Forum:Deopping Socky

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Deopping Socky

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4832 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Putting it bluntly, Socky has not shown the responsibility it takes to be an administrator on this site. He undermines his fellow admins, creates and resuscitates drama for no good reason, and plays the victim in every scenario. On more than one occasion (particularly on VFD) he's overstepped his bounds and plainly broke some of the few solid policies this site has. In reaction, he has acted dodgy, passive-aggressive, and outright unstable.

I don't like being not funny. This topic isn't funny. Still, I present this non-funny topic so that we can hopefully find an end to this so-called madness. So let's vote already.

A decision of this magnitude is going to remain open until every active admin has voted or vocally abstained, in order to protect from certain voting biases. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 18:14, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

If so, you might want to alert some of the active admins that haven't voted yet to the existence of this forum. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:38, 7 September 2011

The Vote

Score: 0

• Deop for what those reasons above I said. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Deop. Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree, and TKF explained it better than I ever could. Discussing these things with him usually goes nowhere as well, which only makes it worse.

1234 ~ 19:51, 2 September 2011

• Against. Some evidence, please, aside from the fact that he doesn't toe what has apparently become the accepted admin line. —rc (t) 20:07, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. Wow, er. Wow. The Sock is a hard-working and dedicated guy. We need that. Yeah, he has his foibles, but so do most of us. I've seen most admins around here do things I don't agree with, and I don't think Socky does it more than any others. In the main, he does a good job, like the rest. I wish he could put the Butt behind him, so to speak, but I've not seen much of the dodgy stuff apart from that. And isn't instability pretty much a requirement for editing here in the first place? Wow. I mean, I'm not the most active, granted, but when I'm here, I don't see Socky undermining people so much as having a difference of opinion, which is what opinions are about, right? I'd echo Rc in asking for more evidence before I think there's any merit to deopping the man with the well-darned heels. --UU - natter 20:44, Sep 2
• This thread is dildos. --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 01:07, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I know, this seems rather crazy, but for those of you wondering why we would possibly resort to a deopping, read his responses below. Some of what he does is annoying, disconcerting and sometimes downright counterproductive, but his attitude and refusal to sway are what make it actually an issue, especially as an admin. Honestly, I'd rather he just stop doing so much stupid crap, respect that he's one among many and act accordingly, and keep the admin tools, but as he wouldn't be able to do most of his current stupid crap without the tools (and should he take what he could still do too far, it would then be possible to ban him if need be), that would also suffice, regrettable as it would be.

1234 ~ 02:53, 3 September 2011

• Deop. Having to deal with Socky's style of administration makes it harder for all the other admins to do our jobs. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:45, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. Having a differing view from your own over a matter isn't a reason for even suggesting deopping. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Abstain. --Algorithm 22:19, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. People in stone houses shouldn't throw glass, *resumes sitting on the fence* -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:35, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
• Spammed IRC and fucked up my stats plus he's generally a whiny bitch and this is me sayin' so. (votes and subsequently goes back to focusing on college) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:41 Sep 17, 2011

  I thought we worked that one out. : / —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:00, 18 September 2011

Discussion

If you could point out any particular instance where I intentionally caused drama, I would thoroughly appreciate it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:17, 2 September 2011

Counting just today: purposely evading the forum protection by creating the forum talk page, childishly threatening to leave the site, and creating this "discussion" to, instead of actually defending your case, attempting to get an unmeasured response from me. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:23, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Is calling into question the necessity of protecting a forum really that bad? I mean, the only reasons you've given me for protecting it were "I don't think this Butt Poop business needs any further discussion" and "I'm your dad and you're not getting any ice cream." Judging from people's reaction, I've gotten the impression I was right to think that's not enough reason to forbid discussion about a topic. Childishly? I was pretty serious. I don't like being insulted or accused of breaking the rules and whatnot, and those things ruin my experience of the site. In fact, if this goes on, they might ruin it enough for me to effectively leave. For that matter, what's the point in defending my case if fellow admins have already increasingly discouraged me from participating in this wiki? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:00, 2 September 2011

What admin hasn't childishly threatened to leave Uncyc? We all have different opinions about what an administrator's responsibilities should be, and from what I've seen, Socky hasn't abused the system any more than most other admins have (and he's done it less than many). —rc (t) 20:05, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Diffs and whatnot

I wish we were making this up and it were some giant joke and stuff, but it really isn't. Socky's approach to adminning has been less than helpful, a lot of the time, and his tendency to stir up drama, evade communication, and try to turn other folks against each other only makes things worse. The individual stuffs that he do may be innocent enough, but they add up, and in many cases he keeps doing them even after being contacted, either after agreeing to stop, or more often not agreeing to anything at all. I've compiled a quick list, which I guess could be boiled down to 'being annoying and not letting the rest of us do our gorram jobs', but the people like diffs (I'll find the rest later. Maybe. I'm kind of busy this weekend.). I can't diff his actions on IRC, though. 1234 ~ 21:25, 2 September 2011

1. Reverting other admins instead of talking to them [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

   (discussion here)

2. Bumping sensitive (and rather old) forums [6]

   (discussion here)

3. Creating new drama forums [7] [8] and then refusing to drop the matter [9]

   (discussion here)

4. Protecting articles for no apparent reason [10] (discussion)

   (discussion here)

5. Undeleting articles deleted by other admins, as part of maintenance, QA, VFD, etc [11] [12] [13] [14] Later redeleted these after several admins ganged up on him on IRC, or some such, at least: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

   (discussion here)

6. Using VFD to start a vote to undelete a deleted article [20]

   (discussion here)

7. Closing VFD nominations before sufficient time has passed and/or in a manner inconsistent with the votes [21] [22]

   (discussion here)

8. Instead of contacting other admins directly about things he'd rather they do/do not do, making (vague) jabs at them [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

   (discussion here)

9. Instead of contacting another admin directly about things he'd rather they do/do not do, said something vague [31] and then went to someone else on IRC in pm and painted the fellow as a villian (the actual issue was resolved later by just talking to Zombiebaron in a more straight fashion; he agreed to stop doing what he was doing)

   (discussion here)

10. Spamming the IRC channel

    (discussion here)

11. Otherwise generally being a pain in the arse by apparently trying to make conflicts of trivial matters [32] [33]

Discussion

Where do you get the impression that I'm such a horrible guy? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:29, 2 September 2011

Don't speak for me.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

You're saying all these bad things about me, and you've called me "horrible" on IRC multiple times, and when I conclude that you think I'm a horrible guy, I'm suddenly speaking for you? Really, Lyrithya. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:11, 3 September 2011

Okay, fine. You're horrible. Happy? Although when have I said that, anyhow?

1234 ~ 00:44, 3 September 2011

It was around the time I talked to you about that one template Zombiebaron deleted. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:29, 3 September 2011

I see lots of little niggling things that are largely subjective (in many cases one wo/man's drama is another wo/man's legitimate concern) and a few admin missteps, which, with the probable exception of MadMax, every single Uncyc admin has made. I still don't see any grounds for deopping, though I can appreciate the effort put into compiling the case. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Lots of little niggling things add up to very annoying, however, and not really the sort of behaviour one would want from a 'decent' admin... seriously, trying to do some maintenance and then finding someone following you around undoing it is never fun, which was literally what he tried to do that first time Zombiebaron and I had at the unused files, which I could add to that list, but that was during the temporary ops thing, so I'm not sure ti even applies. Point is, that was annoying. This is annoying. Etc. Meantime he doesn't tend to stop any of it unless ganged up on by four other admins, and even that doesn't always do it.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

Reverting other admins

• In the first case, I was effectively asking TKF to discuss things with me. In the latter, I was confused because people were acting like my forum was insulting the two past UnNews czars while it really wasn't meant as such. I explained why I created it and eventually TKF agreed with me. The third one, I still think I was right about that one. The article actually uses "Large Text". Maybe because capitalized letters are larger than non-capitalized ones? The fourth thingy, you had almost no proof that it was a sockpuppet. And I seem to recall discussing that with you on IRC. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:30, 2 September 2011

  1 was the deletion of a Forum topic created for an admin. So it's all right to delete an admin's page, but not to restore or unprotect a page that an admin believes has purpose?

  The Forum topic in 2 was just a summation of whatever conclusions resulted from the UnNews drama - and several people agreed with his conclusions. And he explained the bits that seemed inflammatory. AND the second deleter, TKF, apologized for HIS reaction.

  For 3, it looks like Socky was the one being reverted in the first place. Should he have re-reverted? Maybe not - but it doesn't look like he's the one who started it.

  I'm not really aware enough of the context of #4 to comment on it. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  You don't ask someone to discuss things with you by reverting them, you you ask them to discuss things with you by going to their talkpage and asking them to discuss things with you. Instead of rereverting things, however, perhaps explaining in the first place would help... in a lot of these, explaining in the first place would have helped. As for the fourth one, there wasn't any context; he just reverted me out of the blue because apparently he liked its username. That's all.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• Why doesn't TKF discuss it with me to begin with? He's conflicting me just as much as I'm conflicting him by reverting him. Does he think I'm an unreasonable guy and won't listen to his reasonable arguments for protecting the forum? The impulsiveness of his actions only seems to illustrate how his arguments aren't reasonable to begin with. As for the supposed sockpuppet, I unbanned it because I seriously doubted it was, in fact, a sockpuppet. This being a humour wiki, however, I made up a more humorous resurrection reason. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:27, 3 September 2011

  I can't speak for him... but when you get right down to it, I think this may have been more a matter of getting tired of your general behaviour for him, too, not that forum in particular. But this being a wiki, it's pretty easy to contact people and say if you disagree with them, instead of just undoing it. For all you knew, I did have access to other information. Hells, I may have. I don't remember.

1234 ~ 00:51, 3 September 2011

• Lyrithya speaks for me right here. Your tendency to revert decisions under the guise of "wanting discussion" (and then, more often then not, taking zero actual steps to facilitating said discussion in any unbiased, reasonable way) is systemic, and my reaction to your latest foray into finger-twitching the sum of your history. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:46, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  So what you wanted me to do was to add something to your talkpage along the lines of "==Hey, you protected that one forum== Why? ~~~"? Didn't I basically ask that question in the protection summary already? Is this huge dramathon really just the consequence of a dispute over who's supposed to start a discussion on someone else's talkpage first? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:58, 3 September 2011

Bumping old forums

• I was just fixing a typo. And I added a category. And I protected it to keep it from being revived. And that was also the forum that reminded me of how we hadn't had an actual forum on whether or not to restore BUTT POOP!!!! yet. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:34, 2 September 2011

  Socky's explanation seems legitimate to me, especially if he specifically protected the topic to keep it from being revived. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  Why would a typo in a year-old forum need fixing at all? And then why would it need a category? It's an archived forum, and regardless of wanting to bring up the topic again, it is still archived. In a matter which people care too much about such as that, not bringing it up again would be even more important, and yet that isn't the only one you've done that with, either. Seriously, Socky, please quit doing that.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• I've seen various admins bump forums for minor thingies throughout the history of Uncyclopedia. It's never been an issue then. Why is it now? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:40, 3 September 2011

  Link?

1234 ~ 00:51, 3 September 2011

• For a user, bumping an old topic (especially for a minor/non-existent reason) can typically earn you a ban of around a day. You're a huge fan of treating admins the same as users; where do you get off? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:47, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  I get off because, as with admins, we shouldn't ban users over minor issues like forums being bumped, unless they're doing it repeatedly and it's really disruptive (i.e. when it's basically vandalism). I don't think I've done it often enough to warrant a ban or even a complaint. Feel free to disagree with me, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:02, 3 September 2011

Drama forums

• I was just following Skully's logic to the extreme. It's called satire or something. And I wasn't trying to cause drama with the BUTT POOP!!!! forum. Unless bringing up an issue has suddenly become synonymous with causing drama. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:35, 2 September 2011

  Even if 6 was created with drama in mind (and that seems a bit of a stretch to me), it's the worst-supported drama in Uncyc history. No insults, no flamewars, and it petered out after only a few posts anyway. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  Eh, that was just the one I found; rooting through contributions is a lot harder than logs. So maybe not the best example...

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• Looking through my watchlist, the only other forums that even come close to being drama-related are the "new UnNews Czar" one (which was mentioned somewhere else on this forum already) and "Huff the File Namespace" one, which didn't spur a lot more controversy than Skully's Forum:Huff the Game Namespace. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:51, 3 September 2011

  The mere existence of the Czar topic and the new Butt Poop forum is enough to prove that you can't let sleeping debates lie. After the dramathons reached ostensible conclusions on different pages, you still felt compelled to create a new forum. Extending a discussion on an already 95% completely discussed issue cannot result in anything more than the obvious products. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:55, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  There never really was a forum about restoring BUTT POOP!!!!, just one about whether the deletion of it was unfair (a clear majority said "Yes.") and one about the possibility of articles that were deleted being restored (it was inconclusive, I seem to recall). And the Czar one was just to encourage people to step up and take care of UnNews (without acting dictatorial). I had not seen any conclusion to either issues that I really felt okay with. Even if "BUTT POOP!!!! was unfairly deleted and we're not sure how to go about establishing an official procedure to restore a deleted page" and "the vote is over and TheHumbucker left, so move along" can be considered 95% completely discussed, they still lack an appropriate conclusion, in my view. Also, you're acting like "debate" is something evil and synonymous with "drama". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:21, 3 September 2011

  Debate is synonymous with drama when there's no conclusion to be reached, or the conclusion was already reached. At that moment it becomes pointless, redundant shouting over the internet. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 03:16, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree. Debate only becomes drama when people start hurling insults at each other. Conclusions aside, no drama will arise if people just converse in a friendly manner. And if they don't, hey, ban them a day for "Being a Dick". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:25, 3 September 2011

Article protection

• That was after some guy added the same crap to the article twice. While that's arguably not really enough to justify full protection, I'm certainly not the first author of a page that wants it to stay a particular way. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:39, 2 September 2011

  Agree with this one. Protecting one's articles is obnoxious. Just watchlist it and remove cruft, like any other user has to do. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Undeletions

• This explanation explains this too. Also note how some of the pages I restored were clearly illegitimately tagged and I was still forced to delete them later on. Then there's the restorations not related to templates being turned into maintenance tags, This is not Sparta and Air horn. I restored one revision of "This is Sparta" because I wanted to start my own article on it and I based my introduction on the introduction of the original article that was deleted. I restored "Air horn" because it was nommed on VFD and someone had complained about it being deleted prematurely. Granted, it was young enough to be QVFDed, but there was already a VFD nom going on, so I figured that had precedence over QVFD. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:13, 2 September 2011

  Agree with 8, 9 and 16 - if the only reason the articles were hacked up was because Socky liked them, he should have put them in his userspace. For the others, it sounds like he has legitimate arguments but he probably should have discussed it with the deleting admin first. And the edit-summary insults are lame. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  Even restoring deleted articles to work on them, we work on them in userspace. That's what it's for, and that's why when folks request their unfinished things back, they go into userspace. Moving them back in later, sure, but usually a review is preferred for that, too.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• I think you misunderstood. I recreated one revision, stole parts of the introduction, and went on to write an article completely different from the original one. And as I usually do when I write articles, I wrote it in mainspace with a construction template on it. Well, the template's still on it, but I'm planning to finish it pretty soon. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:31, 3 September 2011

VFD misuse

• This explanation again applies here. And I think we should have a way of officially voting on the restoration of a deleted page. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:22, 2 September 2011

  Perhaps, but raising a fuss in as many channels as you could was certainly not the best way about things.

1234 ~ 00:51, 3 September 2011

Closing VFD nominations

• I only did that once. The 24 hours rule had recently been instated and I closed a nom that had a small majority for the deletion of an article just after it'd been on VFD for 24 hours. You later renommed that and it was kept with a clear majority. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:09, 2 September 2011

  You did that at least twice, and after someone talked to you about it.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• No, just once. The second one you're referring to may be the one we talked about more recently, and I don't consider that one controversial or contrary to the rules in any notable way. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:52, 3 September 2011

  How does three different incidents amount to 'just once'?

1234 ~ 00:58, 3 September 2011

• Also, not to throw my own article under the bus, but... -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:51, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  It was on VFD for 44 hours. It only had a score of 2 to delete, so it would've needed 3 more delete votes to get deleted. It also had 8 votes, which was the highest amount of votes for an entry on VFD at that time. Isn't that sufficient to keep it? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:34, 3 September 2011

Making jabs at other admins

• Are you saying that instead of implying my suspicions and asking about it in a calm and friendly-intended manner, I should've stirred a whole dramathon about it? And the mention of this forum on my talkpage was because I thought Scofield didn't know about it yet. Later I noticed it was protected, so I added the part behind the link. And the third link, are you referring to when I last banned you? Because that refers to this edit by you, which, quite honestly, pretty offended me. And while I recall apologizing to you before, again, I'm sorry for calling you a psycho. I had been gone for a week and when I returned I was just completely taken aback by the way articles were being deleted that had only had a true maintenance tag (one that gets it deleted after a month) on it for a couple days at most. I still think that was unfair towards the authors of said articles. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:56, 2 September 2011

  For 20, what I said above - edit-summary insults are lame. For 17 he seems to be doing exactly what you claim he isn't doing - namely, contacting an admin directly about a concern. 18 was after he had been threatened by another admin - he was snarky, but certainly less forceful than TKF on the same page. I have no idea what's going on in 19 and would rather not touch it, ever. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry, my block log is supposed to be that one where he called me a dick and didn't give any reason for it, but I've no idea how to single out blocks... Zombiebaron's talk, he may be contacting the guy there, but he doesn't ever say why or what it's really about. But the thing is, it's so common for him. I think this may have been what TKF was referring to as 'passive aggressive' , but I'm not sure.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• When I don't provide loads of context, it's usually because it's about something the user did very recently and I assume the user knows what he/she's been doing the last couple of hours. Like with the "Don't be a Dick" ban. You know, the second rule? I was of the opinion that you violated it with this edit in coalescence with the rest of what you said in that section. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:00, 3 September 2011

  Oh, yes, I did. Definitely.

1234 ~ 01:05, 3 September 2011

• So why aren't you banned? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:05, 3 September 2011

  Because I'm a magical fairy with wings that make me speshul.

1234 ~ 02:53, 3 September 2011

Going behind another admin's back

• I didn't continue the discussion on Zombiebaron's talkpage because I didn't think it was going anywhere. I later asked you because I was wondering about other people's opinions and I thought you'd be a reasonable person to talk to. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:51, 2 September 2011

  Half-agree with this one. He was being straight with Zombiebaron in the first place, but it was lame to go behind Zombie's back. —rc (t) 22:59, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

  You never actually raised what you claimed your point with him was when you talked to me, though. Wondering is certainly fine, but I remember it being a little more directed than that.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• What I claimed my point was? Please elaborate. My memory's a bit blurry. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:56, 3 September 2011

  He was deleting templates and categories and removing them from all the pages they were on as part of general vigilance. Originally you didn't realise this was what he was doing, but even after you did you didn't attempt to communicate regarding the matter.

1234 ~ 01:04, 3 September 2011

• I knew he'd been deleting some old broken templates before vigilantly deleting the template. And seeing as I pointed out the template he'd deleted was a vandalized one, I'd expected him to quickly withdraw the vigilant deletion. But even after showing him the unvandalized version, he described the template as "useless" and "shitty", so I figured it all boiled down to tastes and, as you probably know, there's no arguing about tastes. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:44, 3 September 2011

• I wasn't even aware that Socky went to Lyrithya about this matter. I wondered why Socky had stopped responding to the conversation before even telling me why he thought that Template:Fabulous! was worth keeping. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 03:42, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  It's probably more a matter of why not to outrightly delete it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 04:13, 3 September 2011

  Lyrithya and Andorn had a nice little chat with me on IRC about not outright deleting used templates and categories because that decision effects multiple pages, and I agree. That's not what you were talking with me about on my talkpage. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 04:26, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  My point was basically that the non-vandalized version wasn't outright deletion-bad. When you said it was useless and shitty, I kinda gave up on the conversation. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:17, 3 September 2011

Spamming IRC

• Oh, come on, that was a one time event and no one else was talking. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:47, 2 September 2011

  You did that at least three times when I was there, Dr. Skullthumper had to blacklist you from the stats thing entirely due to repetitive abuse, and someone had to get me from another channel another time so I could ban you because you apparently wouldn't stop. Although you may have stopped anyway when I joined, or something, but hardly a one-time thing.

1234 ~ 23:58, 2 September 2011

• Well, maybe more accurately a one day event, and maybe some really minor spammings some months before that, but that's all, really. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:48, 3 September 2011

  These were separate days, and it was enough to fill the entire window and a fair amount of backlog, and no, that is not minor; it's the sort of thing that gets most people banned. It's that you can't seem to realise that, that's kind of why this forum is here at all. Just... listen to folks. Sometimes you'll be wrong, mon, and even when you're not, sometimes you need to go along with other folks to maintain peace. If someone else makes a stand, sometimes it's better to publicly defer to them even if you don't happen to be; things run more smoothly that way. Public attacks cause spectacle, and spectacle draws bystanders, and bystanders can easily turn into a mob that has nothing to do with anything, and that's one of the things that'll just kill a community. Hells, even if they don't mob they're still not writing or reviewing or doing any of those other things this place would be dead without.

1234 ~ 00:56, 3 September 2011

• I remember it being just one day. Well, maybe I didn't sleep and it spanned across two days. Have you tried calculating it according to my time zone? Anyway, I didn't say the specific spam from that day was minor. I'm sure it was quite substantive. But I did it when basically no one was talking. And I did get banned, and unbanned, and everything was alright afterwards.

  As for why this forum is here, you're probably right that it's because I haven't been mindlessly going along with what people that seem to consider themselves superior to me (in a supposed Uncyclopedia hierarchy of administrators or generally as a human being) have been telling me to go along with. Personally, I don't consider that a bad thing. As for what's killing the site and the community, I'd say this forum is doing a pretty good job at it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:36, 3 September 2011

  I'll step in on this one; is/was it fucking stupid? Yes. Is it who he is? No. - Therefore, discount it. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:46, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

  I'd agree if it really had been just a one-time thing, but it wasn't; he kept repeating, despite being kicked, banned and told not to do it, to the point where Skully had specifically make the stats ignore him. On the plus side, I think he stopped after that, but yeesh.

1234 ~ 22:52, 5 September 2011

• Actually, at the point Skully entered the channel and kickbanned me, I'd already stopped spamming for a little while. I don't keep logs of IRC, but I think it was mostly just GeorgieGibbons that had complained about it. And in case I haven't said this to you specifically yet, "Sorry for that. I won't do it again." —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:07, 6 September 2011