Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Abusing admin privileges? (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.
Moved from User talk:Archduk3...

It was quite bold of you to be blocking me for alleged personal attack after my most recent quite harmless comment when your comments and responses towards me lately have been nothing but condescending and insulting. Speak of the pot calling the kettle black. As an administrator you should also know that in cases where you are personally involved in any way or the subject of controversy etc, it is very inappropriate of you to be imposing the block. In fact, you were told once - in case of locking a page - that if you are involved in the edit controversy with another user, you should not also be the one locking the page, but let another admin do so.

As to this recent block, there was no personal attack or real insult in my recent post really, but even so, you have certainly no right to be pointing the finger at me regarding bad attitude and personal attacks when just a couple of weeks ago your response to my simple and polite question on Ten Forward was "I'm sure anyone can be excused for assuming that DC can't click a link."And not only that, in another incident your remark to my comment was that This soapbox "proletariat vs oligarchy" bull isn't going to get you anywhere". These are just two that come to mind but there are more examples of similar condescending and rude behavior on your part that clearly constitutes personal attack.

If you recall, when you unjustly blocked user 1312 a few months ago, and ignored my requests for proper documentation justifying the block, I told you that next time I would pursue the matter. So I went ahead and reported you to Wikia - if that means anything around here anymore - and they are aware of you now. You appear to be considering blocking people as an enjoyably duty of administration and do not appear to comprehend that, per MA policy on blocks, you are to only block someone to prevent further harmful edits to MA and not as a tool for punishment - which the recent block against me clearly was just as the block against 1312 and who knows how many other folks. When you blocked 1312 for his tone of voice and etiquette, I explained to you that you cannot block someone for cynicism in their tone or for lacking etiquette. Your responses were belittling and insulting - as they always are towards me (and yes, implying that someone suffers from a mental retardation that prevents them from clicking on a link is an insult and personal).

I guess I could take this to the other admins here on MA, but they are the same ones that turned a blind eye to 1312's unjust block and i doubt we'd get anything fruitful here. You are certainly lucky to be operating within a framework where people without administrative privileges simply have no recourse for your abuse of your admin privileges. Anyway Wikia has been made aware and whatever else they wanna do and for the future I recommend you be very careful how you respond to my comments on talk pages and refrain from making threats left and right (something else you enjoy doing: threatening people). It is clear that your beef is with me personally as well - in which case I dont expect objectivity on your part (although on the part of other admins, but that's another story). Have a good day. Distantlycharmed 22:13, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

DC, here's "proper documentation" for your block: You clearly made a personal attack by calling Archduk a "genius" while criticizing his rationale for an edit, which, since you agreed with the end result of the edit, was an unnecessary comment and only served to attack him. --31dot 22:31, September 10, 2011 (UTC)
One can also certainly block someone for cynicism and tone if the cynicism and tone is disruptive, repetitive, and directed at other users. The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules. Additionally, Archduk is hardly the only one who has issues with your posting, as Sulfur said on one occasion(which is in a conversation you cite above)--31dot 22:34, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

And who blocks Archduke when HE makes condescending and insulting remarks like the one stated above? Or when HE during a personal dispute with someone goes ahead and blocks them instead of waiting for another admin to do so? Instead of addressing any of these issues you dance around them by repeating what was already stated. I can see that clearly you missed the whole point of my comment or maybe you are just deliberately ignoring it. When Duke comes in and responds to my question on Ten Forward with "oh just assume she can'y click on links" nothing happens to him and on one criticizes him, but when i say something far less obvious, I get a block? Are you kidding me? This is complete abuse of admin privileges and I find it very insincere of you to be pretending it wasnt and actually defending it too. Distantlycharmed 23:25, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying you can't get as good as you give? That doesn't seem fair. I frankly have little interest in debating this with you since I find it highly unlikely it would accomplish anything, as you wish to discuss other people's conduct more than your own.--31dot 00:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Please put your straw man arguments away and either stay with it or just refrain from responding as you suggested. My point here was the hypocrisy on side of this admin. Even if I am the worst person on Earth, this doesnt give Duke the right to behave badly himself, then berate me for it and then resort to abuse of his admin rights by blocking me. It is like he the prosecutor and judge at the same time. If you want to point the finger at someone, start by treating everyone equally and demanding the same kind of behavior of everyone instead of chastising one person for something while turning a blind eye to the inappropriate behavior of another person. I wasnt the one blocking someone else for something I have done in the plenty. Distantlycharmed 02:28, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

So, to cut through all the soapboxing there, wikia has your back now and I should make sure not to piss you off. Good luck with that. Let me just reiterate that from now on you will be block to protect the MA community from you if you wish to continue posting personal attacks on members. You've been doing this far longer then we should have let you, and there will be no further warnings. - Archduk3 16:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty laughable, Archduk, considering that you're the one who's doing the personal attacking here. Care to give any examples of what you mean, re: DC's "personal attacks," or are you just going to leave that up in the air as an open-ended threat? --Defiant 17:19, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to link to the better part of a year's worth of her talk page posts, you can just check her contributions. I also suggest that if you have a problem with how this has been handled, you talk to another active admin. - Archduk3 17:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
To the best of my recollection (and I have occasionally been encountering contributions from DC), I've been thoroughly impressed by her edits, so I'm certainly not sure what you're talking about, Archduk. It would help if you were able to cite at least one example of what you mean by her "personal attacks," though you evidently haven't done so. I'm frankly getting a bit sick fed up of admins trying to run this site on fear-mongering, and the disreputable behavior of the admins here in general was a big part of why I'm no longer one. Please don't give in to the bullying, DC. --Defiant 17:57, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
I actually find you're insistance that I need link to an example "laughable" Defiant, since DC herself has already linked to some in her examples about my bad behavior. Considering that, I can only assume that you have better things to do with your time then check her talk page contributions for the others, and I know I have better things to do with mine than do the work for you. For the record though, this isn't about any single instance, like the ones you can find for every user who has been here long enough, including you, or even a handful for that matter; this is about a pattern of behavior that has made nearly every talk page she has contributed to for awhile now a hostle place for everyone. She will be blocked again to protect this community if she continues. You can call that a threat if you want, but it is what will happen. Once again, if you wish to make an issue of my handling of this, I suggest contacting another active admin, since I consider the issue self explanitory with the information I've suggested be viewed, as well as closed. - Archduk3 20:37, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Archduke, you have been abusing your admin privileges and it is pretty clear based on the evidence cited as well as you conveniently ignoring of all my points referenced above (such as instilling the block when you are personally involved and your own list of MA violations in the personal attack department). So any denial on your part is insincere and frankly quite laughable. In any court of law you would lose. I have done nothing to threaten the community or disrupt it and I rarely throw the first punch. Do I get involved in heated debates on MA over editing? Of course. We all do. Look at a lot of the talk pages. But none of it is a violation of the rules and i have never called anyone names or implied mental retardation on their part preventing them from clicking on links, as you did. I could certainly take criticism from someone like Cleanse who doesnt himself regularly engage in questionable behavior, but you just lose credibility with all your insults left and right and then suddenly getting on the high horse to enforce rules when it is convenient for you personally. The fact that you insist that you did nothing wrong and threaten (which is against MA policy) is precisely what constitutes the abuse of your admin privileges. Thank you for proving my point. Like the question I asked on Ten Forward. There was no reason for you to interject and say something like that other than with the intention of personally insulting. Period. Why are you even denying that? That just makes you lose even more credibility. And then you have the nerve to come here and defend your behavior by citing that *I* threaten the community. The community needs to be protected from abusive admins who lack objectivity and apply a different set of standards to themselves and then to others they don't personally like. Anyway, the folks in wikia are aware of you and any more infractions, violations, abuse and insults will continue making them aware of you. A lot of people on MA share my view as I have been recently been made aware of; they are just too polite to tell you. Or maybe your intimidation tactics worked on them - which in turn would prove Defiant's point. Distantlycharmed 15:45, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Archduk3 has not abused admin privileges. It is true that, as a general rule of thumb, we ask admins to not use their powers in a situation that involves themselves. In case they do anyway, though, please note that any admin action is silently reviewed by a number of other admins, including myself, and that these admins would step in if there was any gross misconduct. Apparently, none of the active admins considered this to be necessary here. I recognize that you've already covered that base by implying that any admin who doesn't step in is "in bed with the enemy" so to speak, but this GWB-like argument is quite nonsensical. Anyone who follows some of the discussions we have should know that "the admins" aren't all BFFs. Last but not least, Wikia is not some sort of cavalry that comes riding into town to demote admins left and right at the first opportunity - not without checking back with the remaining admins first, and surely not because of a deserved short-term block. So far, I know of no admin that has been contacted by Wikia because of this situation.
Speaking of the block - you did deserve that, in my opinion. Not for just the comment in question alone (and I'm sure Archduk3 wouldn't have blocked any first-time offender for that), but for your general attitude. Just like Archduk3 stated, you've been acting in a way that can be viewed as borderline trolling for more than a year now - either because you are trolling and trying to get away with as much disruptive behavior as possible, or because you just don't know better. This time, it was a comment where you apparently even agreed with some action, yet you still considered it necessary to make some noise about it and resort to name-calling. Last time, it was asking for something that was in plain view, and crying wolf when someone notified you of the fact that the answer was right there. Countless times, it has been some claim about one or another admin, or otherwise active user, having a hidden agenda against you. Please review your behavior, and perhaps consider focusing on content edits more than on talk pages about site policy. Unless your behavior changes, I'm really not inclined to consider any further admin action against you to be "unfair". -- Cid Highwind 18:40, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
That's very one-sided, Cid. I hope you realize how biased you're being; it's not very becoming of an admin. --Defiant 00:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason I've decided against taking Archduk's advice of contacting another admin about this clearly unfair treatment; it's quite evident that the majority of admins have decided to gang up on DC. --Defiant 00:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
That makes no sense. What would be our motive in "ganging up on DC"? I don't know her from a hole in the wall- if she had not engaged in name-calling and had a poor attitude, I would have no problems with her whatsoever. It's not "biased" or "one-sided" for Cid as an uninvolved party to state his opinion based on what he sees.--31dot 01:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Apparently, one is "biased and one-sided" unless one shares exactly DCs point of view in this debate - no other opinion allowed. If that's the case, there's even less need to further this discussion: the above will be my final word in this current DC./.AD debate. If you want to discuss a perceived general problem of admins vs. users, please do not misuse this user talk page but start a new discussion elsewhere. If you do, please be honest about your own behavior and role in those matters - for example, taking the high road now and claiming here that "disreputable behavior of admins in general" was the main reason for stepping down from admin, after claiming something completely different when requesting to be "de-admined" and later is dishonest and laughable. -- Cid Highwind 11:08, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you actually looked through the history of my user page, you'd find this edit, which explains my actual motivations; in all honesty, the only reason it was removed was it's a user page, therefore it's not very relevant to the topic at hand to speak exclusively about other admins. Just as 31dot claims of Cid, I also am simply an uninvolved party stating my opinion on what I see. It's little wonder that your attacks have shifted to me though, seeing as this place is essentially run like a dictatorship! It's highly contradictory, 31dot, to allege you're entirely unfamiliar with DC but then to go on and criticize her "namecalling and [...] poor attitude," as though you do know her. As for the suggestion that I'm only favoring DC's perspective, Cid, that's actually nonsense – all I meant was that, as an "uninvolved" third party, don't you think you could take both sides of the debate a bit more, taking more of a balanced perspective? It's what I'd encourage. --Defiant 11:24, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's very noteworthy that, still, not one of you who apparently have such a problem with DC's edits have cited even one such example of where you believe she has been derelict. --Defiant 11:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I never said I was "unfamiliar" with DC. I said that I don't know her "from a hole in the wall" (i.e. personally) and as such I have no motive to have any personal agenda against her. I still haven't heard what our motive is in "ganging up" on her if not for bad behavior.
DC actually did most of the work in posting her edits already. Additionally, she was blocked for her "genius" comment specifically in addition to her general poor attitude. It's already been suggested that you simply review her contributions list; most of her posts have been in such a manner. "Balanced perspective" also seems to be code for "agree with DC".--31dot 11:40, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
That's not at all what I'm advising; it just seems to me that we could be saying more stuff like "you could do this [such and such] to improve your edits" or actually praise her contributions, while also saying "this could be better" or whatever. This method could be used on both sides, with such balanced advise issued to both Archduk and DC (for example). Apologies if that's already happened, but from what can be seen exclusively on this talk page, it seems like there's quite a bit of bullying going on, possibly just due to the lack of evidence of DC's offensiveness. I frankly don't have the time to rake through all DC's past edits; if I did, I'd probably use it to review all the policies and guidelines that seem to be updated almost daily! I wasn't familiar with the "hole in the wall" phrase, so thanks for clearing that up for me. I'm not sure what you mean by the "genius" comment, but calling someone a genius shouldn't necessarily be seen as offensive or a personal attack; that seems a bit ridiculous. :) --Defiant 12:27, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Apology excepted Defiant, since that is exactly how I started with DC, though you wouldn't know it if you just listen to her without checking the record. That has been the whole point now for awhile, so I'm going to have to ask that you stop, since you clearly are not up to speed with this matter, and as both of us have said, you have better things to do anyway. I would also ask that in the future you actually check the record if asked to if commenting on something you are unfamiliar about, since this time around has been nothing but a waste of all our time. - Archduk3 12:45, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please read my post from September 10th above, which refers to this edit. As DC agreed with the end result of the edit discussed in that section, her comment was unnecessary and only meant to be offensive. This will be my last comment on this matter.--31dot 12:47, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Having now reviewed some of DC's past contributions, I can see that she's been veering very close to being personally insulting. So, apologies for my ignorance. DC, it's good that you feel strongly about a variety of subjects, but please try to stay on-topic and not be offensive; simply put, it's not productive and just wastes time. Plus, you don't like others being insulting to you, so try to imagine how they would feel. --Defiant 12:52, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I still think an outright ban was a little bit too harsh though, guys; I believe we should all keep in mind why we're here – because we're united in our enjoyment of Star Trek. --Defiant 13:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe this level of hypocrisy here. Archduk3 has been using insulting, condescending language against me OVER AND OVER AGAIN - completely unprovoked - as I cited above, such as the Ten Forward comment, and 31dot and Cid conveniently ignore that part and state that it is ok for him to block me on the "genius" comment and just summarily as "payback" regarding everything else you guys dont like about me - even though none of it constitutes violation of MA policy. And yes, it is personal dislike. You cannot even acknowledge that Duke acted out of line; you just keep defending his bad behavior because he is your buddy. Wikia acknowledged that his behavior was aggressive quite frankly warranting a block if it continues. For you guys to even pretend there is any objectivity here is a flat out lie and as Defiant said, this place is run like a dictatorship. 31dot keeps stating I shouldnt have made the "genius" comment because I was already agreeing with the conclusion, but Duke can make a comment stating "I cannot click on things" or that my response is "bull" without any reason or provocation other than wanting to make a point and thus disrupt the community, and it is ok?? Wow. Plus, an admin personally involved in any kind of "controversy" shouldnt impose the ban. This was a personal vendetta and payback for all the previous heated debates we had, compounded by the fact that Ducke was sore I was right about the Female Changeling and that the removal of said post wasnt nitpick but something else. You guys just keep deliberately missing the point and condone a person abusing their admin privileges to essentially get back at people. As predicted in my initial post, going to other admins would have been a complete waste of time, as this entire display above has been: nothing but denials of facts, straw man arguments and bias. You guys are obviously not interested in resolving anything in good faith and creating a community conducive to editing, you just want to be right, as evidenced by this discussion and generally how you treat most people coming here to MA. Distantlycharmed 16:11, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

The only response that I have is that the above comment is utterly absurd. We would all do well to follow Defiant's last bit of advice.--31dot 16:32, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
I personally agree with DC's latest post and think you owe her an honest apology, Archduk. On the other hand, you were also well out of order to sarcastically and cheekily remark "genius," DC, and I don't think any more of this should be made of it than need be. Having said that, I'm not a fan of how 31dot just dismissed the post as "absolutely absurd," either, as it's quiet disrespectful. I'd encourage everyone involved to try to find some middle ground. --Defiant 16:41, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Oh of course 31dot - because you cannot rationally and coherently debate the issue and back up the bias, hypocrisy and double standards, it just must be that it is absurd. Can't argue it, dismiss it. uh-huh. I think you should take a bit of your own advise and try ot actually hear what Defiant said in his last bit of advise instead of just paying lip service to it. @ Defiant: that is exactly my point. Disrespect is quite rampant around here and condoned, as long as it comes from admins who have the power to block people they dont like. When I said there is no good faith attempt to resolve the issue, I was right on and 31dot just made my case. Distantlycharmed 16:48, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I dismissed it as absurd because(among other reasons) it is absurd to suggest that anyone involved has some sort of personal grudge against you because of a one-line comment on one talk page and a few heated exchanges. I(or anyone) don't know you personally, why would I have a grudge against you because of a Star Trek site? Does that really make sense to you? I have no grudge against you, and if you clean up your act you will have no problems from me. Even if you are right that others have disrespected you, (which I think you greatly exaggerate) bad behavior does not justify bad behavior on your part. As for "good faith attempt to resolve the issue", I'm not sure what there is to resolve. Just don't make personal attacks- that is primarily why you were blocked.--31dot 16:54, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I really, genuinely hate to have to repeat myself, trust me I REALLY DO, but THAT WAS NOT THE POINT. For the last time, the point was that Duke is engaging and has been engaging in personal attacks himself and THAT is why the block was unwarranted, hypocritical and an abuse of his administrative privileges - like being the judge and prosecutor at once. Do you understand that? Does that resonate with you? Would you like to care to repeat what I just said so I know you got it and it isnt just words bouncing off of you? Becasue somehow only my alleged bad behavior is on trial here, but Duke is getting carte blanche because he is your buddy and an admin. And you are biased against me. You dont have ot have met someone personally to dislike them. Are you kidding me? Everyone can smell that from miles away, that is why you dismissed MY ENTIRE POINT as opposed ot just the part about me saying you are biased. Urgh I am getting tired of this. It is like nothing sticks here - like teflon. Anyway I said what I came to say. Have a peaceful day. Distantlycharmed 17:20, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just like I have no grudge against you because I don't know you, I am not anyone's buddy just because I agree with them, because I don't know them personally. Since you seem to know how I feel and what I think without me saying anything(and despite me saying what I think and how I feel), I guess I don't need to say any more. I stand by my comments and will move on.--31dot 17:41, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
DNFTT. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:21, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
You've just committed yet another personal attack, Archduk, which I'm sure all the other admins will again brush under the carpet! --Defiant 07:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
I admit I haven't read this entire discussion, but I wanted to get my comment down here before I finish. I agree with Defiant and support DC in this matter. I do not believe she has done anything wrong. All she has done is respond to the comments and behavior of Archduk3. Now I'm not saying any of the responses she has given are particularly right, but I can damn well understand her. Archduk3 seems to be personally involved in this matter and I do think he has something against DC. She should be unblocked immediately in my opinion. I'll probably post again once I have read the second half of this wall of text. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:25, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Having now read the entire thing, my comments remain. I also think you are well out of order to accuse DC of "trolling." She anything but a troll. She contributes to articles in a positive way and I feel that if you were to speak to her on polite terms she would respond politely. But as it is, you always seem to want to cause her disruption so that DC will respond in argument. While this may be something DC should work on, I completely understand her point of view and I think you are trying to "trap" her into making these comments so you can block her using your almighty admin powers. Oh, wait! Was that too personal? Damn, I might get blocked... --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:36, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, you didn't bother checking the block log either - or you would have seen that there is no current block against DC, because it had a length of one day. Next time, please stay out of discussions that you haven't read completely - and don't run to uninvolved admins for things that turn out to not even be true. It would save all of us some time. Thanks. (Also, I think it is time to move this away from ADs user page to some forum page - AD, do you want to do that, or should I?) -- Cid Highwind 12:39, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Case in point. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:44, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
What case and what point might that be? -- Cid Highwind 12:53, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
That you're rude and insulting when there's no need for it. Do you feel good making comments like "Please get your facts straight before trying to interfere?" I made a mistake and didn't check the block log - so be it. There's no need to be all "get your facts right" and "keep your nose out of this." It's exactly what the above discussion has been saying about admins and their comments/attitude. Quite frankly if you're supposed to be one of the "managers" of this site, then that needs to change. Soon. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's just get this chain of events in the correct order: First you ask a currently uninvolved admin to unblock a user, while falsely accusing another admin of deliberately blocking that user while he is in a discussion (this one) with him. Then you repeat those accusations here and take sides, while at the same time admitting that you haven't even read the whole discussion yet (perhaps seeing the supposedly blocked user comment here would have made you aware of the fact that he is not actually blocked). In that light, my request to not interfere before knowing the facts really isn't something I post to "feel good" - if anything, it's something I post so that people who put fuel to an already heated debate without any need perhaps think twice and not do it next time.
Also, if you think that my request towards you was rude and insulting already (which, BTW, it wasn't meant to be) - what would you have thought about the following alternative: "Think before you post, genius!"? - because that would be more akin to the comment that started this whole discussion. -- Cid Highwind 13:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I dont even understand why you guys remove this discussion from Duke's talk page. This is about HIM and HIS behavior. By removing it from his talkk page you make it look like it wasnt an issue with him, which this is. User Archduk3 has been abusing his admin privileges, and is being backed up by his equally abusive admins who lack objectivity. Dont be removing the comment from his talk page just so he doesnt look bad. It is obvious Duke was/is on a personal vendetta against me. Also Cid, just as I said to 31dot, put your strawman arguments away and instead of dissecting the order with which TrekFan worked things out in his mind, try ot actually understand what he is saying. You and 31dot (which, by the way, are always the same admins to get involved even though no one ever asks you) are continuously beating around the issue here, which I am going to repeat over and over again because I'm not gonna let you resort to these ridiculous straw mans to divert from what is going here which is that Duke is engaging and has been engaging in personal attacks himself and THAT is why the block was unwarranted, hypocritical and an abuse of his administrative privileges. While my behavior appears ot be on trial here, Duke apparently can do whatever he wants, including personal attacks and imposing a block in a matter he is personally involved in as "payback" for all the other times I didnt agree with him. Either respond to this request or just refrain from coming here and obfuscating the issue. This is ridiculous and you guys dont see how self incriminating all your posts are. I mean wikia agrees that Duke;s behavior was out of line and aggressive deserving a block. For you or anyone ot even deny that and take his side is quite insincere. Which brings me back ot TrekFan's point: if you guys with that sanctimonious stance on no personal attacks and upholding MA rule were interested in actually resolving the matter justly and fairly you wouldt repeatedly come back and try ot find an excuse for Duke;s bad behavior and instead actually try to be objective, the result of which would be having to admit to yourself that your buddy made a mistake. But you dont, instead all you do is insult and obfuscate - over and over again. If you think that my comment that started this discussion was rude and insulting already what would you have thought about the following alternative: "I think it's ok to assume that DC can't click on a link"? Distantlycharmed 16:30, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of the order of things: my "genius" comment was in another forum, another debate and weeks and months after Duke's insulting, dismissive comments on his talk page calling my concerns about 1312's block "bull" and then Ten Forward etc. I must say Cid, you were also quite rude there with your condescending, patronizing "honey" comment when addressing me, when all I did was ask a simple question on the community forum. I'm not your honey, dont talk to me like that and please get the facts straight. You are included in the list of people who really shouldnt call the kettle black. At least 31dot has never gotten personal and insulting, biased though as he may be. Distantlycharmed 16:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Distantlycharmed, we've had several emails from you on this subject, but it appears you have misunderstood (or are misrepresenting) our replies. What we said is that this is not a situation where Wikia is going to get involved. What the admins decide stands and we are not going to interfere with that. The admins have our full support in making decisions for this wiki as the representatives for their community. -- sannse (help forum | blog) 18:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
If the admins are responsible, then the admins should be responsible... by acknowledging that both DC and Archduk3 have been at fault, in their own individual ways; this is certainly not a one-sided argument. --Defiant 18:44, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
DC: Speaking of pots and kettles... Yes, I addressed you as "honey" in one of our past discussions - something I would call neither rude nor insulting, but which, I will readily admit that, was a little silly. However, I did so some minutes after you set the tone of that discussion by calling me "dear" out of nowhere, and claiming that repeating the content of a Wikia message to you was snide, impatient and uncalled for. The very simple message is: If you want a neutral tone in a discussion, stick to a neutral tone yourself and If you're constantly being paranoid about each and everyone just being out there to get you, eventually people will be annoyed enough for that to become true, like some self-fulfilling prophecy. -- Cid Highwind 19:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
When did it become rude to request that someone "get their facts straight", or otherwise request that one be informed before commenting on a discussion? How else was he supposed to say it? I hear that in face to face conversation somewhat frequently and have never taken it as offensive. Combine that with false claims of bias and alleged personal grudges over TV minutiae that make no sense, this conversation gets more bizarre by the hour.--31dot 20:04, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the response I got from another person at wikia clearly acknowledged that Duke's behavior was "aggressive" and that it would warrant a block of some sort. At least wikia acknowledged hard feelings on both sides instead of condoning the admin's actions. And no one said this isnt an issue at all. In fact, I was told to contact them shall there be more cases. This is an issue of abuse of administrative powers against entities who have no recourse. Being bullied, threatened and insulted is not what community reps in charge should be doing and since there is little objectivity here as you can see, wikia was contacted, as it says on the support page regarding when to contact wikia. I certainly dont appreciate the double standards and while I acknowledge that i shouldn't have made that snide "genius" comment, I do think it is quite unfair that I be blocked for it as punishment (which is also against MA policy - bans are to be imposed to prevent further damage to the site, not as punishment) while the person imposing the block did the same thing multiple times prior. And to make matters worse, instead of letting another admin get involved to at least give the appearance of neutrality, he imposed the block himself as retaliation for essentially the heated debates we had in the past - half of which he has been insulting towards me. @Cid: my question on Ten Forward wasnt insulting anyone or being in any way personally offensive. But your honey response and Duke's "she cannot click" WAS. Calling me honey was condescending and patronizing, it wasnt silly. And Duke blocked me for the "genius" comment even though he had the audacity to insult me himself, completely unprovoked, on Ten Forward just a few weeks prior and on other occasions. As Defiant states, if the admins are in fact responsible as suggested by wikia, then they also should act accordingly instead of applying a different set of standards to an admin and then to a non-admin. 31 dot is right. This debate is bordering at bizarre more and more, since people who know nothing of the facts interject, there is no objectivity here and double standards are being applied without at least one admin stating that "yes, Duke was acting out of line given the context of the issue and shouldnt have been saying those things and then later imposing the block." That could have closed the case much sooner. It is the denial of wrong doing on Duke's part that keeps this dragging on and on. Distantlycharmed 20:18, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]
@Defiant - Is there some reason you are unable to assume good faith for any of my actions? From where I'm sitting, you seem to have just, at the drop of a hat, decided that everything I do has some ulterior motive, and quite frankly, I hurt and insulted. Hurt that you think so little of everyone involved to not even bother learning about why we got here, which all you're posts prove, since if you did you would see that this is the last resort with DC, and insulted that you either can't or won't see the very bias you claim I have to DC in your actions towards me. I would have expect better out of you, and if I was DC I would accusing you of having some personal grudge agenst me.
@TrekFan - Yes, you will be blocked if you decide to engage in a personal war with the admins here like DC has. Yes, you will be blocked for personally attacking users who don't agree with you over extended periods of time, and yes, that was too personal. I for one consider you to be admin material if you keep contributing, and look how easy it was for you to fall into the same personal attacking "trap" on your "first" edit on this mess. As for setting traps, which one is easier to believe, that every admin here, plus some other users, have all been working together to bring down DC for over a year, and keep in mind that if we're all as bad as she says we are we would have just blocked her indefinitely day one, or that DC is wrong. I would like to think you would be willing to see what lead up the posts on the Archer peer review, and why every admin that knew about it agreed, before assuming bad faith on people who have been here for years and apparently have only now decided to gang up on this user.
@DC - You are of course right, everyone here has a bias against you, and that bias is "you should know better". No less than six admins have told you to stop this personal vendetta and drop the attitude, and you haven't listened to any of them. I personally told you if you acted the same way the NotOfTheBody clone 1312.4 did you would be blocked, and you have, and the blocks will continue if you do. That said, you are right again, in that we, the admins, shouldn't have responded to you in kind, and instead we should have just started blocking you months ago. That was our mistake, and I for one want to apologize for that to the entire community for it. We shouldn't have let DC trolling bring us down to anywhere near her level, and I'm sorry for that.
With that said, I'm considering this whole thing to be a personal attack on both myself, and every other admin here, and I ask how much longer must this "conversation" be allowed to continue in that vein? DC won't be placated without us bending every "rule" we have on this for her, which is what she is already accusing us of doing for our "buddies", and in the end that's all it will be, placating a troll. - Archduk3 20:21, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

1) You blocked user 1312.4 and when i politely asked you to please explain, you basically told me that my "bullshit concerns" dont affect you and that it is just too tough if I cannot understand why you blocked him. Then you threatened me with a block when i persisted in terms of asking you to please cite exact violations.

2) On Ten Forward, I asked a simple question to the community and you interjected, without provocation and uninvited, and left an insulting remark. But I guess since you are an admin it is perfectly ok and i am just trolling around here for pointing out the discrepancy.
3) you further violated MA policy by imposing the block yourself even though you were personally involved and were told in the past to not do such things when personally involved.
4) I cannot speak for Defiant and Trek Fan other than what they posted here, but your accusation that i am starting a war agasint all admins and you is so false I cannot even begin to describe. As they stated above, out of their own volition, there seems to be a culture here in which admins behave in ways I think was likened to a "dictatorship". Isnt that why some admins stopped being an admin? So the problem is not me in my head as you suggest but a problem others have too and your personal transgressions are evident. You basically want to be able to do whatever you like, including resorting to personal insults without provocation such as on ten forward, be the judge and prosecutor in one and anyone who complains is a troll and just an awful person disrupting the community. I guess your unfounded "you cant click: remark" wasnt disruptive and personal at all. Only I am capable of making insulting remarks you know.
5) As to bad attitude: yes i do get in heated debates, just like most people here and there are times i should have exercised better judgment in article talk pages, not get so involved and chosen my battles. Yes, yes, I acknowledge that. But I never insulted anyone to their face like you do/did and I rarely throw the first punch. You cannot insult people or otherwise put them on the defense and then accuse them for disruptions when they defend themselves. You allow issues to escalate by continuing with threats and accusations and nastiness instead of acknowledging any wrong doing on your part in an attempt to ameliorate the situation - which is your job as an admin.
6) As to the 6 admins woh told me so: without mentioning names but havent some of those admins been on "report" themselves for using abusive language against others in edit summaries and other areas? I mean the same admins who chastise me for my bad attitude. For some strange reason I dont respond to people who are nice and polite ot me the way you accuse me of ("attitude"). I wonder why that is.
7) Wanting to resolve an issue in a forum isnt disrupting the community. This is usually how things get resolved. After this I do encourage everyone, including myself, to refrain making snide remarks, be insulting, condescending or generally talking to people in such a way that puts them on the defense, resulting in such issues. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. You dont like the question I ask, dont respond with "well that's because you can't click on links". Apply the same standard ot everyone and we can all peacefully co-exist. Distantlycharmed 21:07, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
@Cid: I'm not going to respond to your comments there because I think it's pointless and would just continue an argument there is no need to have. I have said all I need to say to you.
@Archduk3: For the record, I have no desire to become an admin and if I was nominated I would decline it. Aside from the fact I have a personal life and don't want to spend time administering this site, I have no desire to be a part of an admin team that is bias, unfair and rude.
@Everyone: It is clear, at least to me, that this discussion is not going to get anywhere. Therefore, I wish to propose a solution that I hope everyone would consider fair. As it stands, any admin successfully appointed retains their status indefinitely (unless they go inactive). Why is this? Why can't we have a system whereby admin nominations are made (for example) twice a year and every year all admins have to be renominated and attain a certain number of supporting votes to retain their status. This would not only "weed" out the inactive admins every year, but would also ensure admins do not rest on their laurels. If an admin can have their status taken away from them, they would be more inclined to work harder at what they do in order to retain it. Of course, the admin terms can be any length, I just chose 1 year as a round number. It's more the principle of the idea I am proposing here today. From what I have read above, I'm sure DC and any reasonable admin would consider this a fair system of checks and balances? If the admin is voted in and manages to retain those votes year on year, then DC or anyone else for that matter, has no argument, surely? --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:59, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
That just seems to be a way for people with personal dislikes of admins (such as DC and yourself) to get rid of them- which only turns the debate around. Instead of trying to punish people for personal dislikes users should be working to overcome them. I'm also not seeing any basis for your claims of rudeness- and there is only "unfair"ness because others don't agree with you.--31dot 22:09, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
And before someone says it- again, I have no personal dislike of any user here, despite what some say.--31dot 22:11, September 14, 2011 (UTC)'
I am honestly trying to provide some sort of solution to this debate instead of continuing it with argument upon argument. You say this would cause people with personal dislikes to vote against the user, but I ask you this, which democratic system does not place a limit on the length a senior figure may remain in office? MA claims to be a truly democratic environment where users vote and a consensus is reached. Why not implement a fixed term length for admins? It seems only natural to me and I don't understand why we don't do it already? --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:34, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to Archduk's comment to me, which I personally find completely groundless, frankly. Here's the remark:
@Defiant - Is there some reason you are unable to assume good faith for any of my actions? From where I'm sitting, you seem to have just, at the drop of a hat, decided that everything I do has some ulterior motive, and quite frankly, I hurt and insulted. Hurt that you think so little of everyone involved to not even bother learning about why we got here, which all you're posts prove, since if you did you would see that this is the last resort with DC, and insulted that you either can't or won't see the very bias you claim I have to DC in your actions towards me. I would have expect better out of you, and if I was DC I would accusing you of having some personal grudge agenst me.
Where has it come from that you seem to think I have some sort of problem with all your edits?! I'm completely and utterly baffled about where you got this notion, as I personally think you are (for the most part, anyways) a fantastic editor and a very, very valuable contributor to this site. In all honesty, my one and only issue regarding this is with you blocking DC in a manner that I firmly believe was against MA's policies and guidelines. But has anyone asked me why I have any problems with you?! No, never. So, what you've done is broken the "good faith" guideline yourself. I'd encourage you not to talk about things you don't know a lot about, the same advice that I've been given by you and other admins (such as Cid). As for the notion that all my posts prove that I haven't bothered to determine why "we got here", that's utter nonsense too; one of my posts above states, "Having now reviewed some of DC's past contributions, I can see that she's been veering very close to being personally insulting." According to 31dot, the block you imposed on DC was due to "her 'genius' comment, specifically, in addition to her general poor attitude." Even if she did call you a "genius" (which I confirmed, for myself, from her edit history previously), I would hardly call that (whether said sarcastically or not) to justify "the last resort," nor would I refer to the disagreements you have had between you as having warranted that "final solution." I definitely agree with TrekFan's proposal and feel strongly that it should be put into action, but I can understand why it might be shot down, as those who have ceased power often want to retain it for themselves. --Defiant 22:42, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
I thank TrekFan for at least offering a way forward, even though I disagree with it. Wikis should not be compared to a democracy because they are not one- decisions are made by consensus. "Majority rules" is a poor way to run a wiki as it is open to abuse by those with personal grudges(precisely what we are trying to avoid, supposedly) It has nothing to do with "retaining power". Defiant, you are talking like DC was perma-banned- it was 24 hours. Hardly a "final solution".--31dot 22:47, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
The suggestion won't work for a number of reasons - among them the fact that, to convince the paranoid people believing the current "administration" works in unison as some sort of secretive sub-community, either the number of necessary supporting votes would need to be considerably bigger than the number of current admins, or the admins would need to be excluded from the voting process completely. In either case, I see a good number of failing renominations, not because "the admins suck!!1", but because not enough people care (which can currently be observed with nearly all kinds of nominations we have on this site).
One thing is true, though - this discussion will go nowhere anymore. Not if there are attempts to discredit sensible counter-arguments even before they are made, and not as long as people conveniently ignore part of the problem (funnily enough, while accusing others of doing the same). I'm bowing out of this discussion now - ping me on my talk page, should there be anything new of value. -- Cid Highwind 22:54, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, okay. I didn't say I knew all the specifics, 31dot. :) It's cool that you are grateful to TrekFan for submitting a possible plan of progress, even while disagreeing with it. I think the fact that you disagree with it is more respect-able, that way, as you clearly haven't just shot it down. I'm impressed with your more balanced response. :) --Defiant 22:58, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yes Cid, I believe you are being biased and upholding a double standard. I have owned up to my mistakes (which addresses your concern about "ignoring") but that can hardly be said of Duke woh has been abusing his privileges and since debate started did nothing but intimidate and threaten everyone and of you who has been condoning it. Distantlycharmed 23:04, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest moving this part of the discussion (i.e. TrekFans proposal) to another forum in order to attract more input from the community. I suspect many people fele quite intimidated of the volume and contents of this debate and wont participate as they should or maybe would like to. Distantlycharmed 23:04, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

As to the proposal: I support TrekFans proposal as it is quite reasonable and just like in any democratic system, it puts a system of checks and balances in place whereby those who are in power positions, such as admins, do not get to just do whatever they like without any repercussions since they are locked in their lifetime appointments. As Trek Fan stated, from a behavioral perspective, admins currently have little to no incentive to maintain a high standard pertaining to their own conduct since there are no adverse consequences to their actions. Yes, there exists a mechanism by which admins can be stripped off their rights, but it is more of a confrontational/adversarial process whereby someone has to bring up "charges" or accusations and wait for others to vote - the end results being what we see here. The suggested plan by TrekFan seems more proactive, less adversarial and as he stated it would also help in maintenance and just keeping the system up to date with admins who are no longer active or dont wish to be admins. It is juts part of good operations and maintenance if you will. There is also very little chance of abuse as you fear 31dot, on the contrary actually, since it wouldnt be up to one person but a decision reached through consensus (like everything else here). Opposing a system in which elected "officials" are being held accountable, on the other hand, seems like the proverbial dictatorship to me. Every way you look at it, it is fair and really the basis for democracy and i find it quite reasonable. If an admin has been behaving properly then they have nothing to worry about and if they have, well then the system is indeed needed. Distantlycharmed 23:05, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the argument that it would garner no interest, run it like a proper voting process. A month before the votes begin, allow the nominees to present their case for adminship and obtain votes. Make a big deal out of it on the home page, send out a MA-wide announcement that the admin votes are coming up. Sure you'll get no interest if it's just sat on some random page that nobody visits. Spread the word. Make it a big thing, a true community event that everyone can participate in and vote for the people they want administering the wiki. And yes, thank you for presenting your response in an amicable way. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:06, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Also, I am opening up a new forum discussion on this matter, so please bear with me. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:13, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
Re "There is also very little chance of abuse as you fear 31dot, on the contrary actually, since it wouldnt be up to one person but a decision reached through consensus (like everything else here)" I can't agree, as you already accuse admins of acting together as a secretive group against you- it could certainly work the reverse way(a group of users secretly ganging up on an admin).--31dot 23:17, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
To summarize somewhat, I think as long as the rules – the policies and guidelines – are upheld by everyone, including the admins, and sensible consequences are carried out whenever necessary, there shouldn't be a problem. The reasoning for this debate is that the right consequences clearly haven't been carried out. Archduk3 is a repeat offender of blocking users prematurely, against policies and guidelines, as you can see on his talk page (here). I urge the other admins to do something about this, as clearly this issue has not been dealt with in a way that has been satisfactorily appropriate. This kind of thing, admins (whomever you may be) repeatedly ignoring a significant problem, cannot be allowed to persist. I personally do not subscribe to the suspicion of any conspiracy thing going on (to do so would not be in accordance with the guideline of assuming good faith, so let's just cease talk of any such thing without any proof, shall we?) Neither do I condone DC's behavior – you should not have commented "genius" in the way you did, DC, and you might try taking some time out, as suggested in the guidelines, as you have clearly been frustrated by this injustice, probably venting more of your anger than needs be. The longer the admins take to enforce the policies and guidelines, however, the longer such debates as this (which, admittedly, often seem to involve a certain amount of petty bickering) tend to go on. --Defiant 23:34, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

@ Defiant: agreed. And I did mention, by the way, that I in fact should not have made that comment. But it wasnt about that, it was about the double standard as you know. So yeah....

@ 31dot: Yes 31 dot, I believe that certain admins on here, with whom I have previously engaged in heated debates whose conclusion they did not like, do not think of me favorably and thus cannot remain objective, as clearly evidenced by the discussion above in which Cid and you keep condoning Duke's behavior and could not bring yourselves to even once admit that he acted out of line. When you apply different standards to people you bet I suspect bias and lack of objectivity. I am sorry you dont see that 31dot and need to dismiss it as paranoid delusions on my part. But this isnt about me right now, this is responding to TrekFans's proposal. As to the alleged abuse: there wont be any abuse and the details can be worked out. It is the spirit of his proposal that is important. The current system is abusive. An admin with questionable behavior isnt even really going to try. He dodnt have to. What's gonna happen to him? Nothing. Look around you. Each person has one vote, like with FA nominations. I dont see how I could single-handed lead to any outcome by myself and I am certainly not out to get anyone and power trip and it wont all hinge on me anyway. We are trying to find a solution in order to make the system fair and give people who cannot just block anyone when it strikes them right have some sort of say in whom they like to be leading their community. This isnt a military hierarchy where editors have to take orders no questions asked from admins or else. If we are a community and you the elected "officials" it is only fair that you be held accountable and to certain standards and currently there is no such system in place. So instead of summarily dismissing this, let me ask you, what do you propose we should do? What scenario would strike you as fair? Distantlycharmed 00:05, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

For ease, the discussion on the proposal itself can now be found here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:11, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
To respond to you: Each person does not have "one vote"- any of us can register multiple accounts. I have seen nothing to suggest that you would, but others certainly could. This is not a military dictatorship- but it is also not a democracy and should not be run like one. As I said on the proposal page, a cool-down period would have helped this situation immensely, I think, and then the situation could have been talked out. I would be open to a process for removing admin status- but the process should not be consistent renominations or term limits, that is nothing but a popularity contest.--31dot 00:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Even Wikipedia, with millions of users and around 1700 admins, has no user-based process to vote on removal of admins.--31dot 00:15, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
As I've been reminded several times over, this is not wikipedia, though. --Defiant 02:32, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
True, but my point is that if such a large site can get by without a process like the proposed one, then we should be able to as well.--31dot 09:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I recognize your point, but I was just sticking that out there, so users who may not be so familiar with the workings of the site will know that it's not necessarily always a good idea to be making parallels between here and there; my intent was not to argue against your point. (I now realize I maybe should have clarified that a bit, but what's done is done). --Defiant 10:10, September 15, 2011 (UTC)