Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24296957-20141203043014/@comment-1309458-20141203190407

I think we're all overthinking this.

There's a very obvious consensus here that the vast majority of people want Sel to be demoted because she's the best reviewer that the site has. Let's assume this to be true for the sake of arguement. Now, even if it is true, it doesn't excuse what Amet clearly puts forward as breaches of Wikia's code of conduct. Remember that the space we inhabit on the internet (free of charge, I might add) is owned by a non-profit company, the Wikimedia Foundation. I think the least we could do is respect the rules and regulations a little better. And the Terms of Use are certainly the best thing to follow.

Now, here's the point that I don't understand.

'''If there is a clear broach of the rules by an administrator, why are we debating this at all? The solution is obvious: strip Sel of all of her responsibilities as administrator.'''

I don't have anything against Sel. She is a wonderful reviewer; strict, and I like that. She's never done me wrong when it comes to anything. However, there is something known as adminstrative conduct. A person who is placed in a position of power is required to act a certain way. They are the highest among us, the most visible, and certainly hold all of the power. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility. You know why we're always so critical of politicians every time they screw something (even something little) up? It's because we expect better of them. People elected them and as such they should act as their position demands. Why else was President Clinton impeached except for perjury? Sure, Clinton was an amazing president; one of the best we've had in ages (he's like the Optimus Prime to Obama's Rodimus Prime). But he broke the rules, minor though it was, and he broke the people's trust in him. And this shows - at the highest echelons of power - that face and role models are everything. We cannot have a president who cheats on his wife, much as we can't have a rude, insulting administrator on this wiki.

It all boils down to this: it doesn't matter if you're good at your job if you're not acting as people expect you to. You cannot use reality as an excuse. Taking on the job of administrator means that you must act a very specific way, means that you have to be above being rude, above being selfish, above being anything that you admit to having been. It is a burden, but a burden that you have to bear happily because you love your job and you want the community to be happy.

I agree with Flora to a point. I agree that "asshats" certainly don't deserve the administration's friendliness, and certainly not their respect. However, I don't think the admins should insult or be rude to anyone. That is not how administrative conduct works. If someone is insulting someone directly, then there is a system of checks and balances (warnings, bans, etc.) built into Wikia's community guidlines directly that helps deal with that.

People are saying that we can't risk the ecosystem of the wiki just because someone's being rude. However, there is something intrinsically wrong with this wiki if we rely on just one person for the upkeep of this ecosystem. That's a problem that the admins need to handle with concision and precision.

As such, I vote for the removal/demotion of Selena from her position.