FANDOM


  • Today, the administator/beurocrat Elchzard entered chat before me. I can not say what started this first debate, but it was about banning users under the age of 13. In this, I did get heated and told him to "go fuck himself". This was out of line, and is to clear what he states later in this. About 45 minutes later, I ask him to a civil private messaging, to show him my half of the debate. After a birage of insults and claiming I had harassed him, this is my attempt to make sure we do not get another Jettcyber or Katanagod in this chat. I believe Elchzard has done multiple offenses. 

    1)Insulting users

    2)Mususe of power

    3)Attempting to get reasons to ban a user

    4)Attempting to start another heated debate 

    5)Shunning of Evidence

    This is not something you can simply take my word for, I know. So, through some talking with a moderator, I got the clearance to Pastebin the conversation, and I have taken the dignity of screenshotting the more important parts, to proove they are true. 

    http://pastebin.com/kx1nzfn4 Toward the end, you can find Elchzard going out of his way to insult me, then when I ask him to stay civil, saying I harass him. 

    http://imgur.com/bu7bDVs

    http://imgur.com/bu7bDVs


    MORE evidence from other users being insulted/targeted/even THREATENED

    http://imgur.com/SICu2y2

    http://pastebin.com/dny0NkzV

    Voting-support Support
     
    Voting-neutral Neutral
     
    Voting-oppose Oppose
     
    Voting-support Support {{VoteSupport}}
    Voting-neutral Neutral {{VoteNeutral}}
    Voting-oppose Oppose {{VoteOppose}}
    Voting-comment Comment {{VoteComment}}
      Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      http://pastebin.com/dny0NkzV Who the hell does this guy think he is?
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      The screenshots and pastebin clearly show what happened, and I had already been informed of what happened with Elchzard by AES, Its clear that Elchzard needs to be dealt with but only in a civil and effective manner.
        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:
      http://pastebin.com/dny0NkzV Who the hell does this guy think he is?

      This supports the thread even MORE. 

      You can see his hostility and actions in this very well.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnCognitionCP
      ShawnCognitionCP removed this reply because:
      Because it reveals a user's name, who wants to be anonymous
      21:40, July 21, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Support All this evidence proves that Elchzard has an ego problem and thinks he is above the entire wiki. Wiki's do not accept people like this.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      Sorry, Elch, I like you man, but you messed up.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This is in my eyes unacceptable bahaviour for an Admin, Bureaucrat no less. I was witness to the whole discussion, I absolutely support his rights removal. Sorry, Elchzard.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      This guy is crazy!
        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      I definitly feel like he should atleast be checked up on, since he did act quite immaturely, and quite frankly, Bureaucrats are supposed to be rolemodels. 

      Edit: After seeing the pastebin Scholar left, I now am in even MORE support. Elchzards attitude of "The Admins are better than the other users and should not be criticized" is the type of stuff that makes this site be a harmful environment, we cannot support it at all! 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Oh here we go again, before you jump to conclusions yes I saw the screenshots. I do AGREE that those don't look favorably on Elchzard. But he is entitled to his opinion, & he didn't remove anybodies user rights. 

      What has everybody been saying about admins not being around lately? When one, who has been inactive for a good length of time I might add, finally does come back. & now suddenly it's quick we have to remove his rights because of this. If anything he should be spoken with about it all.

      The mods are already being questioned for past transgressions, of not enforcing rules or acting like they should. Additionally it looks like to me, that everybody ganged up on him. 

        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
       Oh here we go again, before you jump to conclusions yes I saw the screenshots. I do AGREE that those don't look favorably on Elchzard. But he is entitled to his opinion, & he didn't remove anybodies user rights. 

      What has everybody been saying about admins not being around lately? When one, who has been inactive for a good length of time I might add, finally does come back. & now suddenly it's quick we have to remove his rights because of this. If anything he should be spoken with about it all.

      The mods are already being questioned for past transgressions, of not enforcing rules or acting like they should. Additionally it looks like to me, that everybody ganged up on him. 

      He quite literally insulted Spey directly, and you saw the thread. Tell me I wasn't mature and kind to him. I did not ask that he "shut up" or anything, just that he treated me with the respect I gave him. I firmly believe he does not deserve his rights, and these pictures prove it.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Ghost, Elchzard basically said "If you don't like my opinion, I am removing your rights". Are you condoning that sysops have every right to do this ?
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I'll write my vote later, I'm busy atm. But please edit out the vote templates when quoting a user. Thank you.
        Loading editor
    • Likes-That-Tail wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      I'll write my vote later, I'm busy atm. But please edit out the vote templates when quoting a user. Thank you.

      That was already fixed months ago.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
       Oh here we go again, before you jump to conclusions yes I saw the screenshots. I do AGREE that those don't look favorably on Elchzard. But he is entitled to his opinion, & he didn't remove anybodies user rights. What has everybody been saying about admins not being around lately? When one, who has been inactive for a good length of time I might add, finally does come back. & now suddenly it's quick we have to remove his rights because of this. If anything he should be spoken with about it all.

      The mods are already being questioned for past transgressions, of not enforcing rules or acting like they should. Additionally it looks like to me, that everybody ganged up on him. 

      He quite literally insulted Spey directly, and you saw the thread. Tell me I wasn't mature and kind to him. I did not ask that he "shut up" or anything, just that he treated me with the respect I gave him. I firmly believe he does not deserve his rights, and these pictures prove it.

      Shawn technically he could have banned you for directly insulting him. He was well within his rights to do it, but he didn't. I didn't see him disrespecting, just mainly that he was done talking about it, & neither of you were going to change each others minds. 

      No Spey I'm not saying that, I don't think he could unilaterally & arbitrarily remove them anyways. He would need to start a consensus, or in the case of Zippers de-mod discuss the matter with other admins. 

        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
       Oh here we go again, before you jump to conclusions yes I saw the screenshots. I do AGREE that those don't look favorably on Elchzard. But he is entitled to his opinion, & he didn't remove anybodies user rights. What has everybody been saying about admins not being around lately? When one, who has been inactive for a good length of time I might add, finally does come back. & now suddenly it's quick we have to remove his rights because of this. If anything he should be spoken with about it all.

      The mods are already being questioned for past transgressions, of not enforcing rules or acting like they should. Additionally it looks like to me, that everybody ganged up on him. 

      He quite literally insulted Spey directly, and you saw the thread. Tell me I wasn't mature and kind to him. I did not ask that he "shut up" or anything, just that he treated me with the respect I gave him. I firmly believe he does not deserve his rights, and these pictures prove it.
      Shawn technically he could have banned you for directly insulting him. He was well within his rights to do it, but he didn't. I didn't see him disrespecting, just mainly that he was done talking about it, & neither of you were going to change each others minds. 

      No Spey I'm not saying that, I don't think he could unilaterally & arbitrarily remove them anyways. He would need to start a consensus, or in the case of Zippers de-mod discuss the matter with other admins. 

      You didn't read the threads.

      He said if spey didn't agree with his opinion, he would take his rights. (I was on chat when that happened)

      He directly insulted me, saying I have no friends, and that I was immature and such, and then tried to say I was harassing him to get an excuse to ban me

      He told really is not administrator of B.Crat material.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      The fact is Ghost, he made it very clear he would remove my rights there and then, he had no intention of consensusing their removal. Even if he tried to CT me, it would not work. He did not like my opinion, so he told me to shut up or be demoted.
        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      ShawnHowellsCP wrote:
      Ghost Anubis wrote:
       Oh here we go again, before you jump to conclusions yes I saw the screenshots. I do AGREE that those don't look favorably on Elchzard. But he is entitled to his opinion, & he didn't remove anybodies user rights. What has everybody been saying about admins not being around lately? When one, who has been inactive for a good length of time I might add, finally does come back. & now suddenly it's quick we have to remove his rights because of this. If anything he should be spoken with about it all.

      The mods are already being questioned for past transgressions, of not enforcing rules or acting like they should. Additionally it looks like to me, that everybody ganged up on him. 

      He quite literally insulted Spey directly, and you saw the thread. Tell me I wasn't mature and kind to him. I did not ask that he "shut up" or anything, just that he treated me with the respect I gave him. I firmly believe he does not deserve his rights, and these pictures prove it.
      Shawn technically he could have banned you for directly insulting him. He was well within his rights to do it, but he didn't. I didn't see him disrespecting, just mainly that he was done talking about it, & neither of you were going to change each others minds. 

      No Spey I'm not saying that, I don't think he could unilaterally & arbitrarily remove them anyways. He would need to start a consensus, or in the case of Zippers de-mod discuss the matter with other admins. 

      That in it's self is unfair Ghost, this Wiki is as I said on the Mods Wiki not an "Aristocracy of Sysops" it is a community, which runs from popular vote of EVERY user.

        Loading editor
    • Every one of you are mods, or were mods at some point. Please tell my why you all thought it was a good idea to keep talking about it, pressing the matter & antagonize him further? You make other users stop these debates in chat, but not when you're doing it right? That's the whole reason you're supposed to stop things from getting this far to begin with. The screenshots clearly illustrate every one of you keep egging him on & ganging up on him. 

        Loading editor
    • Ghost Anubis wrote:
      Every one of you are mods, or were mods at some point. Please tell my why you all thought it was a good idea to keep talking about it, pressing the matter & antagonize him further? You make other users stop these debates in chat, but not when you're doing it right? That's the whole reason you're supposed to stop things from getting this far to begin with. The screenshots clearly illustrate every one of you keep egging him on & ganging up on him. 

      I did not egg him on in any way. Ghost, these were in PMs, whre users where not involved. I was kind, respectful, and ncie the entire time to him. I was not given that in return. He got to the end of his argument, and decided I looked like a lovely type of prey. Scholar, was reacting to some things Elch did in main that were FAR worse than anything we had in a while, and spey is just a target for his opinion.

        Loading editor
    • ScholarOfTheScrolls wrote:
      http://pastebin.com/dny0NkzV Who the hell does this guy think he is?
      Voting-support Support
      Heyo, here we go with more consensus. Anyway, I agree, this is kinda stupid.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment – You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.
        Loading editor
    • Elchzard wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment – You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.

      Elch, threatening to abuse your powers and intimdating users is not something that an Admin should do. In additon, you should especially not say that because you are a Sysop/Crat users should always agree with what you said. This Wiki belongs to the Community, its not some Aristocracy for Sysops to make all the deicisons

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:

      Elchzard wrote:
      You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.

      Elch, threatening to abuse your powers and intimdating users is not something that an Admin should do. In additon, you should especially not say that because you are a Sysop/Crat users should always agree with what you said. This Wiki belongs to the Community, its not some Aristocracy for Sysops to make all the deicisons

      Explain to me where I threatened to remove anybody's powers without going through the correct processes. I did not imply that anybody should always agree with what I said - I simply meant that we should all treat each other with at least some form of respect, which i feel I've earned and wasn't receiving. I admit my choice of words may have been slightly out of place, but if you look at the tone in which that PM was addressed to me, you might be able to see where I was coming from.

        Loading editor
    • Elchzard wrote:

      Zippertrain85 wrote:

      Elchzard wrote:
      You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.
      Elch, threatening to abuse your powers and intimdating users is not something that an Admin should do. In additon, you should especially not say that because you are a Sysop/Crat users should always agree with what you said. This Wiki belongs to the Community, its not some Aristocracy for Sysops to make all the deicisons

      Explain to me where I threatened to remove anybody's powers without going through the correct processes. I did not imply that anybody should always agree with what I said - I simply meant that we should all treat each other with at least some form of respect, which i feel I've earned and wasn't receiving. I admit my choice of words may have been slightly out of place, but if you look at the tone in which that PM was addressed to me, you might be able to see where I was coming from.

      Yes, they were very poor words if your meant was not that Bureaucrats are better than other users. You said to Sajuuk that you would remove his rights, not that a Consensus would be made, was that again poor wording on your part Elch? 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support

      Seems simple to me: you abuse or threaten to abuse your power, then you don't deserve it.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment – I'd also like to point out the context of this discussion which somehow has been neglected. The essence of it is that I disagree with banning users on sight for saying that they are under the age of 13, as there is no proof of this fact. Everyone else seems to disagree with this, for some reason or another. Things were said, both by me and directed towards me. Shawn seems to have left out the part where he said that I could "go fuck myself, along with Jimeee as well." Honestly this doesn't seem very respectful to me. I still do not see where the actual essence of the argument is for having my rights removed. I worded some things badly, and was antagonized by numerous people, simply for holding a different opinion to them and wanting to defend that, in a way which I believe to be correct.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Guys, let us all keep this thread peaceful and as civil as possible. 
        Loading editor
    • Elchzard wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment – You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.

      I don't think it's unacceptable for users to not want an bureaucrats that relatiates this way. About not enforcing the correct rules, no other admins (that I'm aware of) have said what you have, again, it's not unacceptable for people to think that an inactive user isn't fully aware of how rules are enforced, reacting politely to this would have averted this situation. I see that in this you tried to achieve this, but in retaliation, telling the moderators why this is the case may have averted this situation as well.

      A lack of communication between the moderation and admin team has again created a situation in which both sides are going "this is how it is" "no, this is how it is" "no" "yes". A wiki shouldn't be run in a way in which the admins tell the moderators do, in my opinion, it should be run as a collaborative effort. I'd like to see a way in which Elchzard doesn't need to be demoted, perhaps, having some idea on how the banning of an underage user should take place.

      At this time, I am neutral, while Elchzard started off by politely asking that underage users should not be banned due to issues in the past, I see his later posts differ from how an admin should react, due to the way he comes off as aggressive.

      Also, to get at least one of the issues presented out of the way:

      Merrystar wrote:
      Hi. This is actually a question that seems to generate a lot of confusion. Just to clarify here, it is ok if people under the age of 13 use Wikia; what COPPA (and thus Wikia Terms of Use) does not allow is the creation of an account by anybody under the age of 13.

      We ask that admins and others report underage users with accounts through Special:Contact as TK-999 says.

      That said, a local block does not "enforce" COPPA; only disabling the account can actually do that, because the problem is having the account at all. If you prefer to ban users that have revealed via chat they are underage on your wiki, that is a decision for you and your community. However, Wikia does not ask admins to police this aspect of our Terms of Use.

      I hope this makes things a little clearer for anybody else looking for information on this issue!

      [1]

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I don't see a valid reason to strip Elchzard of his rights. In fact, based on the screenshots you provided, all I see is you wanting to ban users for being underage without proof. You insult him, egg him on and expect him to be "civil" when you yourself are not. What if I said I was 12, even though I'm not? You would have no evidence either way, and would be banning me for no reason, about as much motive for demoting Elchzard.
        Loading editor
    • To ゆ:

      I did go on to explain the situations that have occurred in the past. This is what the chat logs fail to reveal, as they're constructed to put me in a bad light and present a case for the removal of my rights. I was forced into reacting in a way that was perhaps not appropriate by the flood of people disagreeing with me before I was even able to say what I wanted to say. What further added to this was the fact that two users started private messages with me in manners which I didn't exactly feel welcomed or encouraged by.

      I feel like due to the incredible circlejerk that's built up around the fact that I'm wrong, and literally the worst person ever to walk the earth, the result of this "vote" has been decided already, and this is a shame.

      Again, most of my experience on Wikia points towards the fact that it's unacceptable to ban users purely for saying "I'm 12," and I feel quite strongly about this. When people disagree with me purely because "it's what we've always done," this doesn't exactly help.

      The community has the right to say what it wants to, but I don't feel that anything I say here actually changes anything, no matter what it is. There's a lack of communication between the administration and the moderators because they seem convinced that we're terrible, and starting conversations with a group of people like that is quite hard.

      Yes, I reacted inappropriately - but I do not feel that the way I was treated leading up to this is appropriate either.

        Loading editor
    • I've edited some comments to remove voting templates from quotes, in order to not mess with Template:VotesTally.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Elchzard has just returned from his break, and as such I'm not comfortable with the idea of demoting him now. But, as others have said, the wiki is not a power-based hierarchy, it's a consensus-based community and we shouldn't have people telling others how to act based solely on their staff position. I say Elchzard has an opportunity to see how much the wiki grew and changed, and to change his views accordingly.

      On a side note, regarding the underage banning matter, Elchzard, if you do want our procedure to be changed, I suggest you make a consensus track.

        Loading editor
    • Elchzard wrote: I've edited some comments to remove voting templates from quotes, in order to not mess with Template:VotesTally.

      Why? That bug got fixed, there was no need for the posts to be edited.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I'm really lazy and didn't bother writing anything for my oppose vote, but pretty much what LTT, UAM, and Revolver said.
        Loading editor
    • @Elchzard:

      I imagine if you had taken screenshots to support this you would have posted them by now, currently there is nothing saying you actually talked about that, and on the flip side, there's nothing saying you didn't say that.

      When you talked that about that, were you in PM or main chat? If it's main chat, you could perhaps get people to back you up. I must admit, in recent times, there has been a large distrust between the admin and moderation team, whether this is leading to you getting an unjust consensus is possible.

      I decided to change my vote to an
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      , while this is subject to change, I think that due to the lack of time Elchzard has spent on the wiki at this time, I find a consensus to be premature, especially with the current evidence at hand. While I find this could have been dealt with better, that is not grounds for demotion, not for a one off anyway.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
       Reason being is Elchzard is returning and has a bit to catch up on as well as learn. His righs should not be taken away. Also, the bits and pieces of evidence is not enough to have him demoted. The situation was handled poorly and I wasn't even here for it. I was only told this was being written up. Also, just because one disrespects another doesn't mean the same is to be done to them. Fight negativity with positivity and kindness. It goes a long ways, my dears. 
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      Reasons stated by UAM (funny symbol name guy), RevolveGirl, and SAVW. Elch just returned to the wiki yesterday, and now there's a consensus trying to get his rights taken away. Honestly, Elch was not acting like an admin, much less a bureaucrat should, but to be fair, he wasn't being treated with any respect whatsoever. He merely disagreed with a ban I had put in place, so he undid it, and then all of this happened. This situation went way out of control and honestly, I can't blame Elch for SOME of what he said. Him threatening to remove Spey's powers was far out of line, but it isn't enough to lose a job that we need him doing. He wasn't acting as a bureaucrat should, but let's be honest, were we acting as moderators should?
        Loading editor
    • ゆ
      removed this reply because:
      reply moved to be with vote
      01:36, July 22, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-comment Comment
      This is just a pot of soup that was allowed to boil over into a mess the could've been avoided had the burner been watched and kept at a level heat. There are plenty of users at fault here. Many kept going despite myself and others requesting them to stop. 

      Yes LTT did act a little early with that ban, Elchzard did chose his actions poorly and Shawn blew up in a fit of what I assume was anger.  Those are the ones I find to be the most worthy of mentioning. 

      Elch just got back and may not be used to how things are done around here, lets give him a few weeks. People learn to change when they make mistakes and if we cut him off before he gets that chance then we wont get to see if he can/will change.  

      That's all I can say about him, take it how you will because I'm just sick of all of this drama. I come to the wiki to have fun an interact with others who enjoy TES and many other things that i'm interested. Not to see users fight tooth and claw over who's right and who's wrong. 

      I'd vote neutral but this more or less just turned into a comment on the situation as a whole. 

        Loading editor
    • Elchzard wrote:
      Voting-comment Comment – You can all say what you want, but I'd like you to know that I didn't mean I'd be taking any rights at that very moment. I meant starting a process similar to this one, for refusing to enforce the correct rules. The way I see it, you all disagree with me and therefore I'm wrong and my powers should be removed. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to make it clear that I don't think I've ever insulted any user here without due reason (ie, being insulted myself), I don't think I've ever misused my powers here (and I'd like to see proof of when I have done) and I'd also like to see proof of when I tried to "start another heated debate." As you can see from the logs above, both users that private messaged me did so of their own accord. I also don't accept that "shunning evidence," if I even did this, is a reason for my rights to be removed.

      I insulted you BEFORE the pm. The first message I sent was "may I calmly explain to you my side of the debate". You responded "you can try". Moments later you insult me and say I don't have many friends as well, and use the PAST chat, in main, as a buffer to do so. This is unnacceptable from a b.crat. You are to respect all users, especially under preassure. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-support Support
      While I do believe firmly in a second chance, it looks as though Shawn gave him many more to compose himself and act as an Admin should. Throughout the posts, his demeanor quickly changes from simply aggravated to an astoundingly hot headed tone, a quality that I don't think our leaders should possess. Where I would originally have agreed with Sky, that he should be able to adjust, I don't really think that the wiki would have ever played host to such over the top enforcement.

      The fact that he TOTALLY jumped the gun could have probably been overlooked, had it not happened twice more (Shawn and SotS' PMs. The first example being his threat on rights removal.)

      This track is, however, supposed to be about his thoughts on underage users, and while he effed up pretty badly just about everywhere else, he did at least have somewhat of a reason for his defence of this, even if it is the Moderator's job to follow up on these underage claims.

        Loading editor
    • Pelinal Whitestrake
      Pelinal Whitestrake removed this reply because:
      Unnecessary comment, does not in any way contribute to the discussion.
      09:51, July 22, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      those who have opposed have a point. I do think Elchzard should apologise for threatening to remove my flag for no reason, as that was unacceptable behaviour that started this argument. However, he should consider starting a ct if he does not like our policy of banning underage users from chat, which we have been doing ever since the chat was enabled.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      I don't see why he is still an admin anyway, he's been away for who knows how long.
        Loading editor
      • Relevant link: w:User_blog:Sannse/Guest_Blog_Post_-_Screenshots_and_Chat_Logs
      • "Attempt at starting another heated debate" -- Elchzard asked more than once to drop the issue, showing his disappreciation towards the topic: bothering him even more about it would not be the solution
      • If you felt his rights should've been taken away because of inactivity, this should've been brought up earlier

      Those're my two cents. Cheers!

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      changed my vote because I now believe that the user just made a small mistake and should not be punished for a small mistake.
        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      To be honest, I was originally going to Support this thread. But sleeping a night over it and reading through all comments again changed my opinion. 

      We know that Elchzard has been inactive for some time. He probably did not know that he should've PM'd LTT instead of directly going against him. Also, I must agree that we people in the chat did corner him. We gave him almost no time to respond and were kind of raining responses on him. In this situation, bad wording (such as threatening Spey to remove his chatmod rights) can occur. 

      I say, we should give him another chance. He was inactive for quite some time. Granted, he did do some mistakes, but we all do mistakes. 

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose

      Same reasons that the other opposers already stated. It'd be nice if Elch get's a fresh start and doesn't get demoted so quickly.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      - Far too radical a consequence for a minor squabble. The nominator is directly and emotionally involved with the situation, and their emotions clearly color their decision. The pastebin log is clear; it is transparent to me that Shadow was antagonizing Elchzard. Both parties were guilty of incivility, and Shadow's attempts to deescalate the situation were insincere in tone, to be sure. Yet, I do not feel that the proposal above solves anything at all. Is it just me or have the users of the wiki focused more on their war-path to de-sop everyone than actually editing the wiki? If we had more active editors than chat sloths and forum ghouls, those with administrative skills would emerge as well. So, let's focus on improving our articles! Allons-y!
        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Deyvid, I am sick and tired of you sysops CONSTANTLY preaching about editing the wiki, when you do NO such thing yourselves. Why do you constantly tell everyone else to edit when the most you sysops do is post in CT's and tell users off?

      It's really quite rude and insulting that you expect everyone else to do your work. The ONLY sysop I see actively editing mainspace is Ebony and I applaud her effort, but no other sysops seem to bother. Stop telling others to do things you are not doing yourself.

      Also, stop this bullcrap that sysops cannot be promoted if they don't edit mainspace, you have blogs, chat and forums that need attention that most of you refuse to give, why can't someone be a sysop if they only contribute to the forums? It's insincere and downright demeaning. There are probably several users here who would make good sysops, but are forbidden from being so because of stupid policies.

        Loading editor
    • Deyvid Petteys wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      - Far too radical a consequence for a minor squabble. The nominator is directly and emotionally involved with the situation, and their emotions clearly color their decision. The pastebin log is clear; it is transparent to me that Shadow was antagonizing Elchzard. Both parties were guilty of incivility, and Shadow's attempts to deescalate the situation were insincere in tone, to be sure. Yet, I do not feel that the proposal above solves anything at all. Is it just me or have the users of the wiki focused more on their war-path to de-sop everyone than actually editing the wiki? If we had more active editors than chat sloths and forum ghouls, those with administrative skills would emerge as well. So, let's focus on improving our articles! Allons-y!

      If he does good on the site, but not on chat, I wish he could actually only have main-site power. To bad he can't. If this consensus fails, and he does this to ANY user again, I will be going straight to wikia staff with all of my screenshots, and a multi-paragraph complaint.

        Loading editor
    • Note that threatening to take Elch's user rights isn't going to help the cause when one of the points addressed was the fact that Elch threatened to take someone's user rights.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: Also, stop this bullcrap that sysops cannot be promoted if they don't edit mainspace, you have blogs, chat and forums that need attention that most of you refuse to give, why can't someone be a sysop if they only contribute to the forums? It's insincere and downright demeaning. There are probably several users here who would make good sysops, but are forbidden from being so because of stupid policies.

      To clarify this point - it has nothing to do with "stupid policies". Tools are granted based on the eligibility and type of activity a user is involved in. They are specifically designed for this:

      • A patroller has access to the rollback tool, as their general activity involves patrolling and undoing mainspace edits. They don't require any other tools to do this job.
      • A chat mod's has tools to kick and ban people from chat, as their general activity involves patrolling the chat. They don't require any other tools to do this job.
      • A sysop has various tools designed to administrate the entire wiki (not just a section of it), as their general activity involves all parts of the wiki. Most (like myself) don't require Crat tools to do this job.

      This is a basic breakdown of the rational and it has served us, and many other wikis, well. There would be no sense in switching a patroller over to sysop when they are only involved in mainspace patrolling and just use the rollback tool. If there was hard evidence of a good user doing work around the wiki that was "admin-like" (and having access to sysop tools to do this job would help them greatly) then a case can be made for granting them.

      Users who are focused on one section of the site simply don't require additional tools to perform their jobs, when there are other (more suited) tools in place. That is the crux - the right tools for the right job.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I have worked alongside him in the past, and I have seen how positive of an effect he can have on this wiki. So when a situation such as this one comes up, I have to weigh the pros and cons, and as it currently stands, the pros outweigh the cons. This user has proven themselves in the eyes of the community, and this hastily thrown-together reconfirmation fails to outline any actual abuse that would warrant his rights removal.

      Does he have more leeway because he has special rights? No; so if he breaks the rules by insulting another user, then a block needs to be discussed - not a removal of his rights entirely due to a single transgression.

      And more importantly, from what I have seen,Elchzard is not the only user in the wrong here. So why are no other users being discussed within this forum? If he is going to be accused of wrong-doing, then those that exasperated the situation also need to be brought forth to the community. What I am seeing here is a ton of finger-pointing while failing to acknowledge the other side of the coin as well.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-neutral Neutral
      Based on what I said earlier in the thread.
        Loading editor
    • I find it funny how there's no mention of the forum moderators in your post Jimeee. Do you consider the forum mods to be worthless, in your eyes?

      Also you seem to miss the point about crats, so I'll repeat myself yet again: the purpose of a crat is to grant the sysop flag, nothing more and nothing else. A crat, for all intents and purposes, is just another sysop with an extra right. The crats can do all the same things that you sysops are capable of doing. Why do we need a bunch of people with a crat flag, when they can do everything that sysops can do?

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: I find it funny how there's no mention of the forum moderators in your post Jimeee. Do you consider the forum mods to be worthless, in your eyes?

      Also you seem to miss the point about crats, so I'll repeat myself yet again: the purpose of a crat is to grant the sysop flag, nothing more and nothing else. A crat, for all intents and purposes, is just another sysop with an extra right. The crats can do all the same things that you sysops are capable of doing. Why do we need a bunch of people with a crat flag, when they can do everything that sysops can do?

      Can we keep discussions on-topic please? If you want to go into why we have three bcrats, then the reasons can be explained in Chat or on a talkpage. This isn't the thread for that discussion.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Deyvid, I am sick and tired of you sysops CONSTANTLY preaching about editing the wiki, when you do NO such thing yourselves. Why do you constantly tell everyone else to edit when the most you sysops do is post in CT's and tell users off?

      It's really quite rude and insulting that you expect everyone else to do your work. The ONLY sysop I see actively editing mainspace is Ebony and I applaud her effort, but no other sysops seem to bother. Stop telling others to do things you are not doing yourself.

      Also, stop this bullcrap that sysops cannot be promoted if they don't edit mainspace, you have blogs, chat and forums that need attention that most of you refuse to give, why can't someone be a sysop if they only contribute to the forums? It's insincere and downright demeaning. There are probably several users here who would make good sysops, but are forbidden from being so because of stupid policies.

      I have contributed to this wiki more than most users ever have and ever will, over the course of several years. Yes, my activity as of late has been less than favorable. Sorry that I have a full-time job and a boyfriend and bills to pay. Yes, I plan to continue editing the wiki. At present, I am stabilizing myself financially, so that I can play ESO and add articles related to that game. I have done so much for this wiki, editing not only the mainspace, numerous templates, and categories, but I concocted almost the entire style guideline as well as the vast majority of the policy pages and help pages. Without that, the wiki would be severely lacking in structure, consistency, and style. I do not mean to imply that my bureaucratic tools should remain simply because of past contributions, and I bring this up, because I have foresight enough to know that I will be accused of that.

      To answer your final point, I believe that anyone given sysop tools or "promoted" as you call it should be well-rounded. Since they are given a great deal of responsibility, they should be fluent with all or most of the wiki's aspects. Many of the sysops did not desire the inclusion of blogs or the forum or the chat in the first place. Originally, we used IRC, which allowed for users to be given sysop tools that were not connected to the wiki. And, personally, I feel that the mainspace is far more important than periphery namespaces such as blogs and fora. Blogs, fora, and chat are useful for building the community, but not necessary. They are, in my eyes and I'm sure the eyes of the other admins, to only be useful insofar as they assist with and encourage contributions made to the mainspace.

        Loading editor
    • ShawnHowellsCP wrote:

      Deyvid Petteys wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      - Far too radical a consequence for a minor squabble. The nominator is directly and emotionally involved with the situation, and their emotions clearly color their decision. The pastebin log is clear; it is transparent to me that Shadow was antagonizing Elchzard. Both parties were guilty of incivility, and Shadow's attempts to deescalate the situation were insincere in tone, to be sure. Yet, I do not feel that the proposal above solves anything at all. Is it just me or have the users of the wiki focused more on their war-path to de-sop everyone than actually editing the wiki? If we had more active editors than chat sloths and forum ghouls, those with administrative skills would emerge as well. So, let's focus on improving our articles! Allons-y!

      If he does good on the site, but not on chat, I wish he could actually only have main-site power. To bad he can't. If this consensus fails, and he does this to ANY user again, I will be going straight to wikia staff with all of my screenshots, and a multi-paragraph complaint.

      Feel empowered to contact Wikia at any point. Removal of bureaucratship can only be done with visible consensus from the community. In other words, had this thread proved the community desired the de-sopping of Harry, they would remove his tools. Only special cases permit exceptions to this rule, but those exceptions are incredibly rare. Infinitesimal to no action will be done should you approach the Big Wigs.

        Loading editor
    • SuperSajuuk wrote: I find it funny how there's no mention of the forum moderators in your post Jimeee. Do you consider the forum mods to be worthless, in your eyes?

      Also you seem to miss the point about crats, so I'll repeat myself yet again: the purpose of a crat is to grant the sysop flag, nothing more and nothing else. A crat, for all intents and purposes, is just another sysop with an extra right. The crats can do all the same things that you sysops are capable of doing. Why do we need a bunch of people with a crat flag, when they can do everything that sysops can do?

      The receipt of bureaucrat tools to each individual here was done with deliberate purpose. It was not done to create a bourgeois cult or some such silliness. Initially, Timeoin was given the tool as the previous bureaucrat was inactive. When Timeoin discovered his wife was pregnant and predicted a long period of absence for himself, Elchzard was elected as his replacement, as it were. As Elchzard became less active, the tools were translated to me, and during my absence, they were given to TombRaiser. As you can see, the elections were purposeful, so that there was always an active bureaucrat to help change user rights groups. Now, the question will likely be: why are we all still bureaucrats? The answer is simple: inactivity is not a valid reason for the removal of the tools. Simple as that.

      From a technical perspective, the only difference between administrators and bureaucrats is that the latter user-group can add and remove certain user tools. However, on TESWiki, slightly different expectations are placed on the office of bureaucratship. As per the admin explanation and policy page:

      Bureaucrats, colloquially called Crats or BCrats, are administrators with the added ability to grant access rights to other users, based on consensus. In addition to this tool, Bureaucrats have access to all of the same functions and tools as administrators. Other duties facilitated by Bureaucrats include the crafting of policy and help pages and contributing to the skeletal structure behind the scenes of the wiki, such as the editing of the MediaWiki namespace. As with administrators, Bureaucrats are elected by the community. Unlike administrators, which can be removed from their user rights groups by a Bureaucrat, the tools of a Bureaucrat can only be removed by Wikia Staff.

        Loading editor
    • Deyvid Petteys wrote:

      SuperSajuuk wrote:

      Voting-comment Comment
      Deyvid, I am sick and tired of you sysops CONSTANTLY preaching about editing the wiki, when you do NO such thing yourselves. Why do you constantly tell everyone else to edit when the most you sysops do is post in CT's and tell users off?

      It's really quite rude and insulting that you expect everyone else to do your work. The ONLY sysop I see actively editing mainspace is Ebony and I applaud her effort, but no other sysops seem to bother. Stop telling others to do things you are not doing yourself.

      Also, stop this bullcrap that sysops cannot be promoted if they don't edit mainspace, you have blogs, chat and forums that need attention that most of you refuse to give, why can't someone be a sysop if they only contribute to the forums? It's insincere and downright demeaning. There are probably several users here who would make good sysops, but are forbidden from being so because of stupid policies.

      I have contributed to this wiki more than most users ever have and ever will, over the course of several years. Yes, my activity as of late has been less than favorable. Sorry that I have a full-time job and a boyfriend and bills to pay. Yes, I plan to continue editing the wiki. At present, I am stabilizing myself financially, so that I can play ESO and add articles related to that game. I have done so much for this wiki, editing not only the mainspace, numerous templates, and categories, but I concocted almost the entire style guideline as well as the vast majority of the policy pages and help pages. Without that, the wiki would be severely lacking in structure, consistency, and style. I do not mean to imply that my bureaucratic tools should remain simply because of past contributions, and I bring this up, because I have foresight enough to know that I will be accused of that.

      To answer your final point, I believe that anyone given sysop tools or "promoted" as you call it should be well-rounded. Since they are given a great deal of responsibility, they should be fluent with all or most of the wiki's aspects. Many of the sysops did not desire the inclusion of blogs or the forum or the chat in the first place. Originally, we used IRC, which allowed for users to be given sysop tools that were not connected to the wiki. And, personally, I feel that the mainspace is far more important than periphery namespaces such as blogs and fora. Blogs, fora, and chat are useful for building the community, but not necessary. They are, in my eyes and I'm sure the eyes of the other admins, to only be useful insofar as they assist with and encourage contributions made to the mainspace.

      "Ever will"? Not entirely true, though you have done good things for this Wiki, it's not as if a user can't contribute as much if they so choose to, just clearing that up since that statement might be interpreted wrong. 

      That kind of logic Deyvid, I'm afraid is why Sysops are getting criticized. Why exactly is the Mainspace "more important", because it was the first thing? Does that mean it is more important, I do not think so. The Forums, Chat, Blogs, etc, has gotten a lot more popular and becoming parts of the site that are just as, if not more notable than the mainspace. Keeping this attitude that the Mainspace is the most important and deserves all the attention and praise likely will lead to the fall of this Wiki, since constantly focusing on just the Mainspace even though other parts of the site are expanding will just cause people to leave, not join the Mainspace. In addition, a lot of users on here do truly value the Forums, Blogs, and Live Chat, why should those be ignored because a few Admins don't think they are as important? 

      You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think it's fair all users who use those parts of the site should need to suffer for this at all. 

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote: The Forums, Chat, Blogs, etc, has gotten a lot more popular and becoming parts of the site that are just as, if not more notable than the mainspace.

      On average, the daily page views for the mainspace articles range between 1.6 and 2 million views. Compare this to chat or forum activity.

        Loading editor
    • Voting-comment Comment
      Know what's hilarious about this thread?

      This started on chat

      And you're all moaning about mainspace, blogs, et cetera.

      If you're gonna make a CT, at least have the common courtesy of using this wonderful tool called Logic, which most people of today haven't even heard of, and stay on the topic of this CT. This is about Elsch--whatever ( I really don't care how it's spelled ), not what Sysops should and shouldn't do.

      I've seen children act more maturely than half the people here. Yes, I just called half the people here immature. Go cry over it. I won't lose sleep, because apparently, I'm one of the few whose life does not revolved around Wikia. If you're going to create a CT about a user's actions, then talk about said user's actions. Don't grasp at straws like desperate morons with nothing better to do.

      "People do that when they reach dead ends."

        Loading editor
    • I said, keep it on topic, Deyvid Petteys & Zipper. That's not very sysop-ish behaviour, @Deyvid. 

      I also fully agree with Snowbird here. 

        Loading editor
    • Jimeee wrote:
      Zippertrain85 wrote: The Forums, Chat, Blogs, etc, has gotten a lot more popular and becoming parts of the site that are just as, if not more notable than the mainspace.
      On average, the daily page views for the mainspace articles range between 1.6 and 2 million views. Compare this to chat or forum activity.

      Just going to say it, that's probably because they go to elderscrolls.wikia.com, which redirects them to the mainspace...

        Loading editor
    • Please remain on-topic. I'm going to delete and irrelevant replies from this point onwards.

        Loading editor
    • ゆ
      removed this reply because:
      irrelevant
      22:28, July 23, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • ゆ
      removed this reply because:
      irrelevant
      22:28, July 23, 2014
      This reply has been removed
    • Voting-oppose Oppose
      I really don't like the idea of removing the rights of an administrator right when they return to the wiki.
        Loading editor
    • Dovahsebrom wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      I really don't like the idea of removing the rights of an administrator right when they return to the wiki.

      So you think Administrators should be able to do whatever they want as long as they work on the Wiki? 

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:
      So you think Administrators should be able to do whatever they want as long as they work on the Wiki? 

      No, I think it is wrong to remove the rights of an Administrator who has just recently come back to the wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Zippertrain85 wrote:
      Dovahsebrom wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      I really don't like the idea of removing the rights of an administrator right when they return to the wiki.
      So you think Administrators should be able to do whatever they want as long as they work on the Wiki? 

      I refer you to my vote: a single transgression should not warrant rights removal for a user that has prior to the incident, earned the respect and trust of the community. If he has broken rules, such as insulting other users, then a block is what needs to be discussed; not the complete and utter removal of his rights - that should only be reserved for doing serious damage to the wiki, or repeated violations of policies.

        Loading editor
    • GarouxBloodline wrote:
      Zippertrain85 wrote:
      Dovahsebrom wrote:
      Voting-oppose Oppose
      I really don't like the idea of removing the rights of an administrator right when they return to the wiki.
      So you think Administrators should be able to do whatever they want as long as they work on the Wiki? 
      I refer you to my vote: a single transgression should not warrant rights removal for a user that has prior to the incident, earned the respect and trust of the community. If he has broken rules, such as insulting other users, then a block is what needs to be discussed; not the complete and utter removal of his rights - that should only be reserved for doing serious damage to the wiki, or repeated violations of policies.

      I guess that makes sense, more sense atleast. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.