DDO wiki talk:Administrators/demote/Shade

I am officially placing on this list of administrators under review for demotion. He has attacked, harassed, name called, insulted, and engaged in edit-warring against multiple system operators to support policies that he created and failed to offer adequate time for all administrators to collaborate and make them universally agreed upon standards of the wiki. I have suspended all of these policies and placed them back on the open editing block, and yet he still insists upon. He has wrongly reverted edits, and made false accusations that "You do not have the right to violate site policy for any reason, nor spam thousands of visitors on every page for zero reason. Utterly ridiculous". Firstly, All site policies are suspended, and there-for, I'm not violating anything. Secondly, how does this spam thousands of visitors? They do not have deletion privileges, so "Recycle (policy review expiring Tuesday, July 24, 2012)" does not show up for them. "Move (policy review expiring Tuesday, July 24, 2012)" does show up for registered users, advising them that there is a policy, and it is under review, and gives a deadline if they want to contribute. No-one can say they didn't know there was a review on the file naming policy (for moving), if they log in in the next three months. I am actively demoting him from system administrator, pending an outcome of this review. A request on his part to place me on this list before his review has been settled will be considered a hostile and potentially ban-able act. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:40, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * I know that I have no weight on any decision made on this matter, but I just want to make an observation as an outside third party. Tech, you have placed Shade here for "Request for review and possible demotion", but it seems from your post here that you have already taken matters into your own hands by stating: I am actively demoting him from system administrator, pending an outcome of this review. So if you are just going to demote him before any "review" is actually done, then what's the point of this section on the page.  It just seems that you have something personal vested here and now you are going all dictator on Shade before any review can be completed (or begun, for that matter).  I am by no means trying to get involved with whatever little 'he said, he said', power war you two have going on, I just think it's unfair of you to violate the standards for demotion as stated on the Administrators page.  I quote (and bold spots for emphasis):  "Any user that disrupts the flow of this wiki, may be requested to be removed from this group pending Administrative review on this pages Talk Page."  And there are no guidelines for demotion from Bureaucrat as of the time I write this.  Reference here:  Bureaucrats.  Nowhere on either of those pages does it state that during the review process is there grounds for temporary demotion, as you have already done here: Special:Log/rights.  It clearly states that they may be requested to be removed, not removed now but I'll reinstate him if nobody agrees with me.  Like you stated in your reason for the change.  I quote: Under review for demotion. Upon agreement that this review is unfounded, I will be happy to re-promote him. Ague (Contributions &bull; Message) 15:33, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * System operators have much power to cause great disruption to the site... Suspending privileges for any IT profession facing a demotion/termination is common practice. I do not feel that I am out of line on this issue.  If anyone would like to second  objection to this, I will re-promote him immediately, and apologize for my lack of insight and inconsideration.  I have adjusted the policies to clarify the situation and risk. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 15:55, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * There's something about altering policy after not following it to clear the water seems fishy. Undoubtedly, most IT professions already have a clause stating such things in place prior to any adverse action being taken upon any employee.  If you violate the policy today, it doesn't make it OK tomorrow, even if the policy changes in your favor.  And if it were common practice on this wiki, it would have already been in the policy prior to taking adverse actions against another user.  I vote to either revert the policy to how it was prior to Technical_13's most recent addition, or reinstate Shade based on wrongful demotion (demotion without review of administrators as stated in the version of the policy that was current at the time of said demotion). Ague (Contributions &bull; Message) 16:09, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * As of right now at least I have giving your both Warnings that both have gotten out of hand that can be see by all to try to curb both of your behaviors. Which is more then what both Tech13 and Shade have done. Instead Tech13 you took it upon yourself to hand out a demotion before review. I consider both Tech13 and Shade to some degree on the same footing on this wiki. Bladedge (Contributions &bull; Message) 16:12, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * Tech, do settle down. We have the ability to petition Xevo with a 4 sysop vote, but let's not get to that point. Blades point is valid at this point. Your letting this war get to you. Yawgmoth (Contributions &bull; Message) 16:24, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * That gives no right to futilely attempt to block either  or .  As of this point, neither  nor  has seconded  concern about admins placed on review, whether or not they should be temporarily be demoted pending the outcome. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 16:48, April 26, 2012 (EDT)



i second Ague then, yawn. Shade isnt demotion-worthy IMO. is he involved in talkpage-war? maybe, but in edit-war? no. yoko5000 (Contributions • Message) 20:49, April 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * I am a man of my word, Shade has been re-instated pending further review. I am doing this despite the conversation on  discussion page where:


 * Sigh... Points 1 and 2 are wrong, as users who are not at the very least Super, CANNOT DELETE/MOVE PAGES, hence they would never see that. 3rd Point I'm not going to get into. 4th Point. KOBOLD WORKER IS A JOKE, HE HAS NEVER used that account to post something meaningful. If you think "Kobold no like you" is a meaningful post, then you have no sense of humor. Only reason I'm defending the kobold, is because it was made in response to ME. 5th point: There is currently one edit that remains hidden, and that was the promotion of the Kobold to skipcaptcha. The promoting of his bot, is something he does every 2-3 days anyway.Point 6: We've discussed those bans, as being over a year old and never making edits or being spam related names. Points 7,8, and 9: Those are your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Lastly, Point 10: Have you ever seen what happens when somebody in power gets fired? I've been on forums/guilds, where when he was called into question, the admin/mod deleted over half the forum, and perma banned 80% of the users. It took 2 weeks for things to be restored. In the Ghallanda guild Citadel, when I called into question the current leader (The 12 leaders rotated every month), leader kicked everybody out and disbanded the guild. Granted this was before airships, so not much was lost. In EVE, a guy stole AN ENTIRE FREAKING STARBASE FULL OF SHIPS/MATERIALS when his status was called into question within the 3rd largest corporation (That was the referred to as a Bernie Madoff...) Yawgmoth (Contributions &bull; Message) 20:34, April 26, 2012 (EDT)

it is obvious to others that this is a HIGH risk situation. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 20:59, April 26, 2012 (EDT) Honestly, I think if anybody should be put under review and temporarily demoted pending discussion, it should be Tech. While I'm not the hugest fan of Shade's (or rather, his grammar, since I really know nothing about Shade himself), he makes some damned good (if typoed) edits and losing him would be a huge loss for the wiki. On the other hand, this war seems to be largely one-sided... on Tech's part. He seems to be the instigator, with Shade primarily defending himself from attacks by other editors, including myself (although I stand by the points I made on his talk page, if not the WAY I made them).

And Shade, leave the kobold alone, unless you can point at something substantive that the poor worker's done that's in violation of anything...

And while I'm at it, Tech, stop spamming the top of the page and get rid of the 'policy review expiring yada yada'. It just looks unprofessional. Especially since the spamming doesn't even include any helpful links. MAYBE a note at the top of the welcome page to let people know about it and where they can weigh in on the subjects, but you're going about it wrong. Your Bureaucrat/Steward status really means nothing, and certainly doesn't make you more important/higher ranking than anyone else.

I'm not gonna even delve into all the policy changes that are being done. Cove's up, and I need a few more Bucc rings and Brawling gloves and trinkets and maybe some armor... LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 23:21, April 26, 2012 (EDT)