Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of review board membership/Archive/Samonic

< Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of review board membership | Archive
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for removal of EduCorps membership that was unsuccessful. Please do not modify it.

Vote to remove from the EduCorps

Samonic

Two-week deadline from first request. Voting ends May 6, 2023.

I don't take this lightly, but I am putting forward a motion to remove Samonic from his positions on AgriCorps and EduCorps. The reason for this nomination is a series of comments on the Senate Hall thread Forum:SH:My statement on privacy and my forced resignation. There are two issues present in these comments. First, Samonic shows a lack of understanding of the nature of consent; secondly, he shows a lack of concern for a fellow Wookieepedian who has been negatively affected by this imbroglio. Before I present the evidence, I want to be clear what this is not. I am not creating this thread because I have personal issues with Samonic; although we haven’t done too much together, I've always had a good relationship with Samonic. Nor am I creating this thread at someone else's behest—these are my genuine personal concerns. This thread is also not designed to punish or silence Samonic's support of the actions taken by Ayrehead02 and spookywilloww. This is purely about specific comments that I believe to be problematic enough to warrant removal from the review boards.

In the aforementioned SH thread, Samonic stated the following: "I'm sorry to hear that a moderator was seemingly tricked and that spooky gave her own consent; however, that is still consent." This is not how consent works. It is impossible to give informed consent to something when you are being misled, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Having not seen the discussions in question, I will not make any arguments about what events actually played out with regards to the released screenshots. But regardless of what happened, what we have here is a clear example of a lack of understanding of what consent is and how it works. Through the rest of his comments on the threads, Samonic argues against a violation of consent based on the words of multiple users, but not the user who is actually featured in the screenshots. Whether or not consent is given is up to the person. Arguing against that person's description of the consent they have given is unacceptable from anyone, especially for someone who holds a position of authority in this community.

This brings me to my second point. The events of the past few weeks have caused strain and anxiety for many users, including the user whose revocation of consent was questioned by Samonic. As a Wookieepedian, and even more so as someone in whom the community has placed trust and responsibility, it is Samonic's job to support users who are facing such challenges. Samonic failed to do this and actually caused even more strain to another user, despite said user detailing their challenges in the very same thread. While I do not believe that this was Samonic's intention, he still did so, and did not listen to words of other Wookieepedians. I simply find this unacceptable.

Samonic, I'm genuinely sorry to have to do this, as I greatly respect your work as an editor. Moreover, I hope that this does not discourage you from speaking your mind in the future. Once again, this thread does not exist because of your opinion; it exists because of conduct.

To everyone else who is reading/voting in this, I'd ask that you try to keep discussion of recent events to a minimum except where they concern Samonic. This is not the place to rehash the thread that was locked earlier today.

Also, a brief point of clarification: voting "Support" is a vote to remove Samonic; voting "Oppose" is a vote to keep him on the boards. Due to template constraints I was not able to name them anything more clear.

Thank you all for your time. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

(0 users/0 users)

Support
  1. VergenceScatter (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    Catching up, and I was shocked to see what was said. Words can hurt, and the words used by Samonic are and were hurtful and harmful to anyone who has not had their consent respected in this and other contexts. The intent of those words may not have aligned to the words used, but nobody has the right to say that their actions/words were not harmful/didn't hurt others, which minimizes and invalidates their experiences/feelings and disregards those individuals. It has already been established that the review boards are positions of authority, and the words of one in authority have weight, regardless of their intent. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: General rules, point 2 -- DarthRuiz30 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC))
    • To clarify, saying the intent was not to do harm doesn't negate the harm that was done by those words, and continues to be done given those words are still there available for future users to see. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) RainbowRebellion2 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. This is BEYOND upsetting. I can't even begin to state how troubled I am with this motion set forth by VergenceScatter. The fact is that one party has been stating that they were tricked into consent, yet have provided absolutely ZERO evidence backing up their claim—turning that SH into one MASSIVE "he said/they said/she said"—which is what Samonic has stated on the forum: I used the word "seemingly" because Thrax and the others have not provided any proof of this trickery. Therefore, I won't believe their claims, and I don't think anyone should either. According to Bureaucrat Ayrehead02, (see his comments below) the moderator revoked their consent after the screenshots had been sent, indicating that they did give their consent without any trickery. HOWEVER, this is not the issue at hand on this RFRRB.

    VergenceScatter, you mentioned Samonic's line "I'm sorry to hear that a moderator was seemingly tricked and that spooky gave her own consent; however, that is still consent.", yet you have taken it out of context to villify him. I'm not denying that he said that—he has even issued a public apology for his misuse of words. However, this is exactly what myself and so many others had campaigned against to bureaucrat Ayrehead02—our words were being twisted and being used against us. I'm shocked to see that, despite Thrax's resignation as an administrator of this site, this upsetting tradition still lives on. Secondly, you mentioned that Samonic had caused harm to another Wookieepedian. Since the posting of the SH regarding Thrax's resignation, Samonic has been pleading for people to realize the conduct of Thrax and the other users in the unofficial server was the main focus. Samonic was one of the many people hurt by their actions, and wished for people to see that their behavior was unacceptable, as majority of people were laser focused on how the content was revealed rather than what it actually contained. Samonic's work has been nothing short of goddamn amazing since joining the boards, and has been an incredible editor and a positive presence in the wook community since he has joined. How far have we fallen that we can't even wait to talk our issues out? Everyone just jumps to removing someone they disagree with from any positions they might hold.

    Also; I'd like to mention that I feel this is a misuse of the RFRRB. Removal from review board membership should be used for A. A board member who has failed to meet review quotas a number of times, and, B. someone who has been abusing their rights on the nomination pages, for example a review board member refusing to review nominations posted by someone they don't like. THIS, is not that. This seems like going after someone who you disagree with. I implore everyone who is reading this to see reason and ask yourself if this is really the route we want to go down. BloodOfIrizi Seventh Fleet (Syndicure) 20:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • note: admittedly i was extremely upset at this RFRRB, and said somethings i shouldn't have. ive edited out those instances, and would like to apologize for my rashness. BloodOfIrizi Seventh Fleet (Syndicure) 20:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  2. Sorry Vergence, but this is a complete and utterly bad overreaction, if you were that concerned perhaps you should have reached out to Samonic privately, on his talk page, or the discord server, and tried to clarify what the intentions were. Instead you've gone ahead with a vote that is entirely irrelevant to the reveiwing system, and not what Requests for removal of review board memberships are for. As has been stated Samonic has apologised for the matter. His work in reviewing even prior to being on the boards/since being on them has been what you want from members of the board. He should not be removed for something that has been weaponised against him, and sorry but I don't believe this isn't a response to Samonic's views. If you want to remove Samonic for this, then I expect you to be calling for the removal of those who might not fit the quotas of their respective boards. If you don't then this proves what the ultimate agenda behind this is. Please let's stop this, and move on from recent events Lewisr (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  3. I initially considered abstaining but Ziara and Lewis made good points. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  4. As most are aware, several months ago I was removed from the EduCorps after being rightfully blocked for misconduct onsite. I fully deserved formal sanction for my conduct and have spent the past several months working to improve myself (judging by my re-admittance to the EduCorps and that many people support me for rollback, it seems the community feels they think I have genuinely repented. Regardless, I still must work to atone for acting like an asshole). My point by referencing this is that my removal of the EduCorps came as a result of earning a block-the reasoning being that a blocked user is therefore undeserving of board membership. Being blocked and being removed were not responses to my misconduct independent of each other, the removal was a result of me having deserved a block and therefore received one. Referencing what Lewis said above, this page is meant for removals of those who do not fulfill their reviewing obligations or those who have abused their powers on the review boards. Unless someone can prove that Samonic has done so, as far as I know he has done neither and therefore shouldn't be removed. If his offenses were so severe that they warranted board removal, then they would be so severe he should be blocked. What is my point? Because if it's not serious enough to warrant a block, then how is it serious enough to warrant removal? Fan26 (Talk) 20:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • I understand where you're coming from. However, I don't think that a block is the only reason that someone should be removed. I think that's true for both this page and the page for removal of admin/rollback/bureaucrat rights. A person can be removed from their position because the community has lost faith in them. It ultimately seems as if that was not the case here; however, I'd argue that if we only held votes when it was certain they would pass, there wouldn't be much of a point to holding them. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  5. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  6. Per those above, this RFRRB is an exaggeration of what Samonic actually said. You definitely could have addressed these concerns with him privately. As Ziara said, this isn't a violation of his duties and thus a misuse of this page. Additionally, you state that "Samonic failed to do this and actually caused even more strain to another user, despite said user detailing their challenges in the very same thread." I don't see where Samonic perpetuated the stress the community was facing any more than anyone else who decided to message/comment on the SH. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  7. Editoronthewiki (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  8. I want to preface this by saying that Verge is absolutely within his rights to post this vote. His concerns easily fall under the "engaged in behavior that has damaged the image of the Wookieepedia community" requirement. Quotas and abuse of power aren't the only requirements. That being said, having spoken with Samonic extensively lately, I feel confident that he truly does have remorse for the harm he's caused with his comments in the SH and is making every attempt to mend the wounds he's inflicted. He's explained his true intents with the poorly-worded comments, and I believe him. For me, had he not apologized, I would support the removal, but he did and is attempting to move forward in a better way. I'm a man of second chances. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 22:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  9. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  10. Echoed to Fred, the reason this page was created was so that any and all individuals maintain the right to air concerns about anyone they wish. This is fundamental to a healthy community—every position should have a method to vote in/vote out users, and complaints about users in authority should be welcomed in the name of accountability. That said, as we move forward, Wook will be needing to maintain good, consistent contributors that are actively contributing to the site. While edits don't excuse social actions, it's certainly worth noting that Samonic is extremely dedicated to his positions. As he's indicated his remorse, removing him, I believe, would harm the site more in the end.—spookywillowwtalk 03:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  11. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  12. Imperators II(Talk) 06:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  13. Per spooky and Fred. Ayrehead02 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  14. Fred and Spooky said this well. After everything that's happened recently, continuing to axe each other is not the move I want to support. Samonic's apologised now, it's time to stop the cannibalisation of this community. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 07:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  15. Per Fred and Spooky. While it is certainly Vergence's right to post this RFRRB, I do believe that Samonic has understood his mistake. Having worked with Samonic in the past, he's been nothing short of amazing. Additionally, as Spooky said, removing him from the boards would harm the site more than it already has in the last month. I hope we will all be able to put our divergences aside and work together toward a brighter future for Wookieepedia. LucaRoR Sigil of House Serenno (Talk) 07:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  16. While Vergence is well within his rights to utilize these facilities, this is a morally unwise decision, especially at a time when we're currently recovering from fraught. Such an action at this time only damages relationships between editors, and it will take a lot to make amends. I hope this vote won't serve as evidence of what "sides" people are on, we don't need more threads reminiscent of stuff from 2008. UberSoldat93 ClanMudhornSignet-Redemption (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  17. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  18. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 08:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  19. Per everything above. Rsand 30 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I've already posted this on Discord, but I believe I should post it here too. I realize that the vote is live, but I've been preparing this for some time, and it seems like I was too late. Nonetheless, I think the community deserves an apology. I've realized that one of my comments in Forum:SH:My statement on privacy and my forced resignation was worded poorly, and, as a result, several users were hurt. This wasn't the intention at all, and I apologize for the comment's wording. Unfortunately, I didn't notice it when I was writing it and I didn't notice it when I posted it. Coerced consent is certainly not valid, and I'm sorry that my comment said this. I will continue to watch how I word things and acknowledge when I mess up. For those that have pointed out my mistake, thank you for holding me accountable, I appreciate it. Thank you. Samonic Signatureicon (Talk) 20:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm quite busy right now, so can't formulate a vote comment, but I want to call everyone here to a heightened level of civility. Calling this vote "ridiculous" or "disgusting" is no appropriate. Users are allowed to start such a vote, and the community casts their vote. There is no need to accuse someone of acting in bad faith. Nothing in Verge's comments shows any bad faith, and it was all presented in a calm and respectful manner. Everyone else should do the same. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I didn't explain my support vote in the vote itself so I will do so now. I understand that being part of a review board does not directly involve their behavior in the greater community, nor should they necessarily be held to the same standards as a member of the admin team. However, the rhetoric utilized by Samonic in Forum:SH:My statement on privacy and my forced resignation is in exceedingly poor taste, and review board members are still represenatives of our editor base that other editors will look to for advice on how to act on this wiki. This reflects poorly on Samonic and our editor base as a whole. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
    • As an addendum—and this is not related to Samonic, but the situation as a whole; I cannot say this on the original SH as it is now locked—the fact that so many individuals have decided to dogpile on SnowedLightning out of nowhere and for seemingly no reason in regards to the administration and operation of the private server is appalling. I don't support the things said in the screenshots per se, be it said by Immi, Emma, Jayce, or whoever, but the fact that so much of the blame in regards to the screenshots' consent situation and the server's administration has been shunted to Jayce for whatever reason is absolutely unjustifiable. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thannus and Fred have already gone over this, but I just want to echo that while you are free to view this thread as misguided, there is nothing wrong with beginning a removal nomination out of concerns for a user's conduct. The instructions for removal nominations specifically mention "engag[ing] in behavior that has damaged the image of the Wookieepedia community" as a reason to begin a thread. Even if you don't agree that Samonic has engaged in such behavior, I would ask that everyone respect the right of me and any other member of this community to begin a vote if they judge it necessary. Secondly, also per Thannus, I would ask that everyone remember that someone has been genuinely hurt by Samonic's comments. I really do appreciate Samonic's apology, and I do believe that he is sorry for the effects of his words; nonetheless, harm was still done. Even if you do not believe that this warrants a removal, please make sure not to just dismiss it entirely. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)