Board Thread:User Rights Requests/@comment-477304-20170417190140/@comment-1669199-20170418042253

BlueSpeeder wrote: Genesjs wrote: BlueSpeeder wrote: Genesjs wrote:

BlueSpeeder wrote: Y'all are unbearable.

Journalistic has already stated the works that he has done on the wiki, and I personally agree wholeheartedly on his sentiment. Without him, the SNN Twitter account would be dead. Without him, sysop users wouldn't have bold names (that was a problem that, oh wait, no other administrator thought to fix?! Wow! That's astonishing!). Without him, we would have a filthy wiki full of pointless and childish threads. Consider yourselves very lucky to have an administrator like Journalistic and you better hope he doesn't consider leaving because of all of you guy's ramblings and complaints. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.

Also, let's make something very, very clear. Journalistic has only been contacted about this issue very few times. The first time anyone had an issue with him was in a thread about "my monobook skin, oh my gawd" as seen here. Let's also not forget that both Ultra and Luma.dash were caught gossiping about Journalistic's "intolerable actions." Two administrators, talking crap about another administrator, in the main chatroom and not in a private discussion.

Also, Myself, let's make something clear with you as well. You have provided literally no references, no proof, no sources to backup your claims that Journalistic has been closing threads, that drops your letter grade to a B. Also, you failed to contact Journalistic about this, when I'm quite sure he could have easily answered your concerns, instead of, oh I don't know, making a demotion thread without even alarming him. Without even messaging him about it. Your letter grade is an F now, congratulations. Try next time. I'm going to address this one bit at a time: "Y'all are unbearable. Journalistic has already stated the works that he has done on the wiki, and I personally agree wholeheartedly on his sentiment." No one is denying whatever work he does around the Wiki. "Without him, the SNN Twitter account would be dead." If the worst-case scenario -- for him -- were to occur and he ends up no longer managing the SNN Twitter account, we can always find someone to replace him, no matter how long it takes for us to find one. It wouldn't be the end of the Twitter account unless enough of us feel the need to make the Twitter account die with Journalistic's losing of it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that this thread is about seeking to have Journalistic's Admin rights revoked. I see nothing about removing him from managing the Twitter account. Moving on. "Without him, sysop users wouldn't have bold names (that was a problem that, oh wait, no other administrator thought to fix?! Wow! That's astonishing!)." Again, no one trying to erase his contributions to the Wiki, big or small. You seem to be treating this as though we want to destroy everything he's ever worked for on here. "Without him, we would have a filthy wiki full of pointless and childish threads." Refer to my response to DeCool99 about the forums. "Consider yourselves very lucky to have an administrator like Journalistic and you better hope he doesn't consider leaving because of all of you guy's ramblings and complaints. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves." The only thing I feel compelled to feel is annoyance and contempt for Journalistic's recent actions, regardless of whatever he's accomplished in the past, because Journalist'cs past accomplishments aren't the main focus of his thread and the criticisms being levied at him. And are you actually trying to shame people for daring to take issue with Journalistic's recent behavior? Because let me let you in on a little secret: shaming people for holding certain positions does not negate these people's arguments. Furthermore, as I just stated, I feel compelled to feel nothing but annoyance and contempt for Journalistic's actions and behavior -- you are not going to shame me into changing my mind on anything I have previously said. The only thing that's going to move me is compelling arguments, and I have yet to see anyone on Journalistic's side make a compelling enough argument to get me to consider changing my mind on anything. If you want me to change my stance on this issue, try harder than using shaming language and appeals to consequence. "Also, let's make something very, very clear. Journalistic has only been contacted about this issue very few times. The first time anyone had an issue with him was in a thread about "my monobook skin, oh my gawd" as seen here." Myself 123 has already addressed this. Moving on. "Let's also not forget that both Ultra and Luma.dash were caught gossiping about Journalistic's "intolerable actions." Two administrators, talking crap about another administrator, in the main chatroom and not in a private discussion."' Again, trying to shame people rather than addressing their arguments directly. Also, an Admin committing actions that could be seen as abuses of power is something that I think is very much in the public interest of this Wiki, since the last thing we want is to have an Administrator being able to abuse their power and not be addressed/dealt with to come capacity. Furthermore, dismissing Luma.dash and Ultra's conversations as "gossip" does not negate the substance of what they were discussing: An Administrator seemingly going out of his way to abuse his power while acting completely unapologetic and sarcastic towards anyone who takes issue with it. Call their discussion whatever you want, but it doesn't change the reality of what they were discussing. "Also, Myself, let's make something clear with you as well. You have provided literally no references, no proof, no sources to backup your claims that Journalistic has been closing threads, that drops your letter grade to a B." Myself has responded to this, moving on. "Also, you failed to contact Journalistic about this, when I'm quite sure he could have easily answered your concerns, instead of, oh I don't know, making a demotion thread without even alarming him. Without even messaging him about it. Your letter grade is an F now, congratulations. Try next time." You mean like how he oh-so-easily addressed Distant Shadow's concerns about Journalistic's actions, to the man himself, in this very thread? Not even gonna read all of this because you always type like you're J. R. R. Tolkien writing a novel. Do me a favor next time and type like a normal human being instead of paragraphs among paragraphs among paragraphs. No one reads what you say because it's so excruciatingly long and quite frankly, it's distracting, annoying, and nothing more than a big ol' wall of text.

If Ryan leaves, I'm leaving too. SNN politics is being pulled back by users that still think a community consensus is possible. Do yourselves a favor and be active more and try to get with the times like you were trying to do when you wanted to speak with me in the chatroom the other day. If you're not going to address my arguments on your position, what reason should I, or anyone else who has the exact same criticisms towards Journalistic as I do, listen to anything else you have to say? I'll tell you: None. You're wasting my time, and if you're not going to take anything I have to say to you seriously then I'm going to just ignore you, and suggest to everyone else that they ignore you too, because to support a position that a person is making when that very same person who made that position is unable or unwilling to defend it against criticism that's being levied at it is nothing short of asinine. Absolutely indefensible. Stop wasting your opponents' time and actually address what they're saying to you if you're unwilling to listen to them and change your mind on anything they're addressing, or do me and everyone else a favor and keep your mouth shut. Gonna pull a Genesjs and pick at this one piece at a time, only instead of a large text wall, I'm gonna make it convenient for anyone who actually wants to read these comments.


 * "If you're not going to address my arguments on your position, what reason should I, or anyone else who has the exact same criticisms towards Journalistic as I do, listen to anything else you have to say?"
 * I refuse to address anything you say because you write in a such a ludicrous amount of sentences that it's like reading the United States Constitution: it's long and boring. Also, I'm gonna correct you and say that Myself is the only person who actually agrees with you, and coincidentally both of you are out-of-the-loop users who've been on this wiki during an era unlike this one. Perhaps it's just me thinking this, or are both of you unwilling and non-accepting to change? It wouldn't surprise me.
 * "I'll tell you: None. You're wasting my time, and if you're not going to take anything I have to say to you seriously then I'm going to just ignore you, and suggest to everyone else that they ignore you too, because to support a position that a person is making when that very same person who made that position is unable or unwilling to defend it against criticism that's being levied at it is nothing short of asinine."
 * If I'm wasting your time, then why are you here? Don't you have a life outside of this wiki? Go live it and leave this wiki if you have so many issues with a user closing threads. So unbelievable that all of this is because you guys think this is a problem when it's not. Also, you're suggesting that other users should ignore me, a bureaucrat, one that is actually active and been around and knows the users and isn't out of the loop, when they should listen to you, someone who had to ask me what's been up with Journalistic lately not even a week ago. That's remarkably baffling that you're suggesting to other users not to listen to a bureaucrat when they should listen to someone who doesn't even know half of these users who voted. I'm chuckling over this. If anything's asinine, it's that suggestion.
 * "Absolutely indefensible. Stop wasting your opponents' time and actually address what they're saying to you if you're unwilling to listen to them and change your mind on anything they're addressing, or do me and everyone else a favor and keep your mouth shut."
 * Here we go, this was the part I was waiting to dissect. I refuse to address to you once more because I don't want to read an excerpt of a Stephen King novella. Learn how to speak in sentences, not paragraphs. Also, what opponents? It's just you and Myself, and I've already stated my reasons why I think you guys are opposing and it's just gonna keep circulating back and forth until one of us gets sick of hearing the same thing repeatedly. I will not keep my mouth shut because "oh man, that bureaucrat Genesjs might ban me." Yeah, no, we're both bureaucrats, don't even try to threaten me. Also, in all bold and italics, telling me to keep your mouth shut is such a hostile and immature way of handling an argument. It's to be expected from someone who hasn't even been a bureaucrat for a year, but for you, a bureaucrat who's been one for years now? Intolerable. Unacceptable. Immature. Hostile. Aggressive. You see my point, correct? About time we're on the same page.

Everything you have against Journalistic is over a damn issue of him closing threads and that's a glorified overreaction. Quit whining. Thank you for taking the time actually address some of what I was saying to you. Here are my responses:


 * "I refuse to address anything you say because you write in a such a ludicrous amount of sentences that it's like reading the United States Constitution: it's long and boring. Also, I'm gonna correct you and say that Myself is the only person who actually agrees with you, and coincidentally both of you are out-of-the-loop users who've been on this wiki during an era unlike this one. Perhaps it's just me thinking this, or are both of you unwilling and non-accepting to change? It wouldn't surprise me." I've already explained why I feel it is necessary for me to make some of my posts long and thorough. Again, I'm legitimately sorry if you are having trouble following along, but again, this thread is about determining whether or not an Administrator should lose his Admin privileges due to perceived misuse of power. Maybe you feel differently, but I consider a discussion like this to be very important, and I feel that I'd be doing this thread and everyone on it a disservice if I don't make my arguments as clear and thorough as possible. I don't want to have to see an Admin here lose his rights, but Journalistic's actions make me feel that it's necessary, because I am unable to comfortably live with the idea of having a person on among the SNN Admins who's essentially a loose cannon that seems unwilling to take any criticisms any potential detractors of his might have seriously. Again, maybe you feel differently, but I don't want to just be ignored without being due process, and I'm not the only person who feels this way. Ignoring this is only going to alienate people, and make them not want to have anything to do with you and your group.


 * "*If I'm wasting your time, then why are you here? Don't you have a life outside of this wiki? Go live it and leave this wiki if you have so many issues with a user closing threads. So unbelievable that all of this is because you guys think this is a problem when it's not. Also, you're suggesting that other users should ignore me, a bureaucrat, one that is actually active and been around and knows the users and isn't out of the loop, when they should listen to you, someone who had to ask me what's been up with Journalistic lately not even a week ago. That's remarkably baffling that you're suggesting to other users not to listen to a bureaucrat when they should listen to someone who doesn't even know half of these users who voted. I'm chuckling over this. If anything's asinine, it's that suggestion." I'm here because I'm trying to convince other Users who are against seeing Journalistic demoted who I feel aren't just sticking their fingers in their ears like you apparently are to consider listening to what I and others who feel differently from them have to say, because we feel that we have legitimate arguments to make. And again, Journalistic closing threads isn't the issue I and others are complaining about. What we're complaining about is the apparent lack of reasons behind why these threads are being closed, along with his callous way of addressing those who take issue with it. As I pointed out earlier, this isn't even the first time this has happened. Since something that has happened before is happening again right now, in virtually the same way as before, I feel that there is a problem with these threads being closed like they are, because all this is implying to me that Journalistic can't be trusted to use his powers responsibly, and the fact that he's acting completely remorseful about this isn't helping to ease my concerns. Again, listen to what we're saying to you. And yes, I am suggesting that people ignore you, "a bureaucrat that is actually active and been around and knows the users and isn't out of the loop, when they should listen to [me], someone who had to ask [you] what's been up with Journalistic lately not even a week ago", because you were expressing a complete unwillingness to address the criticisms I was throwing at your position and choosing instead to mock me for having the position that I do, criticisms that I felt were completely legitimate and needed to be addressed by you due to how important the topic of this thread is. Your on this Wiki doesn't mean crap if you're unable to defend your original arguments, because dismissing my arguments without directly addressing them won't make my arguments disappear. If you want me to change my mind, you need to address everything that I am saying to you.


 * "Here we go, this was the part I was waiting to dissect. I refuse to address to you once more because I don't want to read an excerpt of a Stephen King novella. Learn how to speak in sentences, not paragraphs. Also, what opponents? It's just you and Myself, and I've already stated my reasons why I think you guys are opposing and it's just gonna keep circulating back and forth until one of us gets sick of hearing the same thing repeatedly. I will not keep my mouth shut because "oh man, that bureaucrat Genesjs might ban me." Yeah, no, we're both bureaucrats, don't even try to threaten me. Also, in all bold and italics, telling me to keep your mouth shut is such a hostile and immature way of handling an argument. It's to be expected from someone who hasn't even been a bureaucrat for a year, but for you, a bureaucrat who's been one for years now? Intolerable. Unacceptable. Immature. Hostile. Aggressive. You see my point, correct? About time we're on the same page. Everything you have against Journalistic is over a damn issue of him closing threads and that's a glorified overreaction. Quit whining." I have no problem speaking in sentences. You just seem to have a problem reading paragraphs of them. And you forgot at least one other person who commented early on in this thread: Sacorguy79. Granted, he hasn't really spoken all that much, but he's of the same position as me and Myself 123 are and as far as I'm concerned he hasn't said anything that'd warrant getting the silent treatment over his position. And yes, you have stated your reasons why you think we're in opposition to you, Journalistic, and everyone else who's in support of him. I just think those reasons are simply wrong. And you're right, at the rate things are going it's just going to be one camp versus another bickering back and forth, repeating their positions to each other over and over again while never truly moving forward. Things in this thread are becoming unproductive, because one camp is refusing to take the other seriously in any way and address their arguments, and as far as I'm concerned you belong to that camp. I'm responding to your and the rest of your groups' arguments/position virtually every step of the way, making sure to address everything you're actually saying, and rather than do the same you and your cohorts are just making straw-mans and outright lies about the other camp's arguments and mocking them for holding their position, all the while refusing to try and do a decent job convincing them to adopt the same mindset on this issue that you do. Why the hell you and several others who think the same as you do see fit to respond in this manner is simply beyond my comprehension. I simply can't understand how you can act so callous and disingenuous over my position.

And what the hell are you going on about when you say that I am threatening to ban you? I've done no such thing -- I've simply told you to stop wasting the time of myself and everyone else who actually wants to have a meaningful discussion on this topic, bantering with me, if all you're planning to do is act disingenuous and callous towards me and my position at every turn rather than address my arguments. Basically, if you are unable/unwilling to defend your position, then get out of the way of those who can, because I don't want to keep wasting my time trying to talk to someone who's made it quite clear at this point that they don't actually care to hear what I have to say them. You'd feel exactly the same way if the situation were reversed, I'm quite sure. And yes, I agree that speaking such a thing in bold and italicized text conveys quite an unpleasant tone from me. Under any other circumstance I wouldn't act in this way with anyone, especially those I disagree with, but as I explained to someone else I'm not exactly in the best of moods right now after seeing the circus I decided that I needed to walk into within the first five minutes of me logging on, and after reading some of the responses that you and other people were making to those who were expressing dissatisfaction with Journalistic's actions my already less-than-stellar mood became even worse because I just couldn't believe some of the stuff I was reading from some of the people on here. But I've been talking in this thread for hours now, and my patience with you and several other people is really starting to wear thin, and by the time I wrote that comment to you I wanted to make it abundantly clear to you that I am simply no longer in the mood to tolerate having my position being so callously dismissed by anyone who doesn't, or is simply unwilling, to take the time to address my criticisms of their arguments. It'd be the equivalent of talking to a brick wall, and I wanted to make it clear that I wanted to take no part in such meaningless babble, and while also suggesting to literally everyone else on this blog that if they wanted to continue having this discussion rationally then they'd be wise to simply ignore you, too, because engaging with someone with that kind of mindset wouldn't have any sort of productive value whatsoever and would just simply waste the time of those who pay attention to such a person. This sort of behavior is what gets many people in politics laughed out of the public discourse -- I wouldn't tolerate this anywhere else, and I see no reason to think any differently here.

And you have no grounds to stand on when it comes to criticizing me on maturity. I actually make a constant effort listen to what people say to me, even with those I disagree with (like how I'm doing with you right this very instant). I'm trying to hold a meaningful, productive discussion with everyone participating in this thread. Right now all you're doing is needlessly obstructing me from being able to have that discussion by deliberately misrepresenting my position and mocking me rather than addressing what I was originally criticizing. Even right now I'm taking the time to respond back to you even though I acted quite harshly towards you in that previous comment and said I was going to consider flat-out ignoring you if you refused to debate me in any meaningful way, because I feel that since you've taken the time to make some sort of response to me (even though not towards my original arguments to you) that it'd be fair if I made at least one last attempt to address whatever you had to say. Here is my full response. I hope you've found it to be satisfactory, because right now I'm reaching the end of my patience with you.

So, now that I've addressed these points, could you do the same thing for my original criticisms toward your original comment? Because those still need to be addressed by you. Until you do, I don't intend to stop "whining".