	User Rights Review Discussion Archive The following user rights review discussion has been resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page. Date Resolved: May 10, 2014 Result: 14 out of 18 people are in support of 120d's removal from the administration. Discussion ends.

Introduction

So many of you have pressured me to start this discussion. I have tried to reason with 120d for much too long.

I am sure many of you are aware of the several heated discussions we have had during the past few months. These heated discussions have occurred on several matters in discussing wiki policies, changes, and overall communication within the wiki. Great controversy and tension has been caused majorly by one user, administrator 120d.

120d is an excellent contributor to the wiki who has been involved in formatting and cleaning of articles, and ensuring grammar and spelling are correct. However, 120d's approach to his administrative duties has crossed the line from "positive influence on the wiki" to "negative influence on the wiki." If an administrator's behavior becomes problematic to the point where it is better if they were demoted, we know we have a serious issue.

120d was suspended for one week in January for violating a new policy and edit warring. His powers were reinstated, but his behavior has continued to spiral out of control and escalated in March, continuing to the present. Evidence for this follows. Please review the evidence below.

He violated the blocking policy four times. He was given three warnings, and then violated the policy for a fourth time.

120d's Contributions

Many of you who have been contributing to Encyclopedia SpongeBobia for a while know that 120d is one of the most active contributors here. He has over 22,000 edits and has been contributing since May 21, 2010, so almost 4 years. He is very committed to the wiki and has paid attention to detail and quality. He wants this wiki to be the best it can be and he is a big part of the team.

He has been involved in several projects, especially the galleries in recent months. He is constantly monitoring for vandalism and making sure articles are free from spelling/grammer issues and formatting problems. He is very active in his goals to further the wiki's quality.

Remember our goal for the wiki: "The goal of Encyclopedia SpongeBobia is to create a central information database to everything SpongeBob SquarePants-related and to make this the most accurate and largest SpongeBob SquarePants information database. All are welcome to create and help us achieve our goal."

120d has very much been a part of making this database accurate and large. He is diligent, hardworking, and well qualified as one who can proofread, copy-edit, and control quality.

120d is a great contributor and is very helpful. The only problem is his behavior in communicating with others who are trying to work alongside him. The other part of our goal is "All are welcome to create and help us achieve our goal." However, if he hinders any new user from trying to help our goal, we lose potential editors that could be just like 120d (minus the behavior).

Problems/Violations

Here is a summary of problems involving 120d's actions/behavior:

Edit warring
Violation of transcript policies (in January)
Personal attacks towards users, administrators, and bureaucrats
High expectations of new users to the point of discouraging contributions
Blocking users for small things without notifying them
Blocking an administrator for 1 day for assuming that admin was incorrect, when in fact, 120d was incorrect
Prohibiting users from taking part in a public discussion
Refusing to accept community consensus (allowing spoilers and renaming the wiki)
Bad temper
Begging and complaining about suspension (immaturity)

Quotes

I will post some quotes from other users who have noticed 120d's problematic behavior. These are from e-mails, Facebook, and the wiki chat. I will keep their names anonymous, unless they give me permission to put their names to their quotes. This just shows that people are very frustrated with 120d's approach to contributing.

Date	Quotes
December 31, 2013	"120d stole the "SpongeBob, You're Fired!" transcript again, so Abney deleted it, Seacactus added it back and then Abney was banned" - User 1 "Frankly, this is getting tiresome for us all to deal with, and if these administrators aren't willing to cooperate…I would like to call for their resignation. It's even more embarrassing that 120d HAS commented in the discussion, and still is disobeying." - User 1
January 13, 2014	"Also, just to keep you updated, I spoke with JCM regarding 120d and his constant reversion of the SpongeBob, You're Fired transcript and then I spoke to him myself... JCM said if he reverted it one more time, he would be removed from admin as well." - User 1 "He reverted it once again, despite JCM himself reverting it. He also is inexplicably lying and disobeying the new policy. JCM will remove his powers tomorrow, unless you would rather discuss it first." - User 1 "Hey AMK, JCM and I are both in support of removing 120d as admin... a lot has transpired... are you in support?" - User 1
February 2, 2014	"I would just like to express my slight concern over 120d and his attitude towards other users (and yourself) as of late. I perceive him as being quite insulting and abrasive, especially when he doesn't receive what he wants. Now, I have great respect for him for his Adminship capabilities in the editing area, hence my support for his rights being reinstated. My fear is that in the spoiler discussion Thread:91792 things are getting a little out of hand between him and primarily Tanhamman (whom I feel is not at fault). I have tried to relieve some of the frustration in the conversation but it does not seem to be helping. I understand you're in a catch-22 because if you warn him per say, then this may just escalate. " - User 2
February 16, 2014	"120d is going on again about spoilers. What are your thoughts on this and the other discussions? 120d is a great contributor but his behavior the past 2 months has been awful." - AMK152 "I agree that his behavior was awful, but let's see where it will go." - User 3
April 20, 2014	"This is dominated by him Special:Log/block." - User 2
April 21, 2014	"In relation to the blocking policy, we should warn users first before blocking them" - JCM "JCM: We know, 120d doesn't." - User 2
April 24, 2014	"There could be a discussion about 120's behavior." - User 5 "Though, blocking someone for one harmless minor edit is pretty wrong." - User 6 "He just blocks people the way he wants" - User 5 "And 120d suggested something pretty weird and crazy. He wants all of the admins and bureaucrats to lose their powers for one day so we will "come back to Earth"?" - User 6 "how come he is the only one accusing people of abusing their powers?" - AMK152 "Because he is 120d. The person who thinks he runs the wiki" - User 5 "Why don't you block him for a day without warning…" - User 7 "He's a great editor but not the nicest guy around…" - User 6 "He unfairly blocked" - User 5 "Blocking doesn't help if other users are afraid to edit on this wiki…" - User 6 "That isn't right, some people may not know what to do at first" - User 7 "He blocked someone for changing burger to hamburger?" - User 6 "why don't you just remove his powers?" - User 7 "That's not even worth a warning." - User 6 "Just some great edits and activity." - User 6 "Why don't you have a discussion or something about removing his powers?" - User 7 "Can't someone else make a discussion? or only crats?" - User 7 "I really don't see why blocking is such a big deal for him. Blocking is to stop users from making bad edits and learn from mistakes. Not to do it for little reasons and scare away users. There hasn't been much vandalism here (which is good) but blocking someone for three days for changing one small word? Really?" - User 7 "i know. I tell him he is doing something wrong every time, and then he tells me I am abusing my power" - AMK152 "He also is being rude to anyone who says something he doesn't like. He said that he's doesn't need to be friendly, that we are "too soft" and that all he cares about is being "useful" and "helpful" to the site. Which he ISN'T." - User 8 "the blocking policy is in place mostly to protect users from an abuse of the blocking tool" - AMK152 "(harsh language removed)" - User 9 "(harsh language removed)…i think he needs to be demoted" - User 9 "He is also rude to people who disagree with him." - User 8 "JCM made the right choice by demoting him the first time." - User 5
May 3, 2014	"I think 120d really needs to be demoted now. He is becoming too disrespectful and way too disruptive. [1] < this is just absolutely ridiculous." - User 2 "That is just a complete lack of self-control in my book." - User 2 "To me, the block tool should be a last resort. It is a big deal when a user is blocked. His freeness of blocking is actually frightening. Especially when he either "accidently" blocks admins, or is some cases, deliberately blocks them." - User 2

Specific Events/Discussions

Here is a list of specific events/discussions, in the form of a timeline. This includes 120d's previous suspension, and events that have occurred since his promotion to administrator on December 26, 2012.

Date	Events	Link
December 19-26, 2012	120d's request for administrator	Request
December 26, 2012	120d is promoted to administrator with 2 supports.	[2]
July 13, 2013	120d handled this conversation well. The person whose edits he revert just wanted to help the wiki. That's all we want. We want people to help the wiki, and scaring people away will not help the wiki.	Thread:76937
July 23-24, 2013	120d called Manirroo's edits "stupid" and was in an argument with Manirroo and CalzoneManiac. Calzone said he was going to call for AMK152 to demote 120d.	Thread:77954
August 9, 2013	120d argued with Spongebob454 and CalzoneManiac. Calzone once again was going to call for AMK152 to demote 120d.	Thread:80128
September 15, 2013		Thread:82877
September 15-16, 2013	Accidentally blocked CalzoneManiac and then apologized. How does one accidentally block someone? Or not even check who they just block?	Thread:82896
November 24, 2013	Loopa23 was concerned about 120d blocking new users. 120d acknowledge that he "probably should" warn users.	Thread:87471
December 3, 2013	Blocked Tvguy for reverting transcripts (ignoring situation with SBM)	Thread:87962
December 14-16, 2013	Manirroo called for 120d's demotion. 120d said "I appologize. I will try to be more professional."	Thread:88597
January 2, 2014	Blocking SpongeyTube (an administrator)	[3]
January 9-10, 2014	Blocked a user for minor edits. 120d also said "I will consider giving warning before blocking."	Thread:90507
January 12, 2014	Violated transcript policy	[4] Thread:90728
January 13, 2014	Engaged in an edit war with JCM	[5]
January 13, 2014	JCM temporarily suspends 120d's powers	[6]
January 13-19, 2014	120d's suspension is discussed.	Link
January 19, 2014	120d is reinstated as an admin.	[7]
January 28-February 5, 2014	Refusing to acknowledge community consensus regarding spoilers. Argument continued for a week.	Thread:91792
February 9-11, 2014	Another example of 120d blocking someone for good faith edits.	Thread:92441
February 15, 2014	A user was upset because 120d deleted some pages and said they were not done properly. This is a wiki, and anyone can start an article, but it doesn't have to be finished. It can be finished later or by others.	Thread:92662
February 24, 2014	Blocking Tanhamman (an administrator)	[8]
March 11, 2014	120d said this: "I have never made an unreasonable block. I also have not made an unreasonable time limit since I was banned on the Phineas and Ferb wiki last year. He or she should not be scared of me. I am a reasonable guy. I will only ban a user if he or she has made a fifth violation."	Thread:94772
March 20, 2014	Expects others to be polite. Most other times, he isn't.	Thread:95519
March 24, 2014	120d requested, in a not so nice manner, that a user stop using "Template:" in front of templates.	Thread:95865
March 25-27, 2014	Hesitant to acknowledge community consensus to rename the wiki	[9]
March 29, 2014	Acknowledged creating categories "in case we need them."	Thread:96586
March 29, 2014	Acknowledged that he has his "own system" of blocking.	Thread:96803
April 1, 2014	Bombarded a user with very small details of the rules. The post is worded in such a way that would scare new contributors away.	Thread:97591
April 1, 2014	Forbid Tanhamman from getting involved in conversations that are in regards to the wiki	Thread:97621
April 2, 2014	Blocking SpongeyTube (an administrator)	[10]
April 4-5, 2014	Threatened to delete a user's work if the article isn't completed properly in a 24-hour period	Thread:98030
April 3-6, 2014	Hesitant to acknowledge he blocked an admin for not violating any rules. Apologized after 3 days of arguments.	Thread:97897
April 7, 2014	120d blocked a user (active user with good contributions) who said that a special gallery was a character gallery (a simple mistake)	Thread:98539
April 8, 2014	120d requested that a user stop using "Template:" in front of templates. When ther use said they kept forgetting, 120d replied rather rudely, "well, start remembering."	Thread:98557
April 10, 2014	120d requested that a user sign a post or message using UTC time - does it even matter?	Thread:98751
April 11, 2014	Tominator777 was blocked by 120d and made this remark: "I Never been on a Wiki That is so hard to work without getting blocked!"	Thread:99048
April 13, 2014	AMK152 creates a proposal to enact a blocking policy to ensure users are not unfairly blocked.	Blocking policy
April 13-22, 2014	The blocking policy is discussed as 120d continues to oppose it and threatens to not follow the policy, if passed.	Blocking policy
April 14-16, 2014	Muchacha was afraid to address his unfair block to 120d for fear of being blocked.	Thread:99431
April 17-18, 2014	Tanhamman and Muchacha discuss their frustration with 120d; Muchacha refers to this as a "war."	Thread:99759
April 22, 2014	The blocking policy is passed.	Blocking policy
April 22, 2014	AMK152 notifies that the blocking policy has passed. "You should know by now, that I don't care, I am still going to block people my way." - 120d	Thread:100786
April 23, 2014	120d blocks two users without giving them warnings; AMK152 warns 120d that this is a violation of the blocking policy. FIRST WARNING	Thread:101003
April 24, 2014	120d blocks another user, violating the blocking policy and receiving a SECOND WARNING.	Thread:101132
April 24, 2014	120d accidentally blocks AMK152. How does one "accidentally" block someone?	Thread:101152
April 24, 2014-May 3, 2014	Continued denial of wrong-doing until over a week into discussion; stops denying wrong-doing when he is blocked.	Thread:101274
April 25, 2014	An unofficial discussion was started to request 120d's demotion. There were 5 supports, 0 opposes. The thread was closed at the end of the day. No bureaucrat was involved in the discussion.	Thread:101449
April 26, 2014	Discussion of Muchacha's call to demote 120d.	Thread:101739
April 26-27, 2014	Muchacha was willing to take drastic action to remove 120d, which was wrong, but would not have been brought up had 120d followed the rules.	Thread:101740
May 2, 2014	Some discussions just speak for themselves when they get out of hand.	Thread:102478
May 2, 2014	120d blocked a user without warning, violating the blocking policy. AMK152 gives 120d a THIRD AND FINAL WARNING.	Thread:102626 Thread:102660
May 2, 2014	More evidence.	Thread:102600
May 3-6, 2014	120d refuses to acknowledge community consensus on the places/locations discussion.	Thread:102724
May 3, 2014	AMK152 suspends 120d's powers.	[11]
May 3-7, 2014	AMK152 notifies 120d of his suspension and this discussion; 120d begs for another chance.	Thread:102776
May 3-4, 2014	120d requests a deal be made in the form of an apology and to be reinstated as an administrator.	Thread:102875
May 6-10, 2014	120d continues to beg for another chance, AMK152 urges 120d to accept punishment; 120d continues to resist.	Thread:103413
May 7-9, 2014	A summer background contest is begun by Muchacha. An edit war ensues on the contest page and arguments begin on message walls.	Thread:103687
May 8-9, 2014	Did not like the fact that Muchacha started a summer background contest and called for the page's deletion and Muchacha's block, when Muchacha did not break any rules.	Thread:103795
May 8, 2014	AMK152 blocks 120d for 24 hours for edit warring, arguing, and causing controversy.	[12]
May 8-10, 2014	120d complains about his block, accuses AMK152 of abuse of power, and does not show any sign of maturity toward the block or acceptence of his wrongdoing.	Thread:103914
May 9-10, 2014	120d is told that the discussion is leading toward a demotion; he continues to complain and resist.	Thread:104105

I could not list everything here, but everyone should have a pretty good idea with the situation.

Blocking Philosophy

Upon reviewing 120d's blocking history, it reveals a general trend:

1. He blocks users for very little, insignificant things.
2. He often does not warn people.
3. He has his own blocking system and never tried to discuss making an official/universal blocking policy across the wiki.
4. He ignores the blocking policy that the community agreed upon.
5. He often blocks users without notifying his reasons on their message walls.

How This Discussion Will Work

Under the "Discussion" heading, you will put your username as a subheading:

===USERNAME===

Under that username, you will give your opinions on the entire situation. You can link to specifics, policy violations, etc.

At the end of your comment, put in bold what you believe should be done. You could argue for 120d to be reinstated to administrator, you could propose a block for a certain amount of time, you could propose a suspension for a certain amount of time, you could propose a permanent suspension, you could do anything. Just make a proposal and be fair and look at the evidence and 120d's arguments. We will then collect all proposals and see where the discussion will be in ten (10) days. If at the end of the ten (10) days people feel that 120d should be reinstated, he shall be granted his administrative powers back on Wednesday, May 14, 2014 at 6:00 PM eastern time. If not, the discussion will continue.

Everyone please tell us what you think we should do about the situation with 120d.

Also: Follow all rules. Do not personally attack anyone. I want this discussion to be as calm as possible. 120d has great contributions, don't forget that. It's his behavior that is the issue. Do not personally attack 120d. Be honest and fair and cite your accusations. — AMK152 22:14, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

ALSO: Only you and 120d can respond in your section. It is in place for you and 120d to discuss the issues.

NOTE: Let's not drag this on any longer than it should be. I am removing the extension. This discussion will end on Saturday, May 10, 2014 at 6:14 PM eastern time. — AMK152 00:30, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

120d's Opening Statements

1. Thank you for allowing me to have my own section. It makes me feel important.

2. Under Problem/Violations:

2. I can't break a policy that doesn't exist. Also, a lot of people break the current transcript policy by editing transcripts.

3. They start it.

4. I only discourage contributions that go against the rules or are unproductive. (example: unneeded A.K.A. unimportant info.)

6. Well, that just makes me look bad. Yes, I was incorrect, but it was the fault of the animators for making two different snail foods. (If you just read that and had no idea what I am talking about, this is a case of AMK125 not being specific enough in my violations.)

7. I never prohibited that I just said that I didn't want him to come in and just repeat what I said.

8. It is my opinion.

9. I didn't think that my temper was going to be put on trial, but okay.

3. For the "Quotes" section, if you do not put the names of the users, then I and anyone else who reads it might assume that you made them up.

4. Generally, you have to have one set of tenses. Is it present-tense or past-tense? make up your mind. Here is a real problem with tenses, "He has his own blocking system and never tried to discuss making an official/universal blocking policy across the wiki."

5. For the "How this discussion will work" section,

First, it should be "How This Discussion Will Work" because it is a title.

Second, AMK125, you and I both know that this is not going to be civil.

Of course, I want to get my power back and for everyone to not take things so personal. I also think that people should give me reasons that they dislike me. 120d Talk Contribs 23:04 May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Responses to 120d's Initial Response

Here you can respond to 120d's opening statements.

Not all of these points are policy violations. The situation is out of control and there is just too much conflict here. Some of the issues are big, others are small. Please leave spelling/grammar out of this. It took me 4 hours to write what I did above. Sure, this may not be civil, but I can request people to be civil. — AMK152 23:13, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I should have expected this from you, just writing the bad things that I have done in your timeline. You should also write the good things. There are two sides to every story. You could tell the story of me being a giant jerk or you could tell the story of how I get frustrated a lot. 120d Talk Contribs 23:27 May 3, 2014 (UTC)
  - I can add the positives. — AMK152 23:29, May 3, 2014 (UTC)
Dude, I agree with the tense problem. I keep having to put everything in present tense on episode sypnosis. However, your other points are, no offense or blocking, stupid. We've all heard this stuff before. And, 120d, we want you to be blocked and we are going to take things personally. Okay? ^{23:21,5/3/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

Right there. You are fixing everything wrong on here. Plus, the policy existed, you went by it, and ignored it. I think I, along with many others, are at the point of the end. Tan Ham Man 23:48,5/3/2014

Everyone else's opinions

Use the following for each person's opinion.

==USERNAME==

Please sign your responses with ~~~~

Loopa23

I agree with this, it should be about a month for blocking Muchacha for something pretty much stupid, abusing the blocks, this is just crazy...and a disaster not to mention. - I am your father. No, I am not. 23:03, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Muchacha

I... I don't know what to say. I told 120d I wanted to try to reconcile with him, but after seeing this huge mountain of evidence above, I have completely changed my mind. Sorry, 120d, but your admin powers have gotta go. If he becomes nicer, he can have them back, but not until then. Look at what this guy is saying: Thread:99458

What kind of nonsense is 120d talking about in his response on this page?

^{23:10,5/3/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

You should be a little bit more specific in the last line of your response. 120d Talk Contribs 23:29,5/3/2014

More Evidence I Found

I found a thread recently about location tabs that had 120d yelling at AMK152 for practically no reason at all. Here is an excerpt from his rant:

"THIS IS NOT OKAY!!! YOU HAVE BECOME A JERK WHO DOESN'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT MY FEELINGS! YOU JUST WANT WHAT YOU WANT AND YOU WANT IT NOW!! THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF YOUR IDEALS!!! YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE A BUREAUCRAT!"

Shocking, isn't it? This is just another piece of evidence supporting the fact that this user has a bad temper, and another reason the wiki would be better if he gets demoted for a month or two.

Still not satisfied yet?

Well, today 120d wrote a formal apology, but I know he's just trying to avoid a punishment, which is probably impossible. Tanhamman called it "butt-kissing," and I agreed that he was.

I told him that he should just stop trying and face his punishment. Suddenly, he got sore at me and said, "Why don't you accept that you'll never be admin?" I told him I could be an admin if I just had more time before I requested again, and an argument ensued.

I tried to get AMK152 to come to the thread to stop him, but 120d intervened and accused me of being a tattletale, which is not what admins do. The apology thread got closed later, and AMK152 chewed me out about "fueling 120d's fire" when I wasn't really trying to fight, and possibly didn't message 120d about the issue at all. :(

So, in short, 120d is a bad-tempered, insulting person that unfairly blocks people and deserves at least a one-or-two-month suspension of his powers. I rest my case.

^{18:09,5/4/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

As I told you before you do not know it is just bias. 120d Talk Contribs 18:36,5/4/2014

I am going to report you to AMK152 if you do not stop accusing me of things. ^{20:07,5/4/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

What are Earth do you think I accused you of this time? Having bias? I also find it funny that you wrote that you will report me if I do not stop accusing you of things, when you are the one that is pretty much accusing me of blocking in the future, when I have done nothing wrong. 120d Talk Contribs 20:33,5/4/2014

Actually, you're both accusing each other of the wrong things. I feel you both hate each other, and will attack each other in any way you can. So really, you both are at fault, and should stop accusing each other of true, and false information. Tan Ham Man 23:49,5/4/2014

Tanhamman

ATTENTION! I've changed my viewpoint to a forever demotion. If you have seen the things I have, you'd see it too.

As involved as I've been, I think this may be a turning point. I've looked @ the list, and before and after I was Admin status, me and 120d ahve had a monthly conflict. Little things (not using UTC) or Big things (Spoiler war). Muchacha tried (not the best) things to try and get a demotion. Mostly on mine, and AMK152's walls, people came to us in fear of blockage, or talking to 120d. Or even wanting us to talk to him. Little things can set him off (burger to hamburger; spelling; grammar). He's a good Admin, friend, and contrib. He's opposite for his behavior. A month of suspended powers should help, and if it continues, a possible block¿ It's just how I see it. Tan Ham Man 23:00,5/3/2014

Ham sees what he sees

Ok. I've reviewed all the threads, discussions, comments, concerns, complaints, blocks and everyting else. 120d has apologized. I think it is sincere. However, this cannot mend everything. He is still a little pissed at a lot of things here. His 24 hour idea is not good. And everyone losing powers for a day, well that isn't either. He's in a constant drawl with Muchacha (although he's not helping it along). While he is sincere about it, he can't be reinstanted yet. GIve it time (whatever the community together decides), and I think he can overcome this. I feel he is sorry, but then again, I did say he was butt kissing. He was, but truely, he's sort of and not.

Drawls with Muchacha

He is in a constant drawl with Muchacha. At least when I'm writting this. He's accusing Muchacha of several things, and even states he can't ever be an Admin. This is inappropriate behavior on him trying to become Admin status again.

MY VIEWPOINt

120d is slowly changing (not pulling a Plankton of New Leaf). However, his attitude towards others has not yet changed, and he can't be an admin for a while now. With drawls with everyone, and the comments he's made, I used to think a 1 month suspension was good. You should now UP THIS ASAP. AND NO DAYS LESSER THAN OVER AT LEAST 3 MONTHS

Nope. He hasn't changed at all, he is currently blocked from editing. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 20:35, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

ZeoSpark

120d is one of the best contributiors here and the gallery setup here is excellent. It's just the idea about blocking users for little reasons without even warning them. Even if they reply negatively, you have to notify them they are doing wrong. Blocking users for changing one small word into another or not using grammer properly isn't right.

Update: I've been watching over the threads for a few days and things are kinda getting out of control a little bit. Note I personally don't "hate" or despise 120d but it's just how he handled the situations when it comes to blocking. Also, it seemed like you were apologizing but at the same time aren't. It's also pretty bad that the newer users on here that were blocked for just something simple scared them away. I think a 2 month suspension is fair being in between. I won't ingore how great your contributions on here are and the subgalleries are a great addition to the wiki but I also can't ingore the unreasonable blocking of users (especially without warnings).

Second update: After that latest thread, I don't believe 120d is capable of adminship anymore...I call for a Permanent Demotion because that wasn't right what he said... ZeoSpark Talk Contribs Edits 23:08,5/3/2014

EQG Pinkie Pie

I agree with 120's demotion. Blocking people randomly is not ok. -- Pinkie Pie | TALK - EDITS | 23:30, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

AMK152

120d is an excellent contributor, but his behavior is hurting the wiki and scaring people away. There has been a decline in the number of users here. I believe 120d could potentially change after a suspension. I would say a ~~2 month~~ suspension would give 120d a break from being an administrator and a time to cool down and let this wiki heal. — AMK152 23:24, May 3, 2014 (UTC)Bold text

"let this wiki heal"? no, that won't happen, if I leave you will promote someone who is not right to be an admin like Muchacha, and he or she will be as power mad as me. I don't think you know how big my impact on this wiki is. 120d Talk Contribs 23:33, 5/3/2014

We have lost contributors. People are scared to edit. We will not promote somone who is unfit for administrative powers. And I do know how big your impact is on this wiki. I did as you asked and added the postives because you said there are two sides. Those two sides are contributions and behavior. — AMK152 23:40, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

HEY! I could be a good admin if you just give me a little more time before I request again. ^{23:44,5/3/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

CCalm down dude. Just give it a few more weeks. Plus, I don't think that giving someone power can affect this. Tan Ham Man 23:52,5/3/2014

I told 120d to stop begging for his administrative priveledges back and accept and take his punishment like a mature individual. He responded with continued resistence. I am changing my mind and suggesting a suspension time of 3 months instead of 2. — AMK152 15:31, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

At this point, things have continued to spiral out of control. I move toward a 6 month suspension or permanent demotion. What happens in the next week will determine what I think. Others are leaning toward a permanent suspension too, since 120d cannot really handle a punishment or stop causing controversy. — AMK152 14:42, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

I have given enough thought to this. I am trying to figure out what is best for the community as a whole. I am changing my mine to demotion. If 120d is demoted, he can always request to be an admin again, of course, if he can prove he is once again admin material. — AMK152 01:06, May 10, 2014 (UTC)

Spongebob456

I further agree 120d's contributions have been excellent hence my support for his request for adminship. I still feel his contributions have been excellent even amongst what has transpired as of late.
I, unfortunately, have and am finding his interaction with others users has been abrasive and very condescending. How can we justify having an Admin on this wiki using all-caps edit summaries which intimidate users? How can we justify having an Admin who blocks users upon their first offence? Now, I will admit, 120d has become better when blocking but, per the proposal, still did violate the policy on 3-4 occasions. I can't see how we can allow 120d to not follow rules the community agreed upon. This is a wiki so we have to go by community consensus - not just 1 users' views.
I would also like to point out, however petty, his rather silly views upon grammar and how he is the first to correct users when, in most cases in all honesty, he is often incorrect himself. Grammar does not have much baring in community discussions - simple as that. These attacks on people's grammar have often made discussions worse and are most unnecessary.
In terms of what should be done in the future, I propose 120d be suspended for 6 months perhaps and then see what happens in that time.
It would be ludicrous to block him due to his excellent contributions. 120d does have the best intentions for the wiki, but conveys them in a manner which is both abrasive, intimidating and in some ways: controlling.
Now, on a more light-hearted note, seeing as I don't like this formal, grim stuff (xD), what I recommend in moving forward:

User blog:Brandon Rhea/Tips for being a great admin
Please carry on contributing - we aren't saying you're a bad contributor at all. :)
Perhaps try to be less abrasive towards users? This is a wiki which has its serious part on occasions, but should be a place to have fun! Perhaps join some community discussions and enjoy conversing with the community as well as editing. :)

Thanks! --Spongebob456 ^talk 08:37, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

AW10

He can do most of the things like creating galleries, fixing grammar/spelling errors without being admin. Well, I have managed to implement whole editing system on fanon wiki without needing any admin powers. So, if he can't use them wisely, he should be demoted and continue to contribute as a regular user. AW10 Talk Contribs E-Mail 13:26,5/4/2014

Yes. I think if powers are held back, than in time with good contribs. he can become an Admin again. Tan Ham Man 13:49,5/4/2014

OnioNS

120d,

You have been a splendid contributor, and I admire what you have done for this wiki. However, your temper, refusal to cooperate, and abrasiveness is harmful to users on this wiki, and is not a quality good administrator should have. You have attacked AMK12 non-stop, while he has been just trying to control the situation. Your comments such as, "THIS IS NOT OKAY!!! YOU HAVE BECOME A JERK WHO DOESN'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT MY FEELINGS! YOU JUST WANT WHAT YOU WANT AND YOU WANT IT NOW!! THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE OF YOUR IDEALS!!! YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE A BUREAUCRAT!"

and

"I don't think you know how big my impact on this wiki is."

show that you are more concerned about controlling certain elements than helping. And we are not saying you can't contribute, I just believe you should be removed from admin.

P.S.

You have no idea how fun this is going to be. Everyone I have ever blocked or pissed off is going to say that I should be demoted and, as always, I won't be.

In light of that last line of 120d saying he will not be demoted, I believe that he should remain so, to prove a point.

Thanks! Ωniθηζ ~ [Talk] 21:04, May 4, 2014 (UTC)OnioNS

I would love to know what this so called "point" is. Is it that if you are an admin and have a bad temper, you will be suspended? I was angry at AMK152 at the time. I am no longer 120d Talk Contribs 21:19,5/4/2014
The point is that no admin or bureaucrat should ever feel that they cannot be demoted. When you said, "...as always, I won't be [demoted]." It shows that you believe you can be demoted. But remember, no one is above reproach. Ωniθηζ ~ [Talk] 21:58, May 4, 2014 (UTC)OnioNS
- I think you mean "...believe you cannot be demoted". If not, I don't know how this helps your case. I do think that I can be demoted. It was just a joke. Also, according to you, I should be suspended because you think I was being ignorant. That isn't a good reason to suspend someone. - 120d
  - Words are very powerful, 120d. And it is easy to say, "it was just a joke" now, but in the context of the messages, it seemed as if you were serious.
    - I am well aware of that words are very powerful. How do you think I got in this mess. Also, it was more cockiness than anything else. 120d Talk Contribs 22:22,5/4/2014

JosephHawk

I think 120d has made good contributions, but a break from having admin power would be good. It's good to see what it's like being a regular contributor again, without extra authority.

לθξερh Ηαωκ 18:16, May 5, 2014 (UTC)JosephHawk

hordikatitans4444

He just recently banned me for a day for entering false info. It was just for one day and I am confident that what i said was true. I also noticed that some other stuff I write disapperes. Weather it is by his I don't know but I have also been blocked for other stuff too even though I don't see how the other stuff was violating the rules. Such as revising an episode plot and sombody (i forget who) accusing me of vandalizing the wiki. That being said 120d is none the less the top user of the wiki as he has the most points for editing. But that is no excuse.

Do I remember you? I think I remember you somewhere. Weren't you that person who got blocked for two hours for adding "false info"? You entered something on the "Ugh" article about dinosaurs and humans never living together, and Neanderthals and homo-sapiens not existing 100 million years ago. I thought it was actually very useful info, and when I told AMK152 about it, he thought so too. From what I remember, he gave 120d a third and final warning, and then 120d got suspended from his powers not too long afterwards. Don't worry, I think what you were saying was very useful and not unneeded. :)

^{15:47,5/6/2014 Muchacha ^(W•_C)OVERTIME?!!!}

First, Hordikatitans4444, "just recently" is not a good phrase since the last time that I blocked you for a day was February 13. Also, the last time I blocked you was 3 days ago.

Second, I have admitted that it is true. However, it is not important to the series because the writers do not need to be factually accurate because they are a kids' show. 120d Talk Contribs 21:20, 5/6/2014

Road Runner1

I'm still fairly new here for joining on April 19,But after making a couple of edits to some pages on the wiki.A day later I saw I was blocked with out any warnings and I have noticed that that's what 120d does.I had got blocked for two days.I recently just realized that 120d must of blocked me and he gives me many messages of "unnessicary pages/edits".And edits any thing I had edited a few minutes before.I had questioned him about it and he said he was fixing mistakes that I made and deleted every thing I wrote on those pages.I think 120d should be suspended from admin rights foreever if you can do that,or ban him from this wiki.Road Runner1 (talk) 22:02, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

SummerSpongefan20

I haven't really gotten into a feud with 120d, but what I've seen of his behavior is unfair. He blocked Muchacha for changing 'burger' to 'hamburger', which is just obscene. I feel blocking someone for that is power abuse, as it can be easily reverted. I think he should be suspended from his powers for at least a month, and hopefully he will come back replenished. SummerSpongefan20 (talk) 23:39, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say that I am actually correct about it not being a hamburger. My proof can be found here: http://spongebob.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:102883 120d Talk Contribs 15:21, 5/7/2014

It's still not okay to block someone for that. — AMK152 15:31, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

I know this. I am not stupid. I am sorry that I cannot change my previous actions. 120d Talk Contribs 15:45, 5/7/2014

Goldenburg111

His behavior is inappropriate for an admin, on Wikimedia (where I edit most often), this would mean a quick demotion and ban. So, my request is a permanent demotion. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:01, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

The Running Dumpling

Even though I am new here, I have read this whole page and come to the conclusion that 120d shouldn't be admin. He doesn't seem fair or nice to new users, and that is part of an admin's job. I vote for a permanent suspension from power.

SpongeyTube

I actually like how 120d contributed to this wiki with good edits which makes him one of the best admins of the wiki. However, he has blocked some random users (especially those who just joined the wiki) with just small mistakes. I think he should give more users another chance especially those who joined the wiki because they can learn their lessons later on, know more about the rules, and can be a good contributor like me and the other admins of the wiki. I'd say give him a 1 month demotion.

UPDATE: AFTER LOOKING AT THE THREADS LATELY TO SEE IF HIS BEHAVIOR HAS CHANGED OR NOT. LOOKS LIKE IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE. I'D SAY A PERMANENT DEMOTION.

SpongeBob EditPants

I haven't been as active as I used to be, but within one minute of reading all the evidence of 120d aggresive behavior on this site, I'll have to agree. I especially remember when he stole the "SpongeBob, You're Fired!" transcript from SpongeBuddy Mania, and he continued to do so even though abney317 said it was for that site only. And he teamed up with Seacactus and tried banning him for so called "vandalism". He may be admin, but scolding other members and banning him or her when they have an accurate reason for making a certain contribution is more like abusing admin powers. What I'm saying is, we should let him go for now, until he learns how to use his powers, again. SpongeBob EditPants (talk) 20:42, May 9, 2014 (UTC)

CalvinKemp98

He is not a kind nor gentle admin. Plus he is really petty. I think he should be removed from power until he changes. CalvinKemp98 (talk) 00:54, May 10, 2014 (UTC)CalvinKemp98

JCM

This is not the first time 120d behaved this way. Back in January, a transcript policy was passed due to complaints from another website, and 120d ignored that policy by posting a stolen transcript, which I immediately removed. He then tried to start an edit war with me, so I warned him that if he continued to violate the policy, he would be temporarily suspended. He didn't listen to me, and so I removed his rights. He tried to justify what he did by saying that "threats were against the rules" and that I was in the wrong for it, despite the fact that he threatened other users in the past and (as I can see in recent threads) continued to do so after he was reinstated. I was fine with that reinstatement, because he was mostly civil and didn't violate the transcript policy anymore after he was suspended, but there was one thing he said to me during the dispute that stands out:

"This is why I hate the position of Bureaucrat. You think that you are superior to others just because you are one. You aren't. If anyone deserves to have there rights revoked it is you!"

This is important not just as an example of his bad temper, but as an argument people could use for his own demotion: he acts like he's superior not only to other users, but to other admins, and in many cases, bureaucrats. He doesn't cooperate with policies agreed upon by the community even when his rights are at stake, as was the case with the transcript policy and the current blocking policy. The difference here, though, is that he's not feeling remorse even after his suspension. He's letting his stubbornness and arrogance get in the way of being a good admin, and that's why I support leaving him demoted until he can show that he's willing to be a team player.

I'm sure 120d has had excellent contributions in the past, but that doesn't excuse his recent behavior, since there's more to being an admin than just helping out. You have to show that you can work with others and be respectful while doing it, and he just hasn't done that as of late. If he cleans up his act, then I'll welcome him back to the staff with open arms, but until then, I'll be against any future proposals to reinstate him. We need to make it clear what is and isn't tolerated of an admin, and this is the best way to do so.

ESB:User rights review/120d/2

Contents