SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Smorekingxg456 (2)

I'm starting to get the feeling that a number of users here don't know what they're talking about. Smoreking wrote in his candidate statement that he socked- why are people just now realizing it? Did you not read the candidate statement or something? (This only applies to certain users- you should know who you are.)
@ Solar Dragon specifically, SZL hasn't been really used since May (edits in July don't count, they were just confirming the relationship). So I'm kind of unclear on what you mean when you say "but you need to stop using multiple accounts."
Note that this has nothing to do with people's personal feelings on sockpuppetry- I'm just kind of unclear on how a couple people are so oblivious. Shadowcrest 15:45, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The conversation got a bit confusing for me to understand. I have undid my move now that I understand properly. ☆The Solar Dragon ^(talk)☆ 15:52, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Resolution

I passed the RfA because:

1. Everything I said in my support vote and a couple others' votes also.
2. Support was almost unanimous, with only Semicolon and Clarinet Hawk opposing (Wartroll does not count) and RAN in neutral (who was still leaning toward support). I feel that a pass is what the community would have done in my place.
3. Even if my own personal feelings about sockpuppetry were not opposing C.Hawk's and Semicolon's personal views, I still would have passed.
   1. There was obvious intent to improve the wiki.
   2. It was months ago.

Shadowcrest 19:29, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Obvious intent to improve the wiki? To whom? I believe it was obvious intent to serve himself. By his own admission, he considered his own conduct unfit to improve the wiki, the creation of a sockpuppet being the consequent rather than the antecedent. If he had thought himself worthy, he would not have had to go under a different name to have a presumed unblemished reputation. The obvious intent was to improve his own standing, not the wiki. I thought SZL was trollish at times, and his 'improvements' went nowhere. Smoreking abused sockpuppets. It doesn't matter what his intentions were, end of story. I'm pretty sure 13375poolR thinks he's improving the wiki with every edit. Quoth the character page vandal, reverting a revert of one of his tags: "I liked the page better when it said that." Clearly, intent is a worthless measure. Length of time doesn't matter, and he showed no remorse, and showed, frankly, stupidity and even worse judgment to go ahead and admit that it was him. Smoreking should consider his RfA passed but pending appeal. We are going to have a chat about this. Semicolon (talk) 04:09, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

1/10.

SZL made a number of edits that show either above average understanding or desire to improve the wiki. Are you suggesting that he told his friends to stop using the wiki as a chatroom or commented on policies because he wanted to benefit himself? I'm dying to hear the reasoning behind that one.

He wasn't looking for an unblemished reputation on the wiki. He just didn't want to damage his friendships. I dunno when the last time you told your friends to STFU was, but it generally doesn't go over well. So he told his friends to gtfo via a sock. The only results I am seeing from such an action is that he helped the chatterboxes to find another site to chat on. What negatives are you so focused on that I'm missing?

"Intent is a worthless measure." WTF? So if I told you that I only wanted bureaucrat to run rogue with the wiki and abuse my powers out the ass, you'd be fine with it because I haven't done it yet? lol.

He made a mistake and admitted it. Why are you criticizing his admittance like he just told you he's the devil?

"Passed but pending appeal." That's pretty big talk- where was your successful RfB? In case you missed it, one admin and one bureaucrat opposed, and one bureaucrat, 3 admins, and 7 users supported. Argue if you wish, but cut the threats please. Shadowcrest 15:50, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

You can be surprisingly dense sometimes. Clearly, he made the sock to benefit himself. Whether that benefit was to 'not offend his friends' (where the desire was so that he didn't have to damage those relationships thereby avoid personal grief at the loss of those friends) or to 'comment on policies' (so he could be seen as a srs bznz user in his own words) the purpose was for his own benefit.

Now Shadowcrest, come on. This is simple reasoning here; why would he create a sock? What are the 2 reasons people create socks? One is to vandalize. The other is to get another voice in on things. People don't create socks in order to have two identical identities. He wanted SZL, as he said in his own words, so that he could mean serious business. This means that he does not perceive his main account as having been serious business in the past. It was that past he wished to erase by creating a new sock: a fresh new identity that could be serious, instead of the opposite which he had been before. That is intuitively obvious, and your failure to grasp it is just stunning.

Now here's another problem I have. Telling your friends to stfu when they need to is never fun. But guess what? We all have to do it sometimes, and it requires a special quality. It's called having courage. Having courage to stand up to your friends as well as your enemies, and he couldn't bring himself to do that honestly and forthrightly; no, he had to hide behind a sock. I don't see that as a worthy use or a good reflection on his character.

Once again, here, you're showing how dense you are by your response. The real scenario is this: a guy running for mayor of Detroit says he's going to burn every building to the ground if he becomes mayor. He gets elected, but instead of managing to burn every building to the ground, he makes it a beacon of enlightenment, revives the city's economy, and makes the public school system #1 in the country. I don't care if what he really wanted to do was burn the city down. He did a remarkable and good thing. Now, if someone says 'I want to b bcratz' and he really wants to help improve the wiki, but he's just an incompetent boob who manages to create user conflict, delete contentful pages, generally abuse his powers, and promote untrustworthy users to positions of power, I don't care what his intentions are, he needs to go. It's not what he wants to do, it's what he actually does that matters. And you clearly ignored my examples in my initial response, because you're being ignorant about the whole matter. When you don't bother to read my stuff and then intentionally misunderstand what you have read, I have no conclusion to reach aside from the fact that you are being intentionally obtuse for one reason or another, but after a while I suppose I am to blame because clearly a pattern has developed here that I have failed to recognize.

Yes, I am criticizing him for admitting that he made that mistake. Why? Because it's stupid. If a candidate for public office said "I'm just going to go out here and say this...uh...I used meth, regularly, I am addicted to prostitutes and I choke babies in my spare time," who would vote for the guy? Suppose he also was other than that a dazzling candidate. Good looking, charismatic, had great poll numbers and incredibly favored policy positions which he articulated clearly and confidently. Better than that, his opponents couldn't dig up any dirt on him. And then...he says the above. I wouldn't vote for the guy. Why? Because he's stupid. He had it in the bag, and then he showed that in reality, he's just too dumb to be in office because he hasn't the good sense to even understand advocacy and how to sell himself. I would have supported smoreking unequivocally if he hadn't put that part about SZL in. Here's the worst part. Read it again. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. He admits that he made a sock, and then he tries to make it a selling point. He clearly has no grasp of the policy, which I could somewhat precipitously generalize to all policy, and then he gets the audacity to think that it shows something good about himself. So he didn't "Make a mistake and admit it" in the sense that he admitted it was a mistake. He admitted something that was a mistake that he doesn't think was a mistake. And that's even more of a problem than any of the above.

And please. About the talk. Look at the two people who opposed. I'm not a bureaucrat, but somebody else who opposed is. And look! It's for the same reason. You passed it when you shouldn'tve. Your judgment is flawed because if had read all of the supports and opposeds and had known the policy, your conclusion should have been to fail him. Our reasons were above and beyond far more legitimate and convincing than anyone who supported, including yourself. So yes, this is passed pending appeal. Please think before you respond to this. Semicolon (talk) 17:00, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

"What are the 2 reasons people create socks?" This statement isn't even true. Not even arguable- just completely false. Smoreking, Auron, Vili, Wyn, Pling etc etc- you may not know any of them except Smore, but ask any single one of them and none of them will say they socked to vandalize or get an extra vote on something. (They're all also admins [2 bureaucrats] at one site or another, and I still consider 3 of them better admins than everyone here except DE.) Even a quick poll in GuildWiki's IRC got me 6 reasons from a single person. So tbh... 0/10 on that one. :/

"He wanted SZL, as he said in his own words, so that he could mean serious business. This means that he does not perceive his main account as having been serious business in the past. It was that past he wished to erase by creating a new sock: a fresh new identity that could be serious, instead of the opposite which he had been before. That is intuitively obvious, and your failure to grasp it is just stunning. " <-- Ok. All I see are a bunch of true statements that have no ethical attachments (much less negatives ones), and one crack at my competence. He wanted to be serious, and used a sock to become it. Seriousness benefits wikis. Virtually no harm was done sockpuppeting in SZL's case, except that you consider socking the 8th Cardinal Sin.

From your third paragraph, I gather that you've never really been alone? Or if so, you're a solitary person anyway? Most of Smoreking's older friends would not have handled being told to stfu well, and I would not be surprised if they had terminated their friendships with him. (For example, upon REGISTERING- not talking to anyone, not adding anyone but Smore and Miles- at AiB, BNK told all his SmashWiki friends to ignore me. Simply because I existed. Did you know you can take courage too far?) Try out a little empathy. Would I have done the same thing in Smoreking's position? Maybe not, but do I see where he's coming from? Yeah, I do, and I don't see why you refuse to. Smoreking now has more friends than he did back then, so would he have done the same thing presented a similar situation now? I doubt it. I'm not a psychic, but then again neither are you, so... Also, please note that in your third paragraph you specifically mention honesty and forthrightness- you ignore them in a minute.

Your fourth paragraph- that's all well fine and good. Except, Smoreking has contributed excellently and wanted to help the wiki, and the only thing you can hold against him is that he socked. I find your oppose based on one single "negative" aspect in the face of a myriad of positive ones, and that is why I promoted him despite your proclaimed all-superior oppose vote.

Tbh, I find your 5th paragraph somewhere between disturbing and appalling. Seeing as you criticized Smoreking for not dealing with issues in a honest and forthright manner, I find it almost humorous that you then continue on to say that you would have preferred Smore to lie by omission and deliberately manipulate the people commenting on his RfA.

Unlike you, I've actually spoken to Smoreking privately about a variety of issues, including socking, and he admits that it was a mistake and that in hindsight he would not have done it. I've a screenshot of the conversation if you'd like to see it.

Furthermore, I do see SZL's contributions as a good thing. Because ultimately, they were positive. You can bitch and moan about them being made from a sockpuppet, but why does that matter? Abusive users were asked to find another site to socialize, plans were made to improve the wiki overall, and policy discussion occurred. Those were all goals back then (and two of them still to this day), and Smoreking/SZL helped to achieve them, even if it was done in an unorthodox manner. Would I explicitly encourage socking? No. But am I reasonable enough to see that it is not the end of the wiki? Yep.

As an additional note, we have not yet adopted SmashWiki:No Sockpuppets. I also am fairly sure that the policy SmashWiki:Criteria for Promotion hasn't been proposed either. You're welcome to start such proposals, though?

Really, the only part of your post that I can honestly give you a 10/10 on was the part where you decreed that your opinions were better than mine (and the other 11 users who supported). You're rather good at proclaiming superior opinions, you know. Shadowcrest 21:28, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Things that immediately jump out at me:

1. Your failure to respond to my reasoning regarding his intentions is an implicit admission that I was correct, and that his creation of his sock was for his own benefit and not for the wiki's. 1-0 me.
2. Reasons for socking: I guess you're quite right. I just picked the obvious ones. 1 all.
3. While I would contest the idea that seriousness necessarily benefits wikis all the time, you're missing the point here. It's not he wanted to become serious that is the problem, in this case it's not even how he did it. It's your reasoning for his promotion that I take issue with here. You presumed that the intent was to improve the wiki, not his own standing, which you now no longer contest by failure to respond. 2-1 me.
4. You are once again missing the point. It's not what he did with SZL. It's that his creation of SZL and his provable abuse of SZL demonstrate a disregard or ignorance of rules--both of which are disturbing, and which you are giving him a pass on for a bad reason (i.e his intentions, dealt with later).
5. I'm glad you said "You can take courage too far." It's very illustrative of our differences. In this case, you are dead, dead, dead, dead wrong. This incident shows that Smoreking is more concerned with how he's viewed than regarding policy. What everyone wants, and what should be done, are not commonly completely identical or even reconcilable. Policy debates and requests are dealt with on the merits of argument, not consensus. Courage and doing the unpopular thing are necessary for someone in a position of power, (i.e leading...) and not acquiescing to those who shout loudest. Your arguments about losing friends are irrelevant, and are a shallow emotional appeal devoid of substance. His motivations are irrelevant. There is one thing that he demonstrably should have done, which is have courage, regard policy, and play by the rules, and he didn't do that. 3-1 me.
6. This is where once again I think you're deliberately ignoring the things I've said. Smoreking has undoubtedly contributed positively to the content of the wiki, but contributing content, and serving adequately as an admin are two different animals. And the fact that you've stopped talking about his motivations finally and completely admit that your reasoning (1) under rationalizing why you have not held the sockpuppetry against him as you should have concedes that I am right. 4-1 me.
7. Your failure to acknowledge that there are serious implications about his suitability as an admin from this incident calls your judgment into serious question.
8. You got something terribly wrong here: I wouldn't have preferred him to not have told us. I think it was good of him to. But I'm saying that it's stupid of him to have done it. Just because I think what he did was stupid (yes, there are instances where any outcome of a choice is stupid) doesn't mean he shouldn'tve done it. It means that if I had done it, I wouldn'tve have said anything, because it was stupid of him to admit something which so thoroughly undermined his case.
9. If he thinks what he did was wrong, then I'd like for him to come out and say that he did wrong, and that he had poor judgment. It wouldn't change my vote, because he'd then be admitting that he had poor judgment, and I wouldn't have to argue with you about the very same thing. Either way is fine with me, though.
10. Once again, you're too hung up on what SZL did, rather than what the implications of SZL's existence was. But yes, SZL was still arguably abused in votes/supports for policy changes, which is a technical violation of most socking policies.
11. If you are claiming that because we don't have a technical policy on sockpuppetry, he shouldn't be held accountable, then this would show how truly bankrupt your position is.
12. If you would bother to observe the 'Rules & Regulations' section of the RfA page, you'd notice that there are clear implications that it is substance, not simple supports or opposes, which are the basis for a good decision on the success or failure of an RfA.
13. I am fairly confident that you are disregarding my opinions precisely because they are mine, and not judging them on their merit.
14. Love, Semicolon (talk) 23:14, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

@Semi: The way I read your comments, it would seem that you're of the opinion that if you make a mistake you can never make up for it. That's a pretty unpleasant way of looking at the world; I would hope most people are of the opinion that it is possible to fix many kinds of mistakes that one can make.

I still have my reservations about Smore, but he's shown me well enough that he merits the tools and the powers required of an admin. SZL might not have been a good idea, but that doesn't mean that Smore should be permanently disqualified from requesting adminship because of it. The whole point of these requests is to weigh a user's merits against their drwabacks in a sort of Judgment Day mockup. Smore's mistake doesn't outweigh all of his positive contributions in my book. Miles (talk) 02:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to break up the delightful convo, but...

I just want to remind both sides that this a website about a video-game.

@Semi: He's already passed, you really can't do anything about it (I'm neutral on the RFA btw). There was a pretty clear consensus on the actual RFA on what the community wanted, and while you and CH made some valid points, the majority remained in support.

You guys can continue your near-meaningless convo above if you like (I say near-meaningless because your posts make good reads). Cheezperson {talk}stuff 02:49, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

That no-one was swayed is a particular problem in this case. These are what are called "fire-and-forget" !votes elsewhere in the wikiworld... Also, interesting reading indeed. --Sky (t · c · w) 05:27, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Cheez know s what he's talking about...getting a bit worked up aren't you? I go over to My Home to see what's happening and I see this page with 8 edits in a row with fire around the box...ha! good story, though. (I guess I'm neutral, just to not get between the fight...and thats NINE edits in a row now for this page!! >:D)HavocReaper48 (talk) 20:25, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Cheezperson and HavocReaper48: So far there have been only two pointless comments made, and they are the two comments made by you. This is a valid discussion, for the reasons that Sky gave - there was a massive difference of opinion between those who Supported and those who Opposed, and those people should have discussed what made them "vote" that way so that there was more of a balance of opinion. Community consensus being in favour of a decision doesn't mean that that's the right decision to make, it just means that it's the most popular one - the comments are useful so that the Bureaucrat who closes the RfR/A/B can get feedback on the user to help them reach their decision. Semi might not personally be able to do anything about it, but he can request that Clarinet Hawk or Shadowcrest remove Smoreking's Administrator rights. There haven't been nine edits in a row, there have been nine edits today, which, given how important this discussion is, isn't really surprising. And yes, this is an important discussion - it might be just "a website about a video game", but things like RfAs are serious. If you don't think they are, that's fine, just don't comment on them, and don't disrupt conversations about them between users who think that they are serious - if you don't want to contribute anything positive to the discussion, please don't comment. PenguinofDeath 22:43, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

You guys are still taking this way too seriously. I usually side with proactive action, but I think that Smore at least deserves a chance at showing what he can do. Let his work do the talking. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 22:58, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

-_- Ok...SOR-E 4 having opinions. Anyway, again, still a game... but fine, do whatever feels right. Actions speak louder then words, ya know. We all deserve a second chance...oh, and please don't take this as me starting on the wrong foot with anyone? Sorry for getting ya all worked up, Penguin. ( thats ELEVEN edits btw! d:< ) HavocReaper48 ^{Make the good times last...}

Semicolon said: "Smoreking should consider his RfA passed but pending appeal." - the most anyone is asking for is for this to be basically a trial run, and if he does well, to keep him on as an Admin, but if he shows that he's not suited to the position, to take back the Administrator rights - no one is saying that he shouldn't be given a chance at showing what he can do - the discussion above is mainly about whether or not closing it as passed was the correct decision to make. PenguinofDeath 23:52, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

O_o I see what ur point is thar..

File:Icon-kingdedede.gif

This user thinks PoD is awsome at this kinda stuff... and talks alot :P

HavocReaper48 (talk) 00:13, October 28, 2009 (UTC)