Forum:De-Sysoping KATANAGOD

Forums: Index → War Room → De-Sysoping KATANAGOD

As hard as I find it to write this forum up. I feel his behaviour of late has finally reached a point where it is no longer fit for someone of his position.

kATANAGOD is currently a Bureaucrat, Checkuser and VSTF member, however his recent behaviour has been malicious and rude. Two qualities we should not lookf or in a user, let alone a b'crat. The most recent event has been the current forum regarding joke kicks, where his aggression has lead to nothing more than a tirade of insults against myself, and despite vocally stating my discomfort, has refused to offer an apology, or even attempt a subject change, despite being the instigator of these insults.

I have also been given a chat log seen here of Kat bullying fellow user YellowLucario, possibly the lines of most note are "1:07 FireBird- better not do it again, i guess, he's not pleased / 1:07 KATANAGOD tough tits don't enter the ring if you plan on getting offended" clealy showing another time of disdain towards upsetting another user. And prior to this, I have been given multiple complaints from former user Inkie Twig, whom became so distraught from the lack of behaviour change left not only this Wikia, but Wikia in a whole, and will in fact refuse to leave any feedback on this forum.

Faux. I left Wikia due a multitude of reasons. Not just this. - Inkie Twig

My apologies. I did try to get hold of you, but it was very difficult. I will keep the point removed and will attempt to no longer use it further comments. Sam

Past evidence has been witnessed on his talk page after he created a fake de-sysop forum for Madnessfan34537 which was later deleted as the forum was placed on the War Room (like a real one would) on a completely normal day (so not April Fools or anything). He once again shows clear aggression to the multiple users telling him what he did wrong, and simply ends the matter with a Vault Boy thumbs up image to simply dismiss the entire thing. A recurring theme with all these issues also stems from his sense of humour. He often attacks those that attempt to stop anything he considers a joke when other do not. Stating things such as people having a "warped view on reality" and telling those that warn him "just because you think you can berate me for an immature joke doesn't give you the right to call me a shitter, please read up on our policies on being a dick", which can seem hypacritical when looking at the above logs as well as the following image of him naming everyone here "Dickheads", and then in another forum calling us all "elitist" which frankly seems to contradict itself as he seems to be at one point claiming he's better than us by calling us "Dickheads" and then in another claims we act above him.

Furthermore, on the topic of "reading up on our policies", some time ago we had another forum regarding joke kicks and bans. The outcome of the forum was that joke bans were power abuse and ""Joke" bans are not allowed under any circumstances." was added to COD:CHAT. However a few days ago, 2 users (Madnessfan34537 and Feargm) were banned from chat with the reasoning of "( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ", which were clearly joke bans. Like a bit of an idiot I decided to let the matter slide as I believed it would be a one-off joke and that his attitude would return to normal.

Also, while not powerful enough reason on it's own to warrant a desysop forum, Kat's wiki activity has been waning, despite stating "Nevermind the fact that a community blog hasn't been published in close to a month. Editor count hasn't been lower since 2010, Community itself is slowly dying. The chat may as well be dead 80% of the time. But Obviously the problem is joke kicks, that'll certainly help the wiki out! Of all the issues, it's joke kicks that need to be discussed. Jesus christ." in response to myself on the forum, despite his own personal contributions to the Wiki itself waning, likely showing a clear disinterest to wanting to be here, which may also explain why his behaviour is so poor. His last edit to a mainspace article was in Febuary, and his last edit to a forum aside from this one and the joke kick one was July. Such a large gap in mainspace editing is a worry for someone of his position. While this would mean nothing on its own as shown by our list of inactive sysops, paired with his behaviour does seem to show that despite his arguments that we're the ones not helping the wiki, his contributions have been non-existent, showcasing likely that he has no desire to even be here any longer. In fact, his comment "But do whatever you want, if you guys want to run the wiki into the ground and make it a PC ceramic gallery go ahead." seems to more or less confirm this, as it does seem as though he has no real interest in being here.

Overall, I feel that KATANAGOD's attitude to others as well as the wiki are not those that we seek in bureaucrats. They members of this wiki that are seen as rolemodels for the wiki, and this is not behaviour we want to showcase.

Katanagod used to be a very good and close friend, and it is with a heavy heart I post this. However, recent events show me that this Kat is not the same one that I became friends with, and until that Kat is back, I am doing what I feel is best for the Wiki.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

00:25, December 24, 2015 (UTC) Edit: Due to a recent attack on myself after the creation of this forum, the outcome scenario has changed. As Kat chose to decrat himself, I'm demoting the forum to a de-sysop forum, given his behaviour is not really good enough for that of an admin.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:30, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support — As nominator. And yes, I do feel bad about having to do this.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

00:25, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — Recent behavior? I can't remember a time where he was nice other than for a brief moment or when things are going according to his wishes. The reason why I initially abstained from supporting his RfB was because of his hotheadedness and easy time for getting into conflict, and I switched to support after he said he'd improved on it, but it looks like that was just fabrication. Not basing this on what Sam posted alone, but from what I've seen of him in the past. Being stern and straightforward is one thing, being outright rude and in general a dick is another. While I notice that the wiki has been in a decline and the amount of regulars isn't nearly as high as it used to be, I'd still prefer to keep some sort of professionalism around, and having a bureaucrat with such an attitude is exactly the opposite of that. -- laagone ^(talk)  00:38, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — From what I've seen of Kat recently, this seems like a fair notion. His behavior towards everyone, even other B-crats is appalling, definitely not fitting of someone his rank. He also does not take issues seriously, so I believe this removal of power is just. Vinyl Pat^{The Mixmaster} 00:44, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — I fully agree with what Sam wrote, Kat's recent behaviour does not match one of a bureucrat sysop. His disrespect torwards other users is alarming, he's shown imprudence in the joke kick forum and bullying is undoubtedly unacceptable. I think it will be better for the community and the wiki overall if his bureucrat sysop rights were removed.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  00:51, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — katana has done me a few solids, like being the one to nominate me for adminship and unbanning hunter for me, so i had considered him a friend. however, ignoring his behavior, from what sam has shown evidence of to what i saw in a forum between him and damac once, would feel almost like "taking a bribe". i do feel very bad for voting to support his de-bureaucratizing, i feel like im betraying him here, but i must do so for the good of the wiki. RisingSun2024 ^{(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity)} 01:00, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

edit: it has turned into a de-sysop forum since katana removed his bureaucrat rights, but my vote stays the same for the same reasons because his behavior is also un-sysop-like. RisingSun2024 ^{(Talk Page 🎌 Blog Posts 🎌 Contributions 🎌 Social Activity)} 01:37, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — Sam. Don't feel bad. It's not your fault Kat isn't fit to be a crat here. I have been victimised in the past by Kat, calling me retarded for not believing that PC is the best thing ever and having plenty of discriminatory names called to me of which I would not expect from the most seasoned of trolls. Kat simply isn't fit to have any powers, as he has shown no ability to use them appropriately, such as kicking me for having an opinion. I have been discussing this for a while now with certain users, and while I will certainly testify further in the morning, I feel that for the good of the wiki, it is time Kat at the very least lost his bureaucratic powers. YELLOWLUCARIO ^TALK  01:07, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Lies. If you can find a log or any sort of evidence that isn't doctored, to back up anything you've said, let me know. "Kicking me for having an opinion" lmao KλT 01:16, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Support — What I've seen of his behaviour, both over the last twenty-four hours and further in the past, has lead me to feel that such an action is warranted. Raven's wing ^Talk01:45, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Taking a step back

If we all took a step back and spent a little time looking at Kat's time on this website as a whole I think everyone would be considerably more hesitant to support this... what happened recently on that other forum is worth bringing up but can we all agree that going from "Let's not kick people for funsies guys" to "Let's demote someone who's been an admin for years" is a little... far? That has been the progression of events here, after all, no matter how indirect the causation was.

Kat has plenty of good contributions. Hence he is an admin. Whenever it is suggested that a user's rights be removed, why those rights are even present in the first place still has to be considered. Yes, that means considering that maybe that user is a pretty good help after all. Yes, that might mean opposing something like this even if a reason for doing so is apparent.

I'm not suggesting that Kat be excused for what he was saying on the other forum and this one, however I am sure that if he was given an opportunity to, he would be more than happy to admit that he said things either that he shouldn't have at all, or in a way he shouldn't have.

Removal of rights is a real last resort. Is this really a last resort situation...?      02:41, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

No, It's not. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 02:43, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I personally didn't vouch for his sysop rights to be removed, he did that himself. I'm aware stripping someone of their rights that they've earned is a penultimate resort (blocking being an even harsher penalty), but this is *continued* poor behavior at a level where you're supposed to set an example. If he were to be even a little respectful on this forum or show that he gives a shit about his now former rights (instead of throwing a tantrum), I wouldn't be so eager to support their removal. Has he done good work before? Yes, absolutely, but I'm not comfortable with having a crat who cannot control his temper when it has been an issue in the past numerous times. -- laagone ^(talk)  02:57, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that someone getting upset in a situation like this to be quite normal. Would it be better if he kept a more 'level head'? Of course it would. But I don't blame him for becoming upset about this. DremYolLok  03:04, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Drem, I don't think it should be expected of anyone to remain completely level headed when confronted with a situation like this. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 03:07, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

While de-cratting someone is a pretty big step (and a bit of an extreme in this case), and it's understandable someone would be upset in an event like this, Kat did willingly remove his own rights and appears to have left the wiki. That reaction doesn't really seem remotely like a level headed or remotely rational decision, especially from someone who wants to keep their bcrat rights. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 04:14, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Not to sound rude. But one of the main reasons this forum was set up was because his attitude upset multiple other users. So while I can understand him being upset at the current, can we please not forget that his actions have caused other users discomfort? Him removing his rights was a massive over-reaction to what was at the time 4-5 votes. This is why I let him know I'd be keeping the forum open in case more users came in to oppose it and let him keep his user rights. All this prompted was a response of me being a spiteful deluded person. So in answer to your question Cod4, I do think this is a last resort situation. As I pointed out below, there have been attempts to talk about his behaviour, but they simply get responded with more of said behaviour, until he finally goes on the defensive and starts taking a situation far out of hand by claiming we're all insulting him. This is a b'crat we're talking about here. Someone that should show a certain amount of level-headedness in situations. I can understand a level of being upset from a situation like this arising, but many of his actions, as CoaZ points out, are hardly level-headed or rational.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

08:15, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

also, to further comment on your comment "Yes, that means considering that maybe that user is a pretty good help after all", a look at his behaviour over the last year really brings this in to question. His overall contributions to the Wiki have been low, barely entering on a Forum, bar ones that seem to conflict with his personal interest nor a single edit on the main space in nearly a year. He's done barely any real admin work, and yet a good few other sysops, such as Anti, CoaZ, MLG, Risingsun have all managed to maintain an amount of activity. It can be very hard to actually dictate if Kat is a "good help after all" when from a contribution stand point, he's not really done much this year. Furthermore, of his forum entries, none seem to be added with any seriousness, they all seem to simply be inults aimed at someone. I can understand yourself, Damac and CoaZ raising defensive points, but I find them hard to read when the user who's rights are in question doesn't seem to care. MLG seems to put it best with his comment of " If he were to be even a little respectful on this forum or show that he gives a shit about his now former rights" then I'd understand him wanting to help the wiki. But frankly his demeaner and overall contributions this year make it very hard for to consider any form of "good help after all". So far in this forum, all that's occured is his behaviour as a sysop has come in to question, and he's batted it away with unserious jokes and insults. Not once so far has he even attempted to take any responsibility for his actions, and it shouldn't be up to users like you to try and defend them. If Kat is showing an unwillingness to want to be helpful, then I find it difficult to read any defence written for him. While he has given a small apology to FireBird- there are still many other users that have been insulted by him which he seems to show no real remorse for. So I do find it hard to believe that he is a "pretty good help after all" when he can't seem to take any control of his actions, and instead relies on jokes and insults to counter our points. EDIT: and to also point out your comment about "however I am sure that if he was given an opportunity to, he would be more than happy to admit that he said things either that he shouldn't have at all, or in a way he shouldn't have", opportunities have been given to him multiple times for him to do this. I made that joke kicks forum at 16:13 our time, his first response that aggressive was at 21:02, and then I didn't get a chance to reply until 12:02 the next day claiming myself upset. So while he may have only seen the forum at the time he posted his first aggressive comment, there was a good 13 hours before I responded, which would have been enough time for anyone to calm down if his first comment was made in anger, his reply then came at 22:53 so about 11 hours later (so now a 24 hour gap) and he's still not in any way sorry that he's upset me, I further went on to continue mentioning that I had been made upset by what he'd said, but instead he tried to play the victim and refused me an apology. And going back further, you can see on the linked talk apge, there are multiple times his aggression is brought up, and apologies are asked for. But he merely dismisses the notion he's aggressive, even with more than 1 user telling him, and refuses apologies. These are logs from nearly a year ago, and I was hoping he'd have changed at that stage. All in all, I don't feel comfortable in the notion Kat has changed his attitude or is going to. I feel that if this closes with his user rights gone, then he'll just start blaming all those that supported the forum as being users that hate him and are wrong in some way, and if it closes with his rights left, he'll continue to beleive that his behaviour his completely fine, and all the users that have had hurt feelings from him, or do believe there is an issue will be left out in the cold.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:05, December 24, 2015 (UTC) (Edit added: 16:37, December 24, 2015 (UTC))

The last time you spoke to me in person without there being some sort of conflict between us was like nearly 3 years ago. Cod4 hasn't messaged me in a long time as well. Last time i spoke to you about anything was during that conversation you brought up as ""evidence". Another situation sparked by you overreacting about a random forum i made because there was nothing better to do at the time. That was nearly a year ago. That exact event was during the summer as well, usually when the wiki is at it's lowest activity rates. Which i have metrics to back up since i've been logging the wiki's user statistics via google analytics since late 2012. Most of the time I do these stupid ass jokes is because i'm so goddamned bored of nothing happening on the wiki. Sure I go to far sometimes, and in the case of YL, i definitely went to far. But yeah, you haven't actually spoken to me in ages. You act like i've been reprimanded by the cyber police countless times as i villainously plot to wreak havoc on the wiki. This just isn't the case. You haven't actually provided any evidence as to why my user rights need to be taken away. I don't see how i've misused my rights to any degree, besides banning exacri and madness when there were 4 people in the chat. I'll admit, people who say "ayy it's a prank bro" are the worst, but in this instance i'll have to say. It was a lighthearted joke, any perceived malicious intent of "abuse" are unfounded. You take things to the point where the most mundane thing is considered rights abuse. I'd say i approached the joke kick forum wrong as well, but that's mostly because i'm really just sick and tired of you making the same redundant forum that doesn't actually contribute anything to the wiki in any meaningful way. I could have expressed that a lot better, but you make it really hard to do that peacefully. I can admit my part in the issues, but its pretty obvious that you cannot. But feel free to just place a bandaid statement on things such as "aggressive". I'm sure that'll work. KλT 18:09, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

If you had made legitimate points that backed up your claims, provided evidence related to why my RIGHTS have to be removed, and took previous steps to demonstrate that this was the only possible next step I would take the forum seriously. But no. You've did none of that, and we have already been at each other's throats off and on for years. I'm surprised other people aren't seeing through how much of a sham the forum is. This is actually just as accurate as a political attack ad. Hence my shock at why people are supporting this. KλT 18:17, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Also I've been inactive most of the year due to university, not because i don't give a shit about the wiki. How is inactivity even a part of your argument? How does that correlate to less interest? You don't anything about me at all. KλT 18:34, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

ALSO to be completely honest, I had forgotten about pretty much everything from last year. It was to my knowledge that we had already settled that, due to cod4 making both of us apologize for it. The fact that you're using it now really shows how low you're being. Also does anyone other than sam really think it's rights abuse to make a fake desysop forum during dead season? A forum that got a bunch of people to log in and use, people actually thought it was funny. Madness' got a kick out of it. The only person i offended by doing so was sam. Does anyone really think it's an affront on humanity to have two entries in the ban log with the ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) face? To be honest, I'll apologize to YL, i did go way to far there. And that joke kick forum was handled the wrong way, for sure. But does that warrant this? No, absolutely not. KλT 18:50, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

How are you surprised people are supporting this? Poor behaviour in a position of power is a completely valid reason to lose the rights. Admin rights are a privilege you earn. Just because you've not done anything with the tools themselves doesn't make you above reproach. Furthermore, I fail to see how giving out analytics just to try and justify a joke seems completely out of place. The issue was not that the forum was power abuse, the issue was that you made it and put it in the war room as though it were a real one, after it was shut down you did everything in your power to keep it going, even using your bot to try and hide you undeleting it. The point being was myself and MLG spoke to you about how we disliked the forum, instead of an apology, you just rammed down our throats how we lacked a sense of humour. Also, you had a warning from myself and MLG in the past about joke bans in the chat, which again you acted highly aggressive to the both of us. You don't ever apologise for your actions, all you ever do is try and hurt peoples feelings until their too sad or scared to talk to you. You find it surprising that people are supporting? It's because there is no sham here, your behaviour has simply got too much for other users to want to handle, and no matter how you want to spin it, you do have a behaviour problem, one that is bad enough that other users have been hurt because of it, and frankly not something I would see in a sysop.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:28, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Uh yeah all of that stuff was from a year ago, and was solved. I'm not sure why you're using past issues from years ago to make it seem like i've done a ton of rotten stuff right now. Am i the only one seeing this? KλT 20:45, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing up stuff that happened a year ago because as anecdotal evidence it showcases how your attitude has not changed over the timespan of 1 year. I wouldn't have made this forum over a one -off incident.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

21:01, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Meh

Done with this, i've been arguing with sam for the past 3 years about literally nothing. If you all want to read a forum made by out of spite by someone who hates my guts, that's all of your guys trouble. But nah, I'm done. With the amount of things i've done for this site, and this is what happens? No thanks. GG sam. KλT 01:16, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Now I suddenly hate your guts despite how most of the time you're the aggressor. In fact, your very behaviour scares me, and even when you upset people, you refuse to apologies because you seem to think your better than someone, or because it's wrong for that person to have gotten upset. This isn't out of spite, your outbursts towards me and FireBird- on the other forum was simply the last straw. And if this was a spite forum, then frankly I don't see why MLG and RisingSun would be supporting.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:35, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Because it's so overwhelmingly biased dude. I actually can't even believe people are taking this seriously. I mean, If the people believe misinformation and cherry picked logs, that's out of my control. Also how have I abused my bureaucrat rights + sysop rights? This whole thing is a joke. KλT 01:42, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

The Joke bans were grounds for abusing the powers, since that was in place and on the policy page a long time before you did your two to Madness and Feargm. Furthermore, your overall demeaner is grounds to make this forum. you can call it spite, bias, anger or whatever you want. But this forum has really been in the works for years, and it was your recent actions that pushed it in to completion. Yes the logs and pictures shown aren't good, but that's because they are supporting evidence. I'm not going to post a random log of you being nice to someone in a de-sysop forum am I? People are taking this seriously, because it's a serious forum. Maybe you like to make joke de-sysop forums, but I don't. I'm sorry if you somehow feel this is a joke, but frankly how long you've been here and any good things you've done at this point are outweighed by the bad things you've done. If you really feel you're an asset to the wiki, then you can re-earn your sysop rights should you lose them. If not then there's no one forcing you to stay.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:49, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

You're fucking deluded man. KλT 01:59, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Also fyi everyone i've already removed all of my rights so you guys can stop circlejerking over how i'm hitler. KλT 01:48, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

See. This is the issue. Are you now trying to make us feel sorry for you? You outright attacked us, and now you're losing you're trying to back out and make us out as the bad guys? This forum will continue, because for all we know enough opposes may well come in to play that allow you to regain your rights.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:51, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I quit, you win. I'm done with arguing with you. Play the victim role all you like, it takes two to argue. I removed my rights because this forum is so skewed and biased, there's absolutely no fuckin' point to even trying. This is what you wanted right? Also "Us"? Who's this "Us" you speak for? KλT 01:57, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

The "us" refers to the "everyone" your fyi was aimed at.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

02:00, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Aight dude peace. KλT 02:03, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Wait a minute here, isn't the process of removing admin rights from a user supposed to be a discussion between admins and 'crats, not put up to vote in the War Room? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 01:31, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

No, it is War Room. Since giving them rights is a community choice and removing them is the same. Example would be Sp3ctr3.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

01:33, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I thought we moved it to admin discussion after that, but it appears I got this and "Banning X User" mixed up. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 01:45, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Currently reading this forum, and I know I'm not as active on the Wiki as I used to be, but I feel I need to say this... again.

Why, why, why, why , why, why is it that every single time someone is having issues with someone in a position of even minor authority on this wiki, absolutely NOTHING is done about it until it reaches a boiling point and results in forums like this. A massive wall of text where a ton of evidence is presented where:

• A) People didn't do anything to try and correct the behavior when it was happening and afterwards.
• B) The person performing the behavior wasn't warned, or even contacted about it. Leading to a total lack of discussion.

I get it, I seriously get it. People are tired of Kat's attitude but do you know what doesn't solve it? This, this right here. A De-Crat/De-Sysop forum? Seriously? This is not how you address poor behavior, I don't care if they are a higher up user.

None of the evidence you present in the actual introduction to this, to me, indicates that Kat needs his tools taken away, or at the very least does indicate that it's not the first step in the process. On only one occasion of the presented evidence is Kat ever confronted about his actions, and you know where it's done? A talk page, a public talk page? Are you joking? You're never going to get anywhere by underhandedly attacking a user and low-key inviting others to gang up on him, regardless of his own actions.

Even in the goddamn chat log of Kat "bullying" YL no one, ever, tries to stop him until YL is already gone from the chat (As far as I can tell based on the log). Even then, all Firebird does is say "hey guys that wasn't nice". Once again, no personal interaction. No actual indication that peoples behavior should change. Just "hey guys leave him alone".

I understand Kat's behavior was rude, the evidence presented makes that clear enough, sometimes overly out of control. But that's not the point I'm making (and also why I'm not opposing/supporting yet). THIS IS NOT HOW YOU HANDLE THE SITUATION.

You want the wiki to be treated seriously, you want it to be a mature place for discussion, and you see that one user might be causing a problem in that regard.

But this is NOT the way you handle it, and is an overall fuck up.

I've brought this up in the past. DISCUSSION is the first step. PRIVATE DISCUSSION. 1 on 1 with the user in question. Kat isn't a troll, he's not here to bring the wiki to it's knees, nor is any other trusted user who's been with us for years. Every trusted member of this community deserves a chance to be told "Look, I've been noticing some problems." and then, after a discussion, it IS up to the user to improve or not.

And no, arguing back and forth in public spaces and exchanging blows with one another does not count as a discussion.

But why try to do things right when we can just raise our pitchforks right?

http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 02:36, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Let me put in place a disclaimer that despite how strongly worded this message is, this is not meant to be an attack on anyone's character. I wouldn't even be surprised if this thought never even entered the mind of several users. I'm just very passionate about this particular issue, and always have been, so I find my tone appropriate. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 02:41, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but try to pin the issue on lack of communication simply won't fly in this regard. Users have spoken to Kat about his behaviour long before now. The talk apge message that I linked was nearly 2 years old. Furthermore, as shown in the log that shows him attcking YellowLucario FireBird- even told him about his behaviour. And how did these two situations end? Exactly the same as this one is, he deflects it away with insults or a nonchalant attitude and he does nothing to change his behaviour. The recent events may have been what caused the final straws that caused this forum, but the past year or two have not been complaint free. I have had to deal with Twig sending me complaints, and because Kat was my friend, I often tried to pass these complaints on to Cod4 so he could talk with him about it, so I believed that Kat was being talked to. This is an attitude we should not look for in sysops at all, which is why I felt this forum was made for the good of the Wiki as a whole. Communication with Kat has been attempted before, and it has always ended the same way, with someone getting their feelings hurt. Frankly this is why I felt the situation had reached a de-sysop forum level, because his attitude towards the wiki and other users was simply appalling. And yes, he was a good editor and that's how he got his admin rights. But once someone has them doesn't make them above the rules. After all, we have had a successful de-sysop forum in the past with Sp3ctr3, so users can be shown to lose their rights after they earned them. Kat's behaviour in both the long term and recent short term has been something that if he weren't an admin may well have earnt him a block from anyone else. It's violations of COD:DBAD and COD:UTP. Attempts have been made in the past in an attempt for him to alter his attitude towards other users, however they have clearly come to naught. I fully understand you're Kat's friend and want him not to lose his rights, but his replies and responses to this forum simply show off a low amount of level headedness that is not something that is much help as someone who is meant to often remain impartial and professional during debates or warnings. KAt also seems to have some kind of difficulty accept any type of blame, when contested with an issue about his behaviour, he merely tries to push the situation on to the person giving the blame. I mean YellowLucario made a comment, and Kat instantly attacks him claiming he's a liar and any evidence he has must clearly be fake. Prior to this forum he outright attacked me for making a forum on joke kicks, despite no provocation on my part and as seen on the talk page messages from about a year ago, instead of taking the warnings, he simply goes in to an attack mode on myself and MLG, despite an initial calm warning. KAt has a level of aggression that so far, simply can't be resolved at a pace fast enough to constitute him having the sysop rights. He acts aggressively to users which is neither polite or professional and frankly, I'm not comfortable with a sysop having that. Furthermore, when I did try to talk to him before in Skype with Cod4 as a mediator, it simply turned in to another case of Kat throwing insults at me and taking nothing in. Attempts have been made in the past, and he has not chosen to act on them. For that reason, I do not feel he has the attitude needed to maintain his level of user rights. I would rather him show his behaviour has improved an then reapply, and not have us sit around watching a trusted user act aggressive to others whilst ignoring warnings not to do so just because he's earned his rights in the past.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

08:06, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

"The talk apge message that I linked was nearly 2 years old" - So are we just going to ignore that I said that Talk Page messages are not an acceptable example of one on one discussion? Cause I felt I made a pretty big point about this.

"he deflects it away with insults or a nonchalant attitude and he does nothing to change his behaviour" - Why would he? There's no indication that he's given any real warning. the only thing he's told is that he may have hurt someone's feelings, which he's obviously not worried about. No one says "This reflects poorly on you", "This may cause trouble", or "We need to talk". It's just very non-threatening and non-serious responses like "hey that wasn't nice." Do you honestly think any kind of behaviro change is going to manifest itself out of the blue, with no kind of reinforcement? That's delusional.

"I have had to deal with Twig sending me complaints, and because Kat was my friend, I often tried to pass these complaints on to Cod4 so he could talk with him about it, so I believed that Kat was being talked to." - So when the behavior didn't change, what did you do? Did you ever try talking to him yourself? You claim to have been friends but you couldn't approach him in a friendly manner to tell him 1-on-1 that there's been some complaints? YOU are the one who was receiving the complaints. YOU are the one who felt they were valid. YOU claim to be his friend. Why didn't YOU do anything until you felt that a De-Crat forum was the only solution.

"Communication with Kat has been attempted before, and it has always ended the same way, with someone getting their feelings hurt." - Please tell me you have some logs of this 1-on-1 communication?

"After all, we have had a successful de-sysop forum in the past with Sp3ctr3, so users can be shown to lose their rights after they earned them." - But the matter at hand isn't CAN a user lose their rights. We all can. I can, you can, Cod4 can, hell we can probably take them from all the inactive crats and admins just for shits and giggles is we want. The question is SHOULD they be taken away.

And FYI, just because the shit system of "Keep letting bad behavior go until someone loses it and makes a de-sysop forum" was used in Sp3c's case, doesn't make it any less of a shit system.

"Attempts have been made in the past in an attempt for him to alter his attitude towards other users, however they have clearly come to naught" - Again you make this claim and again I'm left wondering. Where is the 1-on-fucking-1 discussion. There is a reason I keep harping on this. Public arguing on talk pages does not work. Public arguing in chat does not work. Private, 1-on-1 discussion does work, or is at the least more effective in getting your message across.

"I fully understand you're Kat's friend and want him not to lose his rights, but his replies and responses to this forum simply show off a low amount of level headedness that is not something that is much help as someone who is meant to often remain impartial and professional during debates or warnings" - You have attacked him and put him on full blast with no warning or prior discussion, and immediately this was followed by several users who I bet ALSO never spoke to him directly voicing their support for his rights removal on the basis of poor and biased evidence that, when presented, leaves out a lot of the big picture of every single event. OF COURSE he would get defensive, probably even act a little irrational. It's not surprising in the slightest. I don't expect a robotic lack of emotion from the Crats of the this wiki, I don't know why you seem to.

Additionally, I don't care that Kat is my friend. I have already pointed out that I do think that a lot of the actions he's done have been assholey, sometimes to very severe degrees. However, I do care about the shit process you've taken with creating this forum, as it's a situation I've brought up in the past. There's no reason to take my friendship with Kat into account, just like i'm not taking into account the fact that you guys have constantly argued back and forth for years.

I'd continue, but I've made my point I feel. This forum is absolutely unacceptable. http://i.imgur.com/KUDLq.png 23:09, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the part about me, I want to say that I would have handled it much, much differently if he was not a bureucrat. I was always scared of pulling his ear over things in the chat because of his short temper, just now I decided to hold my own in this, I am fed up with that attitude and that's why I'm in favor of de-sysoping him.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  04:39, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Short temper? When have I ever been short tempered with you besides when you unbanned exacri? I didn't even react angrily to that, i just said that you shouldn't of unbanned him without consulting me about it. I'll admit the ban reason was pretty terrible though. KλT 04:41, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

You probably won't believe me and will think that I'm playing the victim, but I have some pretty bad anxiety issues (I take medication and all) and I irrationally feared you. Because of how self confident you are and from what I've seen, plus you have always been pretty straight-forward. I decided to stand up about now because I don't approve of how you have been handling things recently.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  04:47, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I contributed to any sort of anxiety, it wasn't my intention at all. KλT 05:39, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, Kat. It's not your fault.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  05:47, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Damac and Cod4. This really isn't a good progression of events. KAT is a great friend, and even I can admit that his behavior and attitude can get a bit annoying. However, taking away the rights of someone for a small amount of things not even done constantly through the year is a bit overboard. At the least, he should have to apologize to Exacri and YL. At the most, a reprimand and some other form of punishment that doesn't include taking away his rights that he obtained for a good amount of work over years (compared to the combined couple of hours or, at the most, days that he has caused trouble). I'm sorry, but the amount of good Kat has done the wiki far outweighs a few situations of bad behavior. DremYolLok  02:55, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I have had other complaints from Inkie Twig between the talk page incident and now. Sadly sicne he sent the logs and such like in Steam I have lost them. These are all actions we should not expect from a user like this. Not this common, and not over this sort of scale of time. I can understand the occasional minor thing now and again, but this has been made after nearly a year or two of consistent and similar complaints. So I do personally feel that his rights have bben brought in to question as many of these complaints somehow feature DBAD, UTP or Power Abuse. And if apologies are rendered, it would be for more users than simply Exacri and YL.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

08:27, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

We've come to the point where a joke ban is power abuse. No words. KλT 09:36, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we were already at that point. It's clearly written on COD:CHAT ""Joke" bans are not allowed under any circumstances.".

Crazy sam10 • Talk

10:22, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

... KλT 18:03, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that this went from myself getting worked up over a stupid joke that I should've handled differently, to KAT getting a de-crat forum. This is not the way to do this. Yes, he was very unnecessarily harsh. But that's no grounds for him to lose his rights. He admitted it himself, he should've handled it differently. But the good he's done for the wiki over the course of nearly five years is so much greater than his past heated problems. No, no, and just no. Madnessfan34537 http://i.imgur.com/lL5xjBH.png} 03:11, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Well to be honest, his reactions to a forum I made to address the problem did not help. I did not want to bring particular users in to the discussion. I merely wanted to discuss what had happened, deal with the cause and move on so it wouldn't happen again in hopes of avoiding something like this. It was Kat's own remarks on said forum that acted as the catalyst for this forum. If Kat had not turned the forum in to a tirade of insults based on his own view on joke kicks, then it likely would not have escalated this far. I did not want it to escalate, and despite Kat claiming I hate his guts, I don't (which is also greatly hurt my feelings), however his attack on myself and FireBird on that forum, completely unprovoked simply to me showcased a final straw in his level of aggression.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

08:27, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

what about your equal and opposing aggression to my aggression? KλT 19:31, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

So is the wiki a safe-space for tumblr now? You won't escape people saying stuff you don't like by making a public example of them like this, if anything it causes more drama and puts the person in question in a corner where they are no longer able to act in ways they otherwise might have. I really don't think I need to remind everybody this is the internet, people are going to say and do stupid shit because they have anonymity, and wiki staff are no exception. I'm not vouching for bad behaviour, and maybe there is an issue here; but singling out one person in an open forum is both humiliating and un-professional. So in addition to what CoD4 and Damac and the likes have said above me: this forum is stupid, should be deleted, and a separate topic about defining behavioural rules should be brought up. Once that is done we can maybe try this again, but with more reason that "Kat is a bully". http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 20:13, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is the point we came to regarding Kat's behaviour. I think this forum is legitimate because his attitude warrants critisism and is not example of what the community wants from an admin. There are enough witnesses and proof of his unprofessionalism and disrespect regarding the community and the wiki as a whole. This forum is not stupid, this is a subject the community found a need to discuss. And if your suggested forum about defining behavioural rules came to exist, Kat would be subject to the same criticism we find in this one, as his attitude should not be tolerated any further, as per UTP and DBAD. If it sounds like one side is greater than the other it's how the community is divided about this issue. And this wiki cannot be compared to a "safe-place for tumblr" since all users are vulnerable to critics as long as the supporting side has enough proof and memory of his misbehaving - which is exacty what is happening.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  21:08, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

aka lynch mob mentality is ok. KλT 21:23, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Not saying that you are, but you can't prove or say we are "lynching" you  for the sake of it. This is how you feel about it, it's not the truth. The truth is that you are getting heavy opposition against your behaviour. There is no conspiracy behind it. Just logic.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  21:35, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

You use the term "the truth" like it means something in this forum. Also logic? If logic was being used you'd see this is nothing more than an argument between two bitter people who dislike one another. I'm willing to admit that. KλT 21:41, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

It's not. There are other users posting their opinions on this. I think your grudge against Sam blinded you from the rest of the case. There is enough evidence that you are indeed not suited to be a sysop, and that is the truth that I support. My opinion also matters.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  21:52, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

This is what I meant by backing him into a corner. You have put Kat in a position where he can't do much, and what he does do is immediately used against him. Like I said, there could very well be an issue here, but you and Sam decided to name names rather than making a general forum about the topic of Sysop behavioral expectations, which in my mind is attacking Kat in a similar fashion to how he did so to others. This forum thread is nothing more than a testament to that. As I said in my original point, we should forget about this forum, and make a new one where we can decide what is and isn't acceptable standard for a sysop/B-crat, and then you can put Kat on your trial, but this isn't a trial, it's a mob. http://i.imgur.com/E2uiO5T.png Smilular^Talk http://i.imgur.com/KNXWYe1.png 22:59, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a mob lynch of any kind. If you think I'm cornering him it's because I am debunking his arguments to the point he can't post solid ones anymore, which further proves my side. He CAN defend himself. And he's not being successful at it so far, even though there are arguments from other users in his defense.. A second forum would be the exact same. Same arguments, same responses, there is truly no point for it. The only issue here is the one being discussed. This forum exists and it is working the way it should.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  23:19, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Did this not just happen?
http://i.imgur.com/rVX5Taz.png
KλT 23:25, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

What about it? I only explained to you why I didn't act on your behaviour before.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  23:40, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Well in that image you're saying that due to your irrational fear of me you never bothered to contact me about issues that you had. I don't exactly know how that's my fault. If you contacted me in the first place I could've worked on it, instead of this radio silence until the point sam is angry enough to decrat me. I may have strong worded opinions and i may not be the nicest person from time to time, but you guys are just perpetuating the circle by making this forum. If sam wants to stick to his guns, that's fine. But I still think this whole thing is silly. KλT 02:36, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

I said it's not your fault. It was mine alone, and due to your recent conduct I decided to support this forum. Now that the dust has settled a little I think it's cool if there's a more pliable way to decide, but I think it would need you to politely ask for another chance and change your behaviour from there, so it suits the position of a sysop.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  14:58, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

Wow, things have certainly become heated here. Although I have not been active here for a long time, I feel like we have lost our sense of direction as a community. First, we must understand that there should be room for fun here. When we really started to boom, we still used IRC. On IRC, there was constant joking around, joke kicks, joke bans, you name it. You cannot expect to develop a community by being completely strict. Secondly, I feel as if though this forum has certainly been pushed too quickly. Sam, with all due respect, I do recall the animosity that existed (and still appears to exist) between you and kat. I certainly feel like there is (to a certain degree) a conflict of interest in this thread. From what I have seen, not only was this thread made a little too quickly, but the vote was definitely done too quickly. There should be a few days of substantial discussion before voting to desysop someone. Desysoping is a very serious matter, and we as a community have an obligation to make sure that we have seen both sides of the story, as well as outside perspectives, before voting (Yes, I am aware that this has not been the precedent before, but this is how things should be run). On the other hand, kat, you should understand that even thought it may not be your intention, you evidently are coming across as rude to several people. Instead of a desysop thread, I propose a private resolution of the issue that not only ensures a lasting peace, but a just and lasting peace.

PS:Before anyone asks, I was not asked to make this by any user, this has been done on my own accord. But this will probably get buried anyways.

Pierogi^Talk 04:29, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Adjourn for the Holidays

Let's adjourn this for the holidays. This isn't the right time for this kind of forum, this a time when we could be celebrating everyone's contributions and presence on the website. Edits can be made to this page after 00:00 January 2nd 2016 UTC, if anyone still wants to even continue this. Please hold off editing this forum until then. Thank you.      05:38, December 25, 2015 (UTC)

Restarting

So, now that the adjourn period is over, and hopefully everyone has had time to calm down and reflect, we can restart the conversation here. So the first thing to consider is should we even continue with this?

Metl^Talk 12:24, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

It was stopped due to it being holiday. I didn't start this due to grudge or joke. Since it has not come to an official vote after discussion yet, than yes, it should be continued.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

12:57, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Actually, something I wanted to state after I saw it brought up, however Callofduty put us on the holiday lock so I didn't want to break it , even if it was just a clarification. This forum was made by me purely due to behaviour I'd both witnessed and experienced first hand. This is an issue that goes back some time as shown in the anecdotes I've used. I made this forum solely on those merits. Whilst it is known there have been clashes in the past, more times than not, they are for similar reasoning, behaviour related. As such, I hugely wish to stress that this forum was made purely based on the behaviour of Kat and NOT for any personal reasons, in fact I've let some issues slide in the past because of I felt he was my friend and just left it to "Kat is kat, no need to say anything". I dislike his behaviour, not him. As such, I don't want people trying to call grudge as some kind of forum buster, because that is not the case. I wrote this forum, and have responded, with informed points. Not personal chagrin. Personally, I'd like to see Kat remain, and work on issues raised so that he can re-earn the rights in question, I had no intention of doing anything aside from that. I just wanted to clarify that now, after the holiday cooldown period because it's a point that I've felt has not changed in that time. But again, to hugely clarify, I dislike Kat's behaviour as a Sysop not him himself.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

18:07, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

If you dislike my behaviour than you dislike me dude, I am who I am. I'm not sure I really see your informed points either man. I'll do now what I should have done at the start of the forum instead of having a tantrum when I saw all of your buddies throwing in blind support.

So let's go bud.

"The most recent event has been the current forum regarding joke kicks, where his aggression has lead to nothing more than a tirade of insults against myself, and despite vocally stating my discomfort, has refused to offer an apology, or even attempt a subject change, despite being the instigator of these insults."

"tirade of insults"

Alright so, I'll apologize for my original comments on that forum. I obviously did go pretty far with that opening line but, in my defense, I just don't think that forum is worth being made. I've mentioned previously that I should've went about that better, fair enough. Sorry for calling your perception flawed and whatnot, but, I still think the points I made in that forum have merit. Specifically your point on what is and isn't childish: I know for a fact that users have come to admins in the past to complain about MLP, Anime, etc, being so heavily featured around the wiki. I mean, if you do want to get into the semantics of what makes something childish those do fit the bill. And I hardly think anyone here wants to ban those. I do admit I came off as an angry douche in that thread. I was probably having a bad day, so apologies bro. But me pointing out that MLP is childish wasn't an insult directed at anyone specifically, it's just a point I was trying to make.

"I have also been given a chat log seen here of Kat bullying fellow user YellowLucario, possibly the lines of most note are "1:07 FireBird- better not do it again, i guess, he's not pleased / 1:07 KATANAGOD tough tits don't enter the ring if you plan on getting offended" clealy showing another time of disdain towards upsetting another user."

Has anyone in this forum actually read this chat log? I admit I was a dick to YL but I don't think calling him Terry the Terror once is grounds for rights removal. I admitted I went too far near the end but he did kind of set himself up by calling sactage "sucktage" tbh. I won't call him by name if he doesn't want me too in the future however.

"Past evidence has been witnessed on his talk page after he created a fake de-sysop forum for Madnessfan34537 which was later deleted as the forum was placed on the War Room (like a real one would) on a completely normal day (so not April Fools or anything). He once again shows clear aggression to the multiple users telling him what he did wrong, and simply ends the matter with a Vault Boy thumbs up image to simply dismiss the entire thing."

"There's a severe difference between a joke and what you did. Firstly, making a desysop forum is something we should save for serious matters, maybe if it was on April 1st and in the watercooler, fair enough. But this wasn't. You posted it in the middle of August in the War Room. So it's a serious matter risen in our forum space for serious issues. When I first saw it, I thought something had in fact happened, when I saw it was joke I was only relieved in the essence that Madnessfan had in fact not done anything wrong, but aside from that the whole thing was completely unnecessary. And to make things worse, when we did shut the forum down, because it was wholly unneeded, you tried to keep the forum going. I am more than willing to accept something as a joke, but an instance like this is something that is a serious matter and while you may say I lack a sense of humour you;re on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, you take jokes way too far. Crazy sam10 • Talk Personal Crazy sam10 21:39, August 28, 2014 (UTC)"

It was a joke man. A funny one too, a bunch of people got a kick out of it, and were actively editing the forum. Sactage shut the forum down. I re-opened it because me and sactage are buddies and he doesn't care at all. But you, you didn't like it. As you clearly stated. You also go onto say in this forum that I was told by "Multiple users" which consisted of both you and MLG. My response to your post was:

"its not a serious matter, the only reason it is now is because you've made it an issue. Also, I never said you lacked a sense of humor, i just said you need to lighten up and not take the wiki so damn seriously. I really don't see the big deal, and its just another case of you making a mountain out of molehill. KλT 21:51, August 28, 2014 (UTC)"

I'm seeing a theme in all of our discussions honestly. You don't like my jokes, you think they're awful. OK. I disagreed passionately. But somehow this translates to power abuse when I continue to disagree with you?

Kyle came in in that thread as well to voice his opinion, in support. I also remember a few other users agreeing with me at the time that it wasn't really a big deal. Cause it isn't bruh. It was a joke forum. Runescape wiki has them all the time and nobody has a heart attack. I know COD:NOT. But still.

"I should probably be staying out of this, but I have to agree with Kat a bit. It was just a light-hearted joke and no one really had a problem with it until now. Sam, I do think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion. If it were any other time with Kat, I might agree. But even Madness didn't really care, and joined in on it. If you want my opinion, I think this should all be dropped and forgotten. Kylet357 · talk 07:17, August 29, 2014 (UTC)"

I don't think this translates at all to me showing clear aggression after "multiple" people telling me what I supposedly did wrong. This was you disagreeing with me and then me disagreeing with you. It was an argument. Also you didn't happen to link the actual thread. Look at that, people having fun!

"He often attacks those that attempt to stop anything he considers a joke when other do not. Stating things such as people having a "warped view on reality" and telling those that warn him "just because you think you can berate me for an immature joke doesn't give you the right to call me a shitter, please read up on our policies on being a dick", which can seem hypacritical when looking at the above logs as well as the following image of him naming everyone here "Dickheads", and then in another forum calling us all "elitist" which frankly seems to contradict itself as he seems to be at one point claiming he's better than us by calling us "Dickheads" and then in another claims we act above him."

Again, that joke forum wanted to be continued by multiple people. I said you had a warped view on reality in the joke kick thread, fair enough. Also that quote from me is nicely cherry picked. How about you show the whole thing?

http://i.imgur.com/8JR9RGm.png

He called me a shitter. I've never called you guys cunts in that thread, I said lighten up a thousand times. I think that's a justified response. Again, this is you and MLG who thought the forum was a big deal. You don't mention others who were involved, or any context for anything. Hence me ranting earlier about everything being cherry picked.

http://puu.sh/m5eX5/d85f487e94.png

Again. No context given for this screenshot. If you had actually, idk, linked the logs you would've seen me and a bunch of users discussing why the chat is so dead. Yes, I believe people are dismissive, rude, and sometimes do act like elitist dickheads to new users because they've simply been here longer. I'm blunt, I should've probably of said that differently, but whatever. We have a policy called Don't be a dick. I thought the language wouldn't be too much of a debated factor. And where do I claim to be better than anyone? I'm pretty self aware man. I'm an ass sometimes too, everyone is. It's not a big deal.

"Furthermore, on the topic of "reading up on our policies", some time ago we had another forum regarding joke kicks and bans. The outcome of the forum was that joke bans were power abuse and ""Joke" bans are not allowed under any circumstances." was added to COD:CHAT. However a few days ago, 2 users (Madnessfan34537 and Feargm) were banned from chat with the reasoning of "( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ", which were clearly joke bans. Like a bit of an idiot I decided to let the matter slide as I believed it would be a one-off joke and that his attitude would return to normal."

OK fair game here, I totally broke our rules, I will check myself into the nearest jailhouse. I did joke ban both fear and madness, they were OK with it. Since joke bans are now being discussed in that Joke kick forum, I don't think this really holds up now. Also if you had an issue, WHY DIDN'T YOU MESSAGE ME ABOUT IT. Damac does raise excellent points in this forum. I haven't been contacted on all of these recent issues, how am I supposed to change if nobody tells me to knock it off? I suppose this decrat forum did that though so... yay communication?

"Also, while not powerful enough reason on it's own to warrant a desysop forum, Kat's wiki activity has been waning, despite stating "Nevermind the fact that a community blog hasn't been published in close to a month. Editor count hasn't been lower since 2010, Community itself is slowly dying. The chat may as well be dead 80% of the time. But Obviously the problem is joke kicks, that'll certainly help the wiki out! Of all the issues, it's joke kicks that need to be discussed. Jesus christ." in response to myself on the forum, despite his own personal contributions to the Wiki itself waning, likely showing a clear disinterest to wanting to be here, which may also explain why his behaviour is so poor. His last edit to a mainspace article was in Febuary, and his last edit to a forum aside from this one and the joke kick one was July. Such a large gap in mainspace editing is a worry for someone of his position. While this would mean nothing on its own as shown by our list of inactive sysops, paired with his behaviour does seem to show that despite his arguments that we're the ones not helping the wiki, his contributions have been non-existent, showcasing likely that he has no desire to even be here any longer. In fact, his comment "But do whatever you want, if you guys want to run the wiki into the ground and make it a PC ceramic gallery go ahead." seems to more or less confirm this, as it does seem as though he has no real interest in being here."

Alright, I'll be honest. This whole paragraph just pisses me off. It's just. It's just really underhanded dude. How. ON EARTH. Does my activity levels coincide with me having less interest in the wiki? Where do you get that lofty claim from? It certainly isn't how I feel. Are you saying that I can't comment on the wiki's decline unless I have hundreds of edits a month? I don't need to edit anything to have eyeballs to just look at my metrics / the amount of users who have left us. How is this even in this forum? You're grasping at straws in this paragraph. If you want to talk about gaps in mainspace edits being worrying, well, how about you start de adminning and decratting all of our inactive admins?

"his contributions have been non-existent, showcasing likely that he has no desire to even be here any longer."

I'm sorry dude that is just bullshit. Bull. Shit.

Also that last sentence at the end does definitely seem rude, apologies for that. Again, I really ought'a go about writing these things better. I'll work on it in the future. I don't think we should treat breaking a few guidelines as a capital offense on this wiki. Sure, I go too far sometimes. I admit it. Hell everyone fucks up once in awhile. And I happen to do that a lot. But this forum is basically a rerun of what me and a bunch of other users did to you a long time ago. It's not going to accomplish anything but divide us more, and make us hate each other. We could've avoided all of this conflict and pettiness with an open and well mannered conversation. Which we really should do. I haven't spoken to you outside of petty arguments for 2 years now. Don't you think it's time to just end this? Is this worth it for you? I'm completely willing to admit I've been a cunt, but you have to meet me halfway. Otherwise I'm just leaving. I come here to relax, to have fun. To chat with the friends I've made over 5 years of being here. I've made some great friends. But it was never my intention to make great enemies. Sam, I'm sorry if I've offended ya in the past. I'm passionate against things I disagree with. I like being able to fuck around on the wiki with my friends. I like laughing. I like making silly shit on the wiki, because it's necessary to get a breath of air from the bureaucracy that ends up surrounding us all on here. In a way, this forum definitely made it's point. It was definitely a wake up call. I've realized my mistakes. But, you have to as well, and we need to talk in private about how we both can work towards making a lasting peace. I don't want to argue with you anymore about pointless things. Meet me halfway fam. It's all I ask. KλT 10:29, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

While I'm aware this was largely directed towards Sam, I feel like I'm involved in it at least a little bit: as on the "calling you a shitter" bit, I didn't mean it to be derogatory, but rather as a synonym for the "dick" in "don't be a dick". Anyway, I apologize. The main reason I supported this forum was because I was already hesitant on supporting your RfB after a headbutt with Sam, where you assured me you'd improve on your behavior (passive aggressiveness, sarcastic remarks, seemingly indifferent), and in the joke ban forum - or any other previous discussions - it didn't look like it was much better. I'm not willing to completely erase what I said, but I admit the communication about issues before this forum should have been marginally better and I hope it'll be improved in the future, and I personally have been a tad too harsh on you (we're all humans after all). I don't and didn't mean any of what I said as a personal attack against you. -- laagone ^(talk)  10:58, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

I had honestly forgotten about the whole thing before it was brought up here, no hard feelings at all. KλT 11:00, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

Right, it's a large bit of text. And the one thing I am most happy about is that you have addressed multiple issues that I have raised. But the main point of call is the "how am I supposed to change if nobody tells me to knock it off?", which honestly feels like it's a catch 22. If I take a situation that happened in the past where you test/joke banned a user from chat a few times, I came on to your talk page and calmly stated I didn't like it, I wasn't going to do anything on it, but don't do it again. Instantly instead of a "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" or anything along those lines you immeditally went on the attack about the entire situation and it made the entire situation worse. And then, you did it again a few weeks back, showing that from that discussion you hadn't changed. I mean, the recent joke kick, and now ban, forum was made recently, but those joke bans in question were performed back when it was written down in policy as not meant to happen at all. Most of the time, I'm perfectly happy in things you do, it's just certain situations like those talk page messages, and the recent forum input that have made me really question if it's behaviour fit for that of a b'crat. I mean, you want to say your behaviour is you, and therefore saying I dislike your behaviour is hating you, which is not the case, because there are many elements of your behaviour that I like. But on the flipside, you must know what my behaviour is like, and surely you must know if I dislike something, I'm likely to say something and get at least an amicable response. I mean, as far "how am I supposed to change if nobody tells me to knock it off?" goes, it's hard to do that when attempts at telling you something is wrong have ended in nothing more than retorts about lacking a sense of humour or some kind of quip at someone's mental state (which yes, is how I saw your comment on the forum). And in the case of some users, like FireBird, have found such responses hard to make you approachable. Trust me, whenever there is an issue I do want to approach you and point out the issue, but nearly everytime I have you've responded, with as MLG said above, with either aggression, sarcasm or simply being completly indifferent to the entire thing. In fact, as happy as I am you apologised for your comment on the forum, I did point out the comment had upset me there and then, and instead of apologise then, it just turned into a further tirade only making me more upset, and acting as catalyst for this forum. As such, it does make it hard to believe that simply telling you about issues will cause change when most other evidence shows otherwise. It's very easy to just go "well did you talk to him" and act as though that's a perfect get out of trouble card, but these are issues that have been raised before, and from a professionalism point of view are things a b'crat should likely not be doing. So generally, while the big block of text does look like a step forward, from past actions, I'm still nervous if this does mean any kind of change, or if this is just going to be done for show and then after this you'll still adopt the same reply system to any issue that comes up against you. Overall, I'm just uneasy, regardless of if you want to believe that or not.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

14:17, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

Read what Damac wrote in this forum. Talk page messages do not work. In the future we need to have a live discussion, where we can actively reply to each other. Talk pages notes won't work. And if you look at all of these recent issues, You've never talked to me about them. That's my main point here. Also I hope that you actually read this big block of text. It's all important relevant to your original big block of text. If you don't want to work out our issues and don't want to realize that I'm trying to fix this, I don't know what to do. And at this point, It's not my fault anymore. KλT 19:02, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

I have read it. My point however still being that approaching you is and has been hard. The last time I tried a "live chat" with you, it was with Cod4 because I felt it needed a mediator, because I was worried in how you would reply if given a chance to respond instantly. And despite it being to discuss issues I'd heard and and had about you, it quickly turned in to a huge tirade of issues against me, which solved nothing in the end, because I witnessed very little change. Namely because you did the same thing, you turned your issues in to our issues, because apparently we're to blame for getting upset by your behaviour because we're the ones that lack the sense of humour or something. Also, you can't honestly think that simply giving one-off apologies gets you off the hook for things. As much as I do appreciate the apologies given in the above text, I don't see how by giving that suddenly turns this in to "not your fault". I mean, it's not just this response, you seemed to bring up an apology with FireBird- along with "Did this not just happen?", as if you felt the apology would force him to change his stance on the entire forum. It is nice to see that your behaviour is changing in some areas, but in others it still seems to be very much the same.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

19:21, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

"I have read it. My point however still being that approaching you is and has been hard. The last time I tried a "live chat" with you, it was with Cod4 because I felt it needed a mediator, because I was worried in how you would reply if given a chance to respond instantly."

That was 2 years ago. It's the current year. I'm not going to tell you off today for telling me not to joke ban someone. These are completely different situations.

"And despite it being to discuss issues I'd heard and and had about you, it quickly turned in to a huge tirade of issues against me, which solved nothing in the end, because I witnessed very little change.

That chat was made to deal with OUR issues. Not your issues against me. It didn't solve anything because you're not willing to accept that part of the blame was with you. It takes two.

"Namely because you did the same thing, you turned your issues in to our issues, because apparently we're to blame for getting upset by your behaviour because we're the ones that lack the sense of humour or something. Also, you can't honestly think that simply giving one-off apologies gets you off the hook for things."

So you've been saying this whole forum that I never apologize for anything, yet when I do. You don't think it solves anything. Alright. Don't know what I'm supposed to do. And yes, It is your issue when you feel the need to decrat me over issues you've never once brought up to my attention. I can't read minds, much less read minds of someone who lives a couple continents away from me. And could you stop bringing up issues from 2 years ago?

" As much as I do appreciate the apologies given in the above text, I don't see how by giving that suddenly turns this in to "not your fault"."

What happens next isn't my fault because you refuse to admit your mistakes, you refuse to see where I'm coming from. You're just refusing to give up this forum which I've shown above does not have any foundation to get my rights removed.

"I mean, it's not just this response, you seemed to bring up an apology with FireBird- along with "Did this not just happen?", as if you felt the apology would force him to change his stance on the entire forum."

He admitted he has an irrational fear of me, something that is fueled by his own personal issues. I can't control that. That is not my fault. That's not a fair reason to not talk to me about issues they might have. I'm in the dark here, did you not read my response to his?

"It is nice to see that your behaviour is changing in some areas, but in others it still seems to be very much the same. "

... KλT 19:50, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

"you refuse to admit your mistakes" - Again. This is a forum regarding your sysop rights, and yet you've spun this in to "my mistakes". If you feel you need to blame me for this forum, then I'm honestly put back in the same mindset I was in at the beginning of this forum.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:11, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall. I'm not blaming you for this forum, I've admitted my part in it. Jesus, I wasn't even talking about that forum in that quote, I was talking about the chat cod4 had to mediate. KλT 20:16, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well you used that as response to "As much as I do appreciate the apologies given in the above text, I don't see how by giving that suddenly turns this in to "not your fault"." which was a quote directly related to this forum. Also, I was lead to believe that Skype conversation was set up solely so I could talk to you.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:19, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was for both of us to sort our shit out. Lay our issues on the table, etc. KλT 20:22, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

Also just look at this and then read this forum. KλT 23:52, January 3, 2016 (UTC)

I don't hold a stance on this forum nor do I intend to, however I'd like to point out that should KATANAGOD lose their admin rights (and not bureaucrat), it would imply that they may also have to forfeit their CheckUser rights as per the CheckUser help page: "In a limited number of cases, some local administrators also have been given CheckUser rights". – Ozuzanna 20:00, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

He also holds VSTF rights. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough of a loophole for those rights to remain.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

20:36, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify as to what you mean in the above statement, Sam? I don't quite understand what you posted. User:Sactage/s.js 20:45, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Namely, it just means if this forum were to pass and Kat lose all rights, then I still feel him holding VSTF rights would be enough for him to be a trusted CU user.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

21:14, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

If I'm trusted enough to keep my checkuser rights, how on earth am I not trusted enough to retain my bureaucrat/sysop rights? Checkuser is a tool that can be abused a lot more than either of those. KλT 21:22, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kat here; if he can't be trusted to positively reflect and maintain the wiki with sysop rights, why should he be trusted with CU rights (a right which only three long standing 'crats and Kat have)? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 21:46, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Because Sysop rights are a face for the community, and how you act is essentially a reflection on the whole wiki. Checkuser rights are a different type of user right that don't reflect the whole wiki. Furthermore, I feel your attitude hasn't showcased any abuse of the Checkuser rights, only issues with behaviour and the ban system. Also, I simply lack any evidence to even put forward losing that right.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

21:26, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

You lack evidence to remove my administrator rights/bureaucratic rights as well. I'm sorry but two instances of me being a dick in chat + logs from two years ago + a forum I apologized for are not grounds to remove either set of tools. I haven't abused either. I promised to work on my attitude, and i'd like to think my behaviour post-break shows it. Sysop rights are tools to help users edit and maintain the wiki. They're not reflections of the community, they're tools. The ban system is currently being discussed as well, as I've stated in my post debunking this whole thing. I haven't defaced anything on the wiki, I insulted a user, and after seeing how I've been a dick due to you (for the first time this year/last year, mind you) pointing out my behaviour, I'm trying to change. But seriously, if you think I can't be trusted with the powers to block/ban people on chat, having checkuser rights in the first place is pointless. KλT 21:40, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

End vote

I more or less feel that nothing more can be gained from talking really. We've all reached our end area and I think it's time to close this forum. Now since my own view has changed, I'm going to offer up 3 options instead of just a "keep rights" and "lose rights", although the other option is essential just a demotion and puts Kat back to admin rights. Since after the break I've felt somewhat conflicted, I'll be withholding my vote for short while as I fully consider which option I feel is best and I can feel I can stand behind.

So, it's essentially Option 1: Kat keeps all rights, Option 2: Kat loses b'crat rights only or option 3 where Kat loses all rights.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

21:52, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Kat has already demoted himself from crat to sysop, so isn't option 2 meaningless? Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 22:03, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Kat removed all his own rights after this forum started. The vote will just be where he ends up.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

22:06, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

I removed them after seeing the original forum + 7 supports from people associated with sam out of pure anger. Since then I've reflected, and retract/apologize for my tantrum. I should've handled it better but like others have said, what reaction was I supposed to have had? This forum was the first time I was contacted about any concerns from people. KλT 22:07, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

So essentially, if the forum passes with Kat retaining rights, I'll add said rights back myself.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

22:10, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Option 1

Support — I have read through the entirety of the forum, acknowledged both sides of the conflict, and see no reason to remove KAT's rights. Although, KAT, take it with a grain of salt that the joke bans need to stop, if for no other reason than to prevent this issue arising again. SteveHeist (talk) 22:18, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Option 2

Support — While it looks like many people's views were changed by this forum, mine included, I'm still holding my initial opinion. The way I see it, a bureaucrat is someone supposed to be a "role model" and an example - and I don't think Kat's behavior fits the criteria. As I said, it has been brought up before (in the event contrary to this, his RfB), and it hasn't changed much from the related encounter, at least not until the final steps of this forum. I don't mean to neglect Kat's work in the past however, and I have no trouble with him retaining sysop rights as they are less related to this debacle. -- laagone ^(talk)  22:20, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

But how are bureaucrat rights related to this debacle? All the tools do is let you tick boxes. KλT 22:22, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so, but i'm pretty sure the first point raised by MLG is the most valid, about how a 'crat should be a role model of sorts - pretty sure you know that we wouldn't want any user displaying the behaviour that lead to this entire series of events, let alone a 'crat,  right?  LazarouDave  22:45, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but nobody told me that they had any issues with my behaviour until this forum was made, I don't think my RfB from a year ago can be used as evidence that I was warned about my current behaviour. KλT 22:47, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

People did have issues, and at least one person, Sam, had tried to talk to you about them. Regardless, your conduct of recent momory has left its marks, and such isn't one of a bureucrat.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  23:59, January 4, 2016 (UTC)

Where's the logs of sam confronting me about all of these issues? KλT 00:02, January 5, 2016 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above it looks like sam tried to talk with you on skype with CoD4 at one point and he (Sam) did send you talk page messages. You may not think they work, but they are still a legitimte mean of communication.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  00:10, January 5, 2016 (UTC) 

Support — After a change of mind I still see how Kat can still be an asset to the wiki as a sysop. Of course we are humans and we do make mistakes, but in my view, it's possible that what has been shown against him does not warrant a complete demotion - I believe Kat can be more cautious in the future if he still wishes to take responsibility. But still, a bureucrat is supposed to be a "role model", and his recent behaviour does not suit this role.  FireBird-_{Pinkie Pie!}  23:59, January 4, 2016 (UTC)