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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

Snipergod (talk) 21:05, 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 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 adressed 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 behavioural 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)

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)

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)