Forum:Deadmin vote for Spang

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Deadmin vote for Spang

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6626 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

So, from IRC:

<Splarka> just a note: hold a deadmin-vote for spang, and I'll come back

Splaka has been pissed off at me ever since the blocking thing (I'll post all the details if anyone wants it fully explained). And he keeps hinting that we should de-op me so he can come back. Quite why I have to be de-opped for him to come back is a mystery to me (the closest reason I got was simply "because you're an asshole and I can't work with you"), but I think this will satify him. Maybe people can try and talk sense into him too, I'm quite sure he'll see this. I've tried apologising (several times) and trying to reason with him, but he will not be swayed on his opinion of me.

Now, I should say that I don't want to be de-adminned. I love this place, and since my article-writing power mostly left me (though I feel it coming back any day now...) I feel like adminning here is my way of giving back to it. Not that I don't want splaka to come back, but I'm of the opinion that him insisting on holding some kind of popularity contest in order for him to do so is just petty and unnecessary. Having said that, it seems to be that it is the only way he'll come back to uncyc. And I feel that if people think uncyclopedia would be better off with him instead of me, then it's only fair for them to be able to decide that.

I think that's all there is to say. Obviously, the ideal situation is that everyone ignores this topic, splarka gets his "vote" and comes back (he said nothing about him winning the vote), and everyone is happy. Alternatively, everyone could vote for splaka to grow up, but that might be asking too much. Note: I won't be offended if anyone actually does want splaka back in place of myself! I reserve the right to be sad about it though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I definitely would not want to see you deadmined. Maybe you two could go work on opposite ends of the project? Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C)

Spang, despite multiple reassurances, you continue to treat the blocking tool as a joke. A vandal that was blanking dozens of pages, including an Admin's user page and is a listed open proxy, was blocked for only 25 seconds in an attempt to irk me. Apologize all you like; since they seem empty there is plenty of room for them. As for the original reason for me going inactive: I warned you that banning me again (after the last time when it interfered with me trying to edit the sitenotice) would involve a desysopping, and now you must deal with the consequences: I will not actively be an administrator or user here (other than in my duties as Wikia staff) unless you are not able to use the blocking tool. I am not hinting, I regularly get requests to return, and each time I note the reasons I cannot. The quote from #uncyclopedia you pasted above was direclty in response to your inaction.

You can call it a 'popularity contest' if you like, but honestly I don't really care that much. You are an asshole, and I can't work with you. --Splaka 07:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly Splarka wins any popularity contest (he looks so cute in the talent competition) but I think we are all uncomfortable, and should be uncomfortable, with the prospect of de-adminning someone because a more popular user doesn't like them. If Spang has been behaving improperly or has been abusing sysop — and I agree that bans are not jokes — then I don't think we should have a problem sitting down as a CABAL group and saying that certain behaviors are both serious and off-limits and can result in a desysop if done again. But in the interest of fairness, I think we need to have that conversation first, and then see a further problem second before we take the step of desysopping an active admin. I don't want to be a process whore, but it seems like fairness and stability would be served by having fair warning. I would hope that would be satisfactory for all parties, and might even result in people addressing each other's grievances. Either that or we rent a gladitorium, find that music from Star Trek, and let 'em fight it out to the death. Bonus points for looking sexy in a ripped shirt. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For desysoping Isra.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 08:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I take Splarka over most people any day. --Sir gwax (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Right now, I've got two men, two men with a gut full of fear. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... dyin' time's here!". Seriously now, settle down; there's no need for "Beyond Thunderdome: Geek Edition". Try to discuss this like adults. It's just a wiki and once you two realize that you're both assholes, we will all be better off. If you try to make us play favourites, you'll both lose.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 10:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't say anything for the matter at hand since I don't know the history, but I have another comment in this respect: I feel that there is no serious admin-rating system and while the admins are usually doing a great job, sometimes I get a hint of an "it's my house and I do what I want boy" attitude. This isn't something specific to one admin but perhaps a bit of a notion that this isn't entirely a communal site but an adminatii site. So, I think we should have a better rating system and/or a group of admins and veteran users who might act as a serious "complaint board". Any thougts? -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me Splarka or death! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Stop, boys, I'm not worth it! Huh? Oh, right, adminship... uh, well work it out yourselves, you're both old enough (going purely on the basis that you're at least old enough to read). --Sir Jam 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Equality

Sorry, but Splarka has no overriding value or right above Spang... that's just ridiculous and I can't actually believe someone is so immature as not to be willing to forget their differences with a person. So Splarka wants to blame his issues on someone else and demand they be dismissed for the benefit of his own personal pride? Bollocks sorry... I've got no beef with Splarka myself, but we can't allow this sort of egocentric bullshit to go on.

Furthermore... I'm sure there's some basis to this on both sides (as there usually is) but you can't go round demanding others to be castrated just because you don't like them... I think the requirement should be based on the merit of what they're doing to the site, not personal differences.

Final Thought? base the deop on something relevant to buggering with the site as opposed to this shite. --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 13:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read the actual reasons, rather than spang's "spin" on it, you'd see your assumptions are wrong. I have been requested to return, but can not while Spang continues to operate without regard for fellow administrators. I don't need to return, I have plenty to do (too much in fact). --Splaka 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mate, Life's too short to take things too seriously; I've seen you in the past, and heard commentary from others, and the general consensus is that you're a bit highly strung, and I think this little fiasco proves the point. be a bit more light hearted about this stuff and try to be less anal-retentive about something that's not all that serious in nature anyway. just my 2c... if you were willing to work with Spang again, it'd be nice, and I can see where you're coming from, but the guy hasn't broken your legs or killed your cat, so just cool down and come back... pretty please? --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 11:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Deadmin them both and put me in charge! it will rain frogs and fire! messing around with admin powers is unprofessional but spang has apologised. splarka you say the apologies are hollow, so judge him on his actions rather than his words, come back and bury the hatchet, if he uses his banning power reasonably then assume he's reformed, if he doesn't then maybe deadmining is in order, don't want loose cannons :|

basically i'm against deadmining anyone, and think this is all something of nothing. but, if spang is going to be deadmined it must be because he has done something heinous on uncyc and not just because he's had a tif with another admin. - jack mort | cunt | talk - 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ban Splarka. You either put up with people, or go away. To put it blatantly, it falls under Wikipedia:WP:POINT. If you think a user isn't fit for adminship, do establish a vote and specify your position, but don't make threats in the "me or him" tone. It won't support your position, it will only convince people that your arguments are baseless, and you're committing an appeal to emotion. - User:Guest/sig 13:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I DID go away. I was happy away. People ask me to return. I say I cannot while Spang is a rogue and rouge admin, and suggest they could vote to de-admin him. It is not a threat, nor is it a popularity contest. I can't work with Spang anymore. --Splaka 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Splark needs to spend some time in the Ban Chapel and put this whole non-episode in perspective. Everybody who's been here long enough has been banned. It's a form of social testing, "let me $(^# around with this person and see what happens." Like Modusoperandi said, we're all horrible assholes on at least some level, and for proof, see this, this and our collective having a blast harassing an apparently severely aspie anon ip. We all suck and in a fair universe we would undoubtedly all be infinitely banned (and we all will be eventually anyway). Fortunately, it isn't a fair universe, so maybe we can all try to have some fun in the meantime, asshattery included. --Hrodulf 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

When banning interferes with site operations, it becomes a problem. I was attempting to remove the sitenotice after the database was removed from read-only mode, but could not, due to a very long ban Spang had put on me. I had to find the IPblocklist, remove my ban, and try again. I then had to return and remove the autoblock. --Splaka 23:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Splarka was apparently here before me, and I don't much know of him. I also don't know Spang that well, but he seems like a stand up fellow, especially since he's willing to have a vote for himself to be deopped for Splarka (very noble). But maybe there's an option we haven't thought of. What about fusing the two together, to create one super-admin. Sort of like Ultra Jesus except minus 3 of the people and that Loki guy. Splarka already said he couldn't work with Spang...but maybe he can work IN Spang. And vice versa. Together they could rule the universe, King and King of all that they survey. A house divided against itself can not stand, but a house divided against it self that has been fused at the seems has no choice. On a more serious note, any person willing to be deopped for another person should, in actuality, NOT be deopped for that very reason. Honour is hard stuff to come by these days. This is kind of like the Solomon baby-in-half parable. Spang is willing to give up his baby for Splarka just so the baby can survive, where as Splarka (it seems, I don't know for sure what he wants because I haven't seen him comment to extensively) will take half or all of the baby. --Anyone 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So how would you call this entity? Splang? -- Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence from everyone who... voted in confidence... (the rest of you, I hate!), and Splaka, I would be very happy to never use the ban button again on the condition you never edit the sitenotice again. Though I'm not sure uncyc would benefit from that situation. I should remind you that you were the one who started exchange of blocks that led to the "block me again and there'll be a desysopping" warning [1], so if you'd like to clarify why I seem to be the only one being admonished by you for treating bans as jokes occasionally (do I need to remind you which admin had a link to block them in their signature?) then that would be great. When I said Hinoa had blocked me not long before our conversation for "having an ugly userpage", you said I deserved it. The block of mine that led to you desysopping yourself is mentioned by someone in the "favourite joke blocks of all time" forum topic, so I'm not the only one who doesn't think they have to be entirely serious all the time. Why have you singled me out? I've tried my very best to reason with you, but there seems to be nothing I can do.

The proxy IP you mentioned I blocked for only 25 seconds had stopped doing anything at all a full 25 minutes before I blocked it. It had clearly moved on, was no longer a threat, and the infinite block you told everyone in IRC to hand out was in no way urgent.

If you're here purely in your capacity a staff, I have to say you are acting very unprofessionally. If you have a problem with me, I would appreciate it if you would tell me - how else am I supposed to remedy whatever is causing the problem? If you're going continue to use "you're an asshole" for the reason you don't like me, can you please spell it for me why you think this? I don't know if it's just me, but I don't see where you're getting it from. And just so you know - where I'm from, attempting to irk someone or insulting them a bit is all considered to be in good fun, because it's usually very clear when they don't mean it in a bad way. Think of it as a kind of "assume good faith on the part of the people making fun of you". Go to any comedy club here and everyone fully expects the piss to be taken out of them by the comedian. Call it a cultural difference.

I think I've lost my train of thought, but in short: I didn't want this "vote", but Splaka seems to have insisted on it in my opinion. I already tried to work it out with him, but refused to discuss it like a adult and eventually ended up ignoring my messages on IRC leaving me with no option to bring it here. An extra opinion or 10 never hurt anyone. If anyone has a problem with me, tell me. Nobody's perfect, but unless someone points out when you're wrong, you'll never know which bit isn't perfect. I think that's it all, I've probably wasted too much time on this debacle already. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) - p.s. As much as I would love to become some kind of Splang entity, I might catch something!

Excuse me? Did you just attempt to claim that I Started this? Lets look at the logs shall we: [2] [3]

• 21:19, 11 July 2006 Splaka unblocked Spang (contribs) (life is dull without you, fuckhead ^_^)
• 21:44, 23 June 2006 Spang blocked "Splaka (contribs)" with an expiry time of 25 seconds (Causing emotional damage: taunting admins in edit summaries)

• 16:34, 3 August 2006 Spang blocked "Splaka (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 Seconds (Is an asshole)
• 22:12, 4 August 2006 Splaka blocked "Spang (contribs)" with an expiry time of 20 seconds (rollback conflict)

• 01:55, 17 August 2006 Spang blocked "Splaka (contribs)" with an expiry time of 7500000 seconds (1 second for every brain cell of mine you killed with that sitenotice (approximately))
• 01:59, 17 August 2006 Splaka blocked "Spang (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (I told you, the next joke block would involve desysopping, I hope you enjoy it)

In both cases you initiated it. The 30 hour delay was due to me not noticing it for a day as it was a 6 second block. The first block log entry of me against you was me unblocking you.

The block of mine that led to you desysopping yourself is mentioned by someone in the "favourite joke blocks of all time" forum topic

Great, I am glad you like being laughed at rather than laughed with.

The proxy IP you mentioned I blocked for only 25 seconds had stopped doing anything at all a full 25 minutes before I blocked it. It had clearly moved on, was no longer a threat, and the infinite block you told everyone in IRC to hand out was in no way urgent.

So blocking known vandals with open proxies is no longer a concern to you? It is just a joke? You prefer to spend your time blocking admin? <-- You're right, twisting words is fun.

If you're here purely in your capacity a staff, I have to say you are acting very unprofessionally.

Your hypocrisy here is amazing. You who block admin for fun and don't block vandals for equal 'fun' claim that others should act "professionally"? FYI: As a Wikia staff on an active wiki, there is not much that needs to be done, other than an occasional CheckUser or help with CSS/JS, as well as answering questions about server usage and legal issues (which is not my department). In every other capacity, I am here as a regular non-sysop user, including this forum.

I think I've lost my train of thought, but in short: I didn't want this "vote", but Splaka seems to have insisted on it in my opinion.

I didn't demand it, as said a zillion times above "I can't work with Spang". Approximately a dozen administrators here have indicated they would like to see me return, and each time I tell them "I can't work with Spang" (paraphrased). --Splaka 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I already tried to work it out with him, but refused to discuss it like a adult and eventually ended up ignoring my messages on IRC leaving me with no option to bring it here.

After promising to never do it again, you proceed to treat the block tool as a joke by banning a mass-blanking vandal for 25 seconds and saying "Anything you say, splarky". And you ask me to both: act professionally, and take these unprofessional jokes in good humor. Dude, seriously, I can't work with you if you have such demands on your fellow administrators. --Splaka 23:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Anyone doesn't have a problem with you. Furthermore, which is it? Splaka or Splarka? Maybe we're all talking about two different people. --Anyone 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Spang. He's always been very helpful and admin-like, and I think joke bans are funny, so Splaka can kiss my grits. But don't all rush to ban me at once. 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep Spang. Splarka, don't be so immature, Spang's presence doesn't stop you from editing. It doesn't seem to me like there's any valid reason for desysopping. --User:Nintendorulez 23:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nin, you better than anyone should know that being blocked does stop you from editing. Even administrators, who must go to the Special:Ipblocklist (which is only linked from Special:Specialpages and not from the block log or recent changes), and unblock both their username and any autoblocks on their IP. --Splaka 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm, admins can unblock themselves. I suggest you two just make nice and stay out of each others' way. A lot of users on this site really piss me off, though I won't name names (*coughelvisrcmurphyfaminecough*), but you don't see me boycotting the 'pedia. --User:Nintendorulez 20:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As much as I would love to see Splarka back, I get the feeling that this is being blown out of proportion. Every admin--hell, every user can be a dick sometimes, including myself. It may not always be intentional, but it happens. The best we can do is just let it go, get on with our lives, and then have a good laugh about it all next year. Holding grudges across the internet is a waste of time and energy. Said time and energy can be better spent elsewhere. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I did, I let it go, I got on with our lives. I was happy with 2000 wikis to patrol. People keep dragging me back, saying they miss me, wanting me to fix this-and-that. I didn't start this forum topic, Spang did, after contacting me in IRC and not being satisfied with my final answer of not being able to work with him nor take his word that he'd stopped. I was in IRC due to a mass blanker (which we detected with some new beta recent changes tools). At this point I am repeating myself, but that is because that is all there is to say on the subject, I suppose. --Splaka 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Splaka, this is obviously just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt if you prefer, but "joke bans" aren't necessarily a bad thing. What they do is help to remove the negative moral and judgemental implications of a ban. In other words, they make the whole idea of a ban seem less like a statement about a person's character, and more like what they should be treated as - namely, an attempt to get someone who's doing something bad to stop doing it. The problem is that any value judgements about a person's character coming from wiki admins don't really do any good, because anonymous text-based avatars lack real moral authority, pretty much by definition. Value judgements coming from them just make people really angry — whereas, if blocks and bans are taken less seriously than that, moral authority becomes a non-issue, and people don't get so pissed off about them. That, in turn, keeps them away from negative editor trajectories that so often lead to people doing worse things, like becoming ED users, or badmouthing Uncyclopedia on other websites, or touching themselves uncontrollably.

In effect, joke bans help to let off steam, and make everyone else feel a little less freaked out when bad things happen. If this were Wikipedia, then sure, joke bans would make everyone think that the admins were all insane, and incapable of running a "proper encyclopedia." But it's not Wikipedia, and if the admins here are all insane, then that's just fine with most of us. Clearly, Spang's behavior has pissed you off, but I honestly don't think he meant it maliciously, and I don't think he's a malicious or irresponsible guy in general. He just doesn't want to take any of this adminning stuff seriously, and I can't say I blame him, but I also believe he's the sort who can change, now that he knows it's important to you.

Anyway, I'm headed back to my self-imposed exile, but in the meantime, why can't we desysop someone like User:Elvis instead? He was acting like a major jerk towards me recently, so that should be pretty much automatic, shouldn't it?  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There's the perfect answer there: Uncyclopedia Is Not Wikipedia. Some user: always the ultimate in eloquent reasoning; that's a talent I wish I had. But I'll go ahead and crush my boot of reasoning into the face of this topic anyway.

Splaka: True, I don't take uncyclopedia that seriously, but why should I? This is not a serious place, and when I feel myself getting too serious, I keep in mind my own personal uncyc maxim: just lighten up. I won't quote you directly because I'm lazy, but in reply to your sentiments that I have no regard for my fellow administrators: Can you show me evidence for this? Because I have the utmost respect for all the administrators here - that doesn't mean I agree with them all the time, but it certainly doesn't mean I have any less than respect for them.

To your statement about me being hypocritical about saying you're acting unprofessionally: when I blocked you, you were at once an admin, user and a member of the community and an employee of wikia; since you "left", you were no longer an admin, user, or member of the community, and you made it clear that any activity you did make was purely in your role as wikia staff. Therefore, as a representative of the company which hosts us, in my mind you forfeit the right to call any of its users "asshole"s for no reason you seem to be able to back up. That is unprofessional. I wouldn't be willing to take that from the staff of any company.

To your repeated statement that "[you] can't work with [me]": therein lies the fundamental difference between you and me; you work here, I play here. This website is fun for me. I like it here, and wouldn't let a disagreement with another user/admin stop me coming here. I would also accept any apologies from the disagreeing perty were necessary, but hey, that's just me. I'm a second chances kinda person. If you don't even want to be on the same website as someone you don't like (who doesn't reciprocate any of the dislike, who has since apologised several times for the reason for the dislike, who has promised to stop in case it should have the same effect on someone else, and who actually did stop except when <breaking from hypothetical dislike situation> blocked by someone else first, in which case they were clearly OK with it), then perhaps you need to seriously think about why you want to come back at all, other than "it's my job". Do you even still like this place for what it is?

As to the "mass blanker": I said before, but I'll say it again for the benefit of the listening public - I did that only because it took you far more effort to come into IRC and tell someone to block him than it would have to block him yourself, combined with the fact that it had been inactive for 25 minutes by the time I read your message. I doubt it'd ever be used again. You had no trouble reverting him, so why not block? Also, there's no reason for you to assume I never meant to give him an infinite block eventually. You must have seen that I added a 24 year block eventually (and yes, 24 years purely because the ban patrol entry you added said to block infinitely). If you can point out any damage the IP did between those two blocks then I'll take all responsibility for it.

On you/me starting it: Not that it matters, but yes, looks like I blocked you first. Sorry, I didn't realise your first block was to do with the one I had issued the previous day, and treated it as a separate incident, which was what I was referring to when I said you gave the first block, the one for the rollback conflict. My apologies. Having said that, have you ever heard the phrase "it takes two to tango"? Your complaints are that I was abusing the block feature and treating it like a joke; did you somehow miss that I have blocked you a total of 7 times, 2 of the long enough to require unblocking myself, and you have blocked me a total of 6 times, 3 of them long enough to require unblocking myself? Drawing again from my deep cliché resources, I think that's a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black, and you not liking the taste of your own medicine; I was simply doing unto you as you did unto me, assuming that you were OK because of it, as I can give as good as I get. So don't try and make out that I'm the only one in the wrong here. Either we're all in the wrong, or nobody is. My opinion is the latter.

Splaka. I have no problem with you whatsoever and would love for you to come back. That simple. I would also love for you to accept my apologies, though the responses from the lovely people in this topic, all of whose opinions I respect, have reassured me that I haven't done anything wrong here. I never enter a discussion or argument unless I believe the other side could actually change my mind; otherwise there's no point. But here I see practically nothing that makes me even think that I was at fault here. But the way you have acted in quitting the website for what I see as a non-reason in the first place; telling everyone who asked you to come back that it was my fault you left, that you wouldn't come back while I was still here, and all the time never even making the effort to discuss it with me; and that you continue you attack my personality when I am the one trying to remedy this situation; that is reprehensible behaviour and frankly is childish. But I'm going to forgive you for that - I'm a second chances kinda person. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Note: I apologise to everyone else for the length of this essay. Any inaccuracies or apparent hypocrisy are purely errors in transmission, and should be ignored. That is all.

How do you pronounce "deadmin"? Is it de-admin or dead-min? Aaadddaaammm 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn edit conflict! I always thought dead-min, from the dead admin topic, only just realised it could also be de-admin. You learn something new every day! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

you are both so gay for each-other. just make up and fuck - jack mort | cunt | talk - 02:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, you're just asking for a 7.5 million second ban! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I agree with you on, is that Some User is actually a voice of sense in this (which is the 5th sign of the coming apocalypse).

Sure, Uncyclopedia is not totally serious (as it is a parody), but if it were totally unserious we might as well give the administration power to everyone who creates a user name. But in reality, there is a minimum level of seriousness that needs to be employed to run a site like this, especially when it comes to maintaining content, protecting important information pages, and blocking those who would distrupt it, and not blocking those who need to modify it.

Also, I did not claim that you had no regard for your fellow administrators. I was just pointing out that you had both told me to act professionally and lighten up, and was wondering why (and how) you seemed to wish your fellows (administrators, expecially those you've banned) to operate with this dichotomy... "I can ban you but you better act professionally, even if it interferes with operating this site!"

When you blocked me, I was operating as a Wikia staff, and your multi-million second ban was hugely inconvenient and very annoying. I left under the intention of not coming back except as a Wikia staff, but your posting of this topic has forced me to come back as a regular user to discuss this. And as a user, I feel fully justified in calling you an asshole, since you are an asshole in my mind. As for taking your own medicine, you called me an asshole first: 16:34, 3 August 2006 Spang blocked "Splaka (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 Seconds (Is an asshole). Asshole. Almost every action undertaken by me against you was an attempt for you to see how annoying you'd be, hoping you'd get the hint. Obviously in that I was hugely overestimating your character (omg personality attack!1!one!!).

Re: '"you work here, I play here". You know I was referring to working here in the capacity of a sysop. If you don't, I reiterate: that refers to me not being able to operate here as a sysop or even as a regular user, while you have the ability to interfere with that work in the capacity of blocking.

I stated clearly that the IP in question was an open proxy. Not banning one just because it hasn't edited in a while is rather silly. I did not block because as a large wiki, there are usually plenty of local administrators around to do the job.

I only blocked you as many times as you blocked me, but as (above) you never seemed to get the point that it was annoying and detrimental to operations here, I gave a final warning that it would no longer be tolerated by me. When you crossed that line, you know what happened then.

That you see my leaving as a non-reason is, at least for me, proof enough that you still treat the whole thing (specifically, blocking other administrators) as a joke. And with that attitude, I can't work with you (as a sysop, to clarify, so you don't take this out of context too). As for me telling everyone that: Should I lie instead?

More Pot/Kettle/Black and Own medicine: You say "lighten up" while calling my actions childish. Well, I say to you: lighten up, this isn't requesting that you be banned, it isn't even requesting that you be desysopped, it is just me stating that I can't participate in this project while you are one. And: "Joke" bans are really, quite childish as well. Seriously. Likewise, apologies for flood of reply. --Splaka 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree: you say you joke blocked me to let me know how annoying it was - I didn't find it annoying, and so didn't get your message. See how that works? I could go through your reply and argue my point again, but there's no point. I could go through how many more joke-blocks you've given to other admins, and other admins have given to each other, but there's no point. And you still refuse to say why you're singling me out over all the other admins who have given such blocks, so I'm out. This argument is even less constructive than it was to start with, if that is at all possible, so I won't continue with it. Good luck with working at wikia, it was nice knowing you way back when. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, this is the most depressing forum that I've ever read. Can't you two see that you love each other? No? Then at least shake hands and try to move on, because, like it or not, we're all on the same team here.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Except for Modus who "plays for the other team." Get it? Cos he's teh ghey? --Anyone 17:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey now! Let's not go there. I'm not pretty enough be like that (A real, true and unchopped photo of me)--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(Insert reason to make footnote) --Anyone 19:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible?

...that some guidelines can be put in place as to what is/isn't acceptable admin behavior, so we won't get starkly different views on the matter, as we're having here? So long as admins are on an "honor system" of acting "as they believe is fair," if this hadn't happened here, it would have happened somewhere down the road. I think, if we had some way of saying, as a site, "You've misbehaved," or, "he was being an ass, but it's still within the rules," this entire thing wouldn't be an issue. As it is, Splarka has the line <here> and Spang has the line <over there>... or possibly nowhere, it's hard to say as it's Splarka's line that was crossed. I'm sure all parties that have spoken up here (including Ol' Sommey and Nin, who've been asking for SOMETHING along these lines already forever ago) can agree this would be a amicable solution. Saying, "Get over it" to someone who's line has been crossed is ignoring their feelings on the matter, as does saying, "If you don't go away, I'm never coming back." The issue isn't who's more popular (if it was, Spang would be screwed, as "Everybody Loves Splarka") but if there's anything an admin can do to have their privalege removed. That, I think, is what we should be working toward, and not deadminning Spang (yet - Of course, if we WERE to make guidelines, and he was to break them just to see what would happen, it'd be bye bye time).--<<>> 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Splaka should grow up. This is the internet, its not like having a boss you cant stand or something... Plus Spangs block reasons are funnier than lots of articles here... -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 05:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the appropriate standard here is still m:Don't be a dick. Blocking someone who doesn't deserve it when it actually matters is being a dick. Even though admins can unblock themselves, blocking them still matters, because it takes time and energy to unblock yourself, AND the autoblock effectively de-anonymizes the person, attaching a real IP to the username, which is USDA Grade A Certified "Not-Cool." If an admin does repeatedly break the second rule, especially knowingly, then it's time to have a chat and possibly kick that person out. I don't think keeping it sort of CABALy is a bad thing, since the admins work together in a loose consensus-based, territory-accomadation, informal way for everything else.

As for this case, it seems pretty simple: Splarka isn't saying what Spang did is de-admin-ing worthy, he's just saying that it is enough for him not to work with Spang. Much as it sucks for us, Splarka has the right to decide if and when he contributes. I hope one day we can get him to look past all of this and come back, but it is totally his perogative whether he does that, and it isn't being immature or stupid to feel that way. Unless we decide to crack down hard on Spang ex post facto, that's where it stands with nothing to be done.---Rev. Isra (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isra has stated it the most plain. Here is an idea (you know who you are) Don't vote to de-admin Spang, but stop asking me to come back or saying you miss me. It is driving me nuts. --Splaka 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This second paragraph is an excellent and perfectly accurate summary - the most sensible thing said on this page. Thank you -- sannse<staff/> (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While I think "don't be a dick" and "Be funny and not just stupid" are the only rules other people need to pay attention to when dealing with me, a rough guide to appropriate admin behaviour for those who feel differently would probably be a good idea. Although there should be an "opt out" type thing, where I could say "I'm fine with whatever you do to me - I trust you won't be a dick, and if you think it's ok to do that to me, go ahead". But that's just me. If someone does something I don't like, I'll tell them and that will be that. I'll go on record here to say anyone can block me for whatever reason, I won't care^{Terms and conditions apply}.

Oh and autoblocks are given numbers, rather than being identified as IPs, so there's no problem with anonymity there.

And yes this topic is very depressing. I've tried to shake hands and become the same team again to no avail. Win some, lose some, eh? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You tried to shake hands: true. I ignored you because I had stated my case as plainly and completely as I felt the need to: true. You started this depressing topic on this public forum: true. --Splaka 07:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I started it because you kept saying you'd come back if I was de-adminned. So I started the vote for you. Hopefully this will be the end of that. You've made your point, you're not coming back; I'm over it and this whole affair. Once again, good night, good luck, and goodbye. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't coming back, just not while you were an administrator with the power to use and abuse Special:Blockip. Please stop putting words in my mouth (or wash your hands first, asshole). --Splaka 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop it you two or else I'll label you both as Unlawful Enemy Combantants.--Jtaylor1 10:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's be clear on one or two points (please?)

Spang may well have behaved in an asshole-like manner toward Splaka specifically, I'm not going to dispute that — and I have great respect for Splaka. Heck, we all do! But I'm sorry, I have to object to it anyway. There's just no way we could legitimately call Spang an "asshole" in general terms — quite the contrary, in fact. A look at some of his contribs over the past 3 months or so certainly suggests anything but that:

• Explains licensing in a non-confrontational manner to someone who sporked a Wikipiedia template

• Politely explains why unnecessary disambiguation pages are discouraged

• Advocates the use of the Preview button without being gratuitously insulting

• Is unusually respectful and courteous to a likely plagiarizer

• Helps other admins out with occasional JavaScript trickery

• Helps out with Zork pages (God only knows why)

• Didn't immediately ban someone who created "This page does not exist"

• Is nice to a link spammer (something I would never even attempt)

• And finally, the thing that convinced me, personally, that Spang is a stand-up guy

To me, this is unusually polite and helpful admin behavior, especially for a site like this. I mean, sure, there was that whole weird thing where he and Tompkins redirected each other's user pages, and his apology to Splaka after the joke-ban incident may have been rather back-handed. I guess you could say that his interactions with other admins are often not so... collegial, maybe. Whatever. All I'm saying is that there's ample evidence that the A-word is simply inappropriate in his case.

There's just one other thing I've been hesitant to bring up. Spang is almost certainly the one admin here who's most critical of Wikipedia, or maybe I should say he's probably the "least fond" of Wikipedia. It's one of the main reasons I like him, of course, but I'm not going to say he's "anti-Wikipedia" — he can do that himself if he wants to. Nevertheless, I could easily see how some of his activity here could, conceivably, make people working for Wikia (as Splaka now does) a little, shall we say, "uncomfortable." It still might well have nothing whatsoever to do with Splaka's opinion of him, but it's something that should be understood up front by anyone who's taking any of this stuff seriously. Now, in all probability, some of you will interpret this as an accusation. I don't mean it that way — I'm just saying that Wikipedia is a bone of contention for many of us, and that we shouldn't necessarily ignore this. And, if it helps, I'm sorry if saying it makes things any worse. Anyway, feel free to joke-ban me again, I'm about to head off for a weekend in the country.  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad someone sees me for the incredible human being that I am! But seriously, it doesn't take that much effort to be nice to people, and I try to always do that, so it's a bit disheartening when one apparent mistake convinces someone to think I'm such an asshole. And trying to convince them you're not doesn't work out well at all. Better luck next time, me. I'm not much of a fan of Wikipedia, it has to be said - the wiki format is much more suited to producing lies and nonsense - and while a few of their policies might be applicable here, I definitely don't think it should guide how we do things here in general. Having said that, I wouldn't force that opinion on anyone else, wouldn't treat someone who loves wikipedia with any less respect, and wouldn't expect to be treated differently for having that opinion. Same with any other opinion. Unless they were a dirty communist hippy gay IP, of course. Though sub-standard treatment of IP users is a debate for another time, I think. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My take

It looks like both parties are to blame here for placing gag bans on each other and letting it escalate out of control to the present situation. Please read User:Hrodulf#You_Have_No_Rights for my position on gag bans and similar admin abuses of power. Unfortunately my attempt to change the site culture led to a silly sequence of events that eventually resulted (predictably, in retrospect) in me getting gag banned.

So, I created the Ban Chapel and moved on, acknowledging that I had no way to "solve" the "problem" with the admin site culture, and just developed a way to accept it so I could continue to edit here, with the benefit of perspective that, yes, admins can do whatever they want, and they can gag ban, and play wiki politics, but if I assumed good faith, and had a little luck, and wasn't too much of a dick to the wrong people, I could probably expect not to be unjustifiably banned for a really long period.

I'm a relatively well-behaved uncyclopedian; I don't vandalize, and I think I've done some at least acceptable work here, at least, I think it has gotten better from where I was when I started. And to me, that's more important to me right now than whether some admin can pull rank on me as a gag. The Ban Chapel worked for me. So to bring this to a short conclusion, maybe it could work for you also, if you think it over a bit and realize, as I did, that the site culture isn't going to change just because of what one person thinks.

And if people do want to change the way admin power and bans are used, fine, but it isn't going to change this way, via a wild west style faceoff between two admins. Lets have a forum in the same vein as Who Admins The Admins and have a rational discussion instead of a pissing contest between people who honestly really should know better, or at the very least, should have read HowTo:Get_Started_on_Editing_Uncyclopedia#A_few_words_about_personality_conflicts, HowTo:Get_Started_on_Editing_Uncyclopedia#If_you_get_banned and HowTo:Get_Started_on_Editing_Uncyclopedia#Before_you_get_infinitely_banned.2C_read_this.

There's my two cents, perhaps with interest. And here's hoping I don't get banned for posting it :D

--Hrodulf 19:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dawg's Opinion

Although I voted for desysoping of Spang, I think that when the next vote comes around that if he is nominated and makes it through the process that he should be able to get +sysop again with no ill will. I think this would be reasonable to appease both parties.

BTW: I LOVE YOU, SPLARKA! » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Famine's Opinion

De-sysop and ban both for being whiny bitches.

• Splaka - I have great respect for you. All the time you were here you did great work, and were a valuable member of our community. I've been noticing your absence, and figured that it was due to work. I'm a little depressed to find out that it was due to a personal conflict. When did you lose your sense of humor and become a whiny little bitch? As proof in point, I'll refer back to the time you had a ban button in your sig, which linked to you. After I clicked it and banned you a few times for fun, you changed it to link to me. I got a couple of bans from other admins clicking your sig. You laughed, I laughed, and life went on. What changed man? Did work/life drag you down? Chin up, get some midol, and get your ass back here. Spang did nothing, as far as I can see, that you, I, and all the other admins have not done on occasion. I think it was Mhaille who banned a user for linking asshole to my user page with the comment "true, but still vandalism". I laughed, and life went on. I did not become a PMSing little bitch. You used to have such a great sense of humor. You used to view Uncyclopedia as a fun place to blow off steam, and not take life so seriously. What happened?

• Spang - you do good work here, and I haven't ever had an issue with your conduct. I dunno wtf happened between Splaka and you, but you seem to be trying to be humble and make it up. As much respect as I have for Splaka, I have to hand it to you for being pretty civil and open about this whole mess. Kudos. It's rare to find an admin who is willing to undergo such public scrutiny of their conduct. That gains you an immense amount of respect in my eyes,

So in summary, +k +b for both for being whiny bitches. Or make them both come back and do the good work they both have a history of doing. Either or works for me. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 28/10 16:55

I agree with Famine that it's disappointing that Splarka quit over something as miniscule as a personality conflict, as I thought he was above that kind of behavior. I also agree with Splarka that he can quit at any time for any reason he sees fit, and doesn't have to apologize to anyone for it. I also agree with everyone that I'd love to see Splarka back, as he was one of, if not THE, most important/useful/beautiful people at the site. God, I love you Splarka.--<<>> 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes

This section is for votes and short comments only.

Score: +1 Sysop and +7 user votes for Spang

• Desysop » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - User:Guest/sig 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Don't be silly. Despite the fact that there's the word "vote" in the title of this topic, surely if you'd have read the discussion (which are far superior to straight votes) that there's not a snowball's chance in hell of a majority voting to de-op me. You've placed this is a rather odd position, too, Dawg. Mind if I ask why you put it in the middle of the page, rather than at the top or the bottom? I've gone ahead and moved it to the bottom, where every other new heading has gone, and where others will be able find it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Sir C  Holla | CUN 06:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• De-Op. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 19:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way of mentioning that you and Dawg are the only ones voting in this bit without having given a reason for why I don't deserve to be a sysop anywhere on this page, without sounding too... complainy? Probably not. Don't you think reasons are kind of important in a discussion like this? Anyway, I apologise once again for so much commenting in this forum, but it's kind of important to me. And I'm only saying half as much as I'd like to! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 10:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not. It will create a hostile environment. We have good reasons for our votes. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; my point is, that if I don't know what I've done wrong, I can't try to change for the better, as I've no idea what I'm supposed to change to. If you feel it's too public, use my "email this user" link. I'd much rather be told I'm doing something wrong than continue to do that thing wrong, honestly (even if I disagree that it's wrong). I trust you that your suggestions will be in good faith. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What, because an unjustified vote is in no way hostile of course?!? --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 03:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless a proper table of pros and cons is drawn up to evaluate his worthiness as an op, then he should stay --Olipro Anchor KUN (Harass) 10:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even Splarka isn't saying Spang has done something de-op worthy. I can't support de-opping just to entice someone back, or at least I can't without some convincing, which hasn't been done.---Rev. Isra (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've already said my piece on this. --Hrodulf 13:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Spang has a slightly more humorous nickname. -- Mitch 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain If you kids can't settle this amongst yourselves, then the status quo is fine. If someone needs to be deop'd for unsatisfactory performance, then make a forum purely on that issue and vote there. This forum is a depressing page of "he said/he said" foolishness, and I refuse to take sides in a pissing contest.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In my experience it's best to be behind the person who's pissing at the time, aha. --Sir Jam 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• De-sysop Now, let me point out that I love both Spang and Splarka. However, I feel a mystical bond between myself and Splarka, because it was Splarka who first created my user talk page, and who first helped me create templates and stuff. While we really havn't come into contact that much since then, especially since he stopped coming into #uncyclopedia on a regular basis, I still love Splarka more then most other users on this site. Now I didn't want to annoy him with emails and stuff when he went inactive-ish, so the reason for him not being around is new to me, but if this is the only way to bring back Splarka, I'm willing to do it. Maybe we can re-nom Spang for admin, and sort it out then? (I bolded that so that people wouldn't miss it within my long block of memories and stuff.). Sorry Spang, --Sir Zombiebaron 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, exactly what Modusoperandi said above. This is pathetic. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 16:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I can't say it any better than Modus did.--<<>> 17:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is so weird I can't help wondering if I'm being sucked into some kind of peculiar in-joke - however I can't take the risk of losing Spang, so there you go. 17:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. When you make an "either he goes or I go" threat, you're the one to go. Sorry Splarka, but nothing is stopping you from editing. Be mature about things. --User:Nintendorulez 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• keep this is retarded *burn flag* - jack mort | cunt | talk - 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain I'm not going to dignify this with a vote. I like Spang and I like Splarka, and I dearly wish Splarka would come back. But the issue is between the two of them and not them and us. —rc (t) 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I should say that modusoperandi and those who agreed with him are also absolutely right. I started this as an (misguided) attempt to resolve things, but it has degenerated into he said/he said. For that I am sorry, once again. I didn't mean this. I am at fault, and would like to put this behind us. I live and I (really am trying to) learn. I can't make it any more clear. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep! Sure, it's degenerated. Sure, we shouldn't dignify the proceedings with actual votes. Sure, statements of contrition should satisfy most reasonable people, but often they don't, unfortunately. Sure, I might actually be wrong about that. Sure, I'm mentally unstable. Sure, if you repeat the same word in italics over and over at the beginnings of multiple sentences in sequence, it looks really retarded. Sure, I do it anyway, because I'm...  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Donuts for everyone, and nice cup of tea, and oh... what's on the telly? --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, mmm, and... some kind of drama. I much prefer the comedies. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• drama llama.--68.64.65.89 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain This is a stain on Uncyc. You guys really need to make up or something. I think wars have been started for less, but still, this is a wiki, and you guys can hold separate spheres or something, or just for the love of god not talk to each other. This is not getting a vote from me Goddamnit-- Sir Severian (Sprich mit mir!) 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes which are somewhat near the Foot area of an article

^  No, that isn't a photo of me. But it did give me an excuse to make a footnote. Also, it's O/T, which you can blame on Anyone

^  O/T? Overtime? Old Tuberculosis? Ovaries/Testacles? MAKE UP YOUR MIND. --Anyone 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Off Topic, obviously. But that's O/T.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I felt we needed some off topic to lighten the mood. It feels like congress in here.--Anyone 19:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)