Forum:Open Forum On Deopping Socky

Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Open Forum On Deopping Socky

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4853 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

USERS ONLY

Like the banner reads on the Ministry Of Love: "In an effort to demonstrate openness and a spirit of comradeship, IngSoc’s Inner Party Uncyclopedia’s Ruling Elite have created this area to discuss issues involving Party Members Administrators and the Proles Uncyclopedia Users, alike. Topics covered might include bans, deletions, abuses of power, acts of mass genocide, and love for Big Brother. Its touching to see how they all love Big Brother. Please feel free to lift your head above the parapet, safe in the knowledge that your opinion is of value to us.Please keep your discussion to the facts, and refrain from ranting, spitting venom and Morris Dancing."

I can understand the necessity of keeping the official vote page open to Admins only but in the interest of the above mentioned principles there should be a forum for user comments. I think the BUTT POOP!!!! drama has worn out for now but the current admin drama over this poop that broke the camel's back and previous perceived offenses leading up to it have created the very distraction from writing articles that we wish to avoid. I suppose I could see the viewpoint that said drama is generated by socky but I also feel that it's a two way street. I suppose that I may be perceived as guilty of creating drama by starting this forum but not having said forum will also result in drama due to the closed nature of the official voting page.

Should Socky Be Deopped?

FOR

---

• For. Ok I have changed my opinion on this after seeing the 26 or so diffs on the other forum, this BUTT POOP!!!! nonsense needs to stop, admins are supposed to be under the same rules as everyone else (and are just given the additional power and trust to enforce them) and last of all if you have an issue with someone instead of making vague and often downright dickish statements behind they're back, talk to them. Drama fiend, needs to learn adminship does not make you above everyone else. Yes he is mostly a nice guy, but this is just plain stupid. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:36, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I retract all statements made because it seems you can't voice your opinions around here without some troll stirring up more drama. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:53, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

• You really are desperate for adminship aren't you Frosty. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:43, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  No, no I am not. How could you be more wrong? I am voicing my opinions which is actually what the whole point of forums is all about. Or is now a place to stir up more drama as this discussion will undoubtedly do. So as a result I retract out of this forum entirely, and you should thank god I'm not leaving the site fullstop as your stupid accusation just about nearly did. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:53, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

  Chill, Frosty. I'm pretty sure matt lobster was kidding! Weren't you, Matt? --Scofield & The Machine 10:58, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

AGAINST

---

• Against.--    21:01, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. Absolutely not. I think TKF's move to bash Socky about his admin performance and try to de-op him is suicidal, and will only damage his (and Lyrithya's, who for some reason chose to vote against him as well) reputation even further. Acting like an authoritarian over issues and attacking and accusing other users is precisely what admins need to avoid, and TKF has fallen into that trap hook, line and sinker. I also find the objections of Rcmurphy and Under user totally valid. If other admins have gotten away with worse (I remember Codeine blatantly restoring Mr winkler is GAY) why is Socky being targeted? If he really is being uncooperative and manipulative, you're just playing into his hands. And I have my doubts about that. --Scofield & The Machine 21:12, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against Sockster has the soul of Uncyclopedia burning his own trousers. Legend. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:21, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. I can see both sides of the argument, but no, I think a deopping is taking this too far. I love all you guys and it hurts to see you fighting! --Black Flamingo 22:02, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Against. per above. --Mn-z 23:52, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain. Whilst I have to say he is a valueable member of the community I have to say him along with a few others have been kicking up entirely too much drama about something that was voted democratically for deletion. I also find he disagrees with the other, more experienced admins too often for my likely. But on the other hand he does do a lot, so yeah, I abstain.~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:09, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
• One less admin, fifty more vandals.--FcukmanLOOS3R!!! 13:17, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
• Umm ... this is retarded (and this is coming from a user who thinks admins over step powers too much). --ShabiDOO 14:14, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
• Strongest possible against --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 20:32 Sep 6 2011
• Against. It's no secret that I've butted heads with various admins in the past. But TKF, Socky, and Lyrithya, right now, are three of my favorite administrators. TKF has become one of the site's funniest writers while being (often surprisingly) humble and approachable, and really taking pride in being a good administrator. Lyrithya is an insane, mad-scientist perfectionist whose perfectionism touches every corner of the wiki - and vastly improves it. Socky is a jokester (and occasionally a prankster) who thinks the mantra "comedy is serious business" is utter bullshit: if we take this project too seriously, we lose our sense of humor. I guess maybe it's no surprise that there would be friction between these three admin styles. But we need all three styles here, and more to the point, we need these three individuals. There has to be some way for you bitches to hug it out. Hug it out, bitches. pillow talk 23:40, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

  I approve this message. Except the hugging part. That part's kinda awkward. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:16, 7 September 2011

COMMENTS:

---

Your headers look weird. ;) —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:08, 2 September 2011

Get outta here you freakin' admin scum! I'll have you deopped! lol! What can I say, I spend enough time away from formatting and creating stuff (because I'm still "recharging") and look what happens. I only just finally figured out how to fix Extreme Paranormal after a couple months.--    21:21, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding BUTT POOP!!!!

Fighting an established in-joke is like trying to censor the internet. The more one tries to suppress it, the more attention is drawn to it. I think it is fairly clear that BUTT POOP!!!! has reached "critical mass", and it can't be deleted now. It actually probably reached critical mass when Hype mainspaced it. I predict that template:BUTT POOP!!!! is be restored to mainspace by year's end, and will be followed by most of the userspaced BUTT POOP!!!! pages. BUTT POOP!!!! will probably be featured some time next year or the year after. --Mn-z 02:18, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Socky's alleged abuse of power

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

Happens all the time. MadMax, of all people, has been unilaterally restoring templates after deletion (for archival purposes), against the community consensus. MadMax actually restored template:BUTT POOP!!!!, a few times, against the clear pontifications of Mordillo.

First, in response to Mn----z: Note that I have no idea what MadMax might or might not have done, but "for archival purposes" doesn't really sound like MadMax was acting against community consensus. And also, judging by the edit summaries of the deletion logs of Template:BUTT POOP!!!!, Template:BUTT_POOP and the archives of MadMax' and Mordillo's talk pages, this looks like a minor disagreement which was settled in the end, so no warring between MadMax and Mordillo as your description made it sound like, so I don't think this is a very good example.

Second, about the actual issues at hand: In the first case, the BUTT POOP(!!!!?) forum, when Socky first reverted TKF, he might have seemed ignorant because TKF had actually given an explanation why he had protected that forum in his edit summary, albeit a potentially controversial or dubious one, which Socky seemingly ignored when he reverted TKF. So this argument of Socky is not really applicable, because TKF already explained that in the edit summary. But the drama didn't start until Socky's next revert. I didn't really find TKF's second edit summary patronizing. Authoritative maybe, but not patronizing, so I don't find Socky's reaction to this edit adequate. Lyrithya's deleting the forum was, IMO, finally the first unconstructive and useless contribution, including her edit summary, which, in contrast to TKF's, I found "patronizing" instead of explanatory, and I don't blame Socky for restoring the forum afterwards. Sadly, this is what made the whole affair escalate.

The second issue, the Unnews-czar-forum, I don't think Socky acted inappropriately at all. The "conversation" in the logs was reasonable, except for TKF's deleting the forum. Also, the issue was resolved later, but that has already been stated in the admin-only equivalent of this forum.

The third case, the "Large T/text" issue: Rcmurphy said that Socky was actually the one to be reverted first. Technically, this is not true, because Socky was effectively reverting TheLedBalloon's move from January 25, 2008. However, he might not have been aware of that, since this move had been many revisions ago. Still, when he reverted Lyrithya next, he was effectively edit warring with her, because he disregarded her reasoning for reverting him entirely. Luckily, this did not continue after Dr. Skullthumper's intervention.

The forth issue is a mite pitiful, because it was, according to Socky, simply a misunderstanding due to Socky's decision to choose a humorous edit summary, rather than a serious, explanatory one. Yes, it would have been wiser if Socky had not assumed that Lyrithya would understand what he meant, so I would say the fault lies with Socky here, but not in a way related to the topic of this forum. Schamschi, 15:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

2. Bumping sensitive (and rather old) forums [5]

That was do to a category renaming, and he did protect the topic. Also, if Socky didn't bring up restoring template:BUTT POOP!!!!, either myself or Hype would have.

True, Socky's edits might seem too insignificant to justify bumping an old forum, but he did protect it when someone edited it. Also, I think the accusation of "bumping" an old forum is pretty pointless, because Socky started a new forum about a related, although not identical, topic anyway, so what difference did bumping the old one make? Schamschi, 15:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

3. Creating new drama forums [6] [7]

That is not drama, Hype and myself were 100% responsible for the resurrection of BUTT POOP!!!!. Also, one man's drama is another man's legitimate concern.

The first forum was a joke. And about the second, I don't know enough about the history of BUTT POOP to comm– oh sorry, BUTT POOP!!!! – to comment on that. TKF's argument that raising a concern IS drama when there is no conclusion to be reached makes sense, although I would rather say that raising a concern under those circumstances is simply unnecessary, and it only becomes drama when the situation that Socky described in his following comment arises. Schamschi, 15:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

4. Protecting articles for no apparent reason [8]

Mordillo protected WP:HOTCAT for no good reason. I don't agree with the perma-protection, but there is alot of stuff on the wiki that is protected by shouldn't be. Following that logic, we should de-op everyone. Which I actually support, by the way.

Mnwhatever, what Andorin Kato said. If Mordillo acted inappropriately, this is no excuse for Socky to act inappropriately. If there are so many things on the wiki that are protected but shouldn't be, why don't you address these issues (not in this forum)? Also, I agree with Rcmurphy, protecting the article was obnoxious. But has Socky done something like this again? He certainly didn't continue warring with RAHB, or start a drama about it. Maybe Socky has simply learned from his mistake. Oh noes, an admin made a mistake, what a catastrophe. Schamschi, 15:22, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

5. Undeleting articles deleted by other admins, as part of maintenance, QA, VFD, etc [9] [10] [11] [12] Later redeleted these after several admins ganged up on him on IRC, or some such, at least: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Like no-one else ever unilaterally deletes or undeletes content.

6. Using VFD to start a vote to undelete a deleted article

I have seen it done with FFW articles. Also, there should be some appeal against unilateral deletions. And appeal, I don't mean banter and bitch until the deleting admin changes his/her mind. While it is not standard procedure, I've seen worse.

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

Nigggas, please. I've seen admins unilateral invalid VFD noms before on several occasions. Also, what is the exact policy on keeping/deleting an article? If it is at +2 net delete, how long should the admin wait? Olipro was under the assumption that +1 net delete vote was enough to delete an article at one point. Socky is basically in line with standard procedure.

Also, I'd like to add that Lyrithya's message on Socky's talk page regarding the issue was unnecessarily rude and accused Socky of acting in bad faith, rather than making a bad judgment call.

8. Instead of contacting other admins directly about things he'd rather they do/do not do, making (vague) jabs at them

In other words, he didn't start a dramathon

9. Instead of contacting another admin directly about things he'd rather they do/do not do, said something vague [26] 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)

Because no-one else ever does that. Are we seriously going to de-op people for that!

10. Spamming the IRC channel

Noone cares about IRC

To list some things Socky hasn't done:

1. Socky has never fucked up the categories by bot removing {{subcat}}. Even if you have permission of another admin to do it, it is still a bad idea.
2. Socky has never started a dramathon over being called a "Batfuck Retarded Cunt" on IRC
3. Socky has never insulted an article because it satirized the polices of his country. For example, I can say, "Albert II is gay and stupid and ugly and retarted and fat" without generating a nationalistic hissy fit.
4. Socky has never pissed anyone off enough to make them leave the wiki. Examples include not randomly insulting articles, not giving out excessive bans, not being a dick to newer users.

   Not anymore. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 11:06, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

   Don't blame Socky for that, now. --Scofield & The Machine 11:30, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

   Frosty decided to stay after all. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:37, 6 September 2011

5. Socky has never perma-banned anyone who later unbanned by another admin, and then went on to become one of the major contributors of this wiki.
6. IRC caballed to VFD an article that was known to have significant support, then acted said IRC-rigged VFD was handed down by Moses at Mount Sinai
7. Nominated the same article repeatedly for VFH, at least not sense be became an admin.

In terms of dickery, Socky is far below average for an admin. The only reason he is getting flak is because he tends to side with regular users as opposed to admins on several issues. For example, he is pro-BUTT POOP!!!!, he opposed FFW, et cetera. --Mn-z 03:11, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Now Mnbvcxz, let's not start slinging mud at people. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:32, 3 September 2011

I'm trying to sling mud at several people, so I'm not picking on anyone in particular, if that makes it any better. --Mn-z 03:52, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, not really. Defend Socky if you like, but keep to the issues at hand instead of throwing out more insults. —rc (t) 03:57, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am just pointing out what Socky hasn't done. --Mn-z 04:05, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

No, you're pointing out what other people have done. That's just inviting even more drama. Don't push it. —rc (t) 04:11, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument that one could make as strong a case for deopping almost any given admin, as they could for deopping Socky, is actually a very legitimate one. In fact, it's the exact same argument that Lee Adama used to convince the jury that former Vice President Baltar must be found not guilty: that if everyone were objectively tried for their crimes, you'd have to shoot virtually everyone on the Galactica out of the airlock, and that would be the end of humanity. Lee Adama put the question to the jury: "Are we having this trial because his crimes are worse than any of ours, or simply because we don't like him?" Could be a question worth pondering. pillow talk 23:57, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

(I only read your first sentence.) Yes, pointing out that other admins have not necessarily been held to the same standards as Socky is being held to now is a legitimate argument (and one that I've made both in the other Deop Socky thread and on IRC), but taking specific potshots at specific people, thus escalating a dramafest that has already spiraled out of control, is not the way to make that argument. —rc (t) 00:57, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate how you failed to point out that Baltar was actually on trial for collaborating with the Cylons during their occupation of New Caprica which occurred during his presidency. Hence, Hype should have referred to him as "former President Baltar". —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:08, 7 September 2011

He's got a point, rcmurphy. You did sort of pass up a golden opportunity to bitch-slap me. pillow talk 02:47, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the evidence clearly showed that "President" Baltar was being manipulated and that he only controlled a puppet government. Rubeus Hagrid was clearly the one pulling the strings back on Yavin, so you're both wrong. —rc (t) 22:37, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

If you want people to take your position seriously, you should probably not post troll comments like "no one cares about IRC" and a big list of things that other admin(s) have allegedly done. --Andorin Kato 04:10, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Also, "I've seen worse" and "But X does this too", which seem to make up a large portion of your arguments, are not valid excuses for inappropriate behavior. --Andorin Kato 04:23, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Um...admins...this is a forum for users. Unlock your vote page so users can democraticaly vote ... or stay off this page please :) --ShabiDOO 12:47, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think making this forum users-(meaning non-admins-)only is as stupid as making the other forum admins only. How can there be discussion between both parties if each party has their own forum where the other party is not allowed to say anything. It's pathetic enough that there are two forums about the same issue just because TKF felt the need to protect his forum, but restricting the other one as well doesn't resolve this issue in the slightest. As long as admins don't protect this forum or start voting here too, I don't think there's a problem with admins posting here, after all, Rcmurphy said some reasonable things here. Schamschi, 14:29, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

A Reply to what Lyrithya said

“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.”

~ Lyrithya

What is the hell does that mean? From what I can tell, it means he is defending his actions and not repenting in sackcloth and ashes for what are at worst, administrative mistakes and minor disagreements. What the hell do you expect him do, admit that he did kept Dark Horse just be a dick? Admit that he suggested restoring template:BUTT POOP!!!! just to stir up drama, and not because BUTT POOP!!!! got a majority of keep votes, and it now appears that BUTT POOP!!!! has majority support?

Obviously, he is going to defend himself, because he was acting in good faith, and didn't create an unholy mess (unlike some actions of other admins.)

I think there are two issues going on here. First, Socky tends to disagree with the rest on the admins on certain issues, which is generating some friction. Basically, he is from a younger generation of editors, and tends to different tastes than the rest of the admins. Since I am already over my quota of mud slinging today, I won't mention the 2nd issue. --Mn-z 03:52, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mn$%^"& here with regard to Lyrithya's comment. When I read that in the other forum, I was metaphorically scratching my head and wondering what Socky could have said in the forum that wouldn't have yielded further hostility from either TKF or Lyrithya. First, TKF accuses Socky of trolling instead of defending his case, when there wasn't even a case at that time to begin with, and then, when Socky actually defends his case, he is only encountering more animosity because Lyrithya considers the fact that Socky does NOT admit that he was wrong in every single instance stubbornness and unreasonability. Great. With this attitude, the discussion is really going nowhere. Schamschi, 15:47, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said many, many times

I don't really know what this whole mess about BUTT POOP is about, and I don't like that page. Socky's attempt to generate a debate on restoring the template could be seen as drama-mongering, except he was hardly acting in a dickish or confrontational way. In such a scenario, protecting the forum topic AND attacking a fellow admin is nothing short of shooting oneself in the foot, which is precisely what TKF has done. And how can you expect Socky not to get agitated after all this? Chances are TKF is appearing just as authoritarian to him as he is appearing to the rest of us, and then going as far as deopping him is not only a ridiculously bad idea, but manages to add a whole new dimension to this drama. Needless to say, if you're going to take such serious action against one admin (and a relatively new one at that), complaints about other admin indiscretions will come crawling out the woodworks, and everything will become one nasty shouting match where every established admin (or at least those who want him de-opped) will have his face dragged through the mud. All this could have been easily avoided if TKF hadn't been so self-righteous in shutting off a debate with an iron fist, and then bashing another admin's performance. I don't blame Socky for all this drama. I blame TKF. --Scofield & The Machine 10:36, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

This is interesting. Yesterday everything was fine, and suddenly I wake up on Saturday morning to this? All I wanted to do was chat and read my daily funnies... I think I'll just take a vacation until all this drama is sorted out. -- Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 16:29 September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Having read all of this, I come to the conclusion that Socky is Tintin Redux and Mnbvcxz could have come up with a better name. What's wrong with Lkjhgfdsa? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:16, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Necessity of Keeping the vote page open to only admins?

It is bad enough that the whole crat vote (the final vote) was open only to admins. Why on earth is de-opping an admin only open to admins? If ... as the logic goes ... users vote on admins to hand over their trust to other users ... then why the hell can we not participate in voting to take away those powers if they have lost our trust. This is nonsense that users cannot participate in that vote. Total absolute rubbish. --ShabiDOO 11:38, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, as users, we have a different experience with the site. The crux of the plaintiff's case is based in hot, steamy admin on admin sex. So, our perspective as users is slightly irrelevant unless the problem is one of admins who are pompous, arrogant bastards toward users (sound like anyone you know?) - then what we think might be more relevant. I did want our voices to be heard though, so I created this forum for that purpose. --    13:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying ... but still violently disagree :) An admin being de-opped is important to other users. First ... he as an admin has been voted in by users to have our trust and use their power for blah blah blah. If three admins who have a common way of admining the site gang up on another user and try to vote him out ... the users who, for instance like having a variety of admins with different attitudes and styles, don't wan't admins dictating what happens to admins who have been voted in by users, like the admin and their style and want that admin to stay, find the whole thing retarded and what it over and done with ... should have their say and vote.

I don't buy Skullthumpers argument that "there are things that admins know that you can't know unless you are an admin ... and therefore admins are the only people capable of making these decisions". Does this mean that older users like BlackFlamingo's say is not important but Lyrithya, a relatively new user and very new Admin's does? This is the kind of thing that bad leaders say. "We cannot tell you the details about this because it is too complicated, confidential, top-secret ... and so we spare you the difficulty and take care of it ourselves". Kind of like when men wouldn't let women vote. Of when you can't hear about the details of something because its "national security" or when people just want to hold onto power. It's rubbish. Total rubbish. --ShabiDOO 14:10, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, at this point in time, if the angry mob of disaffected admins doesn't show up sometime soon (better get out that whip and bark some more orders at the other admins, Kermit).......who's really going to look like the drama kings and queens here?--    14:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I violently agree ;) hahaha. --ShabiDOO 15:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous times in which the Police Admins should be in a better position to view and react to certain issues, but also there are other times were it should be seen that having a couple of extra buttons doesn't change you into anything separate/special from all the other contributors on a website. The trick is to find a balance... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Indeed. It's nice that there are admins to handle most oficial, nasty, interesting, weird, complicated things. But when it comes time to vote on something ... make a big decision ... every user has a say, except when people move up and down the ladder here, for some reason. I can't think of a worse matter to leave to an elite group (no matter how much TKF makes fun of me saying that) it's just the elite chosing/rejeting the elite, which is never a good thing. --ShabiDOO 15:46, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Normally such decisions regarding deoppings and sanctions on established users and the like (and that is what admins are voted for to deal with, regardless of all the pretty talk of it being 'just some extra buttons'; there are other concerns, though they usually don't affect the day-to-day stuff) are decided behind closed doors - in emails, IRC backrooms, etc, but after all the moaning about the lack of openness with that, we decided to try something different, using a forum, where all could see proceedings - to indeed keep things open, so to speak.

I never quite appreciated the amount of drama that is to be avoided through use of a cabal before.

1234 ~ 15:53, 6 September 2011

...*gasp*, you used the "C" word! People get banned for that you know! ;-) --    15:59, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

What Lyrithya said. I think it's delightfully ironic that Mhaille is arguing for an even more balanceful balance when, in fact, about a year ago, he and some unnamed others decided to unilaterally deop myself and Olipro after a rather unextensive cabal meeting via emails. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to go back to such methods. Because of, you know, "drama." -- 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 16:01, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Actually the point was that you and Oli were TEMPORARILY deopped and were involved in an immediate discussion with people who where concerned about behaviour (which I believe you said at the time was a little overboard following your return), there was never any longterm plan to remove admin rights that I know about, there was far more concern and goodwill towards the two of you for past endeavours. There's no way to avoid drama in these situations (just as this now has increased bad will), clearly it didn't but there was a massive concern towards avoiding embarrassment or having either of you losing face in anyway. It wasn't a hasty or ill-thought out decision and though I can't speak for anyone else as I said to you at the time it was more than regrettable. Half of the problem with any online group is that we don't really know anyone here, we only have perceptions of what people are like. That is coloured by a number of things, our own thoughts, maybe reinforced through group discussion when the inevitable "cliques" form. Frequently patterns of behaviour start to look like agendas and eventually crusades, where the smallest detail becomes a major issue. We're all just Blefuscudians or Lilliputians. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I know, huh? Peeps were telling me that you're not the same old TKF I remember and now that's all gone up in smoke.--    16:09, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Against. You know why. -- 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 16:16, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise this was a vote. Lyrithya...I apreciate the sentiment. But just because you are doing this in the open...rather than behind closed doors doesn't make it very much better. Instead...users simply get to watch the process they have no say in...rather than waiting to hear the verdict at the end. Furthermore, allowing only a few to vote for something to avoid theoretical "drama" is also no excuse to disenfranchise other people. Theres no reason why the communication about important things shouldn't be in plain view infront of everyone all the time...nor any good reason why everyone shouldn't be able to participate in that conversation and in making the ultimate decision. And if that means extra drama (which is theoretical) then so be it. Theres no shortage of things to be dramatic about. But I can't think of any other kind of drama thats worth enduring, than that which allows the whole community to discuss and have their say in the opping and deopping of an admin/crat. That...and quadriplegic mongolian kangaroos which have become all the vogue today should have a say. --ShabiDOO 16:26, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

TKF is referring to his state of vindictiveness towards me over some sin I'm apparently guilty of in the past. He still has a razor sharp memory about said sin and I'm still wondering what he meant the last time he said "you know why". I guess by the vote it has to do with VFH. Same old TKF.--    16:32, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're right; since this primarily concerns and affects us, there really wasn't much point in the rest of you even seeing it. How silly of us.

1234 ~ 16:39, 6 September 2011

Would you have felt silly if the immediate, visible consensus of both users and admins had reflected your opinion? You'd be a genius then! ;-) --    16:52, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Lyrithya, how could an admin being deoped not affect all users? The admin being de-oped was chosen by the users ... it would basically mean a small group of people override the decision of the whole community. But more importantly, it would mean the community losing an admin that perhaps they want to keep for a variety of reasons. It affects everyone. --ShabiDOO 16:55, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

So Mhaille's seen the light. Nothing wrong with that, right? Arguably the most important reason for preferring openness over cabal meetings is to avoid hasty and unthoughtful decisions. If making a certain decision out in the open causes drama, that might indicate it wasn't a good decision to begin with. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:36, 6 September 2011

Every decision is going to create drama because there is a terribly fine line between discussion and dismemberment. A lot of this rests on the personalities of Uncyclopedians moreso than the issues actually at hand, though. Reading this discussion in particular really reveals a lot about those personalities, and the inability to let go of the past (I am not letting myself off the hook on either case). It's also interesting to note how I'm being painted in this whole scenario. Deopping is a very serious proposal, so serious that it was never brought up as procedure before. I was completely aware of how controversial it would become, but honestly, the extent of this vitriolic reaction really is making me reconsider how good of a thing openness really is. You have all been so coddled by years of administrative complacency that "authoritative asshole" now equates to "starting an open admin discussion after preliminary discussion." -- 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 19:38, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, though perhaps with less hyperbole. Anything that involves users is a potential for drama, and yet disputes involving users are often the things needing decisions the most, before they get any worse. Insert various examples involving users who've been banned, or had sanctions placed against them, or who merited change in administrative policy here; there were decisions involved, and those decisions had to be made. The method of those decisions was rather different, of course; they were conducted privately, even without including those about whom they regarded on any level, but while that may sound unpleasant, apparently did result in considerably less drama in the long run... hmm, now I want to try taking over a third-world nation and putting a theory I'm hatching to a true test.

1234 ~ 22:48, 6 September 2011

Minimizing discussion may result in less drama, but that doesn't make it fairer for any of the parties involved. And while a wiki where things are enforced without much discussion might be more efficient, a wiki where things happen in the open and democratically would be a more enjoyable place to stay, for the most part. Not to say that suddenly everything needs discussion. Obviously the best way of running the wiki is somewhere in between. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:13, 6 September 2011

Probably not every decision. More to the point, allow me to rephrase the last sentence in my previous post. "If making a certain decision out in the open turns into a gynormous dramathon, that probably indicates it wasn't a good decision to begin with." (Partly because a majority of people labeling something as a bad idea is what causes it to be considered a bad idea in a general sense.) Obviously we disagree on what conclusions to draw from all this. And that's pretty much to be expected. I'm still not sure how all the mostly small things I'm accused of amount to that big of an annoyance to justify a deopping. And you probably think otherwise. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Maybe people are overreacting because they're not used to this kind of openness from the admins (a situation which can be solved equally well by having more of it, I might add). And maybe proposing (and initially threatening) to deop me was a bit too drastic. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:57, 6 September 2011

Hypothetical situation

Let's say I was an admin who had an issue with another admin - perhaps for numerous incidences of making baby Jesus cry or something. I think the first thing I'd do was consult a quorum of my fellow admins before doing anything so brash as unilaterally threatening to deop the other admin on his talk page - then following that action by creating an open/closed forum on the issue for a vote.

The subject brought up was whether or not "so and so" had the responsibility/maturity to handle the admin position and the toolbox it provided. Given the above example of silliness and lack of forethought, I have to wonder who really isn't fit to be an admin. You can blame this "open" process all you want but it's merely a tool in the toolbox. What's the old saying? "A poor craftsman blames his tools"--    17:06, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

If you really would like to know, there has been a "behind closed doors" discussion about Socky for some bit now between myself and a handful of other admins. The forum I created has been the sum of his actions and our discussion. Interpret it as you will, though. -- 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 17:14, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Looks like your quorum (enough votes to make it stick) either left you at the altar or refused to go public. Either way....--    17:40, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to reveal their identity because of, y'know, respect and all that bullshit, but you can take a gander at the deopping forum and possibly make a wild guess at which ops agreed with 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 19:26, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Spending a lengthy period of time talking behind a fellow user's back is perhaps a little skanky and then spitting it all out at once on an open forum is a little harsh and uncommunity like...isn't it? --ShabiDOO 19:38, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

And am I supposed to imagine a similar discussion of my shittiness isn't going on in IRC when I'm not around? You're a nice guy Shabidoo, but there's plenty more users around here that don't rise to that standard. What else is IRC for, anyway? Please forgive me for being the only person on the site to have balls enough to admit that people have been caballing for years, without even having to be called out on it first (see: Mhaille, Mordillo, RAHB, Chiefjustice). -- 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 19:45, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Wow...that sucks :( --ShabiDOO 19:52, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose you would have also preferred it if I unilaterally deopped him without such "skanky" discussion? -- 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 19:49, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Judging from what he's said so far in this forum, probably not. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:54, 6 September 2011

I think I was just having a similar discussion with Socky the other day about getting too hypervigilant about the criticism and just letting it go - because the more zealous you get about defending yourself and looking blameless, the worse you look. Plain and simple, If I were in your shoes, this wouldn't have gone down this way. I would have had a quorum of people who specifically knew what I was doing and approved of it. Obviously, you didn't. You sure acted like it, I'll give you that. You gotta have thicker skin though. That's why I'd never be an admin, I take things too personally and I tend to have some difficulty forgiving and forgetting at times - the vindictive factor. You gots it man. Frankly, our little personal waltz of vindictiveness toward each other started with you insulting me (NOTM nom). So, I call your "you know why" and raise you a "you started this". I'll even throw in a neener neener neener for good measure. Hey, I might have something on VFH soon and you'll get your chance to avenge yourself (again and again and again) with a swift Against.. Knock yourself out.--    19:55, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Okay so we've basically gone beyond Guildenstern levels when it comes to misguided vendettas. Get on IRC. -- 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 19:59, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its any secret that I would prefer that there was personal dialogue with the guy...when that failed...community wide dialogue...and if that fails...a community wide vote to de-op. But...that's my preferences...and I seem to be the only person going on about it. While just about every user voted against, none of them made much of a deal that their vote doesn't officialy count. Just me. So...I guess the admin vote is what counts. And thats in a bit of a dead lock. So maybe we can try to learn our lessons and move on? --ShabiDOO 21:31, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Seems like that's gonna be the case, yeah. -- 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 03:29, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

I *just* finished fighting the "Uncyclopedian non-admins aren't treated as full members of the community" fight. I have neither the energy nor the sobriety to go through that again. pillow talk 03:38, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to read this, but Socky let me blow him once, so of course I support him against all the other people whom I've blown

And DrStrange is writing on forums, are you doing articles again???? Iz hope so! Yay Doc and yay Socky. And, to be serious, Socky is a God among other Gods, and I love him as an admin.Aleister 17:16 7-9-'11

Wow...you are a total skank Aleister! The good kind of skanky. Good for you!--ShabiDOO 19:38, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

This page is 45 kilobytes long

I have a lot of guns, and a pretty impressive penis. --ChiefjusticeWii 10:40, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

That's weird, I have lots of penises and one very impressive gun. --Black Flamingo 10:54, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Chief justice's statement wasn't weird...I think yours was Black Flamingo. Unless you could put that sentence in the middle of a paragraph, where, in its cotext, it not only made sense, but was also very entertaining, for instance. --ShabiDOO 11:01, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I think you've just out-weirded both of us, Shabi. --Black Flamingo 11:07, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

The great black flamingo can't pull that off? I don't believe it for a smidgin. --ShabiDOO 13:41, September 8, 2011 (UTC)