Forum:Demotion of SpartHawg948

It wasn't supposed to come to this, but abuse of power has led to it.

It was clearly spelled out to the administration that they were held responsible for the creation of the new Chat Policy vote. SpartHawg showed that he had no interest in putting it up, and stated than any old user should be the one to do it. Why should we when I specifically called for the staff to put up the new vote? Why didn't Lancer or Commdor put it up when Spart didn't? Why did the administrators decide that following the rules were beneath them?

Nineteen users voted in favor of the new vote, and their trust was betrayed by the administrators not carrying out their end of the policy. Our own admin guidelines state that “Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community.” As such, administrators are expected to follow the rules just as every other user would. Bureaucrats are given that title because they are expected to be deeply trusted by the community. If we can’t trust ours to accept and follow the rules he put into place, how can we function as a wiki?

This does not come from a place of spite or personal hate. I have been in communication with Wikia Support for almost a month ensuring that they were aware of the situation in the event anything drastic occurred. They were the ones who told me that I should put this vote forward, and they will be the ones watching to ensure that nothing goes wrong here.

Do not mistake this call of a demotion as a clear-cut solution. I certainly don’t anticipate that all of the hostilities will disappear simply by removing one user’s admin rights. This is about the principle of rules being broken by those in power, and that cannot be allowed to continue.

You may be hesitant because you are worried about what will happen to the empty B-crat seat. That is largely up to both the ME Wiki’s admins, as well as Wikia itself. However, if you feel that you are qualified for an administrative position here, and you will follow the rules as well as enforce them, feel no pressure to apply. We have five other administrators on this site who are almost entirely inactive, and it couldn't hurt to get some new blood in their seats. Not to mention, having more administrators would reduce the workload for those who currently hold positions. This whole issue is one that can be largely discussed, if needed, after this vote takes place.

Yea

 * 1) As proposer. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:23, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Yea? EzzyD (talk) 15:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  23:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) NAY_--Perkins98 (talk) 23:28, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) See below.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:34, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Spart has been a good admin. Bluegear93 (talk) 23:48, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) LilyheartsLiara (talk) 23:49, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) To quote Lancer - This oozes fail.Garhdo (talk) 23:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) see below --DeldiRe 00:14, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) "The immaturity in this proposal is staggering." Ayup. --Zxjkl (talk) 00:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:00, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) To say this is immature is an understatement. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:37, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) My vote should go without saying... SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) -- Dammej ( talk ) 01:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) This proposal looks a bit childish to me. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 02:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) -- Commdor  (Talk) 02:22, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, seriously? 4Ferelden (talk) 07:07, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
The immaturity in this proposal is staggering. You demand the guy who has been with this wiki since the beginning step down because of this one incident? So the past 6 years are suddenly made invalid? Seriously, just stop with this petty vendetta. Your proposal was clearly said a be "a formal request for a new vote". Emphasis on "request". And if indeed admins are just users with a few extra buttons, than their is no reason the users can't do it themselves, because there isn't a difference between the two.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:40, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Also why is it only sparthawg, he has done a great job, you don't have a good reason for this!, maybe some canidates to promosion ,but i won't let him step down, because of a stupid little incident, and that you go behind our back and tells lies to wikia is dissapointning! --Perkins98 (talk) 23:55, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

As a general observation, I'm surprised it's not Lancer that's getting this sort of flak for once. People always seem to have an issue with him. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie  23:58, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't bother to check if SpartHawg had actually given the response that he had promised—seeing as he did indeed say on the "revote" vote forum that the admins had decided to hold a new vote (the link refuses to not be stupid). But do you know what was formally spelled out, as Legionwrex points out? I'm going to be quite blunt here. While I did not agree with the proposed policy change that came into being over the canvasing issue, I did not feel that it was a great atrocity and abuse of power on the part of the admins. The only reason I supported the "revote" vote was because I was sick of the vindictive bullies that had turned the admins' passing of the tainted vote into an obsessive vendetta against the admins. And I already regret doing so. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 00:01, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

There is a real problem with the administration of this wiki such as there is not enough active admin and the action and attitude of active can be discuss on. Nevertheless, Sparthawg, despite his bad chat policy, is not the one to blame for the recently war (admin vs users). So I will vote against it. --DeldiRe 00:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment to you DeldiRe, well saiden, i agree that we can remove, inactive admins/buraucrats, but i support the admins. anyway --Perkins98 (talk) 00:19, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I honestly have no words to describe this but I will try to come up with a few. The level of someone being immature here is completely off the wall, out of the galaxy, and a parallel universe sort of issue. Did the proposer ever consider contacting the user in question and politely reminding them? No, they just went off the deep end. There was a request to open a new vote, that was it a request. He did say there would be a new vote, but given the fact he hasn't been online in the last few days should say something. People are forgetful, people cannot always be online every second, of every minute, of every day. We all have things going on outside the wiki and we always cannot be on and we again all forget things. But instead of considering that, the user who opened this just went completely off the wall and forgot everything, kept on the vindictive bandwagon, and just rolled with the punches. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:37, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Unless something drastic has changed since I was more active, SpartHawg has often been the most level-headed of admins on the wiki. SpartHawg was (is?) usually the champion for there being fewer controls rather than more. The exception to this is when evidence is presented that controls are quite necessary for proper enforcement or administration. This is what brought about the 'revised chat policy' vote.

It became clear that the implementation of this policy was done in such a way that the community at large balked. Again he saw 'yes, something is probably wrong here', and agreed that a revote should be held when it was clear that this is the community wish. It is clearly stated in the Revote page near the bottom that a new policy vote should be created by someone else. After all, the admins think the current policy works. Why would they create a new policy?

It seems foolish to look at the steps taken to right this wrong and decide that the solution is to oust someone who is genuinely trying to help. SpartHawg can be sardonic with his tone (present in the examples highlighted by Mr. Mittens), but to interpret this as more than a statement of frustration by somebody that's been continuously villainized is being quite unjust. Anyway, my stance is clear. SpartHawg does considerably more good for the wiki than he does bad. If there are grievous misappropriations of power, it may require another look; but the behavior highlighted by this proposal is not an example of anything of the sort. -- Dammej ( talk ) 01:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, thanks for the show of support you guys (and gals). Seriously. It's pretty touching. Heart-warming, really. If, of course, you believe I have a heart and am not the heartless monster I'm sometimes depicted as.
 * Now, to address the charges: Mr. Mittens, you say that the admins have decided that "following the rules [is] beneath them". Please tell me what rule it is I've broken. Please. Here's what happened. The community voted on a formal request that the admins hold a new vote. You'll note from the images that you so graciously provided, that the wording was vague. At no point was it specified that the new vote must be initiated by the admins. The admins discussed, a new vote was agreed upon, and I said as much. I also said that anyone who wanted to start the new vote was welcome to do so. To be perfectly honest, I'd assumed that, since you (still referring to Mr. Mittens here) had taken charge on the whole "demand a new vote" thing, you'd be more than happy to initiate a new vote. Turns out I was mistaken.
 * I'd also like to point out that if, as you say, you've been in contact with Wikia about this, you must know that I cannot "remove [my] statuses immediately". Not because of obstinacy on my part, but because Wikia doesn't allow it. Bureaucrats cannot take bureaucrat powers away from any users, not even (to the best of my knowledge), themselves. If this passes, I'll be more than happy to take the matter up with Wikia, since it was a Wikia staffer who promoted me. Personally, I do think this reeks of vendetta, coming as it does from the person who called the Mass Effect Wiki community a cancerous cesspool. But that's just my take.
 * Again, thanks for the (thus far) overwhelming display of support from the community. Even (especially) from those of you I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with. SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:59, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a second...Sparthawg voted against the proposal?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Shocking....--Legionwrex (talk) 02:06, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, right? My chance to get off the hook, and it looks like I blew it! :P SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that specific quote. Provide more insight on this, it does. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

MrMittens, really?! You do realise you're now destroying whatever credibility "your" side had at the beginning of this? You would be better have another audio drama or two up your sleeve that you need publicity for, as thinking that you would do that for real defies any sort of logic. 4Ferelden (talk) 07:07, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Mittens has yet to respond to my initial query asking for substantiation of his claim that I violated any site rules, nor has he responded to the overwhelming opposition to his proposal, which has already received more votes against than did the chat policy he bemoans. So, since we're still awaiting responses to those, I'd like to add one more question: What is this really about? In the proposal, Mr. Mittens says it's not about personal dislike or hatred, but rather is because I personally did not initiate the revote. Yet, when making his arguments for the revote (please examine his second comment), Mr. Mittens stated that what was being discussed was whether or not the admins would allow a revote, not whether or not I personally would initiate the revote. If I may quote Mr. Mittens:
 * "If you allow a revote, you will solve the issue regarding whether or not the community views you as giving a damn about them by showing them that you will allow them to have some degree of input in policies that they vote on. If you do not allow the revote, this problem will continue." (emphasis added)
 * So again, I have to ask, what is the real purpose here? If, as you stated, the issue is whether or not I (and the other admins) will allow a revote, there is no issue here. I've already made it abundantly clear. Not only will I allow a revote, as you asked, I'm encouraging a revote. If, Mr. Mittens, this truly isn't a matter of your personal dislike of me, then surely you're prepared to drop this, since I've already solved the issue, per your own arguments. SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:09, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * I truly don't think he is going to respond. I think he expected the community to rally around him and that clearly hasn't happened.
 * And hey, he violated the language policy. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:28, February 20, 2013 (UTC)