Forum:Chatroom admin abuse

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Chatroom admin abuse

Chatroom admin abuse

Sexual conduct

Recently, there was a string of inappropriate links in the Wiki Chat by KingLazy93. Now, a normal user doing this is bad, and a mod is horrible, but an admin? That is ridiculous and should not be allowed or tolerated by any extent. Kinglazy93 randomly began posting borderline ruler34/suggestive pictures of Twilight Sparkle. One user especially resented these links being posted in a chat that is often treated as for the target audience on MLP. I have many witnesses that are fellow admins and mods and understand NOT to do this. Below are some screenshots to prove this mutiple violation of one of the most important rules.

http://i.imgur.com/9lxJK.png

http://i.imgur.com/EAwrF.png

http://i.imgur.com/pdyFW.png

No reason was provided to post the pictures, and he has no right to do such a thing. Many other users would have been banned after the first picture, but as typical, KingLazy93 would get away with this. Possibly even after this forum. The goal of this forum post, however, is to raise awareness to this common injustice.

I personally suppose that KingLazy93 should lose his admin rights, if even for a limited time. This is not the first time that he has broken rules, and yet he has not even gotten a metaphorical slap on the wrist.

Come over to the faded side! 04:27, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah this is why I don't go to the chat any more.      04:34, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

:Really fade? I bet you were just waiting for the right moment to do this. You have said before many times you are leaving and yet you keep doing this little war with me. I thought we stopped argueing about this as well. -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  04:45, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Whether there's a "war" going on between you two or not, how can you enforce rules that you don't follow yourself? I'm sorry to see this happen, but admins and chat mods are just as subject to the rules set in place as any other person. I'm not taking sides, but this shouldn't be happening to begin with. Even enough for another admin to justify not coming into the chat anymore because of it.  Food Foodbandlt  05:04, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Just read chat rules. I don't see any rules broken by posting those links. They are suggestive but not obscene. The rules say nothing about "borderline" or "suggestive". This is a non-issue imho. Sounds like a personal vendetta.  EvergreenFir  05:18, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Vendetta or not, let's just remember, let's hold by the rules, there are children that don't like suggestive or mature stuff, I wouldn't say we all are innocent, but we need to remember the main demographics for the people of the show.  Force ^talk  05:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I looked at these images and they are as follows:

1. Rainbow Dash posing in front of a mirror with a cloud bikini
2. Homer Simpson thinking about a suave picture of Twilight Sparkle
3. Applejack reading a "Playpony" magazine

None of these are explicit in any way. No rules have been broken. They might be suggestive but nothing here is rulebreaking. Forgive me if I'm wrong. I mean, Rainbow Dash had a parasprite bikini at one point in the show, so what's with the problem with the image?      14:20, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

The pictures I were shown that he posted were not like t5hat. Your second one was correct, but there were two other pictures, both of Twilight sparkle. One consisted of her in a sexual position holding a book on her chest saying "Can we study together? Or something along those lines. I don't know who showed you your list of pictures, but only your second one is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade2BLACK (talk • contribs)

I typed out the tinyurls King posted into the chat and that's what showed up. If you would like to provide these images yourself as evidence that would be fine. The screenshots you provided have no context, and clearly now they disagree with themselves. Unless the URLs magically changed to other pony images overnight, I cannot believe what you are saying.      16:12, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

http://img.ponibooru.org/_images/ea17f488f2737eaab4adef4ba7f9ff81/98980%20-%20artist%3Abrianblackberry%20bed%20bedroom_eyes%20flank%20hooves%20me_gusta%20plot%20saddle%20sexy%20suggestive%20twilight_sparkle%20why_boner.png

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/284/3/1/reading_is_sexy_by_ratofdrawn-d4ciz4r.png

These are the photo i was told he posted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade2BLACK (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 July 2012

These do not violate any policy. They might be slightly giddy but that's not grounds for a removal of KingLazy93's administrative rights.      17:24, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing personal against King, except the fact that he has violated many rules before, eith borderline or fully. King is not the only user with some sort of power that has abused his rights and gotten away with it. I do not want to remove his rights completely, but as an admin we should not even have to have this discussion. Suggestive pictures are also usually against the rules. I simply think that at least a temporary downgrade to chat mod for a month or a few weeks is in order. But I am mostly simply using this moment as an example for the constant hypocrisy i am always seeing by users with power.

Come over to the faded side! 17:29, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Per the chatroom rules he needs to stop posting these sort of images, regardless of whether you consider them sexual or not. If he is unwilling to cooperate with the community then removal of admin rights should be considered. –Throwawaytv 17:31, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it has not reached that stage yet. KingLazy93 is an admin of this site, and it seems absurd to assume he purposely flew over policy in order to post those images. It's more than likely a simple misunderstanding. Now he knows to not post those types of images again.      02:30, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Is it absurd? This is hardly the first problem we've had with King. He has a record of violating policy that he expects others to follow. Again, the harassment incident, is a good example. He'd already been warned in the past before that even happened that there had been several complaints about his behavior in the chat. I'm sorry to say, but at this point we have two admins, one moderator, one former moderator, a and user with rollback and image control rights, who are all questioning whether King is suited to be an admin or mod. Do you really think all five of us have some kind of vendetta against him? EquZephyr 02:45, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

No. But the user who created the forum does from what I have been told.      02:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this forum on the behalf of mutiple requests by other mods and admins who were afraid to. True i have had my arguments with King, and me and him are on thin ice, but this, in no way, is a personal attack. Do not use that as an excuse to avoid this. There is no way to deny the fact that this has happened this last time as well as before. It bothers me that you would resort that far to attmept to avoid the problem. This is why the other users feared making the forum. Users resorting to personal problems. I do not fear King, nor do I fear others, so I wrote it for them. I also have a problem with the actions.Come over to the faded side! 02:59, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

They clearly don't have enough of a problem with KingLazy's behaviour to justify themselves posting the forum then. If you want something done, do it properly and don't cower in fear for no reason.      14:47, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Eh.

Per CoD4. I don't see anything horribly wrong with the images in question, if anything they're suggestive, its not like he posted a screamer .swf or anything >.> I may not be on here as much as others but I get the impression that king is a decent enough guy and a good Sysop on the wiki. This just isn't grounds for a desysop forum KλT 14:42, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

One image isn't the same as the next. The sexual innuendo of an image isn't strictly dependent on what the depicted characters are wearing. There are several factors that go into whether an image is sexual or not, but that's not the issue here. The issue is an admin posting images that are disturbing to other chat users and ignoring their requests to stop. This must not happen again. –Throwawaytv 17:27, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

No one forced them to click the links. They brought discomfort upon themselves. I won't say what he did was appropriate, but he did not break any rules.  EvergreenFir  19:22, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

So you all don't have to type them in, the links in question are 1, 2, 3, and 4. They are SFW but suggestive.  EvergreenFir  19:22, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Other inappropriate conduct

As much as I like King, and think he's a great friend to have, I started to question his maturity, as far as handling the sysop powers, ever since the whole Tyciol incident occurred. Now, I have heard from King that that particular photo was cropped to make it seem like it was all on King, and while that might have happened, the fact is that there is no proof to support that particular claim. However, he didn't really do anything too big to get on my radar after that, honestly, but the suspicions aroused by that whole thing remained. Then, when this happened, those suspicions reared their ugly heads again. I know Fade2BLACK used to be a mod, and while he was one, posted a somewhat disturbing picture only once in chat, and quite obviously, got severely warned for it.
When you combine the two incidents, I really do feel as though taking King's admin rights, if only temporarily, would be the best course of action, and I say that with a heavy heart, as again, I like King quite a bit. I think, based on the precedent set by previous incidents (such as Jonbuddy1 having his mod rights taken away for harassment on the chat, or the aforementioned incident with Fade2BLACK), this would be consistent. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 11:26, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree mostly with Jonny when you look at the overall picture and not this individual event (though I feel Tyciol should be removed from this community...). I am not entirely convinced that harsh action should be taken, but there is an overall trend. Given that I do not agree that this latest incident is of any consequence, I feel a sort of probation is more in order. Just my 2 cents.  EvergreenFir  19:22, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to agree with Jonny and EvergreenFir. Since becoming an admin, there have been multiple problems with King abusing the privilege. And like Jonny, I just don't think he is mature enough to be an admin. I also can't help but point out the hypocrisy of the fact that it was King that removed Jonbuddy's mod rights for harassment, when he himself is guilty of the same thing and only got a stern warning. There seems to be a certain about of "do as I say, not as a I do" going on when it comes to King. It seems like it's only fair that King should get the same medicine for his actions that he dishes out to others. If he's going to strip mod rights of someone for harassing other users, it's only fair that the same thing happen to him for doing the same thing. And Fade got his mod rights stripped for an offense far less serious than what King was doing. EquZephyr 20:28, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I maintain the opinion that if you think the internet doesn't have its... oddities then you shouldn't own a computer; when you click a link, you, realising it or not, agree that you understand that what you just clicked may or may not be distasteful. Honestly, I don't have a problem with links provided they have "NSFW" printed beside them. However, despite the above, a lot of other people don't like when people link NSFW images and will (perhaps rightly so) complain about it. As it stands, since it's not flat out clop, this is more of an overreaction than anything else and can be easily solved with a NSFW tag. (Although "Stupid sexy Twilight" should have already suggested such.) --Smuff^{[The cake is a lie]} 11:35, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the links in question, so I can't comment on whether they are or are not appropriate. But I will reiterate what has really been the policy of the chat, and the wiki all along. This is still a children's show, even if there are a lot of adult fans. And we've tried to keep the wiki, and the chat room, reasonably safe for all ages. It is true that ultimately, personal responsibility plays a role when deciding what you do and do not want to look at on the Internet. But personally, I strongly believe there should be safe places on the Internet where people don't have to worry about being exposed to that kind of thing--especially when a children's cartoon is involved. Yes, there are a lot of adult fans. But I don't think we should forget there are a lot of younger fans that might come across the wiki. EquZephyr 13:14, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Revising the chatroom rules

Do we need to revise the chatroom rules? The chatroom doesn't seem to be running smoothly. –Throwawaytv 13:06, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of the rules needing to be revised. It's a question of some moderators, and even some admins, selectively enforcing the rules, and in some cases, seeming to think the rules don't apply to them. It's a question of some moderators and even some admins thinking that little sun by day, and moon by night next to their name gives them some sort of "special" status in the chat where other users have to accept whatever they dish out, even if it is unfair or biased.

There are several reasons for this. But one that I've been complaining about for a long time now, but seemingly to deaf ears, is that new moderators are not properly vetted. Some admins have recently gone on a moderator creation spree. They make new moderators on a whim, without getting any feedback from the rest of the chat members first. Some of these new moderators have literally only been a member of the wiki for a week or two, and have not demonstrated at all that they can be trusted with moderator powers.

I'm not saying it's only new moderators that are causing the problems. There are some admins who have been problematic as well (and again, part of the problem with abusive moderators, is admins appointing them as moderators without any kind of proper vetting first).

The bottom line is that it's not the rules that need to change. It's some moderators and admins that need to change. It's the fact that moderators and admins need to learn the rules apply to them too. And admins need to stop granting mod privileges to users on a whim with no discussion, no community feedback, etc. EquZephyr 13:29, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

The only reason that chat moderators weren't first discussed is because it seems like a very small group of users besides admins ever come on the forums. If this was a wiki where the majority of chat members were active on the forums, I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem with having a discussion for every chat moderator before granting them the rights. Back on topic. I enjoy talking to King, he's a cool guy, but in some instances I admit that I disagree with some of his decisions. Things like "Screw the rules, I'm an admin" aren't viable reasons as to why the rules don't apply, because in all cases, they do apply.  Food Foodbandlt  16:42, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

While on the topic, perhaps we should add "Do not post suggestive material in the chat" to the chat rules. We remove comments that are suggestive on articles, why would we allow suggestive content in the chat?  Food Foodbandlt  17:29, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's already there. Either way this is already covered through this: "If saying or doing something will make others upset or angry, then it's best that you avoid such behavior. This includes stating personal affiliations and beliefs. When requested to drop the subject, drop the subject." This is Wikia's catch-all chat policy and I imported it specifically for subtle cases like this. –Throwawaytv 17:33, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see.  Food Foodbandlt  17:35, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Personally not a huge fan of that. Censorship of "controversial" issues is not the way to do it. The term "moderator" means you moderate the chat; if things get out of hand then take action. But just because someone is controversial and another person doesn't want to hear it, that is not cause for censorship. Moreover, it invites inconsistent rules in the chat; if mod1 doesn't like talk about Obama she can stop the conversation but if mod2 doesn't mind it then you can talk about Obama (just an example). Thus, users walk on eggshells. To use an ACLU term, it "chills" the atmosphere.  EvergreenFir  19:22, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think moderators and possibly admins should be evaulated for chat and wikia policies. Like for chat moderatiers Wikia states they should have a minimum of 50 edits. But i think some moderators do not have even 50 edits. Some moderators are even away or inactive for most of the time being on chat. I understand all users follow rules and such. But sometimes it seems like we have too much mods. –Mylittlewut,Friendship is Questionable 19:19, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

We have an appropriate number of chatmods. Put it this way, it's better to have too many then not enough. IMO chatmods should not be based on edit count, rather they should be handpicked by chat activity and maturity.  • Colgatecity • Talk • Contrib

Throwawaytv made another level 2 header because he can't use indentation like a normal person

This section has nothing to do with anything. –Throwawaytv 20:24, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Chat moderators, read the rules

For your convenience, here is the relevant parts: "Abuse may be: Any violation of the Wikia Terms of Use. This includes vandalism, harassment, spam, and intimidating behavior; Sexual conduct, excessive harsh language, excessively violent content;" Telling users "come at me", "I hate you", "deal with it", or making similar flippant comments is inappropriate and will get your mod rights removed. You should never treat contributors this way. –Throwawaytv 19:39, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a couple administrators who have broken the rules on chat. Although I will not say names, nor will I pinpoint or exclude which admins are doing these, I do have to say that you bureaucrats need to crack the whip. To note, the admins and mods on MLP wiki chat are generally welcoming, nice, and rule abiding. However there are some apples in the batch that are rotting.  • Colgatecity • Talk • Contrib

The thing is, the bureaucrats don't run the wiki. The community runs the wiki, through participation, contribution, and discussion. Any contributor can crack the whip simply by starting a discussion. –Throwawaytv 07:48, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

And then get burned for it, with it being considered a "personal vendetta". Face it. People are scared to write these. Most are scared t even comment. We have a broken system here. One that is run on fear. One that has no definate meaning. Come over to the faded side! 07:56, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You were not burned. You were made mod recently. Then you provoked other users, so you got your mod rights removed. I didn't even realize you're the same person who raised the complaint against KingLazy93. Whenever a mod or admin acts inappropriately, start a discussion. On the forum. So it's documented. That will solve your problem. –Throwawaytv 10:01, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The "burn" comment had nothing to do with the modship. As soon as I wrote this, I was privately messaged by King and others, saying I was picking on him on purpose, just like it is happening here.Come over to the faded side! 18:36, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it probably won't solve the problem. I've been here long enough to know that nothing ever gets done about admin abuse. Most other admins simply look the other way or give a slap on the wrist and threaten to take action, but then never do. Only a few, it seems, like Jonny, are willing to stand up and say something needs to be done with an admin we have had multiple problems with. Oh sure, they'll sometimes whisper among themselves in private that something needs to be done. But when the time comes to say that publicly, they won't do it out of fear of hurting someone they consider a friend. It's like most other things I guess. It's who you know, not how you behave that determines whether discipline is taken against you around here. Basically, moderator rights are given and taken away quite easily. But once you are an admin, you might as well be a tenured university professor. You can get away with just about anything and nothing will be done about it, no matter how many times you misbehave. EquZephyr 13:00, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Your userpage simply said "Go away" until you removed that yesterday clearly to justify getting your mod rights back. I cannot put my trust into a user who clearly has a grudge against the admin in question on this forum and loses moderator rights twice. I don't trust this forum.      14:44, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The "Go Away" comment had nothing to do with King. I wrote that because my userpage was old and outdated, and i never touched it anymore. I was banned from chat, so I figured id fix it. I got lazy, and erased it all. The "Go Away" was a joke. The fact that you look for something to point out that this is about a vendetta only strengthens my beleif that you have no arguments to defend him any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade2BLACK (talk • contribs)

Again, COD. I would point out that Fade is hardly the first one to complain about King's behavior. This is only the latest incident in a string of problems. And again, I would point out that when so many long time members of the community, including other admins, are saying there's a problem, I think it's safe to say there probably is one. But again, admins watch out for their own. It's likely that once again, nothing will get done. If I could retroactively invoke the fact that admins need to be voted on before being appointed (which King was not, because Shadow promoted him with no discussion at all), I'd be willing to bet that knowing what we know now, he would never be approved. But as I said, once you are an admin, losing that privilages is harder than earning it it seems... EquZephyr 15:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Btw, since it seems some existing admins simply can't see this, or choose to ignore it and look the other way. Here it is, all spelled out and documented in the wiki history:

November 9th, 2011: King is warned about uploading duplicate images to the wiki, (badge gaming?)

November 21st, 2011: King is warned about improper use of categories (more badge gaming?)

December 5th, 2011: King is warned for a second time about improper use of categories because he didn't heed the first warning.

January 4th, 2012: King is warned against harassing other users and told he will be blocked if he does it again.

January 31st, 2012: King is warned not to "play" with blocked users. Instead of just blocking them and being done with it.

February 13th 2012: King is warned about creating empty pages on the wiki with no content.

February 23rd, 2012: The tyciol incident occurs, even though King was already warned back on January 4th, and again on January 31st not to harass other users.

April 20th, 2012: King bans a user for "causing a controversy in the chat" (after initially giving no reason at all for the ban). The controversy involved politics. We have no rule against discussing politics or "controversial" issues in the chat. This was clearly abusive.

June 3rd, 2012: King is warned for a fourth time about his behavior and "not being a key player".

June 12th, King is warned about banning users from chat simply for "arguing with him". Again, this is an abusive reason to issue a ban.

July 11th: King posts a series of inappropriate pictures to the chat. Then accuses another user of personally attacking him simply for reporting the rule violation.

And yet, he's still an admin? Seriously, how many chances does he get? Fade lost his mod privileges for one tiny message. Jonbuddy lost them for one incident of harassment (and ironically, it was King that took them away).

And to top it off, he literally has dozens of complaints on his talk page from chat room users who think they were banned unfairly, or don't even know why they were banned. I realize, people who get banned complain. But to say that King has an unusually high number of complaints from users who don't even seem to know why they were banned would be an understatement to put it mildly.

I honestly, I hate having to dig all this up. But it seems certain admins can't see the problem here unless the entire history is brought right out in front of their face.

As I've said, mods have lost their privileges for far fewer and less serious offenses than King has committed. And the irony of King taking away a mod's privileges for harassing another user when he himself has been warned about it no fewer than four times...

The bottom line is that there is more than sufficient reason here to remove King's admin powers. It should have happened a long time ago. EquZephyr 16:52, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Equ I can say the same thing to you as well. You have gotten in fights with cod4 in the chat as far as getting close to losing your mod status as well banned twice in the chat. As well the fights you have gotten with throwy over how the wiki works with your own dictatorship plans and you own personal rants that cause major controversy. You yourself were given at least 3 chances as it is mind you. -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  17:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I have never once been banned from the chat, King. Not even once. And go check my talk page archive. There is not even one complaint against me from another admin or mod about anything I have done in the chat that seemed unfair. Not one. And I have never once been warned about losing my mod status. So if I was ever in danger of it, no one told me. There's the occasional complaint from a user who thought they didn't deserve a ban. But I admitted that yes, users who get banned will sometimes complain, whether they deserved the ban or not. So I am not holding all those against you. But I don't have anywhere near the number of users who were banned without even knowing why that your talk pages are littered with. Not even close.

It's true I've had disagreements with Throwy and COD over how things are run in the chat or the wiki. But disagreeing with an admin about something is not grounds for a ban. The fact that you think I should have been banned for those is partly at the heart of the problem you have. You think that someone who disagrees with an admin about something should be banned. And you don't see that's abusive. That very fact is one of the reasons you are not qualified to be an admin. The admins don't own this wiki. The rest of the users are not simply peons who maintain it for them and have to simply sit back and accept whatever the admins decide to do and not challenge them about it if they think it's a bad idea, or think something is being run poorly. But you seem to think that's the way it should work--That admins should never be open to challenge on anything they do.

In closing, I would appreciate it if you would stop telling lies about me being banned from the chat or having been in trouble with the admins before. Again, if you check my history, you won't find even one ban. The only time Throwy ever said anything to me about losing moderator rights, he admitted it was because he misread something. EquZephyr 18:03, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missread that, I said closed to loosing mod status and getting banned. Plus I have heard from users as well that you run the chat unfairly with your own set of rules from how the other mods run it and I never lie mind you. -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  18:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Plus need I remind you of you own personal bashes on this wiki? -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  18:11, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Again, if people have complained, I don't know about it. That's hardly the case for you. Your talk page is littered with complaints. Including some from other admins. And I don't deny I have complained about the way the wiki runs at times. All of my complaints in that "bash" as you call it, were valid (users not being given enough time to vote. Users having no advance warning that voting would be closed early, etc).

Again, the fact that you think my complaints about how the wiki was being run is a reason to ban me only proves my point. You moderate based on fear. You moderate based on the idea that any user who doesn't like what you do, or disagrees with how you are doing things, can just be banned. That's not how a wiki works. And the fact that you behave that way is at the very heart of the abuse problems we've had with you. EquZephyr 18:15, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

You were explicitly warned before to be specific about your accusations instead of spreading vague accusations. If your next comment is not specific you will be blocked indefinitely. –Throwawaytv 20:07, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The fact that I quoted all those incidents from his talk archives, including the dates that they happened so anyone who wants to can go back and find them in the history isn't specific enough? I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "specific". Isn't it King who's not being specific? He made a bunch of accusations against me and didn't cite even a single source for them. And when I challenged him to provide sources from the logs, he was unable to do so. EquZephyr 20:23, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page; I misread the "you" in "you moderate based on fear"; I guess you were addressing KingLazy93 specifically. I got confused because Fade2BLACK said "the system" is run by fear, while the system is as transparent as it can possibly be. Either way it's high time to address the issues you raised. –Throwawaytv 20:29, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Let's not stray too far off topic from the original topic of the forum. This forum is not about EquZephyr, it is about KingLazy93. If you have concerns with Equzephyr, I suggest that you make a new forum concerning it.  Food Foodbandlt  18:23, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Again, I did not write the only about King. I wrote it about admins in general, but used King's latest action as a base. I did not title this "King's behavior". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fade2BLACK (talk • contribs)

Oh, sorry about that. I judged by the initial examples and following discussion that this was solely about KingLazy93.  Food Foodbandlt  19:19, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

KingLazy93

EquZephyr kindly collected some of KingLazy93's altercations with other contributors (above).

---

January 4th, 2012: Telling a contributor he hates him

February 23rd, 2012: Telling a contributor he hates him

April 20th, 2012: Banning a chat user without a warning. A warning was required for this sort of inappropriate behavior.

June 3rd, 2012: KingLazy93 is asked by Throwawaytv and Callofduty4 to not treat his admin rights as enforcement duty

June 12th, King is warned about banning users from chat simply for "arguing with him"

---

The main issue with this issue is that KingLazy93 is an admin, and admins should only be relieved of their rights if they don't cooperate with the community, otherwise we'd have a constant admin popularity contest. However, it does seem that KingLazy93 is having some trouble cooperating with the community. So, KingLazy93, if you want to keep your admin rights you need to cooperate with everyone now. This includes alleviating EquZephyr's concerns and whoever else has had issues with you in the chatroom. –Throwawaytv 20:43, July 12, 2012 (UTC) [revised 21:02, July 12, 2012 (UTC)]

I try my best now to be a team player to the community now, as well I'm really sorry for posting the pics in the chat in the first place now and I agree that I have made some mistakes made by Equ. -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  20:51, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the only reason admins should be relieved of their rights is if they don't cooperate with the community. Admins who have multiple documented cases of abusing other users should also be relieved. Otherwise it creates the culture of fear that I complained about. In all fairness, if this is how this issue is going to be resolved, than Fade and Jon's moderator rights should be restorted. After all, their offenses were smaller, and fewer in number, than the long list that King has.

Also, sadly, this basically reenforces what I said ealier. Being an admin is like being a tenured university professor around here. You can get away with almost anything and face no consequences other than a slap on the wrist. Normal users who had the record King doe would have been blocked a long time ago. King was warned that if he harassed another user, he would be blocked. Yet he did it two more times after that. Here, we aren't even talking about blocking King. Just removing his admin powers. But even that's not going to happen? EquZephyr 20:56, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

"Normal users who had the record King doe would have been blocked a long time ago." That is absolutely right, I would have blocked him after the first case of abuse without batting an eye. If there's one thing I hate hearing, it's "I'm sorry, I'll never do that again." However, solely from a technical standpoint, admins have to be removed of admin rights to be blocked, and these rights are (ideally) granted by the community and should be taken by the community. I think this discussion has made it clear that this is the breaking point. I still think that contribution-based admins are better than politics-based admins, but I guess there are exceptions. –Throwawaytv 21:13, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

So admins are held to a lower standard of behavior than the rest of the community. A much lower standard. That's completely backwards from the way it should be. (facehoof) EquZephyr 21:17, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

No, they're held to the same standard, but they can't be stripped of admin rights without a discussion. I agree that in KingLazy93's case this discussion should have taken place on February right after the second time he told a contributor he hates them. It would have saved the wiki a lot of grief. –Throwawaytv 21:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

The fact that King is getting off with a slap on the wrist is ample evidence that this is not actually the case. But I'm wasting my time at this point I guess. Once again, nothing is going to get done. EquZephyr 21:43, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Read the first comment in this thread again. KingLazy93 has to cooperate with you and everybody else. Try to understand that admin rights are a hinderance when wanting to block a user. –Throwawaytv 22:00, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

No. It's really not. It's a question of toggling a checkbox and removing admin rights. Just like adding admin rights is. And if ever there were a case of a pattern of abuse serious enought to warrant removing admin rights from someone, this is it. EquZephyr 22:14, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with EquZephyr fully here. King has abused his rights enough times for them to be removed. If any other user would to have done what he has they would have been blocked already. BluesirTheFox Private Pansy is best pansy 22:24, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I've had this for a while now, waiting for a case to build up. How you take it is up to you, I'm washing my hands of this image. The context: This was taken about ten or so minutes after I reactivated Bullet Francisco's moderator rights on June 22nd, following an argument. --Kinrah 21:48, July 12, 2012 (UTC) [1]

Does this discussion not serve as proof enough, Throwawaytv? Or should a new discussion be started to further discuss this?  Food Foodbandlt  21:53, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a trial, we're not looking for proof, everything on the wiki is logged. Unfortunately not everything on the chatroom is logged, which is probably the main reason this discussion is as delayed as it is. What this is is a final warning. I think everyone agrees that KingLazy93's next mistake will be his last. –Throwawaytv 22:00, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed not a trial, this is a discussion. I can't say that I disagree with Equ here, though.  Food Foodbandlt  22:34, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think he should be demoted immediately. He has done enough harm to the users of this wiki, and his administrator rights should have been removed by now. ^Bullet _Francisco ^(Talk) _(Contribs) ^(Editcount) _(Email) 22:39, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a whole lot of time this weekend so I really didn't want to wage into this battlefield, but it looks like I'll have to as one of four people who can "toggle that checkbox". I agree that the list of transgressions is impressive, but I for one take stripping rights from someone as seriously as I do giving them. I may have the power to remove user rights without any community consultation, but I do not have the authority, and I take that seriously too. The administrator guidelines don't define abuse specifically, but let's see what they do specify:

• They prohibit sexual conduct and harassment, both of which KingLazy93 may be guilty of. But it's not completely open and shut, or we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
• In a broad reading of the second guideline, he has shown to be "unwilling to cooperate with the wiki community" already, by ignoring reprimands by other administrators and by violating the very chat rules he is supposed to enforce. Misbehaviour like that is supposed to trigger a forum thread and discussion, and it has.

From the looks of the thread, a slight plurality of those who have replied in this day-old thread want KingLazy93 to be stripped of both administrator and chat moderator rights for persistent misbehaviour particularly, but not exclusively, as chat moderator. I want to give more people the opportunity to come forward and maybe coalesce around a single position, so I won't take any action right now. Note that that is not an inivitation to satisfy old grievances; be specific, have a valid argument, and have a point to make regarding which, if any, consequences there should be. This is also not a pillory; if you do not feel that KingLazy93 should be stripped of administrative rights, or not of all of them, feel free to argue for that as well. I will check back tomorrow and follow the community recommendation if another bureaucrat hasn't stepped in by then. --Tulipclaymore 23:38, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Unconvinced why a forum started by someone apparently "on behalf of everyone else" should be trusted and should result in a loss of any user rights. Clearly the problems have not been great enough to warrant "everyone else"'s vim to speak up on their own.      00:44, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Can you please justify why exactly who started the forum matters in any way? The only thing Fade has done is started this forum. Many other claims were made confirming the first claim, adding claims and opinions, as well as looking back at previous claims. I entirely fail to see why it matters who started this forum.  Food Foodbandlt  00:48, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

It matters because if the forum was not started none of this discussion would be taken place. You can't build up a big building on a weak foundation.      01:10, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of the discussion. The "foundation" has very obviously shifted from the original argument.  Food Foodbandlt  01:12, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Per Food. I fail to see why who started this discussion has anything to do with it now. Like Food said, the "foundation" has shifted. --^Bullet _Francisco ^(Talk) _(Contribs) ^(Editcount) _(Email) 01:33, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant who started the discussion; it's also irrelevant who the discussion is about. We don't have fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree rules. The substance of this thread lies in specific allegations reaching back half a year and backed up by evidence and argumentation. Clearly a significant portion of the participants in this thread think that the allegations have merit and that KingLazy93's behaviour should have at least some consequences. --Tulipclaymore 01:35, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

(Replying to CoD here) But see, a forum is less like a building, where you build up, and more like a race, where you move forward. And with that, it's alright to start weak; as the old adage goes, "it's not about the start, it's about the finish".

(Now a general reply) As for what I feel, like I said, I don't feel that King should get to continue to be an admin; perhaps he could become an image control user? Because while I lack proof right now, one of the big reasons he was made an admin by Shadowdemon137 was that he would constantly request image renames in chat from the admins way back when, as this was obviously long before that group was created (also, not to mention the fact that back then, he was a really major contributor to the wiki, as his contributions record from that time frame [January and February especially] no doubt shows). -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 01:39, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Demotion

I honesty can't take this anymore the admins and mods here in this forum has erupted badly and I know I have caused enough as it is which is why I'm demoting myself and hopefully this settles things for good. -  Zeiluse ^Talkpage  01:51, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I believe you should keep Image Control and Rollback rights, however. You still contribute a lot in those fields. Are there any objections?  Food Foodbandlt  01:53, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Not from me. I dont want all rights to be gone. I just wanted at least a suspension from admin.Come over to the faded side! 01:54, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any, From what I've seen King does well in those fields and should remain to have those tools. Rift Cyra .flow 01:55, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

You'll hear none from me, either; he is definitely deserving of keeping those particular rights. -- This is Jonny Manz, signing off! 01:57, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to what FoodbandIt has said. BluesirTheFox Private Pansy is best pansy 01:59, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. KingLazy is a great contributor nonetheless, and should keep Rollback and Image Control rights. --^Bullet _Francisco ^(Talk) _(Contribs) ^(Editcount) _(Email) 02:42, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Well King, hope to see you around, it would be a shame to lose you, take a break from this, relax and we you enjoy your time around.  Force ^talk  06:50, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Everything's been sorted out now. Thanks King and everyone else involved in this forum.      04:31, July 19, 2012 (UTC)