FANDOM


Forums: Index > Policy > Demotion of Temporaryeditor78

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 Temporaryeditor78

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:
Supporting links or images:

Other Notes

For some time, Temporaryeditor78, the admin of this wiki, demonstrated abrasive and rude behavior towards the other users, regardless of intention. He didn't assume good faith or gave the benefit of the doubt. He told me me that, and I quote, "excellent job at an exercise in research failure and/or illiteracy." He constantly shot me down because of my small number of contributions to this wiki. That was not a valid argument, telling me to do better. That doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between a bad user or a good user.

Even Elseweyr, a Helper, told him to stop, yet he refused to change his behavior. If a regular user had done this, they would've been punished for insulting other users. But that wasn't the case for Temp. Because of Temp’s behavior, other users are hesitant to contribute to the wiki, which suffered as the result. That was not the traits of a good admin. Theses were the traits of a bad admin.

The good faith policy, as I would call it, was part of Wikipedia' guidelines:

The principle Ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse") is incompatible with the guidelines of "do not bite" and "assume good faith". In this case, ignorance of Wikipedia's guidelines can excuse the mistakes of a newcomer. Furthermore, you yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

Try instead to follow the points set forth in this article to relieve new editors of their ignorance. Keep in mind that this is not the way many other things work, and even seasoned editors fail to follow—or are simply unaware of—our guidelines from time to time.

To a newcomer, the large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is overwhelming. Ignorance of the rules can often be expected, but willfully disregarding them and disrupting the editorial process of constructing our online encyclopedia is quite another. If you exclude editors without barnstars and the like from your circle you probably diminish the final product. In all cases though, we ought to interact with our fellow editors with gentleness and respect.

As a matter of fact, I have filed a complaint to the Wikia staff of these incidents. They acknowledged that they disapprove of his approach to other users, but they’re unable to do anything about it, suggesting that I should either make a compromise, call for a vote, or leave. I believe making a compromise or telling him to end his behavior would not resolve the issue, as he had refused to listen time and time again.

I know what you’re thinking if he gets removed from his position: what will happen next? Don’t worry; SpartHawg948 and Trandra are currently the admins of this wiki. And we can always vote in a new admin.

Voting

Yes

  1. As prosper. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 07:19, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
  2. If you ban someone for making this page and then try to erase it, you're not fit to be an admin. Change your inappropriate behavior or find something better to do that makes you feel like a tough guy. Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:26, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  3. SlyGentleman --SlyGentleman (talk) 05:11, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  4. DID SOMEONE SAY CHARLIE!? --Charles Saracino 02:36, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  5. -- CrackFoxJunior (talk) I support this. --{{SUBST:User:CrackFoxJunior/SigInclude}} 22:32, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:33, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
  7. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:37, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Vote changed as it has become clear that Temp, while a good admin in some regards, has repeatedly broken this own wikias Administrator rules. Garhdo (talk) 20:51, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Unprofessionalism is unprofessional. Being a competent and devoted editor is no excuse for being pompous and hostile. --LDR (talk) 20:37, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. See below.--Hawki (talk) 23:54, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Would Support, as per: Excessively blunt, supercilious and rude (per Mittens) - which harms userbase growth; and admin rights should not be merited as a reward for straight contribs, nor are rights necessary for the job of quality control. Techhead7890Talk 11:30, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
    1. However, while there has already been an extremely large amount of evidence against TE78, I am somewhat inclined to give him another chance and support DeldiRe's proposal because growing the admin team is helpful, and a positive outcome that is more likely to achieve the results desired.
  3. Neutral at least for now. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:45, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
  4. I haven't been looking at the social side of the wiki for a while and it would be wrong of me to voice an opinion while not knowing the full extent of the circumstances. I'll be neutral for the time being unless I see something change. Echolett (talk)
  5. JediSpectre117 (talk) 00:08, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

No

  1. Elseweyr talkstalk 23:25:08, 2014-07-13 (UTC)
  2. MarkRulez711 (talk) 00:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  3. --Perkins98 (talk) 00:08, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  4. See below --DeldiRe (talk) 09:27, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  5. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:56, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Niniendowarrior - If it ever comes that temp gets demoted, I volunteer Elseweyr as admin. :-) (talk) 11:01, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  7. FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 11:40, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
  8. Titan45 (talk) 11:58, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
  9. On second thought, the fact he's the only active Admin is rather persuasive, I'm more interested to see than anything if he learns and improves from this. KaLowPet (talk) 13:20, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
  10. YamiX0 (talk) 21:22, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Trandra (talk) 17:51, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The points raised by Nord are adequately presented, and while there is a strong air of victimisation in those claims (whether Nord is accurate in that analysis or not), they are legitimate. Temp's contributions to this wiki are numerous and immeasurable, and he has been a great help on many issues. However since ascending to the admin position, perhaps as a result of being the only active administrator for this wiki, he has become somewhat brusque in some of his interactions with users. I have mentioned this before when I stated that it reminded me of a similar admin who's attitude had soured before that admin voluntarily left the wiki, but not before causing great harm and damage to the community here. I do not want the mistakes of the past to be repeated and new users to be discouraged with unkind words.

My view as it currently stands is thus:

  • Yes Temp's attitude has on occasions been rude and unforgiving, as highlighted by Nord, yet he is a worthwhile addition to this wiki's senior staff and has made numerous valued improvements to this wiki that should not be forgotten. But just as with that former admin his contributions do not negate the potential negative impact on new users.
  • This community is currently a lot smaller than it once was, and has been perhaps irreparably damaged by such disagreements among the community in the past. Real information about Mass Effect 4 is potentially just around the corner and so potentially will be new users. We need to send the right first impressions to them.
  • Temp is also the currently ONLY active admin. Trandra is active but rarely. I have not seen Spart in months. Several others are awol. We also have no active Senior Editors and very few active Chatmods. IF it comes that Temp is demoted I would say he is made Senior Editor, and active Chatmods (namely Else and Deldi - I exempt myself as I do not have the time to devote here at present) are promoted to the same position and they supervise the wiki together. If a new admin is needed it should not be elected immediately but be voted on by the community after a certain amount of time has elapsed. Trandra would remain the only active admin and could be reached if necessary, as can wikia staff.

Garhdo (talk) 23:16, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is a bit of an insult to this wiki's most devoted and competent editor and only active admin. Maintaining the site as well as adding tons of new content is hard work -- and who ever thanks him for it? He earned his rights, and readers owe the quality they seem to like to take for granted in large part to him.

Strongly oppose. Elseweyr talkstalk 23:25:08, 2014-07-13 (UTC)

I don't think I'm in a position to vote either way, but I feel compelled to make the following comments (speaking as an admin of other wikis):

  • I cannot condone Temp's behaviour. I have accepted that there are registered users on wikia that seem unable to improve their style or follow a MoS, but unless there is malicious intent behind their actions, I cannot condone blocking. Not unless it's in the most extreme of circumstances, and based on Oldeg and Rannoc's behaviour, I cannot cite any malicious intent, or disruption (e.g. the Education page didn't impact any other pages in its inclusivity).
  • That said, Temp's actions have a precedent, as I found a similar attitude back during ME1 The wiki's MO is to basically copy-paste information (e.g. codex entries) rather than attempt to integrate the information except in rare circumstances. My thoughts on this aside, Temp's actions have been in keeping with the MoS. Uldag's Earth edits are an article, as the sub-heading used for the locations did not have precedent in the MoS. Fair enough.
  • On the other hand, Oldag's actions do keep in good faith, in that they were based on the provision of information. Listing locations. In the time it took for Temp to say that there's an additional information section precedent on the talk page, the information could simply have been moved/adjusted to the desired form. I know that not every admin has time to chase after every edit. Some edits may present valuable information, but choose the wrong way for doing so. But simply reverting an article edit doesn't help. I feel that using the example of Earth, a lot of grief could have been shared by altering the sub-heading, mentioning on the talk page that it wasn't presented in the desired form (or on Oldag's userpage, not without descending into insults at least).
  • Nord's right about one thing, Temp's actions are intimidating. After seeing Oldag and Rannoc be banned, my intent at the time was to take up Oldag's additions to the Earth article in Temp's form (narrative form...to list locations...). A form I disagree with, but was willing to abide by. Now however, I can say that I will not do that. Because I feel a precedent was set at the time that any edit that deviates from Temp's intent for an article is grounds for being banned. Which brings me back to the previous post that a lot of time and effort could have been saved if Temp altered Odag's edit rather than reverted it. Lead by example and all that.
  • Which brings us to the current state of the wiki. The education proposal is likely to fall through, with these nuggets of info stored on character pages, with no means of finding structures pertaining to education (which is what category pages exist for). The characters list proposed by UnknownOne is looking every bit as unwieldly as I feared it would be (and I speak from experience). Cerberus Daily News is an interesting read, but bar some rare cases, there are no means of finding accumulated information. I can't find info just on Lira Speight or on President Huerta for example, unless I want to embark on detective work, shift through every mention of them, and try and form a complete picture that will only exist in my mind or on my userpage. The timeline article, functional as it is, lists only certain types of information, and if you want the more obscure ones, tough luck. Temp's actions, I disagree with, and seem more based in the spirit of letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. But they have been with the letter of it. I can only hope that this discussion may loosen up the MoS and allow more accumulative type articles (which is the virtue of wikis in the first place, to present and accumulate material official sources cannot or will not), but I'm not counting on it. I've been hoping for that since ME1 :(--Hawki (talk) 23:54, July 13, 2014 (UTC)

Must be a little weird to see me here, but I was asked to weigh in. The attitude that these examples display is very similar to the one held by the the two active admins around the time that I decided to leave here, Lancer1289 and SpartHawg948. Nord is correct with his claim that this attitude goes directly against Wikia guidelines, and is extremely unbecoming of anyone in a leadership position. I was originally not planning on voting, because I didn't feel it would be appropriate since I haven't been around to see Temp at work. But then I read the extremely hostile message that he left on Nord's page before having him blocked one hour later. There is also a post on Temps' talk page that suggests that he simply deleted this page in response. That's inexcusable behavior. Lancer and SpartHawg hated my guts, but when I pushed to have one of them demoted, they were smart enough to handle things like men. Not only am I going to vote in favor of him getting demoted, I'm going to suggest that Nord file a claim to Wikia Administration, because this is a obvious abuse of power. Mr. Mittens (talk) 02:24, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Power to the people, i hate over modishish mods man, stop haressing people, this is why the wiki got terrible --Charles Saracino 02:38, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching this wiki for some time and I must say I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner. Temp is a good editor, no one can dispute that, but his attitude is detestable and frankly hazardous to the wiki. If there removed it may encourage more editors to contribute. In any case, such an attitude should not be acceptable. I'd also go on to say that his behaviour is an abuse of power. Any normal contributor would be blocked instantly if they spewed as many insults as Temp did. So, I have to agree to this I'm afraid. And Elseweyr, no one deserves to be treated the way Temp treats people, it doesn't matter how good an editor Temp is. --SlyGentleman (talk) 05:11, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to insert my two cents into the conversation. I feel as though a large volume of contributions, no matter how notable, is largely irrelevant to one's status as an administrator. Wikia is driven by its community, and if members of the Mass Effect Wiki feel unwelcome in any way, I feel that this community has failed on some level. More than anything else, an admin's duty should be to foster community growth and create a friendly atmosphere that encourages everyone to edit, not just one prolific editor with a few extra buttons. The reality of it is that the users with higher privileges will no doubt have more edits than any other users - and to be sure, Temp's contributions should not go without note.

Regardless, this is a collaborative project, and it should be considered that you can edit nearly as well without admin rights. Administration powers should be granted to those community leaders who not only lead by example through prolific, high-quality editing, but also take the time to make sure the userbase feels welcome. You're job is to keep the wiki running smooth, and whilst content is the meat and bones of the site, its users are the heart of the whole project, and making them feel unwelcome in any way feels extremely unproductive and is the very antithesis of what Wikia is.

If honest mistakes elicit harsh reactions, it's going to be extremely difficult to engage readers to be anything more than that. This being a Wikia wiki, it should feel open and accessible, whilst maintaining the high level of quality for which this site is known. I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates or re-write the rules, only that users be treated kindly in a cordial and friendly manner. This is a wiki about video games after all! It should be all about having fun and working together.

In conclusion, if this supposed trend continues, a demotion may be necessary, but I'm all for second chances. If this is something that has been noted by the community, perhaps it would be best for Temp to take a step back and re-consider their attitude. I fully understand that being an editor on a wiki can be stressful at times, especially on one as large as this.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 08:21, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

I will start by quoting Elseweyr as she is more than often the voice of wisdom : "This proposal is a bit of an insult to this wiki's most devoted and competent editor and only active admin. Maintaining the site as well as adding tons of new content is hard work -- and who ever thanks him for it? He earned his rights, and readers owe the quality they seem to like to take for granted in large part to him. Strongly oppose."

And even if I also had some disputes with Temp, he is also always open to discussion and he is willing to help in his own way. As Milkman said, a good contributor is not necessarily a good admin in terms of community management. However, a good admin has to have “technical” skills to manage the wikia. On this side, I think that Temp is one of the best member of this community (to not say the best, Elseweyr and Trandra are also really good).

For the community part, the remarks of Nord and Garhdo are legitimate (and I truly understand them), this wikia is unpleasant with new comers, it’s a fact! It’s a situation who is present since I joined the wiki 2 years ago and that I despite since the beginning. However, my love for Mass Effect (and for some editors) have pushed me to do all the efforts needed to be part of this community. The situation is not new and we can’t put the responsibility of this situation on Temp’s shoulders who is already working a lot (and alone) to maintain the content of this huge wikia ! We should all be thankful for that ! And this situation should not be a vendetta against him but rather a fresh wave on this wiki. The wiki’s philosophy towards users has a problem not Temp (even if nobody is perfect). To cool down the situation, I would suggest to enter in a constructive phase:

  • Close this insane vote who could lead this wiki to a dead end and a splitted community;
  • Unban or reduce the length of the recent bans (it could be great to reduce the drama over here) ;
  • By doing so, we close all the discussions and we are in a “status quo” who is the necessary basis to improve this community;
  • Think together and find a consensus for a new guideline about how we should deal with newcomers in a positive and constructive way ;
  • Launch an election for one (or several) new admin and/or senior editor who could strengthen the actual “team”. Temp isn’t a dictator and he will never be like that. But as he is alone in its position, it sometimes looks like he is such a dictator. It’s not true. (I’m not presenting myself to that position because I don’t have the skills for that). This new admin/senior should maybe focus on community management instead of content management even if both are related and no decision should be taken alone.
  • Reinforce the community weight so that everybody will help Temp to deal with newcomers. He can’t always be the bad guy… We all have to take our responsibilities when somebody is acting wrong (even in good faith). I want a strong community not a community who tackle problems with more problems (as this vote do).

--DeldiRe (talk) 09:25, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Guess who's back?!? Anywho, as indicated above, I'm against this proposal. Just a quick pointer. This is NOT Wikipedia. Wikipedia's good faith policy doesn't apply here. Unless we've added one in my absence, this wiki has no corresponding policy. Fully half of the proposal is a quote from the site policies of an unaffiliated website. Just saying...
What really decided this for me is that Elseweyr, who is cited in the proposal, has in point of fact voted AGAINST the proposal. This, to me, speaks volumes about the proposal and its merits.
Oh... and as is well known, I'm notoriously vain and a colossal jerk. Just ask Mr. Mittens. I'm not voting in favor of any proposal by anyone who misspells my username. Also, no promises, but I'll try to be around more again. Which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your outlook... SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:05, July 14, 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back!
I'd like to point out a couple more things:
  • I don't approve of being mentioned in the proposal and indeed I do not support it. To clarify, my Helper status has little to do with my role here: in lacking local rights -- other than chat mod, which barely counts -- I have no more authority than a regular user.
  • The guidelines for the ideal admin are just that: guidelines. Wikia admins don't have to be exemplary community managers (or even nice) in order to use sysop tools for wiki maintenance.
On an unrelated note (but since it's come up), if new Senior Editors are to be appointed, they don't have to be selected from Chat Moderators. Chat modding is separate and doesn't involve editing privileges outside the Chat feature. Elseweyr talkstalk 10:51:42, 2014-07-14 (UTC)

While I note the merits and contributions of Temporaryeditor78, I find his methods unusually blunt and unwilling to find a compromise and cite this as my reason of support. While I am biased, being on the recieving end of some of his actions, I feel more inclined to support newcomers. Amongst all the random edits, there are always a few new users that are willing to contribute over a long period and the wiki as a whole is disadvantaged if they are turned away. This is why Wikipedia has such policies and why new-editor policies such as In Good Faith implicitly affect all wiki communities who desire growth. However, I also need to disclose that I take this standpoint as I am in favour of encouraging and fostering newcomer interest and involvement, I have had run ins with site-officials and the lack of comment or feedback, and the lack of good faith. I believe that were his actions justified with brief comment, or otherwise of a less annoyed tone towards new users, would resolve this perception of obnoxiousness. Unfortunately while the earlier personal dispute was resolved to a "sufficient" degree, and I do acknowledge after first contact he became slightly more civil, I have not really seen sufficient change from him for the better - and would cite Mitten's comment above regarding this. I acknowledge the point above about him not being a dictator and perhaps it raises the point that this change need not be permanent - perhaps only a short duration of standing down would be sufficient.

Additionally on permissions, while I know little of the administrative side of the wiki, it seems that most of his actions are focused on standard content pages. While mainpages and news and the like most likely require status to edit, I am not aware of any special permissions required to remove vandalism and other quality issues. Additionally, permissions (in my view) are not a reward for simply having contributions, but a longstanding interest in the development of the wiki. I have mixed feeling about saying this due to her desire to not be involved as above and I have to swallow my pride in yet another earlier dispute as well; but as a user without admin permissions, Elseweyr still does a fine job removing or altering content lacking in quality and is able to justify the changes in good faith to editors and is not excessively rude. While it is definitely useful to have multiple people working, I would like to emphasise the fact she doesn't have admin rights, nor does she necessarily need them to carry out the job of altering low-quality edits. Upon-rereading, this appears to be largely the point raised by Milkman. In summary: excessively blunt, rights not necessary for the job. As per Milkman and Mittens. Techhead7890Talk 11:26, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with your consideration for newcomers, but the point you raise about "rights not necessary for the job" is moot. Obviously regular editors have access to most editing tools, but having someone around with the ability to protect a wiki from vandalism (among other things) is what sysop rights are for. Being left alone to carry out those responsibilities wasn't Temporaryeditor78's choice, but he stayed anyway. Elseweyr talkstalk 12:37:40, 2014-07-14 (UTC)
Hi Else - In my view it's less about someone needing to have the ability to protect the wiki against vandalism than about TE78 having (repeatedly) abused the powers entrusted to him. In addition to closing off legitimate community discussions he has often used his admin *stature* (if not usually his admin privileges) to enshrine his own opinion in editing disputes to which he is a party. That's highly inappropriate and he has continued to do it even when the inappropriateness has been pointed out to him. This is on top of his unnecessarily abrasive attitude, which is also a poor choice for the leader of a wiki community. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:54, July 15, 2014 (UTC)
Upon skimming of a few talk pages, the use of block rights has become most obvious in the form of sockpuppetry and editwarring. I don't wish to delve into the appropriateness or judicious usage of power in such disputes for the moment, because as per Cattlesquat that is contested. However, I would like to ask if there any other particular examples of situations where sysop rights come into play? Techhead7890Talk 13:09, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Admin rights can make editing easier, but are not at all essential. With admin rights you are trusted with the ability to upload multiple images, access the admin dashboard, rollback edits with a single button press, etcetera. This doesn't mean that admin rights should be a reward for contributions, but rather that being a reliable contributor is a requirement for being an admin, the obvious distinction being that there are also community powers that come with it.

At admin level, you're allowed to ban users from chat and the wiki as a whole for an indiscriminate length of time, if you so choose. The other side of this is that, as an admin, you are the first person to whom users should look for advice and information. As admin you'll likely be doing the lion's share of contributions, but I feel that even more important than editing yourself is helping new users feel comfortable with editing. They shouldn't be treated as a nuisance (even if they can annoy you), but rather a potential helper of the wiki. As admin, it's your job to encourage more people to contribute in a productive manner that falls in line with the established guidelines.

In conclusion, I feel that if one's only merit is a large amount of contributions they don't necessarily need to be granted admin status, as there are levels below that (Rollback Editor for example) that grant extra rights to trusted users, without placing on the burden of community management, which is the most essential job of an admin, and what makes each wiki's team of administrators stand out from other users. This is Wikia, where everyone can edit. Not everyone can manage a growing community, and it's important to understand that distinction.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:17, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a full third of all currently cast votes have decided to remove Temp, and the neutral votes have acknowledged the problem, do suggest some sort of admin/leadership change is required on this wiki whether Temp remains admin or not, as well as a change in Temp's current attitude. It may be worth discussing what those changes should be. Garhdo (talk) 23:08, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

I can’t agree more with the position of Milkman even if (for me) a good administrator is both a good community manager and a technical wiki expert. I think that everybody agrees with the fact that Temp is more than a valuable editor of this wiki with lots of technical skills needed to maintain the wiki in a good shape.

But, even if he can be rude in some occasion, I’d like to point that he also helped me in countless occasion in my multiples projects with valuable tips/advices. And when he is against one of your idea, he will say it but always with a good explanation because he takes time to explain thinks. That makes him a good community manager, maybe not the best but a really good one. He will maybe not push newcomers to edit but he will always ensure that those edits are from good qualities.

To conclude, I’m sure that it can’t hurt the community to have new senior or admins but the demotion of Temp is surely the worst idea ever… --DeldiRe (talk) 09:57, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

  1. I'm glad to see that SpartHawg has belatedly returned, as he had a strongly positive influence on the community and admins when he was active. If Spart had stayed more present/responsive to the situation, some of TE78's bad behavior might have benefitted from some coaching and been dealt with sooner, more positively, and with a better outcome for the community. I hope he stays active now.
  2. Nonetheless TE78 has behaved quite badly over the last year - not only heavy handedly but also arrogantly and contemptuously of the community. Rules and customs of this wiki which were previously taken seriously and respected by its admins - such as community consensus being the ultimate deciding factor in new policy/project proposals and the inherent worthiness of talkpage discussions to resolve editing disputes, both of which are known Wikia principles even though it gives its admins a very wide latitude in how to implement them - have been repeatedly abrogated and short-circuited by TE78's behavior. He has repeatedly made clear (sometimes explicitly) that community consensus doesn't matter in the face of his own opinion.
  3. Having previously been quite active here, I have become less active specifically because of TE78 being too much of an obstacle to participation. Obviously I've been checking back to see if a discussion like this might eventually come up. Were TE78's running-rampant admin behavior to become checked then I would love to return and participate more actively.
  4. TE78 has been an excellent and knowledgeable contributor to the wiki, apart from his personality being utterly unsuitable for the office of admin, and if this proposal passes should be welcomed to continue to participate as an editor or senior editor. With some attitude adjustments & some stronger policy governance for admin behavior being put in place, I could see restoring his admin rights.
  5. I don't approve of much of the behavior of the proposer of this, nor do I take "wikipedia principles" as rules here (though they're good guidelines and echo Wikia's own stated principles). I would prefer some more exemplary member of the community to have proposed this. However I do, after long unpleasant experience, support the fundamental proposal, to remove TE78's admin rights.
  6. I completely disagree with the notion that we have to keep a rude and unpleasant admin because otherwise the wiki would fall apart or something. There are still plenty of editors who care about this wiki, some of them quite knowledgeable either technically and/or about the franchise.
  7. I would strongly urge my friends in the "No" and "Abstain" column to reconsider your positions - this wiki would be a much BETTER community if we didn't tolerate rudeness and arrogance in our leaders. A "second chance" for TE78 could come down the road, but should be earned on the basis of better behavior.

Thanks for your time. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:33, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

I am torn on this as I see several valid points that have been raised in favor of and against this proposal. I also see several points that have NOT yet been raised. Moreover, I'm not even sure how much credence to lend to each one or if they even really matter.

I'll start with points against. I certainly agree that Temp has been rude, insulting, inflexible, and belligerent. It would also appear that he had deleted the original proposal as well as banned the proposer, the former of which resulted in a smacking from the Wikia staff. There have been plenty of times when I've bitten my tongue, wanting to calling him out on his attitude.

At the same time, as has been said, Temp actually makes substantive contributions to the Wiki, contributions that are not a bunch of reversions or talk page discussions telling people no. While I will admit that I have been frequenting the wiki less now than previously, I have certainly found Temp much easier to work with than I did Lancer (yes, I'll name names). I certainly find him far less inflexible, dictatorial, and hostile and far more willing to listen. I am certainly less reluctant to post now than I used to be, not having as much a fear that anything I post will get reverted for some BS reason. Also, as has been said, Temp is the only active admin currently. If he is demoted, who do we get in place?

I guess I'll vote neutral for now but will continue to think it over. TheUnknown285 (talk) 19:45, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

It's true. Temp did delete this forum but a Wikia staff member stepped in, restored it, and greatly decreased my time blocked here. Here's what I got from a few days ago when I reported that event to the Wikia staff. Make what you will.
Response from Staff
--Nord Ronnoc (talk) 01:44, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Question, did Temp give a reason for taking down this page? If not it only reinforces my opinion that he should step down. With his extremely unprofessional and hostile attitude towards users and this "I'm more important than you because I make contributions to this wiki, and so is everyone who have done more for you" mentality seems very unbecoming of an admin, I understand he is a very, very, VERY important member of this wikia (much more important thatn me) with his constant editing and refinement of articles, but I believe he shouldn't be in the position he is now with his attitude, if he changes, then I'll reconsider. 166.82.245.207 06:26, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, the above was me. KaLowPet (talk) 06:29, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being the newcomer here but I saw this a few days ago and I figured that it might finally be time for me to create an account and say something. Most of what I'm going to say, because I'm a newcomer, will sound ironic and this I'm fully aware of, but sometimes you have to go with it even if you will sound like the fool.

I have been a "lurker" on this site for quite some time, since about now with a few edits here and there. Mainly I just came because this wiki is actually a well put together site that seems to have its head screwed on straight.

However, I can't believe that this site would seriously consider getting rid of the only active person here to manage it! As someone else said, that seems very irresponsible, end quote, and to me seems like it is just idiotic. Granted the person in question, who I'm surprised hasn't voted no in his defense, as there seems to be nothing stopping him, hasn't been the best, but there also seems to be a reason for that. And that reason is what and who he has to deal with.

Now, you have only my word for this, which really means nothing on the internet, but I've been in a number of leadership positions, and given what I've read over the last few days, I think anyone would be frustrated with managing something like this alone, and there will bound to some slips. I've had a number in my time, which more than once bit me right in the butt. (Stupid filter) Hard. Doing anything on a large scale is challenging and if there isn't someone there to help, it can overwhelm you and you don't realize it. I've actually had to take an entire semester off from one of those positions so I could get my head screwed back on straight and I was welcomed back and this time, someone was there to help.

When looking at the people voting yes, again here comes the ironic part of my commentary, some of them haven't been here in close to a year, and others seem to just like to stir up trouble judging by their actions. To me it seems like they don't visit, they don't contribute, then why even care? I care because I use this site regularly for playing the games, because it is actually well organized (not as well as others but still), and for a fanfic I'm writing.

Perhaps a solution, which I'm repeating I know, is to get someone else who cares about the community and the wiki and get him some help. It seems that he's only acting like this because he is overwhelmed and it got to him. It does happen to the best of us. This however, isn't a solution, it will just create another problem, which some people it seems, don't seem to be able to see.

Anyway, that's what I have to say. Titan45 (talk) 11:58, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

I forgot a paragraph.
I also felt it needed to be said. An alternative to getting a new admin might be asking an old one, however unpopular as I've been told there was one that was, to come back even on a temporary basis to relieve stress and just to have someone else around. Maybe feelers should be put out to them to see if they will at least discuss the offer or something else. Or come back just long enough to get someone else promoted, however that process works, but it seems to be well laid out here, Mass Effect Wiki:Requests for Adminship. Titan45 (talk) 12:12, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Some of these responses throw into sharp relief some sincere participants' unfortunately poor grasp of the situation on this wiki and the implications of this vote. Cattlesquat is the only one in the "yes" camp to base his opinions on matters at least tangentially relevant to this community. What do you others plan on doing after reducing the already critically low number of active admins from one to a round zero-- suddenly start patrolling recent changes, contributing in meaningful ways, helping integrate newcomers yourselves?

It's simply not true that there has at all times been a sufficiently dedicated and active userbase present to consistently keep the wiki free of invalid contributions and vandalism as well as add new quality content. It's clear that many don't realise what kind of workload merely patrolling and verifying recent changes can mean on this site. I still think the main problem is the fact that this wiki was left with a single admin for so long, with only a handful of other regulars stepping up to contribute in some meaningful way at least every once in a while.

Merely removing the admin rights of the one user who's kept this wiki together all this time is so backwards it's tragic. Even people who have done little to nothing for this wiki in ages (or ever) rushed in (or were rushed in) just to see someone they don't like get whacked. The validity of some points raised notwithstanding, voting to have this wiki as good as adminless for any period of time is highly irresponsible and reason enough why the rest of you shouldn't support this particular proposal either. Elseweyr talkstalk 12:07:11, 2014-07-16 (UTC)

So far we haven't seen any sign of contrition from Temporaryeditor78. No apology for X,Y,Z and I'll try to do better. Nor even a non-apology of sorry I'm just stressed out and misunderstood. So I'm not sure why so many folks think this will just magically get better if we vote down this proposal in favor of a "second chance". To me second chances should be earned not just freebies. But hopefully you second chance folks will be ready to revisit this issue in a couple months if/when the behavior continues?
However this comes out, perhaps we *would* all benefit from a more formal "admin code of conduct". Draw a few more lines to make it more clear that to be an admin is to do service for the community, not to exercise absolute power over everything. Many former admins - Spart, Tullis, Trandra come especially to mind - have been exemplars of this. We should certainly hold our leaders to a high standard, otherwise we should get new leaders. Admin code of conduct could include (1) not to delete/lock forum proposals that aren't vandalism and are put forward according to the forum rules (2) not to assume more weight to their own opinion in an editing/content dispute to which they are a primary party and in no circumstances to use admin powers or the threat of them in such a case - accept that things get taken to the talk page and decided by consensus, and call in a second opinion if you think there's really an edit war violation by another party. (3) that admins are expected to be exemplars of Wikia's own guidelines for assuming good faith.
That said, I remain in favor of the proposal. As you know I'm more than happy to do my part patrolling the recent changes - I'm just not interested in doing it under the thumb of someone who has repeatedly bullied me. If the community or Spart ever asked me for assistance in that sort of thing, I'd be happy to provide it, and I doubt I'd need special privileges to do it. I'm not as technically talented as some, but if I ever did have any privileges I'd be using them to help the community, NEVER to bully other users or promote my own content opinion. I think that's the standard we should expect of our leaders. As Reid Hastings (Netflix CEO) says, "Do not tolerate brilliant jerks. The cost to teamwork is too high."
If the proposal passes, Spart can select more admins (Elseweyr!), or if we don't have active admins Wikia Staff will let us elect new ones as a community. The wiki and the community will survive - and prosper. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:12, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with all the points Cattlesquat has put forward, and I do believe that should this proposal fail definitive admins rules need to be put in place by this community so that if and when we see an admin contravening those rules action can be taken, especially with Lancer and Temp both having caused contention with the community simply by hiding behind and abusing their admin powers.
As to Else's point about people returning to the wikia after time away and perhaps not being willing to monitor changes and vandalism - well there are several users who have voted here that I have not seen among this community in a while who have proven their efforts to curb vandals, with the main thing stopping their ability to truly eradicate it being that they are unable to block said vandals - Cattlesquat, Mittens, Unknown, Milkman, Hawki, and myself are among that list, all having to run to an admin to actually remove a vandal, or vandal blog comments, as we are unable to do anything ourselves. It therefore seems that there will be users who will take action to remove vandals, police and monitor changes, encourage quality edits from new users, and even calm arguments - which on blogs seem to be increasing, especially against certain users (one Anon has been relentless in his attacks on another user and STILL has yet to be punished), but we do NEED an admin, or someone with those privileges, to do the things that we can't. Yet even then Else's concerns are warranted - some of the users who have voted have minimal mainspace efforts, and one has even been far more trouble to this wikia than he has been worth - I would have banned him long ago had I the ability.
But even so I do believe that the community is capable of managing itself, yet it is clear we will need an admin to do what we cannot, but it may not necessarily need to be Temp, and whoever that admin may be they need rules and regulations and need to be held accountable by this community.Garhdo (talk)
While I naturally agree with Cattlesquat's and Garhdo's (and the "yes" camp's valid) concerns, I'm still firmly against the proposal in its current form: the discussion that ensued has shown that several factors other than demoting an admin must be considered in the process of improving this community and its administration. With the consequences of its success unaccounted for -- and the controversy still surrounding them -- the proposal is inadequate and should cover details that needed to be agreed on before opening the vote.
One does not simply (:p) "select admins" from the current base of editors, as the requirements have been rather high in the past and no greatly dedicated or, above all, active editors have been around lately. I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable with my name popping up here and there, as I haven't contributed here as much as I'd have liked to in the past few months. I wouldn't mind carrying out admin duties to the best of my abilities as part of a team (that wanted me there), but I'm far from qualified to "take over". Without TE78's solid game and MEWiki expertise, anyone would have a tough time upholding the quality of this site and retain their sanity and some kind of off-wiki life. I thus maintain that removing his admin tools is not going to solve the problem. Elseweyr talkstalk 18:53:05, 2014-07-16 (UTC)
Okay NOW we're getting somewhere :-) i.e. "the proposal is inadequate and should cover details that needed to be agreed on before opening the vote" -- I *totally* agree that more is needed. On the other hand I think "agreeing on the details" of a proposal to impeach an admin might have been a bit much to ask of the proposal. Remember, after all, this proposal even as it stands was deleted by the admin in question and had to be restored by Wikia Staff -- and since impeachment of an admin seems to be virtually the only form of discussion that Wikia will go out of its way to protect, you can see how keeping it simple until we solve the underlying problem would appear to make sense.
But I'm definitely 100% in favor of working out some of those additional details. This being a fan wiki, albeit a fantastic one, I don't feel like there's an instantly urgent quality to our day-to-day adminning needs (TE78 has been absent since this discussion started, and the wiki is just fine). And barring some kind of significant expression of contrition and changed behavior by TE78, it's hard to see how the community could really come together and work out details with him looming over everything with self-appointed absolute authority over what can even be discussed here let alone implemented.
Your statement that you'd be happy to carry out admin duties to the best of your abilities as part of a team is *exactly* the right way to think about it. FWIW, I'd be happy to as well under the same circumstances - I may not be needed/wanted in that regard, but I do qualify under the number-of-edits parameters, have plenty of franchise knowledge, and "a friendly hand with the anons". Not really pushing for it, but if I was asked I would serve.
Meanwhile I'd ask you as someone well-spoken from the other "camp" what details you would like to have us all agree on? Because your post hints of common ground and I'm certainly interested in searching for some of that.
Finally, in spite of my bewilderment/disappointment that many folks I like and respect are in the Neutral/No column, I think it's extremely good and healthy that we're having this discussion. For one thing it has reminded me that the community isn't actually non-existent, there are quite a few folks who still care and there will be more returning and new folks when the next ME game gets going. I talked with a Wikia Staff a while back about the whole admin-abuse issue, and it was an interesting conversation - he began by telling me that the only real Wikia-sanctioned way to proceed was what he called "impeachment" (i.e. a proposal like this one), but he also strongly encouraged me to start that discussion here on the wiki, that the conduct I described was certainly in the zone of what a community should care about. I didn't start a thread like this at the time because I felt like I was "the only one having the problem" and didn't think there was enough of a community voice to have the discussion with. This thread has proved to me that I was wrong so I'm very glad we've had the discussion. Certainly the closeness of the decision and the near-run-thing nature of the comments from many of the No/Abstain camp show me that even if this fails there MIGHT be a point where the community would stand up and make a change, and that's very encouraging to me as someone who felt singled out for bullying many times (e.g. Talk:Attican_Traverse:_Krogan_Team#Preparation just for a memorable example where not only was consensus procedure not followed but I was *taunted* about how it wasn't going to be followed).
Thanks again for everyone's time discussing this. I think it really does make a healthier community. Cattlesquat (talk) 19:43, July 16, 2014 (UTC)


If I may, I am currently doing the necessary research in order to start a policy discussion about Administrators and their accountability to the Community, and I have found something here that has actually swayed me enough to reconsider my vote. I shall quote it here:

Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. Administrator powers should be use to help keep the wiki clear of vandalism, spam, and users who make malicious edits, but not for simple disagreements between users acting in good faith. 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.

The reason this has made me change my vote is that it has been clearly proven that Temp has actually contravened these rules. He has used his powers to settle editing disputes and to win disagreements. He acts as though he is in charge and his word is final, which is not acting in the benefit of this community, and as a result he has contravened the rules set out by this wiki to be an admin.

While I am loathe to leave this wiki without an active admin, and I do indeed recognise the work and top-quality contributions Temp has bought to this wiki it has been proven that he has broken the rules of his position, just like Lancer before him. I would urge people to truly consider whether he deserves to keep his powers solely by merit of his contributions. or the fact that he is the sole active admin, when this is taken into account. Yes he may be the only admin, but do we want an admin who considers himself above the rules and doesn't respect our community? I don't.Garhdo (talk) 20:49, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Much has been said that doesn’t need repeating so I’ll try to keep this brief. In an ideal world, we’re all polite and civil. In the real world, especially on the internet, a little abrasiveness is not that big of a deal. People raise valid concerns, and I don’t think anyone is saying that Temp is not at least somewhat culpable, but the fact that he’s not polite is what started this chain of events. Temp has basically shouldered the majority of the burden on this wiki without ever complaining. In my own limited experience, I have found Temp to be more than civil when you show that you’re at least making an effort.

Several people have already suggested meaningful steps forward instead of this vote which only serves to continue a pattern of negative user-admin relations. The most obvious first step, which again has already been broached, is the promotion of one or more new admins and/or senior editors. There is no denying that Temp has made outstanding contributions to this wiki and I believe removing him will do far more harm than any perceived good. So he’s not a “people person”. That’s fine. Promote some more people (a user-relations admin, if you will), ease the burden that should never have been fully placed on him to begin with, and let’s just move on from this tired tale. --YamiX0 (talk) 21:19, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to point this out, but it should probably be known that, even if this passes, nothing will change, at least not without outside intervention. What the proposal calls for is, to the best of my knowledge, impossible. To quote from the proposal: "If the majority voted in favor, he [TE78] must remove his status as soon as possible,". That is (again, to the best of my knowledge) not possible. At the wiki level, only a Bureaucrat (such as yours truly) can remove an admin's status. And the proposal doesn't call on me to do so, nor would I on the basis of this proposal passing. Should it pass, I would take it under advisement, and proceed from there. Just food for thought. If this does pass, there will either need to be another proposal explicitly requesting that I demote TE78, or someone from Wikia will need to do it. As Garhdo points out, the rules do need to be followed, and I intend to do so, to the letter. SpartHawg948 (talk) 09:09, July 17, 2014 (UTC)
Based on various threads that Sansse posts on Community Central, Wikia will enforce the results of any community-based admin impeachment (or presumably election). If something passes, etc. Cattlesquat (talk) 16:40, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

YamiX0 spoke the truth and I also could sign his text… There is still two subjects I’d like to clarify : about TE78 and about a solution to make things right. 1) What have been said about TE78 is for from true:

  • He isn’t Lancer (AT ALL) as he is more polite, he always explains his point of view and he is also willing to help in projects;
  • TE78 didn’t asked to be left alone in charge of this wiki but he took the task anyway, alone…;
  • IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND: Lots of people explained that TE78 ended an edit warring by abusing his power to impose his view on cases where he was judge AND party. This isn’t true. The facts are different : when he “imposes” his view, he do it as an admin because rules and standards are not respected, he isn’t a party, he is only a judge.
  • When others editors are commenting on a proposal, he is willing to discuss and explain his view with lots of arguments.
  • When TE78 is a party and has a project in mind, he doesn’t impose it, he proposes it via a forum and a vote
  • When you want to launch a project and that you use the procedure (forum, sandbox,…) he always gives precious advice to help you.
  • Even if his language was sometimes rude, he listens to the editor and try to fix the point with a good compromise.
  • If he made some mistakes, his positive impact on the community is far more greater than everything else

2) About a possible solution:

  • A few clarification in the admin role could be useful (as proposed by Gardho)
  • The “administrative team” (bureaucrats, admins, senior, chat mods who are supposed to be good contributors and “trusted” members of the community) and the community should work together in order to welcome the newcomers and to explain their mistakes as they can become. This idea of a “team” would be able to avoid the idea of a too powerful admin above the rest of the community.
  • Reinforce this team with a new admin, a new senior and a new chat mod if possible.

I'm at the community disposal (as always) to do my share in the job, but not without TE78... --DeldiRe (talk) 10:01, July 17, 2014 (UTC)


Why can't anyone spell my name right? lol.
Anyway I agree with certain points raised by Deldi and Yami - Temp can sometimes be quite helpful, and he was promoted into the admin role and then seemingly abandoned by two other admins and the bureaucrat, who all took leave of absence not long afterwards. For the most part he has continued in this role admirably, even shining where so many others would have failed. However that does not excuse the fact that he broke the rules of his position as laid out on this wiki multiple times, starting with continued rude and flippant comments while reverting edits (seen very easily by looking through his contributions, especially on Talk Pages, and the examples above), and ending with both the delete of this vote and the block of the person who proposed it simply for that reason.
However it seems that he will keep his position, which while I am not in favour of I can live with, providing a level of accountability is introduced so that such abuses of power cannot happen again. With this in mind, as suggested on this page, I have started a discussion here to create a set of rules the community is happy with which can then be put in place. However this is only part of the solution and we would also need more admins and senior editors that the community can trust unanimously. Garhdo (talk) 10:19, July 17, 2014 (UTC)
mea culpa. Though I'm in that boat too in regards to this proposal. There is not, and has never been, a K in my user name. :P SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:23, July 17, 2014 (UTC)

What in the world is going on here! What's with the return of everyone, SpartHawg948, Garhdo, LordDeathRay, Milkman, Unknown... who else is going to return? Well since that is the case I might as well put a vote in, Though it'll be neutral since I haven't been active the past year and I think that would be unfair to vote yes or no since I haven't actually seen what's been going on. JediSpectre117 (talk) 00:04, July 20, 2014 (UTC)


The proposal was rejected by a vote of 9-5-11. Further discussions in this vein can be found on Forum:Proposal of Admin Rules and Regulations. Elseweyr talkstalk 10:10:37, 2014-07-20 (UTC)

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