I put this up, in light of recent events, to ask the community if Yes-Man should keep his adminship. He clearly overreacted in a way that has been described as a "tantrum" or "fit", blatantly insulted other users and pulled yet another of our wiki's patented drama stunts in "leaving until Cartman! is gone."
I myself does not think that this is mature behaviour befitting of an administrator, and all that I have conferred with agree. Therefore, I have set up this forum to, as I mentioned earlier, ask what this community wants.
"Say 'ello to my little friend!"
Does Yes-Man keep any his adminship responsibilities? Yes or no?
Yes-Man's response
Ahem.
Okay then. I don't really know where to start with this. First off, I would like to apologise that this got out of hand. What started as a heated discussion between Cartman and myself led to me becoming extremely upset, and has brought the whole Wiki to deal with the issue. At the end of the day, this is a Wiki dedicated to video games and you shouldn't have to deal with our emotional problems.
However, let me say one thing. I find it... appalling that Cartman has gone around for so long, insulting people in his so-called "debates"; the way he gives people shit for liking Fallout 3 or disliking Fallout 1, Fallout 2 and New Vegas, but gets away with doing the opposite for God knows why. The way he always finds a way to get out of punishment by posting one of his long comments, where he paints himself to be the hero and makes the opposition out to be the bad guy. He never owns up for what he does because he knows that no matter what, he's always going to get away with it. And the one time I stand up against him I'm suddenly the villain. I don't see any logic in that. For Cartman, it's either you conform to his standpoint or you're free game for him to hate on your taste in a video game.
Let me remind you all. Cartman was protesting equality for users. He knew that the rule was going to jeopardise the fact that he's the tough, Fallout 3 hating admin who everyone loves to hate, so he protested it. Completely selfish. He went on to defend the fact that he insults people for liking Fallout 3, that it was a "debate". Well, news flash folks. It takes two people to debate a topic. What we constantly see is Cartman insulting users and their opinions in a one-sided argument where he's just telling them how much Fallout 3 sucks or how stupid they are for liking something that he doesn't like. And he gets away with it because he's just an admin who's debating. Bullshit.
Now, I remember some of you, including Limmie (who has voted against me) and even Cartman himself to say that although we're admins we cannot be expected to stay neutral and act professional all the time. Because it is true that we're humans. But when I do it, it's bad. Tell me, how come it's bad when I express my emotions with good reason but it's okay for others to do it? Now do you see the issue with equality on this Wiki, the same issue that got me here in the first place? It hurts that all I want to do is help this community to get together, but I am met with angry mobs over one little mistake.
And I agree that I made a mistake. I will not tell you that I think insulting him was a good thing. I'm not, as Limmie put it, acting up so that you'll all have a big party when I return. I'm genuinely angry at Cartman's behaviour, and although I'm an admin I have a breaking point. I couldn't sit back and listen to his veiled insults towards me any longer. I wasn't going to let him have his hypocritical, self-righteous bullshit thrown at me in his attempt to get me upset. Notice how he suddenly gave up replying after I went off the deep end? Doesn't it strike you as odd that he waited for me to get upset before giving up? He was pushing me to this. He wanted me to make myself the fool so that he once again gets away scott-free and keeps the Wiki the way he wants it.
If you had actually read the forum, and not just go off Scarface's completely one-sided write-up of this re-confirmation request (he adds an incriminating quote from me, then tells us that he thinks I'm not a good example of an admin; however Cartman's is completely neutral with no evidence of his offences) then you would know that Cartman was in fact pushing me into doing this. Pushing me the same way he pushed Zerginfestor to the point where Zerg was banned. He was constantly belittling my intelligence in his smug, smart-assed nature, by posting definitions to obvious words for me, by telling me that I don't make sense and I'm a hypocrite, and then when I defend myself he tells me that I'm a troll who deserves to be banned when he was the one who instigated my behaviour. And may I remind you that he called me a "disgusting" troll BEFORE I outright insulted him as you can see above.
If you don't want me as an administrator, fine. But I'll tell you what,
It's me or Cartman. Your choice. 
Votes
Note that as of a decree by Kingclyde, all votes must be properly supported by an, at least brief, explanation as to why said vote was cast. All votes lacking said motivation will be counted as null.
| ||||
"Say 'ello to my little friend!" - I dare say that the quote from his debate above is reason enough. Administrators can not allow themselves to lose composure to such a degree, and outright insulting another user like that is unacceptable.- My reasons were explained in the posts below Limmiegirl Talk! ♪
- I;m gong to leave this for a few days to let it settle then give a final vote. The Australian Kiwi
- Shame, but we can't have admins spazzing out because of a measly argument. If any other user would have done it, they would have been long gone. I feel people take things on the internet way too seriously. Pony of the East 22:25, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Though they both are in the wrong, we are human and we have emotions. We can't act like a robot and expect to be professional 24/7. ToCxHawK 22:54, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with a sanction, but I cant vote for back to regular user status. Yessie has been a big contributor to the wiki, this lapse of judgement I would point out was an effort to try and solve some problems on the wiki. Agent c 23:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Sorry, your giving him 7 days without him even knowing? Just when I think I get you Al... Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 19:57, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can vote, but I can leave my opinion here. I just read through that endlessly long forum thread about mutual understanding, which has clearly turned out for the worse. I for one can very well understand how Yes Man got to the point where he reached the boiling point. Cartman! has a natural ability to find a way with words to get people there. As I see it, it was a build up of things that lead to Yes Man's final comment. Considering the situation I don't even think it's block worthy. Ever since the split Yes Man has done a lot for the community and has continued to do so. He really doesn't deserve to lose his adminship over this. Jspoel 20:01, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry then, Ci, I just put this out, I can't be expected to get everything right, can I? Stop taking moral high horses. I'm raising it to two weeks, just because I love you. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- Huh? I thought we'd discussed that in chat? In case it was after our discussion, I'm not taking any horses, I was just saying that I can't always peg you; I'm not trying to annoy you. And I agree with Jspoel after reading it all. Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 20:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- We did discuss it in chat, that was from earlier. It's a-okay. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- We did discuss it in chat, that was from earlier. It's a-okay. Hugs
- Huh? I thought we'd discussed that in chat? In case it was after our discussion, I'm not taking any horses, I was just saying that I can't always peg you; I'm not trying to annoy you. And I agree with Jspoel after reading it all. Φύλαξ [~μίλησε μου~] 20:51, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry then, Ci, I just put this out, I can't be expected to get everything right, can I? Stop taking moral high horses. I'm raising it to two weeks, just because I love you. Hugs
I think this is wrong to raise this vote at this point before Yes-Man has had the opportunity to defend himself. As such I believe this vote should be suspended until contact with Yes-Man is established. Additionaly given the discomfort in some of Cartmans comments, is it not appropriate that a similar forum be raised? Agent c 20:05, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I made a header for Yes-Man to enter his defence when and if he sees this. As for Cartman, I do not think he broke any rules; at least not nearly enough to make me and others doubt his administrator abilities. He was not the one to lose his composure, insult another editor nor perform a dramatic and immature drama stunt. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- A header is one thing Scar, but we already have two votes that have been made without full information - without hearing his side. Cartman may not have lost his composure in that particular comment, but there is evidence presented on that very page of comments unbecoming an admin. Call a vote, sure, but do not permit any votes to be placed until his comments are presented. Also, Yessie is currently blocked. Agent c 20:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Yessie blocked himself and is still an administrator, so he can unblock himself to put this in. The information of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator was 9 months old, and Cartman has already been reprimanded over this (as far as I gathered, anyway). I voted and consider myself to be privy to most information, considering I was following the debate as it transpired. If you're saying that outside - aka IRL - stress should matter, I do not agree, he should be able to keep his personal problems just that, personal. You do have a point in suspending it a bit. I'll give him 24 hours to find this, and leave him a talkpage message. After that I'll resume this vote. Hugs "Say 'ello to my little friend!"
- Yessie blocked himself and is still an administrator, so he can unblock himself to put this in. The information of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator was 9 months old, and Cartman has already been reprimanded over this (as far as I gathered, anyway). I voted and consider myself to be privy to most information, considering I was following the debate as it transpired. If you're saying that outside - aka IRL - stress should matter, I do not agree, he should be able to keep his personal problems just that, personal. You do have a point in suspending it a bit. I'll give him 24 hours to find this, and leave him a talkpage message. After that I'll resume this vote. Hugs
- A header is one thing Scar, but we already have two votes that have been made without full information - without hearing his side. Cartman may not have lost his composure in that particular comment, but there is evidence presented on that very page of comments unbecoming an admin. Call a vote, sure, but do not permit any votes to be placed until his comments are presented. Also, Yessie is currently blocked. Agent c 20:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Scar on this. If YM were a regular user, we wouldn't be here now. But he's an administrator and as such should be held to a higher degree of accountability. We will have no legitimacy to expect users to uphold the rules if those tasked with enforcing them ignore them and behave this way. We just can't have weekly drama fests coming from administrators like this.
Regarding Cartman, while he certainly has a history of winding people up, as far as the matter at hand goes his behaviour was completely proper, properly addressing all the counterpoints raised (to the point he was mocked for his long posts) and avoiding personalizing. Quite a contrast to Yes Man's emotionally heavy and ad-hominem filled responses.
And of course there's the final outburst. It was completely appalling to see an administrator resort to what's essentially a childish tantrum and passive-aggressive emotional blackmail to get his way. It shows a both lack of maturity and professionalism. If anything the reaction I expected from a committed administrator would to continue to strive to fix perceived failures, not to throw up his arms and leave the room pouting when he fails. Limmiegirl 
Talk! ♪ 20:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
I agree the outburst was wrong... But if I may quote Cartman, why are we expecting Admins to be completely emotionless - admins are real people just like the rest of us, and this comment seems out of character for Yessie, so I believe there is something more to it. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote either way, just that I'm not comfortable until the comments are put into context. From what I recall of last time (Tag), outside pressures did have an impact.
Given the lack of Recall votes in the past, I think its also worth possibly discussing what the procedure is here, are we talking about full defrocking, or just a bump down to moderator? Is there perhaps another sanction that might be more appropriate - some sort of probation? Agent c 21:11, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't expect him to be emotionless, but I do expect every admin to be professional and mature, and the whole drama show was neither. TBH, it smacks me as validation seeking, as if his intention were to make it so that people would beg him for him to comeback, and meet him with fanfare when he finally does. But regardless of his motivation, the fact is everybody is tired of having admins stirring up weekly soap operas, it has already come to the point when every single user who's just arrived asks what's up with the admin team. To put it bluntly: if you don't know how to handle your personal problems without causing a commotion in the whole site, nor react maturely to set backs, then you're not fit to be in the administration. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 21:34, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, what happened to the suspension of the vote? Agent c 22:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- He was already notified and refused to make any statement here. Limmiegirl Talk! ♪ 22:17, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- C> The protocol calls for removal of all powers. Not a demotion. If I got a poll up for a recall for my bc right, I would be stripped entirely, not reduced to an admin. I would need to reapply at a later date. Also as a bc I cannot vote on these as I need to be objective.--Kingclyde 22:22, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
(←)
Come on Agent c (and others). He just had his fuses blown a couple of hours ago. You need to give him time to recover. Really. He deserves at least a day to respond. I'm not sure he will respond to this anyway, probably doesn't care at this stage. A good nights sleep may help (as it did with SD). Jspoel 
22:36, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I had Jspoel... I think I've fought his corner all I can now in making sure he had an opportunity to respond. The event happened last night, he's had an opportunity to sleep on it. I'm inclined to vote yes for him if there was something else, some other stress in his life that contributed to it. But I will reconsider my vote and pull it for now. Yessie, Damnit, say something in your defence. Agent c 22:40, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
Give me time to think. I've just been unblocked, I have to set up an argument. I have no idea where to start, to be perfectly honest. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not very smart. But I'll think of something. 22:43, March 23, 2012 (UTC)