D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/SgtLion (2)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

SgtLion[edit]

Voice your opinion No mark.svg.png Failed.


(1/6/1) 14% Approval; Ended 11:42, 10 December 2018 (MST)

SgtLion has created unnecessary conflict and demonstrated an abject refusal to follow the policies of D&D Wiki. Furthermore, he behaved very immaturely when confronted with the fact that he, along with other users, were in violation of our policies. Given his actions and his behavior, he is no longer suitable to be the "face" of the wiki and for the time being should be removed from adminship.

Candidates Prelude
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list on Wikipedia before answering.
A:
2. Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:


Discussion

  • I'm going to need evidence of his actions before I decide. Personally, I feel that policy exceptions should be made when appropriate so I wouldn't vote against him based off of that alone (unless it was particularly bad, but I doubt it), but it's the immature behavior that gives me pause. Varkarrus 142.55.0.18 19:48, 6 December 2018 (MST)
    • Quick elaboration for the hell of it: when I say "policy exceptions should be made when appropriate," Geodude locking this RFA despite not being a bureaucrat is a perfect example. Not sarge's sabotage.
I disagree. It is this cutting corners and making exceptions that is a slippery slope where we slowly lose ourselves in what we should do and shouldn't do, and if I'm not mistaken it contributed to what frustrated SgtLion to the point they took such extreme measures. If RfAs last a week, then let it last a week. If you aren't a bureaucrat, ask to be one or ask one to help you if there is something to be done. It may not make the most sense but by golly discuss it then! And if you aren't getting feedback then do something.
sigh can't even give him the week of an RfA like every one else. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2018 (MST)
I changed his user rights, so this is a formality. Totally acceptable. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2018 (MST)

Support

  • Everyone makes mistakes, and policies can be very difficult to understand. Just because SgtLion misunderstood the warning and behavioral policies, and reacted irrationally as a result, does not mean to me that he is unbecoming as an admin. Yes, it's better to think through all of your actions, but we are all humans and I don't think that SgtLion's recent actions are in any way outside of the tolerance bounds that we expect from one another. This is my take on his recent actions, and I'm not even mentioning his exceptional track record on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2018 (MST)
  • Desysopping SgtLion because of this one incident feels extreme. SgtLion has never given me reason to distrust his ability to administrate responsibly. He might have acted less than impeccably in this one instance, but everyone gets hot under the collar sometimes. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:19, 6 December 2018 (MST)
  • I have seen other admins do worse things for worse reasons than SgtLion. I, of course, would never be so underhanded, but I think it's wrong to fault SgtLion for being so when others have done more damage to their fellow users than SgtLion ever did. And I don't want to hear the excuse of, "just because other users didn't get warned doesn't mean what he did was right!" What'd he really do? Blocked the connections of 3 users that he believed had broken policy, abused their adminship and been a toxic and deleterious presence on D&D Wiki? Users who — in SgtLion's opinion — selectively enforced "policy" (I use that term loosely, as I've seen others do recently) or had been allowed to engage in inappropriate behavior on D&D Wiki. Under the circumstances, I think that SgtLion's actions were justified, much less that they aren't deserving of demotion. I've seen current admins ban users without going through the warning policy and then accuse me of violating warning policy. And even when it's brought up — not ignored, as some would tell you — those admins are absolved of wrongdoing. So, considering the precedent of administrative conduct, I'm inclined to support SgtLion's actions, not because I agree with those actions, but because it's been exhibited to me that they are appropriate on D&D Wiki.
Suffice it to say, I would not, and will not, abuse the "trust" that others have in me, regardless of the results of this RfA. I only wanted to provide the full context for why I think SgtLion should remain an admin under the circumstances of the allegations against him. (I am, of course, ignoring Quincy's initial proposal for demotion, which I think merits Quincy's own RfA in itself. And that's just my own opinion of Quincy's nomination, stated to provide additional context regarding my opinion on SgtLion's RfA prior to his actions being brought to light.)--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2018 (MST)
Considering he banned himself I don't think he'd agree. Varkarrus (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2018 (MST)
You don't think he'd agree with what? As someone SgtLion likes and trusts, I am privy to his motivations more so than others here, so perhaps I can confirm or deny any conjecture?--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2018 (MST)
Wait, just to be clear, the selective policy enforcement you're talking about is the event (of which I have no knowledge of) that prompted Quincy to start the RFA in the first place? or is it the more recent thing that happened where it turned out he modified server code without telling anyone to prevent me, geodude, and CL from accessing the site? Varkarrus (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2018 (MST)
SgtLion was not granted backend access to hide code targeted at specific users for which there was no consensus reached, and no one was asked about. D&D Wiki is an open environment, not what you are defending. I am shocked that as an admin, you are once again defending going against the core principle of consensus. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2018 (MST)
SgtLion was doing what he thought was right, and whilst I'm not saying I agree with his particular actions, I agree with his motivations. He stopped users from accessing D&D Wiki, but that's an administrative right, and SgtLion knew you wouldn't let him do it through administrative channels, so he took the back way to get it done. Like I said, other administrators (whom I won't name because I suspect you'd turn that as abusive language) have already gone against the core principle of consensus. In the past week, I've seen administrators go against consensus that you confirmed. But I digress; I'm just shouting repeatedly at a brick wall, at this point. I know SgtLion is getting demoted, and I've said my piece on that. Please don't bother me with a reply.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2018 (MST)
What he did is break the promises that D&D Wiki strives to grant all it's users. No, we are not a dictatorship. We are transparent, we don't use underhanded methods of power, and we are responsible. All of these things, are things which SgtLion are no longer. It's an abuse of his powers, and trying to defend this really demonstrates a misunderstanding of our values. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Oppose

  • Per above. Quincy (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2018 (MST)
  • Based off of the recent drama which he has created for himself, SgtLion sabotaged a few user accounts who he and GamerAim thought were "toxic". These user accounts could hardly edit pages or browse the wiki anymore. Since he banned himself SgtLion has lost his backend privileges. Knowingly, he tried to hide his backend sabotage from Blue Dragon. Here is what he did. People change, and with this behavior an adminship position is not fitting for SgtLion. A classic example of how a great person made some very bad choices. I will never again be able to consider SgtLion to be the upstanding user he was. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2018 (MST)
  • With the revelation that my and other users' recent connection issues were caused by SgtLion's abuse of his backend privileges, I am changing my vote to oppose. Effectively permabanning other users from the site because of personal disagreements is unconscionable. I do my best to assume good faith, but I just don't see a legitimate reason to do this. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:07, 8 December 2018 (MST)
  • I was initially going to voice my support, as I have never experienced nor heard anything bad from SgtLion, professionally. In the light of the revelation outlined above, I can only express how petty I find this attempt at silencing your fellow users. I can't give you anything but an oppose. ConcealedWife (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2018 (MST)
  • While there are a few things that can be said about this kind of malicious behaviour, I will abstain from commenting on them. Instead, I hope you, SgtLion, can find it in yourself to let go of the poison you hold in your heart and return to the kind person you once were. Needless to say, I do not find SgtLion to be an acceptable "face of the wiki" any longer. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2018 (MST)
Please do not accuse other users of holding poison in their hearts or tell them what to feel about being "poisoned." These are inappropriate comments for an RfA, especially comments directed at a user who you know doesn't want you to talk to him. Please don't argue with me on this; just respect that SgtLion doesn't want your — in his opinion — sarcastic, smarmy or otherwise passive-aggressive comments. If you won't take my word for it, I'm certain I can convince SgtLion to reply to you here confirming what I'm saying.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2018 (MST)
I agree that CL's "poison" comment is inappropriate. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 20:11, 8 December 2018 (MST)
It's actually a metaphor for what destroying user's access to D&D Wiki is like. So, no, it's a great comment. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2018 (MST)
No, I agree that the metaphor of appropriate, as CL was one of the users who SgtLion felt was poisoning D&D Wiki and his own enjoyment of it. I just don't think it's appropriate for an administrator to refer to another user like that, when that user doesn't want to interact with CL. But you do you, GD :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2018 (MST)
So, why do you blame me for something I cannot even understand? If I was blocked from accessing a site, without any transparency like a dictator made a decision, and I learned who did it, I would agree that they have some "poison in their hearts". There are great historical examples of people who have exposed dictatorships, but I don't need to explain my reasons to you since you will just turn the situation around to some new take of yours. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Neutral

  • I adamantly, fervently, most certainly support SgtLion’s RfA. An inviduals overreaction to a situation is hardly reason to flip the tables on them. Mr. Lion’s behavior wasn’t even egregious or gross, and the self ban is merely an act to remove oneself from a situation to avoid doing something that would actually require a warning. SgtLion didn’t realize they had violated policy!! Multiple users were under the guise something was okay! Just when I think I’ve seen it all, one of the wiki’s most upstanding, helpful, users is up for sysop removal. I think this offends me. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2018 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors