Forum:Decratting Crazy sam10

After Sam became bureaucrat, and especially after he received check user rights, Sam has misused his powers and approached situations with an unnecessary tone of hostility on numerous occasions. For these reasons, we believe that Sam's Check User and Bureaucrat flags should be removed.

Our first concern is N7's chat ban. As many of us know, recently one our Admins, N7, was banned from chat by Sam for a week because of "misbehavior". This was from Sam and only Sam's point of view. Here are the logs leading up to the ban. It should be noted that User:KATANAGOD oftentimes kicks Sora as a joke as well.

16:42  the MP reveal for BO2 was in germany Raven's wing 16:42  Sarcasm Fail. 16:42  loads of the esports were in london 16:42  Don't forget Russia. They need enemies 16:42  wot 16:42  Eurogamer I think raven 16:42  N7 not raven 16:42  fak 16:43  really 16:43  eurogamer is london 16:43  shuddup 16:43  i thought it was revealed at gamescom 16:43  RUDE SORA 16:43  gamescon then 16:43  fak 16:43  sora guess what 16:43 <Sora_The_Savior> i'm done 16:43 <N7> yeah u are 16:43 -!- Sora The Savior was kicked from #Special:Chat by N7 [KICK] 16:43 -!- Sora_The_Savior [~Sora_The_Savior@CODWiki/Sora-The-Savior] has left #Special:Chat [Quit Special:Chat] 16:43 <N7> lololol 16:43 -!- Sora_The_Savior [~Sora_The_Savior@CODWiki/Sora-The-Savior] has joined #Special:Chat 16:43 <Sora_The_Savior> fucking knew it 16:43 <N7> u mad trole 16:43 <Crazy_sam10> Was that even a proper kick? 16:43 <Sora_The_Savior> u (vahn) 16:44 <N7> no it was a pretend one 16:44 <Sora_The_Savior> n7 master trole 16:44 <N7> i trole u 16:44 -!- N7 was kicked from #Special:Chat by Crazy sam10 [BAN] 16:44 <Mass_Effect> wow 16:45 <DBD_Abyss> .... 16:45 -!- N7 [~N7@CODWiki/N7] has left #Special:Chat [Quit Special:Chat] 16:45 -!- N7 [~N7@CODWiki/N7] has joined #Special:Chat 16:46 -!- N7 was kicked from #Special:Chat by Crazy sam10 [BAN]

We firmly believe that this ban was harsh and unnecessary and it goes to show that Sam overreacts to situations at hand.

Here is another instance where Sam has overreacted to a situation that was completely okay. There was no problem with Deathman doing one of the Weekly blogs if it was late and there were no Administrators around, and we believe Sam was unnecessarily hostile in that situation.

Furthermore, here is a series of screencaps of another instance where Sam has overreacted:

While usage of "k" may be interpreted as rude, there was no reason to kick the user after he corrected it to "ok". Not only was banning the user an abuse of powers, it was also a violation of COD:BITE.

All in all, we believe that Sam no longer has the mindset required to be a bureaucrat, which has led to a loss of confidence in his check user ability. We petition the wiki to vote how they truly think, and not bound to any friendships. Lastly, we urge anyone else who has been mistreated by Sam to come forward with any evidence that they have. Thank you for your time,

Discussion
Damn, we're all hasty to vote on this, aren't we? We still have two weeks or so to discuss this, so let's weigh our options first. 20:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * N7 Pierogi and I were co-noms, so it really wasn't hasty. 20:32, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Now, as far as I'm aware, Bureaucrat rights are something that effects both chat and on-wiki occurrences. You're suggesting decratting me because I banned a user that I had complaints about, gave at least 3 warnings to, and gave a fair ban length to. Also if you felt that thes older events were cause for warning, then you would have warned me then, which I have been. As such you're taking isolated events on the chat and using them to try and get me decratted, however, have you anything from on-wiki that would support your claims at all? In the SexyWindows case another admin, Pierogi, undid the ban when I said I would do it if I got an apology. It is generally considered good practice to not take off other users bans unless the ban was thoughly undeserved, and simply stating "k" to warnings is a violation of COD:DBAD and within the realism of insubordination, so yes, I was very upset when I found the ban had been taken off by another admin without my own consent. And as previously mentioned, after the event Callofduty4 told me off about it.

Furthermore, if you felt there was an issue with my behaviour why did you choose to go straight to decratting me, as opposed to actually telling me? In fact, the first I even knew there might be an issue is when a user forwarded me some logs showing you'd been talking behind my back about this, seen here. Frankly, I feel that you're actually doing what you're accusing me off here and over reacting. I feel that my conduct in chat and on wiki have been satisfactory, and with no one to tell me otherwise prior to this forum I feel it is unneeded and very insulting. 20:33, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, if you felt there was an issue with my behaviour why did you choose to go straight to decratting me, as opposed to actually telling me?" - This. This is actually the biggest failure on the part of the community. 20:37, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Whenever I talked to you about something, it always ended with something along the lines of "Can I go back to my game now?" 20:44, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You've never tried to contact me in PM regarding my behaviour. 20:46, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact Cpl.Bohter, I know of least 2 to 3 times Callofduty4 has PM'd you in your early admins days to talk about your strictness towards users, and you were able to take that in, I've not had the luxury of having someone PM me and saying, in a nice tone, they would like to discuss my behaviour. In fact most of the times you've been talking to me is when it's in main chat, and sometimes we may be in a debate, so I want to go on a game to calm down and be in more clearer state. You can't expect arguments that take place at the heat of the moment to do anything, if you'd actually taken the time and talked to me when I'm free and in a decent mood, like Callofduty4 did for you, then you'd find I'd have taken it in quite well, and possibly been able to put it into use. 20:56, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually did contact you about permanently banning IPs. I was referring to that when I said that. Also, a bureaucrat has to be able to keep his cool under pressure, if he doesn't, he does not have the proper mindset to be a bureaucrat. 21:00, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondly, it doesn't look good when you try to shift the blame on others. Please keep the focus on the matter at hand, not my history from my year ago. 21:03, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * The matter at hand very closely relates to your history from a year ago. He's not shifting blame to you and saying "Pierogi was a mean admin and he didn't get in trouble!" he's showing how you two were both in the same situation, and how said situations were handled differently. 21:11, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well actually I got told off twice for banning IPs indefinitely, so I'm sorry about that. I am now aware not to do it, and have not done it since, in fact after learning so I took off a few old indef. bans from IPs that had been forgotten, so as you can see talking to me does make me learn things. And 9 times out of 10 I normally do stay relatively calm, but when I feel like I'm being ganged up on with 2 to 3 users shouting at me, not a calm multi-PM, then yes, I do tend to get aggressive purely out of self-defence, or, in the case of the UOTM forum, which I am aware I got heated on and apologised for it since, when I am very intimate about something. And I'm not shifting blame on to anyone else, I merely am putting out all the evidence there is to be had. 21:10, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest it seemed more like you had a problem with almost anything in the chat that I said. In those 4 weeks or whatever that you weren't there I didn't receive a single warning for anything that I said. Then suddenly the day you return I get 4 or 5 warnings and eventually banned. It felt like you were trying "to get [me] for insubordination one of these days". 09:21, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well after I said that you had been given at least 2 or 3 more warnings, so it's hardly like I was unfiar towards you. Also, most chat mods aren't comfortable giving admins warnings, since an Admin is supposed to enforce the rules, not have a history of breaking them. I rejoined chat based on complaints on your behaviour, which is why some of the first things you heard were complaints. Frankly, it seems your only input into this forum is that you're upset about finally getting a ban for your behaviour and you're just trying to take away my user rights out a grudge. When you removed your chat ban from yourself, that classifies a power abuse, and I could have been in the right to perform my own desysop forum, the only reasons I didn't is because I thought I could trust you enough to just take the hint from your ban, not to go out of your way to make a forum to take away user rights that are hardly related to the incident, and have done nothing more than to upset myself as well as various other users. 11:45, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's bullshit. Me and a few other users have been discussing this for quite a while, at first we were going to make a forum to discuss how you've been behaving, however after you banned me from chat we decided that we needed to discuss removing your rights. Also as I have said before I understand that removing my ban is "power abuse" and that I shouldn't have done it, however I only did it so that I could ask you the reason for the ban (which i understand was not the best way to go about it). 13:08, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

While I recognize that Sam has a fairly aggressive tone to very minor instances, I don't know if this is something to remove his rights over. As a crat he has done his job, and his check user abilities have been incredibly helpful on more than one occasion, especially late at night. This seems more like an issue where there's a failure of communication. Several users appear upset with Sam's behavior, the solution should be to confront him about it, on a large scale. Maybe in a private Skype conversation or Multi-PM. Hell, maybe even on IRC. I don't think the solution to Sam's aggressive behavior is to remove the rights that he uses to benefit the wiki substantially. On this end, I think the forum is in the wrong.

And I'm not saying that he hasn't been confronted before on this, I've seen it happen before. When a User calls out Sam, the two have a back and forth argument and if anyone else joins in against Sam, he has a tendency to leave chat or cut off communication however he can. On this end, I feel Sam is in the wrong.

If Sam were to have had this big communal warning, where he actually stuck around and discussed his criticsm's with the people presenting them, maybe everything would go smoother. If his behavior stayed aggressive and continued to be a large problem on the community side of things, I could see punishing Sam in this way. But right now I think we should make this the peak of the problem. We should have the users who started this forum speak to Sam directly, and see if Sam is willing to whatever critique they give him.

Then again, maybe I don't actually fully understand the situation. I have been nearly absent for the past 8 weeks after all. 20:34, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

As another note, I'm being accused of being too strict, however on the other end of the spectrum the following is a log of something that wasn't dealt with at all, and was considered "just fun":

Now, to my knowledge, we shouldn't be allowing "gay" as a slur, yet here it seems to get past twice, and instead of a warning, he just gets told about how it's only a joke taking place, yet not actually told to stop using it as a slur, or in fact told to stop. 20:51, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we felt that it didn't warrant a warning just yet, and to be honest before that screenshot I said to Madnessfan that I would marry him (or something along those lines) which is pretty "gay". Which from my point of view is what the user above is expressing and I personally did not see it as a slur. (Obviously your opinion may differ) 00:03, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Support
Sam's attitude, the "no fun allowed" doctrine and personal grudges against users isn't something that should be present with a crat, and I don't think he's up for the job anymore   20:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to sound rude, but isn't Raven's Wing also accused of that on blog comments? And I'd like to know of one of these 'grudges' since I don't harbor any. 20:45, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be coy, if you don't, what was the N7 ban for? A few hardly inappropriate jokes? This isn't a pg-13 rated wiki, and while I can understand not joke kicking newcomers, Sora isn't a newcomer and he doesn't mind being joke kicked, and neither did anyone when kat did it.    21:09, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Strike, but you're not a chat mod, and this just seems rude to calim "well what's it for?". It was for his history of behaviour like that, coupled with complaints about his recent behaviour, as well as receiving at least 4 warnings on the day. I have been in contact with 2 other Bureaucrats since that ban, and both are fine with the ban and feel it was conducted properly and fairly. Frankly it seems like you're supporting a decrat solely on the grounds that I banned one of your friends, and not for my conduct as a whole. 21:14, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh really, if this is just me trying to get N7 unbanned and that's it, explain this now tell me you have no grudge against N7.     21:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I was upset with N7's behaviour regarding my warnings, and merely put it out there when I was talking to that other user on a private chat on a off wiki chat site. Also, if I held a grudge, why did I wait after 3 warnings to ban him, as well as give him a fair time? Frankly, I've seen you say lots of things in chat that make it seem like you have a grudge against me. You blame me for "Anti-fun", but sometimes in chat I might make a joke and you'll point out some remark that I'm making the joke because "Sam hates X, so it's obvious he would say that". 21:28, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I can literally not think of one instance I've dissed one of your jokes, please elaborate    21:35, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe at one instance I did a joke about America, nothing greatly insulting, and you responded with something along the lines of "Sam, you just hate America though". 21:45, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can admit that, and since it's obvious by now that this thing's not gonna pass, just know that we're not doing this without a reason, and if you had just chilled out your attitude, everything would have been fine. However, we don't live in a perfect world, and it's probably not gonna happen.    21:53, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's the case perhaps it would of been wise to tell me about "chilling my behaviour" before starting up a forum set about to remove my user rights. 21:55, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * No this is not a PG-13 rated wiki, but just kicking/banning users for the reason of just cause shows unprofessionalism. While the ban wasn't truly justified, people kicking and banning others for no really good reason is poor and shouldn't be done at all. 21:15, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

For fairness, I want that log given a bit more context to it: http://images.wikia.com/imageplacement/images/9/95/Skype_log.png Now I've cropped out whom I was talking to because I don't want him getting attacked or something. 21:48, August 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was me in that conversation and I'm going to be honest here; I took both sides. I was invited to conversations from you and from other people in chat who have since set up this forum, and I went along with both of you because I was too darn friggin' scared to say "wait, I think you've gone too far". I do think you've gone a bit far though, since banned N7, and I got the feeling it was your intention to catch him out sooner or later and ban him. And that's not all. As far as I can tell, the only reason you came back to the chat after a week or so of inactivity there was to straighten things up a bit. Granted, things had become a lot more relaxed over time, but Madness and N7 pointed out to me (shortly before N7 was banned) that all you'd done in chat was warn people on their behavior many times (I think it was around 5 warning for N7 in one session). This does not set a good mood and does not make you come across as an approachable user, and as far as I'm aware there isn't even a rule against the offence that N7 was banned for (a "joke kick"). The ban was a step too far.


 * I am not convinced myself that you maintained a good-natured attitude both on chat and in our discussions (granted, neither did I, but this isn't about me) and it seems clear that you are convinced people do not trust you. Of course, I probably only worsened this. Anyway, the point is, your mistrust of the users on chat is not a trait that a crat should inherit. I'm sure none of the regular users who have gotten to know you here will genuinely want your 'crat privileges revoked. I know full well that you can make good use of your powers, and you should definitely keep them rather than lose them over some petty drama.


 * In closing, this forum is a disaster; it wasn't thought through properly and it's nothing more than another slice of wiki drama which, once over, will be hopefully forgotten about, but in a way it's the kick up the arse a lot of us needed. We can all take points from both sides of the argument here and, with any luck, relations between the users involved will steady and not be ruined because of some terribly trivial series of events. I feel pretty awful for getting myself deeply involved in this mess and stirring up so much shit which needn't have even been shat in the first place, but like I said hopefully we can just get back to normal. 22:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * In a way, maintaining impartiality can be a crucial part of trying to make a compromise so you shouldn't feel awful for trying to do what you thought would help. I'm pretty confident everyone can work this out with minimal additional wikidrama, but that requires a communication between both sides. And I must note that it definitely should not be in the form of the four co-signers vs. Crazy sam10, individual discussions where individual's issues can be discussed is how to do it. 22:33, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly Callofduty4. I appreciate that the authors of this thread actually stated their problems with Sam rather than let it simmer into some even bigger mess, but I feel a decrat forum was unnecessary. Maybe a Talk Page discussion would have been better. However, I also appreciate this forum as it stands, as users are now actually stating what their problems are with Sam, so that Sam and the users can fix what's wrong, and we can avoid deep rifts being formed, leading to ugly confrontations. 22:37, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, posting this is much better than letting disagreements boil over into grudges and dislike against users. At least it's good to see that we can still trust each other enough to post forums like this and we can trust each other to discuss it without this turning into a total deathmatch like some other demotion forums on this wiki have turned into. But as a lot of us have said, it would've been even better if the co-signers had talked to Sam individually to express their upset and work it out. After this is over, I do expect them to do that, even if Sam has had the concerns expressed to him in this manner. 22:57, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not even gonna pretend to be a good debater, but of all the points made here, Aug made the best one.    22:43, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

As Co nom. 20:27, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

As Co-nominator. 20:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sora The Savior (talk) 20:31, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So being a killjoy in chat makes for a forum of demoting a very valuable user who uses the rights given to him well? And no, a Admin/B-crat should never just go on a ban/kick for fun as it makes the rest of the administration very lackluster. 21:46, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a real reason. 21:41, August 10, 2013 (UTC) Look down 21:49, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an insulting reason. Give a real one or your vote will be crossed out. 21:08, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that insulting? 21:11, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Where other users give reason to voice there support, Snipergod has chosen to make a coy comment about how he has always found Sam to be a mean admin and is glad to see that others think so. In a matter as serious as this, "And I thought I was the only one" should not be accepted as a reason, let alone considered a respectful one. 21:14, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should give one. For example back in February he blocked me for three days for adding a wikipedia link on the Bus page and claimed I was violating IRL.Snipergod (talk) 21:16, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So you support decratting me, because a gave you a legitimate ban for a legitimate warning, that no one objected to? I'm sorry, but this forum seems horribly bias and seems to be more out of an attack on me then actual Wikia benefit. 21:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that (and lets leave the justification of it on a agree to disagree bases) and I've noticed your unnecessary hostility.Snipergod (talk) 21:28, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you give me an example of said unnecessary hostility? 21:31, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would but the noms already beat me to it.Snipergod (talk) 21:42, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're using an example that's 5 months old, that I already and got told off for? Can you supply any other evidence to showcase this that you are actually involved in? Or are you just going to use everyone elses's evidence just to fuel a vendetta against me for banning you for something you didn't feel was right? 22:03, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think Sam is a nice person but his attitude as struck as a problem for being a crat' currently, I know i currently have a limited say and this but my opinion is that. I understand he is a great contributor and he has been a great doing for the wiki but him being a crat is not totally necessary anymore. No doubt he is someone that was always a great admin but my only problem is his passive-agressive attitude. -- 21:22, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "Not necessary anymore"? 21:24, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we have enough crats that can get the job done, I am sure you can but in my opinion you are no longer needed for the position. -- 21:26, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So, you think I should be decratted because in your opinion, we have too many 'crats? 21:30, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it is just one reason not already addressed in this discussion. Your attitude and respect towards user is very condescending and I really wished that it wasn't like that. You have had more than several warnings and chances to fix that and you haven't, I wouldn't consider this a punishment I would consider this another opportunity for you to fix what has gone wrong. -- 21:33, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had no warnings regarding any behavioral flaws I may have prior to this forum being set up. And the reason it's not addressed is because it's not a good reason, for either making or taking away user rights. 21:39, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose
I am not convinced by the forum that this is the proper way to handle this situation. 20:59, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Damac has stated, although I have been here, I do not think this is just the way to handle the situation. I don't think we've really had a big conversation to confront Sam, which I honestly think would be a better way to go about this, rather than jump right to Decratting. Also, as for his rights, they don't really have to do with this, as this doesn't talk about taking/giving user rights, which seems to be the main purpose of B-crats, and as for being a Check User, I haven't seen anything go wrong with him using it. 21:04, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Since we're going to start voting so early, I'm going to say this. Sam indeed overreacts at points, to which I myself can testify for. However, let's not forget how much Sam has contributed to this wiki, and the fact is that was what got him to being a crat in the first place. I think what would be better is if we simply gave a warning, of which this very forum is enough of one.

You know, I find it strange that after months of thinking I would be the least likely person to defend Sam, I'm sitting here now, opposing him being decratted. 21:16, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Should someone with crat rights really over react though? They're essentially the top people of the wiki and should show a level head 00:03, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * They should try not to over react a bit more than others, but you can't really ask them to be robots and never overreact. 00:16, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * As Damac said, you can't really ask bureaucrats to be perfect all the time (just as you can't ask the same of admins), but you have a point that they should, for the most part, be level. Sam does overreact at times. This, however, is an issue that can be worked out without going straight to the chopping block with his user rights. 02:32, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the instances shown are of pretty bad behavior, but I have to stress Damac's points. In short (I won't be bothered to write the long version on a shitty touch screen keyboard), straight up making a decrat forum from relatively minor incidents without even making attempts at thoroughly discussing it with Sam is absurd, and his tools remain very useful so removing them (when both crat and CU are largely irrelevant to the situation) would be bad. 21:25, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Truly laughable - please actually come up with evidence showing an unwillingness to work with other users or an abuse of power. No one gets demoted for actually enforcing the rules lol.

I think the co-signers need to realise that jumping to a demotion forum is class-A wiki drama and doesn't actually solve any problems. Also bringing up evidence from 3 months ago. Seriously? Besides this strong oppose, I'm requesting that the co-signers remove this shambles of a demotion forum and actually focus on improving what problems they see instead of creating new ones by removing rights that haven't been abused or otherwise misused (removing CU for something totally unrelated to CU, seriously?). 21:38, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the removal of my admin rights be abuse of power? Yes I know I shouldn't have removed my ban but I'm not sure that warrants my rights being taken away? The only reason I did it was to ask sam for the reason of my ban (which I've still not be told personally), however my chat glitched and did not let me type anything therefore meaning I couldn't ask. 00:03, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue with removing your rights when you were removing a ban that was given to you with reason. If it was a misunderstanding by Sam then so be it, that's what talking to each other would solve. 00:35, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I did that since you removed a ban that was given to you for a valid reason, which would classify as power abuse on your end. I had no intent of leaving them off, it was purely done as you removed your own ban. Once Sactage gave us the compromise it became settled. 00:44, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Although Sam can sometimes have bad behavior, Sam has however contributed much to the wiki and is a very professional editor. With many other points being said, I very much agree with CoD4's and Damac's points on this. 21:43, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * A crat should never have bad behavior. They're there to set an example to the other users. 00:15, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I believe Sam wasn't doing more than enforcing rules. Whilst he has had a few moments of exaggeration, none of that hurt the rules. Basically aways, Sam acts wisely against the opposition of other users, aways doing what is right, specially outside the chat. Just as a reminder, this trait is essential for a bureaucrat; and Sam does a impeccable job with it. I also disagree about removing his CU flag - Sam hasn't misused this power and there isn't ANY solid point for doing so. 22:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So banning people for saying "ok" is justified? 22:36, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * He banned him for upkeeping a dismissive and uncaring attitude after he was warned for poor behaviour. As much as you don't like it, the way SexyWindows received his warning was dismissive. Necessary? No. Justified? Yes. 22:42, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it also justified to remove a ban without getting consent from the user that performed said ban? The ban was done because he was acting poorly towards his warnings, it was against COD:DBAD and Insubordination. I even stated after you complained to me that I would undo the ban if he said sorry for his attitude, showing I had taken your complaint into account. However instead of actually acknowledging this, you just unbanned him yourself, without my consent, so of course it led me to be upset, since you complained about my actions, then didn't even let me deal with my actions by myself. 22:53, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is truly laughable that the ban was justified. 23:20, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * And I got told off by yourself, and Callofduty4 for doing it. The issue was dealt with there and then, by using it as an example you're merely opening old wounds, I mean it's a 5 month old piece of evidence. 23:25, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

It's actually 3 months old 23:31, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not truly laughable, especially when I literally just explained to you why it was justified. Just because a ban isn't necessary doesn't mean it's automatically not justified. To be frank, any joke ban is totally unjustified: a "joke" is not a sufficient justification to use tools for stopping disruption to cause disruption. 00:35, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Joe Copp 00:49, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I would like to point out that Sam will not lose his sysop rights, only his 'crat and CU rights if the forum passes. 21:23, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally think we should handle this the same way as we have on previous de-admin or de-crat forums. Let it off first as a warning, and if it occurs again, decrat. 21:26, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear. The result of this forum if it succeeds will A) Hurt the wiki, and B) Have no actual positive benefits, since Sam will still be on the wiki, will still have all the powers he needs for this "abuse", and will basically be surrounded by a community who weren't willing to talk to him privately about these problems. Sounds like a great forum. 21:28, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I think this forum should only serve as a warning, and not go right to the guillotine with Sam's cratship. But, that's just like, my opinion man. 21:34, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

This is going to sound stupid, but am I allowed to opposed my own decrat forum? Or do I only have the option of giving my reasons like I have in the discussion section? 21:33, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the way these forums go, you're allowed to input your opinion, but not vote on it. I'm still shocked that I'm defending both you and the reasoning for this forum. 21:36, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be that guy and point out the gigantic conflict of interest between the users co-signing this poor attempt at a demotion forum and the way Crazy sam10 moderates the chatroom. On the one hand we have admins who seem to have no regard to the way they should be using their rights, whether it be going on a rampage of joke kicks and bans or not giving enough of a damn to warn a user for calling another user a "shithead". I don't care who wasn't offended or upset by the joke bans or the name calling, it's disruptive behaviour and even if it's not in the rules, joke bans are an absolute abuse of tools that are supposed to be used to keep disruption out of the chatroom. So using them to cause disruption is pretty poor behaviour.

To me this seems to be a way to act on an unwarranted mistrust (which is nothing more than a misunderstanding) against an administrator who actually gives enough of a damn to moderate the chatroom properly. Is it possible he's too strict at times? Maybe. So if you have that concern, then act on it in a responsible manner. Jumping to demotion forum is absolutely not responsible and it's actually an extremely poor way to manage the situation that you the co-signers see. On a personal level, I'm disappointed in the 4 administrators who thought it was beyond their responsibility and duty to discuss with a fellow administrator how they feel his behaviour is. 21:58, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair the mass banning thing was a misunderstanding. KλT 22:03, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not like it was a one time situation, I've even done it before. 22:04, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've even been jokingly kicked several times, over the last month. I guess I don't see a problem with it, as long as no one takes it seriously. 22:07, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a problem because it's using tools to prevent disruption to cause disruption. Even if the disruption is not intentional, it can still happen. 22:13, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for example, it defeats the purpose of the chat ban log and minorly clogs up my RC feed. 22:21, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, are we talking kicks, or bans? Because, afaik, kicks don't clog up, nor show up, in RC. Also the ban rampage thingie happened once, iirc.-13:13, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not feel that somebody calling someone a shithead once warranted a warning or ban. If he persisted then obviously I would have asked him to stop but I personally felt that it did not warrant anything at the time. 00:08, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's against the rules that are to be enforced in the chatroom. It wasn't so much that a warning wasn't issued, it was that a warning wasn't issued even when an admin saw what happened and acknowledged it and it wasn't an obvious gag or joke between a couple of friends. This also isn't about making the chatroom into a police state nor is it about "no fun allowed", it's about making sure the rules are enforced and setting a precedent that the rules are to be abided to so the chatroom can be a friendly and overall civil place. That seems to be the conflict of interest between both sides. 00:31, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I personally, using my own judgement, (and I assume madnessfan did too) felt that one instance of a problem was not enough to warrant a warning. Maybe I wasn't being harsh enough but that's just my two cents pennies. 13:14, August 11, 2013 (UTC)