what I actually said. Nowhere did I ever say that all of the guidelines only apply to editing, this is what pushed me into posting this. And as I can't reply on the original forum I did it here, pointing out how I felt about the result was just convenient. I don't really care that people said you were making a scene by coming up with those resolutions as it has nothing to do with me, I didn't make the accusation. And I have every right to complain about fairness if I don't think something has been fair, I have never advocated a systematic persecution of anyone. You need to start realising that no political spectrum goes straight from absolute democracy to complete tyranny.
The curious thing is that you have such an interest in my social life. I've given you names of people you can ask for verification already, and frankly I didn't even have to do that. I am normally away every weekend and this week I was away on Thursday until Saturday evening instead. I don't know why I have to bother proving my social schedule to you as your concern was originally due to a paranoid suspicion that I stopped replying because I had gotten the "rise" I wanted despite the fact that I considered your reaction to have been extreme before that point anyway and I have multiple people who can verify my story.
MysteryStranger: I agree, but I think they have in this instance as it is pretty clear, especially when I'm being told how I'm "once again" showing my "true colours". Sounds very damn unbiased.
AgentC: The problem is I didn't break any rules in the Mutual Understanding or any of the Reconfirmation pages at all. The "larger pattern of behaviour" doesn't matter, as long as I haven't broken any rules it's simply wrong to suggest that I deserve having my rights stripped. Other than that it's a matter of opinion as most people simply dislike the fact that I'm argumentative and sarcastic, and frankly that isn't a good enough reason to demote anyone especially when it has nothing to do with their actual duties. As for you not agreeing that this wasn't a counterbalance, then the reconfirmation shouldn't have been called at all. If a reconfirmation can be called for someone who has broken no rules at all then there is something wrong with the system. Yes Man's was called because he threw his admin position up in the air with the whole "resign until Cartman leaves" situation, not because he dared to defend himself and use sarcasm.
SigmaDelta: I'm sure that you can appreciate that it's somewhat difficult for me to hold the view that an injustice has occured and just "move on", especially when I've been punished so harshly. If more people just "moved on" when an action they view as unfair was put into effect then ultimately a lot less would be accomplished.
Jspoel: Just disliking my disposition and argumentative sarcastic nature is not really a good enough reason in my opinion as I still haven't broken any rules. Him "bursting out" like that is inexcusable, I remained perfectly calm. I know you don't like my sarcasm and I've known it for a long time since you've spoken to me about it before, but that really isn't any reason to take action against someone. Being blunt also isn't against the rules. The ban misjudgement point is strange, I recall one incident when I may have judged that someone was flaming too harshly but that was discussed and resolved between you and I, it's especially surprising to hear this considering how you banned a user because their name was "Maggots". And for the record I started to edit actively before the achievements were introduced and repeatedly voiced my disapproval towards their introduction.
Two Bears: Without bias and solely on the votes? That's very wishful thinking, no human being is without bias. Not to mention the fact that there were more yes votes, and especially if one were to ignore the irrelevant "he's inactive" (even though that was changed without my knowledge) and "he's rude" (especially the one claiming that sarcasm is an insult which is quite frankly a crock of rubbish, with the same vote claiming the same tired "respect" point). Then there is the one claiming I'm trying to "diminish" Bethesda and "kill the presence of Fallout 3", while making the accusation that I'm there to "abuse [my] power to the max of [my] ability" despite providing no example, something people seem to be finding difficult. Then there's the one line "unimpressive conduct" despite Clyde's own resolution to disregard votes without some kind of actual explanation. Then there's the vote claiming that the decreased wiki activity is all my fault despite the fact that I haven't even argued outside of this forum for months. I don't even understand what KiwiBird's vote is supposed to mean.
Nemesis: Just because I'm listed as inactive is not a good enough reason to strip my rights. I'm "getting upset" because I'm being punished harshly despite breaking no rules and being accused of a dozen different charges without any real support behind any of them. Also, for your information I was moved to inactive by Wikia as they just assumed I moved when they originally intended to remove all of the old admin's rights despite me never saying I was leaving, so it's nothing to do with me. My vote and opinion is as valid as anyone else's and it's amazing that my own motives are suddenly called into question when the person who proposed a change dislikes what I'm saying.
Weirdo: "Childish"? I haven't "called" anyone out, I don't have any problem with Jspoel and Clyde remaining bureaucrats, my problem started when Clyde blatantly misquoted me and presented it as evidence as to why my powers should be removed. That is, quite simply, wrong.
Cartman, I'd like you to expand on what you believe the duties of an Admin are. For me inclusive in these duties isn't just the banning of vandals, trolls, etc (which I'm not entirely sure you were doing beyond chat anyway) but also working in a position as leader, and encouraging if you like "repeat business" from new users; at these given the communication style you have been famous for for some time (even during my "lurker days") you've proven yourself to me at least to me unsuitable in the role. Your confirmation request was enough to push that over to the top; accusing others of vote collusion and ridiculing votes was not on - especially as another user was accused of "vote bullying" for much less.
At the end of the day Cartman, if we play the popular vote game and include the Burecrat votes, you lost by one vote - mine was a vote you started the poll with, but then proceeded to lose though actions that are not appropriate for an administrator of this wiki.
Lastly, Yes Man's vote was not called out of a him or you situation, it was called because of his behaviour; just like yours - and I'm tired of you both trying to paint it this way - Yessie's vote was Yes-Man vs Yes-Man, and your vote was Cartman v Cartman. I'm sorry you feel its a misjustice, but perhaps its time to start looking at this from other peoples perspectives and see why those of us who came against you did - believe it or not, in most cases I'm sure it wasn't personal. Its time for you to stop blaming everyone else and start taking the lessons available to learn from this whole process, and time for the rest of us to move on. Agent c 18:19, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
Cartman, if you remember I voted and argued for you to keep your admin rights. This is because I genuinely believed that it should be kept that way and your "behaviour" does not seem out-of-the-norm insulting or "unadmin-like" (which is a very loose term) to me at all. But nevertheless I have come to accept the bureaucrats' final decision on this, because let's face it: as much of an injustice you may perceive this to be, will they really change their decision? Will your sysop rights be restored based on these arguments? I understand how unfair this must be for you, to have the well-deserved admin rights stripped based on arbitrary voting and remaining within the rules, but will this achieve much? Or will it all be done in futility... SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 18:40, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
As for Yes-Man Vs. Cartman... I don't believe this should factor in at all when considering Cartman!'s position as an administrator. While social skills do play an important part when considering that each and every moderator and administrator needs to have professionalism and leadership qualities, this stand-alone event does not require the swift retribution that came down upon Cartman! as an attempt to have his rights removed as well as Yes-Man's. However, I understand perfectly well that certain attitudes are not generally accepted by the community. In this case though, I have to agree that Cartman! has the right to express himself in any way that he wishes, as I personally think many users just need to grow a thicker hide and learn how to take criticism and truth in stride. As for the isolated cases where Cartman! might take his opinions too far, this simply only requires a suspension on the tools presented to him as an administrator or a short ban instead. Now, I still voted no on whether or not Cartman! should keep his tools. Unlike many of the baseless and asinine reasons that were presented on the actual vote, I will express my reason for voting no and with my reasons included:
What is required of an Administrator:
- To regularly use the tools provided to him/her. This includes deleting pages, regularly providing maintenance to article pages in general, protecting pages and blocking vandals when necessary, working on templates, and leading projects. (Last two are more optional.)
What Cartman! currently uses his tools for:
- Moderating the chat feature.
- Occasionally banning the odd vandal or two.
- Small bonus for creating the Zeta Board in response to the meeting I set up before. However, this has gone nowhere at all so far.
- So the way I see it Cartman!... I don't truly understand why you even need those extra tools right now. If you ever decide to become truly active here again, then I say absolutely put in another administrator application. You have contributed a lot of good work here and you most certainly earned the position when you first received it. But like I said on my vote, you either have to use it or lose it. Being in-active is one thing, but you have been more active than I lately. My thoughts on the whole matter. Skål! 18:43, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from, Leon, but you would prefer an inactive admin to an admin that at least helps out in the way Cartman does? His adminship is well earned (as evidential in his admin request). And in light of the recent vote, would you honestly think he will be voted in again? SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 18:48, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
- If he were a chat moderator, I would agree with you Sigma. As for the recent vote, opinions change and people are easily swayed. If Cartman! was to ever become truly active here again while demonstrating the skills that earned him the administrator position in the first place, I wholly fancy the belief of him earning his position back fairly easy. Especially if he decided to put in another application when the next Fallout comes out. Memories are short and with a new community, there's no telling how many people outside of the leadership here will even remember this re-confirmation. Skål! 18:53, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from, Leon, but you would prefer an inactive admin to an admin that at least helps out in the way Cartman does? His adminship is well earned (as evidential in his admin request). And in light of the recent vote, would you honestly think he will be voted in again? SigmaDelta54 (Talk) 18:48, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
I saw my name get mentioned. I voted no because I didn't like the fact you were trying to counter-act people like Agent c's vote. The vote page should have been left alone by you. Also as Leon has pointed out I don't think you need admin rights at the moment because you're not an active editor. If you became active again and put in another admin request then I'd most likely vote yes for you. 18:59, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
- Here is my "blatant misquote" - from Yes-Man's reconfirmation page "Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline#Interacting_with_other_editors -- This is about editing, not voting." Not sure how I misquoted that. Cartman, it's not that I don't like you as you seem to think, it is that your actions towards other users are not how an admin should act. I'm not sure how many ways I can say this so that you understand. I'm not asking you to be a emotionless robot, I'm asking you to treat others as you would like to be treated. As for the following "I'm ridiculing the fact that I was put up for reconfirmation despite not doing what you did for yours to be called." directed at Yes-Man, Cartman do you honestly see yourself as innocent in this whole issue? Everytime Yes-Man posted something, you continued to fan the flames and you, not just Yes-Man but you helped accelerate this argument/outburst between you two. My main concern is how you treat others. Honestly, I am willing to restore your chat mod rights as that is really all you do now. But I do want you to treat other users better. Insinuating that I lied is one example of mistreating other users. All I really wanted is for you to act like an admin should have acted. If someone asks you a question in chat answer it, even if it's something they can find on a page or in a blog. It's not hard. Your chat mod rights have been restored, please use them properly.--Kingclyde 19:56, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the day normal users simply aren't equal to admins and shouldn't be treated as such when it comes to certain matters of site maintenance, functionality, etc”— Cartman
As far as maintenance goes I do think the opinions of admins should be regarded as higher than the normal user for reasons I've already said.”— Cartman
An important part of this wiki is the meritocratic element, and admins are admins because they know more about the functions of the wiki than the average user. Admin-only polls are perfectly valid as there are some areas the common user may not understand well enough and should not have a say on.”— Cartman
This isn't hard to grasp, not all users are equal on a wiki... There is a reason why they (admins) have more say, and I was fighting this corner long before I actually became one myself. Meritocracy is much more important to the function of the wiki than this idea of absolute democracy is.”— Cartman
Face it, Cartman. You said that normal user's votes shouldn't be weighed as heavily as admin/bureaucrat votes. Now that it's been turned on you, you've taken the stance that everyone's votes are equal and should be taken into consideration. Please stop lying to our faces. 184.108.40.206 06:25, April 11, 2012 (UTC)
- Please learn how to count, five admins voted in my favour, two against. And if you include the supposedly neutral bureaucrat's "votes" against me it's five versus four. So really the only thing you've done is demonstrate your lack of any kind of grasp on this situation.
- Anyway, regarding the previous comments, I'll reply when I have a spare five minutes as I'm pretty busy at the moment so bear with me. -- 12:21, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming the reconfirmation requests are handled exactly the same as user rights requests, the final decision is up to the Bureaucrats after the community has had its say. Message 16:56, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
- If we accept the proposition that ADmins know more than regular users and thus are better placed to handle certain issues... Surely that means Bureaucrats know more again, particularly in their expert area of determining who gets admin rights? Agent c
- I suppose I'll tag onto the end here, since I'm just catching up. Just to clarify my personal position on the matter, Cartman's perceived attitude in several of the above posts is a prime example of exactly the type of behavior that I object to. Not as vitriolic as some of his past comments, but he specifically mentioned my vote when he stated: "especially the one claiming that sarcasm is an insult which is quite frankly a crock of rubbish, with the same vote claiming the same tired "respect" point".
- Personally, I see this as the crux of the entire issue. He could have just as easily stated that he didn't agree with my reasoning, and had already explained why he felt that way, but he instead opted to proclaim the reasoning "tired" and "rubbish". One can almost just as easily imagine an individual rolling their eyes in disgust, sneering and making air quotes with their fingers. Now, I'm not psychic, so I can't say that I know exactly how Cartman! intends his comments to be interpreted given the limitations of a text-based medium, but I see no reason why someone can't simply take steps to present their arguments in a fashion that isn't seen as insulting. There are other examples of this above, as well, although most individuals can probably pick those out on their own. The "please learn to count" comment directed at KingClyde is one that sticks out in my mind, as well.
- That aside, Cartman! ignored other reasons that were given in my brief statement. I agreed with others that he simply didn't need admin tools, as he was not an active admin. I also actually stated that I feel he is an excellent editor, and pointed out that he has contributed far more to this Wiki than I ever have, but that he could just as easily provide many of those services without the administrative tools. He deliberately chose to focus on the other aspects, however, which is a fairly good example of "deliberately misinterpreting" someone else's quote. But then, I suppose that all of my reasoning is rubbish, so it shouldn't be regarded for its validity.
- That aside, the justification behind my vote is moot, given that "there are no rules against it". I was simply asked to state the reasoning behind my vote, and I did. We may differ on the specific opinion of whether sarcasm is an insult or not, but the manner in which Cartman! often uses it most certainly is intended to be an insult. There is a difference between a debate and an argument, and the difference between making a point and verbally attacking someone. It's like someone attempting to argue that they didn't call someone stupid, they simply called their reasoning stupid. A valid argument of the fine subtext in a comment, but probably not one that will be noted by someone who has been infuriated by prior comments from the same individual. SagaDC 20:03, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose I am also obligated to refer to the following section of the Wiki Guidelines - "Be polite: It's not only important what you say but also how you say it. Be civil when talking to other people and treat them with respect. This site is built on cooperation." Just an addendum to my prior statement, as it has since been pointed out to me by others. SagaDC