Forums: Index > Policy > Demotion of Temporaryeditor78, Again

This page is for discussing a policy related to the Mass Effect Wiki that may or may not be passed by the community. The Form below serves to describe the Policy and what it is about, or what it will modify.

Policy: Demotion of Temporaleditor78, Again

Description of Policy: I would like to make a call for the removal of Temporaryeditor78 from his position as an admin for this wiki. If the majority voted in favor, he must remove his status as soon as possible, if not immediately. If not, then he can file an appeal to Wikia.

Notes: This is the third attempts to demote Temporaleditor78
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes


Like I said this is the third attempts to demote Temporaleditor78. First, I'm not saying he should be ban from the Mass Effect wiki simply remove him from his admin position. You can read the previous two attempts or even Temporaleditor78's talk page and clearly see this is a ongoing issues. My personal experience with Temproaleditor78 is that he block me for two weeks because I kept undoing his roll back of my edit. Now, I didn't know he was a admin but he didn't give a reason why he roll back my edit nor did he warn me of what I did "wrong" or try to talk to me. He simply block me and when I left message he responses was rude. The block also prevent me from communication to other admin in trying to resolve the issue. He come across as a tyrant. At least one person had left this wiki and starting another wiki,, those tiny - only 16 pages, it show that at least some of the decline on this wiki is because of him.

I understand that he is the most active contributor to the wiki but letting him get away with abusing his power seem unacceptable to me. He also did the blocking without warning to Kryalis, see

He own profile said, "I AM amused at your reactions to my reactions to your idiotic shenanigans." Which in my opinion come across as very arrogant.

He also, at least once, attempt to remove a forum,

He may end up blocking me for this but I feel it need to be done. I want to point out that I took several days debating this before deciding to post to the policy.

I had a grammar learning disability so please forgive any grammar mistakes.


New dude here, going with no. Here's why (you would know the first two bullets if you had read the rules posted on the policy forum portal like I did):

  • "In order to create a policy proposal, you must have a valid account with Mass Effect Wiki that is at least 30 days old. This waiting period is to ensure that new users have enough time to understand existing wiki policies. Any proposals made by unregistered contributors or accounts that are less than 30 days old will be deleted, but may be re-proposed after the mandatory cooldown period (see below) if the proposer then meets the account requirement." Allen Knott's account was 8 days old when he made this post.
  • "If any user is found to be canvasing for votes on a policy, their vote and any votes gained through this will be invalidated. The user who committed the action will face a block, depending on how often this has been done in the past, and will not be allowed to vote in the next policy forum debate. By debate, that means one with an actual proposal is needed." Nord Ronnoc is guilty of suggesting this on his talk to Allen Knott. I think Nord didn't know about this rule and wasn't trying to be underhanded on purpose, but every No vote from now on is now "Fruit of the poisoned tree" if I'm getting my legal lingo right.
  • Allen Knott is a new account with only 8 edits, and only 1 improved a wiki page. It doesn't feel right for any new dude who isn't even helping out much to be able to take down an admin if they get upset once.
  • One of Allen Knott's main reasons for posting this is because he's upset with Tempoeraryeditor78 and thinks he's arrogant and rude. He wants to take down an admin because he got rubbed the wrong way. Very weak reasoning. If Allen Knott rubbed me the wrong way would it be right for me to make a policy post to get him blocked? Why did Allen Knott decide to escalate one bad experience into a drama that demands an admin be taken down? It looks petty and trollish.
  • Allen Knott's account history does not show he was ever blocked or that his bad experience with Temporaryeditor78 ever happened, so either he's straight up lying and the whole grounds for this post is bunk or I missed something. I don't think I missed something.
  • I had a brief convo with Temporaryeditor78 not long ago and he answered my questions, didn't insult me, and didn't ban me. If he's mean then he's able to keep it in check enough for people like me to edit freely. Hard for me to see that he fits the profile of a "tyrant." That's plenty reason to vote no by itself.

With peace and love, your friendly neighborhood Deepspaceprobe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 06:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

First, I moved your argument to the discussion section so I could response. It is true that my account is only 8 days old but I didn't realized the 30 days thing nor did I realized that my account is only "8 days old" because it the same account I had been using on other wikia since 2010. Next, I'm the one who posted on Nord Ronnoc's talk page originally. I'm the one who asking if we could rally support to remove Temporaryeditor78 so actual it should be my vote that is not counting. This account isn't the same one I was block on, this is the account where I was block on, If you read the links I posted i show that Temporaryeditor78 had done this same thing to other peoples, including attempting to remove one of the previous post about demotion him. Hint this is my opinion is him abusing his power. If my policy purpose need to be taking down because of the 30 days-rule that is fine but I will wait and re-post it after the cool down period. --Allen Knott (talk) 07:23, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
Also if you look at the account was block, Temperoaleditor78 block me on my second days March 19 for 2 weeks hint me moving back to my other account. So I made my first editor on March 18 and on March 19 he block me. --Allen Knott (talk) 07:27, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
You could have asked me to move my comment myself. Do you know that you admitted to making a second account to get around a block on your first account? I don't know if that's block worthy here, but lots of places permaban for doing that. It's also shifty behavior in general, even if your block was wrongful, even if you don't know any rules. When is going around a block ever ok anywhere? You expect me to think Temporaryeditor78 is this super terrible guy but you're the one crossing lines to take him down. My vote stays No. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 08:34, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
True but I didn't know if you would or how long that would takes you. No, I had my current account first, I just wasn't able to get into it because of a technically issue. Once that issue was fixed I was able to get back into my account. So technically I was block on my second account. It not shifty behavior when the block prevent me from contacting any other admins on the site to discuss the issue. I even contact Wikia Community Support for help. My block was wrong and in my opinion if the block is wrong then it is alright to go around the rules, especially if the admin if abusing his power. You my vote no that is your right. You may had a good conversion with Temporaryeditor78 but the reality is that you had spend the majority of your time attacking me on a personally level. Did you even read any of the links I posted? Because basically your argument is, "I like temporaryedtiro78 so he is fine being an admin." You haven't give one piece of evidence of why Temporarayeditor78 should not be demotion. I will admit you was right about the 30 days thing but again I thought my old account was 7 years old. I didn't realized it was depending on when I first made an edit on this wiki.--Allen Knott (talk) 19:42, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out all the rules you're breaking and suspicious things you're doing on your cruasde to take down an admin you don't like because you got blocked one time. ONE TIME. You are not an abuse victim at all. You escalated this to a ridiculous level over a small incident. You can't even say Temporaryeditor78 is out to get you because all he did was block you once, not many times for nothing, and the whole purpose of having admins is so they can block you if they feel you broke a rule. You won't even consider that maybe you were rightfully blocked for breaking a rule, you whipped yourself up into being a victim. On the subject of multiple accounts, you did take a very drastic step: You aren't supposed to make another account to get around a block under any circumstances, it breaks with trust and good faith. You either wait it out or go to WIkia community staff if you think its wrong. And before you say sock puppeting is a Wikipedia policy and doesn't work here, you should take your time to read this wiki's policy: Sock puppeting is listed as a blocking offense here. Took me less than five minutes to find out. I don't care if you're Jesus Christ reborn, you are guilty of abandoning any moral high ground you had. You thought you were better than the rules and because of that all you are is another entitled hypocrite. I'm reporting you to Temporaryeditor78 for sock puppeting, and then I'm going back to editing pages (something you are still making no effort to do) before you give it all a bad taste in my mouth. I regret saying anything about this already. Good day. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 21:00, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
you called me a lying isn't that attacking me? I don't think I had did anything "suspicious." Because if you look at my currently account I only made one edits but I stop because I wait out the block. So I didn't used my original account to evade the block I used it so I could contact other in seeing if Temporaleditor78 could be remove from his position. It is not about him blocking me once it about him that he had done this several times to other peoples. If the rules are unjust then I don't have to obey them:) Temporaleditor78 block me unjustly in my opinion so yes I in my moral high ground to get around the block because it is unjust. I did contact wikia community staff but they don't get involve in admins blocking peoples but because I couldn't contact any other admins on this wikia what was I supposed to do? Wait two weeks for the block to end? And other than the single edit, I didn't do anything for that two weeks. Report me, see if I care. Your argument, beside the 30 days thing, is flaw. I'm not the first nor will i be the last that Temporaleditor78 block for no reason. He need to go or the wiki is in trouble. --Allen Knott (talk) 21:25, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
You don't get to decide if the rules are unjust by yourself, or that you're so high and mighty that you can go around them whenever you feel like. That's like a convicted criminal escaping from prison instead of appealing his case. You are supposed to work within the system to prove you were wronged, not flaunt it like a jerk. If Temporaryeditor78 is an arrogant tyrant, you are equally arrogant and completely unqualified to lead the charge to take him down. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 21:45, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
Yes I get to decide if rules are unjust or not it called morality. Just like everyone else does. If the system is broken then what else I'm supposed to do? The response from Wikia community support was, "This kind of block is usually set by the community admins, and staff generally do not intervene in local issues." Then they go on to tell me I can either find a different wiki, contact another admin, or wait out my two weeks block. I couldn't contact another admin and my block in my mind was unjust so I wasn't going to wait it out. I agreed that I'm not qualified to lead the charge but right now I seem to be the only one. --Allen Knott (talk) 21:51, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
No, you don't get to decide. You have no right. Wikia Staff, the highest up the chain you can go, even told you to wait and you didn't listen to them. Why should anyone listen to someone like you if you're willing to disrespect all authority? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 21:56, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
I don't respect authority who doesn't act justly or morally. But you're correct I had no "right." An admin, as you point out, can block me for no reason without giving a reason. If that was to happening in the real world and not on the interest, peoples would be screaming. Because, my point are valid. Temporaryeditor78 had done this over and over again. Look at this talks page, there at least once on his current talk page where someone is asking why he was block? There are two previous attempt to demotion him? Clearly you have a bias in favor of him. And none of this had you response too. --Allen Knott (talk) 22:01, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott

I'm not biased in favor of anyone. If anything I'm biased against you because you're a pot calling the kettle black. You got blocked one time and you act like your constitutional rights have been spat on and you're screaming for an admin's head, but you've been breaking rules all the time because you think you're the one person in existence that they don't apply to. You're exactly the kind of person for why blocking was invented in the first place. As for Tempoaryeditor78's other crimes, he faced calls to have his admin status removed twice, yet those petitions both failed obviously. By definition you can't hold those against him because a majority of people twice said he didn't deserve to lose admin status. An admin could have a million petitions like that and if they all fail, then what that tells me is a million people didn't like him, but two million more did. I guess you don't respect majority rule either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 22:26, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Your open statement you said you're not biased and then said you're biased. So what is it? Again, it not about the one time and it is about a series of the same behavior. I can hold it against him. if you break a rule, the first time you may get a warning, the second time a worst punishment, and the third time is another level. Just like in the law. Second, only the first attempt was voting on the second attempt was drop. But hell if the first two doesn't work we just give up. I don't respect majority rule. Majority rule, which had nothing to do with the this is stupid and based on the lowest common denominator. The first attempt, was 9-5-11, but four of them who voted against them was now either inactive or small-time contributors. So yes, we can used the previous two attempts to support the third attempt. Including Temporaleditor78 delete the original forum and the Wikia community support having to restore it. Again, I understand he is the most active contributor but that doesn't mean he should be an admin.--Allen Knott (talk) 22:40, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott
I'm going to point this out and then stay out of this. You started an edit war with that admin on the Dr. Suvi Anwar page. That may be the offence that got you blocked. An offence that will result in a block on most other wikis. So you might as well end this crusade. The Cat Master (talk) 23:23, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
Thank The Cat Master but I knew already that. Now, i wasn't used that term, "edit war," but Temporaleditor78 kept rolling back my edit, without telling me why. If he had explain why he was rolling them back this wasn't have become a issue but no he just block me. Now I didn't know he was an admin nor do I care. The point is that he just had warn me or taking the time to explain why he edit was unaccepted. But all he did was roll it back (like he had done to other) and then block me. He may very well be in his authority to do so but that doesn't mean is it right or that wikia policy is just or accepted. So no I'm end this crusade until he is removing from his position. --Allen Knott (talk) 23:47, April 6, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott

I understand you have a learning disability and I sympathize. If it helps, it's TemporaryEditor78. I have voted yes on grounds of Temp's long history in harshly dealing with dissent. On the other hand, it would've been wise if you used your original account. The block was lifted on April 2. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 04:15, April 6, 2017 (UTC)



1. Signed. I'm surprised you brought up his attempt at deleting my petition and him banning me from the wiki. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 04:13, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

2. Signed. As the one who posted the policy then I'm voting yes. --Allen Knott (talk) 05:45, April 6, 2017 (UTC) Allen Knott



1. New dude here, going with no. With peace and love, your friendly neighborhood Deepspaceprobe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ((╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻) 06:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

2.Why are we doing this for a third time FFS?Forever224 (talk)

Signature and Closing Note

Voting will end on April 11, 2017 (UTC) in keeping with policy.

--Allen Knott (talk) 05:43, April 4, 2017 (UTC)Allen Knott

Locking this proposal, as it doesn't meet the requirements (see Forum:Policy). Even Special:Contributions/Allenknott3 was created on March 18; the account used to make the post was created on March 27. Canvassing and ban evasion was also involved, so it's about time this was shut down anyway. Leaving this comment here for archiving purposes. Elseweyr talkstalk April 7, 2017, 09:11:52 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.