Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights/Archive/Sikon

< Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights | Archive
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for removal of user rights that resulted in adminship kept. Please do not modify it.

Sikon (2 bureaucrat + 9 admins + 14 users/7 users + 3 admin + 1 bureaucrat/1 admin)

He's a good technical user. I like him. But he simply does not have the temperament to be an effective administrator. He runs the site as if it's his private domain, and his response to any disagreement is to insist his way or he packs up and goes home, taking his necessary technical expertise with him. He refuses to allow any rules to be enforced that he does not personally care for and makes massive changes on his own without consulting the community, far beyond his prerogatives as an administrator/bureaucrat. Now, one possible solution would be to remove adminship from Sikon's account but to leave it on the account of his bot, R2-D2, with the explicit understanding that Artoo's admin powers be used for technical tasks alone and that Sikon himself is not an administrator and does not have the power to block, protect, vote as an administrator, or anything else, simply to tinker with MediWiki. But as it stands, his behavior is not acceptable in an administrator. Havac 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove adminship
  1. Havac 21:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Allowing Admin rights for his bot - with the understanding put forth by Havac - seems a fair compromise here. What he did in regards to the LFL copyrights affair (bear in mind I've only just read the forum topic) goes beyond the pale, IMHO.--Goodwood 22:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. With his operation of the QDB and IRC, I expect him to use the "screw you guys, I'm going home" defense, but kriff it. He steps over the line too often. And de-admin the bot too. It doesn't do anything Jaymach and Xwing328's bots can't do. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. This has been floating around on backchannels for a while now, as this is not the first time Sikon has made over-the-top decisions with no community input; but up until now I've resisted it on the grounds that his technical expertise is second to none and he's been, generally speaking, indispensable to the operation of this site, not to mention a generally good contributor of information. However, with his brash, reckless, and self-important choice to threaten the community with this act, it's become clear that his my-way-or-the-highway attitude toward this wiki is too great a risk to continue giving him authority to act as an administrator on our behalf. I'm sorry Sikon, but this time, you've gone too far. jSarek 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, and as for the bot, I think leaving a bot as an admin while the user who controls it lacks that privilege is begging for trouble. jSarek 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You may have a point there, jSarek - his technical know-how could prove dangerous if the bot is left with Admin rights.--Goodwood 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm still undecided, but if the rest of you decide to de-admin Sikon, there's no way his bot should keep admin rights. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, provided he doesn't abuse them, it allows him to continue to use his technical know-how to continue contributing without being an admin himself, and any abuse could be reverted and would naturally end in de-adminship for Artoo and probably a ban. But it's not an idea I'm married to, just a possible compromise. Havac 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Culator and jSarek, I couldn't agree more. Chack Jadson Talk 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sikon has shown time and time again that he cares only for his own views, not the views of the community. He has overstepped his bounds repeatedly, and he has now abused his power as a representative of Wookieepedia and threatened our very existence. -- Ozzel 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per everyone above.—DarthtylerTalk 00:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. What he did risked making the Lucas organization an enemy instead of an ally, or at least a no-commenting neutral observer. I don't know about any previous abuses, but that alone is too much. Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. I've tolerated everything else. I've complained, I've voted against some when they came up, but I've somehow still managed to swallow that Sikon really likes making decisions without community input. It's annoyed me, certainly, but no one thing has pushed me over that edge. But this...Jesus Christ, this is probably one of the worst decisions I've seen here, and anyone who would make one like this without even consulting the community—and what's more, claim to be speaking on behalf of us—can't be trusted with the position of admin. Even if everything else were put aside, using his political status as an admin in a way that could hurt us all just shows to me that that status is not placed in the right person. - Lord Hydronium 04:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. I actually wanted to do this after the whole Nebulax fiasco. I brushed it aside, hoping that would be the last time Sikon would abuse his power. Then I log on tonight to see that he has now potentially pissed off LFL. Good job, mate. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, Neptune, you'll have to admit, this makes Jack's offenses look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Erik Pflueger Republic Emblem 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Hydro. -LtNOWIS 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Absolutely presumptuous and inappropriate. This is supposed to be a community, damn it. This behavior can continue no longer. -- Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. He jumped ahead without consensus on something that could result in the site getting shut down and a bunch of other stuff that's pissed people off. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  14. His abuse of power could now threaten the site's existence, and I'm afraid that's not something I can be neutral about. Unfortunately, I have to vote for this. Greyman(Paratus) 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  15. Sikon's actions threaten thousands of hours worth of dedicated work. You don't poke a sleeping rancor. Regardless of intent, this was borderline trollish. --School of Thrawn 101 04:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  16. I might be late, but I want to go on-record with this. Even if the whole LucasArts thing comes to nothing, Sikon still went too far. Leaving him as admin would be a black mark against the Wookiee as a whole. -- Dark Spork 09:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  17. Since Sikon has not resigned completely, I am going to cast my vote for a complete removal of all administrative rights from his account and his bots. He has had a tendency to disregard the community completely, running this place like his own totalitarian regime. His most recent actions have put the Wook itself at great risk. Besides, someone who considers voting to be evil and singlehandedly, without the approval of the community, did away with a democratic system of governing is not fit to be in any sort of administrative position and should not be given any kind of administrative powers (as history has shown far too many times). Even though he promises it will never happen again - a sincere promise, I hope - and even if this LFL/LA affair amounts to nothing, I have to agree with Spork that leaving him as an admin would be a black mark against the Wook. KEJ 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  18. Per all the above. I'm sorry Sikon. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  19. Actions speak louder than words. We can't believe you Sikon. Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 18:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  20. I have a hunch we won't hear from LFL about this, and it'll all blow over. But that doesn't make it okay. I'd be a lot more comfortable with Sikon treating Wookieepedia like his guinea pig if he wasn't an admin. Gonk (Gonk!) 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  21. Per above. Though, I wouldn't be opposed to him maybe regaining adminship at some point in time.--Darth Oblivion 04:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  22. Sorry for being a bit late (again, because of modem troubles), but I feel this is important. Sikon, I actually support your stance on the copyright issue, though everyone else will doubtless think I'm crazy saying so. But to unilaterally risk the entire community without conferring with either other admins or us mortals is just plain too much, especially since we've seen earlier examples of capricious (ab)use of powers (Trash compactor springs to mind, but there are more...). I'm sorry. But I do hope you will stay, even without admin powers. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 10:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  23. With great regret. Kuralyov 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strike three. Din's Fire 997 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  25. I have been "stewing" on this for several days before I voted. Sorry, Sikon, but I think this is the best thing. WhiteBoy 14:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep adminship
  1. Call me soft, I just can't do this. I'd prefer it if we try and solve the problem, rather than remove it wholesale. But that's just me. Thefourdotelipsis 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have tried to solve the problem. But if you try to confront him on his talkpage, he ignores it. If you confront him in IRC, he leaves. Ignoring the juvenile quality of that response to criticism, how can you solve a problem with someone who says, "My way or the highway," and then runs away? It's not real-life; we can't corner him and demand he talk. Havac 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Waaaahl, you can bring him down a notch, can't you? He's still a bureaucrat, isn't he? Defrockerise that element for starters. Then, if no progress, kick him while he's down. Thefourdotelipsis 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Admin status gives him the de facto authority to speak on our behalf. After this fiasco, it's downright dangerous to remove his bureaucrat status, but not his admin status, and then take a "wait and see" attitude. jSarek 00:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Bah! I won't resort to cutthroatedness in a trivial community! Et not tu Four Dot. I believe in the concepts of redemption and boot licking. Both of them force me to vote this way. And I'm not budging, damnit. Thefourdotelipsis 00:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. What he said. --Danik Kreldin 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. What they said. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think if he upholds what he's promised to do below, then he should be allowed to stay—however if he pulls one more over the top stunt without getting any community input like the letter to LFL, then he should be de-admined. Sikon's technical know-how is extremely useful, and I think he should be given one last warning, so to speak. -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 16:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. I know I'm not an extremely active Wookieepedian any more, but I feel compelled to at least make a short statement. I've always been one for second and third chances, and I think that it's well documented that Sikon has made some rather grievous mistakes in his past. However, his technological knowledge, as duly aforementioned, has been extremely valuable, and has been an integral part of Wookieepedia and how it is today. I believe that as long as he sincerely understands his mistakes and at least makes an initiative to reform himself, that I am fully for him retaining his administratorship. Flame me below or at my talk page. ^^ Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. I never much liked him, and if any admin deserves dethroning, he tops the list. However, as in the Nebulax case, I hold the good of the Wook above personal sentiment. IMO his efforts have earned him enough leeway for one last chance. However, if he pulls another stunt like that letter, Mr. Burns can release the hounds on him with my blessing. DarthMRN 22:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. I thought this was all a joke at first- like the votes for adminship with the insert name here tag, ~April 1. After reading into this for a couple of minutes- no less, it became clear to me. Now, he has already stepped down from BC status- he needs to step down no further. This man has contributed a lot to Wookieepedia, and works on the site with a passion- and I believe the reason for this request is not that he has an insatiable lust for power, rather, that he is perhaps a little *too* passionate about his work here. He is doing his best, and always has, never stepping down from anything (... well, except BC status). He has been demoted to Admin status- and that should be as far as it goes. Through his resignation of BC status, he has shown us that he will tone down his actions, and consult the community more often.
    There is more we can lose from instantly removing all status than from dropping him to being admin, and giving him more time and another chance. Just think about it. Darth Maddolis 08:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. As all of his problematic actions occured after becoming a bureaucrat, and seemed to stem from his misinterpreting bureaucrat status as "senior admin who can make decisions and act as spokesman for the wiki with minimal or no community consultation", removing his bureaucrat status is a good idea. However, as he's resigned that status, I think leaving him as an admin for now won't harm the wiki. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per most of the above. Also, I don't participate in witch-hunts, and this feels like one. Since he's already resigned from BC status, I have no issue with him retaining adminship. - breathesgelatinTalk 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. What they said. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per Silly Dan. Removing Sikon's bureaucrat status is enough. Imperialles 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • It's pretty clear that Sikon cares more about the GFDL than he does about the community. We'll get shut down faster than you can blink if LucasArts/Lucasfilm even looks at us funny, but Sikon takes it upon himself to provoke them. I'm tired of it. I'm tired of his constant disregard for democracy in favor of the nebulous ideal of "consensus," I'm tired of his enforcing his own will over the rules we've all decided on, and I'm tired of his lording his technical expertise over us all. He can shut down the QDB and never edit a MediaWiki page again for all I care. We don't need admins who are going to pull ridiculous stunts for their "ideals" that are counterproductive to the good of the community. I like Sikon, I really do, but any person that would walk up to a sleeping tiger and poke it with a stick is too stupid to live, let alone be a Wookieepedia administrator. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to consider this a bit before I vote, if I do at all. I do agree he stepped WAY over the line here. Having contributed here for a year and a half, I'm not aware of what other instances he's done similar stunts, so basing it on what I've seen, this one occurance, I don't know if de-admin'ing him is the right way to deal with this. - JMAS 22:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • JMAS: he changed the VFD to the trash compactor, completely altering the system (not just the name) without community approval. Chack Jadson Talk 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Still gonna reserve my vote. If this creates any blowback from LFL, then I'll likely vote for removal, otherwise, I'm nuetral right now. - JMAS 23:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Likewise. I'm going to wait until more information develops. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I definitely don't approve of his actions, but for now I will also remain neutral in this matter.--Darth Oblivion 03:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Looks like that won't be necessary. Apparently, he's resigned. KEJ 08:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Shouldn't we end this vote? He resigned quite a while ago.--Darth Oblivion 14:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Ah...never mind me. I just noticed he only resigned as a bureaucrat, and this is about adminship.--Darth Oblivion 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I look down... I look down at the evidence, and all I see is entertainment. I found such actions to be entertaining- although do not see this as a rebuttal- those actions were 'unconstitutional'- but hell, it differs us from any real government. Darth Maddolis 11:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I am ever so pleased that stuff like this entertains you. --School of Thrawn 101 11:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Uh, guys, you all gave me a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. try, so why can't you give Sikon another try? Give him the same kind of ultimatum you gave me—Say that if he does what he's done again, then he no longer is an admin. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, you aren't a BC or an admin. The level of trust and responsibility granted a BC is far beyond the average user. --School of Thrawn 101 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And Jack, while I can't seem to make up my mind as to what sort of user you are, you never put the whole Wook at risk. - Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 17:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And we didn't give you [Jack] anything. The admins did and only because they were sick and tired of the situation that Sikon had created. Don't think you slipped by because everyone wanted to give you another chance. And truth is, what Sikon did never should have happened in the first place. And as that conversation proves...how can we have an admin who says "screw policy"? I'm abstaining my vote but keep that in mind. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, even if Sikon loses admin status, no one's going to stop him from editing like any other user. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I will remain neutral throughout this discussion unless LFL responds. I am most displeased with Sikon's repeated abuses of power and total lack of respect for the community, but his statement promising no further actions of that type is also noteworthy. And grace isn't a bad thing. However, I will not vote to keep, because I feel that to do so would be to undermine the opinions of the community, whose say I place over mine. Should there ever be another such abuse of power, inform me and I will most speedily cross over to the remove section. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Evidence
Suggestion

Before this thing goes too far, I would like to make a public statement.

I am voluntarily resigning as BC. I have already asked Splarka on IRC to remove my BC status.

I do realize that it was wrong for me to resort to unilateral action without discussion. From now on, will cease any involvement in community matters, except when there is a clear, verifiable, undisputed and unambiguous consensus.

I do maintain that all my actions were not malicious in intent with the purpose of deliberately harming the site. They were misguided, probably, and some (like shutting down FA) outright childish.

However, I would like to retain my adminship for the sole purpose of technical maintenance, either for myself, or for R2-D2, or for both.

If R2-D2 is decided to be deopped, I would suggest it to be transferred to another admin instead. Same for the IRC bot Nuku-Nuku and the QDB, if I can no longer be trusted to operate them.

I sincerely ask everyone who voted to deop me to reconsider, knowing that the situation that led to this will not occur ever again.

That's all. - Sikon 08:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)