UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Jedaz/2006
Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Jedaz » 2006
05:03, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Jedaz made edits to the main page (while protected) in bad faith, by removing the UD Avatars link and UD Database link HERE.
I believe this to be an abuse of mod powers since a vote was levied on the links earlier HERE.
The links on the main page were voted on earlier and the vote was thrown out for lack of votes by hagnat. Despite the vote, the links were removed by Jedaz. Lucero Cappell did the same thing and was reprimanded, also he spoke out against the voiding of the vote and was reprimanded. Why are the rules different now? Since this page is locked by the moderators, only a moderator can make the changes, hence the misconduct report.
Also I'd like to bring up the point that if the votes didn't count, then it deserves a vote before any action is taken. Just deleting the links without due process can be considered a bad faith edit.
There are a number of mods' characters listed in the database, including Xoid, The General and Cyberbob. If these pages were useless, then why the support? And why the change?
I would like to point out that even though Amazing hosts the pages, he is not the only one with a hand in their creation. --Zod Rhombus 05:03, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Also to quote Jedaz on the vote - Even so the motion failed because it didn't get enough votes. Also it didn't get the nessacary 2/3rds. Rules are rules, you can't change them to make them suit you whenever you want them to. - Jedaz 13:41, 25 May 2006 (BST) --Zod Rhombus 05:07, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Misconbitration returns! It's absence did not make the heart grow fonder. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:11, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- OH N035!1!eleven1 4MAZ1NG DR4MA!!one!1! Cyberbob Talk 05:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Irrelevant. Shows bias. Pages are not just an Amazing creation. --Zod Rhombus 05:16, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Irrelevant. Shows bias. Also shows signs of crying over page he helped work on be struck from the wiki. Cyberbob Talk 05:23, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Please refrain from personal attacks. I, as well as any other user, deserve fair treatment on the wiki. There are others who contribute links to the wiki, mine is no different, although clear anti-Amazing bias exists. Amazing is gone, why should I have less wiki rights than another users because I belong to the same group as Amazing in-game? In your behavoir, are you not perpetuating the same drama Amazing did? My case is clear, I'm not looking for personal attacks, and I have not levied any. I just stated the facts for misconduct.--Zod Rhombus 05:34, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Irrelevant. Shows bias. Also shows signs of crying over page he helped work on be struck from the wiki. Cyberbob Talk 05:23, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Irrelevant. Shows bias. Pages are not just an Amazing creation. --Zod Rhombus 05:16, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- OH N035!1!eleven1 4MAZ1NG DR4MA!!one!1! Cyberbob Talk 05:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Misconbitration returns! It's absence did not make the heart grow fonder. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:11, 20 June 2006 (BST)
I belive that I acted in the communitys wishes. One, the majority of the votes were "remove" in both cases. Two, there was a discussion about the removal in which no one objected. And three it took 4 days before anyone complained about the removal of the links. However only one person has complained at this point so I still belive that I was acting for what the community wanted. This is where the main discussion between me and Zod has occured about the removal of the links. And this is the link to the discussion on the main page about the removal of the links. As you can see I acted in good faith as I asked peoples opinions before acting. I also asked Zod to provide a reason to why the links should be restored when he came to me to which he could only reply that the vote was invalid, and hence as it was only him asking me to restore the links and could not provide a convincing reason I did not. So yeah, thats about it really. - Jedaz 05:47, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- They should be restored and the proper protocol to remove them should be used, as in any link or page. That is the reason. Since the vote was invalid, the proper procedures set forth by you moderators was not followed. The page was removed without due process. --Zod Rhombus 05:54, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod. I haven't been able to use that site in almost a month and Amazing dismisses my complaint out of hand because of our recent "history". This is depsite the fact I told him ages ago that I was having problems. Well before this, well before his ban. If he is going to ignore the concerns of those who would use it, then I think that the accusation that he is not going to help the community is a fair one. Why bother keeping it there then? –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:52, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- The pages work. Even so, the links were deleted without proper procedure, hence, misconduct. --Zod Rhombus 05:58, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod: what "proper procedure"? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any established rules dealing with link removal - or placement - on the Main Page. Ergo, it's a matter of discretion and common sense. Common sense dictates that links of marginal utility, placed without the consent of the community, which the community has in the past stated it would like to see removed, have no entitlement to be displayed on the Main Page of the wiki, which should be reserved for the most important and useful links. Common sense further shows that if four days can pass after said links removal without anyone objecting (and then only because it was called to their attention by a third party) that the community has no interest in seeing said links remain on the Main Page. Jedaz showed all due discretion in removing the links by holding an open discussion on the Main Page talk where anyone could object. Therefore, your attempt to restore these links to the Main Page, against the previously expressed wishes of the community, and without any support from the community, is both invalid and anti-democratic. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- I'm in the same boat as Jimbo Bob, I don't know of any "proper procedure" either, if you could link me to it's documentation then I'll be happy to look over it and admit I'm wrong if I actually am. I guess now we play the waiting game for an un-involved moderator to come along and rule, I don't have anything else thats constructive to say at this point in time so I'll just wait and see what happens. - Jedaz 06:27, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod: what "proper procedure"? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any established rules dealing with link removal - or placement - on the Main Page. Ergo, it's a matter of discretion and common sense. Common sense dictates that links of marginal utility, placed without the consent of the community, which the community has in the past stated it would like to see removed, have no entitlement to be displayed on the Main Page of the wiki, which should be reserved for the most important and useful links. Common sense further shows that if four days can pass after said links removal without anyone objecting (and then only because it was called to their attention by a third party) that the community has no interest in seeing said links remain on the Main Page. Jedaz showed all due discretion in removing the links by holding an open discussion on the Main Page talk where anyone could object. Therefore, your attempt to restore these links to the Main Page, against the previously expressed wishes of the community, and without any support from the community, is both invalid and anti-democratic. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- The pages work. Even so, the links were deleted without proper procedure, hence, misconduct. --Zod Rhombus 05:58, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod. I haven't been able to use that site in almost a month and Amazing dismisses my complaint out of hand because of our recent "history". This is depsite the fact I told him ages ago that I was having problems. Well before this, well before his ban. If he is going to ignore the concerns of those who would use it, then I think that the accusation that he is not going to help the community is a fair one. Why bother keeping it there then? –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:52, 20 June 2006 (BST)
If no procedures were written for links on the main page, then why was there a vote on it? The vote set a precedent. In the lack of a specific rule, the precedent should be abided by.
- Why was it voted on then, but deemed not worthy of voting on now?
- Why were users reprimanded then and not now?
- Did Amazing have more wiki rights than me?
- Why am I getting treated worse than Amazing? I have not brought endless drama to the wiki, I just want a fair shake like any other user. And even as I quoted before, Jedaz backed up the last vote, why not now? I put a lot of work into this and then to have it swept under the carpet since Amazing is gone is WRONG. There are no negative connotations on these pages and I have done nothing but contribute positively to the game and wiki. Your about-face is blatant and in bad faith and is a detriment to the wiki community. --Zod Rhombus 14:54, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Speaking as a member of the community, good job Jedaz. Let's not keep up useless links. Good Job Zod, helping to feed me the delicious drama that entertains me so well. Thanks to all parties. Blue ribbons for all. Especially the Mod squad. -Banana Bear 06:12, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Zod, you foolish, silly little man. Amazing argues that the vote doesn't count so the images can't be removed, now you try to argue it only counts under a vote before they can be removed? BACKFLIP. It doesn't matter which way you have it, the majority was there and they could be removed because the vote was valid, or the vote was invalid and the community consensus was "remove it". Now go away. –Xoid S•T•FU! 15:04, 20 June 2006 (BST)
As far as I am aware of, there are currently no general protocols for the removal or addition of content on the Main Page. Voting has generally been used as a way of gauging community feelings regarding changes, in order to prevent undue wailing and gnashing of teeth, but there is no protocol stating that changes must pass a vote in order to be placed upon a page (in much the same way that most other pages do not have official protocols indicating the same). My preferred rule would be for the community to be consulted before major changes are instated on the wiki, and that the general consensus be that the change is a good thing, but that actual voting not be required. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 15:15, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Until such time as rules are set on the page, it is a simple majority ruling on the removal of the links there. Hagnat fucked up in assuming suggestions page rule change vote rules applied to the main page, and made an erroneous ruling on all three votes there (As was discussed on the page). The only thing that stopped me from carrying out the expressed wishes of the community in those cases myself was the simple fact that i couldnt be bothered. No misconduct took place because no rules existed to be violated, and the actions taken were in the interests of the expressed community. If either were breached, there would have been misconduct. Unfortunately for you, neither were. I rule in favour of Jedaz. --Grim s-Mod U! 15:22, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Retroactively applying an 'error clause' on one of the moderators doesn't change the fact that the first vote, correct or not, took place. Four people's casual opinion does not constitute 'community interests' in a community of thousands.--Zod Rhombus 15:39, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Unfortunately, a large group of people voted on the issue, and as such it can be said to be an accurate representation of the communities interests. Also, it was not four people, it was forteen. That is a fair sample of the community that is interested. Amazing even had the chance to call in his cronies. Didnt happen. Your whining here will change absolutely nothing. --Grim s-Mod U! 15:46, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Funny how Zod Rhombus didn't care enough about the links to vote on the issue when it was being decided, but now that action has been taken we can scream MISCONBITRATION. – Nubis NWO 15:23, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- I was not aware of the 'vote' since it was not done through regular channels. Four people - admittedly Anti-Amazing people - talking about removing the links on the Main Page discussion page does not constitute the majority of community wishes. Put it to vote in the proper way, then I have no problem if they are shot down. Any user should have the privilege of fairness.--Zod Rhombus 15:35, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Produce the Policy Document stating that the vote was not done in the 'Proper Way' then. Unless you can prove that it was done incorrrectly, my opinion that the links should have been removed and Jedaz did not misuse his powers stands. – Nubis NWO 15:39, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Since no ruling exists, then precedent should be respected. I just don't see how it was voted on once, users that removed the links were reprimanded, and in their own admission, the vote ruling (thrown out) was upheld and defended and now none of that applies. Because I'm not Amazing? Are you trying to create another Amazing? Why did he get a vote and I did not. Those are my pages too. The removal CLEARLY contradicts the earlier stance by the moderation team and to me is considered bad faith, since i have done nothing on this wiki to perpetuate any attacks or ill will toward me. --Zod Rhombus 15:52, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Really. Done nothing to perpetuate ill will towards you? Does calling Cyberbob a cocksucker not count as such? Doing stuff like that does much to strengthen my impression your character. Amazing got a vote because he was a god damn crybaby and getting to community to say "piss those links off" would be the only way to get him to shut up. Frankly, they should never gone on it in the first place by your line of reasoning — if screwing with the navigation template without a parlimentary election is a crime; then when Amazing added those links before should be retroactively considered vandalism and another year tacked on. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:24, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- That was done on MY talk page, which according to your guidelines is protected. His responses here and on my page are considerably worse. Your impression of my character is not my concern, look at my wiki history for a clearer picture.--Zod Rhombus 16:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Really. Done nothing to perpetuate ill will towards you? Does calling Cyberbob a cocksucker not count as such? Doing stuff like that does much to strengthen my impression your character. Amazing got a vote because he was a god damn crybaby and getting to community to say "piss those links off" would be the only way to get him to shut up. Frankly, they should never gone on it in the first place by your line of reasoning — if screwing with the navigation template without a parlimentary election is a crime; then when Amazing added those links before should be retroactively considered vandalism and another year tacked on. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:24, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Since no ruling exists, then precedent should be respected. I just don't see how it was voted on once, users that removed the links were reprimanded, and in their own admission, the vote ruling (thrown out) was upheld and defended and now none of that applies. Because I'm not Amazing? Are you trying to create another Amazing? Why did he get a vote and I did not. Those are my pages too. The removal CLEARLY contradicts the earlier stance by the moderation team and to me is considered bad faith, since i have done nothing on this wiki to perpetuate any attacks or ill will toward me. --Zod Rhombus 15:52, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Produce the Policy Document stating that the vote was not done in the 'Proper Way' then. Unless you can prove that it was done incorrrectly, my opinion that the links should have been removed and Jedaz did not misuse his powers stands. – Nubis NWO 15:39, 20 June 2006 (BST)
Hey folks; Shouldn't this be taken to Arbitration? There is obviously an edit conflict (what arbitration was made for, not that it hasn't become a sludgepit-'o-drama) more than a misconduct case (which would be over the protection of the page and/or deletion or threatened banning over such issue, rather than the issue itself). --Karlsbad 16:15, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Since the page was locked and the edit made only by moderation action, it qualifies as misconduct. That's why I didn't take it to arbitration. This was in accordance of the wiki guidelines set forth. --Zod Rhombus 16:20, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Why hasn't every time I've fixed a typo on a protected template gotten me a misconduct case then, Zod? –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:24, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Taken out of context. Fixing a typo is not the same as deleting a link. Please refrain from using negative templates as I have not acted in similar decorum. --Zod Rhombus 16:33, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- The guidelines say that no editing of protected pages is allowed. Fuck, before I fixed it we were supposed to DELETE any page that was requested to be protected. The guidelines are hardly the best. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:35, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Then you have just given my case merit. If the guidelines state that 'no editing of protected pages is allowed', then why were the links removed while it was in a protected state? Best or not, the guidelines must be followed. --Zod Rhombus 16:39, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Aha! The rules ALSO state that editing of protected pages may be allowed by general consensus. It doesn't specify a vote. Cyberbob Talk 16:42, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Four people is not a general consensus. The conversation that led to the removal of the links was only four users.--Zod Rhombus 16:46, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- One banned user, and one lacky is therefore even further away from a consensus. But they still didn't complain. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:49, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- What the hell? Are you deliberately being retarded, or have you just forgotten the vote involving just under 20 people? Granted, it wasn't a fully valid *vote*, but the Guidelines say you don't need one. Just an indicator of people's thoughts. Cyberbob Talk 16:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Have you lost grasp of actual events? The action taken on that 'no vote' vote, whether valid or not, was for the links to be kept on the page. After 4 users discussed it, they were removed. Two separate actions. The removal of the links was clearly made from the second action, hence four people do not represent a general consensus of wiki users. Put it up to vote is what I ask for, do it the honorable way and I can abide by the decision. It's not an unreasonable request.--Zod Rhombus 16:56, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Which, as previously discussed, was due to certain parties being misinformed. Hagnat and myself for one. You still haven't answered my question: if we are not allowed to fuck with the template without a parlimentary inquiry; why shouldn't Amazing's addition of those links also be construed as vandalism, and appropriate action taken? i.e. another year. Hm… as your friend would say over and over; "bias". That's why. You want to persecute Jedaz for stuffing with the template, then hang your buddy Amazing out to dry for doing the same thing. –Xoid S•T•FU! 17:13, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Have you lost grasp of actual events? The action taken on that 'no vote' vote, whether valid or not, was for the links to be kept on the page. After 4 users discussed it, they were removed. Two separate actions. The removal of the links was clearly made from the second action, hence four people do not represent a general consensus of wiki users. Put it up to vote is what I ask for, do it the honorable way and I can abide by the decision. It's not an unreasonable request.--Zod Rhombus 16:56, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Four people is not a general consensus. The conversation that led to the removal of the links was only four users.--Zod Rhombus 16:46, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Aha! The rules ALSO state that editing of protected pages may be allowed by general consensus. It doesn't specify a vote. Cyberbob Talk 16:42, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Then you have just given my case merit. If the guidelines state that 'no editing of protected pages is allowed', then why were the links removed while it was in a protected state? Best or not, the guidelines must be followed. --Zod Rhombus 16:39, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- The guidelines say that no editing of protected pages is allowed. Fuck, before I fixed it we were supposed to DELETE any page that was requested to be protected. The guidelines are hardly the best. –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:35, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Taken out of context. Fixing a typo is not the same as deleting a link. Please refrain from using negative templates as I have not acted in similar decorum. --Zod Rhombus 16:33, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Why hasn't every time I've fixed a typo on a protected template gotten me a misconduct case then, Zod? –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:24, 20 June 2006 (BST)
The addition of the links is not the issue, since they were up for a loooong while while no one objected and no action was taken against them. The issue is the removal of the links, the action taken which was done against the accepted guidelines, whether they were correct or not. That is the only issue on which I based my misconduct claim on. Everything else is immaterial.--Zod Rhombus 17:41, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- Although I disagree with that template and find it detrimental to anything revelvant here. It is pretty hilarious.--Zod Rhombus 17:44, 20 June 2006 (BST)
- But it is gone non-the-less. this is a micondunct case and not a drama fest. there has been a verdict and both sides had a say. this case is over.--Vista 17:49, 20 June 2006 (BST)
