Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > User rights requests > Motion of no confidence: Kingclyde
A note before reading onwards


Before starting off this motion of no-confidence, I have a few words I'd like to say... Since I first met Clyde during a time when I was still an anonymous user here at Nukapedia, Clyde had been an active presence and still has a great work-ethic. And when The Vault split off from Wikia, Clyde took the mantel when we were largely leaderless, and helped us get back on our feet. Why am I saying this? Because even after his inactivity and the other concerns listed below, I still, personally, have a lot of faith in Clyde's abilities here at Nukapedia. However, I am still adamant that because of the reasons we're about to get into, that Clyde should, at least for now, have his Special Rights reverted to a lower position. Continuing onwards...

Opening statement


Before starting, I want to reiterate that this is a motion of no-confidence vote.

Since the beginning of last year, I have been hearing many of us in our community noticing Clyde's extended absence, and I have been taking these comments to heart along with my own thoughts gathered as time has passed. As a Bureaucrat, Clyde is in a unique position catered by Nukapedia, making him a de-facto leader with rights and sway greater than most other users and Special Rights holders. As well as the power Nukapedia has given Clyde, Wikia has also bestowed Clyde with Check User rights, which are only handed out to three Bureaucrats tops on any given wiki. Over the past two years, however, Clyde's activity has slipped greatly, to the point now where he rarely ever uses any of his rights, and is no longer able to fulfill his duties properly as one of our de-facto leaders. Now, while inactivity does play a large part in why I have instigated this motion of no-confidence, there are other issues, as well, that I'd like openly critique before moving on to the other statements, and then, the community vote:

-It is commonplace around the wiki for debates and arguments to arise, and a lot of times, these discussions tend to get heated. Many of us are able to resolve our differences, and some of us even take some time off to cool down. But what concerns me in Clyde's case is that he has threatened to leave this wiki multiple times after arguments with other editors (not just an editor).

  • Working off of this concern, there are times when Clyde has taken his frustrations out on the wiki after an argument, with an example seen through this edit.
  • And my last concern on this topic is that Clyde has had a tendency to take matters way too personally. Every counter-argument seems to set him off, and it ends up disrupting the topics he's a part of. [1]There was even a case where, after having an argument with an anonymous user and being proven wrong, harassed said user to make an account. [2] [3] And it doesn't just stop there: sometimes after an argument, Clyde then goes off into chat, where he has been known to attack the person or people he was arguing with [4]. Everyone vents in chat, but as a Bureaucrat, Clyde should hold himself to a higher standard.

-As a Bureaucrat, the community relies on Clyde to fulfill a leadership position, and this comes with the responsibility of regularly checking through forums and votes - especially votes that are deemed important, and are referred to him through his talk-page. Unfortunately, over the past year, Clyde's attendance on these forums has grown increasingly distant, until now, where we almost never hear a peep from him on forums and votes.

  • This, along with the fact that Clyde hasn't used his rights to regularly patrol edits, moderate the chat, or even use his tools to block vandals and undesirables, shows that he hasn't had a need for the Bureaucratic tools, nor has he been willing to fulfill his Bureaucratic expectations.
    • For clarification, Clyde's patrol-log is nearly empty, he has only banned one user in the past 5-6 months, is rarely ever in chat or able to appoint temporary Chat Moderators, has not played a public part in most forums and votes this year, and has only made 696 article edits since the 1st of January, 2012, with most of those edits being minor (less than 50-100 bytes).

I do understand that Clyde has been having real-world issues, and the time that he has to devote towards Wikia has become sparce due to those issues. I can definitely sympathize with that, but at the same time, it also opens up questions into how well Clyde can serve our wiki as a Bureaucrat when he doesn't have the time to remain an active, diligent presence, and has shown that he is unable or incapable of performing his Bureaucratic duties on a consistent basis. I can't speak for everyone else, but I, personally, still have faith in the abilities of Clyde's that I saw from before and right after the split, and I'm hoping that one day he will be able to return with that work-ethic again - which is why I am only wanting him to bumped down to an Administrator position for now. It is for the reasons above, however, that I feel the need to put forth a motion of no confidence. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:16, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Skire's Statement


To the community:

Allow me to begin by saying that I've always found Clyde to be agreeable, friendly, and reasonable. I even remember that odd day in a chat debate when he helped me to defend the position I took against the US' granting of amnesty to Japanese Unit 731 scientists in exchange for their biological weapons data. Being one of our most senior members on the wiki, Clyde has certainly served the wiki with integrity for the last few years, both as an administrator as well as bureaucrat.

However, in recent times I cannot help but see Clyde becoming less active in community affairs as well as editing. Now, I realise the very legitimate reasons for this reduction in activity, the foremost of which seems to be a demanding work schedule. Now the last game was released over three years ago, and many other members of the administration have become relatively inactive due to real-life obligations and other matters that require their attention. After all, we are a fully voluntary force, and how active we are here is based on how much free time we have in real life. Also, let it be known that my support of this motion is based on the idea that Clyde would retain his administrator rights, but not the bureaucrat position.

Although in name the bureaucrat position is not meant to be higher than the administrator position, it is clear that they are held in higher regard and as leaders of the community. This is only natural due to them having a higher level of user rights in the first place. As such, a bureaucrat must be a leader of the community at large. In my opinion, being active is an intrinsic component of such leadership, which would indicate a consistent participation in community discussions, administrative affairs, as well as some main namespace editing. If a bureaucrat cannot meet these expectations, I believe it would be best suited for all if they step down. After all, bureaucrats should be held to an even higher standard than administrators since their position is held in higher regard.

It is for these reasons that I support this motion.

To Clyde:

Clyde, I don't know too much of what you think about me, but I can say with certainty that I've always enjoyed your presence on the wiki. I do hope that you can understand the rationale behind my support of this motion. I am not supporting a personal vendetta to depose the king, Clyde, but a bona fide motion to remove the obligations of being a bureaucrat from you. Many times I have heard of your demanding work schedule, and given the growing amount of work I'm facing now, I can only sympathise with you in this matter. And since it seems you are unable to attend to the matters of the wiki with the level of activity a bureaucrat should, I feel it would be best for you to join the admin team, at least for now.

I also realise you've said many times that you do check up on the wiki only to find everything in order. But there have been important discussions from which you've been absent and talk page messages that have not been addressed. To me, a leadership position such as that of a bureaucrat should expect more than just checking in once in awhile. It is clear that Jspoelstra and The Gunny have more time to spend on the wiki, which I understand is due to the different circumstances surrounding each person's real life.

I would also like to ensure you that if you do choose to run for bureaucrat again upon a return to active editing and participation in community discussions and administrative affairs, I would most certainly give you my support. I understand that it is a busy time in life for you and perhaps to be eased of the bureaucratic obligations would benefit yourself as well.

69's Statement


When the community is presented with a special-rights holder who has demonstrated consistently that they no longer need such rights, the community is therefore obligated to demand that the user’s special abilities be removed. In this case, I request that all special rights be removed from Kingclyde for reasons discussed below.

I do not know much about Kingclyde, but from what I have been told, he is an invaluable member of our community and someone who, in the past, has dedicated notable time and energy to bettering Nukapedia’s content and community. Unfortunately, now this vigor is not present; and Kingclyde has become notably less active and as such no longer demonstrates a need to hold special rights.

An argument I’ve heard from Kingclyde when the forum dealing with review for special rights holders was being discussed was that people have personal lives that do not always allow them to edit as frequently as others. The exact quote is:

“The simple fact is that some of the admin staff do not work internet jobs or go to school exclusively and have access to the internet and thus have access to spend most of their time here. Some people have real life jobs and real life stuff. When Fallout 4 comes out my edit count will pickup again for example.”

Let it be known that any argument centered on the principle that people encounter factors in their daily lives that do not allow frequent activity here is an argument in support of removing Kingclyde’s rights.

Unfortunately, this is unfair; some people do not have the same freedom and opportunity to edit here that others do. These people are simply less qualified to then hold special powers at this wiki. We all have personal lives; this shouldn’t be used a justification for the infrequency seen from Kingclyde. He holds the top position here at Nukapedia, and if his personal life can’t accommodate as much time as most of our other special-rights holders, I see little reason for him to keep this ability; after all, we are not obligated to reward those of us who have done good work in the past with special rights. Instead, we give special rights on an as-needed basis, and what we do not need is another user who does hold a constant presence at this wiki. Kingclyde seems to have shown that he is unfortunately incapable or unwilling to maintain a presence here necessary from any user who rightfully holds special rights.

And now to Kingclyde personally:

I must say that I’ve missed many of your major contributions to this wiki in my time here, and I haven’t had many opportunities to have much contact with you. I know that because of this, my words may add extra frustration; I know the feeling when users who seem to barely know you critique what you’ve worked hard to do for Nukapedia. Please know that I’m making no attempt here to disqualify or undermine any of the improvements, achievements, and efforts you have made here; and if the position of Bureaucrat was one that celebrated the accomplishments and labors of a well-respected and significant member of the community, anyone who would try to take that away from you would look a fool. Our issue here is that the Bureaucrat position is something much different.

From the bare-minimum standpoint, a Bureaucrat is a user who has been entrusted by the community to ensure its well-being through the all following tools: 1. the ability to ban users from chat 2. the ability to mark edits as patrolled 3. the ability to roll back edits 4. the ability to delete pages 5. the ability to protect pages 6. the ability to ban users 7. access to technical aspects of the wiki unavailable to users without sysop abilities 8. the ability to regulate special rights to users. More than this, however, the position means that the person who holds it must not only act as a representative of the community to the community itself but also as a representative of the community to other wikis, wiki staff, and other persons not directly affiliated with using this wiki. Additionally, both administrators and bureaucrats have the responsibility to mediate user or edit conflicts; and they must be available to do so.

In your time, you were a prime candidate to be trusted with these powers and implied responsibilities, but, unfortunately, your sporadic presence here this past year indicates that you are at this point unfit to hold special rights. Even dating back longer than that, you seem to make many edits for a few days, and then you disappear; the most basic prerequisite for anyone intending to hold special rights on this wiki is to be here to use them, and you are not; during user-rights requests, for example, your name is not even mentioned when it comes time for bureaucratic deliberations; why should you – unlike the others who hold the Bureaucratic position—be entitled to a free pass while they do the work required of them?

While I do see that you look to revolve problems at heart—like when I was having trouble with SaintPain—during my early time here, you were quick to assert that you were correct, and lost patience very quickly. I understand that you just wanted an answer from me, but you seemed to have one already yourself. While this is in no way the prime reason why I assert that your rights be removed, mediation is the responsibility of the bureaucrat and the admin, and you must be trusted to try to make the right call when needed.

You also rally behind the “People have lives, so they can’t be here” argument, but I have already said; this arguments severs only to harm your cause should you be determined to hold on to your rights. Anything I would want you to read would be in my earlier discussion about this topic.

Please note that this is not an attempt to permanently shut you out from the community. It is my personal hope that there comes a day when you are given special rights once again. But, I feel you have overlooked the community in a time when it is crucial to remain a constant presence here. Anyone can return when there’s a new game; that, of course, is an obvious reason to. But to choose to be here when we don’t have as much content to work with is most admirable, and I am only disappointed to see that someone who I hear was so crucial to this wiki in its early days has chosen to disregard it today.

I would be happy to hear that you plan to return to active editing in the future, but you have overlooked your responsibilities for a lengthy time. This sets a dangerous precedent should we allow you to keep your rights while we still require months of active editing for others to qualify for such abilities.

Nukapedia is seeing I time without any new information from a game, and with the seemingly little attraction there is to a wiki based on a world that hasn’t seen any new major content in years, I am not surprised that even users with special rights are faltering. The truth, however, is that there are activities to participate in at this wiki. From projects to fixing basic mistakes, the call for participation in this wiki is still here; community features as well invite input from all users. There are people here who edit almost every day and put monumental effort to ensure that this wiki continues its strive to be a complete encyclopedia for all Fallout-related information, and for thriving users like them – for a booming community like Nukapedia- to be represented by someone so preoccupied at this time is beyond problematic.

In time, I hope to see Kingclyde return to become a more active member of the community. But this is not something that will happen overnight. There is no reason for someone so now absent to hold any special rights, but should Kingclyde demonstrate to everyone’s satisfaction that he intends to once again become a powerful force in the community, I have no doubts that he can be a Bureaucrat again.

Kingclyde's Defense


This is my official "defense" statement to this "vote of no confidence" which is, in my opinion a waste of time. I will give you my reasons for why I feel this is not worth pursuing and the I will make my defensive counterpoints to posters concerns.

I have never abused my bureaucratic/admin powers at anytime.


I have never during my time when we were the Vault and now Nukapedia have I abused my administrative powers. I've never "banned people for fun" as some people have in the past, in fact I came down hard on that. I feel that something such as this "vote of no confidence" which is very similar to a "reconfirmation vote" should only be called when someone abuses their powers, not when a person feels that they are inactive and should be removed. If I did stay inactive resign to admin, would I expect one of these at a later point or is this just to remove me only as a bureaucrat?

After the split, I stood up and took charge during a leaderless time.


I know this is ancient history, but it is indeed a valid point non the less. As Leon has stated "This wiki is not about you, and your past accomplishments should not and will not supersede present accomplishments." Nevertheless I still feel that it is worth mentioning.

All of this has made me take notice of things to make changes.


As I noticed this happening, I realized I do need to be more visible when I am on here. I am active but not visible. Thus I do not appear active.

Now for the counter points.

Leon's Concerns


  • Working off of this concern, there are times when Clyde has taken his frustrations out on the wiki after an argument, with an example seen through this edit. - That's is one time and I regret it. Enough said.
  • And my last concern on this topic is that Clyde has had a tendency to take matters way too personally. - The example in number one is something everyone runs across in their time on this wiki. Leon himself argues with people in the same way. He is an admin and as such this shows a bad example as well. Examples #2 and 3 are taken out of context by Leon as at the time we thought the user was a random anon who was vandalizing. Chad was also involved during this issue and can vouch for this. I didn't "harass him" into creating an account, we recommended that he create one so we could continuously contact him and communicate with him. As for example #4, oddly enough the chatlog only deals with people talking about and open argument on a forum between Leon and myself. Again it was taken out of context. Others asked about the situation and I answered them. I did not go in and as Leon puts it, "Clyde then goes off into chat, where he has been known to attack the person or people he was arguing with".
  • For clarification, Clyde's patrol-log is empty, he has only banned one user in the past 5-6 months, is rarely ever in chat or able to appoint temporary Chat Moderators, has not played a public part in most forums and votes this year, and has only made 696 article edits since the 1st of January, 2012, with most of those edits being minor (less than 50-100 bytes). - Well, when it comes to the blocks, I actually blocked 2 people and fixed a permblock on one person whom Leon determined on his own wasn't needed anymore. But I digress. As for the patrol log, for someone who "I have never lied on this wiki before" Leon, I reviewed my patrol log and as I told you it was not empty. See link[5]. Other items such as the deletion log [6],protection log [7], user-rights changes logs [8]. Those also show my admin tool usage history.
  • I do understand that Clyde has been having real-world issues, and the time that he has to devote towards Wikia has become sparce due to those issues. - As for this, yes I did have real world issues that I really didn't want to bring up here but this seems to but at the end of 2012 I had a small stroke. This caused some issues which have since resolved themselves and have allowed me to continue with work and everything. That is part of my inactivity for the first 3 months of 2013. I not asking for pity I'm just putting it out there.
Skire's Concerns


I understand your concerns and believe most o f them were addressed under Leon's Concerns.

69's Concerns


I understand your concerns and believe most o f them were addressed under Leon's Concerns.

Closing Statement


In closing, I understand that my lack of visibility has harmed my position. As you guys and gals see it is is inactivity as I do not enter chat etc. But this has given me pause to reconsider the various points in my position in the wiki. I do indeed need to be more involve and I will be. In my honest opinion I stick to my guns that something like this should only be called up when someone openly abuses their powers. Thanks again for Reading this.--Kingclyde (talk) 03:23, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Vote


Note: A vote section is to be added soon.

Option 1

Voting yes is a support to have Kingclyde's position bumped down to the administrator position.

Option 2

Voting yes is a support to have Kingclyde's special rights stripped entirely.

Option 3

Voting yes is a support for Kingclyde to retain his bureaucratic position.

Comments

Just to reiterate, this vote isn't quite active yet, as we are waiting for Clyde's defense statement. Until then, comments are still allowed, so feel free to go ahead and get your opinions in. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:19, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

He shouldn't need a defence statement because we shouldn't be demoting him.
He was made bureaucrat after the split for a reason. The guy has a life outside of the wiki just like the rest of us. I know it probably sounds hypocritical coming from me of all people, but regardless. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:23, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

What? And we are following policy by allowing him to present a defence. --Skire (talk) 02:26, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by how quick we've all become to strip people of their rights, more so if it's to uphold a policy rather than because they've actually abused their power. I might have voiced my concerns with Clyde's role of bureaucrat back when he was first appointed but frankly he hasn't done a single thing to warrant him being demoted, so suddenly calling him into question because of a new rule is a bit of a joke. That's just my view on the matter; don't let it upset you. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:31, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I can understand. But reading our rationales would show you that this has nothing to do with policy per se, and is far from being "sudden." I will say my reasons and basis may be different from my co-proponents, but we all believe it would be in everyone's best interest if Clyde would step down, at least temporarily. --Skire (talk) 02:33, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I'll admit to ignorance in this case. I saw the title and assumed the worst; considering I'm not around very often I wasn't aware of a lot of the listed concerns. My apologies. Regardless I still personally don't agree with the motion; I think the only time someone should be stripped of their rights is if they abuse them purposely such as deleting pages they don't agree with, protecting pages to win an edit war, or banning a user that didn't break any rules, et cetera. Yes Man defaultUser Avatar talk 02:37, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Roger. I would never support a complete rights removal at this stage, only a bump down to admin. --Skire (talk) 02:39, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yessie, you didn't read any of our points, did you? This is not about inactivity. That's only a very very very minor point here. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 02:46, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Leon from what we talked about this was a bump to admin but now your witch hunt has me possibly bumped down to patroller? And you told me this was not going to be posted until the 16th. Or did I read that wrong?- Kingclyde
I do only want you down to Admin, along with Danny. Only 69 wants you down to Patroller, and as a backer, he has a right to his opinion on this matter. And I said the vote wouldn't be posted until the 16th. We're waiting for your defense statement first. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:32, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I realize that we still have three days until the voting begins, but should there not be an Option 3: No user rights change? It seems a little unfair that we are only able to vote on how he will be demoted. ~ Toci ~ Go ahead, make my day. 03:42, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

That's what voting no is for. You vote no, and that helps determine whether or not a vote passed. Actually adding a third option seems a bit redundant when you can just vote no on the two actual options. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:01, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Ok seriously, what the absolute fuck is the point in this?, i've seen the new policies and personally there not even needed, without digressing too much let me get straight to the matter at hand. When this wiki was split there was no order, the place needed a new leader and Clyde stepped up to the challenge, he put this place on track and patched it up before the shit was going to hit the fan, i may be inactive here so i have no clue how active Clyde is or not but we shouldn't have to have a vote deciding if he should retain his power or not.

The only time someone's power should be brought into question is if there abusing it and Clyde never has, sure you can demote him but does that even matter, your just demoting him to adminship which is the same as being a B-crat just on a slightly lower level, it's a fucking waste of time. I swear it's like everyone around here is so bored that they decided to implicate extra rules to sustain their boredom.The Nemesisx

What does the new policies have anything to do with this? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:08, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Ummm the fact that your basing his demotion off the pretense of following the new polices.The Nemesisx
Where? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:12, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
You wrote- "It opens up questions into how well Clyde can serve our wiki as a Bureaucrat when he doesn't have the time to remain an active, diligent presence, and has shown that he is unable or incapable of performing his Bureaucratic duties on a consistent basis."
considering this all came to light in the wake of the whole inactivity policy thing, it seems like your using it to back up your issues with Clyde as though your just following the rules. If you got an issue with him work it out, don't make it a wiki wide issue.The Nemesisx
Okay, so it's now clarified that we never mentioned or based this vote off of the inactivity policies. Now, tell me: Did you read the rest of this forum? We make it pretty clear that Clyde's inactivity is not the only aspect of this vote. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:21, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I read the forum, and i still cant help but feel like your using his lack of recent activity as an excuse for bringing up the things you dont like about him. Show me one place where clyde actually did something undeserving of his bcrat rights other than having a harsh tone and threatening to leave the wiki, which is something that plenty of admins have done in the past.The Nemesisx
Okay. Then I must ask you to look at this objectively, and look at the links and facts I provided instead of making assumptions of our intent. And we provided much more critique than just those three subjects you mentioned. Please keep reading. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:29, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Soooo you want me to re read the entire thing again, it's still not gonna change the situation.The Nemesisx

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am not here to change your mind. What we came here to do is to put forth our concerns, in which the community can now take these concerns into consideration. Everything we have said here is a legitimate concern in our eyes. Some more than others. If you decide that these concerns aren't enough to act on? Then vote no - that is your right. If you choose not to objectively read, and make assumptions of our intent here? Then that is also your right. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:39, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

You can't randomly invoke a vote of confidence with no option to have him keep his rights, you and 2 other people on this wiki have effectively set him to demotion either way it goes, and frankly that's extremely ridiculous. Who are you three to do this?--TwoBearsHigh-Fiving Intercom01 04:13, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

First of all: The vote isn't even up yet. Second of all: It's called voting no. There's no point in adding a redundant vote when voting no is all that's needed to void a vote should there be the quality or quantity of no votes needed. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:15, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I meant no disrespect, Leon. Thank you for clarifying the vote. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 04:20, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I think I can understand why you might have thought that. I'm sorry for the confusion - hopefully my clarification is enough. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:22, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Wording

The wording on this proposal is extremely confusing. "Voting no means you do not support this option, and either support option 2, or you wish to see Clyde keep his Bureaucratic rights.". So if I vote no on proposal 1, but don't vote on proposal 2, that means I de facto support proposal 2? It doesn't say anywhere that people must vote on both proposals. Sorry, that's confusing for people to discern and even more confusing when judgement is rendered. There should be 3 options: 1) Clyde is demoted to admin, 2) Clyde is demoted to patroller, or 3) Clyde retains his bureaucratic rights. Only one vote per person, and the one with the most votes is the course of action taken. No offense meant, but as it currently stands, the poll is biased and an assumption that a fair vote will come from this is asinine. This has been brought up previously in this forum, so if this is a common issue it needs to be addressed before moving forward. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  17:31, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm gunna have to step in on this one. I don't think we can allow any talk of sentence before verdict. I'm going to leave this for now to allow the proposers to amend and correct it, but I dont think we can allow it to go to a vote in its current form. Agent c (talk) 18:03, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Since we keep getting complaints, I suppose I'll go ahead and change it. But keep in mind, like I've already explained earlier, a no vote means you don't support the option, and a yes vote means you do support the option. It's as simple as that. Voting no on the admin options without voting on the patroller option doesn't mean you support the patroller option. That wouldn't make sense at all. So please leave the bias comments, because it's not us that's overthinking the setup here. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:08, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Overthinking the setup is having 4 options when you just need an up or down vote... and you can't complain about bias when its you who's bringing the motion - of course you're biased, if you weren't you wouldn't be a sponsor. Agent c (talk) 18:09, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Don't insult me. I'm talking about the vote itself. It's a simple yes or no, with yes being a vote to have him demoted to either position, and a no meaning you don't support either having him demoted to one position, or both (you don't have to vote on both, as each vote should be considered a stand-alone by the Bureaucrats). Anyways, since there does seem to be a lot of confusion, I'll go ahead and change it (although I still think it's redundant). ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:13, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

(There is no insult there at all. The votes should not be stand alone as thats two bites at the cherry. A motion of no confidence is exactly what it says on the tin - that this wiki has no confidence in person X. You don't get to call 2 in a row. You should be running a pure motion of no confidence, and then we work out later (if its resolved in the affirmative) as to what any bump should be. Additionally, the two outcomes you present are not the only two options - There is the option of admonishment, or moving to unpresented levels. Agent c (talk) 18:17, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for amending it, and I understand your position that it's redundant, but consider the fact that both Ryan and I interpreted it in different ways than your intention is proof of a flaw; the vote itself should not be up for interpretation, only the subject on which we are actually voting. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  18:19, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, well hopefully it makes more sense, then. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:22, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Bumping Down?

I don't agree with any of the options above; if we don't have confidence in him as a bcrat I don't think I have confidence in him as a admin and bumping him down to patroller is kind of pointless. If we're saying "'ere, get it together or we take your rights" then we should, in my opinion, take his rights all the way down. I don't like this whole "demotion" thing.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 18:50, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, and possibly one we'll be addressing. I'm waiting to hear back from 69, as I had a brain-fart when writing this out, and couldn't remember if he just wanted Clyde bumped down to Patroller, or to no rights at all. I'll update everyone on this hopefully by later today. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:04, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Japser 100%. He does not need any special rights at this point in time. As mentioned, KingClyde's partol log is basically empty and his mainspace edits are sparing, so why give him special rights in regard to those areas of the wiki? 69.l25 (talk) 20:21, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Glad you got back to us on that so soon. I'll go ahead and update the vote. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:22, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is why this should have been posted on the 16th when it was a little more thought out instead of running to push me out. This seems to be a little rushed to me.--Kingclyde (talk) 19:11, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Nothing was rushed. This is a placeholder - a rough draft. When your defense statement comes in, or when the 16th rolls by, the official vote will be up and running. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 19:13, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Clyde, if you need an extension, I have no objections. --Skire (talk) 20:22, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I missed this, but how will the voting work out? Can you vote yes for all measures or for only one? What bout voting no? 69.l25 (talk) 20:24, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

What I mean to say is what if all the votes fail? Then not enough people want him to keep his rights, but at the same time not enough people want to remove them? 69.l25 (talk) 20:28, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
I saw a similar issue. It may be better to have two votes; the first to say "will he keep his bcrat rights yes/no" and (if no) another to say "What level is he bumped down to?" JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 20:29, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
What about having a vote for every special-rights position below bureaucrat? That way we can keey it yes/no. 69.l25 (talk) 20:31, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Good points... I want to see what everyone else approves of. And when the vote comes out, we can make a general decision on which idea to pick up. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:33, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
Let's keep it simple... There's no need for yesno when multi is perfectly fine. You simply sign (or redundantly add Yes) below the proposal you support. We could have no removal, admin, patroller, etc. as choices. --Skire (talk) 20:48, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
So we take out "no" votes and just vote "yes" for what we want to see? 69.l25 (talk) 20:52, January 14, 2014 (UTC)
What about a yes/no vote along the lines of "Some of KingClyde's rights should be removed" and then we add polls for voting on which position he could be brought down to in which you can only vote yes under the proper category (ex patroller, no rights, admin). 69.l25 (talk) 20:56, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes. It's the "multi" parameter for {{Poll}}. Technically, you don't even need yes and no, but everyone always does that... It's the most simple option we have here. --Skire (talk) 20:57, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I have been following this for quite some time and given the variation in the edit counts listed by those who bring the motion and the allegation of a clear patrol log, which is clearly not the case, I am gonna call for an investigation into the evidence raised as well as the users raising it. Gunslinger470/TheGunslingerReturns... "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 03:43, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

An "investigation"? I can post every log and edit count he has if that's what you're after. 69.l25 (talk) 03:45, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
That info is already in my defense statement. No need to repost it.--Kingclyde (talk) 03:47, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I'm heading off, so I won't be able to go more in-depth until tomorrow. However, the patrol-log claim was a mistake on my part, as it turns out that I was looking at mine (my patrol-log is empty). However, you will find that everything else to be quite true, and is easily verifiable either through the links provided by both myself and Clyde, or by simply asking Clyde himself (such as the threatening to leave business).
The patrol-log claim was a mistake on my part, and I'm sorry for the confusion involved there. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:48, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
If you're still concerned, here's everything in one spot:
In 2013, KingClyde made 669 total edits, and 498 were mainspace. In 2013, KingClyde changed the group membership for 1 user. In 2013, KingClyde protected three pages. In 2013, KingClyde deleted 9 pages. In 2013, he marked 39 edits as patrolled that were not his. 69.l25 (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm sorry 69.I25, who appointed you investigator? What's that?.... No one. That's right. Stop trying and wait until one is appointed and then take your say. So for now, keep it to yourself until investigations commence. Gunslinger470/TheGunslingerReturns... "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 04:01, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

No need for investigation. We don't require that anyone's X logs/count be published in a forum like this. I simply took the data from KingClyde's statement and put it in one section. 69.l25 (talk) 04:03, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is. If one is called it is for good reason. Stop acting like you control what happens here. We will see whether an investigation is needed or not from the right users. you are not one of them. So how about waiting until the right time to argue. Gunslinger470/TheGunslingerReturns... "Some say this user is a Patroller..." Some say this user used to be a Patroller... 04:11, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I will create an official count of KingClyde's edits-- all of which can be traced back to logs. Hopefully, this can rectify any concerns you have about the figures. I'm sure we'll also hear from both sides as to where they got their figures from. 69.l25 (talk) 04:14, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I can accept that from you in Leons stead if the three of you agree. As you have participated in calling the vote, I have to consider you as a part of that side. Agent c (talk) 04:16, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Voting process

I propose that the voting process resemble something like this. If we do a "multi" vote and include "bureaucrat," we give those who disagree with the motion an unfair advantage, as they have one option while everyone in favor of the motion is split between multiple ones. Plus, this vote isn't "what rights should KingClyde have?" The vote is "A. Do we remove KingClyde's rights? B. To what extent?" 69.l25 (talk) 00:06, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of simplifying that process so we can just keep it a single vote. Let me create a sandbox example, and I'll link to it from here in just a moment. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:10, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
As seen here. Any concerns with that example? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:18, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
I think it's great. This one is more condensed, and I don't see any flaws. 69.l25 (talk) 00:20, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
After reading everyone's thoughts, talking to a few people, and thinking this over, I think this might be the most satisfactory way to go about matters. But we still have a bit of time, so I'm interested in hearing what everyone else has to say about this voting method. Any issues? Deviations we should make? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:24, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Is a yes/no format the only option? Or is it possible to have an option list (no change, admin, patroller, no rights) and the option to vote either a number corresponding to an option, or a neutral vote? --FFIX (talk) 00:54, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
That's what the sandbox I linked earlier is for! Give it a read, and make sure to let us know what you think. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:55, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
That's much better. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 00:57, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Happy you approve. I have to admit, it is a better solution than what I originally proposed. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 01:01, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Well done, Leon. I think that format is much better. Toci US Air Force Into the wild blue yonder... 03:19, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Could part 1 & part 2 be combined, so that the option to strip is just the last option on the list? In fact, that seems to be what the "No special rights" option in part 2 would mean. If you just moved the "neutral" option down there, you might not even need part 1. --FFIX (talk) 09:13, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

This is literally the exact same thing as what I proposed above. --Skire (talk) 14:44, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is, although upon re-reading my statement, I got the meaning of the yes/no vote in part 1 backwards. You wouldn't be moving the option to part 2 to strip all rights, but rather the option to retain them. So it does appear that I re-proposed pretty much exactly the same thing you already did, and I agree that it would be much more straightforward to just have everything in one, rather than a yes/no followed by an option vote. --FFIX (talk) 19:41, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Indeed if it's just options, you need only to vote once. If it's yes/no followed by options, you need to vote twice, with the first vote being redundant for those who say "yes." But at the same time, it gives people the satisfaction of having said "no" to something, which probably has more symbolic meaning than practical purpose. I'm fine with either -- there really isn't that much difference. --Skire (talk) 19:51, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Can we have an example of what it would look like all in one vote? 69.l25 (talk) 19:54, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Here you go. But I also thought of something. Having the yes/no followed by options allows the bureaucrats to see whether or not the voters who support some sort of rights removal have a simple majority more easily. Only if they hold a simple majority can the options be taken into consideration. So perhaps the combined yes/no followed by options is best after all... --Skire (talk) 20:25, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at; if you oppose the motion, you have one option only, and all of those votes can pile together whereas support for the motion would be scattered across various sections. 69.l25 (talk) 20:29, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long =P --Skire (talk) 20:38, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Honestly, either will work. I just wanted to make sure users who wanted to vote no only had to make one vote, but I guess an argument would also be said for users who want to vote yes, also. Here's a quick question: As it stands, I'm assuming that users who vote no to #1 would be allowed to vote for an option in #2. Kinda like: "I support Clyde keeping his rights, but if this vote goes the other way, I support him being made a <insert user level>". Is this understanding correct? The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:39, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

I never really thought about it that way... but, technically, that's true. Although, I would sort of expect them to clarify their position for doing so either in their vote, or in the comments section. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:42, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a bit ridiculous. This is a yes or no question; you either support the motion or you don't, and it's not fair to have people who don't support the motion to then clutter up the votes from people who do. 69.l25 (talk) 20:45, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
I find the prospect a tad ridiculous, too, although it's not something we'd be able to forbid - I don't believe so, at least. If you're going to vote, don't be flaky about it, you know? ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:48, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
We can't let people say, "I want him to be a bureaucrat, but if that doesn't happen, I want him to be this." Then, what is there to stop someone from saying, "Well, I want him to be a patroller, but if that doesn't get enough support, I'd like him to be an admin," or "I want him to have no rights, but if that doesn't work, then admin rights." Obviously people will have second choices should the vote not go their way or if they don't have the confidence that the vote will go there way, but voicing this in the votes section will make things too hectic. 69.l25 (talk) 20:57, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Which takes us back to a simple yes/no to the "Do you have confidence in Clyde" question, with no talk of what the implication might be. It is my understanding that even jurors who disagree with a guilty verdict often have a say in sentencing where those things are left to the jury. Agent c (talk) 20:50, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

So does that mean that there should be a yes/no vote on whether to take the bureaucrat status away, and if the yes wins (or the no, if it is worded the opposite way), then a second vote is held on what status level would be most appropriate? That is actually the simplest proposal of all (at least as far as answering the "no confidence" question goes), and it has a certain appeal because of that. One issue, one vote. --FFIX (talk) 21:22, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
There has never been any community involvement in what happens after a reconfirmation request before. Agent c (talk) 21:24, January 15, 2014 (UTC)
Why would we draw it out that much? No one wants this going on for the next 2-3 weeks. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 21:28, January 15, 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

I have now received an official request to extend the period for Clyde's defence, due to internet issues. I have therefore taken the decision to extend until Monday. Agent c (talk) 23:34, January 16, 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have an evidential conflict. I would ask both Leon and Clyde to confirm their figures and calculation for the logs in question - Patrol, User rights, article edits, etc, before I can in good faith open the vote so these can be audited. It is essential for a fair vote that the correct, honest figures are being presented. Agent c (talk) 04:05, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
KingClyde kindly provided links to the logs both he and Leon brought up. Anyone can look there for themselves to see the official amount of edits. I've also condensed KingClyde's activity for 2013 in the earlier discussion. This forum has been up for long, and we must not drag this out over small issues like this; after all, everything you do is logged, and every claim can be traced. 69.l25 (talk) 04:09, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
And the numbers dont match Leons initial claims, paticularly the patrol log which for any special rights user, except for a chat moderator, should never be blank. I do not consider the possibility that votes may be swayed by an error in a calculation to be a minor issue. This vote will remain closed until the figures are verified. Agent c (talk) 04:10, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree 69, discussion is an integral part of the forum. The issues are the random inconsistencies that were used to try and get me to resign with force. Forums are for discussion. Please do not discourage discussion.--Kingclyde (talk) 04:13, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not discouraging discussion. If people want to know about the figures, they can refer to the logs you provided. Talking won't solve the problem, but looking at those logs will. 69.l25 (talk) 04:16, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Here are the numbers for 2013: X. All sources are listed and can be verified by any other user who wants to. 69.l25 (talk) 04:33, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

The evidential conflict is a resolved matter at this point. As stated above, I was brought to the realization that I was mistaken on my patrol-log claim (as I'm the only Admin with an empty patrol-log, so I must have brought up mine instead of his since what I was reading before showed a completely empty patrol-log). The only other claim disputed was over blocks, and that was never an issue, since at the time of writing this, Clyde did, indeed, only have 1 block at Nukapedia since June/July. Everything can be seen through the links provided, and if anyone wants clarification, or if it turns out that I was mistaken, then all of the information needed can be derived from these links. I'd hope people would be fact-checking before voting here anyways.
Now, I wasn't going to counter-point earlier, but since I was mistaken about the patrol-log, I'll go ahead and tackle any other concerns possibly raised:
  • "Well, when it comes to the blocks, I actually blocked 2 people and fixed a permblock on one person whom Leon determined on his own wasn't needed anymore."
    • At the time of first writing out this forum, there was only one block. And looking at your block logs, it still shows that you've only made 1 block since the 31st of July. That was almost 6 months ago.
  • "But I digress. As for the patrol log, for someone who "I have never lied on this wiki before" Leon, I reviewed my patrol log and as I told you it was not empty. See link."
    • Mentioned twice earlier, I have come to the realization that I was mistaken on this point. I'm sorry for any confusion or misconceptions caused by my mistake, and I'll be re-writing the original claim soon after writing out this comment.
  • "Other items such as the deletion log,protection log, user-rights changes logs. Those also show my admin tool usage history."
    • I never actually brought up those points. But I believe 69 cleared up this point with his X.

That's all that Clyde disputed, in which I wanted to personally address, and 69 pretty much covered everything else with his sandbox. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 16:45, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if Clyde is happy to proceed... What I'd suggest doing is moving the statements to a new forum, so the vote and comments arguing the sides aren't swamped out with all of the process comments. If both sides are happy with that, and the counts, it can be started immediately. Can you all confirm happy to do this? Agent c (talk) 17:46, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

Already done. I made sure to send Clyde the poll option in most favour here, and he seems to agree with it. If there are any issues at all, please make sure to let us know. We'll make changes should they be necessary. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 17:54, January 20, 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement