Forum:Reconfirmation request: Cartman!

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Reconfirmation request: Cartman!

I put this up, in light of recent events, to ask the community if Cartman should keep his adminship. He is being accused of conduct unbecoming of an administrator and flamebaiting.

I have set up this forum to, as I mentioned earlier, ask what this community wants.

^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Does Cartman keep any his adminship responsibilities? Yes or no?

Cartman's response

Okay, this was written as both my defence for my reconfirmation and as a reply to some of the claims Yes Man made on his own one which I feel are blatant misrepresentations of the truth:

Yes my comments can be long, and there is nothing wrong with that especially in these circumstances. I said this before, I like to address every point without leaving any stone unturned. The fact I write long comments to defend myself is not something that can be used against me, it just means I write long comments -- we don't have a character limit on them here. So I'll give another warning here once more, if you don't want to read a long comment then stop reading now. I'm not forcing you to continue, and complaining about reading it when I'm giving you the chance not to doesn't hold any merit unfortunately.

Now, I don't insult people just out of nowhere for liking Fallout 3. Sure, there are probably some isolated incidents which I've been reprimanded for, I'm not going to rule that one out, but the example Yes Man gave originally is one I can and did explain in the other thread. This is where our opinions diverged originally, I believe it's perfectly okay to attack someone's argument if they convey a weakness, and Yes Man doesn't. I agree that my style can be blunt, I'm under no illusions, but to call it "power abuse"? That's simply not true. I tried to explain this in the other thread, I don't force people into arguing with me, that just simply isn't possible through the medium of the internet. If I ask for reasons as to why someone holds the view they do, or counter a point they've made, I'm just inviting debate. The original commenter is not forced to reply, and often it is another user entirely who decides to take up my challenge. There is nothing wrong with this, I argue bluntly, honestly, and though I'm being accused of "protesting equality" (something I'll get to later), Yes Man is equally protesting these kinds of exchanges, argument and debate, which often involve creativity, the opportunity to express one's viewpoint, and the possibility to expand your own and learn in the process.

I'm surprised I even need to defend my freedom to argue, there isn't a rule against arguing and there isn't a rule against bluntness. I have already explained this before, but some of us do apparently enjoy argument and debate, and this includes other admins such as Scarface and Tagaziel. For me to be accused of "power abuse" because I enter into heated arguments is simply absurd from my point of view. Not to mention the fact I haven't argued about the games here for months now, but it seems as if this issue that has never been a problem in the past is now being used in an attempt to incriminate me. This argument has nothing to do with painting Yes Man as a villain, I was simply arguing with him to defend my character when he saw fit to post a quote of mine which I deemed out of context. Of course he was my opponent for the purposes of this argument, but I don't view him as some kind of "villain" at all. I simply disagree with some of his views, is that really not allowed?

As for "either you conform to his standpoint or you're free game for him to hate on your taste in a video game", so what? I get along with plenty of people who don't share all of my exact views, even Scarface and I have disagreed in the past (although this is quite unusual, I'll grant). Someone being "free game" for me to hate on their choice in something isn't any kind of issue, what's wrong with me not liking the same things they do? Why can't I disagree and express why I disagree in a discussion about that very topic? "Hating on" (although I'd prefer to use critiquing) someone's viewpoint is well within anyone's rights, we're all different people and we all have different views and as long as we're within the rules and aren't resorting to such lows as racism and homophobia then what is the problem? If I don't like the same thing as someone else, that's fine. If you don't like something I like, that's fine. In an argument about the thing I don't like, of course I'm going to tell you my issues with it. I simply don't believe we need to stifle speech and discussion to the point where we can't express disapproval over each other's opinions out of fear of offending someone.

And now we get to this "protesting equality" point. I'm all for equality, it's great, it's a brilliant concept and I wish it was realistic in all circumstances. My problems with this "equality" began with the proposal of anonymous votes and the abolition of admin-only discussion and voting etc. which I didn't agree with for site management reasons. You can read my concerns in full here. This has nothing to do with "protesting equality", it's a simple matter of reality and site management. At the end of the day equality doesn't truly exist anywhere a leadership does too.

I'm under no illusions, I don't think us admins are inherently "greater" than any other user, we're just trusted with tools because we've demonstrated knowledge and the inherent trustworthiness which almost goes without saying. Sure, our opinions don't actually count for "more" when it's nothing to do with site management, but when it is then yes, admins quite clearly do know what they're talking about (or rather, should know). Yes Man tried to use the "He knew that the rule was going to jeopardise the fact that he's the tough, Fallout 3 hating admin who everyone loves to hate, so he protested it" argument before on the other thread, but this doesn't explain at all why I've probably argued about three times now that I don't believe admin opinion should be held to a higher regard outside of site management related issues. If I'm consistently holding that view, then how can someone attempt to say that I'm worried about losing the ability to "bully" people in and into debate? Despite the fact that you simply can't bully someone into debate over the internet, I actually believe that blunt and heated arguments are okay and don't necessarily need to result in someone dying at the end. So again, explain how if I want to bully people with my admin powers, why I'm consistently advocating the view that admin opinion should be regarded no higher outside of site management and that we follow the same guidelines we enforce? It just doesn't make any sense.

Regarding the "being human" point, it's a little different when myself or another admin is being constantly bombarded with the same statement repeatedly and we eventually respond with a harsh snide remark than it is to directly and repeatedly insult the other person. I don't want admins to have to become emotionally detached and neutral in regards to everything, but becoming irritated and posting a harsh remark (especially if it can be explained and justified) does not equate to repeated direct insults, ad hominem arguments, "shouting" with the caps lock and offering a "him or me" solution and then coming back the next day with exactly the same attitude. My supposed "veiled insults" are a matter of interpretation and I can see that Yes Man is continuously trying to guess at my motives, something I haven't been attempting with him.

"Notice how he suddenly gave up replying after I went off the deep end? Doesn't it strike you as odd that he waited for me to get upset before giving up? He was pushing me to this. He wanted me to make myself the fool so that he once again gets away scott-free and keeps the Wiki the way he wants it."

I can't even explain how childish I find this comment really. Firstly, I don't consider Yes Man's final comment to have been when he "went off the deep end", it happened in the comment before in my view when he deemed it appropriate to "shout" at me continuously with all caps, call me a dick repeatedly and mention how "shit-filled" my responses are and how much "bullshit" he feels I represent. This was *all* before his supposed fall "off of the deep end". I'm well aware that "don't be a dick" is a rule, but that does not under any circumstances make it okay to repeatedly call someone a dick and think you can get away with it because of the title of said rule, that's just as insulting as any other derogatory term and we do have other rules against that. I didn't "push" Yes Man into anything, his reaction was his own fault, a snide remark is one thing but a rant of continuous insult is another, you simply can't shift the blame like that. The only thing I want to keep the same on the wiki is the lack of anonymous votes and a preference for admin opinion in site management related topics for crying out loud. Want to know something else which I found quite amusing? I stopped replying because I wasn't there any more. Every weekend I'm otherwise engaged and can't access any machine, a number of users can attest to this including Scarface, EB, BillyOcean, and anyone else I have added on Skype or those who may remember my weekend schedule from when I used to frequent chat much more regularly. In fact, here is a screen shot of Skype IM the moment I told Scarface I was leaving:

I also need to point out that I didn't post any definitions for Yes Man at all. The links to the respect definition and the respect video (the video being for humorous effect might I add) were for KingClyde after stating that admins must show respect to other users. Seriously, read his comment then read mine and you'll see it's a direct response. This had nothing to do with Yes Man at all.

"And may I remind you that he called me a "disgusting" troll BEFORE I outright insulted him as you can see above."

This is also a misrepresentation of what I actually said. In reality, I called the previous reply disgusting where Yes Man deemed it okay to call me a dick repeatedly, tell me I'm giving "shit-filled responses" and explain how he feels about my "bullshit". I said his "shit-filled responses" comment was trollish, a significant difference compared to me just calling him a "disgusting troll" isn't it? I consider those terms pretty "outright" too, and at this point I thought this was Yes Man already going off of the "deep end", I had no idea it would get worse.

I don't think it's fair to bring Scarface into this and attempt to "blame" the reconfirmation on him, and regarding the Zerginfestor incident I'd like to think me and him have moved on from the whole thing entirely but I still stand by those defences and many users agreed with me, it was a matter of misunderstanding if anything and I bear him no ill will and I'd like to think he feels the same. He mentioned he has anger problems and it's regrettable that this surfaced in such a manner but when it got to the point where he called me an ass along with other derogatory terms I couldn't simply stand back and do nothing, instead I chose to do my job as an admin and enforce the rules. The ban ended up being in place only for about a day anyway, enough time for both of us to cool down and look at the situation from a clearer perspective. Again though, Zerginfestor and myself seem to have moved on from the incident and it's a shame that Yes Man isn't willing to do the same in this case and has instead turned it into a "him or me" issue as I did like him before all of this nonsense, and it's a shame that he has an opinion of me as "tyrant" and "power abuser".

However unfounded I think his opinion is, at the end of the day he does have a right to it and I'm fine with that, I don't particularly mind if Yes Man keeps his adminship. I think the place is "big enough for the both of us" as they say, I don't know why this has to be dragged out unnecessarily and made much more personal than it should be. For those wishing to review the original argument I'd like to point out that I made an effort to remain calm and didn't allow my argument to become emotionally driven. I used sarcasm sure, but what's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with using sarcasm to point out how silly you find someone else's point to be, and hell, I'm an Englishman, sarcasm is like second nature. You might wonder why I'd need to mention this at all, but I have a feeling that some user's motivations as to why I should have been put up for reconfirmation too had to do with my use of sarcasm, because frankly "conduct unbecoming of an admin" can't really apply to me defending myself and is probably simply a misunderstanding of the use of sarcasm somehow. Because let's be honest, that isn't a very solid reason for holding a reconfirmation, especially when it's something as drastic as stripping away one's admin rights. Ambiguous accusations like that shouldn't even be seriously considered in my view. -- 01:08, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Here are some quotes I've seen which I feel summarise the entire argument quite well:

• Regarding Cartman, while he certainly has a history of winding people up, as far as the matter at hand goes his behaviour was completely proper, properly addressing all the counterpoints raised (to the point he was mocked for his long posts) and avoiding personalizing. Quite a contrast to Yes Man's emotionally heavy and ad-hominem filled responses. And of course there's the final outburst. It was completely appalling to see an administrator resort to what's essentially a childish tantrum and passive-aggressive emotional blackmail to get his way. It shows a both lack of maturity and professionalism. If anything the reaction I expected from a committed administrator would to continue to strive to fix perceived failures, not to throw up his arms and leave the room pouting when he fails. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 20:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

• I see the situation as this. YM gives quote out of context. Cart tries to explain himself to Clyde's comment. Clyde responds rather strongly, Cart keeps a level-head and explains himself, provides evidence, seems reasonable, etc, should be over. YM calls Cart out rather strongly. Cart responds calmly. Though Cart uses sarcasm to express his point, I hardly call it an insult unless you are offended by Cart pointing out a few flaws in the system. YM gets increasingly agitated, Cart seems to continue the same way. YM snaps. Carts comments do seem to get a little more sarcastic towards the end, but only because YM is rather hostile at that point. End result, Cart merely had a strong debate and Yessie took it a little too personally. I respect YM as a person, but that is no way an admin should act. As for Cartman, perhaps the smart answers seemed too rude, but it was justified by YM's responses. If I missed anything, feel free to say so. CaesarLegionSymbol.png Pony of the East CaesarLegionSymbol.png 02:39, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'd urge anyone reviewing the argument to bear these points in mind. -- 01:19, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Note that as of a decree by Kingclyde, all votes must be properly supported by an, at least brief, explanation as to why said vote was cast. All votes lacking said motivation will be counted as null.

Poll finished on 9:55 pm April 6, 2012 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

• After some thought, I've decided I wouldn't take away a stripe over this. I would have made the two privately "work things out". The Gunny 00:14, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• See my comment.TheNemesisx 00:57, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• I have not been around for the past two days and on top of that I haven't come across any questionable posts by Cartman! So I am casting this vote as a way to formally abstain if we're going off a headcount of regulars here. ^Message 01:42, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• I don't really see what he's done wrong. Go look at his admin request; how have any of those qualifications changed? BILLYOCEAN ^{Wanna talk?} 01:57, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Why we are suprised at Cartman for being cartman is beyond me. He does his job as an admin effectively and while his personality may be disagreeable to some, it doesn't impact his effectiveness as an admin. Additionally we've definitely kept on more disagreeable admins than Cartman. Richie9999 02:18, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• While I believe Cartman should mind the way he treats others in general, as far as the subject at hand goes (ie the thread and his discussion with YM) I see nothing to hold against him. If anything I'd have to commend him for keeping it level-headed and taking genuine efforts to explain his position. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}

• I have not seen very much questionable material from him. Sure he may have come off as blunt, but wouldn't you if someone decided to throw some mud at you, and defended yourself from said mud slinging? I find him to be honest more than rude, and in the face of insults keeps his calm. His record isn't spotless, it's only been few minor incidents up until now. Though not perfect, he has done a damn fine job for this wiki so far. I'll stay like this for now, but unless honestly disproven, I'm leaning towards his rights to be kept. Pony of the East 02:21, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• I believe that arguing in Carty's style is very much a part, or show, of his personality. There is no sense in taking away his rights for arguing the way he does because that is his style. I think labels like trolling make little real sense when applied to coherent arguments, and as such that view should be laid to rest. However, I think sometimes you should take a step back and try not to annoy people, but then again sometimes that's not possible ;). You remind me of my little brother in some ways; great guy, annoying as hell when he wants to be. Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 13:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

  So it's okay to be rude and condescending, so long as it is in an argument? No it's not, it's never okay to be rude and condescending, especially for an administrator. If being rude and condescending is Cartman's "style", something has gone horribly wrong. --Callofduty4 04:04, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

• From reading up on what's happened on here recently I feel that a lot of the arguments stated are baseless and I think it's sad that an admin has resorted to bringing user's votes into question on this. The Australian Kiwi
• I'm not even gonna pick a side on this one. I already voted for Yessie to keep his rights. I see no reason to take either's away, really. This community needs to get its sh*t together and stop acting like a bunch of little kindergartners. We're supposed to be LEADING this place, not DESTROYING it by fighting amongst ourselves. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 22:18, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• What if his rights are absent? Will this make Nukapedia different? It sure won't. He's just like the rest of the admin crew. --Shurrender 23:01, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't know what to say. Maybe he is abusing his powers more than once. Still, he edited a lot and brought much contributions on Nukapedia. MysteryStranger: Trust in the power of Infinity!

* See Below Agent c 01:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like the assumption of bad faith and ridiculing of others opinions here Cart. For the first one, its not what you said, its how you said it. For the second one, its a public claim to bad faith in some votes, so it is what you said. If there's one place to not to ignore the user guidelines, I would have thought this page was it. Agent c 20:06, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

No guidelines have been ignored, see below. And I really don't appreciate all of these accusations. There is no rule against us mentioning that we think some votes are unfair or overly coincidental. -- 20:40, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

And I have no problem with you complaning a vote is "unfair" with evidence - never said I did - and I agree that the vote on your positions on F3 should be struck out. I do have objections to someones reasons for voting being mocked, rather than just objected to, and for bad faith being assumed on scant evidence. Agent c 20:47, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

The reaction was to show how silly I think that vote was, call it mockery if you want but my point has been made and you agree with it. And besides, it's no more of a mockery than to again accuse me of power abuse with no evidence aside from the fact that he disagrees with my opinion and thinks I'm working to "diminish Bethesda and Fallout 3" or something. There's no hidden mockery agenda here. And I consider the evidence to be a little too coincidental and it definitely isn't scant from my point of view C. If you want to reply we should take it to the comments, I don't mean to overshadow the votes. -- 21:15, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Happylice I really don't see how this would change his effectivity on his duties. They are still being performed. That count as enough to get my vote.

• Though I do not agree with Cartman's tact in arguments I find no evidence in the thread or comments made by him to show a lack of strength in his position. I believe to reprimand this instance for an aggressive argumentative style would be unjust, plenty of people, including frequenting users of the Wiki, use this style to convey their ideas. It may not appeal to all and it may not seem "nice" to all, but at no point did Cartman's argument ever fall to insulting opponents or singular aggresion. Neko's Page^{Neko's Haunt} 01:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know Cartman enough. I don't think he's a bad person and I don't want either of their rights removed (especially Yessie as he is my best friend here.) I personally don't have a full opinion on this. --    Contr        KOROMO        Talk      01:52, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• Unimpressive conduct --Callofduty4 17:25, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• Back when I was active at Vault I saw enough of Cartman to fully understand his conduct. He was condescending and patronising, these are not traits an admin should have. Whilst many of you believe an admins job is simply to enforce rules and check edits are mistaken. It takes both being at what they’re doing, and being polite to other users. Whilst I understand Cartman may enforce the rules I feel his treatment of other users is not up to the standards an admin should maintain. Admins are essentially leaders in the wikia, and new users will often come to them for help and when treated in the manner they are it more often than not makes them dislike the Vault. At the end of the day Admins should not be chosen purely on how many edits they have, they need a standing in the community as well. I have heard from many users who have since left the Vault they did so due to an unfriendly atmosphere, and statistics show it. Vault used to be one of the most visited sites, this is no longer the case. Yes you can argue it’s because of game releases, but the CoD wiki is gaining more and more users to its chat every day, and most of which stay due to the atmosphere, at peak condition we’ve hit the 30s in chat, whereas I’ve barely seen Vault beat 15 lately. To get more on to topic, I feel that it is up to admins to show professionalism in both their rule enforcement and attitude, and if an admin cannot treat other users in a polite way, or else they are simply ignoring policy by hiding behind their status. – Crazy sam10 18:43, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• - As a frequent visitor of the Vault, going from the attitude I have frequently seen Cartman display, I believe he should have his administrator tools removed. - {{SUBST:User:JPanzerj/Signature}} 17:53, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• I appreciate Cartman's bluntness and candour. However, I also believe he needs to generally improve his treatment of others. But this is not to decide whether or not we like his sometimes abrasive personality, but it is a matter of whether or not he deserves to retain his adminship status. Through the unfortunate events recently, I yet see no wrongdoing deserving of demotion. -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 21:57, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

• The first person I relate Cartman to is Tagaziel. Both are very blunt, hostile forces whose presence is for the original Fallouts as well as their developer, nothing else. However, the difference between the two is that Tagaziel has my respect; he even banned me for what I found to be an unjust cause, and he still has my respect. He always acted out of integrity, never in a petty, bullshit manner that I have constantly seen Cartman in. I knew he was going to act in such a manner, so I was loathing the day I knew he's take his place as an admin. Cartman is here to diminish Bethesda and their fans, to kill the presence of Fallout 3, and to abuse his power to the max of his ability. So, of course, I'm going to vote no. With this in mind, I know he's going to win the vote. Sombar1 13:45, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

• This is the best way I can describe my vote, as I have just two points:
  • While he can be blunt at times, sometimes rude at times, (But who isn't?) I think that shouldn't jeopardize the position he worked for.
  • I feel that you have been inactive in editing and other elements of the wiki, as opposed to how you used to be, and perhaps this a crossroad for you, and perhaps adminship is something you don't need.-- 22:30, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

• Cartman is a good admin in my opinion, though he could work on his manners, that's true. The fact that this reconfirmation vote is already underway is reminder enough that he, in fact, is e-mortal. Furthermore, we should separate attitude from work: did Cartman abuse his powers for personal ends? Or is this very vote taking place simply because some don't like him? Questions were raised as to the admin election method, which are derided by several members as popularity contests. By contrast, I believe those same contributors see nothing wrong with these UNpopularity contests. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 09:09, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the time that I've seen one of his comments/posts, they were pretty rude and insulting. Not a good trait for someone in position of power --Hate Mail :D 19:07, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

• The whole issue is not about Cartman being blunt, hostile, rude, et cetera, it's about some people not being able to deal with the truth slammed in their faces, sensitive people that lose their temper when they have no counterarguments in a debate with him. So what if Cartman is sarcastic sometimes? Good for him, that denotes intelligence. Many view Cartman as a big monster that scares the little children (Fallout 3 fans) and make them cry. Grow up people! --GobTheGoul (talk) 19:52, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to sound like a broken record, but I firmly hold the belief that administrators should display respect for others - especially each other. From a technical standpoint, Cartman! is a boon. He certainly contributes more to the articles than I do, given that I generally jump in to fix grammatical errors, but some of the conduct displayed is reprehensible. Sarcasm is an insult, especially when used during a heated debate, and while Yes Man may have over-reacted in the grand scheme of things I feel that the reaction was (in the short term) justified. I enjoy debating with others about the finer or weaker points of various Fallout games, but I do my utmost to present my arguments and observations in a well-reasoned, respectful fashion. So in short, Cartman! is an excellent Wiki editor, but lacks respect for others. He displays a distinct refusal to recognize his behavior as objectionable, and an even greater refusal to even make a pretense at fixing it. I see no reason why he can't continue to be a boon for the Nukapedia even without access to Admin tools. SagaDC 06:02, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
• I am going to stay absolutely neutral on the whole Cartman! vs. Yes-Man debacle. However, I am still going to vote no over this debate on whether Cartman! should keep his position as an Administrator or not. My reason? He no longer uses his position in the manner that is required of him. I am fine with Administrators holding onto their rights if they happen to go in-active, but the fact is, he is no longer in-active and yet he spends all of his time in chat. I'm sorry to say, but only using your powers to ban people is just not enough. So all in all, use it or lose it. If you feel like becoming active again here in the future Cartman!, absolutely feel free to put in another Admin request after you've shown us that you're dedicated to more than just the chat feature and banning users. That is all. ^Skål!
• I think my reasons are obvious. It's easy for people to say that I overreacted, but I doubt those people would be saying the same thing if Cartman were the one talking down to them. I felt insulted that when I suggest a simple change, in which Cartman was only mentioned after I was asked to provide evidence of an admin treating another user unfairly, I am talked down to by Cartman who then calls me a troll and suggests that I should be banned. I know my response was abrasive, and I owned up to my punishment. Why should Cartman be given higher standards? Remember, it takes two to tango. Apologies for the late reaction, I couldn't decide wether or not it was right to vote here. I decided everyone ought to state their opinion, even me. 11:28, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
• ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"} (see comments)
• I haven't at all seen that he's broken any rules, certainly didn't stoop to insulting to the extent that Yessie did. I don't get why people are doing this because from what I've seen and read, this whole thing is just because some people didn't like the way he expressed his opinions and because it wasn't "nice" in their eyes. He has as much right to state his opinion in this way as you do to yours, and his prior works and actions as an admin more than prove his capability as one, maybe we should look at that instead of people basing his capability on this one nonsensical incident.-- 13:04, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I'd again like to state a concern I did in the last thread. I don't think its appropriate for people to vote until the accused has had their say. This is a fundamental part of natural justice. Agent c 22:01, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point! The Australian Kiwi 22:01, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

He logs in daily and has been notified by scar.--Kingclyde 22:10, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Cartman is currently out adventuring, and can therefore only log onto Skype using his phone. Expect his response some time next week. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Can we also think logically? When was the last time Cartman used his admin powers, and with the new admins in place, does he really need them? 00:20, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

He actually banned several users just this week. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 00:35, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that seems like a bit of a half-ass job to me. Since when is the wiki and being a leader just about banning/removing/keeping people in line? Pardon me for using my brain, but I always thought the job was to ENHANCE the wiki. There's more to being an admin than just banning people and deleting things. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 22:28, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

He's inactive, and as such has no job per se. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 03:56, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Then why does he need the rights so badly? -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 05:29, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't, but lack of immediate need is not a factor for removing statuses. He is free to come back and resume his duties here if he wants, just like any other inactive admin. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 06:08, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Over the year that i have been here ive seen Cartman be disrespectfull from time to time, many users and anons alike have gotten very upset with him, i remember one user ask him to be more respectfull towards others and Cartman pretty much threw it back in his face giveing him a "defention" of what it is, he may be a good editor but in the end of the day you still have to bahave accordingly to the rules, the comments ive seen him make towards people who seem to like Fallout 3 or jsut ask why do people hate it has been distastefull, im all for him wanting to debate why he doesnt like the game ect but do it within boundaries, i may have gotten sidetracked just then so lets sum things up here. A User, anon, admin or anybody else for that matter should always be respectfull towards others unless the other user is a complete and utter jerk/troll, and trust me when i say this, things like these would neve NEVER be tolerated on other wikias.TheNemesisx 00:59, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like insults are fine as long as you keep level headed. Nice. 02:22, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I see the situation as this. YM gives quote out of context. Cart tries to explain himself to Clyde's comment. Clyde responds rather strongly, Cart keeps a level-head and explains himself, provides evidence, seems reasonable, etc, should be over. YM calls Cart out rather strongly. Cart responds calmly. Though Cart uses sarcasm to express his point, I hardly call it an insult unless you are offended by Cart pointing out a few flaws in the system. YM gets increasingly agitated, Cart seems to continue the same way. YM snaps. Carts comments do seem to get a little more sarcastic towards the end, but only because YM is rather hostile at that point. End result, Cart merely had a strong debate and Yessie took it a little too personally. I respect YM as a person, but that is no way an admin should act. As for Cartman, perhaps the smart answers seemed too rude, but it was justified by YM's responses. If I missed anything, feel free to say so. Pony of the East 02:39, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oct, if you read the blog you'd see that in no way did I start it. Cartman always has to have the last word even when I've finished the conversation and there's a point where enough is enough. Before I even started to get upset Cartman was saying things along the lines of -

"This "Yes Man, leader of the people" lark is becoming quite boring indeed"

I don't know about you but I sure as hell won't have anybody talking to me like that. Not to mention he had the nerve to patronise me by posting a link to the definition of the word "respect" to me twice in one sentence. I know what respect means, he's just treating me like an idiot and I'm not going to sit back and take it.

And another thing, directed at Richie. "Cartman being Cartman" now means that he's exempt from the rules? In what world is that fair? 04:09, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Though I would usually count Cart's comment as rude, let me remind you that you are the one that called him out at first with that out of context quote. I found that he defended himself rather well, and I would hardly call that quote you pointed out an insult, more of his opinion of your efforts, so unless you are offended by everyone not agreeing with you, I felt it was justified. As for the respect link, I'm very sure he hardly meant it as an insult, but merely trying to prove a point, once again a justified defence in the face of mud being thrown by you and Klyde. Before I go, I would also like to remind Yessie that you are a good person, and above these insults and behavior. I'm not trying to be your enemy, but I can't have an admin acting through emotions. This is a professional community of individuals, and we can't let minor squabbles, such as this, blow over into a full scale shitstorm, like now. I like you as a person and friend, Yes-Man, but your actions are not admin worthy. Pony of the East 17:15, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The quote I first added was firstly not a personal attack against him. I was just getting an example to prove to Scarface that sometimes there are comments that administrators get away with when they shouldn't. And secondly, I did not use it out of context. I showed exactly what happened. A user asked what was wrong with Fallout 3 and straight away Cartman was the first to insult him. Regardless of wether or not Cartman wrote an essay about it, it does NOT give him the right to talk to anyone like that. If I went to a blog where everyone was hating on something I liked, I wouldn't straight away go and look for an essay in the blog comments before using my right to free speech. And thirdly, did you see Tagaziel doing the same thing? He made one comment, which was not only civil and neutral, but also he didn't continuously pursue it like Cartman did. Tagaziel does know when to give it a rest.
And I do find him posting definitions to me as an insult. He did it twice in one sentence. And it was a word that everyone knows the definition to. He was talking down to me, insulting my intelligence. It's not the first time I've seen him do it.
I'm fine with people not agreeing with me. Sometimes it does hurt, yes. But I didn't go off at Limmie or Gunny for saying no to anon votes. And I certainly was not the one who blew this out of proportion. I wasn't the one who took Cartman and I to the forums to let the community decide on our adminship. If Scar had just left it (might I add it was none of his business) then the whole issue would have died down. I might have been blocked for three days then the Wiki would be back to normal. So please don't tell me that we can't let minor squabbles turn into a big deal, because that's all Scarface's fault. 22:27, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was looking at this the wrong way. Both of you did regretable things, but you were the more obvious of the two. Cart had his way of arguing, harsh at times, but that didn't give you a right to snap. Cart is a dick, but does his job well. You both did regretable things, and I probably would have agreed with your point if not for the the kind of attitude you have about this. Leaving the wiki if Cart keeps his admin rights? Blaming other users such as Scarface for your misfortunes? You are not acting like an admin, more like an anon. What I really want to say is this. Man up. Don't take every insult personally, and especially don't take internet arguements seriously. These people live thousands of miles from you, you will probably never see them face to face, so don't think everyone is what they exibit themselves to be. Stop acting in this non-mature manner of pointing fingers and take responsibility for your actions, and let Cart take his. Maybe then I'll think of changing my current opinion about you, but until then, I would appreciate you cut this out and be the Yes-Man we have all known these past few months. Pony of the East 23:15, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ok im getting tired of seeing people makeing this "he's doing his job" argument, quite frankly cart is inactive and doesn't contribute as much as he used to, id say he rarely contributes at all, only time he does is when he is makeing a discussion within the forums, commenting on a blog or joining the chat room thus he doesn't exactly DO his job now does he?, no, if he was he would be editing this wikia ect.TheNemesisx 06:52, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

My "Vote to keep powers" is in the same line as my vote on Yes-Mans. Do I think Cartmans' comments can be an issue - well Cart, to be frank, you're rather famous for your bluntness and that may need some moderation - so thats yes. Do I believe Cart needs to lose his powers... Well no but I think he may need some help in learning where the line is. Yessie, if you're reading this and see this as a vote for him over you, you're not reading it correctly, I think there is a place for both of you here, I think its big enough for the both of you to avoid each other if needs be. I'd like to address one point of yours cart - this right to argue that you feel is being restricted. Yes, you do have a right to debate, but you need to make sure things are done in the right way. Agent c 01:18, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I feel I've addressed this continuously and at length at this point. I argue bluntly yes, but I don't sling direct insults at people and instead prefer to attack their ideas. If someone has a problem with that and can't defend their position then the problem is definitely their own, not mine. -- 01:28, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Agent C, I don't take anyone's vote to keep Cartman as a vote against me. If they want to keep Cartman, then fine. It's really just another issue this Wiki has to deal with. When the community decides to make a change in the future, Cartman will be there to challenge it.
And, once again Cartman, you find another way to remove the blame off you completely. Never have you owned up for anything the whole time I know you. It's always someone else's fault. Who are you to say what is and isn't insulting? I felt insulted that your "humour" was to make the rest of us look like idiots who don't know what respect is. Ironic, truly, considering you're the one who needs to learn the meaning of the word.
That Skype conversation could have been said at any time. Not sure why you had to censor it either. I don't believe that people honestly consider you a victim. 04:56, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

“The issue is not of merely giving or taking offense. People choose to be offended by all sorts of things, and that is beyond any of our control. The issue is whether or not a post is in and of itself racist.”— Gothemasticator

The same is applicable to any other type of insult. There's a vital difference between something you, individually, may take offence of and something which is intentionally offensive. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Indeed. I challenge the changes that I don't think are for the better, it's in the best interests of this wiki for more people to actually stand up and be critical about unrealistic ideas rather than submissively allow everything to pass. I didn't dismiss all of your proposals, and I certainly don't make an effort to disagree with every single person's proposed changes so I'm not really sure where you get off on implying that I'm playing the contrarian for "fun" or to "bully" you or whatever it is you're saying. The history shows that it's just not true. And let's face it, this isn't my fault and I didn't push you into typing out repeated insults then force you to submit them, your outburst is on your own shoulders.

Why should I have to "own up" to the blame of something when I don't think I've done anything wrong? Believe it or not I'm not the intentionally malicious "evil-doer" that you seem to think I am and when it comes to this kind of thing (issues of management) I'm speaking for the best interests of the wiki. This "humour" you're addressing was about the respect video link, the only time I tried to be overtly humorous during the entire incident and it had absolutely nothing to do with you, something I've already explained as well, so move on. It isn't ironic at all as I'm still under the belief that respect is earned and not given freely, and I find it difficult to respect someone who went to so much trouble to insult me and throw a tantrum about leaving for as long as I remain. Who am I to say what is or isn't insulting? The person who actually knows what my intentions are without having to make blind guesses. As Scarface explained, it isn't about what you find insulting or offensive. Someone can potentially be offended by anything at all, but as long as no rules have been broken and there are no direct insults then taking offence is your own problem.

Alright, believe that the Skype conversation image is all a part of some great conspiracy, then attempt to explain away my weekly weekend disappearances which many users are aware of. That conversation was with Scarface and EB supplied the screenshot, and anyone in that conversation could simply scroll up to Friday 11:14 GMT for the evidence. Unless you're implying they are all liars then the conspiracy theories are best dropped. And the conversation was censored because it was private and has nothing to do with the issue at hand, it's as simple as that. What does censoring a private conversation have to do with victimisation? You seem to have this obsession with the idea that "people" don't consider me to be the victim, and frankly it makes no difference and doesn't change the fact that I was the one under attack by you and didn't sink to such lows as insults and tantrums. I don't care about any kind of sympathy here, I'm just interested in justice and I'm much more likely to get that without your attempts to skew the truth in your reconfirmation statement for example. -- 15:43, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Several of the votes in favour of Cartman keeping his adminship describe his poor attitude as his "style", or that it is "appreciated". There are highly unimpressive and highly inappropriate comments that prove that there is a simple lack of willpower to fix this problem, and instead people just want to accept it as if it's okay just because "that's who he is". If that's "who he is", he should never have been elected as an admin in the first place. --Callofduty4 04:07, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why you are so ardent about this topic. The question is whether he deserves to have his admin rights revoked, not whether we like his "style" or not. Just because he isn't the friendliest guy or may be a tad abrasive sometimes is no grounds for such a demotion. Cartman being an administrator ipso facto means that his so-called "style" has been appreciated or at least tolerated enough for him to have been elected into the position. He himself has remained rather unchanged, so why should his status change? -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 18:40, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

You are simply fuelling the fire - "he himself has remained rather unchanged" - even more evidence that his poor attitude has just been sticking to him. And adminship is not about whether or not it is "deserved". Adminship is given to people who have the skill and personality to handle the tools and benefit the wiki. If the user in question of this forum does not have the personality, he is not going to be benefiting the wiki any time soon. --Callofduty4 20:49, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

He has benefited the wiki, and you should know that. How am I fuelling the fire by stating the truth? And you're not exactly trying to put out the fire. Perhaps you should reread my above response: if his personality is so "un-admin like" he wouldn't have been voted in in the first place. -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 21:56, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

OoOooOOOooo now I'm getting no votes because apparently I'm here to "diminish the presence of Fallout 3". Good lord.
Why is this vote even still open considering how Yes Man resigned and closed his? Mine was called for out of some misguided sense of "fairness" even though the point of Yes Man's reconfirmation was because he threw his administrator position up in the air with the "him or me scenario", something I never did. And I was accused of the ambiguous charge of "conduct unbecoming" merely because I decided to defend myself. So again, why is this still open? It seems like more and more people are using this as an excuse to vote against me because they disagree with the fact that I've been critical about Fallout 3, despite the fact that Clyde and Scar have tried to express that voting judgement should be about the actual issue and not because people don't like my opinion. -- 19:41, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's also terribly amazing how three of Yes Man's CoD wiki friend (where he's popular might I add) voted no within half an hour of each other shortly after he decided to resign and withdraw his reconfirmation. What a strange coincidence indeed. -- 19:45, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure our bureaucrats will acknowledge this fine coincidence. -SigmaDelta54^(Talk) 20:04, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

These comments changed my vote. The vote is still open to discuss your behaviour cart, Despite what Yesman may have believed, this isnt a you vs him vote. I really dont appreciate the seeming mocking of arguments with the OOO's - this I could have overlooked, but the second part there assuming bad faith just isn't on. Agent c 20:05, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

The reason this vote was called was only because of Yes Man's own reconfirmation despite the fact that I didn't do what he did for his to be called in the first place. I never claimed it was a "you vs. him" vote and have mentioned before that it wouldn't make a difference to me whether he stayed or not, but what I did say was that this vote was supposedly called for the sake of fairness under the ambiguous "conduct unbecoming" charge, something that did happen. And I don't consider some strange argument about how I'm here to "diminish the presence of Fallout 3" to be anything near a good reason to vote for me, and it's my right to hold such a view. And yes I am assuming bad faith there, it's too much of a coincidence, and one that was brought to my attention by other users. I'm not ashamed to admit that I think it's a strange coincidence at all. -- 20:25, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Fallout_Wiki:User_conduct_guideline#Interacting_with_other_editors -- This is about editing, not voting. Not even to mention the fact that I consider the three consecutive no votes within half an hour by CoD wiki users who're friends of Yes Man to be evidence in themselves, I'm not sure where you're getting off on accusing me of ignoring the guidelines. -- 20:36, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes Cartman, you never said it was him vs you, but this wasn't just called because of Yes-Man's reconfirmation request, the same event caused both cases. Its fair enough to say that "diminish fallout 3" isnt a good reason to vote no in my opinion either- no complaints there, hence my comment in my vote that it wasnt what you said but how you said it - the OoOO's. User guidelines indicate that good faith should be assumed. Maybe its a coincidence, maybe it is a bit of a vote fix - but maybe it isn't - maybe they learned of the vote and came to their own opinion independently of any other pressure - a coincidence isn't evidence. Agent c 20:38, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Forum:Reconfirmation_request:_Yes-Man#Comments -- Read your first comments yourself, you were the one to say that I should have a reconfirmation because of Yes Man's due to the "discomfort" and "unbecoming" nature of "some of my comments" despite the fact that you were unable to actually explain these accusations. So what is it you didn't like? Sarcasm? Read my defence again then because I don't want to explain this at length for the fourth time. And because I said "OoOOO"? Are you serious? I can express my disapproval however I want as long as I'm not breaking any kind of rule C. And I don't care about the maybes here, I think it is a strange coincidence and I have every right to say so, I don't care if you disagree and think that on some off-chance this wasn't discussed on CoD chat with a few of Yes Man's buddies and they all independently decided to vote no within half an hour of each other somehow. And actually yes it is evidence, evidence doesn't imply definitive proof. -- 20:51, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

And no, I just tried to explain this. User guidelines say we should assume good faith when it comes to edits. This isn't about voting, especially when it comes to such coincidental circumstances when it's pretty damn clear they aren't "trying to help". -- 21:03, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if I'm from the CoD wiki or not. I have been using this wiki since Dec 09 and have been in Chat ever since it was released. I am entitled to my vote, irrelevant of its juxtaposition to other votes. If you want an easy way to remove no votes, you're going to have to try harder. Sorry. --Callofduty4 02:19, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just saying it's an amazing coincidence ;) -- 02:30, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Cart, I'm going to just leave this here; whether or not you agree with my interpretation of bad faith and what a respectful manner is, you're welcome to your own interpretation but I think "good faith" goes beyond just edits but throughout user conduct generally. I believe when I voted yes for you I highlighted exactly what my issues are with your comments, to which you have already replied; examples have already been provided by others in this forum and elsewhere as to the comments I was referring to. Over and out. Agent c 21:14, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

And my own interpretation is that the section in question refers to editing and avoiding edit wars and accusing those who've edited poorly of vandalism. And even ignoring that, in my opinion it's fair to assume bad faith in this situation. And I'm struggling to see anything of an "example" aside of some vague disapproval with how I defended myself. Anyway, I agree, we'll end this here. -- 21:25, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

No Cartman, I actually pay attention to this site once and again. I didn't come here and vote because Yes-Man told me, I did it because I don't think your attitude is correct for admin rights. Callofduty4 also saw this forum as you know he comes in now and again. We both got involved not because Yes-Man asked, because he never did, but because we wanted to. Crazy sam10 11:54, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Cartman, although the Interactions with other user guidelines were initially made to regulate editing, you do realize that (parts of) it also apply to for example chat, right? Just because the policy wasn't specifically updated for chat, that doesn't mean you don't have to be polite or don't have to respect users here. Just pointing that out. As for the assuming of bad faith voting, it can be taken into consideration, but on the other hand, all the no-voters backed their vote with valid arguments/own observations. Jspoel 15:48, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, I haven't said anything about chat at all. -- 01:43, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

You guys are arguing over a completely trivial matter. It's clear that for some odd reason you see Cartman! as the ultimate evil. This is both mathematically and logically impossible that he's the only moderator causing trouble here. I don't care if his rights get removed or not, but it sure won't get this wikia rid of power abuse, swearing, insulting, trolling or anything else you're accusing him of. --Shurrender 20:59, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

“OoOooOOOooo now I'm getting no votes because apparently I'm here to "diminish the presence of Fallout 3". Good lord.
Why is this vote even still open considering how Yes Man resigned and closed his? Mine was called for out of some misguided sense of "fairness" even though the point of Yes Man's reconfirmation was because he threw his administrator position up in the air with the "him or me scenario", something I never did. And I was accused of the ambiguous charge of "conduct unbecoming" merely because I decided to defend myself. So again, why is this still open? It seems like more and more people are using this as an excuse to vote against me because they disagree with the fact that I've been critical about Fallout 3, despite the fact that Clyde and Scar have tried to express that voting judgement should be about the actual issue and not because people don't like my opinion”— Cartman

The reason your reconfirmation request is still up is because at the end of the day you still were being insultive, yes of course yes man should never EVER have acted the way he did but this doesn't mean that your reconfirmation request needs to "go away", plus Crazy Sam and COD4 have voted no against you not because of Yes man but because of you!, this has nothing to do with him when it comes to THEIR votes but it's obvious that you fail to see this and yes i voted no because i have always found your behavour to be rude and as an admin i belive it should not be tolerated, say what you want but end of the day you should no when not to cross the line and people are not giveing you no votes because you hate Fallout 3 but obviously your burning hatred for it has you beliving that that is the case.

P.S Yes Man doesnt even use the CoD wiki so that obviously fails once again, get your facts straight before accusing him off getting users from another wikia to vote against you, i would have thought you were better than that.TheNemesisx 06:42, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, CoD wiki chat, something I have seen myself, something I have heard from several users, something Callofduty4 didn't deny. I never claimed he edited the site. And if I was being so "insultive" in my exchange with Yes Man I'd like you to point out where, and no this doesn't include being sarcastic. -- 03:41, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I know I can't vote, since I'm an anon, but can we at least comment?

Anyways, as an outsider, I see problems. I've been silently watching this debate, and while half the time I had no clue what was going on since I don't really know how things are run here. However, here's what I see:

Cartman. Yes-Man was in the wrong to blow up at you, but you're an admin. Admins set an example for the community. You accusing an anon of being illiterate wasn't your only incident of brashness. You're not the only tough-guy higher up user here, but clearly, admins acting like this surely helped fuel the fire that apparently got rid of Yes-Man and Miss.Nicolle (correct me if I'm wrong on either). And now the whole wiki is in a RAEG. What's with the INTERENTZ IS SRSBIZNESS attitude?

Oh, and I'm not Yes-Man, nor am I anyone you've met before. So don't go and start accusing me of being either using this IP as a sockpuppet.

Thank you for your time. 99.58.175.73 23:14, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'll correct you on the Nic thing. She decided she wanted a temporary break, but is currently in chat. Agent c 23:18, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes Man was an admin too and I explained the anon comment at length. I have no interest in accusing you of anything, I'm not the one here in the business of making these random accusations. -- 00:01, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

• Just posting the image where Al tells me to add in his vote. -- 13:05, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

  

Result

The results of this reconfirmation are 12 votes that Cartman keeps his admin powers and 11 that he loses them. After reviewing this J and myself both feel that Cartman should lose his admin powers not just due to this situation with Yes-Man, but all of the other issue in the past. His overall attitude towards users is condescending and patronizing. An admin should never act in this manner to any user. The fact that he feels that the guidelines "only apply to editing" is a sign of a poor admin. As of now, Cartman is no longer and admin at Nukapedia.--Kingclyde 00:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)