Board Thread:User Rights Requests/@comment-477304-20170417190140/@comment-1669199-20170417232201

I remember back when I was more consistently active on the Site Discussion forums, before personal problems started affecting my overall interest in participating with the Wiki as a whole, and that on average it would normally take weeks for a clear consensus of any sort to be reached on any proposed site/policy changes/additions that were ever suggested in the Site Discussion forums, usually after establishing what proposed changes/additions (if any) the vast majority of Users were casting their support for/against. This waiting period would give everyone here who wished to participate in any of the forums time to read over what was said by other Users besides themselves who also wished to participate and give out their own thoughts/suggestions on certain issues, and possibly make changes to their stances on what their initial positions on a given issue may have been if they feel that any opposition to them has done a sufficient job convincing them that the other side(s) has legitimate arguments to make. And sometimes it did take days, if not weeks for someone to come on and say something/bring attention to certain aspects of the issue(s) that some people may have failed to consider before anyone decided to change their minds on anything. It wasn't a perfect system by any means (sometimes making changes proved to be slow under this system, and there were times that certain threads were even outright forgotten until someone went out of their way to bring back attention to them), but many people had voiced (myself included) that they felt that these drawbacks didn't outweigh the positives that this system brought, as we felt that doing it the opposite way made it far too likely to make mistakes with policy changes and close forums too prematurely.

But sometimes some threads are made, even in Site Discussion forums, that, either by the thread's design or by something occurring during discussion of the issue at hand, that spiral out of control and turn into either shouting matches where each side is simply repeating their positions to each other with neither side budging on anything (possibly to the point of outright hostility) or they degrade into complete nonsense where far too many people are no longer taking the thread (and perhaps by extension, the issue[s] behind the thread) seriously anymore. Either way, the result is the same: general unproductive drivel that doesn't serve any useful purpose for anything in the long run. In instances like these, it may be deemed necessary to close threads in order to put a stop to everything while (hopefully) serving as a reminder to everyone who participated in the thread (especially those who helped to disrupt it to some capacity) how important it is to stay on topic.

The thread on possibly updating the language policy I made recently was barely open for two full days before Journalistic, after leaving one last comment calling the forum "boring", decided to close it prematurely (the cited reason behind closing the forum being, "Let's get work done".) -- while beforehand making a nuisance of himself while contributing nothing useful to the discussion at hand.

I'll be honest: I can forgive people for not taking certain issues I'm trying to bring attention to seriously (you're entitled to whatever position/opinion on literally anything you damn well please, just as long as we can act mature and agree to disagree if any disagreements between you and I were to occur. I won't consider it a personal affront if you happen to disagree with me on something.), as I can just as well forgive someone for closing a thread in which I'm trying to do just that while attempting to get as much input from everyone as possible if the thread was degenerating into chaos and nothing productive was being done in it (this is life -- not everything is going to always stay civil and stable whenever you want it to). But this thread wasn't closed because it was degenerating into anything counter-productive to what it was trying to accomplish -- no, it seems as though it was closed on the whim of someone who already made it clear beforehand that they were never taking the thread, nor the issues it was trying to address, seriously, and for apparently no apparent justification other than just because they felt like closing it. I'm not gonna lie, upon having seen my thread closed in such a short amount of time under these circumstances, I feel as though I and everyone who participated in this thread was just insulted by someone displaying the logic and maturity of a prepubescent child.

After seeing what happened to my thread, I decided to go to Journalistic's Message Wall and leave him a complaint, and that's when I saw that Distant Shadow had Journalistic a message asking him why he was suddenly closing all active discussions, and Journalistic, rather than give an actual answer, apparently saw fit to treat Distant Shadow's line of inquiry as though it was part of a game before closing it. Not unlike how he treated the previously mentioned Site Discussion before closing it prematurely. How Journalistic reacted to this particular thread is a problem in of itself, because not only did Distant Shadow have every right and reason to ask the question he asked but Journalistic's apparent unwillingness to answer Distant Shadow's line of inquiry brings to question Journalistic's own ability to justify any arbitrary actions that he takes, and considering that the arbitrary actions in question that Distant Shadow was asking about is closing various active threads around the Wiki while giving little to no real justification for doing so, all the while treating the whole situation as though it is part of a game, not being able (or worse, willing) to answer this line of inquiry under these circumstances is nothing short of troubling. Furthermore, this isn't the first time that Journalistic has acted like this towards the Wiki, as is shown, here, here, and here. Journalistic's behavior back then, along with how he was responding to people reacting to it and his actions -- does any of this seem familiar to any of you?

Also, I've taken the time to read everything in this forum before writing this response, and I'm sure there will be new ones by the time I post this comment and refresh this page. I'm also going to be responding to various comments that have been left throughout the thread. But as far as my general stance on this issue is concerned, regardless of whatever contributions Journalistic is making to the Wiki or has made to it in the past, I find his recent behavior simply unacceptable for one of his position. The fact that even in this very thread he's downplaying people's concerns with his behavior at virtually every turn, simply reinforces my stance on this. He needs to have his Administrator rights revoked, and I refuse to tolerate having to work with an Administrator on this Wiki who has absolutely no qualms abusing his power on a whim and treating any criticisms of this kind of behavior as laughable and deserving of mockery. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'd like to get to addressing specific comments now.