ESB:User rights review/JCM/2

Open Proposal The following is an ongoing proposal. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules. How proposals work Concerns stage Someone brings up a topic for a proposal. The community discusses that topic. Voting stage The proposal is brought to a vote, taking into account any changes discussed by the community. The community votes. You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion. {{Support}} • {{Neutral}} • {{Oppose}} • {{Change}} • {{Comment}} • {{Reply}} • {{Question}} Neutral votes do not count in determining the outcome percentage.

Introduction

On November 18, a new policy was passed in regards to demotion and activity, giving the community and administration more flexibility when dealing with demotion and activity, as part of addressing issues that are not very concrete and require flexibility.

For about two years, JCM has been chronically semi-active, and I am sure many of you are aware of the situation.

Concerns surrounding his lack of activity began in August 2014, and has been a continued topic of discussion on and off ever since. In August 2015, a demotion discussion was put forward to remove JCM's status as a bureaucrat. There were 15 supports and 1 in opposition. Ultimately, as a JCM was not warned about the discussion, it was withdrawn. JCM resigned as a bureaucrat on September 7, 2015.

While JCM has made great contributions to ESB. In the past, there have been other administrators who have made great contributions and then become inactive or rarely are involved, and so they leave the administration. Some former administrators still contribute on occasion.

However, while JCM is still involved at ESB, other concerns have been raised that show this discussion is not just about lack of activity, while the lack of activity is a big part.

• 1. JCM has been chronically semi-active and sometimes is inactive for a couple of weeks at a time.
• 2. JCM tends to pop up in times of crisis and doesn't know the full situation, leading to increased tensions.
• 3. JCM was stubborn about SBFW, wanting it to join ESB or even merge, despite the issues we had with them. This has been resolved, however.
• 4. JCM broke his own tiebreaker to become User of the Month.
• 5. When JCM's activity is questioned, he will go on an editing spree, then when we stop talking, his lack of activity will continue.
• 6. JCM is barely involved in community discussions; the more recent ones he is involved with, he is trying to maintain power/prevent his demotion.

• "Allow admins to create discussions" proposal - created prior to his resignation as a bureaucrat, otherwise he would not be able to create discussions without a bureaucratic endorsement.
• "Administrator inactivity" amendment proposal - his response after "gaming the system"
• Demotion and Activity Concern - his concern criticized the flexibility in the proposed definitions of activity, flexibility that the community is now leaning towards, policy-wise, in using a new policy mindset. The proposal discussed here indirectly led to questioning his accountability as an administrator, and any policy adopted with quantitative definitions can lead to gaming the system again, which creates problems in a wiki that doesn't need any more problems.
• "Veteran Admins Group" proposal - upon passing of the new demotion policies, knowing that he would fall under the new definition of inactive, he created a proposal that, if passed, would lead to him maintaining power that he barely uses.

• 7. JCM gamed the system so he was not considered inactive under the old definition. JCM apologized and stated this was not his intension, but this was legal at the time it happend, and as such, it is part of the old policy mindset we are trying to change.
• 8. JCM keeps saying he will be active but he is not, and then we stop talking about it for a bit because JCM returns; then it comes back to topic and then JCM says he will be active again.
• 9. We are constantly talking about JCM's admin/bureaucrat status due to these issues.

Despite these, JCM has made great contributions to ESB over the past 6 years, sometimes offering ideas and making good quality edits. So much so, that he was promoted to administrator and later to bureaucrat. However, he is not as active as he once was. If JCM leaves the administration and then sometime in the future becomes very active at ESB again, I am sure a return to the administration would be welcomed. However, this is not the present case. He can always remain as an assistant until he returns to actively contribute.

JCM's defense

The following was submitted by JCM, in defense of keeping his position as an administrator:

"I am one of five active administrators on the wiki right now. Though I was considered semi-active a few weeks ago, so were half of the wiki's bureaucrats, which is why the rules definining activity were changed to allow for more flexibility. The difference between me and former admins like Puppets and CalzoneManiac is I obviously still want to edit and I do whenever possible. All of AMK's concerns not related to activity were the very same concerns he used as justification to remove my bureaucrat rights last August, but he didn't think they were bad enough to necessitate removing my administrator rights at the time. The only controversial thing that's happened since then was me editing close to when I would have been considered inactive, which AMK believed to be gaming the system and which I apologized for despite no malicious intetions. Since then, I've made almost 150 edits, which should do away with any concerns about my activity, and the rule that made AMK believe I was gaming the system doesn't exist anymore because he recognized how unfair it is to users who contribute in other ways. There's no point in demoting an active administrator for an outdated rule, and it's best to move on and focus on the myriad of other important issues affecting this wiki."

Instructions

In this discussion, you will vote to have JCM Keep ({{Keep}}) his position as an administrator or Remove ({{Remove}}) him as an administrator, or if you are unsure at the moment, you can remain {{Neutral}}. Per our new demotion policy, it is required that more than 70% of all administrators support his removal to have him removed from the administration. Any non-administrator can still vote to offer their opinion on this matter.

This discussion will end on Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 9:00 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 01:06, November 26, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Voting

• Neutral - I don't know, I saw him editing a couple days ago

Koolkitty	Talk	Contribs	Edits

• Neutral -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  01:11, November 26, 2015 (UTC) 
• Neutral - He rarely uses his rights, but makes good edits, maybe demote him to an Assistant? AustinD-3 (Message Me Here!)
• Remove - Yes, JCM has made almost 150 edits in a few days; but note that he did this just days before this went up. I'm fully in support if you want to obtain assistant rights, but right now, I don't think system operator is suited for you. PrezDubs messagewall 01:18, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral - — Rumpg (Talk • Contributions) 01:21, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning towards Remove - i don't think he should lose all his rights. demoting him to assistant would probably be the best course of action. ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂ ^{❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯}
• As much remove as possible - As President Dubstep pointed out, you, JCM, have been making a lot of edits in recent days. I think it is more to make yourself look good rather than help the wiki. You are power hungry and have shown no sign of being apologetic. I do not recall any apology in regards to the controversy you mentioned in your statement. While I am aware that, for now, it holds no baring on this wiki, but on Skype, you have stated some very nasty things since the controversy began. You have made a 9/11 joke, stated that Sawpog's promotion discussion was going to lose, so it should closed, put me and several users under the bus for your actions on this wiki and on Skype, you stated that you believe that the fact that you have been on the wiki for a long time should be more important than how active you are, and you are, or possibly were, ignorant of the fact that numerous users want to see you demoted. On this wiki, you have started a discussion to make a group to allow you to be in power, even if you get demoted. I am surprised that people are being nice enough to give you a "neutral" vote.  120d  Talk  Contribs  120d 01:53, November 26, 2015 (UTC) 
  EDIT: Just to be clear, I want him fully demoted.  120d  Talk  Contribs  120d 15:44, November 26, 2015 (UTC) 
• Remove - It's time for his rights to be removed.  Sawpog46  Talk  Contribs  E-Mail  02:03,11/26/2015 
• Neutral - Well he isn't that active but he is a good editor. Maybe assistant.

ChocolateBrownieBoy	Talk	Contribs	Edits

• Keep - I think that when it comes to activity, there is no difference between JCM and me. Well, if you look at my activity, you will see that I have many gaps in my activity, just like JCM do. In other words, I edit to implement and propose my systems, then gap, then I edit to implement and propose my systems; JCM edits to make general contribution, then gap, then edits to make general contributions. More, only reason he is behaving the way he is behaving is because community tries to force the amount of activity he "should" have on him. If same thing is happening to me and I want to stay on ESB like JCM does, I would probably behave similarly.  AW10  Talk  Contribs  E-Mail  09:01,11/26/2015 
  • I completely agree with this as well as my below comment. My activity hasn't been great either but I like to think the contributions I do make are useful. --Spongebob456 ^talk 09:48, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral kind of leaning towards Keep - I don't know what to think here. If I'm honest, I think JCM is a very mature user who knows what he is doing around the wiki. When he does make contributions, they are often very good ones and his contributions to discussions are often helpful. Going on that basis, I'd say let him stay.
  Unfortunately, it's quite difficult to ignore the lack of contributions to the wiki over the last year or so in terms of Skype conversations as well as he general wiki contributions. It's plain to see that his recent contributions were made in order for him not to be demoted. Whilst this isn't breaking the rules, I think it's safe to say JCM knew what he was doing.
  I think another thing holding me back is his defensive attitude and him really not wanting to relinquish the rights. I understand he has other life commitments as I have plenty of those myself. I really can sympathise there. I'm just not sure he contributes to the wiki enough to warrant being a admin. I should imagine he may find it difficult if a new user approaches him asking about a certain event that happened on the wiki as he may not have seen it.
  I've rambled on way too much here. I think what I'm trying to say is that JCM is great contributor who has done a lot for this wiki and I don't think anyone can dispute that. I just feel there are other users who are a little more qualified who will better fit the role. Looking at JCM's contributions now, I'm not sure losing these rights would completely affect the way he contributes to the wiki. I completely agree with AW10's comment in that both him and I edit in bursts. JCM though has only recently edited in bursts. Will he carry this on? If he is demoted, there's no reason he can't apply for adminship again once he becomes more active! :) --Spongebob456 ^talk 09:39, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mature"?! That's hilarious. JCM is one of the least mature users on this wiki. It is almost like you didn't read my message at all. (I read everyone's by the way.) Also, lately, most of his contributions on the wiki have been questionable at best. He made a list of games for Patrick! The Game, he tried to remove red links because he thinks they shouldn't be there. He has tried to redirect pages to things like the Character list instead of making the pages, he tried to remove two Astrology with Squidward shorts with little to no research about if they are real, he has created numerous online game articles with just an infobox and a stub template, only a few of those pages contain an image in the infobox (I kind of blame AMK's challenge for this one), and he created an ESB page without community permission (ESB:Missing transcripts).  120d  Talk  Contribs  120d 15:25, November 26, 2015 (UTC) 
    • Ok, I see your point in regards to some questionable edits, but we've all had those. I just see his recent actions as a natural act of wanting to keep his rights and, in all honesty, I can understand that. I think that's what might have lead to some 'rushed' edits. I'm just on the fence as to whether this should lead to him being demoted or not. I do question whether you're commenting on this discussion objectively or whether you're letting your bias influence proceedings. --Spongebob456 ^talk 19:25, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Remove - Sorry dude, maybe being an assistant would be okay. Focus (on me.) 13:29, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning toward Remove -Maybe he can be an assistant.Marioman00
• Remove - Honestly, he doesn't really need the powers since he is pretty inactive. He's not even too active in the Skype. I mean, it's good that he still wants to contribute but he doesn't really need admin powers to do that. If he was more active lately, then yes, he can keep the admin powers. However, he isn't too active and does seem to make minor edits every now and again just to maintain the powers. I would be better if the admin rights were removed until he becomes more frequent in editing. ZeoSpark  Talk  Contribs  Edits  19:46,11/26/2015 
• Keep - I'd support his removal, although reading AW10 and 456's masssages, plus the fact that i had some contravery's in the last month on other sites that led to me taking a wikibreak (i.e. what happened with palette planet), i'll be nice and support him keeping his rights, since i'd probably seem like a hypocrite or whatever, as i haven't been too active myslef, plus, i do plan on getting active again, although in some cases, regaining the trust i once had with this community (how they trusted me before), might take a bit of time, due to my inacitivty before, how i haven't had as much an interest in SpongeBob beore, plus what happened with me on other sites, although the difference with how the contraerys with me is, is that people here got over them, and there hasn't been anymore (at least ones that members of this community haven't been invovled yet), and i'm rambling, but i i'll put it short, i'll support JCM's keeping of rights mainly becuase i understand what he is going through more than before. Tominator777 ^{(Wall•Contribs) 20:42, November 26, 2015 (UTC)}
• Neutral leaning towards Remove - AW10 and 456 make very good points but JCM has been dong this even before I joined the wiki. Not sure at this point. Jersey [[Message

Wall:SpongeFreddy777|wall]] 01:41, November 27, 2015 (UTC)

• Remove - At first I was rather neutral about this but after reading 120d's statement I do not believe any administrator should behave like that. Auron ⚡ Yeah, that's right baby! Welcome to my locker! ⚡  
• Neutral - Why is this siggy so basic? I don't know... 22:18, November 27, 2015 (UTC)