SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/ToastUltimatum (2): Difference between revisions

SmashWiki:Requests for adminship/ToastUltimatum (2) (edit)

Revision as of 02:26, August 8, 2012

5,253 bytes added , 12 years ago

m

→‎Comments: Toast supporters make me sad, they just strawman you and try to discredit you based on thing irrelevant to the RfA. At least AirCon is actually doing something to try helping, unlike Solar Dragon who just bitches on IRC.

Omega Tyrant

Administrators

16,403

edits

@@ Line 222: / Line 222: @@
 Please link. '''<span style="font-family:AR DESTINE">[[User:Air Conditioner|<span style="color:skyblue">Air</span>]] [[User talk:Air Conditioner|<span style="color:Turquoise">Conditioner</span>]]</span>''' [[File:Accoolx.png|19px]] 19:25, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
 :Tbh, I think OT was just trying to say that they were not the best examples for adminship (at most that they were bad admins). However, I think he worded his original edit summary poorly, and he could have phrased it as something like "PoD and Emmett don't do much of value around here, and fresher admins would be better". Then again, I can't speak for him, so I'll let him post his response. [[User:Mr. Anon|<font color="grey">'''Mr. '''</font><font color="midnightblue">'''Anon'''</font>]][[File:Anon.png|23px|link=Special:Random]][[User talk:Mr. Anon|''<span style="color: black;">talk</span>'']]  00:56, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
-''
+:''"Out of touch" is more of a description than an action. "Dinosaurs" describes them instead of their actions. Besides, PoD might not make much edits, but when someone asks him to use his administrative tools, he does so.''
+:How do you get described as out of touch? By doing actions that show you are. And from what I heard, you have to go through fucking hoops to get in contact with PoD to contact him on Steam. When did it became acceptable to have to contact a supposed active admin on an external site not affiliated with SmashWiki in any form?
+:''Again, PoD might not make much edits, but when he is asked to use his administrative tools, he does so.''
+:Why insist this matter here when it's irrelevant to the RfA? One, an admin shouldn't have to be asked to actually use their tools. Two, it's needlessly difficult to actually get in contact with him. Three, when I was around, he still barely did anything.
+:''Okay. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack '''regardless of the manner in which it is done.''' When in doubt, comment on the article's content '''without referring to its contributor at all.'''" "Disparage" means to "Regard or represent as being of little worth," which I believe you did to PoD and Emmett.''
+:As I explained to Toast, read the guidelines on what a personal attack is actually like. Expressing a negative opinion of a user =/= personal attack. This Wiki does not censor the opinions of users and never will, you are not forbidden from ever directly addressing another user. If I said "Emett and PoD shouldn't be relied on because they're fags", you guys would actually have a case. Saying "Old admins like Emmett and PoD shouldn't be the admins to rely on because they're out of the touch with the community and never help around" is not in any form a personal attack, and using harsher words to convey that opinion does not suddenly make it a personal attack.
+:''While Toast has said vandalism is part of the reason he filed this RfA, is it the main reason? No.''
+:If you think that's the crux of my opposition, actually read what I wrote and don't strawman next time. You also didn't respond to the argument there at all, you are just strawmanned it. Point is, Toast used it (regardless of if "it's the main reason"), when vandalism is nearly nonexistent. As said, that comes off as delusional, and of poor judgment (both negative traits for an admin). Doesn't matter if it's your "main reason" or not, you put something to support your RfA that's based on false or exaggerated pretenses, it reflects badly on you.
+:''Again, vandalism is not the only reason for this RfA.''
+:Again, you strawmanned, didn't respond to the actual argument, and just repeated yourself. Are you really the best Toast has to revive this dying RfA?
+:''Also, SW:NPA claims: "It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user." Calling Curious a deranged individual would almost certainly qualify as a personal attack.''
+:Alright, you're just grasping at straws here. Curious is a really dedicated troll at best, otherwise a deranged individual no matter how you slice it. He's not a user at this point, he's a vandal/spammer/ban evader that was permabanned long ago, and everyone on this Wiki wants to go away for good. My comment was not attacking or threatening Curious, it was describing him for what his actions have shown all of us long ago.
+:You misinterpreted that line horribly. It does not say "you cannot say anything negative about a user and their history, regardless of if that history still applies to them today". If I were to go to BNK and tell him "Your opinions don't matter, we don't need harassers that should of stayed permabanned", that line would actually fucking apply. Describing Curious as deranged in a passing comment for behavior he still exhibits, does not fall under that at all, nor was it actually an attack to begin with.
+:As I said before, we're not "SuperHappySmashWiki" where you can't say anything remotely negative about another user even if they're the most annoying vandal/spammer/ban evader. Also, stop trying to "follow to the letter". It's the spirit that counts, and misconstruing everything written in a policy to make violation claims against another user reflects terribly on you. SW:NPA was written to prevent personal attacks (something you guys keep missing, it has to be an attack on something personal of a user to be a personal attack), not every single remotely negative comment ever made of another user.
+:''Please link.''
+:It's really common knowledge for non newbs that he would call you all sorts of stupid for saying things he didn't agree with. If you really want to insist on arguing this stuff, go through his contributions and find them. I'm not digging through a user's contributions for links on a dispute that's irrelevant to the RfA. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 03:26, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
 <!-- Do NOT make comments below this comment or the ---- below! It is there to separate RfAs if more than one is on the page at a time! -->
 ----
 [[Category:Administration]]