Forum:Here we go again: Spang as admin?

Forums: Index > BHOP > Here we go again: Spang as admin?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6558 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

The last time this flared up I said nothing about it and refrained from voting. As we are now again in a situation where an administrator has gone AWOL as a result of their interactions with Spang, I think it's time to talk about it again.

While the question of whether to keep Spang as a sysop is open for all to discuss, the vote itself is limited to his peers. Users, please leave your comments in the User Comments section. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, when Todd comes to complain, you know something is up. My former vote still stands. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for protocol's sake, I'd appreciate it if everyone voted again this round. Thanks. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My peers include everyone one this site, thank you. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:14, 2 Dec 2006

Probation

I am posting this here so it can be easily seen. I've discussed what has upset the admins with him on IRC, and offered this probation to him, which he accepted. The terms are as follows.

1. When Spang notices a mistake a fellow admin has made, be it in judgement or fairness, he will contact a third-party admin of his choosing to confirm that the course of action he wishes to take is a good one.
2. If he reverts/contradicts/otherwise undermines an admin's authority without seeking another admin's advice, or going against the third-party admin's advice, he will be given ONE warning, and if he continues, will be immediately be brought into the forum for another deopping vote. This does NOT include civil disagreement, which he may do with mutual respect.

This probation will last for three months (or until Feb. 1, 2007), at which point if we have no more problems, it will be assumed that the issue is closed. I sincerely hope this ends this thread and solves the problem with admins feeling disrespected by Spang.--<<>> 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It doesn't matter who was right or wrong, but hopefully this will stop the drama. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:03, 3 Dec 2006

Admins: Should Spang remain as a sysop?

Keep as admin	User:Guest/sig 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) I appreciate Spang's attempts to foster open discussion rather than unilateral actions or secret, exclusive decisions. Obviously I also want Hinoa to stay and I'm hoping his absence is only temporary. Spang can get abrasive but sometimes that's what's most needed. —rc (t) 18:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Once again a user wants me de-adminned for something they haven't even tried to bring up with me personally beforehand. I'm disappointed, Todd. See my novella below. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:44, 2 Dec 2006 It's amazing how I could briefly regain hope in this place from one thread (not him leaving, but his opinions on certain matters), and then lose it all in the next one... ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|UotM|+S 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Spang has done some god damned dumbass things here. However, he has not de-sysoped himself, and opped the wrong person. Additionally, I share his frustration in that nobody below can create a concise list of his misdeeds. If Spang needs to be de-sysoped, than by god I should have been gone long ago. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/3 01:54 While Spang screwed up here, he isn't guilty of anything other admins haven't done before. It sounds to me like he's honestly trying to be helpful, and that shouldn't be readily discounted. --Algorithm 03:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Because Spang has very gratiously offered to put himself on probation to ease the drama around here, he deserves full credit for trying and the benefit of the doubt. However legitimate the complaints against Spang may be — I think some are — I cannot approve of handling them this way instead of talking it out. Rushing to the end-process and asking for a de-admin vote, only creates drama and frustrates users like me who couldn't be part of the process leading up to such a dramatic step. Please, if this happens again, make a list and propose an intermediate solution first. I hope we haven't lost good admins forever, but perhaps it is drama, and not Spang directly, that is more of a threat. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Remove sysop status	As before. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC) » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) The retention of one person is never worth the alienation and/or loss of a group of talented people, regardless of the person's skills. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Todd's post below convinced me.--<<>> 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Abstain	I've decided to change my vote. I really wish Spang would loosen up a bit, and make more of an effort to get along with people, but desysopping isn't going to accomplish any of that - he said it himself. Besides, this is getting stupid, the more we argue the more people leave. I'm getting out before it gets any worse.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 03:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Codeine removed his vote and has now decided that he's leaving Uncyclopedia as well. I haven't got anything against Spang. I left in May because of other drama, and I sure as hell ain't coming back yet... So I've been largely uninvolved in this, I'm fairly certain that when I left, Spang was still NotM (Just checked, he was). So abstain but quit the fricking drama already. --KATIE!! 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Admin Comments	Seriously, if you think I'm doing something wrong, tell me. I can't stress this enough. I strongly disagree that admins should discuss anything relevant to the wiki community in private, we need more openness, and transparency. Maybe the cabal doesn't like this attitude? I would note that as of this post, everyone who has voted for my desysopping I would consider to be part of the said cabal that likes things to be secret. I don't give any more weight to the opinion of someone who has the sysop flag than anyone who doesn't, everyone's opinions are valid. Some normal users have been here longer than some admins, and I definitely don't consider that fact I have the flag adds any more qualifications to my opinions. They are my opinions, nothing more. And if I think you're doing something wrong, I'll let you know about it, whether you're a sysop or not. Would you rather I know my place and not question my superiors? I don't think so. As for Hinoa; I was attempting to resolve the euroipods situation by trying to get people to see that removing the mentions would most likely stop the bickering (at least this was my intention), not to push any kind of view, and not to pointlessly flame others. And then Hinoa wades into the discussion (had had reverted the article back to include "nin" previously, but never once entered the relevant discussion), saying he'd implemented "special rules" for what seems to be only one side of the discussion (seemingly undiscussed additions to the rules already implemented for nin), effectively limiting the ability of those users to discuss the matter at hand properly; that's out of line in my opinion, and he shouldn't have done that. So I told him that, and added the names of everyone else I had considered to be part of the discussion. There is nothing more than that; I was not uncivil once (I hope, point it out to me where I was if you think otherwise, and I'll apologise). If Hinoa can't take someone questioning his actions as admin, maybe he is the one not qualified for the role? If splarka can't take a joke ban, or several apologies for said action after the fact, maybe he is not qualified to be an admin here. I respect both users greatly, they do great jobs, but that does not and will never mean that I won't tell them if I think they've done something wrong. Perhaps my mistake was not bringing the matter up with him personally. But there was discussion on the wiki, right before he just left. I'm disappointed in your actions Todd, if you had a problem with me you should have come to me about it, private or not. As I said in the last discussion, if you don't feel you can bear discussing it on my talk page or elsewhere on the wiki, use the "email this user" on my user page. Note that desysopping me will not stop me being "abrasive" as RC put it; it'll simply give you a convenient excuse to ignore me. But maybe that's all you want. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:44, 2 Dec 2006 Disappointed? That I posed a question that everyone else was thinking? Or that I didn't see the use in talking to you about behaviour that hasn't changed since Splarka left, and likely never will? If I'm disappointed in anything, it's myself for not getting involved with this during the previous round. I would have been a disappointment to everyone had I steered clear of this situation a second time, but I won't. I'm with Codeine in that my work here is predicated on continued enjoyment of the site, and Famine's observation of your behaviour is spot-on, even though it could do without the labeling. I think you'll continue to treat other admins disrespectfully, and your condescending "disappointment" and vote for yourself makes that abundantly clear. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Can I make it absolutely clear that disagreements do not equal lack of respect. You seem to have that confused. I have respect for all the admins who deserve it here (that's all bar a few, none of whom have been involved in this affair), but that will not stop me disagreeing with them when they do something wrong. I'm disappointed because I know you at least read the last discussion about this, and I said countless times that if anyone had a problem with me they should tell me about it, and I can try to change, and you still ignored that. My disappointment is not condescending, it's what I feel and I'm not going to sugar coat it for you. I thought you were the kind of person who would bring problems up with people before taking it out here. Perhaps that honour is reserved for the members of your "Order of Lyons". You want an elitist ruling class of users, who should never be disagreed with? You won't get it. I belive uncyclopedia would run just fine, if not better, if the sysop flag was nothing more than the trust that the user would be able to use the deletion and banning tools properly, and I don't think that's an issue here. Can you show me, specifically, where I have treated another admin with disrespect? An by that I mean not just disagreeing with them, as I've said that does not equal lack of respect. I will try to explain myself in each instance you bring up. I have tried to be as coutreous and level headed as I can in this debate, despite obvious baiting by certain users. Also, hinoa also said he was pissed off at everyone in the discussion, but I really don't see why me specifically. Could you or someone please explain that to me, seeing as you obviously do understand? As above, I'll try and explain if I haven't already. As said above, I consider sysop to be nothing more than users with the power to delete and ban and protect. You and too many people attach more to it than that, as if only sysops are the ones who matter. I don't think my status in this community is determined by my sysop flag, and I know my attitude certainly isn't, and you seem to be under the impression that removing my power to delete and ban will somehow change that. It won't, I assure you. And I'm pretty sure my abilities to delete, ban, and protect are not in question here. I have not used a single administrator exclusive action in this entire debate. Why do you think that removing sysop status will solve anything, except to give users like you reason to ignore me, and have a much easier time banning me? I think you're also saying that my vote for myself to remain a sysop is a mark of disrespect for other admins? If I'm reading that right. Care to explain that? That must be another one of those things I don't get. I voted for myself becuase I don't think my abilities to perform sysop duties and use the powers involved are even in question here. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:10, 2 Dec 2006 Are you aware of your arrogance? First, you're disappointed in me, and now I'm confused about definitions? Disagreement is disrespect when your approach is to enter a situation and do whatever you want to, regardless of the admin that was there first. Your overruling of Elvis after Some user's completely embarrassing shit-slinging fest is just the last straw. Spare me any more condescension and long-winded novellas. Somey's already offered you a job where your ego can run wild and free, I suggest you accept it. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Once again, show me where I enter situation and do whatever I want to. You still refuse to. This "I've had it" section and related messages on UN:OFFICE are the extent of my conversation with hinoa. You'll note that I was already in the discussion, hinoa entered the situation I was in first, he implemented the rules himself that he thought were right, I only added to them, and then he leaves because I disagreed with him. So should we desysop him? Your arguments apply to him as much as me. And Elvis banned SU for rules that were created 2 hours after the offence he was banned for. Tell me how this is overruling, rather than correction. Again there was no warning given for behaviour, as in "keep up with this and you be banned". Whcih is only fair for an established contributor. And I'm sorry if you can't follow a long message. If you keep refusing to show me evidence for what I've done, and explain exactly why what I said was wrong, and explain why desysopping will help, I'll assume your grievences are personal dislike of my personality rather than based on anything I've actually done wrong. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:37, 2 Dec 2006 I have no intention of wasting my time writing you up a list that you'll squirm out of through errant thinking. The fact that you're trying to implicate me as one of "the cabal members" shows just how completely misguided you are. How many minutes have I spent in IRC in the last 6 months? Your activity around here has irritated me for some time, and the Some user incident was the clincher. Don't give me the "2 hour" line again. Since when was "being a dick" not grounds for a ban around here, and yet you thought nothing of giving SU a free pass to bully a fellow admin. Who do you think you are, exactly? Don't answer -- it's someone I don't want to know. You're not a team player; the team is better without you. Now, as you seem to have a need to always have the last word, feel free to continue writing into thin air. I'll be busy working on something else where my time and effort isn't needlessly wasted. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC) The rules implented by Hinoa at UN:OFFICE were discussed and agreed upon by at least 3 other admins. The idea of taking action was heavily favored by nearly everyone in the chatroom, at first I wanted to ban SU - for his comments about Elvis and other users - and hold a vote to de-sysop you. I was told by many people that they approved of this action and would stnd behind me if I carried it through. However, Elvis thought that you should be given a proper warning and a set of guidelines first, and then if they decided to go against this warning take the above action. Elvis was able to sway enough users to convince Hinoa to add the guidlines to the list. IMO, if Elvis was going to ban SU, he had every right to, no matter the rules; any other user in SU's position would have been banned days ago, and banned for a year based on what he said to Elvis. So if Elvis wanted to ban SU, and Todd wanted to bring this vote to the forum, they had every right to do so, and were in the same opinion of several others.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) My mistake then. Though in my defence I couldn't have known about that, and I'm sure people know how I feel about IRC decisions. but yes, I didn't realise there was more than Hinoa that decided on it. Apologies, that part was my mistake. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:27, 3 Dec 2006 Spang has obviously doing something very wrong, as we've lost two admins over his behavior. I think the next step is to create a probation process before de-opping him.--<<>> 20:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) We didn't lose Splarka because of Spang. We lost him because he wasn't that interested in the Uncyclopedia drama anymore and at that time Spang was getting on his nerves most of all. As holy as you all make Splarka to be, he's still human and as such is subject to sporadic momentary decissions. Unfortunately for Spang, Splarka's good with words (though the whole anti-Spang-argumenting was very weak) and is as stubborn as a mule... tied to a mountain... with diamond-chains... He will never give in. As for Hinoa... He's the one that started the special rule editting. So, given that Hinoa is not to blame for this, Spang is equally not to blame. One acted on his own impulses, the other reacted to this accordingly. Both expressing their personal views. Todd: It seems you're advocating for quantity, not quality... Please, tell me I'm wrong.. ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|UotM|+S 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC) We have a quantity of quality admins getting alienated by the drama around here. Spang's quality doesn't outweigh it. Even the loss of Codeine alone isn't worth it. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User Comments

Admin-gone counter: 4 confirmed admins gone

I'm abstaining from the vote, since I'm not sure if I even have the right to vote in this, and if I voted yes it would be interpreted as pettiness. I can't be seen as objective. That being said, I would like to say that the fact that this is the second time this vote has come up within the last few weeks is not a good prognostic indicator for Spang. It looks to me like he has a problem. --Hrodulf 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. By the way, I thought you all should be informed that we've lost Codeine as well. That's four admins gone now, for anybody who's keeping an account of this catastrophe, you know, for historical purposes or whatever. --Hrodulf 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Codeine cites "bickering, drama and politics" as his reasons for taking off. That means he's fed up with all this stuff, not that 'Spang's gotten rid of yet another admin'. The implication is that he'll come back when everyone stops fucking about. I hope... -- 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, I never said "Spang's gotten rid of yet another admin", you said that. I just stick to the facts, the interpretation and blame is subjective and reasonable minds can disagree. I leave it to the rest of you to make the relevant decisions and interpretations of all the facts, since I can't vote in this thing anyway, and would recuse myself even if I could. --Hrodulf 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was unfair of me, sorry. It's 3am, that's just how it came across. -- 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgive you. And if anybody is still reading this, I'd like to note that those three little words could have saved us all from where we are today if sincerely uttered at any point after the day that ridiculous article was written. --Hrodulf 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't it all just STOP??? People are leaving. Really really good people are leaving. It's never happened before, and now within a few days we've lost Splarka, Hinoa, Elvis and Codeine. 4 ADMINS. I'm not trying to pin blame on anybody, or even link it to any one issue, but THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT. It's divided people up, made them enemies - and nobody is having fun, which is surely what Uncyclopedia is all about? There's all this politics, and people pitting themselves against other people, and it's just awful. Just.... stopppp. -- 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We're in the process of stopping it. That's what this vote is for. --Hrodulf 01:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WTF, Todd? Haven't we all had enough of this? Can't it just end, someday? I was hoping it would be today, but oh well, I guess not.

If you want to blame, and/or ban, someone for pointing out things like Hinoa's twice reverting Euroipods back to the offensive version when other people tried to fix it, blame me, okay? I would have done it myself, but the UN:OFFICE page is protected against non-admins, in keeping with Uncyclopedia's longstanding fairness policy when it comes to administrative attacks on users. Ban me for a month, a year, a millenium, indefinitely, I honestly don't care anymore. Just end it, right here, right now, and get it over with. Can't someone just make it stop, please?  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• However, if we remove on admin, who was voted for by the people, doesn't that set a president for empeachment? We may end up empeaching on a regular basis, and then things will get ugly around here. I think that if Spang is up for serious review, we should review all the admins at one, as sort of a one time thing, instead of singeling individual admins out from the pack. Not that I want any of you fellows to leave, but it would just make it...better...in my mind. --Sir Zombiebaron 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Y'know, a method by which users could impeach corrupt admins sounds pretty good. I can think of a handful of admins who have grossly misused their power. Spang is one of the few not on that list. --User:Nintendorulez 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Realistically, user votes don't carry much weight in the choosing of sysops. At the time I was elected, I think I needed the support of 7 admins to get the flag. I would expect to be voted out in a similar manner should I be deemed a liability. ~ Sir Todd GUN WotM MI UotM NotM MDA VFH AotM Bur. AlBur. CM NS PC (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Right. This would discourage admins from continuing to be becoming liabilities. --User:Nintendorulez 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I, for one, appreciate Spang as sysop. --General Insineratehymn 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, there's too much politics and bickering here, and not enough laughs anymore. Recently I've been feeling like my own Uncyclopedia career is starting to wind down, and incidents such as the Euroipods debacle are just accelerating the process. This used to be fun, now it's just an extra pain in the arse that I'm actually not obliged to put up with. I don't want that, lets have fun again, please. Humour sucks when you take it seriously. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

AMNISTY for everyone related to the whole euroipods war. They were all and each one of them a bunch of idiots who couldn't keep things under proportions. Let's fortget this whole thing happend and start from zero. Don't desysop or ban anyone over this, don't prompt the next war. Removal of Nin's name and complete and total amnisty for all I say.---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I have yet to hear anything that Spang's done wrong. Quit being so immature. I can think of loads of admins that I hate, but you don't see me leaving the wiki, throwing tantrums, and threatening with bullshit like "He goes or I go". Let's grow up, shall we? --User:Nintendorulez 18:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Rataube! Couldn't someone just delete this page or something? This is getting ludicrous. And now it's "the retention of one person is never worth the alienation and/or loss of a group of talented people, regardless of the person's skills"? Why wasn't that principle applied when it was decided to "retain" User:Guffawing Crow at the expense of alienating me, User:Mahroww, User:Prettiestpretty, User:Imrealized, and User:Faster Pussycat Kill Kill? And how many edits has "Guffy" made since last March? How about zero? This just takes the cake, that's all can say. Unbelievable.  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're getting hysterical. I suggest you calm down. —rc (t) 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I thought Guffaw was a jerk... and I had no idea he was responsible for the loss of all of these users. I liked Imrealized and Mahroww, they were good people.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"He" wasn't responsible; he was just doing what he was told by others, based on false information. But RC is right, I'm getting angry again, and that's not good. I'll take a 24 hour break, maybe 48, or like I say, just ban me... But how long has Hinoa been gone? Less than a day, and we're already into this crap? Couldn't we wait 2-3 more days, maybe, before we start in with the payback? And isn't it just possible that the endless bickering in and of itself is the real reason he's pissed off?  c • > • cunwapquc? 19:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That was what started him off, but then SPang went and made some changes to UN:OFFICE, which is what really got him going.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Spang hasn't wronged me at any time in any way. That having been said, it is absolutely true that he has alienated at least two major contributors. As far as SU's discussions on other users doing the same before is concerned, I was not aware of that at the time, but I suspect I would have the same reaction if I had. The fact is that we're talking about two of the most important, influential, and useful contributors to the site, and NO ONE is worth that. I agree with the people who have said that the Splarka/Spang thing seemed like an isolated incident when it happened, but this makes me question that. Honestly, at this point, I'm more concerned with being completely fair and giving Spang every chance to reform to what we want from him before whipping out the hangman's noose. If I wasn't so sure this will set a precedent, I'd vote for desysopping right now, because he's obviously doing something very wrong, as we've never lost an admin to personality conflict with another admin before, and we've already lost (at least) two over Spang.--<<>> 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

WHO THE FUCK PUT USER NAMES IN AN UNCYCLOPEDIA PAGE????? this is REALLY dumb. it's understandable in self referential articles like the one that's a parody of wikipedia's VFH page (and its a damn good article). but using it so recklessly as in "euroipods" is bad and defending it is REALLY dumb. to get to the point, i've read the concerned threads and i totally agree with "some user." regarding spang, i did not see any obnoxious behaviour by him in any of the threads. he was quite courteous and simply sticking to the principle i reiterate in this post, namely the gratitious use of user names in an article and the general displeasure it generates (generated re:euroipods) - so my sympathies are with him. i don't care how many admins we may lose 'cos of spang or anyone. any user or admin, who flouts the basic tents of uncyclopedia or the "wiki" philosophy (anonymity being the cornerstone of wiki-ness), deserves zero sympathy. admins are dispensable (and so are users) and they (both of them) will often leave without being ushered out or without warning (as is their wont) but the insincere among them will rest the blame on a spang or the other (ok, i'm being a bit harsh here but nevertheless). to add further drama, let me declare that regardless of whether spang is de-sysopped, this (i hesitate to take my name) user will not contribute another letter to uncyclopedia till all user name references are removed from the most worthless page in uncyclopedia: euroipods. (i'm serious about not contributing further till my demands are met...that does not scare you? yes, i'll wrap up my promises in the interim). (i'm sure it was sarcasm -- mowgli 05:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)) -- mowgli 21:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

spang being voted upon, twice, for being de-sysopped is very interesting. no two minds about it: either he's extremely bad or extremely good. after 4 months of uncycopedia-ing, i haven't seen the bad in him - normally the bad stands out very bad and very fast in bad people. (just my 2 cents.) -- mowgli 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The first one was started by myself, in an attempt to resolve an issue. Note that that was after repeated attempts to resolve it on splaka's talk page, and on IRC with him, to no avail. It probably wasn't the right thing to do and I've apologised for that, and it probably set a bad precedent, hence the situation we're in now. But this was started with no prior discussion or warning, and nobody saying they thought I was doing anything wrong. At least splarka gave me warning, which I failed to take seriously, which was my mistake.

I think the issue here is certain admins who think they are above everyone else, and refuse to take criticism of their actions well. I don't think I have personal issues with anyone here, I will only point out when I really disagree with something someone has done, when I think it's important to, and seeing as I seem to be the only one admin who does that, inevitably some of those admins will feel they are being persecuted becuase they are so unused to criticism from any other admins. It's a shame, it is, but I bear no ill will against anyone here. I judge by actions alone, not whether you have to power to delete a page or not. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:23, 2 Dec 2006

You probably missed my note on your talkpage earlier. I DID go to you, first thing, when I saw something I thought was done wrong. I guess I don't count, though. You've convinced yourself it's you against the world, and I don't think anyone is going to convince you otherwise.--<<>> 22:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment wasn't aimed at you. I replied to your message on my talk page, maybe you missed that. You're one of the people here who I think probably could take criticism, not that there's anything to criticise (yet :)), and commend you for trying to bring it up with me first. It's just a shame it was too late, and other users felt there was no point talking to me about it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:04, 2 Dec 2006

Ah, so you did. Man, my powers of observation just aren't cutting it, Today...--<<>> 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. You are the only one who actively opens a discussion on issues that you don't agree with. At least, you're better than me in that sense... I strongly disagree with certain repetitive actions made by various sysops, but A) since I used to do wrong myself (in that I resorted to blocking before talking), and B) I don't want to cause any major discussions/fights; I usually just think "Fuck it", and so this has led me to being far less active than I used to be. I haven't put up an "I'm leaving" notice on my user page, but that's 'cause I haven't given up entirely, and I'm not one for making a spectacle out of me-things(and this thread is a good example of what that would entale). ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am what I am, and I just find it difficult to let people to continue to do things detrimental the to the wiki without bringing it up with them, whoever they are. Though I didn't think I had done that a whole lot, maybe I do it in my sleep too, and don't realise. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:04, 2 Dec 2006

I think it should be noted here that I'm the only one who has their name on the page against the person will. Everyone else wanted their name there. --User:Nintendorulez 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been noted since the moment it was put there. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ZING! I have my name on several pages that I wouldn't want it to be - I even have my picture (a really bad picture) on a page - but, unlike you Nin, I don't think it's necessary complaining about it at every turn. It's even less necessary to join someone you in their personal cause and evenually letting it go as far as this.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, and as little as my opinion counts, I think it is worth considering exactly how much User:Spang has done for Uncyc. On one hand, we have Spang who has done quite a bit. On the other hand we have admins like Splarka that have done so much more. In sum, removing Spang's adminship would be counterproductive as well as productive, and I think an efficient compromise is called for. "special" rules for users like User:Nintendorulez and User:Kakun have worked in the past while still allowing them to contribute, and I think something similar may be the way to go for Spang without removing his adminship. In other words, I completley agree with a few admins on IRC that said we should have an ArbCom. Limiting the capability of productive users to contribute is counterproductive, and should therefor be avoided whenever possible, especially if simple alternatives are in place. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 20:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinoa left???

Score: 1 drama making ED envious

• That sucks!!! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, It does suck. 19:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• ...and Elvis too, I think. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
• Man, wouldn't it suck if I left? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I miss Elvis already. 20:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Against Hinoa leaving --—Braydie 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Euroipods! - User:Guest/sig 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Against - But I like Hinoa, even if he does yell at me alot, which is why I voted him for the month, Spang, I dunno what you are doing, but stop doing it.--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All I do is disagree with people who I feel are wrong. And no, I won't stop that. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 22:25, 2 Dec 2006

So you disagree with me then? That's it I'm leaving now goodbye uncysux lol (sarcasm)--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• God, I'll miss Hinoa. He was the best user on this wiki... well, besides STM and Chron. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So why exactly is everyone so pissed at Spang anyway?

From what I've read of the discussions, Hinoa gave everyone in favor of removing my name new rules that would effectively bar them from doing anything remotely related to the article. That's pretty spontaneous, biased, and way too drastic to just set up without a concensus. Spang figured it would be a bit fairer if these rules applied to everyone on both sides of this debate. Doesn't seem like too big a deal. And I don't even know what it was that got Splaka so upset. And on top of all this, none of this even had anything to do with sysop powers. Why deop for something that isn't even related to ops? Is there something I'm missing here? Somebody clarify the situation. --User:Nintendorulez 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read everything? 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and those are all the 'crimes' that Spang has been accused of. As far as I can see. --User:Nintendorulez 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem with Spang adminship, as I see it. First, he appears to have no problem undermining his fellow admin's authority, taking actions contradicting his fellow admins without taking time to talk to them about it first. While he readily criticizes "the cabal" for making decisions without informing the entire community at the forums first, he makes decisions unilaterally without consulting any of his fellow admins. This is a big deal. Second, he has spoken on this page of active admins only in negative, derogatory terms, showing a lack of respect for them. Then all he asks for is respect in return. In this way, he is putting himself above his fellow admins, which the other admins will not accept. It was really described well in the Ministry of Love page where Spang is characterized as taking a bath in gasoline and then taking a smoke-break. Third, he is completely unrepentant. It is not he that has made a mistake in his actions, it is the other two/three/half-dozen admins that need to change their ways. Something wisdom that I think applies here: if a large group of which you're a part thinks you're wrong, and you think they're wrong, there's a chance you're right, but a better chance that they're right. The more I research this, the more things I see that Spang is doing that he really shouldn't be (the time-consuming joke-bans of ops, the taking of unilateral action, demanding respect in the way of warnings and talkpage contacting, when this has happened before and been ignored). Really, he's not acting the way we want an admin to act, and he doesn't actually seem to care, which is bad.--<<>> 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hinoa was the one who put several people on the new special rules without consulting fellow admins. Spang simply put the rest on to be fair, in the assumption that the issue would be soon be settled and that everyone would be taken off that list quickly enough. And as for talk pages, some people only really use them when they feel there's an issue to resolve. So you may only have seen him when he had complaints to make. --User:Nintendorulez 23:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not in the mood for researching and linking, I can tell you without a doubt that I too have had my bans removed without discussion. We're they unjustly removed? Probably not. But they were going against my judgement and making me look like a jerk.

Joke-banning was not invented by Spang. He was not the only one to still be executing joke-bans at that time. What he was doing, apparently, was targetting Splarka too much for Splarka's liking. Maybe he should have seen it coming, but Splarka gave no (undoubtably) serious indication of what another joke-ban would result in. Also, I can tell you that before stating Spang as being the reason he would not return, he asked me to try and stop joke-banning in general. I never really considered doing such, because I found it to be a bit too fun-hating...

Spang has a bit of an aggressive way of communicating, you say. I disagree. I find that when he does get more aggressive, it is because there is no shift in the situation and no resolution can be made. And besides, it's not like he's the only one here who dropped out of finishing school... ⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ign^STFU F@H|UotM|+S 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Brad. I do care, but nobody has yet pointed me to anything specific I need to apologise for, and people continue to use terms like "undermining authority" without ever giving examples. I apologised all over the last "desysop me" topic, because I was in the wrong joke-banning splarka, just because I failed to take his warning seriously, and I apologised for that. Several times. And I learned my lesson.

I think I already explained about my actions including reverting Euroipods and reverting Elvis' ban in Famine's topic in the ministry of love, so let me know if you think those explanations weren't sufficient. I'm sorry for any trouble I've caused, but I don't think I've done anything wrong with respect to hinoa leaving, as nintendorulez has put that particular situation perfectly. Nobody has yet provided a coherent explanation of exactly what I did wrong, and they just talk in general terms of disrespect etc. I don't think I remember demanding respect, I didn't mean anything I wrote to come across that way.

I think I've tried to be level-headed and reasonable, but it's difficult when people start descending to personal comments, like todd lyons' "Somey's already offered you a job where your ego can run wild and free, I suggest you accept it." I mean, I don't think that helps anyone - it's basically, I don't just want you desysopped, I want you off the site.

Seriously, I keep saying it, but nobody seems to be getting it, so I'll bold it. List exactly what you think I have done wrong, linking to or quoting exactly where you got that impression from, and I'll either explain myself or apologise. I don't do things to aggravate people on purpose I don't think, but nobody's perfect, including the ones giving and recieving the criticisms. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:29, 2 Dec 2006

It's true that none of us are perfect. I do understand that it's hard to keep yourself detached from a subject that you, yourself are a part of. I tend to trust admins and long-term users more than the average user, and so having admins fight really makes that difficult. ;) I still believe that two different arguments with two different admins about two different things indicates a larger problem which must be resolved, and I don't think anything short of a probation of some type will do, at this point. Of course, that's all you're asking for, too, in the end (you want to know what you've done wrong, so you can not do it... specific probation on a specific matter would do that). That having been said, I like Famine's suggestion from the Ministry of Love page that we take nin's name off that stupid page. Nin really needs to get a new obsession, but one year of listening to his whining on the matter, with no end in sight, is enough for me. He is a respected contributor (with the exception of the Euroipods Crusade), so I don't think this is something that will come up often. Of course, if he were to suddenly decide something ELSE needed changing, then it'd be a ban, of course, but I really don't think that's going to happen. Throw him a bone. He's earned it. It'll take at least another year to get another one. ;) And I'd like to take a second to say I was wrong about Spang ignoring my comment on his talkpage. It came when I wasn't paying attention. So that's on me.--<<>> 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite willing to listen to any "probation" terms you have in mind, even if only to specify exactly what I'm doing wrong. I can't guarantee to stop disagreeing with people, or start treating admins differently purely because they're admins, but I can promise to always try and bring it up with them or discuss with them reasonably before taking any action, and try to bring in a third party opinion if that doesn't work.

I just doesn't think de-adminning will solve any problems there are, as this particular problem has nothing to do with admin powers... I honestly feel that the initiating users want to remove the sysop flag just to take me down a peg or two. It might not be true, but that's what it seems like to me. I still haven't seen anyone point me to something I said, and say, "this was why Hinoa got upset and left, you shouldn't have said that". As has been said, he, by himself, effectively shut out one side of a discussion. I mean, both sides I could understand (that's why I added everyone else who had reverted/commented on euroipods recently), but I had to take issue with what he did. Wouldn't you? And I couldn't have known he would just up and leave over it. One of my comments was quite sarcastic, but I think I explained why I took issue with what he did, and why I added the extra names, pretty clearly. And also, he hasn't left for good; he's taken a break, and I'm sure he won't mind being on the same website as me when he decides to return.

I do agree that 2 admins leaving supposedly because of me looks quite bad... but I think you have to look at the reasons separately. If it had been exactly the same thing in two or more isolated incidents that made people leave/hate me, then I could understand, but both are completely unrelated. The first time, I unknowingly took a joke too far, and I brought it up several weeks later, during which time nobody even mentioned it, I don't think. This second time has nothing to do with that, and probably would never have even been brought up if I hadn't started the original "de-admin spang" topic. The second time, it's now looking like it's probably just a conflict of personality with "the cabal" members (Todd, Mhaille, Dawg, Codeine to name a few relevant here) who would just rather not have someone they don't like/someone willing to disagree with them being on here. Again, that may not be the case, but thats what it seems like from my side.

But I digress. Let's hear your "probation" ideas, and I'm sure I'll let you know what I think of them :) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:55, 3 Dec 2006

Let me echo Spang's oft-repeated comments: Make us a list. Show where he maliciously undermined admins, and was sooo horrible he needs to go. Spang's no angel, but I have heard him apologize more times for more things than anyone else on this website. If you can point me to the treasure-trove of misdeeds, I'll be happy to vote him out. The problem is that I see far more of him trying to push for fairness and openness than I see him trying to undermine people. As far as I can tell, it should be way easier to come up with a list of "Famine's being an unreasonable asshole" than "Spang's undermining Uncyclopedia". Is he honestly closer to getting the boot than I am? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/3 02:01

What the hell is wrong with everbody?

I'm fairly confident that I typed "uncyclopedia.org" into my browser, but by the looks of this page I seem to have inexplicably ended up at Encyclopedia Dramatica. - Nonymous 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)