Forum:Demotion Danuhau

We have talked about this before, but I would like to re-open this discussion. New users have appeared, other users have disappeared, opinions may have changed and new factors may have come up.

Danuhau is currently a bureaucrat and administrator on the Worms Wiki, and I believe that this should no longer continue. I will state my reasoning below, and I would like to invite everyone to do the same.

You can cast your vote in the sections below. Comments can be stated below that, in the comments section.

I would like to ask Danuhau to refrain from voting on this matter, since he is the subject. People can't vote on their own promotion request either, so I think it's no more than fair. Comments from Danuhau are obviously more than welcome.

Although the Manual of Style is not complete yet, I would like to ask everyone to keep to the rules on Talk Pages, which can be found here.

Support
''People below think that Danuhau should be demoted. Admin and bureaucrat rights should be forfeited.''

Please add your signature to the unordered list below.

CoachSDot (talk) 10:02, March 9, 2015 (UTC) Reason: Danuhau has been a jerk to an Anon called "Captain Falcon" and banned him simply for sharing his own beliefs. Especially since Danuhau claimed to believe the same stuff
 * Koenachtig (talk) 11:51, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * Boggy B (talk) 15:03, March 4, 2015 (UTC)
 * --Orangitu Talk  10:12, March 5, 2015 (UTC)
 * Oscuritaforze (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

Indirect votes

 * Q* (link)

Neutral / Recuse
People below are not sure about the demotion, feel like they cannot vote, wish to refrain from voting or have another reason to vote neutral.

Please add your signature to the unordered list below.


 * PartHunter (talk) 05:00, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose
''People below think that Danuhau should NOT be demoted. Admin and bureaucrat rights should be kept.''

Please add your signature to the unordered list below.



Comments
''Discussion and comments can be stated below. Don't forget to sign your posts.''

I will state my reasoning below. Some reason may be more important than other, though I feel like everything should be mentioned.

Inactivity: Danuhau has been as good as inactive for over a month now. A small amount of minor edits appeared today, though I do not feel like improvement is close. Like he stated, he is very busy with school. I do have the feeling that this is unlikely to improve, since it's been going on for over a month. I feel like the other administrators have got things covered.

Communication: Communication between the admins on the Worms Wiki is nearly perfect. Danuhau is not involved in this is any way. I feel like there is a lack of effort from his side to get involved in discussion with the other admins. To add to that. Lack of communication with the community is present as well. When changed are (to be) made on the Wiki, the community should be involved. Instanced on when other users did this: here, here, here and here. Those are all asking for community feedback. Danuhau is not asking for feedback, but simply acting 'in charge'.

Edit count: I'm led to believe that Danuhau values edit counts. As can be seen here, he manages to edit the same article up to 8 times in a row. He managed to [ add his edit count] and his [ achievement points] to the news on the main page. This so called 'edit farming' is a bad example towards other users. (Also this)

Blocking: The Worms Wiki has never seen so many blocks before as now. I don't feel like Danuhau has an idea of when to block, why to block and for how long to block. Blocking is only for preventing vandalism, and is not for other things. Let me quote a section of the previous discussion on this matter. "As an example, we have the issue of [ the first in this series of blocks] (at the moment, I'm not too concerned about the massive increase in block time with the second entry, as [ Danuhau claimed that was an accident]). The reason given for this block ("Bad attitude") is rather vague, and the length of time the block is for (3 months) seems a bit disproportionate (a sentiment also echoed by [ all of] [ the other] [ active users] at the time). This alone is questionable enough. However, when [ Q*terplx asked why he had been blocked], the [ response he received] essentially just said that "admins can block for any reason" and gave no further explanation. Considering how Q*terplx was a good-faith contributor right up until he was blocked (and I would assert that said block hurt the wiki as a result), I would expect there to be some very good reasons for such a block, but said reasons have not materialized (and not for lack of asking; several requests for proof were made in this (unfortunately now deleted) forum). In this case, I can't help but conclude that Danuhau did not have the best interests of the wiki in mind when he made this block, regardless of his claims to the contrary."

- Oscuritaforze

Being in charge: I cannot state it enough, the community is in charge, not the administrators. Looking at [ this], then [ this] and then [ this], Danuhau seems to think otherwise. Like he stated in the first one: "I'm in charge on this wiki. When I say you are not allowed to do this, you should not do it. If you want to make this wiki messy, I will have to block you."

- Danuhau

Even threatening to block PartHunter, gives me the feeling he thinks he is 'above' everything.

Other:
 * Deleting this for the reason: 'stupid'.
 * This discussion, which can be seen as either immature, and proves that Boggy did not feel like he received a proper reason to be blocked.

Some of the things I stated were mentioned before in the previous discussion, but I feel like they should be mentioned anyway.

--Koenachtig (talk) 11:51, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I concur with Koenachtig, though there are a couple things he missed.


 * I believe Danuhau should be demoted due to the fact that he always attempts to scapegoat for his wrongdoings to defend himself, normally coming up with some completely made-up and invalid explanation such as "my school friends did it" and blocking Q* for several months the first time for several different, even self-contradictory reasons (if I remember correctly). About these phony explanations he tries to use in his defense, I believe he did the same thing for when he was accused of sock-puppetry, he explains something that has to do with his supposed half-sister handling the account when he was being accused, I don't remember what he said though. He even blamed his friends again when he blocked two innocent users, including his own "half-sister" and PartHunter. At first he simply said "reason state later" in his block reason for both users. Danuhau, what you've never done, you see, is provide us with evidence. We'll need proof from you to invalidate our accusations/suspicions, and therefore, have us let you keep your rights.
 * I believe Danuhau should be demoted due to his aforementioned sock-puppetry (which can be proven true by this comment on the previous forum regarding Danuhau's demotion), while lying about the sock-puppet account belonging to a half-sister of his. If you're going to claim that this wasn't sock-puppetry and that really was your half-sister, once again, at least give us some form of evidence.


 * With Koenachtig's reasons and my reasons stated above, I believe Danuhau is ineligible for both administration and bureaucracy. Even though this was all long ago, it's hard to forget Danuhau's past actions, which were detrimental to our wiki. There are probably more reasons that I might have forgot to mention, and it'd be nice if someone could point out anything I missed. Either way, this has gone long enough. If Wikia Staff still decide not to demote him and he becomes active again here, I'm giving up my admin rights and leaving for good, just as Q* did.


 * Boggy B (talk) 15:03, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Boggy, for commenting. I'd like to add something else to my comment.


 * At some point, a new Worms game will be announced and released. We should be expecting a lot of new editors at that point. New user should be welcomed carefully, since we want to bond with them, instead of having them leave again. I think Danuhau is more likely contribute to them leaving, than contributing to having them stay.


 * --Koenachtig (talk) 15:23, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have to agree with that. He may be more polite at first, then sometime later he'd manage to drive them away as he did with Oscuritaforze and Q*.


 * Boggy B (talk) 15:29, March 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * I thoght this was over. Just as a note: This counts as instability of this wiki, so every time this is attempted, the capacity of this wiki to succesfully apply for addition to the spotlight rotation is delayed.


 * PartHunter (talk) 05:00, March 6, 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I did consider this indeed. And although I'd really love to see a spotlight happen for this wiki, that would mean attracting a lot of new users. New users should feel welcome, should not be scolded when they make a mistake and should definitely not be blocked for acting a bit different.


 * I really did think hard about making this topic (considering the spotlight and the community itself), though I came to the conclusion that this would be best, because new users require a great responsibility for administrators. Responsibilities, which I think not everyone can handle.


 * I appreciate your comment and vote! Thanks for that.


 * Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 07:12, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, didn't expect this issue to crop up again so soon, especially given Danuhau's low level of activity recently.

Anyway, most everything I have to say has already been said in the previous threads on this topic. The only things I have to add at this point are as follows:
 * 1) I don't really consider a low level of activity to be a problem, as I've always thought that real life issues should come before wiki stuff. This doesn't really counterbalance the rest of the reasons, but I thought I should say this anyway.
 * 2) I think the sockpuppetry accusations are credible based on what Q* wrote [ here], but the results are still by no means 100% conclusive. I feel it is far more important to note the community's response to these accusations (which was almost universally to believe them), as this indicates a lack of crucial trust in Danuhau as an admin.

Oscuritaforze (talk) 02:54, March 7, 2015 (UTC)


 * Low level of activity is a major reason why we've started this again in the first place.


 * Most of the community wanted Danuhau to be demoted, however he got away with it the first time, and now we're using his lack of activity as another reason for his demotion. According to the Administration Policy, any administrator or bureaucrat who becomes inactive for three months without the proper reasoning behind this inactivity (they'd be considered inactive if they don't make any main-space edits for three months) should be a candidate for demotion. Danuhau has been inactive for 1-2 months so far, and although he's made a couple main-space edits (probably after reading the Administration Policy), it won't suffice for him to be deemed active in this case. We also know why he's inactive now, but that won't help either since he's already a demotion candidate, besides, he'll probably be inactive for months, most likely until summer vacation, since he appears to be busy with school. Normally inactivity shouldn't be a good reason for demotion especially since we know why Danuhau is inactive, but his past actions and almost the entire community wanting him gone already makes him a demotion candidate, and his inactivity increases the likelihood of him being demoted, regardless of whether Danuhau is following the inactivity policy or not.
 * I suppose that's true, so we might as well encourage users to vote in this section on whether they believe Danuhau has committed sock-puppetry or not.


 * Boggy B (talk) 14:53, March 7, 2015 (UTC)