RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Forums: Yew Grove > Why is Stinkowing still an administrator?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 March 2009 by Azaz129.

Why is Stinkowing still an administrator?

I usually try and be as thorough as possible when giving my thoughts but in this case, I shall be quite curt. I refer you all to Forum:Desysoping_Stinkowing in case anyone was not aware of the matter at hand. I have just looked again at his actions since that discussion and see that he is again rude and abusive to other members, completely ignores policy and blocks people for arbitrary amounts of time. I am at a lost to understand why the first discussion did not lead to his immediate loss of admin privileges and why he still has them now especially since he again shows the same jejune comportment that he had prior to the earlier discussion. The situation is quite simple: he has continuously and egregiously ignored the rules and abused his powers. When he signed on he undersigned that he "promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban." His sysop rights must be revoked immediately.--Diberville 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Unwavering support: Throughout my entire "life" on the Wiki (about 3 months), I've never met a user as autocratic and biased as Stinkowing. I had been banned from the forums for a week when I started getting mad at the user who banned me (a cool guy, BTW) and Stinkowing decided that I needed more punishment since I was "throwing a virtual temper tantrum" when, in reality, I was arguing my ban and threw some curses around. Yes, it should have resulted in a larger ban, but please continue reading: he defended his friend by arbitrarily banning me for life (Thanks to Chiafriend12 for unbanning me.) In fact, my IP Address's ban was placed for the most unfair "reason" I've ever seen, if it could be called one: "Intimidating Instant and I." I can't believe who he thinks he is... Stinkowing is pretentious and a horrible leader, and to top it all off, he tried to blame his behavior on a disorder to avoid accepting responsibility for his own actions. He needs to understand that all editors are equal whether they have power or not, and he has failed to do so according to his behavior. My suggestion for his punishment: permanently remove his power from his grasp and ban him for three months to let him rethink his attitude toward this Wiki and its users.

Note: Some of this message was arbitrary in itself, and I have edited it to be more accurate to my view. Calling Autism a "disease" was an honest mistake, but a mistake is not an excuse for Stinkowing to think that the point doesn't stand.
Comment - I have a problem with this.. Stinkowing is pretentious and a horrible leader, and to top it all off, he tried to blame his behavior on a disease to avoid accepting responsibility for his own actions.
I am not arguing for either side, but I do have to say this about your comments. First is regarding a horrible leader. Please read this.
Second, you have no right to judge any potential illness/issue he may be having, as you don't know him. He may very well have Autism, do you know what it's like to live with Autism? Think about these things before you claim somebody is lying about their health.
Karlis (talk) (contribs)
17:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
'Comment: I don't think whatever Stinkowing has Autism or not is really relevant to the discussion. The question is if he is a good admin or not. However, a good admin should never blame someone other than himself for personal mistakes, regardless of physical or mental condition. This I think is a good point brought up by Vhosythe42, even if his wording is a bit overly emotional. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, he might have problems, but nobody's perfect (lookin' at YOU, Vhosythe...).
Also, I thought we already had this discussion...a few months ago. Come on, babes! WWTDD? 17:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I didn't say I was perfect. I DID say, however, in different terms, that more responsibility is expected out of someone with authority.

Comment: 1. Diberville, please not only fix your sig, but also provide evidence for your claims. 2: Vhosythe, I'm sorry, but the way you worded your claims leaves me unable to take them seriously. Try not to be so dramatic. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 17:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the page that I linked to and for events that happened afterwards, simply go to his talk page and you will find several more examples that happened afterward. As for my sig, there is a problem with wikia where because of language, I can't get it to render correctly in both so I have to direct the English and French RuneScape Wiki and since I'm a b'crat on the French one, it gets priority.--Diberville 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Vhosythe, you seem to think that every user who disagrees with you is biased. And like Karlis said, I suggest that you refrain from assuming that people are lying when you don't have anything to prove so.  Tien  18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)¨

Comment: InstantWinston's decision to ban me was not biased, but his decision NOT to ban the other user involved was. Stinkowing's decision to arbitrarily ban me for debating my ban WAS biased. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine, but I want them to have a valid reason.

Support - From the very beginning, the evidence that Diberville brought up against Stinkowing was solid and comprehensive. As a matter of fact, when I first saw the post here at the yew grove I was almost positive something would be done about it, yet nothing was done. Why? It seems that a few individuals here (certain sysops included) still seem to pat Stinkowing at the back and saying that 'he just had a bad day' and 'don't judge him too harshly' every time he screws up. If we really would live up to the axiom that "all editors are equal", then every editor on this wiki would be allowed to be commit every offence already commited by Stinkowing, and not getting punished for it. But as we know, if you cannot not keep a civil tongue, you will get banned, and desysoped. Everyone it seems, except Stinkowing. If our goal is to create rules under which everyone is treated equally and fairly, then these rules must apply to everyone. And that includes Stinkowing. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 18:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment - First, let this topic be only about desysopping and not punishment as one of the reasons the previous discussion wasn't brought to term seems to be disagreement as to the length of the ban. Now ,those who are familiar with me know that I tend to be the voice of respect, temperance and moderation in all discussions and am usually the one trying to find a consensus between the two opposing sides that leavers everyone happy. However, on this issue there can be only one result. It is an insult to this site and its members that he remains an administrator, smacks in the face of all the rules and regulations we are suppose to follow and the administrators uphold and his attitude towards others poisons this community. He was even exceptionally and undeservedly given a second chance and instantly returned to the same pattern of behaviour. There shouldn't even really be a discussion here. He must be desysopped immediately.--Diberville 18:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While I like Stinko as a person, and would consider him a friend, looking at his behaviour from our last discussion about this topic, I would have to agree with Diberville on this one. We all have bad days, but it appears that this may be in the best interest of everyone. While I know nothing of his Autism, I think that personal responsibility needs to be accepted here. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
18:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To add, for anyone who does not know. As someone who has formally studied this and is presently working in the healthcare field where day to day involvement with persons with disabilities is present, specifically Autism, I feel I am in a position to say this. Autism comes in many forms and effects persons on individual base. It's common for Autism to come with other "health issues", but it does as commonly exist on it's on. Some persons with Autism, tend to be higher functioning then others, however do have difficulties with OCD, confrontation, commands, physical contact, etc. Although I cannot speak on exact behalf of Stink, in opinion, it appears he is well aware of his actions. With this said, please be kind in your responses, as criticism and confrontation can be very hard. Be firm, but please keep what I mentioned in mind. 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support based on comment - I am stating a fact. According to means of a consensus, there usually must be higher then a 70% support on a discussion to pass it. On Stink's last discussion about this desysoping, it would appear there is a 70%+ support for the desysop. In all opinion based on the last discussion, which was archived with no result, we should follow through with the community's request from then. Moving discussions before a conclusion is drawn up needs to stop.

18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely Against This Why are we going to get rid of his sysop powers? He has his temper under control most of the time and follows the rules. We all loose our tempers every now and then. If you think i agree with Stinkowing 100% your completely wrong him and I used to argue... but his anger is not enough not even the last vote as not enough people in my opinion voted. God Of War 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read this and the other discussion completely? Regardless of my disagreeing with your postulate that "he has his tempter under control most of the time", and the fact that admins should always be keep their emotions in check, it's not just a question of his bad attitude, it is his constant ignoring and breaking of the rules and the abuse of his powers.--Diberville 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the Accused

Today, I logged onto RuneScape to play some Castle Wars with Ancient Magicks. As I entered the game, Bonzii told me to my utmost surprise that this issue has been brought up...again! To make things worse, he told me in-game that he supported my desysopping! I am shocked...shocked that someone (Diberville) still thinks I'm being rude and inconsiderite...I've really TRIED to watch my behavior and TRIED to be nice in the past few months...and THIS is the "thanks for changing your attitude" I get? Furthermore, I would like to review what Vhosythe has has hurt me beyond anything I've ever seen here on-site:

"Total, complete, tenacious, unwavering 100% support: Throughout my entire "life" on the Wiki (about 3 months), I've never met a user as autocratic and biased as Stinkowing."

I am not autocratic; to call me so is incredibly hateful and rude. Biased? I was just trying to prevent a flame war between you and Instant, and nothing more.

"I had been banned from the forums for a week when I started getting mad at the user who banned me (a cool guy, BTW) and Stinkowing decided that I needed more punishment since I was "throwing a virtual temper tantrum" when, in reality, I was arguing my ban and threw some curses around."

...which is intolerable wiki behavior. Besides, you only made up AFTER I banned you. Don't lie to us.

"He defended his friend by arbitrarily banning me for life"

This I do not deny (without the "abitrarily" part)...Instant and I and to be blunt, I still think that Vhosythe deserves a permanent ban for his foul language and inconsiderate behavior towards others, but I will discuss that in a moment...

"(Thanks to Chiafriend12 for unbanning me.) In fact, my IP Address's ban was placed for the reason "Intimidating Instant and I."

Chia should not have unbanned you. Your actions were horribly wrong, and I was not about to let it go without proper punishment. I don't think ANYONE should have let you get away with that.

"I can't believe who he thinks he is... Stinkowing is pretentious and a horrible leader..."

I am not a leader in ANY way, shape, or form. No one person runs the wiki as a "leader". Get your facts straight (this next part chills me to the bone).

"...and to top it all off, he tried to blame his behavior on a disease to avoid accepting responsibility for his own actions."

I will openly say this...if I could, Vho, I would...I can't say it, but I can't BELIEVE you made that comment!! I am offended to the maximum with that untrue and uncalled-for comment about my condition! Autism is NOT a disease! It is a mental condition! I am just so disgusted with you and your senseless cruelty!

"HE MUST GO DOWN. My suggestion for his punishment: permanently remove his power from his grasp and ban him for three months to let him rethink his attitude toward this Wiki and its users."

See above reason, only instead of bashing my mental condition, he's comparing me to a criminal!

All of that was wholly uncalled-for, and I am sickened physically, mentally, and emotionally by not only this discussion being brought up again when I've tried to improve, but all of that bull above me from Vhosythe!

Please, people...I've tried...I don't even see how I've "abused my powers" NOW... --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Another comment: Where is the "proof" that Stinko has been abusing his powers? Diberville, since you brought the topic up, please introduce evidence that Stinko needs desysopping. Also, do not use evidence listed in the other discussion as proof, as that discussion was closed and archived. Only cite examples that have occurred since that discussion ended. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Against- Stinko is very direct and can rub people the wrong way, but he is not a bad admin. Although he isn't exactly the most caring admin on the wiki, he is essentially a good administrator and a valuable addition to this wiki. There is no reason for Stinko to by de-sysopped. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 20:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Stink. I only support as that was the consensus last time, and I will support the implementation of a consensus. Your a mighty fine friend, and a great user, just had some mix-ups in the past, and some disagreements, but, hey, your human, and I'm sure everyone responding will make their's in time. Keep your chin up, k. 20:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That reminds me, Bonzi. Where do you get the "70% is consensus" thing? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, it's not directly related to determining a consensus in the yew grove, but it is in other examples, so that is why I am using it as my decision maker here. I find 70% rather high for a pass rate, so if it works here, then it works for me... 20:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is absolutely ridiculous and I am shocked and appalled that there are people against the desysopping. To Aburnett, no, he abuses his powers and ignores established policy above having a bad attitude; this is the precise antithesis to a "good administrator". Ando, if you had fully read the previous thread or this one you would have seen that the discussion was not closed, it was simply that it was open-ended and someone just archived it. Moreover, the fact that you ask for more evidence demonstrates you did not take it upon yourself to look at his talk page and the fact that you believe that, despite everything he did wrong before and that there was a technical consensus existing that he should be stripped, because you did not see any other abuses of his powers in the following months and thus, he should be allowed to remain a sysop is disconcerting to say the least. The fact that Stinkowing believes he has done nothing wrong should also be the final nail in his coffin since he is unable or unwilling to realize how flagrant he breaks the rules. Go to his talk page and read "Corrupt Ancient warriors Equipment.. ", "Why all the Fuss", "About the thread... " for his once again ignoring the rules and moreover, just yesterday, he baselessly accused someone of being a sockpuppet. This should be wholly irrelevant since what he had done prior, should have immediately caused his loss of powers. Once again, I have to reiterate of how dismayed I am that not only does he retain his powers but that a few others actually somehow find his action and behaviour defensible.--Diberville 20:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Bravo, Diberville.
A note: I meant to say "disorder". I don't know why "disease" came out. However, the point still stands:
What Wejer said in his decision is beyond correct: it should be what decides this debate. In Supertech1's offer on my talkpage immediately following the unbanning, he said that we are an entire community, not a "me and them". THEREFORE, according to Stinkowing's behavior, either we're all allowed to do whatever the hell we want without consequence or we can simply scapegoat any user within range. Is that the type of community you want us to have, Stinkowing? You are being a massive hypocrite by saying that you've done nothing wrong, for my, Wejer and Diberville's reasons above. I AM biased against you, but for the right reasons; the users who support your hypocrisy are entitled to their opinion, but might not see the whole story.
P.S. I politely request that Stinkowing read my post again and edit his response; I typed that while I was in Computer Programming class and was running out of time. HOWEVER, I am NOT using that as an excuse like YOU have, Stinkowing, the proof of this being that I rectified my mistakes while you have been saying that you're "rethinking everything" and doing nothing.
P.S.S. I am only biased against people who disagree with me when either they have an arbitrary reason or no reason at all. Also, I absolutely do NOT think I'm perfect, but Stinkowing is not only imperfect but also a scapegoater (real word?), hypocrite and overall biased user that has been abusing the power that he no longer deserves. IT is unfortunate that any user has to say that about any other, but I , along with the sharp-minded people that agree with me, feel that for the better of the community, this must be done.
"To Aburnett, no, he abuses his powers and ignores established policy"- I can haz proof? I see no strong basis for these claims. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already linked to them.--Diberville 21:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's my point- none of those links really back up your claims. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I clearly gave concrete examples of his violating the rules and even cited the rules in the starting link. I made sure to be incredibly thorough. And now, I told you the name of the subjects on his talk page where he people remonstrate him for his attitude or ignoring the rules. In fact, in the prior thread the vast majority agreed with me and most of the minority stated that he should be given another chance thereby implying that they too agree that he broke the rules. This is incontrovertible evidence. The only way I can conceive of someone saying "they don't back up your claims" is if either they did not read it properly or is a partisan that will ignore anything said regardless of the inconvertibility of the evidence --Diberville 21:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As of right now I am investigating Stinko's contribs, especially the cited examples and the discussion before. Just so everyone knows. Also, Vhosythe, I highly recommend that you back down for a little bit because you really are not in the sort of position that allows you to point fingers. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Very true. For anyone who hasn't yet, be sure to educate yourself by viewing Vhosythe's block log as well as his talk page. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 21:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment (and case to try to rebut many opposers): Aburnett, you fail to understand something: I do not deny my past actions and have apologized to many of the victims. HOWEVER, that is more to say about Stinkowing, who continues to deny all of his wrongdoing and not even TRY to change his ways. Before your argument is valid, I want you to see my edit count (which is low but justified by how long I've been here), public domain vandalism history, and overall new attitude on the forums and site compared to Stinkowing's attitude and belief that the Wikian rules don't apply to him. If you need proof of this, there is plenty of it in the ORIGINAL DESYSOPPING YEW GROVE DEBATE.

"...not even TRY to change his ways" Simply put, you have not been here long enough to make that statement. I have noting against new users, but new users that accuse older ones of things that, quite frankly, they don't even understand is simply unacceptable. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 21:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CommentIf anyone should be banned it should be Vhosythe42. His comments of being un fairly unbanned have no real reason. Look at my talk page and his. He is a troll and attempts to intimidate me and when he originally was banned he attempted to intimidate Instant, Stinkowing, and me... . I have reported him multiple times over the cc and yet no one does nothing. It has gotten to the point where i have had to ask a crat to protect my user page and talk page. Stinkowing is not denying anything he made so much improvement and now a few users go berserk and believe he is some tyrant dictator. You weren't even here when he originally was supposed to loose his sysop powers. If a consensus was made then it does not mean the point stands valid now... DO NOT base your opinions on Stinkowing on what he did on the past or the false accusations of some guy who has caused more problems than good. God Of War 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"you have not been here long enough to make that statement."
That's a load of bull! From what I've seen ALONE, Stinkowing has let other users flame and discriminate other users and myself without receiving reprimand, he deleted his "message to vandals" page to hide some very rebutting evidence (or my computer is ****ed up), and is, to this day, denying doing anything wrong and spreading his metaphorical poison by doing so! A request to all opposers: stop feeding Stinkowing lies! He has used his power for the enmity that he swore to oust from the site and must be stopped!
As for you, God_Of_War: read each and every comment before you try to discriminate me again. You're allowed to be biased against me as much as you like, but by disagreeing with me out of your pure bias against me and not listening to facts, you're a catalyst and are therefore just as poisonous as the venom itself. Your argument against me is entitled to be against me, but without reasoning or basic facts, it is self-nullified and useless.
Note: With so many ignorant people like God Of War trying to discriminate me for my past, I will say this agin: I may have a sullied past, but unlike Stinkowing, I have since made up with almost all directly affected users and apologized to the primary victim OUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL. THAT IS, I DID IT BY MYSELF, WITHOUT ANY REPRIMANDATION FROM PEOPLE WITH AUTHORITY SINCE I WAS UNBANNED. I was unbanned for a reason: Chia is much wiser and much, MUCH less blinded than Stinkowing; he saw potential in me among the dark thoughts in my head (which no longer exist for the most part) and agve me the second chance that I deserved. Since then, I have not done anything of the sort. Again, that is much more than what Stinkowing has been doing. GOD OF WAR: READ ALL FACTS BEFORE ATTACKING ME OUT OF PURE SPITE.

Comment: If you thought that joke was offensive, you're absolutely right! That's the point I was trying to make! Everyone was offended by the fact that in the joke, it seemed okay for people to do whatever they wanted without reprimand. By finding offense in it, you're agreeing with me and my cause, whether you meant to or not. :)

Your sarcasm and joking aren't funny and are highly offensive. Like i have said before i have been here much more than you.... I was here when Stinkowing was supposed to loose his sysop powers.... I read all the comments on the yew grove before commenting on trivial issues... and i will be here long after you leave. If you are offended by me defending users good for you. But being pissed of at me constantly will only make things worse. As you have seen you have more black marks than good marks..... You say you apologize when you would still be arguing with me had it not been for my protect page. Now lets stay on topic..... God Of War 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue at hand

Unfortunately, it seems that personal vendettas on both sides have seeped in and obfuscated the issue at hand. These matters are wholly irrelevant of the cause at hand and only hinders progress on this issue. Look, the rules state that if an admin abuses his or her powers, at the very least, they get revoked. The first debate had a massive consensus that Stinkowing did abuse his powers. The only sticking points were that a small minority asked to ignore the established rules and give him an (undeserved) second chance and that there was no agreement on how long a ban he should get. Remarkably, the discussion was archived before a b'crat could officially close it and he was given a second chance. The fact that he continued to demonstrate a wilful ignorance of the rules, abuse of his powers and the same belligerent attitude which sours this community is incidental and irrelevant. He abused his powers, he broke the rules, he consequently must have his powers removed. Those are the rules. If he does not get desysopped, then you are saying that administrators are above the law and are held to a lower standard than the other editors and that the rules may be freely ignored and abused by the administrators as they shall suffer no consequences.--Diberville 22:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"If he does not get desysopped, then you are saying that administrators are above the law and are held to a lower standard than the other editors and that the rules may be freely ignored and abused by the administrators as they shall suffer no consequences."
If that doesn't convince anyone, that will tell us about how well the rules of this site are REALLY enforced.
P.S. If they DO give him a second chance, Diberville, want to go vandalize some pages and flame some new users with me since the Wiki's rules will be abolished in them doing so? There'll obviously be no consequence and it'll be fun!
That last part was a really dumb thing to say, even if it was a joke. Watch it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
It was a darkly humorous joke that made a point.
We (and by we, I mean you, me, as well as every other editor here on this wiki) should be striving to set examples and exceed established standards and not attempt to act like the nadirs of this wiki, especially when we see abuses and injustices.--Diberville 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Vhosythe. I don't like hypocrites, or your immaturity.  Tien  22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ABSOLUTE 100% AGAINST!. Stinko is a good admin. I don't care that you hate him. He's one of our best contributors, and is certainly deserving of his rank. He was given his status by a community consesnsus, and he shall keep them. This argument is long over, and you have lost. Stinkowing is an admin, and a very good one as well. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - D4k, I would like to correct your total ignorance of policy. Admins are voted into the role, and they sign into it as well. The community can also vote them out. This argument is long over, and you have lost. The discussion started today, it is far from over. Nobody loses anything. I recommend you re-read the rules of adminship before commenting again. It is ignorance and reasoning like this that causes issues. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
22:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Against per Doucher. We already had this discussion a short time ago. And the consensus was, don't desysop Stinkowing! I've read Stinko's comment, and I agree with him and everyone else who is against this discussion. User:C Teng/sig 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Results of my investigation

In response to these claims brought up against Stinkowing, I took it upon myself to look at his recent contributions- approximately the last month or so. I reviewed his standard contribs, his block log, and his deletion log. These are my results:

  1. Of his past fifty edit contributions (link), stretching back to mid-January, he has reverted 22 instances of vandalism, almost fifty percent of his edits. He also has various userpage edits and talk page edits, though there is no significant participation in community discussions.
  2. He has deleted six pages this month (link): A userpage of a user that does not exist, a temporary page about an in-game bug, a personal article, a personal image, a personal video, and a page of vandalism.
  3. He has blocked ten users this month (link): Seven IP vandals, one user who openly showed disregard for wiki policy, one spammer and one disruptive flaming user who threatened to use proxies.

I also reviewed the previous discussion to see the points brought up by Diberville. Pertaining to this example that Diberville used, my feelings are mixed. If the user in question did not have disruptive intent, then a block probably was not necessary; however, I can see how he would have seen the user as needing a block given that the user recreated the page and then was impolite to Stinko about it on his talk page. I must also point out that the user in question was not very mature or reasonable on his talk page in the discussion that followed.

I also have a point to bring up regarding the previous discussion. The last time anyone posted in the discussion was the 31st of December. The page was archived ten days later, on the 10th of January. The fact that nobody posted on it for ten days might seem to indicate that anyone who originally had a case against Stinkowing dropped it.

Stinkowing seems to have had some periods during which his posts and some of his actions were somewhat out of control. A large example of such can be found on the old discussion. However I have two things to say about that. First, it appears that stress from his offline life had built up and the wiki just made it worse (which anyone who's ever been in a position of authority should be able to understand). He cited several such stress-inducers in his post. The second is that, in reviewing his recent contributions, I have seen no evidence of any of these behaviors. This leads me to believe that his claims of trying to clean up his act are true.

To summarize: As of right now I see no reason to remove Stinkowing from adminship. Any past issues he may have had with the wiki seem to be either resolved or pending resolution, and the nature of the old discussion does not suggest to me that removal of sysop powers is appropriate. People wanted to give him a second chance, and he has it right now. In my professional opinion he has done nothing to break that chance.

And to Stinkowing: I'm sorry that people are putting you through this. It must not be easy having to deal with this sort of thing on top of whatever else you may have going on. But rest assured that I'm not the only one who thinks you're doing a decent job as an admin and as a person. The only advice I could give is to make use of wikibreaks in the event that you need them; better to take a vacation and come back in a healthy state of mind than stay in a community that might just incite more negative feelings and make things worse for you. Aside from that, hang in there and keep up the good work. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's some impressive work, Andorin. Perhaps it'll make those two "opposers" reconsider. I say that, Diberville and Vhost, because you two seem to be the only users who openly dislike Stinkowing.  Tien  22:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that Diberville has been away from the wiki since the old discussion. He came back, saw that Stinkowing was not desysopped, and decided to raise the issue. Diberville, how can you even judge him when you haven't been around for the past two months to see what he does? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Your rhetorical fallacy not withstanding and irrelevant to the issue at hand, I was busy but I did come here ever so often to check on my watchlist. Moreover, I looked thoroughly over Stinkowing's recent contributions before bringing the subject up again. Had he reformed, I would not have raised the issue once more. And Tienjt0, to think it's a question of dislike, as if I have something personal against him is also a petty rhetorical fallacy. I have no history with him but have seen his trail of abuses and believe that we should uphold the rules in place here.
This is very spurious reasoning. I also have a point to bring up regarding the previous discussion. The last time anyone posted in the discussion was the 31st of December. The page was archived ten days later, on the 10th of January. The fact that nobody posted on it for ten days might seem to indicate that anyone who originally had a case against Stinkowing dropped it. There was complete agreement that he abused his powers and consensus that he should have those powers removed but because no one posted anything means that the case was dropped? How did you come to that conclusion? Any past issues he may have had with the wiki seem to be either resolved or pending resolution? This thread clearly demonstrates that this situation isn't resolved. the nature of the old discussion does not suggest to me that removal of sysop powers is appropriate Did you read it? There was near unanimity that he abused his powers. Moreover, you seem to excuse or explain away the resent abuses and state that stress gives him immunity from his prior abuses? From what you've posted as well as your statements above, I think that you had already came to a conclusion that regardless of the information, that Stinkowing would be "not-guilty". This is some of the most specious "research" that I've seen. He had and has clearly abused his powers but because the recent abuses were comparatively smaller than the previous ones, that the previous discussion was archived away and because he has stress, it excuses his behaviour and makes him immune to the consequences of his action? The very idea is repugnant and goes against the very heart of this place. He broke the rules, he abused his powers, he gets his powers revoked. It's that simple. The notion that he should not be is offencive to those rules we are all supposed to respect and follow.--Diberville 23:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
My word choice was poor; I did not mean to use the word "dislike," and in that context. I just think you're taking this WAY too seriously.  Tien  23:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I do take administrator abuse seriously. I also take the wiki's rules seriously. Stinkowing abused his powers. The rules state that he must be desysopped. If not, then he and the admins as a whole are above the law, must answer to a lower standard and are unequal to the other editors.--Diberville 23:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that I am at home and it doesn't take 15 minutes to load the Yew Grove, I can add a little more. In regards to Tien's comment above mine. While I don't openly dislike Stinkowing, I actually like him a lot as a person and friend, I voted to revoke powers. I really respect Stinko as a person and a fellow admin. I realized that a lot has changed in the past 90ish days. However, I cannot agree with allowing stress from offline issues affect your performance on the encyclopedia. If you are upset, it is simple to not log on. Dealing with wikistress when you're having personal issues is not a good idea. I do not think Stinko is a bad admin, but I feel that he lets his emotions get the best of him sometime, and it has happened too often, in my opinion, for him to keep the role of admin. While we as admins are no different from every other editor we do, inadvertently, set an example for users. Comments such as this, even though the user has been disrespectful, are not acceptable. Also, banning a user, unless they blatantly and continually vandalize, is not only for one person to decide.
Now, regarding my decision. I think Stinko has made many mistakes. Now, granted he, like the rest of us, is human, there is eventually a point to where it becomes too much. I know Stinko has a lot going on in life, but it's life. The older you get, the more you'll realize that life sucks, and you can't depend on it at all. It's better to stop using personal issues as a crutch for mistakes now, then later when something far more serious happens down the road. I really think that maybe some time offline would be best for you. I think that, on top of what's going on for you, the wikistress has really got the best of you. Your edits, blocks (for the most part), and contributions show that you can control yourself. Once that control is lost though, you tend to go overboard. I would recommend doing what I did. Take a break from the wiki, clear your watchlist, take a short break. It's nice to forget about what's going on for a while, let bygones be bygones. Clear your mind, if somebody is stupid or rude on here, just kill them with kindness. Nothing gets to somebody who is livid and hates you more than you being kind to them. They thrive off getting under your skin; be the bigger man and ignore them. I, like I have others, extend an ear to you if you ever want to rant, complain, yell, scream, whine, talk, whatever the situation may be. I don't mind listening, and I might even be able to help a little. =D Please though Stinko, really consider some off-wiki time, I think it might be healthy for you. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
23:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Nicely said, Karlis. And Diber, you stand strong for your views, which is admirable. I will back out and allow other users to determine whether Stinko should remain an admin. Good luck, Stinkowing.  Tien  23:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Any past issues he may have had with the wiki seem to be either resolved or pending resolution? This thread clearly demonstrates that this situation isn't resolved. That's only because YOU brought it up. Before you came back there were no problems whatsoever with Stinkowing's adminship- couldn't that, just maybe, mean that it should be left alone because there's no NEED to raise a fuss about it? And you STILL have not cited the recent abuses you talk about. Please do so if you're going to raise a case. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already mentioned some of the abuses in my post following Stinkowing's in this discussion and others have raised a few more (if you have truly thoroughly investigated, you would have already seen them) and if you also read the thread you will have seen that others have also stated their surprise that he did not lose his admin powers from the previous discussion. And by your logic, there was "no problem with Stinkowing's adminship" until I brought it up a couple of months ago as well. All throughout this discussion, you have used specious reasoning, rhetorical fallacies and jumps in logic and constantly attempted to excuse and minimize his abuses of power and implied that there's a statute of limitations on his prior abuses. But despite your attempts at obfuscation, the central point remains true: he abused his power and when an administrator abuses his powers, he loses them.--Diberville 00:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that took a while to read. First off, I want everyone to calm down. This may be a serious thing, but results can still very well be achieved without raising tempers. (Amazing and unexpected, I know.)

Standard reasons for a sysop to have their powers revoked are:

  • Power abuse
  • Request

Correct? In this case, Stinko has very much so not requested himself to be de-sysoped. Though, for power abuse, let's break it down to its roots:

power ab use

The power in this case is sysop privelages. "Ab" means "away from", which in this case would mean "away from acceptable", and we all know what "use" means.

Stinko has overused his powers, but not necessarily abused them. In the case with Vhosythe, the block was well justified, but the length was a bit too much. Also, as Karlis said, administrators (and bureaucrats especially) are nearly always role models for non-syops. If someone is an outstandingly good sysop, that's good. But if someone is a power hungry maniac bent on the destruction of tree-hugging hippies, that could possibly turn some users into lackies bent on the destruction of tree-hugging hippies. Now, Stinko is definitely not a power hungry maniac bent on the desctrution of tree-hugging hippies- to my knowledge, anyway -, but he could be a bad influence on some users. Though, behind each username and IP adress is a real person. Being a real person, I have full faith in them to pick a different role model (no offense intended :S).

I don't fully oppose the de-sysop (i.e. 80%), but I don't support it. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sidestepping for now the distinction of overuse and abuse, and that the Vhosythe situation was never an example I used of abuse, in regards to Stinko has very much so not requested himself to be de-sysoped., I will simply link to this: I would like my sysopship temporarily (up to a few years, and at LEAST three months) removed.. Again, (and this is not directed to you Chia but this place in general), I don't understand why, if Stinkowing abused his powers, if there was consensus that he abused his powers, if he still abuses his powers, if the rules state that a sysop who abuses his power gets desysopped, if there was consensus that he get desysopped and if he himself requested to be desysopped, why is he still a sysop?--Diberville 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer, because Sannse (sp., apologies if incorrect) decided that the whole issue was people being upset or angry or w/e, and failed to recognize that a community concensus was achieved. To Andorin, for a quick small recent example of abuse, maybe [[1]] counts. Its a very small thing, but here he reverts a good faith edit with good information, and offers no valid reason for doing so. Yes, it was quite terribly written. But that is why we have edit summaries, yes? --Degenret01 01:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

¿Problem Solved?

(takes a deep breath) Listen, guys: I've come to know a lot of you and many of you make rational decisions almost all the time. On this topic, though, a ton of us (myself included) have been making very, to be frank, stupid replies. I still think that Stinkowing should be permanently removed from power, but that probably isn't going to happen with Diberville and I being the only militants on that side. And you DEFINTELY aren't going to put me in power (despite my daydreams!) So I was thinking about it while I was at dinner (Mmm...Steak) and think I have come up with a solution that'll satisfy everyone.

Hopefully, everyone on this Wiki learns from their mistakes; it's a necessary part of life. For the most part, I've learned from the mistakes I made on here back in 2008 and have, so far, successfully gone without further bans and few minor reprimands (mostly involving font color and images) since. This is my second chance and so far, I haven't ****ed it up (but that's really based on opinion). Now, listen and please try to take this seriously despite my "overenthusiasm": Stinkowing apparently abused his power and did some bad things before I was even here, and I guess all of you know it. A second chance could have been justified and it probably wouldn't make sense to deny him one. But Stinkowing is on his third chance now, and has seemingly proven that he's not willing to change his ways. I have seen him before and after he asked for this third chance. The question is: is this Wiki willing to learn from its mistakes? While it may be possible that he's a changed person, the past implies that he isn't. Therefore, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I have a new proposition: agree to the skeleton of the "deal" that Stinkowing offered to the Wiki, being that his power be commandeered for four months or so to give him time to change and rethink his attitude. But I think we should work on the foundation of that idea a bit: instead of instantly giving his power back to him once the three months have past, we slowly give him "chunks" of power back, such as making him a Rollback instead of returning him to Administration status, etc. That way, if he ****s up again with that fraction of power he gets back, we'll catch him in the process of the revertion, and his power will simply be taken away permanently.
Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Want to build upon it/comment? If you oppose, please have an intelligent reason why, not anything along the lines of "he's my friend and I hate you for trying to do this to him".

See, heres a problem Vhosythe42. When you say things like "with Diberville and I being the only militants..." and " DEFINTELY aren't going to put me in power (despite my daydreams!)..." then it sends up screaming red flags and its hard to take you serious. So its hard to disuss your actual proposition, because lots of people are going to come and respond to those bits I quoted, not the actual subject. Soooooo, heres a deal for you. Write a serious proposition where you don't sound like a power starved mad man looking for attention, and you may generate intelligent discussion. Look at how Diberville write. He sounds rational all the time. Try that.--Degenret01 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Puggle, can you provide any evidence? So far, you've made a lot of claims, but no proof. Butterman62 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you sound a bit giddy in your post. I did, however, read your last few lines... your proposal is kinda far-fetched in my opinion, but other users may think differently.  Tien  01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
One sentence (the one about about militants excluded) caused you to come to that conclusion? I was referring to the serious "aura" of the post (except that one sentence), not an attitude along the lines of "I'm dead serious when I say that I want this to happen".
You said yourself that you were "overenthusiastic." And sign your post.  Tien  02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Let's put it to a vote.

This vote is to determine whether or not Stinkowing should be removed from sysop status.

Make sure to update the number of supports and opposes if you vote!

Supports: 0
Opposes: 5
  • Against. As per, like, everything I've said here. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - per AndorinKato. Andrew talk 02:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Andorin. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Per everything I've said above, Stinko still deserves his adminship. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per all. User:C Teng/sig 02:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all Cannonball.pngJack Spiral1Rapier.png 02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Voting is obviously going to work in your favor: you're making propaganda while you're voting to end it? We need a system that'll equally acknowledge both sides, whether it's made up of "fair" teams or it's five people versus twenty. If anything, make the vote unanimous; after all, all editors should have an equal vote in a democracy, unless you're all turning into hypocrites too.

STOP!!!!!!!! NO VOTING!!!!!

RS wiki is NOT a democracy, this section needs to go. And stop making new section vh. RuneScape:RuneScape_Wiki_is_not...--Degenret01 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Degen, no more voting. This seems to be policy violation day...-- 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Important Comment - Besides this being a violation of policy, I have just learned that AndorinKato has been misrepresenting my position, using epithets against my name and colluding with others outside of here to influence public opinion on this issue.--Diberville 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it a violation of policy? Butterman62 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As you yourself noted below and others above, we don't poll these kinds of topics.--Diberville 02:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, that. Sorry, "this" was unclear. I thought you were referring to Stinko or something. Butterman62 (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No voting, agreed, since not only would that be pitting users against themselves, but the scales would greatly tip in your favor when we need an unbiased system that will please both parties; however, you and I both know that this site is a democracy; the Wikian founders themselves stated that people, even ones with power, are not less than or greater than anyone else in importance. So either this site is a democracy or the Wikian founders are full of crap.
No it's not. Butterman62 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Talking about it on IRC is colluding with others to influence public opinion? Right, okay. Have fun with that. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, show me where he was "colluding with others", please, because as far as I am concerned we discussed the issue in IRC. Period. He was not telling anyone to oppose/support or agree with him. He simply stated his opinion. As I recall, so did you. It's completely ridiculous that you would challenge someone's credibility based on a completely false reason like that. Andrew talk 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can vouch for Andorin as well, I've been in IRC all afternoon and Andorin has not once asked people to choose one side or another. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 02:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(Courtesy of Encarta World English Dictionary.)
Consensus: broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group. this has already been disproven by the varying treatments and punishments of different users.
Democracy:free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government. This is what I thought we were, but apparently not. Therefore, the last two options remain.
Oligarchy: A small governing group. This one best fits my view of the Wiki. It's a horrific fact but it's true; It doesn't seem to matter that the Wikian founder himself has stated that all people, powerless or otherwise, are equal here, the administrators are the ones making all the decisions! Proof of this is the outcome of the other YewGrove/Stink debate.
Empire: lands ruled by a single authority. This one takes place randomly when I'm around: sometimes one person makes the decisions for the community (always admins or sysops), and sometimes it's one of the other three. It's a pity, isn't it? Deny it all you like, but we all know who, at the end of every debate, makes the decisions for us, sometimes without even following the decision that the community decided on!
...examples? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Oligarchy? I disagree. I'm actually supporting desysopping Stinko. C.ChiamTalk 02:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the admins are making all the decisions. I can think of many other users. Maybe it seems like that because admins are generally very involved with the community? Butterman62 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am floored at the disrespect and deception you have shown. Besides you and others using epithets to describe me (which is a violation of user treatment policy), especially when I have always been civil to you and everyone else here in this discussion and at every single occasion, you misrepresented my position stating to others that I believed Stinkowing had done nothing wrong in the past few months while several times in this discussion I have stated the exact opposite, you do a spurious "investigation" that omits or forgives abuses that others here including myself have mentioned. I always assume good faith and I honestly believed that your position and responses were caused due to lack of actual rigorous research or thought but I hate to say this, but I believe you're trying to rig this thing so that administrators do get to be above the law. For shame.--Diberville 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples of emperors and/or oligarchies are everywhere. Does the community decide which forum threads are okay and which are "not in the spirit of the Wiki" or any of that crap? No! Only explicit choices can be made by the community on pages such as the page-deletion link or the constant debates occuring over the "neutrality" of pages such as the page on scamming. Examples of Democracies: See the "explicit choices" part above.

Examples of consensi (real word?): Absolutely none, unless people are enlightened to the truth of this entire debate and decide on a solution as a community, which would involve unanimous decisions and admins actually acting according to how the community chose. If proof can be found of this, please leave it on my talkpage.

Er... sorry to burst your bubble, but it's that way for a reason. Community voting on every single issue out there would take entirely too long. That's why the community elects administrators that they judge worthy of making good decisions for the wiki (though not completely independent of community consent) and forum mods to close inappropriate threads. An administrator's actions can always be questioned- as has been so thoroughly proven today- but admins have a fair amount of leeway concerning decisions because the community makes it that way. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And unfortunately, once more, distractions and diversions have gotten us completely off the issue at hand.--Diberville 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Because there is totally a cabal of select elite users who secretly manipulate the flow of events on the wiki in order to fulfill their secret agenda. Before I conducted my examination I spoke to Stinko in IRC and made it clear to him that if I found anything I thought was questionable, then out of fairness seeing as how I am a sysop, I would bring it up. His response was a request for me to "Be honest." You do not always assume good faith; if you did you would look at his past contributions and understand that he has cleaned things up. The fact is, you come out of inactivity and launch an unjustified tirade against a user. You do not bring up a problem; you create it. And you continue to perpetuate the notion that Stinkowing needs punishment for issues that are stamped, filed and in the past. I do not support Stinkowing because he's an administrator. I support him because I believe in him. Absolutely nothing you can say anymore will change that. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The only difference between the first few lines of that post and the truth, Andorin, is that administrators and sysops don't hide what they should be ashamed of: the lies that they mouthfeed us every day. That is why this debate is still going on: the entire community is deciding what would be better for itself, and to me, that's better than officials lying through their teeth. Imagine if you learned that Obama rigged the polls so that he won: that situation is not much different from this, but by having leaders that don't hide it, we never grow suspicious and it goes on every day without us realizing it. Bottom line: the site says we are a consensus, but whoever wrote that is a blasphemer. Also, Andoran, please remember: that is what he did during the first debate: he acted cute and innocent until the leaders of the oligarchy made up their minds. After that, he went back to his old self, the self that lies, cheats and tries to justify all of it.
Look, I don't know who you are, but I know enough to know that you did things that were ban-worthy, and that a lot of people dislike you for it. And generally, that alone is enough to lose my respect. But not once have I assumed the worst of you. But your latest comment has just killed it. How dare you accuse the creators of RS:NOT, which was voted on by the community and initiated by one of our most active and helpful bureaucrats ever, of being blasphemers. Look at what you yourself have just done! I don't care if you think of the wiki as a terrible place, no one is forcing you to stay. But how dare you call the creator a blasphemer when it is the community's job to keep up with these policies. If the community does not, it is not one single person's fault, especially not someone who created such a page to help keep order and peace on the wiki! Christine 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Until you start supplying proof of your claims (something you've generally failed to do all day), I'm just not going to listen to you. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Not as much as you think, Diberville: my posts are attempting to drill through certain thick skulls that think we're a consensus. The facts state we don't, and what the page says we are is not necessarily what we are in reality. I've posted what I think we are due to past behaviors of the people with power on this site, and thus, I think it's valid and not untrue in any way.

Right. Because there is totally a cabal of select elite users who secretly manipulate the flow of events on the wiki in order to fulfill their secret agenda. Reductio ad absurdum. Another fallacy. Another misrepresentation. Do you deny using epithets against me? Do you deny completely misrepresenting my position in the chat? I have listed, and others too, abuses Stinkowing made after the first discussion which you have ignored or excused but I keep reiterating that it is irrelevant since the first discussion already established that his powers should be revoked per the rules you and every other person here is supposed to uphold. I have now, and always have on this wiki, used reason and logic as the basis of my decisions and have never reacted emotionally. Can you say the same? You just stated that "I support him because I believe in him. Absolutely nothing you can say anymore will change that." By your own admission, here, now, you have stated that regardless of the irrefutable evidence brought forth, regardless of the soundness of my arguments, you will ignore reason and the rules and implacably stick to your position, regardless of whether or not it is right. Therefore, there is no way of reasoning with you and would be a waste of my time.

Thus, this is directed to everyone else. Stinkowing has habitually broken the rules and treated other users with disrespect. I had already demonstrated this prior and there was a consensus that he should have his rights revoked but an error in archiving gave him a second chance. He still again ignores the rules and is abusive to others as I and others above have enumerated. So ask yourselves this: if Stinkowing were just now requesting an adminship, would you support it? Do you believe that all editors are equal? Do you believe we should all follow and uphold the rules? If an administrator does abuse his powers and show constant scorn and disrespect towards the other members, should he remain in his position? And I ask for one more thing from you all. You may have had personal experiences with Stinkowing or others here either supporting or opposing the topic at hand. I ask you all to put aside any personal amity or animosity and look at this from a dispassionate position. Read and weight everything you've seen and then write a reasoned reply, staying all-the-while above the fray of insults and immaturity. The Yew Grove is the place to discuss, not argue. So let's discuss it.--Diberville 03:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Diberville, I could not have expressed it better myself. Know that you are not alone in this struggle against nepotism and corruption, and that you have my full support. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 12:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Diber...when will your arrogant self stop making false accusations? When will you stop using large words to confuse me and shut everyone else up, thus showing no resistance to your biased claims against me? When will you be able to recognize sarcasm and learn to properly deal with it, instead of blowing up when someone uses it? When will you provide proof of your these claims against me? When will you stop judging me with things from the past?
I do not understand...your harshness is beyond my comprehension. You and Vhosythe made me break down in front of a trusted friend I have in real life last night...something I will never forget. Go ahead. Try to break me. I can guarentee you will fail, because I am NOT giving in! --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

You want examples? Here. [[2]] where Stink violates policy by undoing a good faith edit and offers no reason for it. It was a poor as hell edit but contained useful info that should have been entered into the article. And [[3]], extremely unjust blocking. These are just two easy examples that I could access in about 20 seconds. What would we find if we spent hours looking? Stink, I would like you to consider the impact this has had on the community. Not just on you, but on the wiki. Please consider resigning sysop powers effective immediately and taking a wikibreak. Come back in a month and a month later repply for sysop. I do not personally dislike you, and that is not why I am suggesting this. --Degenret01 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT giving in, and your examples are very poor choices. The first one, I will not deny that I undid it, but yes, it was poor as hell, hence why I undid it. And did you even look at the second "example"? That guy basically said "fuck your policies I'm going to do what I want". That is not a good editor's attitude, so I blocked him for blatent disregard to our policies. MAN, I'll be glad when this is all's not right that we have to go through what Vho and Diber are putting us all through. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Well, Stink, I dont see someone whos says "fuck your policies" as being all that different from someone who says that they will ignore our polices as you do here [[4]]. And they are good choices because they demonstrate your attitude. As for the first, your wrongness is screaming out loud. You treated a good faith edit as vandalism. --Degenret01 20:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then all of the edits I see that other users (mostly those with rollback)who undo good faith edits must be thinking that those edits are vandalism too. I won't let you single me out as a power-abuser, because I'm NOT a power-abuser. I will not take a wikibreak, and I'm NOT giving in to these tactics made to make me react negatively. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
"Diber...when will your arrogant self stop making false accusations? When will you stop using large words to confuse me and shut everyone else up [...]"
He has proven time and time again that what you're doing is hypocritical and wrong. Us "putting you through this" is for the better for the community because you're on your third chance to behave, and so far all you have done is deny the facts. It would be a poor decision to give you any more good faith by now...By the way, don't give me that crap about using "big words" to confuse you while you tell people to "f*ck" this or "damn" that or to stop acting like "f*cking" children. I've seen the way you talk, and this looks a lot like another way to hide from consequence to me.
"it's that way for a reason [...]"
What reason is that? Is it fear that the community will make stupid mistake or a feeling of responsibility? The only reason why this debate's still going on is because the oligarchy has temporarily given average users a voice. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a community that takes a week to make a correct decision than one that makes slapdash choices that end up hurting the community in the end. Do you agree or do you not give a damn about this site and its inhabitants?
Within a piece of evidence that Wejer has shown us, I have found examples of scapegoating, admitting to breaking Wikian rules, and avoiding responsibility for his own actions. Observe:
"If you can help from not posting a question for me, by all means...DON'T. I'm currently battling extreme bouts of stress, and I refuse to lash out in anger. However, such dumb questions frustrate me, and I'm HIGHLY unlikely to answer kindly (if at all) if I'm feeling stressed. If I see ANY more questions of that nature, I will not only delete the comment (I understand it's against RS:Don't Delete Discussions, but this is pissing me off), but also go to the Yew Grove and re-suggest my policy of reworking our registration system so that you KNOW that personal images WILL be deleted on sight. Then you'll KNOW, and STOP, which will make me less stressed. I really don't operate well when stressed, so DON'T. POST. ANY. MORE. IMAGE. QUESTIONS.
I wouldn't have to do this, but seeing as how I'm one of the most hated RSWikians, I'm going to drastic measures. Sorry, but this is the fault of quite a few of you (not naming anyone)."
...That's it. I've had it with you, Vho. We've ALL had it with you. You are a mean, cruel, bullying user who has proven to all of us (minus Diber and a few others) that you exist here solely for lying, bullying, argumentative reasons. You have made me cry in front of my best friend because I couldn't handle this issue's stress then. You have warped and distorted the Wiki's community into a nightmarish mess. You have broken multiple policies, claimed blasphemy against a trusted 'crat and his policy, bullied Christine and Butterman, and have not been punished even once during this whole argument. But most of all, you have disgraced my friends and I by harboring a hateful, spiteful vendetta against me, calling my mental state a "disease" and twisting my words into lies about me. You know perfectly well my weaknesses (stress) and you're preying off of them to get me desysopped (and likely banned). Never mind your grudge against me-you're gone. Done for. BANNED. We've assumed good faith long enough, but that was the last straw. Now leave us all alone. Put bluntly, you make me feel horrible.

Diber, don't start with your large words and irrelevant "information". They won't work on me anymore. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Stinko, you need to unblock him. I cannot continue fight in your favor now that you have gone off and perm banned Vho. This is 100% abuse of power, and it is not acceptable. This is not helping you at all, in fact it is just going to fuel the fire. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 01:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not abuse at all. He has deserved that for quite some time, but hasn't gotten it handed to him. His senseless claims are no good for thbe wiki, and if he is even temp-blocked, he's spread more shit around when he comes back. Haven't YOU people had enough of Vho? Or is actually that interesting to keep around here so he can trash my name? I'll let you decide. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
Stinko, I agree that Vho's behavior is unacceptable, but a perm-ban is simply too much. Few people are willing to wait a month or two just so that they can come back and continue a fight that is long over. If he continues his behavior after that time, than a perm ban is more than warranted. --Rollback crown.svgAburnett001 {Talk} {#} 01:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole debate has been about whatever or not there is enough evidence to support a desysoping. Now one clear example of this has happened right in front of our very eyes. Instead of following wiki policy, Stinkowing chose to take matters in his own hands, because Vhosythe42's reasoning "is no good for the wiki". What this incident has clearly shown is Stinkowing completly disregards wiki policy by permanently banning a fellow wikian without following policy. He also refuses to argue with reason on this issue, and instead telling us that Vhosythe42 "deserved it for quite some time", without following it up with logic and facts. What this essentially boils down to is that it is impossible to argue reasonbly with Stinkowing, and if one tries to do that anyway one receives a permanent ban. In my humble opinion, this is the kind of disfavourable behaviour that should, reasonably, leads to the desysoping of Stinkowing. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 09:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've seen enough. Ever since this discussion was brought up again it has only caused massive amounts of stress for EVERYONE involved. I'm done sitting back and watching this pointless argument. So far everyone in support of desysopping Stinko has linked us to what, 4 or 5 incidents in the last 3 months? Well, considering we're all human, sysops included, I think 4 or 5 is a rather low number. I bet I've made at least that many administrative mistakes in the past 3 months, but out of all of the incidents that have been brought up on this page, not one has proven that Stinko has attempted to abuse his powers in any way. It has only proven that Stinko's interpretation of our policies is different from some of yours. For example, when he indefinitely blocked the user that was cursing and saying they didn't have to follow any rules/policies, the indefinite block may not have been necessary, but Stinko saw that the user was blatantly disregarding our policies and took action to prevent it from getting any worse. That only shows that he cares about the wiki. When he undid the good faith edit, sure, it would have been better if he had included a reason for undoing the edit, but he didn't rollback, did he? The rule is that you shouldn't use rollback unless it is obvious vandalism, and he didn't, meaning he was following that rule. Besides, I'm sure most of you out there have undone an edit at least once without including a reason.

To sum it all up, Stinko may have a more harsh approach when it comes to enforcing wiki policies than others do, but he has enforced the policies and has done a pretty darn good job of it in the process.

It is completely ridiculous to think that some users out there would want to put someone through an ordeal like this, especially knowing how stressful it is for everyone involved, and then have the nerve to call him a bad leader. If you can't even assume good faith then you shouldn't be accusing others of breaking that policy other. Hypocrisy is by far the worst way to go about any discussion, especially one like this. Andrew talk 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, Stinko did use rollback, check the link again. [5], it says "Reverted". C.ChiamTalk 08:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright then, my mistake, and my statement still stands 100%. If you're going to complain every time someone makes ONE mistake that many people have made then don't even bother. Andrew talk 17:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That was a bit uncalled for, Soldier. All I did was make something clear, not complain. Are you saying that I should not have said anything and just gone along with it? Please explain. C.ChiamTalk 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he was directing that at everyone, not just at you, and not at your correction either... Christine 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That's possible...but he used the word you're in If you're going to complain every time someone makes ONE mistake that many people have made then don't even bother. C.ChiamTalk 14:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Calm down everyone stinko is a good admin but needs to learn to calm down and STOP SWEARING. take a chill pill. Joe Click Here for Awesomeness

Back to the Consensus thing

Oppose - I've run boards and lists before, been a mod, etc..., and always there are people who were pulled up short by having the rules enforced who whined and pitched fits. I'm pro rules and anti-whiners, manipulators, immature entitled brats.

That said, rules should be enforced evenly, and it would appear Stinkowing is getting a handle on that. Some people can be EXTREMELY provoking and it takes a very level head, and huge amounts of maturity, and sometimes just plain good fortune, to avoid being baited into traps.

About the autism charge/defense/whatever. I've got friends with autism and have studied it a little. I'm by no means an expert. But I do know it can make seeing certain social situations very difficult. Friends could help Stinkowing by helping point out where these situations occur, and Stinkowing could help by being open to that feedback from friends.

Quick note - Unfortunately, I was away for the week-end and I will be far too busy on Monday and Tuesday to post a response and I want to write a long, thorough and thoughtful locus so there won't be a response from me until Wednesday at the earliest. I request that the chat continues to be archived and that a copy be made available. Sadly, this issue has made another administrator abuse his powers (specifically in regards to the power of protecting pages) and break the rules (user treatment policy) without suffering any repercussions and thus I have a request to the majority of administrators who do personally follow the rules but are being silent and passive on this issue: your inaction is hurting more than anything else. Make your voices heard on this issue.--Diberville 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Diber, Stinko WAS trying his best, after the first desysopping discussion, Stinko has tried to do his best to revive his image, why are you and vo-whatshisname so determined to bring stinko down? this is going nowhere and so far, its far worse than the stuff with Puremexican, your talk of the so-called breaking of rules does merit consideration, BUT it is a known fact that stinko has a bad temper, why are you so determined to desysop him? Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment i even believe that stinko's recent losses of temper were indirectly related to you Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 13:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment to Btz Uhh, Btz....I haven't lost my temper once through this entire problem, though I'll admit that I was most definately hurt by these smear tactics and became close to actually losing my temper. But each time those close calls happened, yes, they were related to Diberville, Vhosythe, Dengenret, Wejer, and Calebchiam. Let's look at THEIR problems, shall we?
  • Vhosythe: Plain old trolling, and truthfully deserves a permanent ban for disrupting and questioning the community processes.
  • Wejer: Had he not just flat out gone to Diber's side without a legit reason, I wouldn't have anything against him, but he did, so yeah. Also OPPOSED AN RFA for supporting me. That's horrible, biased, and disgusts me.
  • Calebchiam: Keeps unblocking Vho for no reason. IT IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER. It is blocking a troll so that we can get this crap over with without someone adding fuel to the flaming.
  • Dengenret: This one deserves a picture, BESIDES the same reasons for Wejer:

Granted, that's in-game, but it still shows his attitude towards opposition!
  • Diberville: Started this whole mess, and just won't give up the fact that I am FINE and have done NOTHING wrong.

LOOK AT THAT PIC AGAIN STINK.NOW TRY READING IT. Anyone looking down on me is spoiled. I did not say anyone that opposes my viewpoint, I very clearly said "anyone looking down on me". Are you saying that everyone with a different viewpoint got together and they all look down on me?Is that the case? Well, I really doubt thye all do, but that is not the issue. --Degenret01 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If I could, I would just strip Dengen and Caleb of their powers and have all of them tempblocked for a long time, since they've caused so much pain for me, but I'm not going to do that...I just wish that this whole mess would be solved and LET IT GO.

You would strip me? Really? I believe in using due process Stink. Good thing you dont have the power to strip me and Caleb.--Degenret01 10:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The supporters for my continuing sysopship and I are still waiting for that conclusive proof, oppositioners (is that even a word?)... --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Ok, I don't really want to do this, but I think you just did it again. This is what you said: Calebchiam: Keeps unblocking Vho for no reason. IT IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER. It is blocking a troll so that we can get this crap over with without someone adding fuel to the flaming.
The first time I unblocked Vhosythe was on my mother's iPhone as I was on my church. I was going to give the reason for unblocking as The discussion is not yet ove but I think I may have selected to unblock by accident. Later, I had church and everything so I didn't know that you had blocked him and asked for the reasoning behind the unblocking (which is fair).
The second time I unblocked Vhosythe with the reason being: The discussion is not yet over and we don't block users because of their shortcomings (immaturity?) Note the "?" because I was not very sure what Stinko was blocking him for, thus I simply assumed this from what I read on this page. Stinko blocked Vhosythe again with this...comment: we have all agreed that he has done enough to deserve a month-long block. Leave his block alone, please
However, I was not aware of such a discussion, I probably was not online at the time. So....I unblocked Vhosyte with this comment: Who is this "we"? I have not seen this discussion that you are talking about, umm could you please direct me to it? I went to see the discussion about you on the Yew Grove and I saw no such agreement. Can I see your reasoning? I don't see anything wrong with this statement it's only natural to try and find out where the discussion can be found.
Stinko blocked Vhosythe again with this comment:"we" is the general community. If you went on IRC, especially, you'd notice these things. Now leave his block ALONE Ok, I was a bit frustrated by this time as I wasn't on the IRC and I still did not know the reasoning. All this can be found here: [6] if you want to see the proof of my statements.
After seeing that, I decided I wasn't going to continue with the block/unblock thing so I decided to leave a message (titled "Vho's block") on his talk page. The message is this: Ok just to clarify, I'm not out to create an argument with you or anything. I just thought that Vhosythe might have been unfairly blocked (per the discussion in the Yew Grove, you didn't mention anything about IRC discussion). Well, could you please give me the reasons for blocking Vho for one month as I was not there when the discussion took place in IRC. Thanks.
I'm sure I was being quite polite with that message. After a few minutes however, Stinko comes to this discussion and posts Calebchiam: Keeps unblocking Vho for no reason. IT IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER. It is blocking a troll so that we can get this crap over with without someone adding fuel to the flaming. and If I could, I would just strip Dengen and Caleb of their powers and have all of them tempblocked for a long time, since they've caused so much pain for me, but I'm not going to do that...I just wish that this whole mess would be solved and LET IT GO. I did not say it was abuse of power, I was just checking. Please do not turn it into fact. Stinko, don't you know that desysopping happens when there is power abuse or a request from the user for his powers to be removed? "Causing Stinkowing pain" is not a reason (or even a good one,imo). Before that comment, I was more of a "Weak Support" to your desysopping, but after witnessing this firsthand, I am going to Strong Support your desysopping. This is not a personal vendetta or anything but as seen from the evidence above, you just accused me of accusing you of abuse of power and thus you are not assuming good faith. Also, wanting to desysop another admin for personal reasons made me respect you a lot less. C.ChiamTalk 15:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
With all respect, Caleb, have you considered that this might have been a misunderstanding? As in, I witnessed the whole thing here go down, and it's highly likely that Stinko was typing this post when you posted on his talk, which means he wouldn't have seen it until after he posted this. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
That's EXACTLY what happened-I typed that message and got a "you have new messages" box when I saved it. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
Ok then, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But even so, nothing I did before I sent you that message gave you any reason to type such statements about me. C.ChiamTalk 06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about these, but this is now developing into an inter-admin civil war. i dont know who's side to stand with, the right thing to do is obviously to go with you, stinko, but that would inadvertably offend caleb (whom im on good terms with), and vice versa, i know diber and vho-whatshisname is determined to see to your downfall, but please, dont make this a war that i gets rolled into, by the time you know it most of the admins would've been down and editors blocked, calm down a bit stinko please, im more or less on your side, but dont let this get out of hand Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Succumbing to peer pressure is not the way to go when deciding your position. Think about what YOU believe, not what others want you to believe. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Btzkillerv, if you want to side with Stinko, I'm completely fine with it, it won't offend me. C.ChiamTalk 06:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
However, just as a note, no matter what it's about, wheel warring is, IMO, never the right thing to do. I think admins should set a good example by using discussion to solve disagreements, not admin tools. Butterman62 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is twofold: Diberville twists the words of others, and the community of administrators seems to be somewhat divided concerning Stinkowing. Perhaps we need a page where only admins can discuss this? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as this affects the entire community, all should be able to discuss freely. Remember all editors are equal.-- 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but even the adminship is divided over this issue and there's no possibility of consensus as things are right now. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I Stand by my word, i am on Stinko's side Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote, round two

I have decided to start a vote as to whether or not Stinkowing should be desysopped. This page is 85 kb long, and at this point, consensus, in the most basic definition of the word, is no longer a reasonable goal. Enough people are divided over this thing that we basically have to put it to a vote. I am aware that RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY prevents voting, but I'm invoking RS:IAR because otherwise this issue is never going to be resolved and the drama and tension is just going to grow. (Not only that, but check the Yew Grove for my post about RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY in general.) This issue is upsetting several people, along with distracting people from contributing otherwise, and it needs to be brought to an end.

Make sure you update the numbers of supports and opposes when you vote! Also, PLEASE state a reason for your vote!

I also suggest that Vhosythe42, being blocked from editing, give someone else the power to vote in his stead. This way nobody can complain about his block preventing the vote from being fair.

  • Supports: 0
  • Opposes: 6
  • Against on the grounds that I do not feel as though Stinkowing's actions warrant desysopping; his positive contributions far outweigh the few negative contributions from the past couple of months. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose I feel that there is absolutely no reason for this issue to have been brought up again. Stinkowing may not be a perfect admin, but he is certainly an effective one. He has shown repeatedly that he is an excellent administrator, and I believe that it should remain that way. Kevin-020 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per my earlier posts. Andrew talk 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Andorin. WWTDD? 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Okay, I really wanted to stay out of this whole thing, but I need to give Stinko my support, too. Per Andorin.
    InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits
    01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Stinko is a better admin than what I can ever expect from those of you who keep twisting words and slander him alike Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 16:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a very real reason that things of this nature are not decided by voting. While some of these Stink supporters really do see nothing wrong with his actions, it is virtually impossible to know if some of them are there just to be on the winning side, or show support for a friend. Calling for a vote when it is completey obvious from all discusions that Stink has way more supporters than opposers is simply a way to end this discussion. Has anyone even noted the fact that Stink tried to block Vho forever? While his actions did indeed merit some type of action, a reasonable mature person would have called on another sysop to determine that action since there is no way Stink could do it unbiased. You may note that I am not casting a vote. And I will not argue any further on this matter. I am convinced that Stink abuses his his power and the fact that he has so many friends does not erase the truth. Stink, you can be smug and happy that you have won here. The very real sad truth is that the wiki lost.--Degenret01 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

One, that problem (not knowing who is voting sincerely) is inherent in any sort of vote, be it something like this or a presidential election. Two, ending the drama is the point- when I went into #wikia, I did not speak as a supporter of Stinkowing, but as an administrator who feels as though this has gotten out of hand. Finding a judgment and closing the issue is my goal here, not seeing Stinkowing freed from suspicion, despite the fact that I vote in his favor. It's gotten nuts, and it will get worse if action isn't taken. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me how "the wiki lost", Degenret. As far as I am concerned that is your personal opinion, but until Stinko goes on a blocking/deleting/protecting spree I see no reason to call him a power abuser. Stinko is my friend, but my opinion is based on the facts and I am voicing it based on facts alone. Friendship has nothing to do with this. I agree with Andorin. He is not interested in "winning" this debate. He is interested in ending this discussion that has caused so much stress on all of us so that we can go back to normal. The longer this discussion draws out, the longer this will take, and as time drags on, so will the stress level. If you feel that Stinko should be desysopped then I invite you to support, Degenret. I respect your opinion and I respect you as another administrator and member of this community. As long as we are able to reach some sort of consensus, the wiki never loses. Andrew talk 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A word from the scourge of the RuneScape Universe, Shadowdancer himself.

Grow the fuck up.

I knew Stinkowing had power trip problems from day one, back when he would tell me off when I was an Admin of this excuse of a virtual Kindergarten. Did I make a federal case out of it? No.

I just wanted to say to everyone out there who is so fond of using the term "Pull a Shadowdancer": Go fuck yourself up the ass. You have practically zero insight as to what happened during the time I locked down the Wiki. I did it to prove a point - that people like Stinkowing and indeed a good number of you are too much in love with the power of such a place and not enough in love with what the subject matter is.

Part of the reason why I threw away everything I had to do with RuneScape was because of people like you who glibly assassinate people like me with a few flicks of the keyboard and a click of the mouse. A lot of people have tried to capitalize on my being a famous player who had the balls to take a stand in the community and be a shepherd instead of a sheep.

Most of you can't look in the mirror and say the same of yourselves.

Am I perfect? No. Did I make mistakes? Yes. Am I human with feelings? Fucking right I am.

Now if you idiots wish to hold your own court-martials against one another because you toss absolute power around with impunity and ban anyone who tells you that you're being a bit of a dick, by all means do so. But leave my name out of it.

Asses.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowdancer (talk).

Whoa, hi! I didn't know you still checked this place O_O. It's a shame you hate me, I really liked your YouTube videos >_<. I think we should stop saying "pull a Shadowdancer" too, instead we should say "extreme power abuse".

InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits

02:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That did not help I am sure. Christine 02:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we can all agree it was power abuse to the max - but we can't just give it a name like that. I know I've used the term before, though, but I don't anymore...he has feelings like the rest of us.
InstantWinstonDragon 2h sword old.pngold edits | new edits
02:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay then. Apparently I pinched a raw nerve by using a term that I've seen used to describe power abuse. Sorry then. Andrew talk 02:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Who are you? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No Voting please - While I agree that this is a exceptional case and may warrant RS:IAR, I hope everyone will take a look at a certain statement in RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY: When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another. Ok, I'm not referring to the first statement here, but rather, the second statement. Other users should be responding to the arguments of the supporters. In this context, I would expect an opposer to respond to my argument but no one (not even Stinkowing) has. Thus, of course a consensus could not be reached. Could the opposers please respond to the supporters' arguments instead of voting? Thanks. C.ChiamTalk 09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I don't think voting is justifiable in this particular scenario unless there is a consensus that voting is the way to solve the problem.
Quote (from RS:IAR): "Rules are supposed to help improve the wiki in most cases, but if you feel they aren't doing their jobs in a particular case, you can go against them. This should not be done without a good reason and a consensus."
Clearly, there are two opposite camps on this issue. Unless both of these groups agree by consensus that voting is the way to go, the policy of RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY still stands, in accordance to the second sentence of the particular quote. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 16:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen. A large amount of this debate is based on opinion. Views on Stinkowing's contributions vary from person to person because they are subjective. Some people look at what he does with his sysop powers and they think "He is doing too much damage to the wiki. We must deop him before he does more." Other people say "The good he does outweighs the bad." Because of the different views we all have on this subject, consensus at the moment is absolutely impossible. The only other way we could solve this, that I can think of anyway, is to organize a discussion- and I mean organize- in which the point-counterpoint method that Calebchiam spoke of can be utilized. If you guys want to do that instead of a vote, then we can scrap the vote. But there would need to be rules to keep things from getting out of hand, along with (hopefully neutral) people to enforce those rules. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
(@Caleb:) Aaand you beat me to it. Voting/polling with democracy is an ineffective way to do things. We use concensus because in the event that 90 people vote not to do something with no real argument besides personal vendettas and feelings, while ten people vote to do the thing that the far majority doesn't want done but with outstanding reasons, the thing would be done.
In this case, even though I'd prefer to have Stinko stay a sysop, the group wanting to desysop him has a better argument than the group not wanting to desysop him. The people who are for have provided links, examples, and everything. The people who aren't for have essentially just discredited the links and examples, and said that 'Stinko's a great sysyop'. According to the evidence provided by the people who are for, Stinko is not a great sysop (being great is completely relative. You can be a horrible president but be a good leader if all of the other presidents just happen to be better. Though, in the current case of being a great sysop, Oddlyoko was a great sysop. He distinguished himself above the rest. I [(being the only person I feel completely safe to say this about, lol :P)] have not necessarily distinguished myself enough to be above the rest, so to speak (or have I? If I have, I haven't noticed.).) (also, "not great" =/= bad), and has done less than desirable things.
From what I have seen, the people who are against the desysop are mostly against it for personal reasons without anything solid to back it up. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Early in the discussion I cited plenty of examples of Stinko correctly using his power. Those examples, in my opinion, are sufficient evidence that he performs his job adequately and we don't need to deop him. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Think about this. If we had a user who has made thousands of useful edits to pages, but sometimes ignores policies and has a bad temper that he sometimes cannot control, would we making him an admin if he had an RfA? I'm not too sure about you guys, but I would oppose as a user's edits aren't everything, the person's character matters too. To put it a bit more bluntly, I don't really think you should be supporting because some of the supporters think The good he does outweighs the bad. It's true that he's a great contributor and everything, but many other factors should come into consideration when we decide to sysop/desysop someone. C.ChiamTalk 11:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
An excellent point, Calebchiam. Focus should remain on if Stinkowing has violated policy or not, and if this is enough to warrant a desysoping. I think that Stinkowing can and should remain at this wiki as an editor regardless of what is finally decided. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 17:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this. It appears that several people have gone off on tangents about temper, his condition(dunno, is that the correct term for it?), personal drama, past contributions, etc. The focus solely needs to be on his acts and whether they are worth of removing the sysop tools or not. Perhaps if this mindset is shared with everyone, a concensus can be made. I feel that Stinko does have many, many good contributions, and is a wonderful editor. The question of whether or not he shOuld be an admin though, I see him as being a bit too agressive and emotional to currently remain an admin. I have been following this since the start, and I have seen tempers fly, but things such as the infinite block out of anger, even to later reduce it out of "mercy" iirc, I feel is unsuitable behaviour for a sysop. It shows a strong emotional attachment and a certain disregard to fairness or policy. I have tried to remain relatively neutral, simply stating my opinion, but I think now I can say, especially with more recent actions, that perhaps rollback is adequate for the time being. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Support - If the community settled for a simple demotion to Rollback-status, then I feel I would be entirely happy with this arrangement. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a neutral and indepedant verdict - disucuss!

Between 17:30 and 17:50 GMT Andorin and I have privately discussed in-game on how to best resolve this issue as quickly as possible without invoking democracy polling or dictatorship. To our mutual agreement, it has been concluded that wikia staff, with their NPOV, need to analyse this particular case and make their verdict.

My hope is that we can achieve consensus in letting independantly working wikia staff bring this entrenched situation to a conclusion. Obviously, the more wikia staff working on this case, the better. If anyone have an objection to this way of procedures, then by all means let your voice be heard! A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 17:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven't posted any reponse to this discussion, I have been following it carefully. I think that this is the best option for any type of resolution for the near future, and should happen soon lest this escalate any further or last for months. There are 14 wikia staff and 4 helpers (at least listed here), though at least one of the helpers has been an active editor on this wiki, so he may or may not be biased one way or the other. As for the rest, I see no problem with them coming to a verdict, or at least giving strong directions for the community. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 18:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
While I would normally like to see this decided by the community, the thought of a neutral party helping to resolve this dispute is quite pleasing at the moment. It seems like it's either that or weeks of the same discussions we've been having so far. I'm all for it if you all are. Andrew talk 01:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a very good list you have provided, Gaz Lloyd. You are probably right that the only helper who might be somewhat, slightly biased on this issue is Richard1990, with 5777 edits. However if that is all we will get it is better nothing I suppose. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 08:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this method of action; I highly doubt we'll ever settle this amongst ourselves. This discussion has already frayed tensions amongst the community, and it will no doubt get worse if we continue to bicker at each other. The Wikia Staff should be unbaised, and should be able to settle this without the community exploding all over itself. Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I have to ask if you guys understand Wikia staff at all... Their job is to help us with any technical issues, to (at least before) help desysop users and tell us if someone is sockpuppeting. Their job is not to settle our own disputes. If anyone asks them to help, it's almost guaranteed that they will say the community is involved, the community knows the situation, the community is required to decide - together. Basically, we need to grow up and solve our own problems. Deciding this is our responsibility, not theirs. Christine 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and I do agree. However, Sannse has talked privately with Stinko before (link), which isn't much of a technical issue in my opinion. All the same, there's no harm in asking, and we won't have to take their decision, if some new evidence comes up or whatever. Plus staff are the closest thing we will have to a NPOV opinion on this discussion yet. They might even say no (i.e. they won't give us guidance or their opinion), so we will have to sort it out ourselves. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I too have spoken to sannse about personal wiki issues (around August 07 iirc), but neither of these situations (me or Stinko) involved her having to make a "decision" so I still think they will be against choosing for us. However, I don't oppose anyone asking. I want this to be over as much as anyone else, as I'm doing my best to stay neutral on the subject and it's getting rather difficult. XD Christine 17:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sannse has been asked to look into it, per here. Looking at it from a detached point of view, my point of view is that Stinkowing would not warrant a desysop. More of a counseling from a B'crat in regards to his actions. Failure to follow said counseling would then warrant. It is of my belief that this would be fair, and would address the options that he still has been abusing his power, and it would show him, as per an earlier post, how he 'abused' his power. Eternalseed 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi All. Christine has really said what I would: On a mature and active wiki like this, it's the admins and the community that need to make this sort of decision. I comes down to "your wiki, your choice". It seems to me that from the discussion above that there are a significant number of users who feel that Stinkowing has improved and should stay as admin, so perhaps the status quo should stay for now. Although I can see that the ban/unban war did not help things at all!
Stinkowng, it seems to me that you need to think about conflict of interest. Even if you are sure that someone is trolling, if they are trolling you then it is generally better for it to be another admin that decides on whether to block. It doesn't take much to bring in another admin for a second opinion... even if you are certain that you are in the right.
One other piece of advice to everyone... if you find yourself using excessive amounts of emphasis in your posts... then maybe it's time to take a break and cool it down a touch :) I know this has been an emotive topic for everyone, but the calmer the discussion the clear the decision.
I hope that helps a little, and I'm sorry I can't be a Solomon for you here -- sannse (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No help from wikia staff - time for compromising

It seems like, according to Sannse, that it is the responsability of the wiki community to solve its problems, not that of the wikia staff (they probably have more important things to do after all). What this means essentially is that we will have to come up with a suitable compromise that both sides can, hopefully, agree on.

I personally think that Karlis idea about a simple demotion to rollback seems like an acceptable compromise, at least in my opinion. That way Stinkowing can continue as a suitable editor of the Runescape Wiki, while avoiding some of his problems of (IMHO) self-control and emotional lapse.

Please show your Support for this compromise if you think that this idea of Karlis is adequate. However, if you think this compromise is flawed in some way, be sure to bring up some proper arguments why this is not a suitable way of action (in accordance to the points made by Chiafriend12). A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 12:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, listen.-This is ridiculous. At the current rate this conversation is going, I'll be hanging by a thread for a VERY long time.
Do you supporters of my desysopping (Diberville, Wejer, Caleb, Vhosythe, and Dengen) know how much pain you've caused me? Do you think that I appreciate people siding with Diber for bringing up an issue that was dead already? Do you think I want people to side with Vho, a spiteful troll who wants nothing more to see me desysopped, and who has proven his immaturity (there's more people who think that he should be permabanned, I can assure you)? Do you think after all this that I'm going to let you desysop-supporters have what you want?
By all means, no!
You have crossed a fine line, and have blown EVERY LAST EXAMPLE out of proportion that we opposers of desysopping have given. If anything I ENFORCE policies;I hand out blocks to the deserving, deleted the unwanted, and have generally helped the wiki grow. If you don't think I'm doing a good job, keep it to yourself, because I will NOT let you be controlling my future here! This has gone on WAY too long, and I say we deaden this conversation for GOOD!
I am positively HORRIFIED and the attitudes of my opposition. In particular, I am positive that those like Vho are not here to help the wiki in any form, even after this is over. I am ALSO dumbfounded as to why blocking him for infinite after EVERYTHING he's done counts as power abuse...haven't you people SEEN his dirty work? Or have you all been blinded by this issue at hand?
I'm sick of this. Put it to rest already and leave. Me. Alone. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)}} 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure putting it to rest will work really as there are extremists on both sides; those who want you stripped and blocked, and those who want nothing done at all. I think you know where I stand, and my neutrality on issues between people in general. I think you also know that I like you, as a person and a fellow sysop. Please understand my motives for this "consensus" if you will. I cannot speak for the community, but from what I gather, dozens of people seem to be getting tired of going around in circles with nothing done. You have people who want you stripped of your sysop and banned indef on one side, and those who feel you were not in the wrong and want nothing done on the other. Doing one of those two acts is definately not a compromise in any way, so I saw this is as a "happy medium" if you will. I will still allow you to edit and contribute, revert vandalism and whatnot, while removing the tools that people claim you are "abusing." I want this to be over just like everyone else, and I saw this as the only way to make ends meet for both sides. =\ Karlis (talk) (contribs)
16:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry stinko but i agree with wejer (that means support). You need to learn to calm down, and understand other people's opinions, and for a sysop, you should have no problem doing that. I have made myself a mortal enemy now... Joe Click Here for Awesomeness

Weak Oppose To be frank, I want this topic dead as much as the next person (including Stinko), especially because of how it's torn this community asunder far beyond the topic at hand; for what it's worth, I've found the way some of the involved (especially some of the ones in favour of desysopping, although I can't say that the ones against have all been little angels either) absolutely revolting. However, I've seen little evidence of actual power abuse; I don't argue with the block against Vho, although the length MIGHT have been a little bit excessive. The reason I'm not full-out opposing is because of some of the comments made by Stinko later on (especially the one stating a desire to have Caleb and Degen stripped of their powers, although I'm none to pleased by the latter's behavior in the screenshot provided by Stinko I take this back, as per Degen's comment below. I misread the screen to say that Stinko was spoiled, while this was not the case. I am sorry.). However, you must note that that's a hollow thought since Stinko can't do anything of the kind as an Admin.

BTW, Stinko... it's probably best to steer clear of Vho for the time being. If he goes out of control, let another Admin handle it. Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pik you have a problem with what I said then your plain out flat out wrong. I never said anything there about people that have an opposing viewpoint there. Go read my words. NOT provided in the screenshot is Stink himself saying "People are looking down on you Degen." And since there is absolutely no one anywhere with the right to look down on others, then yea, I think anyone "looking down in me" is a spoiled brat. Opposing views, fine. Looking down on me? They dont have the right. --Degenret01 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I misread that. I'll pull that part of my comment out, then. --Beware the underrated. Pikaandpi Berserker Fury!Hit hard or go home. 12:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To Stink, before I was acting in what I considered to be the best interest of the wiki. And then I ended by saying I was going to stay out of it. THEN, you had to go and set me up in game in Clan chat by telling me how people were looking down on me. And you oh so slickly got a screenshot of my response. BUT, then you lied about my response. You flat out LIED. I say one thing and you claim I am saying something totally different. At this point, I have to say , as a person, you have reached the point where you disgust me. You tried to change this discussion to something it was not, and you tried to make it a personal attack on me. That alone is behavior unbecoming a sysop. This entire time I have followed the policies and porcedures of the wiki, and discussed reasonably. You violated the UTP with your lying and attack on me. what kind of a sick person are you? --Degenret01 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose any desysoping - I have been following this discussion since it started and I have seen no clear evidenece by either side proving their point. Because of this I am opposing desysoping since there is no evidence to either make me support or disapprove of the removal of Stinkowning's powers and I will not support removing them without better evidence. If better evidence is provided I may change.--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 00:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, I will now be changing my vote to neutral in an attempt to avoid any further involvement in this discussion. I've successfully gotten people that I respect as friends to become very upset with me because of my views on this issue, and overall this discussion has become an emotional wreck. I've also been stressed out by this, and frankly I'm sick of it. I use this wiki because I like the community, and all this discussion has done is separate us into the "supporting" and "opposing" factions.

Shadowdancer - I'm sorry I used the phrase "pull a Shadowdancer". It wasn't considerate and it won't happen again. Nobody deserves to be abused with a phrase like that.

Stinko - you're a great friend and I wish this discussion hadn't been brought up again, but I can no longer allow this discussion to affect me so much.

Degenret - I know you're upset with me, and I'm sorry. I'm sorry I ever took part in this discussion.

Everyone - I wish you luck in reaching a consensus. I can only hope that it will be peacefully and that we can go back to how we were before this discussion began.

You all know where to reach me; I'll be on the wiki, IRC, and RuneScape.

Until then,

Andrew talk 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

...SICK? You think I'm SICK? You'd have to be pretty SICK to say that to my face, Dengen...and I did NOT lie about you or make a single personal attack. If I did, I had no intention to. Now drop it. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Totally neutral comment - Stinko, if you did not wish to have Degenret react to the image you posted, then you simply should not have posted it. When you accuse someone of doing something, you must be willing to accept the fact that they will defend themselves, as they should. Christine 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Stinkowing being desynopped. - I have followed this page without commenting until now, and now I do. I think Stinko should be desynopped because he has not done things in the way an admin is expected to. Therefore, he should not be one. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously people, this has been blown WAY out of proportion.

Stinko, maybe you should take a break from the wiki (not a ban or anything, just a voluntary break), as obviously, the stress is really getting to you.

And people who support the desysop, calm down with the accusations and insults.

Thats all I have to say and Im NOT taking sides, as I am a relatively new user, and have not been around long enough to see anything happen.

Chivalry.png Zebidiah12 Chivalry.png

Support desysopping - Honestly Stinkowing, I feel that you are being very hypocritical. One minute, you can be all angry about users supporting your desysopping and the next you can "act" like you are sorry for what you said. This is my evidence:

In the first discussion, you actually insulted several users and the RuneScape wiki Forums: I think Dtm is indeed too draconian to the point of seeming like a cabal-leader, and is overly blunt with things.

I think Chiafriend is a goof-off and needs to get his priorities straight.

I think old editors like Eucarya and Vimes are wusses and gave up because of their laziness and uncaring attitude (have you HONESTLY looked at Eucarya's page? HE'S AN IDIOT FOR GIVING UP!).

I think that Diberville needs to not judge people and seemingly deliver the verdict (AKA my death sentence) There's more but I want to show the most important parts. You insulted fellow admins and even called Eucarya an idiot. You judge others and yet you want Diverville not judge people too? Evidence of violating RS:UTP

The next day, you actually posted this. You were actually being nice and seemed like you were sorry: ...DAMN, what was I fucking THINKING? I just now woke up in yet another Indiana morning...and remembered that I'm screwed here, and I feel REALLY bad for saying all those things about people like Dtm, Chia, Btzkillerv, and the like (except for Total Rune, of course). On top of that, something tells me a block IS needed...mehhhhhhhhh...I'm never gonna be liked here again... --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

In this discussion you actually insulted user too. See this:

Vhosythe: Plain old trolling, and truthfully deserves a permanent ban for disrupting and questioning the community processes.

Wejer: Had he not just flat out gone to Diber's side without a legit reason, I wouldn't have anything against him, but he did, so yeah. Also OPPOSED AN RFA for supporting me. That's horrible, biased, and disgusts me.

Calebchiam: Keeps unblocking Vho for no reason. IT IS NOT ABUSE OF POWER. It is blocking a troll so that we can get this crap over with without someone adding fuel to the flaming.

Dengenret: This one deserves a picture, BESIDES the same reasons for Wejer:

[Picture of in-game clan chat]

Granted, that's in-game, but it still shows his attitude towards opposition!

Diberville: Started this whole mess, and just won't give up the fact that I am FINE and have done NOTHING wrong.

Are you saying that Vhosythe should not question community processes if he disagrees with them? If I remember correctly, if users have a problem with a certain policy or something like that, they bring it up in the Yew Grove. You don't block them for it. Also, a permanent ban? A month block is the most I would give to a user who is a troll, not a perm ban. Evidence of power abuse

Also, by saying that Wejer disgusts you, you are basically saying that he is disgusting. Violating RS:UTP

I never said that it was abuse of power, you simply assumed that from nothing (as far as I can tell). Also, if you bothered to read my unblock reasons, you would know that there was a reason behind it.

You misrepresented Degenret by saying that because he never meant it in that way. It's not his attitude towards opposition, it's his attitude towards people who look down on him!

And also, please do not say that you are perfectly fine and have done nothing wrong. If several users have brought this up, then something you have done must have seemed to be wrong.

And then you later post this:

Do you supporters of my desysopping (Diberville, Wejer, Caleb, Vhosythe, and Dengen) know how much pain you've caused me? Do you think that I appreciate people siding with Diber for bringing up an issue that was dead already? Do you think I want people to side with Vho, a spiteful troll who wants nothing more to see me desysopped, and who has proven his immaturity (there's more people who think that he should be permabanned, I can assure you)? Do you think after all this that I'm going to let you desysop-supporters have what you want?

Honestly, one moment you can insult other users and the next, you say that you are hurt by all this? Don't act like the big victim here. If your conscience is clear and you know you did nothing wrong, you wouldn't be hurt at all (at least I wouldn't be).

A compromise? - Personally, I do not believe that a compromise is really possible here. I would propose that Stinkowing be demoted to rollback. If he really has done nothing wrong (as he believes), I'm sure he will have no problem proving to all of us that he can control his anger and his emotions. When he has shown that, he can have an RfA and it should be successful. C.ChiamTalk 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Support - Stinko has done more good than bad on the wiki, so he deserves another chance Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 13:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So you jerks really want me gone?

[censor] this wiki-it's full of biased liars who prey on my weaknesses and try to strike me down. Yes, that's right, assholes...I believe that this is nothing more than a set-up to get me desysopped because ONE person is mad at me for some reason.

[censor] you, Diberville, for making up this whole scenario.
[censor] you, Degen, with your corrupt policies and unwillingness to listen.
[censor] you, Vho, for trolling the living **** out of my friends and I and getting your bratty way (someone please infiban him).
[censor] you, people like Caleb and Wejer, who sided with Vho out of pity.

and finally:

[censor] you, everyone FOR my continued sysopship, for lying to me about Vho's block and how it's "power abuse".

You've ALL, in some way, shape, or form, contributed to my breakdown. What's next: my powers on the Wiki CC or IRC? I'm gone. Dunno if I'll be back. Just take my powers already. --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike the "f" word, so I took the liberty of censoring them. I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving, because I know that you are an excellent editor/contributor. I don't really want to argue anymore, so if you think that Vho out of pity, I won't bother. I just want you to know that my purpose of typing what I did was because I believed you needed time to learn to control your temper. C.ChiamTalk 14:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Read Stinko's latest comment a bit above for more reasons he should be desynopped. Admins shouldn't do that. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 17:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New turn of events

The following message has been posted on Stinkowing's talk page by Christine, 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC):


You have been blocked from editing the wiki for one month for violation of the User Treatment Policy. For your recent Yew Grove outburst, I am sure you will be stripped of your powers. Please do not unblock yourself in that time. When your block is over you may return to editing the wiki and reapply for adminship if you so desire. Do not take this block personally, it is only what is fair. If you remove your block that is abuse of power and you may be blocked for longer. I am sorry it has come to this. Christine 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Because of Stinkowing's "recent outburst" (see above), as well as his one month block carried out by Christine, I will now contact the Bureucrats in order to demote Stinkowing to a plain vanilla regular editor - this because of his serious offences against User Treatment Policy as outlined by Sysop Christine. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 18:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wejer, I would find it safe to assume that all the crats and admins have been watching this situation quite closely. For you to go run to the 'crats to "contact them" is pointless. 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Stinkowing has requested his adminship to be removed after his outburst here. He has also been blocked for one month for violating the user treatment policy. If Stinkowing returns to the wiki and wishes to regain his tools, he will have to successfully complete another RfA. I will now archive this discussion to prevent any further unnecessary comments.--

18:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)