This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Wiki Discussion > Administrator Revocation: Max21
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3449 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.
Myth's very passionate about this wiki and his contributions covers a wide breadth of subjects. His edits make it clear to me that he feels very strongly about being thorough. In addition to all this, it is the little things that would make Myth an awesome contribution to the team. But what I want to highlight is his ability to listen, compromise, and make good judgment calls. My most recent experience was regarding his edits to the Warden's Keep page where he took a large section out to put it in the Soldier's Peak (Quest) page. I spoke to him about how I felt. Where many people would have stood their ground stubbornly, Myth listened to the argument and offered to make an edit to restore the original article while keeping the quest on the quest page. It is this ability to compromise that would make him a good wiki editor. ―Tierrie

Admins fulfill many roles on this wiki. Some, like Zoev and Myth, are extraordinary editors. They are meticulous, detail oriented, and have the ability to listen, compromise and make good judgement calls. Others, like Loleil, are people persons. They are helpful, kind, and trusted by the community. Others, like Pwr905 and I are no good rotten scoundrels that don't really deserve to be on a wiki but yet we are, making template contributions, editing stylesheets, working towards a more solid framework and populating the item databases with our elaborate scripts and robots.

I admired that generation of editors. They came, they made significant and positive contributions and they moved on with other things. And while they were around they listened, and they appreciated the efforts of the community's contributions to the articles.

Max21 might be an excellent editor and have the best intentions at heart, but, ultimately, he is not a good fit for the role of administrator. His comments are inflammatory and his legacy are a set of rules (1, 2) that are designed to remove the right of due process from the community. While he publicly states one thing, "I am an administrator on the site. It doesn't mean much, except that I can make sure the wiki runs a little smoother.", his actions shows that he acts unilaterally.

In addition, he is the only one who interprets and enforces those policies. In doing so, he breaks down the sense of community and draws attention away from what's really important - improving the quality of the articles. Let's face it, there's only a handful of admins. It is not difficult to work through consensus. But, Max21 cannot generate consensus from a very agreeable admin, and a reasonable admin. Instead, he cites these policies for his actions. This is circular logic - he is right because he wrote a policy that says he's right. This is absurd.

There are many other community members who are much more suitable for the role. I believe that there is a need for more admins, but they need to be carefully selected and nominated.

So, I'm looking for a devil's advocate to defend his actions. If you believe in championing his cause, please contribute and share your opinions. If there is significant objection, we can put it to a vote. Otherwise, I will recommend his removal to Loleil.

-- tierrie talk contr 07:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


It looks like voting has died down and anyone who wishes to vote should have gotten an opportunity to do so. The final tally is 15 in favor and 3 against. Thank you everyone for participating. I will recommend Max21's removal to Loleil. -- tierrie talk contr 20:55, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the votes and comments, it appears the community does not currently support Max21 continuing on as an administrator. As such, his rights have now been removed. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 04:46, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


Guys, it looks like what needs to be said has been said. I am closing this discussion and would like to thank everyone for their comments, both for and against the revocation. Since it does not appear to be unanimous, I am going to put this to a vote.

To vote, please place either Yes under support or Nope under oppose. If you oppose, you must provide a reason. If you do not, your vote may be removed. Start each line with # and remember to sign your vote with --~~~~!


  1. Yes Max21 has made many fine contributions to the Wiki and I would like to see him continue as an editor. But I believe his behavior is contrary to what an administrator should be. I vote to remove him. -- tierrie talk contr 06:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yes I also think Max21 has been a great asset to the wiki. This is all rather unfortunate, I'd hoped he would simply decide to no longer involve himself in the matters people were getting upset over. Though in light of the fact that he's now taking an "indefinite leave" I'm going to go ahead and vote to have his admin rights taken away. It's not exactly the outcome I'd hoped for, but he seemed unwilling change the way he acted and now he'll be gone for awhile anyway. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 06:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes We've argued but he ultimately called the truce, I don't like the fact he's been editing my talk page however to remove comments informing me of this vote. I don't make many edits here anymore, just babysit my cut content and unobtainable item articles (never got around to finishing the location articles though) since I moved to the Fallout 3 wiki (can't wait for New Vegas). The wiki doesn't feel as friendly as it once did, I now say Fallout 3 is the friendliest wiki I have edited. Mictlantecuhtli (talk) 06:31, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Yes Max21 has shown poor judgment in his decision-making as an administrator. Furthermore, his authoritarian behavior combined with his lack of social skills is having a negative impact on the wiki. Given that he's unwilling to even admit that he's made any mistakes, there doesn't seem to be any point in allowing him to remain in a position of authority over others. It would only drag out the conflict and prolong the inevitable. -Vim- (talk) 06:56, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Yes I had a long, detailed comment typed up, but lost it when my computer crashed, but in summary, I think Max21 is an excellent editor, which was why I agreed to nominate him when he asked me to. However, his interaction with the community has been of ongoing concern to me. As there has been no evidence that this will change I don't feel he can successfully carry on as an admin at this stage. Friendship smallLoleil Talk 07:00, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Yes 11 days? Baiting? Guilt-tripping someone? Here's a true story about me. I was an officer in my class once and I kept strict control over my classmates. Then people started hating me. I changed and then everyone liked me. I was bored looking at the forums that he closed. "Freedom is true hapiness". I like that quote and he seems to go against it. Here's one word (2 words, if you want) that will accurately describe him: joy-killer. No, not killjoy. Joy-killer. --MasterMage (talk) 07:58, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Yes I agree that he is a good editor, but his interactions with others are not in the manner I expect from an administrator. Ozena Lyn (talk) 11:23, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Yes Though I believe Max21 is a good Administrator at heart, he lacks the people skills that are also needed. If he was willing to bend a little and not come across as a Nazi-Tyrant, I would be voting the other way. Anya (talk)15:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Yes Count me among those that would like Max21's administrator priveleges revoked. I am in agreement with most, that he is good for the wiki in an editing capacity. However, good workers are not always good leaders.LVTDUDE (talk) 15:36, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Yes Moderators or Admins, whatever the title may be, they have one purpose. To help guide the members of forums or websites, ensuring a site runs smoothly. But they also need to be able to listen to the members, when they don't, the whole site suffers. I agree that Max21 is a good editor, but, without the ability to admit he can be wrong or to take on what people say without making it a personal attack, I don't know how he can be a good Admin.--Madasamadthing (talk) 17:46, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Yes Most of my reasons are already on this page, but, he tends to consider himself better than others, he has a lack of people skills, he uses his banning privilages and blocking too frequently, especially when it comes to forums. he is overly agressive, and he made/fought against the removal of policies that would consolidate his own power. (which is a ridiculous thing to do for a wiki. I feel really bad that this will probably cause him to quit the wiki, and I wish he would continue his work as a regular user, but I would rather him gone than damaging the wiki as an admin. Sorry Max21. --CarloGrimaldi (talk) 19:23, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Yes He has contributed a lot to the wiki, for that I respect him, but if his people skills don't improve, then he doesn't sound like a good representative of the Wiki and it's community. For that, I have to say removing his admin privileges is in the best interest of the community.--WantedOne (talk) 21:11, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Yes I think he's ai-i-i-ight, but I still really strongly dislike him.--Feelz (talk)
  14. Yes Max21 has been a valuable asset to the wiki and an able and very competant editor. He is far from personable however, and has attempted to hold some situations in an iron grip. He has abused his powers as an admin and attempted to opress users. He must be removed as an Administrator forthwith. King Cousland (talk)
  15. Yes Even though Max21 never called my attention, nor blocked me or anything, I've been reading this discussion since it started. Like most people say, Max is a great editor and he improved the Wikia a lot, but if he only kept in this area, we wouldn't have come to this place and this situation. Like LVTDUDE said, good workers may not become good leaders. I believe that Max went too far with all this. --Rocketai (talk) 19:16, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
  16. Yes Besides all the above-mentioned reasons, I cannot really suport one who denies less seasoned users the right to express their opinions because they have not spilled blood for this wiki the way he has. Ygrain (talk) 10:35, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


  1. Nope He's a good editor. So what if his methods are different.
  2. Nope He's done well this far. I dont see what hes done that bad, and because hes been compared to nazi's (FFS whats wrong with people) i think he should have a second chance --Googlemooglemaximus (talk) 16:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Nope I don't want him gone just change his ways to become more people friendly Sam_Death (talk)19:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


I am sorry but I believe Max21 should go there will always be times where a conversation even in a board meeting that it goes off topic sorry, and that is why there is always the company president or someone to say hey we need to get back on topic not just shut the the thread down or threaten to. Sam_Death (talk)06:39, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

You deserved to be blocked and I would do the same if given a second chance. Telling another user to "kiss my ass" is inappropriate. Your little grudge couldn't be more obvious. Max21 (talk | contr) 19:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I am not championing his cause per-say, but I saying this again;

" Now I am not saying you are a "POWER MAD LUNATIC" Max21, but your social skills need some work, yes we have had words in the past over things I thought should not have been done, but all in all I think you are a good person at heart. What I am saying is that you do not need to come across as "I'm the big bad Admin and you will do as I say or else" and, my friend you do whether you realize it or not."

As stated above he needs to work on his people skills and he needs to remember that a tree that bends with the wind will not break. And, being flexible is not a bad thing. I know he thinks he is doing the right thing sometimes, but I am not sure about that. I also believe everyone deserves a second chance and maybe he needs some time away to reflect on what is really important for this wiki. He could then come back with a new perspective and start anew. Just my opinion an the matter. Anya (talk)06:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has opinions, and some people are better at passing theirs on without causing arguments than others. Sometimes feeling like you are in authority can exacerbate these situations and cause people to come off as aggressive.

Max21 has always seemed helpful, maybe sometimes pushing through a rule that doesnt need to be pushed through, or maybe sometimes making a point more fervently than he needs to. But ultimately if a regular forum poster made their points in the same way, they wouldnt have their membership revoked, and Maz21 has at least tried to make a difference. And just because these differences havent worked out all the time doesnt mean that he shouldnt continue to try. The major issue seems to be that he tries to make the rules that he made get followed, but surely this is how laws are made in every setting, judges and governments make the laws and then encourage us to follow them.

dont take away his privileges because hes opinionated, as that can just add some color to forum pages, as well as making people consider some points they otherwise would not --Googlemooglemaximus (talk) 15:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

@User:Googlemooglemaximus, thanks for taking up the devil's advocate position. I agree that everyone has opinions and varying degrees of skill in communicating with others. And if Max21 was a regular user, I'd have no problems with that at all. However, he is not. He has a job around here and it relies on communicating with others.
At what point does an administrator exceed his authority? Are they not held to a higher standard then everyone else? Do we let them go around threatening users now? Or passing policies that codify their authority?
I see that you're trying very hard to bring up the bright side of the issue by painting a picture where Max21 just accidentally overstepped his privilege by being overly fervent. That is not the case here. In reading his posts and policies, it is clear that he gives this a lot of thought and what he deliberately thinks through his plans to consolidate power, but not in throwing his weight around.
In the end, there's no place for blind fervor in the position of authority here. We need thinkers and people who look after the well being of the community as a whole. Not focus on the small things like a rule about indentation or signature. -- tierrie talk contr 17:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Tierrie, you have shown a more authoritative push than I have ever. Just because you disagree with me, you want to get rid of me? Despite what you may think, I did not write the adjudication rule, Loleil did. So what do you have to say to that? Are you going to get rid of her? You also label yourself as someone "making template contributions, editing stylesheets, working towards a more solid framework and populating the item databases with our elaborate scripts and robots". I have done all of that besides javascript. You have been back for a month, and you think this is the same ol' wiki you left back in March. Well, it isn't, and you should learn the differences between the two. "There are many other community members who are much more suitable for the role." Really? Because I would highly beg to differ. And keep in mind, I was nominated and I was supported unanimously. So instead of trying to break the wiki by removing an administrator, why don't you actually edit something? I am not going to be removed just because you don't like me (you don't even know me). Nor am I going to be removed because users I blocked want to get "back at me". Max21 (talk | contr) 19:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Not to butt in, but I really think that Tierrie is acting in good faith, on his own opinion, and that it shows something about your perspective that you presume otherwise in every possible instance, about not just his intentions, but also the intention of most people who have piped in. Sure, several of those people may have been blocked by you in the past, but blocking people doesn't have to lose you their goodwill. The only reason I've spoken up on this topic at all is because, by chance observation of some of your other interactions, it seemed to me you were excessively authoritative, beyond what's appropriate for a wiki admin. It also says something that your response is mostly about comparative contributions. Contributions really have little or nothing to do with suitability to act as an admin, beyond a fair eye for what is and isn't appropriate.
I caught that Loleil authored the Administrative adjudication policy. I disagree with some of the possible uses of it, fears Loleil considered herself in the precursor topic to implementing it. Unfortunately I think I see that in your timely policy recall on talk pages. Whatever your intent, it looks like you made a decision, found a rule that contradicted it, then put the rule on hold so your decision would stand.
You also seem to minimize the opinions of users who are not admin. Once again, I think that is contradictory to the spirit of what wiki should be. Wiki admins should be... "first amongst equals", is even too strong. Peacekeepers, and sometimes tiebreakers, suits better.
Bottom line, for me, is this is a wiki. Administrative authority should be as minimal as possible. And given to people who will act as mediators first and foremost. I am not advocating your removal, just giving my opinion on the situation.--Cael Aurion (talk) 21:46, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new user here. So far my activities have been restricted entirely to forum use and using/observing the rest of the wiki. I have some experience as a wiki editor, though. I would like to add my two cents because I think my viewpoint may be less entrenched.

First, I have read every linked example, and observed other examples of Max21's actions acting in his capacity as an admin, as well as observing most of this conflict and preceding, relevant conflicts as they went on.

That said, I have to largely agree with Tierrie. I especially strongly agree, that regardless of what other wikis may be using them, Administrative Autonomy and Administrative Adjudication are rules that go against the spirit of what a wiki should be. I could see the value in something similar to the Administrative Autonomy rule, if tempered with clear and stringent guidelines for efficient conflict resolution. In its current state, on a wiki like this one with such a small number of admins, it is a policy that gives one admin the right to act unilaterally. It effectively states "The first admin to take action is correct and shall not be overturned."

Didn't Max21 effectively contradict the spirit of this policy by undoing a decision made by User:Loleil, a fellow admin, concerning User:LVTDUDE's talk page? She gave him permission to remove the block notice from his page. He did so. If she had done this for him, User:Max21's revert of this edit would have been in clear violation of administrative autonomy. As it was, with the clearly visible discussion giving permission, I feel it definitely violated the spirit of any fair use of this policy. Certainly, Loliel interpreted a policy. Then Max21 overturned her decision, because she didn't make any related edits herself - at least this is how I have to interpret his reversal. This very idea comes up stated by User:LVTDUDE on the Talk Page Policy Recall discussion on this forum, linked above, and User:Max21 states, in the face of this suggestion "No, I did not, because it doesn't protect blatantly wrong interpretations of policy. Plus, I didn't undo any action Loleil made."

Also, above this, in the quoted policy Max21 was recalling directly in the face of this conflict, was clear wording that made removal of block messages permissible. And unless I'm confused, this sudden recall was reliant on administrative adjudication.

In summary, one admin,User:Max21 made a decision overturning another admin because he believed her to be wrongly interpreting policy, in spite of the fact that Administrative Autonomy clearly gave her the right to her interpretation, whatever his words to the contrary later (nowhere in the autonomy policy does it say anything about exempting "clearly wrong interpretations" from the otherwise clearly referenced matter of interpretation of policy). He relied on the fact she had not made a direct edit to use the very policy that should have made her decision final, to make his final instead, while being rather hard-nosed in discussion of the subject. Then, finding or being directed to the policy that clearly allowed what User:Loleil had given permission for, he found himself in disagreement with it, and quickly revoked it, till an "agreement could be made" on the clause he alone disagreed with.

Sounds more than fishy to me. I have no personal beef with User:Max21, and I'm sure he's a great person, but I think there's clearly something wrong with the way he approaches administrating a wiki community. In every disagreement where I have seen him actively post, and in some cases where he simply makes a comment relative to an admin action, he seems to me to be at least as abrasive as the people he is "correcting". I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether my opinion is less meaningful because I'm new and have not contributed significantly here yet, or perhaps clearer and less biased because I don't know any of the involved parties.

As a side note, I also disagree with the stated reasons these block notices are kept in plain view on user talk pages. It's ridiculous. I've never been blocked on a wiki, but if I was, and that was permanently on my talk page, I would never edit anything on that wiki again. Admins have other access to this information; public shaming is not needed.--Cael Aurion (talk) 18:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

P.S.- If I have made any clear factual errors either in my summation of events, or am misinterpreting the way either of the referenced policies work, please let me know. The latter in particular is of concern to me as someone who's considering spending more time actively contributing to this wiki. --Cael Aurion (talk) 19:36, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

If you actually read the policy, you will see an administrator's decision can be overturned, just not by one administrator. So please, go read the policy. Max21 (talk | contr) 19:54, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, and clearly much of what I said above directly references wording in policies. I have read both of those policies referenced several times over in the process of considering the wording of my post. Please interpret any reference to "final" decisions in my post above to be only until a third admin gets involved. I understand how the policy works. But with the low number of admin on this wiki, a "first edit" by an admin can stand as "final" for quite a while due to the administrative autonomy policy. --Cael Aurion (talk) 21:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous :-)) I've been around for only a short time but already noticed several Max21 interventions I didn't think very appropriate in tone, and the responses in this particular forum only follow the pattern. I do not feel entitled to making decisions about anyone's status but investing some skill points in the social skills would do a lot of good :-)) Ygrain (talk) 20:22, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Max21 was recommended for promotion by Loleil after being on the wiki for only eleven days, before anyone on the wiki was very familiar with him. Max21's promotion was hardly unanimous because so many people abstained from the vote, myself included. Since his promotion many users on the wiki have taken issue with his way of handling things, it seems only fair that the community be given the opportunity to reconsider his leadership position. That in mind, why don't we just put this all to a vote per the Community v. Administrators Amendment to Administrative Autonomy? By this I mean Max21's promotion itself since technically promotion is an administrator action. That would settle this matter once and for all wouldn't it? --Aedan Cousland (talk) 20:32, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Not voting" is not a vote of no confidence. You didn't vote. Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I see this as two separate issues here. On one hand we have the Administrative Autonomy policy. Repealing that policy is an essential first step towards a less restrictive community. On the other hand we have Max21's contributions to the website. It would be unfair to the policy and to him to lump them in together.
The Administrative Autonomy was made with good intent but in practice it has been far from fair. At the time of this writing it looked like it was heading towards being repealed. I wanted to give Max21 a fair shot and didn't want to lump his revocation in with a measure that was on its way out.
Thirdly, and most importantly, while they are related issues, I believe that they are distinct enough that they should be voted on separately.
I hope that answers your questions. Cheers! -- tierrie talk contr 21:42, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
I just reread your comments and I missed a point there. You're asking to utilize the Community v. Administrators Amendment clause to revoke Loleil's action? I see that as another way to do it, but I don't want to rely on a policy that we're currently voting to remove. Cheers! -- tierrie talk contr 21:50, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I do not post much, but do read a fair amount, reading max21's posts do seem to come off as, i suppose you could say, anti-social. What he did to LVTDUDE seemed out of line to me(trying to bait him into saying something that would result in a ban). --WantedOne (talk) 20:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Aedan Cousland, a vote seems like a good idea. --WantedOne (talk) 20:37, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
It is really easy to make a judgment about someone when all you read are negative things. I advise you to look at all of my contributions before coming to a conclusion based a few edits some editor wishes to point out despite being in absence. Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I think further discussion is probably merited before any such vote. Just my opinion. --Cael Aurion (talk) 21:46, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

While I prefer community consent, it looks like this discussion is headed towards a vote anyway. At the same time, I agree with Cael Aurion in saying that more discussion should take place. There are a few other editors whose input I value and I'd like to give them a chance to voice their opinions. So I'm gonna give it some time. Cheers! -- tierrie talk contr 21:59, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Every editor's input is equal, Tierrie, or well... that's what you have been preaching. Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
That's correct. How are you misinterpreting this now? -- tierrie talk contr 00:32, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
"There are a few other editors whose input I value and I'd like to give them a chance to voice their opinions." Waiting on a few editors who you expect to bash me? Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this subject. On the one hand I think Max has made many valuable contributions to this wiki. On the other hand I think his interpersonal skills leave something to be desired at times, causing him to come across as needlessly arrogant and abrasive. Some of his actions also demonstrate a lack of empathy for others. Aedan Cousland mentions that Max21's promotion came too fast, and that in retrospect appears obvious. Nevertheless, I think what concerns me most is that he doesn't seem to recognize his weak areas. Not every admin needs to be a born diplomat, but those who aren't should understand themselves well enough to step gracefully aside and allow another admin to handle confrontations with contributors. Max didn't, and as far as I can tell, still doesn't understand his weaknesses. It is this apparent inability to acknowledge his weak areas and allow another more socially skilled admin such as Loleil to moderate his behavior that concerns me. It really shouldn't be necessary for us to have a full-blown policy discussion every time someone feels he's run roughshod over them. Most contributors aren't going to respond by starting a discussion or debate, they'll just stop contributing instead. -Vim- (talk) 22:06, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Loleil and myself get along great. We have been emailing each other for months now; so where is this fake drama coming from? Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere in the paragraph above did I suggest there was anything wrong with your relationship with Loleil. I merely stated that it would be wisest for you to gracefully step aside and allow Loleil to play diplomat in the future, instead of attempting to wall her off with legalistic interpretations of your administrative autonomy policy. -Vim- (talk) 06:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, my past with Max21 is not great. The first time I knew of his existence was when he left a command on my talk page about indenting.
"I have created a guide to indenting in my sandbox that will help with the flow of forum discussions. Please read this and use it for further discussions."
Yes, the word please is used, but there is no subtlety to the message. No introduction, no invitation to discuss the issue, just an order. Not having any knowledge of Max21, I started reading. I didn't like most of what I read. Had his first comment to me said something along the lines of, "Hi, I'm Max21, one of the administrators on the wiki. We're trying to keep the forums organized, so if you wouldn't mind reading this piece I put together on indenting, that would be great. I'm asking everyone to follow this format, but if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me.", then I would have been more receptive. I also wouldn't have looked on his talk page to see what he is about. He is about control, pure and simple.
His messages lack subtlety. I tried to explain to him what I meant by this and pointed out examples of other users that had butted heads with him. His response was that, "People butt heads all the time. That's normal." What he didn't state was that when people butt heads with him they either comply with his wishes or he ends up blocking them. He took exception to my statement that "a lot" of people didn't enjoy his tactics. He disputed "a lot." What he fails to realize is that for every person that is upset enough to actually write something, there are 10-100 people that are wishing someone would say something.
When I posted the writings of Ozena Lyn to him, that obviously are begging him to be more courteous, he says that I'm just being disruptive. This is a problem that everyone sees with Max21. When his faults are pointed out, he becomes defensive and threatening. He says he makes it a habit of politely requesting things of others. I'd like those that have had such polite dealings to please step forward.
Max21 will be quick to point out that I have been blocked before. I have made no attempt to hide this fact. I was blocked because I wrote the following, regarding Administrative Autonomy:
"I saw this as Aedan initially saw it and express the same concerns. Your example of Loleil blocking someone and you being unable to just unblock them actually seems to be the exact opposite of what is likely to happen in the real world, as I see you as being far more likely to be the punishing type."
Even though he quoted blocking statistics to support his case, I believe everyone here knows what I was talking about. That's why we are where we're at today. He has problems dealing with people.
What I found especially troubling with Max21 is that when Tierrie returned to the wiki he welcomed him back, but then started giving him grief about how things have changed since he was last on the wiki, and how he'd been gone for 5 months. Max21 even had the gall to italicize it, like Tierrie being gone was some criminal act. Tierrie had to remind him that they were in fact peers, and that Max21 talking to him in such a manner was unacceptable. When it looked like it might get out of hand, Tierrie did what any good administrator would do, he said he would take some time to think about what was said before talking further.
Tierrie's comments about the wiki community in that discussion mirrored things that I had said in the past, so I took the time to point that out. I was happy to see Tierrie's viewpoint expressed. Max21 did not care for that, which led to his now infamous baiting tactics on my talk page. That in turn got me to ask Loleil about my rights on my talk page, which resulted in me editing my page. That got Max21 riled up and he immediately replaced everything on my page. He then called out Loleil for doing the wrong thing. All of this was caused by Max21, yet he chooses to blame a person that got blocked for standing up to him about the wiki community and his role in it. He also chooses to use the previous blocking as a means of discrediting any further opinions of the user. In other words, he is PUNISHING someone for previously being punished. Never mind the fact that I was a model citizen for 6 weeks after my block expired and even agreed with him on a few topics as a means of making peace. He, of course, probably never even realized that I was making the attempt to bury the hatchet.
Max21 will never act with the diplomacy of Loleil or Tierrie, and this is where he fails. With him, nothing is about the community or its users, it is all about Max21. Everything he writes is laden with the intimation that he is in charge. He writes things like "I have allowed..." Allowed? Does everything written on the wiki need to be allowed by Max21? I thought the role of an administrator was to step in if things go astray, not to go looking for trouble. It's as if Max21 owns the wiki. WE THE COMMUNITY own the wiki. He is a part of the community, nothing more. He says that being an admin doesn't mean much, but then does everything in his power to prove how important a role he really has.
The ego displayed by this man is unbelievable. He actually wrote the following words:
"And once again, you misunderstand the explicitly and perfectly articulated wording of the policy."
For anyone to think they've achieved perfection, much less point it out to everyone that will bother to look, is a bit scary.
I think I've said enough. I'm sure others will follow. Myself, I think I've had enough of trying to enjoy the wiki for one day. And yes, that is the main goal, to enjoy the wiki. Max21 may think we are here to disrupt his kingdom, but that would be incorrect. LVTDUDE (talk) 23:07, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
I grabbed the policy from Wookieepedia, by the way. So the "big evil man" that I am didn't write that. And you could drop the entire indentation "demand" argument; getting offended over that is ridiculous. If that offends you, then you should get off the internet. Oh, and you got blocked for constant insults thrown my way, so don't try to make yourself sound any better than your own actions. Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

this seems to be turning into a witch-hunt of its own. if Max21 has abused his power, take that power away, if we cant decide whether the power has been abused then taking it away would be pointless. if anyone has been offended by something max has done, or has a problem with it, take it up with him, and if that fails, speak to another admin. but this page seems to just be an excuse to flame the poor guy --Googlemooglemaximus (talk) 23:55, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have not abused my "power" in any way. Max21 (talk | contr) 00:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't offended by the indentation command. It drew my curiosity. Your problem is every time stuff comes up you try to point out one item of the conversation and use it to discredit EVERYTHING that is said. You also change words to better suit your intent. I say command, you say I said demand. In a post the other day I said the use of the pronoun he would be easiest. When I posted something else in the thread you tried to nail me by saying, that I said he was "best." It's amazing to me that you criticize me for taking offense at certain things, but characterize things said to you as personal attacks. Unfortunately, anyone disagreeing with you becomes a disruption or personal attack in your book. Look at the size of this page and how much of it cites problems with you. We aren't making this stuff up. I'm curious, how many people have had a problem with me besides you, Max21?
The sad part of all of this is that if you just recognized that you are abrasive with people, and worked on it, everything would be fine. Your work on the wiki is very good. Your work with people is deplorable. LVTDUDE (talk) 00:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
You made multiple attacks; Loleil agreed with your block, so stop trying to say you didn't deserve it. Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Max are you reading what Googlemooglemaximus said? He did not say you have not abused your power. He said that if you had, we should just take it away without due process. How did you even get "did not abuse my powers" out of that two sentences? -- tierrie talk contr 00:31, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I said I didn't abuse my power. I wasn't inferring that from anything. Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

people who dislike the way forums are being run will continue to dislike the way forums are being run no matter how long anyone spends discussing it. some people dont care enough to make it an issue. i read a thread here earlier ending with points about the dangers of being a fireman and the issues in the iraq war, which almost ended in people really falling out in real life. this a forum based on a game that will become irrelevant in a year or so when everyone starts playing the next one. by then Max21 may have left the forum, so might any of us. whats the big deal

what the hell is the point of pages like this in forums about videogames. stop taking it so seriously. ITS ONLY A GAME. heres an idea, when max21 says stop spamming, then dont spam, if you werent happy with policy then dispute the policy. there is a policy. admins are meant to enforce the policy. if one admin fails to enforce the policy another admin should enforce the policy. its dull, but it makes things run smoothly, and when its done properly, stops pointless arguments like this one --Googlemooglemaximus (talk) 00:31, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Gmm, I agree, to a point. I even sent Loleil a message about this issue at one point. I just want this all to go away and make the wiki enjoyable. I won't pretend to know exactly what Max21 wants. I would be happy if I could come on the forum and have a conversation about Alistair's armor or even the snowfall in Denmark if a thread happens to go that way. When I first had issue with Max21, I basically told him I can understand being very strict on the wiki pages as they are a reference tool, but when it comes to forums, what's the point? As long as people aren't shouting at one another, threatening people, hurling slurs, or just spouting needless profanities, the forums will take care of themselves. Staying on topic and proper indentation on a video game forum should be at the bottom of any administrator's worries.
True Story- He closed a forum thread about some rugby player that looked like Duncan, because it didn't really talk about the game. Forum:Duncan is alive Seriously??? Worry about vandals and spammers. Why go about being the no-fun police?
All of my problems with Max21 stem from how he treats people. It's a very simple concept. Loleil and Tierrie treat people with respect, and they receive much respect in return. Max21 treats people like dirt and then wonders why he has people rallying against him and his policies.
I will say this. I never asked for Max21's dismissal. Read that again if you need to. If I was really out for revenge as he says, that's what I would be looking for. However, I just want him to act like a member of the community instead of the controller of the community. If he loses his administrator title, it won't be because of me. I'd like him to become a better communicator and a positive influence on other wiki users. I always figured that he would either hang himself if he kept up his behavior -OR- he'd realize his issues, deal with them, and be a productive member of the community. That's up to him. Unfortunately, he seems hell bent on maintaining his course, consequences be damned.
I stand by my assessment that his ego will keep him from curbing his behavior, as it might be perceived that he gave in. I don't relish the hardships that Loleil and Tierrie have ahead of them, as this is a royal mess. Max21 can make this about me vs. him all he wants. I think most people realize that he is becoming his own worst enemy. LVTDUDE (talk) 01:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
It had nothing to do with the game and would have been removed on any self-respecting forum. Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I think one of the major problems is that this (taking his position away) wasn't anyone's immediate reaction. People have tried to talk to him about dissagreements, they've tried diputing policy, but those are the times where Max21 tends to be the most over-athoritative and almost always claims you are simply "trying to get back at him" or angry and doing it to spite him, never that there could be an actuall dispute with the policy. He sometimes tends to take every critism as a personal attack. I've never noticed any time where he listened to a regular users arguments, he's even gone so far as ridiculously insisting "I have not abused my "power" in any way". Thats right, not only is he saying he shouldn't be taken from Admin status, he's saying he has NEVER done anything to abuse his admin autority in Any way. I like the guy, i like his thoroughness and that he never gives up, but I seriously doubt there would be this many people who have a problem with him if he was as excellent an Admin as he seems to claim. Loilal always seems to stay as far away from any disputes between him and a user, and Max says shes on his side, or at least that they get along well. Her opinion in this forum would have alot of influence, i think. --CarloGrimaldi (talk) 01:26, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I would temporarily give up my right to implement and enforce policy if Loleil and Tierrie agreed to actually enforce it. I really haven't done much of it lately since I have been working on User:ArchitectBOT. Ya know, helping the community? I'm not all bad. Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I don't even see why he was made an admin in the first place. I can think of 10 other people who deserve it more. Max needs to work on his people skills and not be so controlling. If he keeps doing what he's doing just kick him out of here and move on. but seriously don't be a jerk Max. Every time you insult someone or something like that it just gets worse for you.TheMinority (talk) 00:57, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Please name those 10 people. Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that if I were able to edit my own talk page, I would take down the comments by IceStar, as he has set up some sort of machine gun and is gunning at Max21. That's not the sort of thing I am in support of, to be sure. However, I am forced to leave it there...LVTDUDE (talk) 01:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Googlemooglemaximus is right about one thing for sure. Things were getting a little heated and Max21 appears to be getting flamed. Though that seems to be calming down.
However, this page certainly does have a point. It was created by another admin, and the possibility of some abuse of power is there. In fact, I would say the evidence is strong that it occurred. I'd love to hear it refuted on the specifics. For me, the particular issue of Max21's choice to set a policy recall on Talk Pages, specifically regarding User Talk pages, as announced here: Forum:Policy_recall:_Talk_pages, directly after a confrontation about User:LVTDUDE's talk page and the issue of whether he could remove a block notification. It appears that on this page was a standing policy allowing users to remove these notices. It also appears that Max21 told LVTDUDE he could not remove such a notice, then went and recalled the policy when he discovered that it said removing such notices was allowed. On the grounds, as stated on the discussion, that there was "disagreement" on the policy. As far as I can tell, no one but him has disagreed with it.
If that is what happened, as it appears, it's a clear abuse in my eyes. It would be an unnecessary and sudden policy edit on the authority of just one admin, directly in the midst of a conflict on the subject. Further, Administrative adjudication shouldn't be possible on Policy pages. At least that's the only policy that as I understand it allows a single admin to suspend a clause of a policy on his own authority. If there is some other policy that allows him to do this, I would like to know what it is, if anyone can enlighten me.
I also have not heard any real, compelling reasons for a change to the talk page policy to begin with. I think the suggested changes are terrible and the policy is fine as it was. Not even Max21 has cogently explained a reason forcing a block notification to remain on a user talk page is a good idea. He's given some ideas, but flimsy ones in my eyes. It appears he wanted to change it because it contradicted what he had assumed was already policy, after he had argued with a user and another admin about it.
Finally, the matter of his ability to interact amiably with users, does matter. It's an important part of an admins job. But there are sufficient examples linked in User:Tierrie's initial posting for anyone to make up their mind about what they think on that part of the issue. There's no need to have the involved parties argue back and forth and clutter up the page.
The important part of this discussion has nothing to do with the forums, though. Let's leave that out. I really want to hear about these specifics, and I think anyone who cares about the wiki and wants to do the best thing should be asking the same questions:
  1. Has Administrative Autonomy been used unfairly? (Perhaps a topic more for Forum:Removing_Administrative_autonomy, but relevant here).
  2. Why was the User Talk page policy recalled and challenged; and is there a good explanation for the timing?
  3. If the explanation does basically boil down to what I described above, does that constitute an abuse of power? (I personally think it would be, but in the interest of fairness, clearly other opinions are needed).
  4. What other good reason is there for any change to the User Talk page policy? Obviously a topic for Forum:Policy_recall:_Talk_pages.
I'm not advocating for Max21's removal, either. I want more relevant information.--Cael Aurion (talk) 01:45, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood the situation.
  1. Loleil tells LVTDUDE that he can remove comments on his talk page.
  2. LVTDUDE removes his comments.
  3. Loleil creates the talk page guidelines with the power of the administrative adjudication policy which she wrote.
  4. I undid LVTDUDE's action based on the policy I have always believed and enforced. (Keep in mind, I didn't block him, I didn't do anything like protecting his page either.)
  5. Everyone freaked and grabbed their torches and pitch forks.
As I have stated, if the community wants to establish the policy that was implemented by Loleil, then fine. As the policy states, such policies are open to recall. I recalled it. What's the big deal? Max21 (talk | contr) 02:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Loleil was simply codifying established precedent that has existed since long before you became an admin here. You're the one who overturned existing precedent by forcing LVTDUDE to keep disciplinary comments publicly available on his personal talk page by making up a new rule without anyone else's input. Perhaps you've forced this unwritten policy you've personally created on others over the past 3 1/2 months that you've been an administrator here just as you've stated, but if so most of us weren't aware of it until now. It's not like you ever put it up for discussion, because had you done so, I can't imagine it ever being approved. Furthermore, the simple fact that you've used your administrative authority here to force your will on others in such a highly inappropriate manner displays a serious lack of judgment. -Vim- (talk) 06:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Your brought up some good examples, but, getting into them now will just end up with finger pointing and a case of "well he said this" and "she said that". Instead, let's stay on the big picture here - whether or not the community feels comfortable with Max21 in his current position. Let us keep away from personal attacks as much as possible and look at it this way, "Do I trust this person to do what's right for the community? For the Wiki? If he stayed on, is it likely to change for the better?". I've given this a lot of thought over the last few days, and I came to the conclusion that I do not trust him to do what's right. And, given his antagonistic attitude towards constructive and polite criticism, I do not think it is likely to change. I am not happy that it came to this revocation as I prefer dialog and mediation. -- tierrie talk contr 02:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect Tierrie, these personal attacks are a part of the big picture. He may be good at editing, but he holds grudges, thinks everything is a revenge scheme,especially when LVTDUDE is involved. If I am ever to trust Max21 as an admin, he needs to be more of a people person, let us have our fun, and don't be so blunt. He needs to listen to the community about what they think of him. that's my opinion on this matter.TheMinority (talk) 02:34, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that whenever someone says "with all due respect" they usually mean none? :) Cael Aurion is alluding that this forum post is turning into an attack on him. You're alluding to him making personal attacks on the community. I am not defending his actions, but I would like to keep this conversation civil and away from that level. -- tierrie talk contr 02:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Since I’ve been mentioned by name in the discussion, it seems a good time to step out of the shadows and join the fray. Yes, like many contributors, I got one of the lovely “Do it like this” notes on my talk page from Max in my early days of contributing. Yes, I did find the phrasing to be condescending, like talking to a small child who should have darn well known better, but chose to misbehave anyway.

I have never gotten that feeling from my interactions with any other member of this community, administrators or contributors. The fact of the matter is, I go to great lengths to avoid interactions with Max, and worry about possible contributions that I would like to make to the point that I provide them to Loleil privately before I will even post them.

It seems to me, that it is very likely that Max has been given plenty of polite hints, constructive criticism, and outright directives on how to interact courteously with others. As someone who was often described as “blunt to a fault” in my younger days, I understand the great effort that it takes to learn diplomacy skills, and to swallow the bad habit of just “telling it like it is” and finding a gentle twist to put on even the most annoying subjects; but, the reality is, if you are in a position of power where you must interact with others, it is your obligation to do so in a kind, respectful manner. If you can’t be respectful, you shouldn’t be interacting with contributors.

The ability to give meaningful contributions to the wiki and to help keep articles and threads neat and tidy is mutually exclusive from undesirable behavior that may be driving away potential contributors and casual readers. After all, if you read too many cranky comments, you sure don’t want to make any yourself for fear of being the next person stung.

There are contributors on this wiki that I consider to be personal friends, and I would not want to hear them spoken to in the ways that I’ve seen them written to by Max. It’s the repeated pattern of pursuing some contributors that worries me the most. I don’t like to see that happen to anyone, friend or acquaintance. It feels mean spirited and not in the nature of this community. Ozena Lyn (talk) 02:05, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Ozena, I am sorry I dragged you into this. When I first had "discussions" with Max21, back in July, I used your conversations with Max21 as examples of how someone was asking him to be more cordial, but the pleas fell upon deaf ears. Your case with him was one of the more compelling ones I could remember. The fact that you feel such apprehension when posting on the wiki speaks volumes to the effect Max21 is having on this wiki. No one should feel like that, especially in regards to a website about a video game.
This brings me to another point. This is just a video game website. The fact that we are having these discussions is just sad. I've considered not coming back to the site on multiple occasions, due to the stress involved. I've had college courses that didn't require this much writing. However, I don't feel it does the community any good if I just fade away, when my role in Max21's case is apparently so pivotal.
I work very hard at a stressful job, day-in and day-out. I deal with stressed clients and sick or dying animals on a routine basis. I am very good at what I do, and I excel at client relations. That said, I do love my career. However, when I am home, I need a mental break. Video games and the people I encounter on the Dragon Age forums offer me some release from those stresses. I enjoy the people I meet here. I enjoy the witty banter that can be encountered on the forums. Unfortunately, Max21 does his very best to instill a stressful atmosphere here. People shouldn't have to walk on eggshells for fear that he will wield his authority. The Duncan is alive forum was a perfect case in point. Everybody involved enjoyed that forum. People were having a great time, and Max21 squashed it. Loleil told me she wouldn't have closed that forum. Unfortunately, Max21 still stands by his decision. It's as if other people having fun is unacceptable to him. A thread that offended no one, that I'm sure no one complained about was shut down. Why? The only reason given was that it had nothing to do with the game. I beg to differ. People talked about characters in the game. Those people are gamers that play the game. Enjoying a conversation like that only serves a good purpose. It may keep gamers playing the game long after the wow factor has worn off. It may keep them playing future incarnations of the game, so they may continue to have further interactions on the wiki forum. There is absolutely no value in restricting harmless fun. I am all for shutting down offensive threads, without a doubt. The needless administration is too much, however. LVTDUDE (talk) 03:08, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calling me out of lurkdom after a long absence. I feel it's important to step up to the plate and let my opinions be heard and provide support to the community. No worries, I'm pleased to be an example. Ozena Lyn (talk) 03:23, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That puts my mind at ease. By the way, were there mirelurks in lurkdom? Icon wink LVTDUDE (talk) 03:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
There were! back to the Vault! Ozena Lyn (talk) 03:42, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Hah! Enjoy the wastelands, and death to the overseer. Say hi to Three Dog while you're at it. Icon wink LVTDUDE (talk) 15:31, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my last post of the night...I was reading Tierrie's talk page and at the tail end of the Welcome Back conversation, Max21, out of nowhere, shows off the user-block tag, like it's a shiny new toy. Maybe it was somehow relevant, but I'm failing to see it. It just looked like he was saying, "Hey, look what we get to use!" LVTDUDE (talk) 03:33, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I was informing him about it since he had not noticed it. I don't know about you, but if I was blocked I would like to know why. All wikis have a similar process. Next attempted bash? Max21 (talk | contr) 03:47, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see anywhere on his or your talk page that Tierrie asked about it, or mentioned that he hadn't noticed it. Are you assuming that he hadn't noticed it, did you have a hidden conversation about it, or is this just a fabrication? LVTDUDE (talk) 04:28, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
He blocked two users and didn't inform them about it. So no, it isn't a fabrication. Max21 (talk | contr) 04:58, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

@Max21, I'm not sure your comments in this thread are really helping your case. I'm not yet sure how I feel about your removal but the people against you are firm in their stance. I think this should just be settled with a community vote. This situation actually calls a certain quote to mind:

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

You aren't exactly proving anyone wrong with your comments as you're displaying a hostile tone in this very thread. I'm not sure anything you personally have to say will be of benefit to you at the moment. It might be better to just back out of this one and let the rest of the community decide. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 05:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Community? How many of you have actually edited the wiki more than posted in the forums? You guys act as if you have some great claim or ethical obligation. Max21 (talk | contr) 05:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
"How many of you have actually edited the wiki more than posted in the forums? You guys act as if you have some great claim or ethical obligation." Now, that's what I'd call running on one's own blade. Max21, do you really want to sound like Loghain? Ygrain (talk) 05:23, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I think he may have already quit "I am taking an indefinite leave until I can get some things in my life straightened out. See you around the bend." Not sure... I suppose we'll see if and when he comes back. EDIT: Honestly I'm not surprised, he's put a lot of time and work into the wiki. The only problem was with how he interacted with other people in regard to user pages and the forums. He's a dedicated guy but not very personable. I'd hoped he'd just decide to leave the forums and peoples talk pages to tierre and Loleil. If you see this Max, thanks for all you've done and best of wishes. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 05:32, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Max21 if you are going to quote me as to what I said do it right I said to "Kiss my royal ass". And if I get blocked for correcting you oh well it was worth it.Sam_Death (talk)15:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

That was a bit unnecessary, Max21 is already gone and from the looks of it his admin privileges won't be here when and if he comes back. Don't forget to vote. --Aedan Cousland (talk) 15:28, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Aedan on this. I understand that you have some strong feelings on this subject, but please try to stay civil. -Vim- (talk) 17:20, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

All I was saying was if you are going to quote some one to do it right. That was all and it got me banned for saying it. He is the one that brought that back up. When I made my comment earlier I was saying it as a person who has held positions in offices of both groups like 4H and as a business official. I was not implying that I meant it because of what was said between him and I. And BECAUSE OF MY FEELING about MAX21 I REFUSE to vote. Sam_Death (talk)18:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

@Sam_Death, he put words in your mouth. I get it. I think the moment of getting the quotes right has passed. Its not a big deal. Let it go. And, please vote. -- tierrie talk contr 18:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Happy I voted Sam_Death (talk)19:04, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

If this vote passes, he wouldn't be gone; He just wouldn't be an admin anymore. On the other hand if it fails, I wish you luck in convincing him to change his ways and become more people friendly. Lots of people have already tried. Had he listened, we wouldn't be here. -Vim- (talk) 19:46, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

you know you are probably right. this may be the only way to get it through to him. Sam_Death (talk)21:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I vote on "No". He's made good edits and help newbies (like me) to get started. He explained what I needed to know with politeness and I'm glad with that. Sorry but I don't know how to edit the votes above so if someone knows can you do it for me please? Cheers. Alessandro de Abreu (talk) 22:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

How can he teach someone to be polite when he himself isn't?! --MasterMage (talk) 05:06, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

I meant he touch me how to use the Wiki better and he was polite doing so. The fact that he wasn't always polite doesn't mean he isn't all the time. Alessandro de Abreu (talk) 19:46, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

hasnt he been gone for like a week now? shouldnt this thread be closed. the votes pretty much carried, max has buggered off and now everyones just giving him some rants to come back to later.--Googlemooglemaximus (talk) 21:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

His last post was Sept 9. So he has gone for a day. I just closed the thread after giving everyone a chance to speak their mind. -- tierrie talk contr 00:26, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.