Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of user rights/Archive/Sikon (second nomination)

Sikon
Sikon, although he has been one of our more technically-gifted users, has once again shown that he is not of the correct temperament to remain an administrator on the site. He takes a proprietary attitude towards his own contributions, and although he seemed to have learned his lesson following his previous RFRA, the behavior has started up again. A decision made by another administrator was overturned by Sikon without discussion of any sort, and then Sikon proceeded to make changes to the Stdsummaries template without fielding the idea with other users.

This is not a "witch hunt." Sikon has proclaimed that he will no longer edit the wiki, and this is an attempt to go through the proper channels to have his sysop privileges removed, since he has not made a request of his own to the Wikia staff to have that done. Should Sikon have a change of heart regarding the site and return as an editor, it is the opinion of more than one user that he should not remain an administrator.

Evidence

 * 1) The events of his previous RFRA, which was unsuccessful. This is here less as evidence than as confirmation that Sikon has been made aware of the consequences of ignoring the community and acting proprietarily towards the wiki. Sikon even promised at the bottom of that RFRA that he wouldn't behave in such a way again.
 * 2) He quit the site, following a debate after he made yet another major decision without community input or approval. An IRC log of the discussion is presented, in which Sikon treats the Stdsummaries template like it is a piece of his own artwork as opposed to a tool on the wiki.
 * 3) He overturned another administrator's decision to delete a page, in violation of the administrative autonomy policy. Since the page was deleted again, a screenshot of the action is provided below. While Graestan admits his mistake in deleting the page without using the Trash Compactor process, it is the principle of Sikon unilaterally overturning the decision that is an offense.

Remove adminship

 * 1) Graestan ( Talk ) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Been thinking this should happen for a long time. No offense intended though.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) LOL.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Nothing personal. But we can't have administrators who are going to moan, cry and then "leave" whenever they don't get what they want. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|25px]] (Talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) In all honesty, I don't think he made any terrible mistakes this time. I think he was totally in the right to make the change to the edit summaries (the continued presence of 2.1 IS krifftarded and shouldn't have gotten people's hackles up at all when he changed it), and I think the reversion of the SSD page, while it definitely shouldn't have happened the way it did, was done for the right reasons (as Graestan admits below, taking it to the TC would have been the better path).  However, Sikon was only saved from his previous RfRA by bureaucrat veto, a veto we have since abolished because of its potential for abuse.  While I don't think he should be tried in double jeopardy, that fact weighs heavily on my mind in light of these new transgressions.  Furthermore, to my mind, his proprietary behavior in the abovelinked IRC conversation, as well as his "flounce," are a violation of Requirements 6 and 7 of adminship requests.  Thus, I think it's time to do what we should have done the first time around. jSarek 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) The main problem seems to me to be a failure to communicate: with the "SSD continuity" problem, Sikon should have talked to Graestan about why he thought it should have been TC'd rather than speedied. With Template:Stdsummaries, GT should have asked Sikon why he removed one of the reasons, and/or Sikon should have explained why he was reverting GT's edit.    In both cases, I actually agree with Sikon's actions: there's no reason to keep "page created" in the standard summaries when MediaWiki will add a similar message automatically when a page is created with a blank edit summary, and the issues around the SSD page probably could benefit from the full TC treatment (where I'd probably agree with arguments for deletion.)  Still, Sikon's attitude to people editing his work, as shown in the IRC log, makes me think he  is not really suitable as an admin here. I reluctantly have to support removal. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Sikon's a good guy. I like him. I don't want to have to do this. But as an admin, he's a nut. Havac 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I voted yes last time, and my stance has not changed.Din&#39;s Fire 997 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Look, I know a lot of you are going to question my original deletion of SSD continuity debates. I deleted it because it was full of original research, non-neutral points of view, and speculation, and it didn't even provide sources or citation of any kind. In all reality, the page was an essay, and its useful (and attributable) contents would belong in the "behind the scenes" sections of other pages. Regardless of the page having been edited over a large period of time by a slew of users, it fit the criteria I usually employ when deleting smaller, less popular articles. I realized almost immediately after deleting the article that I should probably have used the TC process instead, and was thus open to negotiation with anyone wishing to restore the article. Sikon did not approach me, and therefore I take his actions as a breach of administrative autonomy. Graestan ( Talk ) 20:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm even going to vote on this one. But I will make a few points: 1: we can't really RFR for flouncing, at least until he's been gone 6 months. And I can't blame Sikon for getting upset over someone messing with a feature he added in the first place. 2: On the other hand, whether Grae's CSD was wrong is a subjective matter. What Sikon did in restoring it, however, was objectively wrong under the autonomy rule, which was created for this exact scenario. So there's points for and points against removing his powers. -- Darth Culator  (Talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we reverted his deletion of his talk page without respect for autonomy, either. Not that that was a wrong decision, but it *was* a violation of autonomy of comparable character to the one that Sikon committed. jSarek 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting valid talk pages is akin to vandalism. If I can't revert vandalism performed by admins, the autonomy rule needs to be revisited. --Imperialles 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably needs revisiting, because Administrative autonomy makes no provision for reverting such things. jSarek 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Anyone reading the chatlog should see why. However, I wish it to be known that yes, I do realize that my role in the debate could have been handled a lot better, perhaps even ending the matter on peaceful terms and not driving Sikon to doing what he did; for this, I feel that an apology is necessary.-- Goodwood [[Image:Rebsymbol2.png|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)