Forum:Reconfirmation request - Tagaziel

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > User rights requests > Reconfirmation request - Tagaziel

This request is for a reconfirmation of Tagaziel's sysop rights. After a recent incident involving a serious violation of user conduct policy, Tagaziel has been blocked for 3 days, and I have been advised to put in a request for his demotion. This thread is not a request for Tagaziel's demotion, but rather a vote of confidence in his ability to act as a sysop.

A secondary purpose of this thread is to serve as a reminder to administrators that they are not untouchable, and that administratorship is not a reward for good contributions nor a promotion to have more authority than other users. Simply put, an admin is a user who is being trusted with access to certain technical features to aid in maintenance. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 10:45, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

There should have been a list of this user's edit counts here, but the edit counts feature is no longer available.

Candidate statement

I believe a written statement by me is in order. I am accused of abusing my administrator privileges and violating user conduct guidelines. I do not deny the latter, I am known for my temperament and often aggressive or otherwise hostile (be it sarcasm, cynism or mockery) demeanor and often clashed with often users in the past. I have to note, however, that my temper has been tempered somewhat and I no longer directly insult users, apart from the rare isolated incident.

I believe that the sole purpose of this thread is retaliation against me out of a misguided sense of "justice". No actual proof of the alleged misuse of administrative priviliges is provided, except for the accuser's experience and a banning incident earlier this month. My behaviour towards the accuser has been very aggressive and I insulted him directly several times; however, he has responded in kind and insulted me much the same way, attacking my education and skills. When I pointed out that his reasoning is invalid, explaining it thooughly, he refrained from responding; instead he directly contacted Ausir and then opened an inquiry into my actions as an administrator, demanding that I be demoted, thinly concealing it as a "vote of confidence". The banning incident involved a Swedish national, Varenus Luckmann, and was enacted after researching his background that confirmed that he was, in fact, a devoted nazi. It was a call I made basing on my belief that no matter the circumstances, declared nazis should be barred from public sites; this reasoning based on the unwritten, but enforced policy of barring racist, sexist and otherwise hate-inclined persons from using this wiki. This decision has been reverted by a fellow admin and respected (albeit begrudgingly) by me.

No other proof is provided. My talk page and allegations of prejudice and persecution contained within are cited as representative of my actions and character. My interactions with Itachou and several other users are similarly used to paint me in a negative light. Both of these claims are baseless - I have been attacked and accused in the past, often for misinterpreted legitimate actions enforcing The Vault's rules. Likewise, my interactions with other users are misconstrued - while me and Itachou (and Ausir, and GhostAvatar, and Nitpicker and....) often have differences of opinion and sometimes the arguments become heated, we stay on friendly terms and cooperate.

To me, this forum thread is much like a similiar one made by a different user several months ago, where under the veil of "preventing conflicts" a user attempted to pass a regulation aimed to muzzle and prevent me from sharing my opinion of Fallout 3 across the Wiki. As I read the accusations levied against me, I feel that they are constructed to paint me in as negative a light as possible.

Reading the rationale further reinforces the feeling that I am to be made an example, as Lugia writes, a "reminder to administrators that they are not untouchable", that barely a month old accounts can take down anyone. This is further reinforced by the fact that I've already been punished for violating user conduct by a 72 hour long block, yet a call is made to punish me even more severely, in a manner completely disproportionate to the offence.

Last, I would also like to add that I will be away for a week starting Friday 27th, thus making me unable to defend myself until the poll ends.

That is all. I bid you a pleasant day. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 20:37, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Votes

Note: This poll will run for 10 days rather than the typical 7 days, to allow Tagaziel to contribute to the discussion after his block expires, should he so wish. A quick clarification: {{yes}} is a vote in favour of Tagaziel retaining his sysop rights, and {{no}} is a vote supporting them being removed. The purpose of this poll is purely to gauge community opinion on the matter at hand - it is not binding, and the final decision rests in the hands of the bureaucrats. Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion - your vote is worth more if it is accompanied by your reasoning. That said, any responses to others' votes or discussion of any kind should be made in the comment section.

Poll finished on 12:00 am June 4, 2011 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Only registered users with prior contributions may vote.

• Punishing people because they believe something you don't agree with is a violation of the trust put in you as an admin. It is an abuse of power. Nazi believer or not, if they did nothing wrong in the bounds of The Vault then no grounds exist for any punishment. This sets a very poor precident that any of us may be punished at any time for anything unrelated to The Vault and the confines of our actions on the Wikia, as long as the person punishing has a moral or idealogical objection to what they believe or their personal details Magmarashi

• I have been active on this wiki for 2 years i agree with Tagaziel's views on Fallout 3!, he is the only Admin on this wiki to people in their rightful place! that being vandals,idiots,racists, tagz being a slavic person.Poland to be precise i understand his actions in banning and insulting the Swedish user who is a self proclaimed Nazi if anyone here knows their history the germans viewed Slavs as an inferior race and attempted to exterminate them.And so in my opinion tagz does not deserve this childish punishment he is and always will be one of the top Admins on this wiki!.user:kaminoman

• In the short time I have been here, Tagaziel's interactions with myself, and interactions that I have seen with other users, such as Itachou, have not been favourable. He comes across as abrasive, unhelpful, and looking at his talk page, has been accused in the past of deleting Bethesda flamebait in blog comments but ignoring anything that comes across supportive of NMA, no matter the content, lacking a neutrality that is crucial to users who are often asked to act as arbiters in user disputes. Additionally, I feel that Tagaziel abused his privileges with his recent ban of Luckmann, which I believe falls far outside of the admin responsibilities outlined at FW:AP. Lugiatm (talk · contribs)

• I've never 100% got on with Tagaziel on here, mainly due to his major hate for Fallout 3 and the need to post everywhere why Beth should burn...(in so many words), but recently I've come to respect his opinions, he seems like an intelligent feller. The main reason why some of you may dislike him may be because of his heavy use of sarcasm and, well lets call it dry wit, I personally see nothing wrong with this, I'm even heavily sarcastic myself (hey, I'm a Brit, what do you expect?).
  Basically, what I'm trying to say is that my reason for saying 'no' isn't because of petty dislike for Tag, I have nothing against him, but instead because of the evidence. Tag broke the rules, and instead of stepping down, or even just bringing in higher power or a fellow admin as an unbiased judge, he had a argument with a fellow user, over what? Eyes. It's not like it's even a big thing, so what if normal textured eyes look bad? All images should be vanilla Fallout. Once you start finding loop holes, others will stretch these and the next thing you know bam!, this is no longer The Vault but instead, the Fallout Nexus.
  Now, all that said, Tag has severed out his block, and he apologized for his actions, sure that doesn't exactly make up for what he did, but it should count for something. I just suggest that for 3 months or so Tag loses his admin status and becomes but a dweller once more. After which, he can reapply for adminship.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"

• I have had no problems with Tag, and I believe he should still have his administrator rights. Tag has plenty of Vault experience, and has been here for a long time to understand what needs to be done around here. When one's opinion is being insulted continuously it is often the fact that they will defend their opinion, which is what Tag always does. Tag is always on defense here because he has his opinion of not liking Bethesda, and with that there will always be people who prefer Bethesda, and will attack his opinion. TrailerParkApe ^TPA

• I've seen him be harsh with other users several times, but he has contributed a lot to the Vault and doesn't deserve such a punishment over one incident of bad behavior. Hopefully, this will be a reminder for him to keep his temper in check from now on. BILLYOCEAN

• I share the exact same opinion as Luigiatm. The ban of Luckmann, for example, was completely unnecessary (anyone should express their opinions and look on things without being bashed). I once saw a comment of his on a vote page: "the one who votes no on this one, should be stoned", or something like that (excuse me if I am incorrect). Otherwise I see a lack of neutrality, which is not a good trait for an administrator. gears of duty

• I'm not too sure. He is an extremely good editor, but on the other hand, his interactions haven't been so great. Sure, he can have his own opinion, but dude, there's no need to be so rude. He is very strict with policy, good, however, he is quite one-sided with this, like Lugiatm mentioned with the Bethesda flamebait. He is known for providing good reasoned opinions against Bethesda, however this is often very excessive, and usually starts a page full argument.
  As one of the users here since the wiki started, he is obviously a good administrator with knowledge about Fallout and the Wiki. However, he does need to calm down with the things mentioned above.
  If he promises to keep it down, i'm game. Trolly Polly Olly

• Made my decision. After seeing a couple more things, i have decided to say no. A bad day does not mean you can go around banning people left & right who haven't broken the policy. At the end of the day, Luckmann never broken policy, and banning people who are against your side is an abuse of power. Trolly Polly Olly 13:16, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

• Im going on Tag's side this time. Yes, his behaviour has been unacceptable, but he has already been banned for a short period, and I think that proves ably enough that Admins aren't "untouchable", there isn't reason enough for him to lose his adminship. If he continues with this attitude (which I highly doubt after this) he might come to this again, but for now, he does not deserve to lose adminship. Hugs and kisses Scar: "Say 'ello to my little friend!"

• Everyone is allowed to have bad days. With regards to the complaints about his attitude, I am sure the fact this pole now exists is enough of a reality check for him. Tagaziel is an authority when it comes to Fallout, so I wont hold it against him if he is authoritative on the subject. - Dude101

• As someone who uses the wiki and rarely edits and rarely reads forums/talks I can't say either way. - RGDelta

• Agree with Dude101 for bad days. For the ban of Luckmann, I also find it a bit excessive but we can understand that Tagaziel is Polish and that personaly touches him much more than anyone (in addition that the ban is rather against a murderous ideology - any political or religious opinion has nothing to do on a wiki). For the rest, he doesn't merit such sanction, this is an excellent contributor to The Vault, a real fan and connoisseur of the Fallout universe, and even if sometimes sarcastic or rude, he doesn't think evil and defend just these opinions (sometimes too but who can blame him)? Despite my many discussions with him for divergent opinions, as he said himself, we respect each other and we stay in friendly terms at the end even if we still have disagreements. He's smart enough to not do anything with his admin rights and I think Tagaziel can take this as a warning for the future.
  After some view of Mikael acts (mostly because the Mercy page conflict with Ghost), when I'm not here in the moment, I changed my vote to neutral. I think Tagaziel can take this as a great warning for the future. Itachou ^[~talk~]

• Kingclyde I have never had issues with him and he is a good editor. I agree with Itachou that him being Polish makes things personal in a way but in the same light, I don't get upset if someone came on here and took the name Andrew Jackson. It's all about moderation and I think that this may have become a minor witchhunt of sorts. Anyways, he is a good admin and should retain his rights.--Kingclyde

• I will go ahead and say it, Tagaziel can be a bit of an ass. I've occasionally had the displeasure of being flamed by him for supporting Bethesda and Fallout 3. However, personal views aside, I do not think that his administrator rights should be revoked. Sure, he can be somewhat aggressive with his views but that alone should not constitute him losing his administrator rights. If he can promise to be a bit milder in the future I have no qualms with him staying a sysop. Aleksandr the Great

• We've all had bad days at work Tagz, and as much as we might try to stop it sometimes it spills over into our outside selves. Don't let this get you down, and try not to let this happen again; That said, this dispute seems to be about something very petty, and this poll seems to be a continutation of this; I'd encourage both sides to just let it go Agent c

• Everyone has bad days on occasion. It happens. But the fact is, Tagaziel knows a LOT about the Fallout series, he knows a LOT about the Vault as well. He's an asset to the Vault as a sysop, and it would be a disservice to the Vault to demote him. --Kris

• Honestly the interaction between Tagaziel and the poll-starter isn't something you would normally see from him (now ). Tagaziel himself is an authority on Fallout and his knowledge is very refined, and if game developers actually listened to him we'd probably end up with a much better Fallout game. I fear this has been taken very far and the poll-starter is going over-board, wanting to punish Tagaziel for something he’s already been punished for. This thread is apparently “to serve as a reminder to administrators that they are not untouchable”, now you tell me how often do you actually see an admin abusing their powers and then try telling me that this reminder is necessary and there is no alterior motive. Give me one other example of Tagaziel abusing his powers and it will lend some weight to the claim that he is an abusive administrator. Note: Remainder moved to comments.

• I believe that Tagaziel can be a bit abrasive and hostile towards various people, and I have been blocked because of this on an occasion, but he does give some very good contributions and keeps people in line. He's the bad cop of the Vault, keeping order but in an unpopular way. I cannot say that he should be reprimanded for his attitude, but I can say that he is strong and protective as well as arrogant. Sombar1

• The Vault is a better wiki for Tagaziel's experience, familiarity with the setting and canon, and well written and reasoned articles and arguments. From what I've seen, his abrasiveness only manifests in the face of rude behavior from others or when someone tries to argue without logic or correct information.--OvaltinePatrol

• I haven't actually said a damn thing here in a long time. I lurk though. Seriously, what is the sense in taking things this far? The fact that he was blocked kinda proves the point - “to serve as a reminder to administrators that they are not untouchable”. Why push for a vote of no confidence that would result in a demotion (regardless of the poll starter's stated motives) when the guy's already been shown not to be untouchable? He gets my vote of confidence. //--Run4^{My Talk}

• I just want to start by saying that I have a huge ammount of respect for Tagaziel. He is one of the greatest contributers this wiki has ever had and he has done more for The Vault than most of us ever will. However his actions are not acceptable. It would be one thing if this was a single incident. But what we have is a pattern of misconduct that has gone on for a long time. Admins are supposed to be polite, unbias, and respectful to members of The Vault and Tagaziel has shown himself in the past as well as now to not be these things. The fact that he had a bad day is no excuse for this kind of behavior. If this was the first time something like this happened I would understand however these issues have been raised before yet they continue to happen. As a respected member of this community and a very smart person he should know better. This is not an exile from The Vault, if that was the case I couldn't vote no as we would lose one of our greatest contributers, This is simply to remove his admin status so that he comes to understand that his actions have consequences. He can reapply for admin status and I'm sure he will (and regain it) if he loses it because of this. I don't agree with the idea that Tagaziel should be made an example of. The idea of that kinda shows to me that this poll was started for all the wrong reasons, however that doesn't mean that these actions didn't happen. No matter what happens I just hope that everything works out for the best.--RAM

• He can still contribute good edits without the ability to abuse admin powers. Being rude/assholeish to people on occasion is one thing, doing that in conjunction with using your banhammer to suit your own viewpoint is entirely unacceptable.TotallyOriginalUsername 22:46, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Banned new user, mass vandal.

• I'm not sure... Tagaziel is a good editor but I really don't like the way he wrote his "Candidate statement". veryblackraven^Talk

• He needs to be polite to other users. I saw a lot of rude comments from him to other users. Especially, when he's talking about Fallout 3. -James Jr

• I have confidence in Tagaziel.--Ryker61

• He can edit well, but can abuse the powers Gheart

• He can't keep his irrational hatred for Fallout 3 from coloring his decisions, so I vote no confidence.

• I've had no negative experiences with him. He's made many positive contributions to the site, so one bad decision should not unbalance that. I believe he deserves a second chance. Blazingsand

• I'm not a heavy editor here on the Vault, although I usually contribute with something outside the mainstream articles, like minors NPCs, not so famous locations, and so on. My only experience with an large article was the re-written of the entire Beyond the Beef quest, just to see it filled with a lot of BS after a month. Now we - the creators - have to check the articles we wrote every day? I don't have stomach for such a thing. Because of this and also the fact I was once an network administrator I cannot condone Tagaziel heavelly, I know what's like to be an Admin. Sometimes we made mistakes, is unfortunate and this cause some pain on someone, but this is the process by what we humans learn how not to repeat them. Reading Tagaziel text he actually acknowledge he made a mistake, so I think he deserve a second chance. That's the reason I won't support his demotion of Admin status. But there's one thing he is wrong, uterly wrong: Nazis should not be barred from public sites, they should be burned alive. As well the chetniks. Brfritos

• I say the guy knows his stuff, and was already punished for a misconduct. So long as it's not a commonplace thing, I honestly feel that he does what his position warrants, which is really all you can ask. You have a right to display an opinion openly, and I honestly don't find the personality that abrasive (even when I got ripped apart, I WAS wrong, after all), or even abrasive in comparison to others; have you people SEEN the kind of stuff that gets written here?LordDeathkeeper (almost forgot to sign in again)

• Tagaziel should keep his administration rights, with his extensive knowledge and dedication to Fallout and this wiki I feel that even if he isn't "nice" to everyone he should be allowed to keep his administrative status. TwentySyxx

• Chadious Maximus Tagaziel is often quite rude and antagonistic towards other forum members, and such behaviour seems counterintuitive to fostering a positive environment where fans of the series can come to enjoy the games they enjoy. we have butted heads several times in the news forums. that being said, he seems quite knowledgeable on the lore, as well as quite active in keeping the Wiki info correct. if he can contain his often bad behaviour towards other members, then I'd have no issue with him remaining an admin, though in this vote, I must abstain, though I figured I should speak my mind (Chadious Maximus)

• Always tries to promote his own opinions of things. Doesn't let anyone praise Fallout 3 without Tagaziel using the same points 10 times in a argument. No for me.--MetallicaFTW.

• Such behavoir has no place in the vault community, and for this reson I believe he should lose his admin rights. Bobbyb373

• He may be a bit brash, but Tagaziel is NEEDED as an admin. He's a nice fellow, not nice in the sense that he is actually a carebear hippy, but nice in the sense that he's a willing and productive member of the community. More important, he's an adult ready to put kids in their rightful place. So what, he's kicked a self-proclaimed nazi ... And how is that a bad thing ? So what, he's sometimes insulting with snotty kids that wants everyone to treat them as the special thing they are ... Again, how is that a bad thing ? To me, Tagaziel is important because he's always ready to participate in heated nerdy debates (which any serious video game community is for - we're nerds, let's admit it, and we LIKE these debates) and to contribute heavily to the development of the site. Without him the Vault would be a bland and boring website, IMO, and no one would really care as much as him about the old Fallout games. Let's not give one-month-old kiddies the right to demote one of the most important figure here, yanno ? Xporc

• Even though he's removed entire debate threads, locked pages, and made millions of bans, I have never personally had a run in or debate with him because I generally try not to be involved with people's problems. If anything, this Vault does not need anymore or any less administrators. Tagaziel has way too many edits to not be an administrator at this point. I applaud the Nazi being banned; Nobody wants a hate comment spewing jerk. Regardless of if he personally insulted anybody, Nazis are evil people and deserve to be crucified. Go Tagaziel! PipMan

• One little fight is not a reason to take way his rights as an admin BigDogW

• This kind of incident (especially one that can so easily cause a controversy like this one) should definitely not strip Tagaziel of his admin rights. He's an accomplished admin and to be frank banning a neo nazi from the wiki is not proof that he's out to get anyone. Clean Up

• Banning a Nazi shouldn't result in losing admin rights. Also from what I gathered Tagaziel is Polish so he would likely be extremely peeved off at said person.--UserofMagnum

• Tagaziel is a good editor and an important persona in the whole Fallout community. His temper can pose a problem sometimes, but let's not forget that, after all, all of his opinions are well structured, supported and above all, logical. As many have pointed out before, Tagaziel's act may seem a bit extreme, but it alone should not be the basis for stripping him of his sysop rights. --Atomkilla

• I think Tag was more or less on the wrong side of the eye argument, and he clearly crossed the line arguing the position. He should have known better than to lose his temper over something so inconsequential. However, I don't like how this situation looks. It seems like Lugia is using wiki rules to take some kind of revenge, and I do not want that sort of thing to be successful. Geech

• A person is not the sum of there indiscretion, but of all there actions. With that being said, as far as I see it the Luckmann incident has no relevance here. In that respect Tagaziel made a choice as a admin in what he felt was best for the Wiki. That is something I cannot fault them for as an admins main responsibility is as a guardian of the Wiki. The reasoning behind that choice is a different matter and was discussed at length (trust me I know) at the time. Now for the insulting, there was no use of admin powers, so why it should come to a vote of confidence to perform as a admin is beyond me. He was punished just the same as any other person here, that in its self shows that a admin isn't untouchable and will be dealt with the same as any other user and given no special treatment because of there statues. And Tag, don't over exaggerate the issue, no one demanded that you should be demoted or even asked for that matter.

• For anyone who's ever been to the Prototype wiki before, you would know that Tag and I have had a strained past. For this reason, my vote may or may not appear biased. However, in the time that I've known Tag, whenever I've seen him in an argument with me, or anyone else for that matter, he'll outright call someone stupid or an idiot, or say things that imply their argument is stupid, even when it is completely sensible. Outright or implying insults to other users isn't generally tolerated by anons, tolerated less by users, and if an admin does it, they shouldn't be allowed to have higher rights than other users. Also in the time I've been here, he's blocked some users for disagreeing with his views (don't ask me for a source, I can't find it, and while this reduces the credibility of my argument, give me a chance), and letting you personal effects influence your editing should be a violation of policy if it isn't already. And while this next part doesn't effect my opinion on this matter even remotely, I would like to say it: I tire greatly of Tag's constant bashing of Bethesda. And while it's his opinion, it doesn't need to be reiterated 50 times on every little conversation concerning Fallout 3. With care and happiness, Supermutantslayer450' YOU. LOSE.

• Abuse of power to ban people for a difference of opinion. StoicFever

• I've never been exactly comfortable with the conflict of interest created by his being one of the operators of NMA and using his position here to stifle all discussion about that website. Kara MacNamara

• Tagziel can be a bit of ass sometimes but he's a good contributor and really knows his Fallout and usually makes good, quality edits. Shadowrunner^(stuff)

• As someone who has been subjected to the arbitrary banhammer of Tagaziel, I'm hardly entirely neutral. Opposed as I am to this system of Vote of No Confidence, in my opinion, there should be rules and regulations as to what trespass merits what punishment. In this case, the punishment would be clear - abuse is abuse. It is, however, none the less the going system and we must thus weigh the contributions of a user to determine their net "worth". I do not agree with what he did, but he is knowledgeable on the topics surrounding the wiki and he serves his purpose capably. In the light of this reasoning and the system in place, I have no choice but to abstain. http://imageshack.us/m/15/6929/luckmanngrenadesignatur.png Luckmann

• I like Ik.. um... Tag! Notseanconneryandwillsadlyneverbe Invalid: You need an actual reason. You can't just say "i like this person". Trolly Polly Olly

• I belive that Tagaziel does deserve his adminstration rights, he has an extensive knowledge of the Fallout universe and certainly gives a lot to the community and the vault wikia itself. Though he has accomplished a great deal throught this he also has a severe issue with his ability to restrain himself and will often go into arguments for little to no reason; this is not the correct behavour of a vault adminstrator nor is it in any form. With both of these in mind I would say that if he can hold back against arguing, quite ruthlessly at times, then he would be perfectly acceptable as an adminstrator. Gothic Neko

• I’ve been browsing through the interchanges between Lugiatm and Tagaziel about Graham’s image and didn’t like what I saw from Tagaziel. He responded in this discussion to Lugiatm with words like infinitely stupid, dense, idiot, oblivious and clueless. This is not the kind of language that should be used by an admin, as especially admins should set the good example on behaviour towards other editors and got him the 3-day block. Now if it was an isolated incident, this would suffice. However, this is not the first time Tagaziel has been rude towards others. He’s already hinting to this himself by saying he has a history for having an aggressive and hostile demeanor. Half a year ago I remember him comparing a member of this wiki to FO1 Harry brother (which is certainly not a compliment). Then in february a discussion about the Mercy weapon during which he locked the infobox image for no real good reason (although later he apologized on how things went). Then in May of this year an adminship request from Dude101 in which Tagaziel added a comment that anyone who voted no, should be stoned. I really tought: What’s up with that, is that supposed to intimidate people to vote yes or otherwise? And after Lugiatm sent his post to Ausir about Tagaziel’s behavior, Tagaziel replied with excuses, but in the same sentence compared Lugiatm’s interaction with him to user ignorance. I’m not going to trace back everything, but I think Tagaziel has some history of questionable admin behavior. I feel it was a matter of time before someone (Lugiatm) stood up to it, not being impressed too much by his admin status. However short a member he his, he rightfully sent a post to Ausir about this, who acted accordingly. About the matter of Luckmann, I can understand Tagaziel’s decision to ban him and although it’s been reverted, I do not want to hold that against him.
  All in all, did Tagaziel abuse his admin powers? I voted neutral because although I don’t like how he sometimes interacts with others and maybe came to the edge of abuse, I’m not sure it’s worth removing his powers (yet). Also, he has done a lot for the community and that should still count for something. But I do think he needs to improve his attitude towards others and be friendlier, even if things heat up. Like Itachou says, he should see this as a serious warning and hopefully will act on it. Jspoel

---

The voting period has now ended. Votes made after this point will not be taken into consideration.

Bureaucrats' verdict

Looking at the reasoning given for the votes, some of the "no" ones are based on his dislike of Fallout 3, which is not really relevant, just like the "yes" votes based on his knowledge of Fallout. And while the Luckmann incident probably was a wrong judgment call and a breach of policy, Tagaziel still did go along with the decision of other admins to revert it.

Generally, there have been quite a few votes both for and against him keeping admin rights, but in the end, there were more "keep" votes than "remove" and "neutral" ones put together. While this does show there is some division over him being an administrator, he still does have the trust of the majority of the active community. While Tagaziel does show some insulting behavior occassionally, the block and the vote in itself should be enough of a warning and reminder for him to control his temper in the future. I consider him reconfirmed as administrator. Ausir^(talk) 08:45, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Re: TrollyPolly's comment

Uh, this wiki has existed since 2005. Йура 21:00, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I know. Trolly Polly Olly 21:09, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Then plainly you must understand that Tagaziel was not one of the original editors here. Йура 21:10, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

He joined in 2007, and the Wiki was arguably still starting at that time. Trolly Polly Olly 21:13, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

While I don't know when exactly Tag joined (and also think it's not that relevant, it was way back anyway), please keep in mind that the Vault moved to Wikia in 2007 (it was hosted by Duck and Cover before), so the join dates displayed here do not necessarily reflect the real join date for people which were around before the move. For example, Ausir's join date here is listed as May 29, 2007, and he was definitely around when the wiki was founded ;) -- Porter21 _(talk) 21:17, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Plus, I do believe they originally operated under User:Mikael Grizzly. 23:09, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, porter, but if you go to his contribs page and set the year field to either 2005 or 2006, it'll come up with no results -- by contrast, if you go to Ausir's page and do the same, you'll see he was very active in both years before the movement from Duck and Cover. I'm merely correcting Trolly Polly.

And GhostAvatar, I feel I'm about the only person left who calls Tagaziel "Mikael" on a regular basis. Йура 00:37, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/MikaelGrizzly ;) -- Porter21 _(talk) 05:57, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Not the only person, me too ;) (but I called Tagaziel here since almost no one knows his real name and it's better for everyone to understand of who we're talking). Itachou ^[~talk~] 10:25, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Why were those four contribs not moved with his username? Йура 18:44, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Looks like different user to me - the underscore (or space) is missing. --GobTheGoul (talk) 19:09, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a different account apparently (his old one here was "Mikael Grizzly", that other one is "MikaelGrizzly", without the space. I think this getting a bit off-topic though ;) -- Porter21 _(talk) 19:12, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Cartman!'s vote explanation continued

As for Tagaziel banning Luckmann, if you saw the actual exchange you will note that Luckman seemed (I’m not saying he actually was) to be trying to avoid the question as to his true political motivation, and never really did elaborate. That alone can be taken as suspicious, but then bare in mind that Tagaziel noted that his own family were terrorised by a certain ‘party’. His own family. This is something not many people will be able to appreciate, and his approach to the discussion was actually very cordial considering this fact, if someone ever associated themselves with a group who had hurt my family (and made it a priority to do so), personally I wouldn’t do very nice things. Imagine walking up to a jew for example, not any jew, but a child or grand child of a concentration camp inmate and telling them that you are a Nazi and then avoid telling them your true political motivations when they ask. I do not think he went over board here at all, and while yes, political issues should be avoided here I can understand why he reacted the way he did; he is a human being. Also, it is clear that Luckmann started the debate (whether by intention or not) by declaring his political allegiance, hence Tagaziel asking for confirmation and this is important to note, he didn’t just randomly ask someone if they were a Nazi for them to inexplicably be one.

Whether he loses his adminship rights or not don’t you think that this poll existing in the first place is shaming enough? This is beginning to feel more like a personal vendetta by a certain individual than any actual valid complaint, as Tagaziel has been punished, he has also apologised, and the matter is now public. Anyone actually paying attention the the previous exchange between the two individuals will note that while Tagaziel did make personal comments yes (and has also explained he was having a bad day), Lugiatm seems to be taking this much further than necessary almost in a “how dare you disagree with me” fashion. We all know Tagaziel is passionate (more than most), and we all know we’re human beings, also bare in mind how much Tagaziel loves this franchise; imagine all of these qualities culminating in a moment of human weakness, and then try to tell me that you’ve never made a mistake. We don’t know what happened that day that already had him agitated, and it doesn’t matter because it isn’t our right to know, the fact is Tagaziel has recieved punishment already in several different ways.

Finally, Tagaziel is very good at arguing as we all know. He is allowed to express his opinions regarding Bethesda, and frankly if you can’t think of any way of arguing back then you are probably wrong, or if not you are holding an opinion for the wrong reasons. People have died for free speech, and if you’re someone who wants to take that away from him then you don’t deserve it yourself. How about if Tagaziel isn’t allowed to express his criticisms/dislike of Bethesda then you aren’t allowed to express your love for it? It’s a fair compromise and one doesn’t (hopefully) take priority over the other. This seems more like people are (and will be) voting out of his favour because he disagrees with their views or because they can’t win an argument with him and this is fundamentally wrong and flawed; if this is why you’re voting against him then I suggest you reevaluate your own self esteem. At this stage and in my opinion this seems almost like bullying.
Take some time to actually read some of Tagaziel’s blog posts without hating the fact he is opinionated, and hell read his latest review on NMA, and you will see an intelligent individual with a fountain of good ideas.

If this is too long an admin can move it to the discussion if they think it necessary.
moved to comments by --Kris

"Always tries to promote his own opinions of things. Doesn't let anyone praise Fallout 3 without Tagaziel using the same points 10 times in a argument. No for me."

"I tire greatly of Tag's constant bashing of Bethesda. And while it's his opinion, it doesn't need to be reiterated 50 times on every little conversation concerning Fallout 3"

As I guessed, votes have appeared because of Tagaziel's opinions, and in my own I think they should be disregarded. People can promote their own opinions, it's the reason for discussion and the corresponding pages; if nobody promoted their own opinions then everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted without fear of dissension. Also people can reiterate their own views however many times they see fit, it is their prerogative to do so. If you can't accept that someone dislikes Bethesda it's your own problem, it is not acceptable reasoning as far as voting goes. -- 21:30, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Re: OvaltinePatrol's comment

Disagree, he may be harsh even with someone that have good logic and good argumentation, but disagrees with his point of view (and even when the person against him has globally right). But despite that, I think he's his way of defending these confictions, he would be less abrasive it would be nice but otherwise it's not a valid reason to blame him, sincerely. Apart from that, Tagaziel is a pleasant and polite person when we talk with him without debate behind or exhibitions of divergent opinions. Itachou ^[~talk~] 22:25, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I don't think that Lugiatm "refrained from responding". From what I see, the debate carried on for quite a while, and he only contacted Ausir when it became obvious that the debate wasn't going anywhere, as is explicitly commanded by Vault policy. Ausir was also the one who suggested this vote in the first place, if what I see on their talk pages is correct. 71.178.211.230 01:05, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you for that, and I personally find this debate in form (Reconfirmation request - Tagaziel) irrelevant but Ausir knows what he does. As I say, I see it more as a warning and not as a punishment that will fall - and this debate is the best way to give a warning. Itachou ^[~talk~] 12:30, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is this a point we can possibly clarify? Did Ausir direct you the OP to create this page, or was it presented as an option? Agent c 17:01, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Candidate statement

It's a bit late in the day to be doing this, as the poll is nearing its expiration, but I feel there are a few things that have yet to be said on this matter. Tagaziel, you say that I have put forward no evidence that you have abused your administrative privileges but you have in fact done so yourself. The banning of Luckmann was not based on any wiki policy whatsoever, but rather your own personal belief that nazis should be banned from the entire internet. Luckmann had not violated any policy except one that exists only in your head, a policy about whether or not people holding certain beliefs should be allowed to contribute, as if it would have any actual bearing on the wiki project. What you made was a call on freedom of speech, a call which you have no right to be making. That is the decision of the country in which the site is hosted, the decision of the site owner, and/or the decision of the community as creators of policy. That is the abuse of administrative power. Your actions towards me are not, and I never claimed they were.

As for "demanding you be demoted", that is simply false. This is what it is - a forum topic to determine whether the community still has faith in your ability to act as an administrator. The fact that you are willing to misrepresent me so heavily does nothing to improve my confidence of you in this area. You also say I "misconstrue" your interactions with Itachou, when in fact all I said on the matter is that my opinion of you is not favourable based on recent interactions I have witnessed between the two of you.

Something which you mention in your candidate statement, as well as something that comes up in the votes a lot is Fallout 3. Let's just get this straight: I do not care about your opinion on Fallout 3. Personally, I think a lot of your Fallout critiques are just flamebait, whether you intend them to be or not, and as an admin, you shouldn't be encouraging infighting like that. But despite what you say about me attempting to "muzzle" you, I will tolerate this if the community does, as it violates no policy that I know of. What worries me is the fact that you have been accused (and some voters on this page seem to agree with this accusation, I can't comment because I tend to deliberately avoid the user blogs) of actually enforcing your opinion, which if true would definitely be an abuse of admin power. Yes, you might have lots of Fallout knowledge, but having sysop powers removed doesn't prevent you from contributing in any way. Maybe you like the atmosphere at NMA [1], but we're not here to bitch about Fallout 3 (or at least I'm not), we're here to build an encyclopedia. And before you ask, I preferred New Vegas.

Now, whether this is a "punishment" or not. Again, you have completely misrepresented me here. This is not a call to, as you say, punish you further than the 72-hour block. This really is just a poll to determine what proportion of the community still feels comfortable letting you have the banhammer. Demoting you for this is no more a punishment than being granted admin rights in the first place is a reward. It worries me that you have misunderstood such a fundamental part of the Vault's admin policy, and makes me think that there should be a discussion on what being an admin actually means. This brings me to my final point, actually - you take my statement that this should a reminder that admins are not untouchable out of context to make it seem I am somehow marking my territory on the wiki, when I clearly stated in the opening statement that this is secondary to the reconfirmation. The reason I say such a thing is because to my knowledge, there has been nothing similar happen in the history of the wiki, and Tagaziel's actions, as well as some other things that I have seen recently, have shown me that there is a complacency among admins, a culture in the community of ending a discussion as soon as an admin weighs in because their word is "final", and a habit of judging arguments not on their merit but on who is making the argument. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 11:53, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the "reminder" should not have been there at all in my opinion. Basically you're (intentionally or not) intertwining the reconfirmation vote with some perceived underlying issue which is not fair towards the candidate. This is a vote whether Tagaziel should keep his sysop rights or not, and not whether admins need to be "taken down a notch" (which definitely is the notion carried across both by your post above and the last passage of the OP). If you feel the latter needs to be discussed, it should be done in a separate thread. -- Porter21 _(talk) 12:53, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. I should have not said it or at least said it in a way that doesn't conflate the issue with Tagaziel's reconfirmation. I should clarify, "taking admins down a notch" is certainly not what I meant by the "reminder". What I meant was that the role of the admin outlined in policy and admins' general actions in practice seem to be wildly different, and that as a community the wiki should be discussing what it means to be an admin. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 13:41, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

So what this really is about is how YOU would like to see admins act. "What I meant was that the role of the admin outlined in policy and admins' general actions in practice seem to be wildly different, and that as a community the wiki should be discussing what it means to be an admin" is a line that someone who wishes to rewrite policy would write. Here is the skinny, every admin does things a little different. Admins are not cookie cutter replicas with different names. Some edits that I revert may get overlooked by other admins and vice versa. What this is is the incident with Tag is being used as a catalyst to promote a change in policy or how things are run (apparently the last 5 years with no other incidents like this is a reason to change a long standing policy). I believe as Porter21 stated that this issue of how admins are supposed to behave (which again you made clear in your rebuttal to Porter21) should be discussed in a different forum, not here. They are two separate issues.--Kingclyde 00:12, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't this this statement is appropriate and just seems to be intended to further the personal issues between you two. I again call for you both to drop it, and if I hadn't already voted yes, I'd be changing my vote to yes right now. If you must continue this, I don't think here on a public forum is the right place for you to settle your dispute. Agent c 23:50, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

You think Tagaziel and I should meet up in real life and fight? :P If you're not convinced that this is about the wiki, and not a personal issue, then that's your problem, not mine. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 23:51, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

No, I think if you're going to get into a slanging match you've got perfectly good private communication channels. Might I suggest Email?. This seems to have gone well beyond the actual wiki and more about personalities. Agent c 00:05, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

And this defensive attitude that Lugiatm is displaying above reinforces the fact that is indeed personal.--Kingclyde 00:12, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

the role of the admin outlined in policy and admins' general actions in practice seem to be wildly different

How so? In the case of Luckmann he blocked someone based on his interpretation that they where disruptive to the site. Now the reasoning behind that block may have been flawed and in some respects tainted by personnel feelings on the subject, but the intent on the whole was to protect the Vault and prevent disruption. Then when I reverted his block, Tagaziel discussed the matter which was following administration policy. So I cant really see any violation in that matter. Tagaziel may be less than perfect, but does that mean he is not capable of reasonable thought and discussion? 00:58, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, he didn't block someone because he thought they'd be disruptive, he blocked them because, as he states above, he believes that "declared nazis should be barred from public sites". You know this, you unblocked Luckmann because you felt that his block had no basis in policy.

But I wasn't referring to that incident specifically when I was talking about admins' actions. What I meant is that adminship, as outlined at FW:URR, is "not a reward for good contributions nor a promotion to have more authority than other users. Simply put, an admin is a user who is being trusted with access to certain technical features to aid in maintenance". And yet admins seem to be acting as the final word when it comes to content disputes, and arbiters of user conflicts, which flies in the face of the implication that they are to maintain the wiki and uphold its policies only. That is something I feel should be discussed, so that there is a clear outline of the admin's duties on the wiki. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 15:09, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

The more you argue your position Lugiatm, the more you verify that you are using this in the wrong manner. Let's review this issue you have here. First off you upset and are using the wrong forum to address this issue as Porter21 stated. Here is a line from the VAA:RFA "an admin is a user who is being trusted with access to certain technical features to aid in maintenance". You state that "admins seem to be acting as the final word when it comes to content disputes, and arbiters of user conflicts, which flies in the face of the implication that they are to maintain the wiki and uphold its policies only". Admins are indeed here to do the items you stated. Just because it is not stated word for wrod as you would have DOES NOT mean it won't get done. If I see someone that is adding info that goes against policy, I will revert it and inform the person if they continuously add it. In my opinion that is doing MY job as an admin on this wiki. But in your opinion I'm abusing my powers because that is not laid out word for word is my job description. That falls under "maintain the wiki and uphold its policies". Next, you have an issue with admins being "arbiters of user conflicts". Again that falls under "maintain the wiki and uphold its policies". We can't have edit wars and sometimes 2 users have issues when adding content where they are either both wrong, right or somewhere in the middle so they have an admin get involved. That also goes for your issue of admins having the "final word when it comes to content disputes". Content disputes usually stem from people not reading policy so thus, an admin has to step in and resolve this issue. From what I can determine from all of you original writings on this subject and then your further defensive writings, you have an issue with admins in general and YES you do feel that "admins should be taken down a notch" because somewhere at some point, you have been countermanded by an admin and you may have gotten upset. You seem to be making this a personal quest against Tag at first but now you have revealed that in general you have an issue with admins doing their jobs. Upholding policy (by settling user conflicts and maintaining The Vault's content policy) and maintaining the day to day functioning of The Vault is what an admin is there to do. We have 3 bureaucrats (Ausir, Porter21 and Gothemasticator) who are not always on every day nor can they babysit a wiki of this size alone. That is where us admins come into play. I'm truly sorry that you cannot comprehend this simple fact and hopefully at some point whatever caused you to have this odd "vision" of admins gets fixed. He's how I see this came into play. You posted this poll to see if you could get Tag's admin powers revoked. If successful, you could wave it in the face of other admins and say "hey look what I did to Tag, you others better be nice to me or I'll do the same thing to you." or if you failed, this matter would drop off until a later date when it wouldn't be fresh in our memories. I've been here for over 2 years and NEVER in my time have we had someone that had an issue with an admin like this. If this was truly about the well being of The Vault, you should have dealt with Tag and Ausir/Porter21/Goth directly. Instead you have put Tag in the town square and you want to light him on fire real bad. Again this is obviously personal by using Tag and not opening up a separate forum on admin behavior. If this is indeed about admin behavior, close the poll and start a new discussion on admin policy. Other than that, keep on trucking with this vendetta. Good day.--Kingclyde 20:45, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You are taking this far too personally, Kingclyde. I am not accusing admins generally of knowingly abusing their power, what I am saying is that I feel that admins' duties are not defined clearly enough, and that admins' are unknowingly overstepping the authority outlined in policy. Whether that authority should be increased or not so that admins' current actions fall within its scope is up for discussion, and I have not taken a stance on that. Let's get this clear: this discussion is about Tagaziel. I have already said to Porter that I regret allowing this thread to be conflated with admin duties, but for some reason you insist on continuing to distort this aspect of the discussion far out of proportion, in the process concocting some bizarre conspiracy where I am plotting to eventually hold the entire wiki to ransom.
What I am saying is simply this: as an example, it often seems the case that there is an edit war or some other content dispute, and an admin will step in and say "this is going to be what happens, and that's final", and that ends the discussion and the dispute. Fine. But I feel that the admin duties outlined in policy project a vision of a wiki where consensus-based decision making takes place, and admin intervention is limited to contributing to the discussion and only using their powers if a clear violation of policy has taken place. The impression is given that admins are no more than 'janitors' who can delete pages, use rollback and ban disruptive users, and what I have seen is admins operating far outside mandate. I am not saying which option should be the case, but I am saying that admin policy needs to be clarified further and a discussion needs to take place on what this wiki wants its admins to be. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 14:13, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Because you feel that this is an issue that needs addressing; you haven't even been here that long to judge whether the admins are effective at their jobs or not (and I won't accept "anonymous lurking" for reasons of believability), and you seem to be of an opinion that I have never seen before. The point you're trying to make lies in the fact that this is a community based project, and by that knowledge when one single user such as yourself decides that something isn't the way you want it to be it should not be enough to just call for change (for anything you desire) as this is much more of a violation of user conduct as you cannot expect this to happen without some community support (which you don't seem to have so far), and without it you have no basis for complaint, so your very argument can be seen to defeat itself for a number of reasons.

The community guidelines that you are claiming to be so devoted to are just that - guidelines. This isn't scripture or a binding agreement, some flexability is allowed and I have seen this stated multiple times. Also, as you know the policies so well I'm assuming you've read this section, clearly stating that another user must be called to mediate in the case of an edit disagreement? Specifically:

"If you cannot reach a consensus, ask another user to mediate.".

Now this isn't even difficult psychology, but admins are given a trusted position of power whether you agree with the phrasing or not, and this generally brings with it a level of trust; it isn't hard to see why the word of an admin is going to be prefered over that of a month old account thinking the world owes them everything. This is just the way the human brain works and it isn't really hard to see why this happens so much, and when it does why it is accepted without some large scale revolt. If you don't like and can't understand why admins are relied on for community support then there is not much point in me continuing to argue my point. And just to clarify, this isn't just an admin-specific thing and don't get the impression that I'm saying it is, I have even weighed in with my own opinion many a time and have been successful at ending a conflict, most of the time in fact it just depends on how you articulate your reasoning, which is something most admins are very good at anyway (usually a lot better than the average user), and it isn't hard to see how the pieces fit together here, how and why the decisions of admins can be trusted by community members with minimal opposition. Bare in mind I'm just a neutral observer, I have no reason to side with the admins here, they owe me nothing and I owe them nothing, but it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they are figures to be trusted for the many reasons I've stated.

Also, you've ignored the fact that admins all have different duties, they don't just all perform the same cookie cut tasks, they all do different things and specialise in different areas. And there's also the fact that the wiki has no obligation to be fair and just, both points you haven't addressed. -- 18:39, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well Lugiatm, instead of trying to understand the fact that I am actually explaining the workings of the admin system and where I think your argument against Tag falls on it's face, let alone your previously mentioned issues with admins you chalk my whole argument up to a conspiracy theory and your opinion that I am letting this become personal? Really??? The first actual discussion that I post on this subject and bam! my opinion doesn't matter because you think it's too personal? In my book, your argument has lost all ground and creditability. It's apparent your mind is fixed and you won't listen to anyone elses opinion. Cheerio!--Kingclyde 19:45, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) So because my opinion is one you haven't seen before, I am wrong, is that what you are saying? And I am also having difficulty understanding your argument that I am contradicting myself in saying that the wiki is a community project by making this request. Is this not a consultation of the community to determine whether they still have faith in Tagaziel's ability to act as a sysop? Anyone should be able to call for change, whether that change is enacted or not should depend on the consensus of the community. I'm also not sure why how long my account has been active is relevant to the discussion, are you saying that it is acceptable for admins to go around calling people things like "infinitely stupid", as long as it is to new accounts? I don't believe the world owes me anything, as you say, however I will not be spoken to in the way that Tagaziel spoke to me, and I don't see how this discussion can be anything but healthy for the wiki.

Calling for an admin's reconfirmation is not a violation of user conduct guidelines as you seem to be suggesting, and if it is then you better tell Ausir, because he was the one that suggested this whole thing.

I have never claimed to be devoted to any community guidelines. Misrepresenting me with hyperbole like that only stands to damage your position. All I expect is that if a community decides on a set of rules/guidelines, it is able to abide by them. I'm not sure what point you're exactly trying to make w.r.t. mediation; if it's a point about Tagaziel then I would just highlight where you talk about ending user conflicts, and make a point of my own about how he seems to be a source of such conflicts. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 19:54, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Kingclyde: You are oversimplifying my argument and I believe that you know it. I said you had concocted a conspiracy (note I addressed your individual points; I did not "chalk [your] entire argument up to a conspiracy theory" so please do not lie) because of the following statement: "He's how I see this came into play. You posted this poll to see if you could get Tag's admin powers revoked. If successful, you could wave it in the face of other admins and say "hey look what I did to Tag, you others better be nice to me or I'll do the same thing to you." or if you failed, this matter would drop off until a later date when it wouldn't be fresh in our memories.". I consider this a bizarre conspiracy because you are making baseless assumptions about my motivations, as well as claiming that I have some master plan to hold the wiki's admins to ransom. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 20:00, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you certainly managed to ignore everything I said quite well. Good work. -- 20:06, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Votes

Am I the only one who feels that Lugiatm should not be allowed to vote since he is the one who requested the voted? BigDogW 19:45, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. His vote is apparent with the advent of this whole little diversion. In addition to that, I feel that users who post exclusively to blogs in forums should be taken with a grain of salt as an admin does more in the inner workings of the wiki and not just the blogs and forums.--Kingclyde 19:47, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah i think i am going to ask Ausir if there are any rules about and go from there BigDogW 19:59, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. They are part of the community and have the right to express there view by voting as well. It is no different that someone putting forward a change to the Vaults policy or layout guidelines etc. 20:20, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but Ligiatm's vote in my opinion is duplicate.--Kingclyde 21:19, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

How so? 21:24, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

He started the debate by discussing why he wants his admin rights stripped and then he votes that he wants his admin rights stripped. Looks like two votes to me.--Kingclyde 21:27, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

But he has already made his view clear in opening and in some of the comments there is no reason ad far as i see that his vote should count since we all can see he clearly will vote to revoke BigDogW 20:41, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's stated clearly that this poll is not binding anyway. It's merely for the bcrats to be able to see how the community feels on this issue, the final decision rests with them. --Lugiatm (talk · contribs) 23:41, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that as two votes. Starting the voting process and actually casting a vote are two separate actions. Reiterating there comments and casting a vote along side it does not count as a second vote in my books. 00:01, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GhostAvatar - there is no policy barring the one who started a vote from voting on it. It's perfectly fine to vote on self-started proposals in other regards (such as guidelines etc), and I don't really see why this should be different. Yes, it's apparent what the proposer's vote is going to be but he/she is still allowed to vote like everyone else. -- Porter21 _(talk) 06:46, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Should we perhaps open the debate as to what the process/policy should be should a situation like this (with any admin) reoccur. In What situations will a "Vote of (no) Confidence" be callable? I don't want to see personal disputes blowing up into these sort of polls.

Could I suggest that these polls in the future require a minimum number of "Seconders" before they're called? Agent c 23:57, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think this topic is best suited to be held in its own thread, as it will only lead to confuse the situation here. 00:13, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Will Create it now. Agent c 00:37, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Just My Opinion

I don't know how much my opinion is welcome, I don't first of all see why Lugiatm shouldn't be allowed to vote, surely asking for a vote is just a way of asking the community their views and his voting should be considered as just one vote. I also don't understand why an argument is taking place, surely both sides putting their version of events forward, community votes and vote explainations should be enough in this instance to satisfy people. This is suppose to be to determine whether the fallout wikia community still have faith in him. I know im probably going to get greef for this but I will ask any comments to this post being in a polite and constructive way. TAKE IT EASY StoicFever 00:24, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Everyones opinion is welcome here. I think that the original intent of this poll has been sidetracked several times.--Kingclyde 00:32, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

And even the "original intent" is coming under scrutiny, but it doesn't matter much as long as this is dealt with; the voting is now finished so hopefully there will be a swift resolution. -- 03:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

My Say

Ok before I begin I am quite new to the Vault.

Why has this issue even come to light? The Valut is for discussing Fallout not for attack each other based on beliefs, Tagz and the guy he banned are both as bad as each other. Tagz has been banned for three days, if the other guy hadn't have even brought up his beliefs then none of this would have happened.

The result has already been determined. "Your say" is a little late. And sign your posts. -- 01:31, June 17, 2011 (UTC)