Forum:Demotion of User:CallofDuty4

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Demotion of User:CallofDuty4

Demotion of User:CallofDuty4

"Good behavior on the chat forum is expected in a chat moderator. Using the reasoning "oh well he can do a few kicks and bans" is not a way to crowbar someone out of any criticism they receive for their attitude and behaviour.      12:14, May 29, 2013 (UTC)" -Quoted from one of cod4's posts.

Given that behavior can be an issue for chat moderators, I feel that means that behavior can be an issue for administrators and other users as well. Here you can see CallofDuty4's comment from above.

Now, if good behavior is expected of chat moderators in the chat forum, then good behavior should be expected of administrators around the wiki. Below are instances where Cod4 has either misbehaved, violated procedure, or shown corrupt favoritism to support himself.

Firstly I'd like to bring up this forum. You can see here that Bobo makes several points at times where Cod4 has harassed other users by stating that they are out for "personal agendas" just for stating valid concerns. Cod4 consistently targets users who won't agree with whatever he says. Examples sited by Bobo can be found here and here. Cod4 is often snide and demeaning with his comments towards people who are simply voicing their opinion.

Speechless, pretty astounding how your opinions fail to change with the wiki. -Cod4, checkuser forum.

I am intrigued by your ability to predict the future. -Cod4, Juan Brony Bro's Request for admin rights.

You seem to be grabbing at straws. -Cod4, Juan Brony Bro's Request for admin rights.

Nextly We can see that Cod4 claims to be very relaxed when nothing detrimental to the wiki is at stake, but that is simply not true.

Here we can see that Cod4 operates a bot without permission or a forum ( Here we can see the bot functioning on May 29th). While he added spam control, he continues to operate the bot without requesting any permissions to use it on the forums. Cod4 runs bots without going through the proper channels, showing a total disregard for the rules.

Furthermore, Cod4 has had his behaviour brought to his attention several times. Here Is a warning given out March 24th. Here is a warning given out on March 2nd. Here is an entire forum warning him of his current behaviour (given January 19th).

Here and here We can see cod4 being snide to a user for no reason other than pure dislike, as well as being warned for it. One admin, one chat moderator, and one regular user in these screenshots ask Cod4 to stop insulting users/ being mean to them.- Here is further background - Haed and myself had to ask Cod4 to be peaceful, an his reply was angry (I lack screenshots to prove this personally). Here he shows heavy bias against the said user, even when no procedures were followed with the ban. Rules are twisted to meet what Cod4 wants them to meet. Here, here, here, and here Cod4 shows a total lack of respect for other users and administrators, using his power to close forums only to serve his own bias- Abuse of power.

Even after the forum concluded that Filly's ban would be lifted, Cod4 PMed Filly Please, The conversation the day after Filly Please was unbanned can be seen here. Cod4 tries to still have Filly Please accept a permanent ban when procedures were not properly followed in the first place. In a total reversal of his former actions, sayings, and mannerisms, here, here, and here. I believe that Cod4 attempts to manipulate people's emotions and thinking maliciously in order to further his own opinions and ends. I'll ask that Filly Please add more to this or correct any incorrect information in this paragraph or the former paragraph.

In addition to the paragraphs above, this is not an isolated case of Cod4 abusing his power to close forums in his own favor. He tried to close Filly Please's multiple times, and here is a list of closed forums that were closed sooner than they should be, in clear violation of procedure. I've posted the table he made and linked the comment here.Cod4 sees it okay to break rules when it fits him, but when someone else breaks the rules or in the case of the chat forum, tries to follow the rules for once he declares the rule to be lacking in relevance. Table can be seen below, which have been closed by various admins/archived by various admins, including cod4. here is one he closed 3 days early, violating the rules despite the unanimous support.

Discussions
Discussion	Time open
The original discussion to use a "democratic" system	Less than a day
Chat Mod Rights (Assassin 927)	Less than 2 days
Application for Moderator Rights (Captain Derpy)	Just over 3 days
Application for Chat Moderator by CelestiaOfEquestria	5 and a half days
Application for Moderator Status (Assassin 927)	5 and a half days
Request for mod right for Fade2BLACK	5 and a half days
Business Cat's Application For Chat Moderator	Less than 2 days
Application for Moderator rights by Lunar Spirits	6 and a half days
KoolPrincessLunakaLunie	Less than two days
Cadence121	Less than a day
Ninja HERO Brad	Less than 2 days
Embergale	2 and a half days
Closing chat moderator applications temporarily	6 and a half days
Aerostar	Less than 2 days
DatRegularShow	2 and a half days
Temporarily closing the nominations page	7 days
Request for Sactage to lose Chat Moderator rights	5 days
Nitz X	Less than a day
Re-opening forum	2 days
ImTheBrony	Less than 2 days
Banana Republic	Less than 2 days
Chat moderator requirements	Less than 3 days
Octado	Less than a day
StephOfTheEast	Less than a day
Juan The American Brony	Less than 2 days
UglyTurtle	Less than a day
OddThomasguy	Less than a day
SamuliS	8 days
Removal of Nitz X's mod right	2 days
Proposal for another Chat Mod Evaluation	Less than a day
Have the old style of chat moderators being chosen brought back	"30 hours"

Here is a rather minor point. Cod4 overuses emotes here, which when zoomed out does not look like spam, but actually covers multiple lines when using a mobile phone for chat. He proceeds to say it is not spam, but gives no good reason why it isn't. I do not have screenshots to show times previous where we warned users about overusing emotes, but I can testify that moderators and regular users have warned people for less emotes than Cod4 posted. This just builds on Cod4's total disregard for the rules put in place.

Once again, here is cod4 being snide for no reason, accusing Nitz X (me) of talking behind people's back and then declaring "nn all" to leave without giving any proof. He consistently insults not just my authority, but other users who he dislike's authority in chat. Administrators are supposed to be leaders in the wiki, and when they put others on the spot, forcing them to either back down and have reduced authority OR stand up to him an assert their authority, it creates a hostile environment an is impolite to other admins and moderators. If you see above sited example (especially from Bobo's forum), This is not just isolated to the chat, but also the the entire forums and therein, wiki.

Instances on the forums are far too man to number, so I am only linking the threads.

• Juan's admin forum

• Filly Please's ban forum

• Checkuser rights for Ozank Forum

• Sexual conduct/clarification forum

• Here cod4 again viciously attacks people who do not share his opinions.

"Now he is more aware of the issues and can hopefully try to fix it, as could have been accomplished through a talk page message if I had brought it up properly." -Bobo

Many months later, cod4's behaviour has gone downhill. Based on the evidence above, and any evidence presented against him in any below discussion, that he is not fit to be an administrator on this wiki. In the to long, did not read version, he has abused his power, created hostile environments, attempted and maybe succeeded in manipulating users on this wiki. Cod4 constantly breaks procedure and then tries to change the rules when they no longer fit his needs, wants, or agenda. He accuses others and places the blame on other users in order to evade taking any blame himself. The evidence above supports all of these claims, and proves past a reasonable doubt that he is unfit to be an administrator.

I ask that everyone think about what's best for the wiki, and not about whether or not this user is someone you personally like or dislike. If this behaviour is okay for an admin to portray, then it's okay for all other users to portray as well. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Please keep discussion on the issue here, and the votes below in order to avoid having to count votes though the clutter, thank you. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment My reasoning for my vote below is mainly stated in the forum above, I believe this kind of behaviour and corruption is unacceptable of an admin who is supposed to be a rolemodel for the community. Here Cod4 is very quick to jump on a grudge vote against me for my "misbehaviour", but won't say anything against ImTheBrony for his censored cussing. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Wow, another demotion forum? This wiki's forums are nothing but a grudge match now. This is ridiculous. I find it a bit funny how the evidence shown here is only just now being brought up considering the other recent events in the forums. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 01:21, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment Daipenmon: In response to what you put below, cod would have less ability to do so and would not have the authority to overrule administrators on this wiki. I'd like to ask that you relook at the forum, since there are multiple specific instances where he has used his power for no good or for only his own good (and no benefit for others). Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:43, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment  Well, I must say, I was kind of surprised to see this forum myself - especially after Cod left this comment. However, there certainly is a lot of evidence against him, and I don't think he really changed his attitude much yet. Despite this, Cod is a great contributor to the wiki. It still seems "grudge-making" but I don't think that should be the only reason to oppose this forum. Oh well. PowerStar89 ^Talk 03:39, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Comment So far, I've only seen Foodbandlt post an actual reason why cod4 shouldn't be de-admined. Everyone else is just calling this a grudge match. If you're not here to debate the hard evidence above, then I'm going to ask that you please refrain from taking part in this forum. ImtheBrony, Applejon, and H4M have not said that any of the above evidence is wrong, therefore I'm confused at the validity of the opposes. Your arguments pretty much support him being de-admined, because you haven't said anything above is wrong. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma

Did you not read what I said at all? "I fail to see, despite all of those links, how Call's behavior is 'demeaning' and 'consistently poor'." And yes, saying that this is a grudge match is perfectly acceptable to use as an argument, because you are treating evidence as a lead to felony charges, as opposed to misdemeanors or, in fact, nothing wrong with them at all. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 03:55, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Jon's point: What do you want? For people to be like "Oh no that screenshot is photoshopped." Yea. I think you remember what happened last time that was said. Skype screenshot ring any bells? You can't say evidence is wrong, because evidence isn't right or wrong. It's the conclusions that we draw from the evidence and the opinions on the evidence that is being argued. Your conclusion from the evidence is Fishi should lose his admin rights. Our opinion is that your conclusion is wrong and we believe that CoD should keep his admin rights. http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png 04:02, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your ton on forums ITB, it's remarkably offensive. I'm not going to keep replying to you if you don't stop harshly insulting people, it's totally uncalled for. The evidence above shows a clear abuse of power, and unless you can prove that it wasn't an abuse of power, that is a blatant and undeniable reason for admin rights to be taken away. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 05:52, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Where did he insult you or anyone else in that message...?  Food Foodbandlt  05:57, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

It would be the condensing attitude. " Skype screenshot ring any bells? ". Comments like that coupled with this are rather troubling, they pretty much are hostile comments, and I'd like to keep this forum as unhostile as possible. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 06:23, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't see how that's condescending (assuming that's what you meant), and that linked comment was not made on this forum thread at all.  Food Foodbandlt  06:32, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I kind of find it both offensive and shcoking that you would say that only one user, Food, has posted any "actual reason". Any user can participate in the forum if they want to, and I don't appreciate you saying otherwise.  http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gifﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 06:04, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as rude during that last sentence, you're free to express your views of course. Users still have the right to participate in forums.  http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gifﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 06:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to express opinions, but in order for something to be considered a view it needs to have substance. I'd like to see some sort of debate that actually discusses the content of this forum, rather than personal views, I feel like the votes are totally off topic. I see people opposing because of a "grudge match" or something, but they're acknowledging and agreeing with the content of the forum- supporting the abuse of power and corruption represented above. I re-read the views, and they don't really deny the information above, they accept it for what it is- abuse of power. Despite what the votes say, they're actually supporting the argument against cod4. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 06:23, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

They have just as much substance as you do. You presented examples and expressed your opinions on the examples. They are doing the same, expressing their opinions on the presented examples. Additionally, don't put words in people's mouths.  Food Foodbandlt  06:32, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Food, They have no counterexamples or arguments, only opinions. It's impossible for them to have equal substance (They are equally valuable though), but I don't see anyone pointing out any specifics of when cod4 has done good for the wiki. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 06:47, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

In a forum about demotion listing the bad things done, you don't list good things done to counter that. I could list you 99% of Cod's contribution log and it wouldn't mean very much because this is a forum discussing the examples of the bad things done. This is a forum to gather opinions on the examples provided, and it's doing exactly that. In the future, try not to separate voting and discussion for forum threads in the Wiki discussion index. It discourages people to actually discuss their votes (sort of like what's happening now).  Food Foodbandlt  06:58, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

I felt that it would make things easier, because I expected a lot of discussion to happen. Indeed, discussion is happening in both sections, but it seems to be making things clearer. However, I'll keep this in mind in the future. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 07:16, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Voting

Comment Please put Support to Support de-admining Cod4, Neutral for neutral, Oppose to oppose de-admining cod4. I'd like to ask that any discussion, comments, and whatnot be kept above, to reduce the clutter. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support As author of the forum. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:06, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Weak support I'm mostly on the fence, Cod has banned me for reasons in the past without even telling me WHY I was banned, which is signs of an unreliable admin, but I've also had disputes with Nitz so I'm not sure I wanna support his opinion, either way I'm on the fence, and haven't fully made up my mind, when I do I'll change my vote. I have nothing personal against you Cod, and I hope you don't take it that way. Princepony9 01:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Your block log does not show you being blocked by CoD and your chat ban record seems clear, just sayin' unless this is a different account. Provide proof of what you say if so. The Americanized Brony03:56, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong support - As viewing the large amount of violations and evidences of Callofduty4 further providing examples of him being unsuitable for a major position on the wiki, as well as with some evidence of such [| here] , [| here] , [| here] and [| here] . Along with other reasons of other offenses such as rule bending, forum violation, personal attack, emote spam, and etc. With this said, I strongly support the demotion of Callofduty4. CelestiaOfEquestria 01:31, May 30, 2013 (UTC) 

Strong oppose - Even if COD4 gets demoted, he'll still be a VSTF member and able to use those powers for the good of this wiki.--Daipenmon (talk) 01:38, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

VSTF are not allowed to use their global chat mod/admin rights on local wikis where they are not granted. That would be abuse of VSTF rights. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 01:47, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

So you Nitz X think COD4 is abusing his admin rights here?--Daipenmon (talk) 01:50, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 01:51, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

If you read the forum, you can see in every paragraph where I state that cod4 has been abusing his powers. please take some time to look at the screenshots and links. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 01:54, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - To me, it looks like this threat was only created to combat this one. Like I said, a simple grudge match. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 02:16, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

If you will look at the information, most of it is gathered from April, early may, and march (minus some of them from December an January). Almost all the information is gathered from before the "grudge match". Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 02:23, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

It looks like more than a coincidence that it's being brought up at this specific time now, with the other demotion forum. TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 02:28, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

That's a philosophical debate that's not for this forum. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 02:36, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose Per H4M. Also, the fact that the info is month+ old really makes it look like you're pulling more skeletons out of the closet for this grudge match. Addition: (Because of Nitz's comment). I believe that CoD4 was not anymore harsh than a lot of moderators have been in chat. Everyone gets frustrated. "We haven't said anything is wrong." I'm saying the surrounding circumstances cause this forum to look like a grudge match, which actually puts the whole forum's validity in jeopardy. Additionally, my point is that I think despite the examples and evidence above, CallofDuty4 deserves to keep his administrator rights. http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png ImTheBrony (talk) 02:31, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

You're right, a lot of this information is really old in some cases. Also, some of it skeletons in the closet, so you're right again. the problem here is This shows that over time, cod4 has had consistently poor behavior on the wiki, on the forums, and on the chat. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 02:36, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

CallOfDuty is only human like you are Nitz X, and l'm sure both of you have made some mistakes in the past.--Daipenmon (talk) 02:39, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about me, this is about evidence of cod4's misconduct over a long period of time. This forum is about him, not anyone else. Land of Confusion http://th05.deviantart.net/fs46/150/i/2009/204/2/5/Disturbed_Guy_by_Djman5000.pngDiscord Prevails "We're nice grandmas" - grandma 02:47, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

ITB, just because the evidence is old doesn't mean it isn't valid. The Bill of Rights is old as dirt and thats still valid and a law. Before I dwell onto subjects not even related to the wiki, the point in hand is, you can say all you want about the status of that information. But it is still cold hard fact. And it is still there. And it is still an offense no matter how aged.

CelestiaOfEquestria 03:17, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Cel, my oppose wasn't because the evidence was old, it's because the old evidence was pulled out just now. When you let something slide for 1-3 months and then bring it up in a forum after a whole bunch of fighting is going on and there's a lot of animosity, it looks like you're only pulling it out because of the surrounding circumstances. I hope you understand what I mean, I'm having trouble putting it into words. http://i.imgur.com/gsLKOdC.png MLPhttp://i.imgur.com/1w0MRE0.png  ITBhttp://i.imgur.com/K1gQ7PD.png ImTheBrony (talk) 03:46, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Considering most of the things presented on this forum are related to behavior, I'll focus on that: I'm giving Cod the benefit of the doubt here. My understanding is that he's just finished a trial of a medication that's known to cause higher tempers and hostility. The only reason I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt is because I've been through this same mediation myself, as have other people very close to me. That's literally the reason it's a last-resort drug. Now that it's finished, I'm willing to give him a probationary period to observe his behavior not only on the wiki but on the chat as well. Once I get a feeling for whether it has improved or worsened, my opinion may change.

The other points like the chat bot, emotes, and not following procedure when closing forums before the ten day period that everyone just learned about I feel that I've already made my opinion rather clear.

• Not many people left opinions on the chat bot forum, but from the looks of it others don't think it's an issue.
• "I don't think he should be an administrator because he used ten emotes in one line!" http://i.imgur.com/eRol1hq.png
• I feel like this is only being brought up to try to make this forum seem longer than it actually is. To want this enforced when it benefits you, then complain when it wasn't enforced previously when neither you nor anyone else knew about it is a very clear double standard. "I know I didn't know about it, but you obviously knew about it and were choosing not to enforce it!" That's assuming bad faith. As for Imperfect's administrator rights forum, seriously? I actually asked him to close that because it was fairly obvious where it was going and had been inactive for two days.

Loyalists being loyal to both you and Cod aside. You're just nitpicking every little detail. Jobs in the government don't even nitpick people this much. Not actual quotes, only used for demonstration purposes.  Food Foodbandlt  03:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose This has to be THE MOST OBVIOUS grudge matching, improper-propaganda, lynch mobbing, biased forum I have ever seen. It's absolutely, without a doubt, completely and utterly ridiculous. If you wanted to rant about him without fair evidence, you could have made a blog. I fail to see, despite all of those links, how Call's behavior is 'demeaning' and 'consistently poor'. Plus, how can you judge from a MOBILE PHONE whether or not someone is spamming? You don't get at moderators, or even regular users for doing what he allegedly does. You clearly have this unforgivable grudge, because he's one of the only people to ever take you head-on. Why do you hate him? And don't tell me you don't. I can't see how anyone could possibly support this purely on what was shown.

Call is one of the most valuable users to this wiki, and you feel the need to spit in his face over WHAT exactly? Hot off the heels of several forums where you two once again face each other on opposite sides of fences that don't need to exist. I don't even know why I am bothering to vote on this piece of junk thread. Maybe because you're actually trying pretty damn hard to sway an otherwise supportive/neutral group. I've had it up to here with all you think you can control and change here. Do you think this wiki is truly better off without Call, or worse off with him? http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/274/6/d/6d9b956b91e0c92565e2a90a818bee37-d5gij3r.gifAppleJon-Talk 03:28, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose...You can't be serious, right? While Cod4's behavior has been out of line on several occasions, this doesn't warrant a demotion, he's one of the finest editors we have on this wiki, and has improved the mistakes in his past behavior greatly. I see this as more of a grudge rather than an actual, unbiased demotion forum. -- http://i.imgur.com/qJENjks.gifﾚ∆ㄅhttp://i.imgur.com/rtVOpOl.png 05:07, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Weak support Despite the amount of opposition to this forum, I've had misgivings about Cod for a while (as evidenced by my previous, premature forum). I can't possibly have a grudge against him, because as I recall he's never been rude or anything directly towards me. Cod does indeed make some valuable contributions, but I don't feel that he should hold the position of administrator - a position of additional responsibility and leadership (in terms of being a role model) of the community. Some support that comes to mind is his repeated closure of a recent forum (I think it was the one about Filly Please's ban) to his own position despite the majority being against it, chronic making of harsh comments and personal insults, and other defiances of policy. Sometimes he puts himself above the rest of the wiki, including its rules when convenient. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 05:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Support As with Bobobgoobo, I hold no grudge against CoD4, but his un-admin like behavior is unacceptable, and I fail to see any improvement. Sure, he is a great contributor - but being a great contributor makes you a great admin? No, it does not. Admins breaking and/or bending rules for their own convenience is not what an admin does.

Being a good admin is all about trust, and trust, is something that has to be earned. I don't trust CoD4, because he breaks some of the wiki (and chat) policies - why should I trust an admin when they don't follow some of the simplest polices and breaks them for their own convenience? Here are all the reasons why CoD4 should be demoted:

1. Unauthorized bots that should not have been in the chat. For a long time, this felt like CoD was socking because it was not discussed, and I don't find any of the features useful.

2. Should admins make personal insults and make harsh comments at anyone? That's clearly un-admin like behavior.

3. Breaking some chat polices. Such as emote spamming. When someone else spam emotes, chat moderators and/or admins kick them, and in extreme cases, ban them - why should CoD4?

I could make more, but I think I made my point. With all this being said, however, if I see CoD4 significantly improve, I would have no problem giving those rights back to him. I don't trust CoD4 based on what I've seen.Yo buddy, still alive? (talk) 07:30, May 30, 2013 (UTC)