User talk:Defiant Elements/Archive 1

With all due respect...

With all due respect, I have a bit of a problem with you coming in here, reading up on what can only be a minute part of this entire controversy, and then criticizing the way it has been handled based on your position as a bureaucrat. Our sysops work tirelessly, through badgering, abuse, and personal attack, to keep this a clean, informative, and fun community. This particular controversy was admittedly not worked out as best as it could have, but you seem to be trying to undermine their competency, dedication, and ability by presuming that their 'victims' were not at fault sufficient to justify their punishment. The fact of the matter is, their initial infractions were not sufficient. It was the accompanying responses to the initial punishments that were despicable and deserving of the bans. Please refrain from vocal critique until you know and understand the entire picture. Semicolon (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A coupla things. Not to bandy semantics with you, but I wasn't based my critique on my position as a Bureaucrat, I was basing it on personal experience from the perspective of an outsider. On a related note, I purposefully made it clear that my post was made on the basis of what an "outsider" would see, and that context is vitally important to understanding my post; I'm well aware that I don't have the full picture; instead, I'm presenting the picture that an outsider would see. I don't doubt that many of the sysops are excellent, nor do I doubt they take a lot of abuse; heck, I've been threatened with a lawsuit for banning someone as a Sysop because the ban was supported by CheckUser. And it's not an attempt to undermine them either, though I can see with little difficulty why it might come off as such. As I said, I have no stake in the success of this community, but I felt obligated to post because I saw a problem that had not, as far as I could tell, been thoroughly addressed elsewhere in the hopes that some good might come of it. My post may come off as strident or rabble-rousing -- indeed, I expected people might think that -- but that was not my intention. However, I presumed nothing. Indeed, if you read my first post you'll see that I'm perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the bans themselves were justified, but the manner in which the sysops responded/handled themselves is at least as much, if not more of a problem than the bans. In truth, I don't expect anything to come of my post, but I made the effort because I thought that perhaps it would give people something to think about. Defiant Elements 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case I would suppose we are in agreement. Semicolon (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreement about...? – Defiant Elements 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The the manner in which this fiasco was handled was unfortunate. However, I would like to make something clear. We here at SmashWiki do not need to be rescued. We do not need direct intervention from administrators and bureaucrats from other wikis. We do not need your patronization. Your perspective may have assisted, and that was, I believe what you in particular were trying to do. However, we have good sysops and a good community. This isn't an unprecedented event; if anything, it has been blown way out of proportion and an argument could have been made for you and the other users from foreign wikias 'butting into our business'. It is, in fact, the opinion of the majority of active sysops that the permabans should be removed. We will settle this dispute ourselves. The bottom line is that the site is still up, we still have active contributing users goaled toward the continued excellence of the wiki, and it sites continues to serve the community. In the end, that is the only thing that matters, and there's no argument for the contrary. Semicolon (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Judging by what I've seen, and No, I have not read all of every contribution on this wiki, the sysops on this wiki are bad at being such. They don't seem to understand that, if a majority of users thinks that its unfair, than they're not doing their job right. Sysops are thinking "Mkay, that guy insulted me, so I'mma ban him for 2 weeks". Insulting somone consistantly for 2 weeks and taking every snide oppertunity present I could understand their ban for 2 weeks.. for a couple of mild insults, or perhaps just a decleration that they don't like the way that its run, you wouldn't get a one hour ban- never mind a 2 week one. The vandals are getting the same ban-time as people who are insulting others, which is just dumb. "However, we have good sysops and a good community." - and I quote; "lolurite". In short? Your sysops suck. Replace them. I'm gonna get a ban for stating this, but hey, I don't think I was planning on doing much anyway. Just came for the epicness, and stayed to try to point out the flaws. I quite like your "we dont need your help GTFO". Pretty funny.. :] --

Warwick

19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my 'We don't need your help' line. You sir, possess a lack of propriety that is, as you say, epic. We could never use the help of someone who demeans the efforts of hardest workers. What you are discussing is poor behavior by a single sysop, and your generalization is doubtless an indication of your knowledge on the subject. Your comments are ignorant and they are offensive. You, sir, are what is known as a 'troll'. Trolls get what they deserve, generally. You clearly have no idea what went on, and I won't outline it for you, because you likely possess a mental faculty that could barely get you through the first characters in this response. Leave for good. Semicolon (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ur dum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.40.185 (talk • contribs)

wakaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Lord of all tyria (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this the community that you are boasting about? Um...lol. Who's dumber, the guy who has a clear command of english, or the guy who says 'ur dum' or 'wakaaa...etc.' Seriously, this is really why we don't need your help. You guys brought these...contributers...here, and now you need to take them back. I'm starting to think you guys have made the problem worse by coming here and lecturing us and bringing all of your riff-raff along. In fact, I'm sure of it. Please leave. Semicolon (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Riff-raff? I doubt with one contribution I have lessened the ability of this wiki to document Smash Bros. Apparantly you misused ipso facto somewhere by the way. Lord of all tyria (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. 'Ipso facto' is latin to mean, literally, the deed itself from the ablative of the intensive pronoun ipse, ipsa, ipsum and factum, -i. Since the ablative infers a preposition, it could mean within [the deed]. Translated into colloquial English, it can be found to translate as 'therefore'. Literally, it would mean, in context, "Any comparison drawn is a fallacy and within itself invalid." So no, it's used correctly. Semicolon (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

riff-raffed your mom last night

edit conflict First of all, don't you think it's just a little hypocritical to generalize the GWiki community based on three people, none of whom are Sysops. Yes, yes, I know sarcasm fails on the internet and isn't particularly helpful either, but really, come on! They're just trying to be funny/amusing/etc., they all have a perfectly good grasp of the English language. Not to mention that I didn't "bring" them here, they came of their own accord when they saw what was goin' on. As to your penultimate point, again, I'll thank you not to generalize, and, as to your final point, I'll leave only when I'm convinced that trying to do some good is hopeless. Good day. – Defiant Elements 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because they are a sample from which a logical inference may be based. An inference may be incorrect, but it does not disqualify my opinion, and for the record I have been presented with several examples of the behavior of your members. None have been positive. Their attempts at humor are, in fact, simple badgering which is not constructive and counter to the excellence we strive for here at SmashWiki. You are partly responsible for their arrival, and you appear to be the entity with the most authority so I am holding you responsible for their behavior, and find it incredibly ironic that they would mock our community while being so negative. If you feel like this is unfair, please explain. For my penultimate, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about you and your friends from other wikis. You guys coming here and trying to change things when the original problem has been resolved. You're perpetuating a moot point. And for my final, I do hope that you realize that you're inflicting more harm than proposed good. Semicolon (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your response makes me lol. Yup, I'm a troll. A troll, may I add, with a better grip on the English language than you have. I've read through whats going on, I've heard accounts from both DE and SC. Through the single "Thanks for proving my 'we dont need your help' line" sentance, you've just proved that you fail. You're hardly the hardest of workers. I've looked through the block log, and ALL of the bans given have been pretty much crap. LolUrFunny. Y'know what, though? I'm not really a troll. I'm a cynic, and I find other peoples annoyance amusing, but I try to help in my asshat way. Either you can pay attention, and stop pretending that you're still in happy-go-lucky-happy-wiki-with-awesome-sysops-that-doesnt-fail-land, or you can continue being foolish, and pretend that everything is happy, and your sysops do understand what it is to be a sysop. "Ooh, you're arguing with me.. BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK!". Oh, and apologies DE and Loat, I went to eat dinner. EDIT: The English language comment was uncalled for. Sorry. --User:Warwick 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another factor is, telling me to leave is generally, by your standards, a personal attack, since its as good as saying "GTFO". OMG, BANBANBAN!. I don't care what you think, to be honest, I'm just putting this up because I'm bored, and the fact is that you need to get a grip. This is a wiki. Oh, wait, wikiz r srs bsns. I've read through what's happened, so I think I've got a good enough account to make a judgment. As well as this, I've read through the ban log- Which actually made me laugh for about 5 mins. Thanks for that, t'was amusing. Read through the rest, 'cause later on I said that I'm not really a troll anymore, which is pretty much true. I'm right, you're wrong, so lets cut the crap, mkay? Miles, I don't care about what any of you think, and I'm not giving this wiki a reputation of any sort that it doesn't deserve. Get better admins, mkay? Read the "I'm right, you're wrong" part again. Jeez, I'm starting to sound like a troll again. Guess wikiz r srs bsns. --Warwick 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also as an add-on to the comment that you added (strangely above my comment, but hey, perhaps you have some strange customs on this wiki), I quote: "Their attempts at humor are, in fact, simple badgering which is not constructive and counter to the excellence we strive for here at SmashWiki." - That makes me laugh. The "Excellence we strive for here at SmashWiki" especially. But thats off the point. It's not your place to hold DE responsible, I came here after overhearing somthing, so it has nothing to do with DE, nor loat. The original problem has, evidently, not been resolved, because the problems with the admins that don't have a clue what adminship involves are still admins. Basically, it comes down to this: "You insulted me. You get 2 weeks ban. Oh, you vandalised that person who insulted me's userpage. You're gonna get a 1 hour ban". Thats what my problem is. --Warwick 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, kid, I honestly don't care about the wiki. I'm upset because you're all trying to come in here and you're insulting me and you're insulting my friend who works as a sysop on this wiki and he's good at it. He works hard and honestly just wants to keep it from falling apart, and keep it as a good place for people to learn about Smash. He isn't wrong on any of his bans; you are merely ignorant. You can talk all about the ban log, but that is a very, very small part of this giant complicated puzzle, and unless you've read every talk page and every post on the forums of the Cult of Personality, then you're ignorant to this. You've made this personal with your constant badgering and displays of ignorance, and it turns out I'm stubborn enough to stick around and tell you how wrong you are each and every time. You don't have a good understanding of this, you don't have the knowledge of what happened, you have a ban log and third hand accounts. You're being ignorant, incoherent, and silly. You're being quite vocal about your crude and base opinions, and I don't like it. You openly admit you're being a troll and that you have nothing to add. -- I highly doubt your command is better. I am a linguistics and communication major with a minor in Latin. I wasn't talking about me in respect to working hard. I was speaking for our sysops. If you think they're crap, you're half right. And you are a troll, by your own admission. A troll, according to UrbanDictionary, is "One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue." That's you, ace. As far as the sysops are concerned, you are ignorant. You weren't around, you haven't seen everything, you've only heard the story from two people who weren't around for it either, and who, frankly, are poorly informed on the matter at hand. Meaning you have at best a third-hand account. Seriously, leave. You're not helping. You can help by leaving. So do it. Semicolon (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm severely disappointed at the kind of reputation people like Warwick and Lordofalltyria give this wiki. As a semi-regular contributor to this site, I'm well aware of its problems, but I know that bickering isn't going to get any of us anywhere. What happened to this site lately, anyway? When I joined Smashwiki in April, it was a primarily civilized place, but in the last week and a half, crews have disbanded, sysops are banning for trivial reasons and the whole place has fallen into a cycle of "he said, she said" where nobody's opinions are respected and the whole site is falling to pieces. Can't we get back to the whole point of this wiki and stop arguing? Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things happened. The kids came, and Randall exploded. The kids got on Randall's nerves and he started banning them for no good reason. When the bans expired, they came back and exhibited behavior that actually deserved banning. Randall banned them permanently. They shouldn't have been permanently banned, and that's why C-Hawk wants to remove the permabands and make them only a couple weeks. Then the foreigners came. They started carping about policies and speaking like they understand what happened and saying its the fault of all the sysops and criticizing and belittling the community. Presently, they are the problem. When they leave, we can resume with projects and making the wiki better. Semicolon (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And what happens if they don't leave? Public wiki is public. 99.142.40.185 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm counting on the inherent apathy of mankind. Semicolon (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised. I started on GWW under much the same auspices and I've been there for a little under a year now. – Defiant Elements 20:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is unfortunate. Semicolon (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? Even if we are a problem, we're not the problem (the problem predates us by a mile and half), and even if we were to leave right now, never to return again, you'd still have a problem. You're not gonna be able to get back to anything until you actually resolve the real issues, and aside from my own posts, I've seen no real attempt at resolution. Even if you were to overturn the bans, you'd still have a problem. On a related note, might I respectfully suggest that you read up on the term "red herring"? Anywho, neither SC nor I have ever suggested that the fault lay with all the Sysops (in fact, I specifically said otherwise), so unless you're only talking about Warwick, etc., your statement is simply erroneous, not to mention that I've never said a word about the community at large here, much less to criticize and belittle it. I understand that you're becoming increasingly distraught, but honestly? – Defiant Elements 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing point by point, if the problem predates you, why are you here? If the problem isn't with all the sysops, why are you here? What problem do we have that you can fix? Perhaps we have a renegade sysop. Fine. Contact wikia. That's not your problem. I guess my biggest problem here is that I don't see a problem that you can fix, and I see plenty that you can make worse. Semicolon (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So Randall lost his temper. Defiant Elements is right: "kids" aren't necessarily a problem; I'm 15 but you can feel free to check my edits; I'm a hardworking member of the SmashWiki community. I would also argue, Semicolon, that you have lost your temper as well. Whining at vandals to leave isn't going to get them to. Every wiki has vandal problems. No, a better course of action is to ignore irrelevent edits of theirs and remove truly problematic ones. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandals?! Sir, you have wounded me! Your words cut me to the quick! Trolls, perhaps. But vandals, never! 99.142.40.185 20:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it, Miles- we're not vandals, we're trying to help this wiki. Trolls, perhaps, because we're getting pissed off with arguing with a brick wall. Semi, you're slightly crossing the line, I've tried to stop myself from openly insulting you, but hey, I guess if you want to be childish and deteriorate this into a cussing match where you continuously call me ignorant and I continuously call you stupid, thats fine with me, but I'm going to be going to sleep in a while, so you might want to start talking to that brick wall over there, mkay? It should have about the same amount of general intelligence that you do. You say that your friend randal lost his temper, but hes a hardworking member and he deserves to be a sysop- The point is this: The factor of BEING a good sysop is that you can use your ban/prot/del powers to a proper use. Which several of the people, the ban reasons, and the contributions of those who have been banned, really didn't deserve to be banned, at ALL, never mind a full two week ban. But hey, what do I know? According to you, I'm just a silly little person whose come in and has no idea whats going on (LOLRONG). Stop going on about how incompetant we are, get out of happy land, and open your eyes. Jeez, its trying to reason with somone with the brains of a brick wall, eh? To be truthful, I don't really care if you have a major in latin and a minor in linguistics, or whatever it is you have, since really, it doesn't matter. This is a wiki, all that matters is that We're right, you're wrong. Though evidently some people don't quite agree with my synopsis. I'm gonna go over to a certain, beloved quote: "Peaple r dum". --Warwick 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@Miles: Presenting an opinion (even a crude opinion as the case may be) is not, by any stretch of the imagination vandalism, though one could make the case for trolling or disruption I 'spose.

@Semicolon: The fact that the problem predates me does not detract from my ability to respond to that problem as I see fit. And how many times do I have to say it? I'm not here to fix your problems, I can't fix your problems. I'm here to convince you that there is a problem, a fact which although you seemingly accept, you deny at least as much. Although there's potential for exacerbation of the problem, I hardly think that my few posts amount to anywhere near the degree of maliciousness that I would expect to be met by a GTFO-esque comment. As to contacting Wikia, from what I've been told by KirbyKing (assuming he's right) that would do no good. I've identified the problem from my point of view any number of times, you chose to respond by telling me to shove off, thus starting all of this drama, drama for which I hold you responsible. KirbyKing, at least, responded to my queries calmly and intellectually, you on the other hand chose to dismiss my post and exacerbate the situation beyond all belief. If you don't want to listen to us, don't respond.

– Defiant Elements 20:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we just end this conversation and come to a decision!? this is badly pinging the RC JtM =^] (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not here to solve any problems. I'm not a member of this community, and I lack the history and relations to fully understand any issues here; even if I did understand the situation, I would still keep out. But surely you see, Mr. Colon, that your approach to this topic is ineffective is best. 99.142.40.185 21:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That'd be lovely if you could pull it off, mate. But, unless I missed a whole heck of a lot of discussion, there's a lot to be done before you come to a "decision." You could probably overturn/shorten the bans, yes, but that alone wouldn't fix the problem. Addressing the effect without addressing the cause is just asking for trouble. – Defiant Elements 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies on the "vandals" point. Still, even if Randall lost his temper he still is a sysop and has earned it. If you look at his request for adminship it's clear he knows what he's doing. The source of our current problem isn't any one admin; rather, it's that their fights end up with non-admin level users getting banned for little reason. My suggestion (that few would appreciat), is that every current sysop must defend their position by whatever our new RfA policy is, to see if they still have earned it. Any thoughts on that last point? Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

thats basically what I was trying to say :>. Except that we should demote everyone till they can prove they're worthy of it. --User:Warwick 21:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Warwick, Semi wasn't talking about Randall being his friend, he was talking about me. And as for the bans that Randall gave, if you didn't notice, I've commuted them (if I missed one, let me know). The only one I didn't commute was Blue Ninjakoppa and he repeatedly made vulgar personal attacks against multiple users, and then, after reciveing a short ban, continued to use his talk page to rant and attack other users. If that isn't ban-worthy on your wiki, then I don't know what is (what follows is sarcasm) and will be contacting Willy on Wheels so he can find a place for his work that doesn't get him banned. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea actually. Part of my frustration lies in the utter lack of a venue for reconfirmation and no-confidence voting. As to Randall, what worries me is less that he lost his temper (that much I can forgive anyone), but, rather, that his talk page, when taken as a whole, demonstrates a modus operandi that ill-befits a Sysop, i.e. an isolated incident is one thing, a pattern of behavior is quite another. And, unfortunately, commuting the bans, though admirable, does not address the pattern of behavior, which is what I've been trying to get at all along. – Defiant Elements 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarinet, from what I've seen you appear to be one of the most.. whats the word.. Coherant and Mature sysops here. Yeah, that'd be worth a ban on this wiki- I must have missed Blue Ninja, because I don't recall seeing that. I'm personally expecting to be banned now, so hey. It seems that there's been a lot of misunderstanding about what we're saying around here- Everyone is misunderstanding each other, and I think that Colon is just becoming annoyed because he doesnt want to think that this is happening, as well. --User:Warwick 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That was neither the nor a word. 99.142.40.185 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

+

For the purposes of cleaning this up

Honestly, DE, I responded to you several times in a polite manner. I've never broken calm. Perhaps my words were at times incendiary, but they never broke calm. Maybe you didn't like what I asked of you, but don't mistake it for impoliteness. I asked you what the problem was. You didn't state it. I don't even know if you can identify what really happened. In fact, I'd be surprised if you could even tell me what the problem was beyond what I said to 'Miles' and beyond a sysop banning people he shouldn't have banned the first time around. Do you understand his motivation? Do you know what they did to him? His reaction was wrong, to be sure, but their reaction to his action was worse, meritting ban. So please, surprise me. Semicolon (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I really disagree, you seem to be really trying to annoy DE, and you seem to be losing your temper badly. :| --User:Warwick 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I lost my temper with you. Not him. He's been civil. I've tried to be civil with him. I may have lost it a little bit with him, but that's overflow frustration from you. I'd apologize to him if I was really jerk to him. I wouldn't really to you, but I don't think you want that. Seriously, guy, you can do whatever you want. I honestly don't care anymore. Semicolon (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't any of my business, but you guys have been making a complicated conversation. I know about the situation you are currently talking about, although you make it sound like you're barely talking about it. Here's what it sounds like you said: CP came in, Randall banned ⅓ of them, and now you guys are arguing over it. It sounds too complicated to specifically explain. But you guys sound like that's not even part of this whole situation. Personally, I don't even know who's on who's side. Ok, Semicolon, I take it you're on Randall's side. We'll consider that the SmashWiki Sysops side. The other side is formed from regular Users, and maybe a couple of Admins, in or out of this Wiki. It's getting too confusing, so somebody explain this in general. I know the whole Randall banning 5 Users-Charitwo unbanned 2 Users problem. MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@Semicolon: I've purposefully not referred to any one event as the be all and end all, but is it fair to assume that you're referring to GalaxiaD and his cronies (for lack of a better term), who, from what I understand created and populated the Cult of Personality, used it as the equivalent of a LiveJournal and engaged in general asshattery that contributed little or nothing to SmashWiki? I'm not precisely clear on what warranted the original bans, Randall seems to have had a grudge against 'em for some reason, but I have read the discussion that followed and I'm aware that Randall was cussed out and sent hate mail on at least one occasion by a number of Galaxia's cronies -- not to mention the drama that Galaxia precipitated on his talk page after the fact or the allegations of sockpuppetry. I can keep going if you like, but, as I said, I'm far less concerned about this particular event and far more concerned about the "big picture" (again for lack of a better term). – Defiant Elements 21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's what you missed. Since the months that the kids joined the wiki, they contributed to the content, but they misued several things like talk pages and user pages and the like. Randall was irritated by this, as were all the sysops, but that wasn't grounds to ban them. They just continually reminded them the proper usage of the facilities and pages, some nicer than others, but generally civil. Then, there were some names thrown around from misinterpretated comments (I forgot where, but I could look it up if you needed me to). Then, one of the members of the Cult of Personality made an account on their forum impersonating Randall and proceeded with a character assassination. The other members of the Cult did not know it was one of their own; they thought it was Randall. They got very angry at Randall and proceeded to take it out on him. When it was discovered it was one of their own, and Randall discovered this, things got worse. There were arguements and ad hominem attacks sufficently for what Randall though constituted a ban. While the ban was executed, the banned members continued to harass on talk pages and the attacks got worse, and to an unacceptable level, using language worthy of longer banning. The bans were reinstated/extended. This was done without consultation with the other sysops by Randall. As C-Hawk has said, many of the bans have been removed. There were wrongs on both accounts, but it's over. The problem wasn't the policy, it was the result of a clash between diametrically opposed personalities and conditions, and it happens. I don't understand what this 'big picture' is. I contend it doesn't exist. I don't think you should have made these judgements without knowing the whole story, but at least, provided you read this, you won't be ignorant. If anybody has anything else to add to the story, feel free. I'm pretty sure I may have gotten one or two of the details incorrect or insufficiently explained. And for the record, if having the sysops run again would 'fix the big picture' I'm all for it. Semicolon (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the update. As I said though, the original block is immaterial to this discussion, and commuting the bans doesn't fix the problem either... I'm really not sure how many other ways there are to say this... I'm also not sure when we started discussing policy... in fact, aside from the reference to the blocking policy, I don't think I've mentioned policy once (although I suppose RfA is tangentially related). When I say the 'big picture' I mean that, from what I can tell, this incident is not an isolated incident, rather it is one in a string of incidents in which Randall has been involved that establish a poor modus operandi, a pattern of behavior that is likely to continue if unchecked. And that modus operandi is what I'm concerned about. If it still isn't clear, I'm really not sure what else I can say. – Defiant Elements 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If your issue is with Randall, take it up with Randall. No need to drag the entire community through a renomination process. If your issue is with the way our sysops have been behaving outside of Randall, you're wrong. Semicolon (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@MarioGalaxy: Have you read my original post on the Community Portal talk page? That may clarify some things. – Defiant Elements 21:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Orale... I said General! That's specific. I already know that! By the way you sound like Randall, as you considered his crew members, "cronies" (no insult intended, mind you). However, you most likely inadvertently insulted them, while Randall does so intentionally. He considers himself far superior. I believe his words were, "Banning me for banning other Users of this Wiki will add to the degeneration of this Wiki." More so, Randall is banning members from a Wiki whose former leader is 14 years old. Randall is 24, he should have some dignity as a Sysop. MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to resurrect my earlier point that I think would be of help: I think ALL sysops should be sugject to going through the RfA process again or else they would lose their admin powers. While some will think I'm just saying this out of spite or anger at Randall and the other sysops, you're wrong. I just don't see any other way that the SmashWiki community will be satisfied with its sysops. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

@MarioGalazy: Yeah, as I said, I couldn't think of a better word at the time; associates and/or friends would have worked as well as far as I'm concerned; I do not bear them any particular animosity; I don't even know 'em. The quote that you provided, whether exact or inexact, is at the heart of this discussion, in fact, it's a pretty decent summary in of itself.

@Miles: Have you posted your suggest elsewhere as of yet? If not, please do so, I think it's an excellent idea, and a possible "endgame" resolution. – Defiant Elements 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet, but I will do so, thank you. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, end this conversation. I agree with JtM, it's taking up the Recent Changes. We should probably schedule a meeting for SmashWiki Users and Admins that know about the situation. Please consider this. This is an idea I got from POTC Wiki. It's similar to their, I believe it was called, "Meeting of the Brethren Court". MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's taking up RCs is irrelevant. If it really bothers you that much, you can edit your .js to make RCs ignore edits to this page. As long as the issue is unresolved and as long as there's interest, it will continue. – Defiant Elements 21:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, perhaps there's a possibility we can place Miles' idea into this. Miles, what is your opinion? MarioGalaxy {talk} 21:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that that is an excellent idea, MarioGalaxy. I would be surprised if any of the sysops oppose my idea. The ones who still have earned their position have nothing to fear. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to write a post on the Community Portal and/or the Forums introducing the idea and then seeing if we can't reach a consensus on the matter. – Defiant Elements 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted it at Smashwiki talk:Requests for adminship. I'm leaving for the day but I'll see what happens tommorrow. Miles.oppenheimer (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take a look. Hopefully we'll get consensus so that we can bring the whole situation to a satisfactory conclusion in a reasonable amount of time (assuming y'all reach consensus on what the new RfA policy should look like in the near future). – Defiant Elements 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Meeting

Here's what I think: we should schedule a meeting to end all of this arguing, debating, etc. We make a forum specifically for that meeting. First, we use your idea, Miles. We have ALL sysops go through the RfA process, with the sysops remaining afterwards still stay for the meeting. We discuss the situation then, as it will give people enough time to examine the situation (it took me a bit of time to read this qhole conversation from the top of the page). Miles, do you wish to add anything? MarioGalaxy {talk} 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this is necessary. Now that I've (apparently) satisfactorily explained myself and the problem I hoped to address, and now that we've got a decent manner of resolution in mind, discussion should now shift to the merits of the Sysop reconfirmation. Then, if we get consensus on that, when it comes time for the reconfirmations, these issues will be discussed in more specific depth in relation to the particular Sysop in question. If Randall (for instance) is no longer fit to be a Sysop, that will undoubtedly come out on the reconfirmation; after all, that's what reconfirmations are for. – Defiant Elements 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that we've focused on the Sysop reconfirmation, you're probably right. However, I still think that we need to schedule it. I don't we think we can do it today, as I don't believe all Sysops are here at the moment. So, as I said, we should schedule a day where we have all of the Sysops go through the RfA process. This is what I believe. Miles' idea seems the most necessary. MarioGalaxy {talk} 22:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The timing is off. You won't fit everyone's RfA in in a day. People might not all be able to even log in for a day. --Shadowcrest 22:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflictErm... reconfirmations don't happen in a day... I'd be surprised if it took much less than a week (if not much more) to fully flesh out all of these issues. – Defiant Elements 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)