Forum:Reconfirmation request: Yes-Man

This forum page has been archived.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: Yes-Man

I put this up, in light of recent events, to ask the community if Yes-Man should keep his adminship. He clearly overreacted in a way that has been described as a "tantrum" or "fit", blatantly insulted other users and pulled yet another of our wiki's patented drama stunts in "leaving until Cartman! is gone."

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

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

Does Yes-Man keep any his adminship responsibilities? Yes or no?

Yes-Man's response

Ahem.
Okay then. I don't really know where to start with this. First off, I would like to apologise that this got out of hand. What started as a heated discussion between Cartman and myself led to me becoming extremely upset, and has brought the whole Wiki to deal with the issue. At the end of the day, this is a Wiki dedicated to video games and you shouldn't have to deal with our emotional problems.

However, let me say one thing. I find it... appalling that Cartman has gone around for so long, insulting people in his so-called "debates"; the way he gives people shit for liking Fallout 3 or disliking Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and New Vegas, but gets away with doing the opposite for God knows why. The way he always finds a way to get out of punishment by posting one of his long comments, where he paints himself to be the hero and makes the opposition out to be the bad guy. He never owns up for what he does because he knows that no matter what, he's always going to get away with it. And the one time I stand up against him I'm suddenly the villain. I don't see any logic in that. For Cartman, it's either you conform to his standpoint or you're free game for him to hate on your taste in a video game.

Let me remind you all. Cartman was protesting equality for users. 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. Completely selfish. He went on to defend the fact that he insults people for liking Fallout 3, that it was a "debate". Well, news flash folks. It takes two people to debate a topic. What we constantly see is Cartman insulting users and their opinions in a one-sided argument where he's just telling them how much Fallout 3 sucks or how stupid they are for liking something that he doesn't like. And he gets away with it because he's just an admin who's debating. Bullshit.

Now, I remember some of you, including Limmie (who has voted against me) and even Cartman himself to say that although we're admins we cannot be expected to stay neutral and act professional all the time. Because it is true that we're humans. But when I do it, it's bad. Tell me, how come it's bad when I express my emotions with good reason but it's okay for others to do it? Now do you see the issue with equality on this Wiki, the same issue that got me here in the first place? It hurts that all I want to do is help this community to get together, but I am met with angry mobs over one little mistake.

And I agree that I made a mistake. I will not tell you that I think insulting him was a good thing. I'm not, as Limmie put it, acting up so that you'll all have a big party when I return. I'm genuinely angry at Cartman's behaviour, and although I'm an admin I have a breaking point. I couldn't sit back and listen to his veiled insults towards me any longer. I wasn't going to let him have his hypocritical, self-righteous bullshit thrown at me in his attempt to get me upset. 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.

If you had actually read the forum, and not just go off Scarface's completely one-sided write-up of this re-confirmation request (he adds an incriminating quote from me, then tells us that he thinks I'm not a good example of an admin; however Cartman's is completely neutral with no evidence of his offences) then you would know that Cartman was in fact pushing me into doing this. Pushing me the same way he pushed Zerginfestor to the point where Zerg was banned. He was constantly belittling my intelligence in his smug, smart-assed nature, by posting definitions to obvious words for me, by telling me that I don't make sense and I'm a hypocrite, and then when I defend myself he tells me that I'm a troll who deserves to be banned when he was the one who instigated my behaviour. And may I remind you that he called me a "disgusting" troll BEFORE I outright insulted him as you can see above.

If you don't want me as an administrator, fine. But I'll tell you what,
It's me or Cartman. Your choice.

Votes

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 9:54 pm March 23, 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.

• ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"} - I dare say that the quote from his debate above is reason enough. Administrators can not allow themselves to lose composure to such a degree, and outright insulting another user like that is unacceptable.
• My reasons were explained in the posts below Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪}
• After thinking it through you were only trying to help solve a problem you thought there was. We're all human and we went get taken to the brink we do silly things. I haven't lost any respect for you. The Australian Kiwi 18:34, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Shame, but we can't have admins spazzing out because of a measly argument. If any other user would have done it, they would have been long gone. I feel people take things on the internet way too seriously. Pony of the East 22:25, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
• Though they both are in the wrong, we are human and we have emotions. We can't act like a robot and expect to be professional 24/7. ToCxHawK 22:54, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with a sanction, but I cant vote for back to regular user status. Yessie has been a big contributor to the wiki, this lapse of judgement I would point out was an effort to try and solve some problems on the wiki. We cant expect people to be perfect 100% of the time, lets nots forget the other 99% of the time when we vote. Agent c 23:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on the strict interpretation being forced by B/c Comments. I am compelled to change this to a Yes. I believe some sort of sanction is appriate, but losing admin rights does not fit the crime. As the question is "Does he deserve to keep the admin rights" not "is there behaviour here that should icnurr some sort of sanction", I am forced to vote Yes as I believe these rights should be retained in some form. Agent c 15:13, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Inexcusable behavior from someone in a leadership position. The Gunny 00:16, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, I know that yes man's behavior wasn't acceptable; BUT I agree with his standing on cartman. I have had "Debates" with him before and always feel downright insulted in the end. Plus, Yes man has been a very big contributor to the wiki, why would we get rid of him now after he has done nothing else like this? Hope to have you back yessie! The Enclave shall prevail! 00:22, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• First off, he made a mistake, are we going to do this everytime someone makes a mistake? Rob is a great, community minded adminstrator, and should be seen for that rather than this outburst. I have seen admins on here slip up and slip up. But that's part of being human isn't it? The way I see it, this is for Cartman and Yessie to solve, two adminstrators, two humans who both make mistakes.-- 00:28, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Even thought I don't agree with Yessie's outburst with Cartman, I think we should be able to look past this...hes a good admin overall, he just slipped up, we all do it and we are all human, and like a few others have said, this is for yes-man, and Cartman to figure out on their own, and as long as they do that I don't see an issue.--Emiko~<3 00:37, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Ive known Yessie for a while, everyone does have a breaking point where they can have a little outburst, although i found his retalliation at blocking himself to be a bit drastic, as Jspoel said but to me he just needed to have some space to cool off, end of the day anybody can have little outbursts like that, my boss for example or me at customers at my job rofl.TheNemesisx 00:49, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• I have seen the posts associated with this on Yes-Man's side of things and I must say that fighting fire with fire in cases like this is definitely not the way to go. However, I have never really noticed any similar outburts from Yessie and expect he'll take this a learning experience. I don't feel that he would repeat such actions after having a reprimand given. ^Message 01:46, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

• Normally I would vote yes, but this whole "either Cartman or Me" attitude is very childish, so its made me question your suitability. BILLYOCEAN ^{Wanna talk?} 01:58, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Typically I would have expected much better out of somebody like Yes-Man, especially considering his new Administrator powers. An Administrator plays a significant part in our community, for both the rule enforcement on users and an example for them to follow, but by his actions and behaviour in these recent events he has shown to not be a good example for other users. It is only fair that reprimands be made as a result of his insults, though out of character, and clearly he was provoked by Cartman into doing so, I find it no excuse for him to post such comments and de-baseless accusations against other users. I had hoped more from him, though as this is a vote of no confidence I find myself voting no. ^{Neko's Haunt} 03:31, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I guess it's my turn to enter this melting pot. I finally got around to reading the 'Mutual Understanding' forum page and I have to say, I don't see why Yes-Man is being put up for this one instance. Why the community wants to make an example of him like this is just beyond me. I mean seriously, Yessie is an outstanding admin, only a fool would say otherwise, so why is he not held to the same standards as another admin? I didn't want to have to pick a side with this but I've seen enough. Cart can be a real (pardon my French) DICK sometimes, but, being an admin, I've never seen anyone snap at him or report his behavior or anything similar. Anyways, that's my two cents on the subject. I am voting here because I feel that this really ISN'T necessary and I am trying to defend the powers that he EARNED. Other than that, I want to stay neutral in this. Thanks. -- Bacon-Man ^{Talk to me goose!} 04:45, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• I don't want Yessie to get his adminship revoked, and I don't want him to leave either, but if he really IS leaving for good then there would be no point in him staying admin. --    Contr        KOROMO        Talk      07:13, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• I know that Carty can be occasionally very abrasive, and as such am not surprised that Yessie lost it when he was trying to get such a reaction (from what I've read, that seems to be the aim). Even though the reaction was over the top and all together wrong for any user, I do not honestly think that he should have his adminship revoked for it. My main three reasons are these:
  • 1) Due to the circumstance of the lashing out, it is understandable and not entirely unwarranted.
  • 2) I believe that the vast majority of people are entitled to a second chance (those who are wondering who I think aren't may discuss it with me one day), and Yessie is justsuch a person. He made a mistake, but he can learn to keep his cool and move on.
  • 3) It is unusual and rash behaviour by Rob. As we all know, he is a community minded person that has not made any such mistake before, and as such it is not as though it is a regular occurance that needs to be ended with the stripping of his rights.
  • Thanks -- Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 13:00, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Not quite sure why the yes votes are mentioning what a good person Rob is since this forum isn't questioning his character, nor do I understand why people are using "he's only human" as that's a silly thing to say for something like this, in my opinion anyway. But I lost alot of respect for Rob when I read the various comments around the place. Can I see why he did it? Yes. Should he be acting in the way he is? Certainly not. -- 15:08, March 24, 2012 (UTC)
• I think we should just let this go. I made a lot of mistakes during my time before - Yes-Man made just one mistake and he is a quite active (and good) user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MysteryStranger (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
• I believe that Yes-Man was being very childish in that forum, and his behavior was far from that expected in a position such as his. However, when he keeps his cool, I consider him to be a very good admin, and a very valuable contributor around here. I think he should keep his position, but only if he improves his behavior. Victor the Insane Cowboy Robot 20:23, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry, your giving him 7 days without him even knowing? Just when I think I get you Al... Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 19:57, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can vote, but I can leave my opinion here. I just read through that endlessly long forum thread about mutual understanding, which has clearly turned out for the worse. I for one can very well understand how Yes Man got to the point where he reached the boiling point. Cartman! has a natural ability to find a way with words to get people there. As I see it, it was a build up of things that lead to Yes Man's final comment. Considering the situation I don't even think it's block worthy. Ever since the split Yes Man has done a lot for the community and has continued to do so. He really doesn't deserve to lose his adminship over this. Jspoel 20:01, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry then, Ci, I just put this out, I can't be expected to get everything right, can I? Stop taking moral high horses. I'm raising it to two weeks, just because I love you. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Huh? I thought we'd discussed that in chat? In case it was after our discussion, I'm not taking any horses, I was just saying that I can't always peg you; I'm not trying to annoy you. And I agree with Jspoel after reading it all. Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 20:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

We did discuss it in chat, that was from earlier. It's a-okay. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

I think this is wrong to raise this vote at this point before Yes-Man has had the opportunity to defend himself. As such I believe this vote should be suspended until contact with Yes-Man is established. Additionaly given the discomfort in some of Cartmans comments, is it not appropriate that a similar forum be raised? Agent c 20:05, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I made a header for Yes-Man to enter his defence when and if he sees this. As for Cartman, I do not think he broke any rules; at least not nearly enough to make me and others doubt his administrator abilities. He was not the one to lose his composure, insult another editor nor perform a dramatic and immature drama stunt. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

A header is one thing Scar, but we already have two votes that have been made without full information - without hearing his side. Cartman may not have lost his composure in that particular comment, but there is evidence presented on that very page of comments unbecoming an admin. Call a vote, sure, but do not permit any votes to be placed until his comments are presented. Also, Yessie is currently blocked. Agent c 20:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yessie blocked himself and is still an administrator, so he can unblock himself to put this in. The information of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator was 9 months old, and Cartman has already been reprimanded over this (as far as I gathered, anyway). I voted and consider myself to be privy to most information, considering I was following the debate as it transpired. If you're saying that outside - aka IRL - stress should matter, I do not agree, he should be able to keep his personal problems just that, personal. You do have a point in suspending it a bit. I'll give him 24 hours to find this, and leave him a talkpage message. After that I'll resume this vote. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm with Scar on this. If YM were a regular user, we wouldn't be here now. But he's an administrator and as such should be held to a higher degree of accountability. We will have no legitimacy to expect users to uphold the rules if those tasked with enforcing them ignore them and behave this way. We just can't have weekly drama fests coming from administrators like this.
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 agree the outburst was wrong... But if I may quote Cartman, why are we expecting Admins to be completely emotionless - admins are real people just like the rest of us, and this comment seems out of character for Yessie, so I believe there is something more to it. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote either way, just that I'm not comfortable until the comments are put into context. From what I recall of last time (Tag), outside pressures did have an impact.
Given the lack of Recall votes in the past, I think its also worth possibly discussing what the procedure is here, are we talking about full defrocking, or just a bump down to moderator? Is there perhaps another sanction that might be more appropriate - some sort of probation? Agent c 21:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect him to be emotionless, but I do expect every admin to be professional and mature, and the whole drama show was neither. TBH, it smacks me as validation seeking, as if his intention were to make it so that people would beg him for him to comeback, and meet him with fanfare when he finally does. But regardless of his motivation, the fact is everybody is tired of having admins stirring up weekly soap operas, it has already come to the point when every single user who's just arrived asks what's up with the admin team. To put it bluntly: if you don't know how to handle your personal problems without causing a commotion in the whole site, nor react maturely to set backs, then you're not fit to be in the administration. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 21:34, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, what happened to the suspension of the vote? Agent c 22:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

He was already notified and refused to make any statement here. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 22:17, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

C> The protocol calls for removal of all powers. Not a demotion. If I got a poll up for a recall for my bc right, I would be stripped entirely, not reduced to an admin. I would need to reapply at a later date. Also as a bc I cannot vote on these as I need to be objective.--Kingclyde 22:22, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

(←)  Come on Agent c (and others). He just had his fuses blown a couple of hours ago. You need to give him time to recover. Really. He deserves at least a day to respond. I'm not sure he will respond to this anyway, probably doesn't care at this stage. A good nights sleep may help (as it did with SD). Jspoel 22:36, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had Jspoel... I think I've fought his corner all I can now in making sure he had an opportunity to respond. The event happened last night, he's had an opportunity to sleep on it. I'm inclined to vote yes for him if there was something else, some other stress in his life that contributed to it. But I will reconsider my vote and pull it for now. Yessie, Damnit, say something in your defence. Agent c 22:40, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Give me time to think. I've just been unblocked, I have to set up an argument. I have no idea where to start, to be perfectly honest. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not very smart. But I'll think of something. 22:43, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

PS. Could I just remind people that this is the first time I've acted like this? It's not a common occurrence for me to be insulting people, so why I've been called into question for one single instance is beyond me. 23:16, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Just a little note here; I am not telling people to vote off a limb, and I offered you, Yessie, to add your own quote of Cartman, as I was stumped for time and too tired to read through it yet again. You chose not to, apparently. Please don't go about things like this:

“If you had actually read the forum, and not just go off Scarface's completely one-sided write-up of this re-confirmation request (he adds an incriminating quote from me, then tells us that he thinks I'm not a good example of an admin; however Cartman's is completely neutral with no evidence of his offences)”— Yessie

Again, as I told you earlier, you're free to add in a quote from Cartman if you want to. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

So convenient, Albert. You're too tired to find a quote against Cartman. Because it sure does take a lot out of you to go looking for something he said.
Also convenient that Cartman is "adventuring". Makes sense that he can't speak for himself. 23:29, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I had both company to entertain and this on my hands. Please concentrate on the matter at hand and find yourself some quotes. Accusing me like isn't making it look better for you, and it's not making this easier. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Again with the excuses. First your tired. Now you have company on your hands. Make up your mind, Albert.

Don't think we're buddies. You can go find those quotes by yourself because it's not my job. 23:38, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just removed the quote and let people read the discussion themselves. Plain and simple. ToCxHawK 23:36, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. It is more at home in the comments, anyway. Also, Rob, I can be both tired and have my partner over, can I not? This isn't about me ,stay on subject. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

Both of you should take a break. I don't want this leading to yet another vote.Agent c 23:48, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is one big psychological fallacy, known as an attribution error. Many of you are attributing Rob's behavior in this particular situation to his personality as a whole, which you can not do. Basically, we all do crazy things when we are mad, but you cannot judge a person entirely on an isolated incident. Notice I say isolated, when has Rob ever treated anyone like this before? Never. We all have done things like this, but we can't question the man's adminship on this. Was what he did really so unforgivable? Rob is a community minded man, who only wanted to help everyone get along, and sometimes, a person just snaps.-- 03:38, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

If I may add just one thing to the argument, mind you no opinion, for this is a direct quote that Scarface wrote himself. " Everyone makes mistakes, it's a part of being human. The most important thing about it is to learn from one's mistakes. Make sure that you take constructive criticism in a good way and learn from it rather than getting pissy over people correcting you;". If one was to practice what one preaches in this matter then maybe things might not have turned out the way they did. --76.10.170.47 04:26, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like people to take a look at Forum:Reconfirmation request - Tagaziel. He was in the same boat as me. Someone really got on his nerves, and he responded the way any normal human would. Yet it seems he's entitled to human emotions whereas I am not. Consider that.
Oh, and Scar?

“If he continues with this attitude (which I highly doubt after this) he might come to this again, but for now, he does not deserve to lose adminship.”— Scarface, on Tagaziel

What sets me apart from this? Do explain. 05:10, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

You're not set apart from that, though I cannot say for certain what my motivations were a full year past.

You also seem to think that the reconfirmation vote is a death sentence in and of itself, which it really isn't. It's a vote of confidence from the community, where we ask if you should keep said rights. The way you've been arguing, though, "either Cartman or me", unending personal attacks aimed at my character and emotional blackmail is still, per me, worrying. As for the things aimed at me, take it on my talk page and stop cluttering the comments section with it. Hugs ^{"Say 'ello to my little friend!"}

It's not a death sentence, but do you think I want to stay here after all is said and done? If after all the work I put into this place, you just kick me out over one instance of emotion?

And you can't say what your motivations where. Huh, so I guess your moral belief system changes within twelve months, based on the fact that you edit a Wiki.

Scarface, you spared no time in throwing me under the bus. Something that didn't even concern you in the slightest, and the first thing you do when you see it is create an opportunity to remove me. Nobody cared to ask me how I felt. Nobody even bothered to contact Cartman. If anyone should be calling my power into question, it should be Cartman himself, not you. This never concerned you, yet you created a huge, biased deal out of it and everyone blames me for this "wiki-drama" which you started.

Albert, you're a hypocrite. You might act nice and smile for the cameras, but deep down you honestly don't give a shit about anyone but yourself. The least a real friend would do if he saw me acting out of character is ask me personally what was wrong. Instead, you showed your true colours and made me a target for the community while planning to get me out of the way.

Perhaps you preferred me when I kept my mouth shut and sat in chat. I don't know what your motives are to be honest but it's been made very clear that you don't want me here. And for someone who is appalled by what I said to Cartman, you're no saint yourself. We all know that.

I don't care if everyone thinks it's childish for me to make you choose between Cartman or myself. By that logic, every vote for a President or Prime Minister is apparently childish. It's really simple, if this community would rather have Cartman as an admin than me, then I don't want to be here anymore. I don't know how that's childish, I just see it as common sense.

So all in all, I hope you're enjoying your time in the limelight. I know that's what you care about. You just love it when people pay attention to you, like with your talk-page rules and your extremely stupid rule that every chat mod must be endorsed. Have fun. 22:45, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I'm completely puzzled that people are thinking the issue is his snapping at Cartman. Offending another user is something worthy of a 3-day ban, not full demotion. This vote was brought up because the of his actions as an administrator, namely his trowing his position up in the air like that over a minor disagreement. He was voted by the community into his position (including by me) because we believed he would uphold his duties seriously and honor the position with the respect and commitment it deserves. He had the trust of every single person who vote for him on his shoulders, and by threatening to defenestrate all of that in a tantrum over a minor squabble shows he doesn't deserve that trust. I don't want to be administered by somebody who takes his position so lightly as to use it as bargaining chips for emotional blackmail, neither should any of you.

Looking at the yes votes, most are justified by something along the lines of either he's a great person or this is just a one-time thing and doesn't reflect his actual self. The first is irrelevant, and the second is patently untrue. It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment outburst, because he is still now, after sleeping over it and having time to think things over, behaving in the same way. "If you don't want me as an administrator, fine. But I'll tell you what, it's me or Cartman. Your choice." That was the very last thing he wrote in his defence, and every bit written afterwards is still filled with the same silly, pouty "do what you want, I don't care anymore" drama. He still feels the proper response from an administrator is to either have his way or pout, fold his arms and slam the door. It shows at best a lack of commitment to his job and position, at worst a ghastly immaturity. Which is why I find it baffling that people are actually voting yes after all he did and is still doing during this. At best this would warrant a neutral vote, but are you honestly not in the least wary of how he is still behaving?

I'll say it again: this isn't a vote against him as a person nor was a friend, it's against his suitability as an administrator. So in voting, whether you would still like him around should bear no weight. If he loses, he will merely lose his responsibilities, not be exiled. And in fact, he will be free to apply again later after he's matured enough. I still honestly like him and respect him just as much as ever, and I never had any personal beef with him whatsoever. But the way he handled, and is still handling this whole matter makes me 100% convinced he's not ready to be an administrator. Limmiegirl ^{Talk! ♪} 13:45, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm handling this badly. You would be too if you were treated badly by Cartman to the point where you snapped, then the person who you considered your best friend around here threw you under the bus and made you a community target without actually asking you what happened. It shows the true colours of people when they don't even care to ask you about the situation and immediately make a biased forum about why I should be removed from power.

No way in hell would I have the nerve to run for admin again, if this is how it's turned out the first time. I don't see where I threw my position up in the air over what you consider minor. If you're referring to the fact that I banned myself and left, that's because Cartman told me I should. It was obvious that I'd gone too far with that last comment so I thought I'd do you all a favour and leave. Yet even that is an issue apparently. I just can't win.

I honestly hope you see how I feel targeted. You keep saying that it isn't personal, but then you go on about how this is why everyone is fed up with me and that I'm pulling a patented drama stunt to get attention. I was not the one who made a forum highlighting the issue to the community so it's not my fault that this is disrupting the Wiki. I might still be behaving badly but it's because of comments like yours which paint me in a bad light and completely disregard Cartman's behaviour now and back when he started.

I can lose my admin rights, sure. But if Cartman gets away scott-free AGAIN then I'll just give up completely. I don't see the majority of people voting here voting on Cartman's. 23:06, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

@ Frazzle: But that is the reason that these votes happen, because someone has done something they shouldn't have. In my opinion what Tag said all those many moons ago was arguably worse, but it doesn't mean that he isn't a fantastic admin. Φύλαξ ^{[~μίλησε μου~]} 15:42, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Here is the deal, making the community choose between you or Cartman is in a way immature. Your comparison to the conflict between you and Cartman to an election of parliament is way off. If two people are running for the same office and only one can get it, then yes that is a choice. But that is not the situation here. My main concern is how you keep saying "it's either Cartman or me" puts the administration and the community in between a rock and a hard place.--Kingclyde 02:38, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I honestly, honestly do not see how hard it is to understand that if Cartman is allowed to get away with any more of his off-colour behaviour, I don't want to be here. It's really, really simple. If the community wants to keep a power-abusing, insulting admin who always finds some way to squirm his way out of a bad situation and has to challenge anything anyone ever says, then I'll just leave. Not hard to understand. It's like if you went to work, and your co-worker was a total dick every time he was around, yet your boss does nothing about it and punishes you for standing up against said co-worker. Would you want to stay with that job? I'm not saying the community has to remove my rights if Cartman still hasn't been punished at the end of this affair, I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect to see me hanging around much longer if an admin can get away with this merely based on the fact he's a notorious jerk. 06:27, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Sanction

As I stated in my vote, I don't think the punishment fits the crime. I would instead offer the alternative sanction of 6 months probation. Any user unhappy with a response from Yessie can report this to a bureaucrat in this period, They can on their combined discretion take any action they feel appropriate (ie- if J&KC agree that defrocking is appropriate, they can do this, or they can warn, suggest alternative phrasing, etc at their discretion). Whilst I acknowledge KC's comment earlier that the process is for a full defrocking, there is no reason why it cant be changed, after all once upon a time in the common law legal system it was appropriate for judges to sit on their own cases, and for judges to lock up juries who refused to come to the verdict the judge wanted - absolutely no reason why the process cannot be changed to fit with circumstances. Agent c 23:48, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture, Agent. But if the community doesn't want me, I want to know it right here and right now. I've burned too many bridges to back out of this. 23:53, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

As I once said to a young fresh user who got himself banned. You have not been rejected. Your behaviour has been rejected. There is a key difference. We can support you and like you, and not like what you did. Agent c 23:55, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Don't say the community doesn't want you, because I still do. ToCxHawK 00:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I know there are plenty of people here who I still care about. People I'll care about regardless of what they say or do. People like HawK, Tocino, Nash, Nem, Chad, Garoux, Ci, Ryan, EB.... there are so many more people that I care about. But although I want to stay here for them, I'm not going to put up with the attitude of the minority, who don't see what's wrong with themselves and with this place. If there are still some who don't want me to be a part of this community, and punish me for standing up for myself, then I'll just do as they say and leave. 00:10, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

There's standing up for yourself, and then there's taking that one step too far. I think you did, and then took another with this "Its him or me" stuff. This wiki is big enough for the both of you - Cartman is avoidable if you really can't stand him. Agent c 00:14, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I've given the community a choice. I'm not going to stand for it if he's allowed to get away with his behaviour any longer. I appreciate the concern. If I felt I took things too far then I would remove my own admin rights and be done with it. But I think that as long as Cartman is still an admin here, imposing his own rules on people and getting away with things, then this community is not going to move forward. And I'm sure many agree. 00:19, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ok Agent C, I understand that you may think the punishment is too harsh and there are others that feel that way. But I don't mean to come off as "bossy" or "full of myself", but simply put you are not an admin or a bc. This poll was put up for one reason. You are unfortunately not in the position to offer up an "alternate solution". All that does is simply make it more confusing for others. The results of this poll with either end with Yes-Man retaining his admin rights or having them removed. Please do not come into a discussion like this and undercut it's purpose.--Kingclyde 04:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have to agree with Clyde. Either the community wants me or they don't. No need to make this any more difficult than it already is, however I appreciate you trying to help me. 04:11, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Clyde, if I may quote the user guidelines:

“To this end, the normal procedure for proposing new policies and guidelines or changing existing ones is to create a topic in the "wiki discussion" forum. Once the discussion has led to a final draft, call a vote. The vote needs to run for a week at minimum and at least 10 registered editors need to participate for it to be valid; a simple majority is sufficient to pass. The administrators may veto a policy; this should only be done sparingly and for good reasons. Aside from the normal procedure, the administrators may "decree" policies or guidelines. This should only be done with consensus among administrators and in cases where community consensus cannot be reached but a policy or guideline is needed. Of course, changes to decreed policies and guidelines can be suggested by anyone on the "standard" way above.”— http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki:Policies_and_guidelines, my Emphasis

As such, I am well within my rights, as a member of the community, to suggest an alternative sanction, and changes to the reconfirmation policy to suit it. Whether or not you, or the community at large may agree is another question, however I do believe compromise to be within the spirit of Wikidom. Agent c 14:40, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Don't come in here and flex your muscles by quoting regulations that I helped write. You can do that in another thread but to come in here and try and derail this current thread you are out of line. Please take time to read what I posted. I know that you seem to have issues with everything I say so feel free to argue back. Thanks.--Kingclyde 02:36, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yes-Mans adminship is in question? Yes-mans? I must say I’m shocked. Back when I was active Yes-Man was one of the best users this wiki had, and I believe he would have been able to keep that level headedness into adminship. I have read though this forum and picked out key facts, and from what I can see this has been put in motion as he has been getting angered at Cartmans conduct. Well I’m sorry to say this, but you’re attacking the wrong admin. Cartmans conduct has always been atrocious and its about time an admin actually said something, if anyone’s adminship is getting put into question it should be Cartmans. Back when I was active Cartman had a very condescending and patronizing approach to his adminship, and was one of many reasons I chose to stop joining chat, whereas Yes-Man has always maintained a very level head. While I understand I have not seen Yes-Mans outbursts and cannot judge how severe they were I can infer from this forum he is still very level-headed, even under the circumstances. However I can also infer that Cartmans adminacy has not changed at all. For theses outlying reasons I feel instead of crucifying Yes-Man you should instead be listening to him. I have tried my best to keep my argument blunt as I am unsure how often I will recheck this forum as I have other responsibilities now that take up much of my time. - Crazy sam10 20:05, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that your post is completely irrelevant considering the fact that you haven't even read the source of this entire issue and are relying only on your incredibly biased views regarding my history (recalling when you would post anonymously and beg Ausir to demote me because you thought I was "rude") to come to any kind of a conclusion. -- 01:23, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

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)

Conclusion

I have closed this poll as I was informed by Yes-Man that he is resigning from his role as admin. All of his powers have been removed at his request.--Kingclyde 05:08, March 26, 2012 (UTC)