UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Odd Starter/2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Odd Starter » 2006

06:14, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Odd Starter promoted Amazing to sysop status despite his bid for promotion being withdrawn under a massive pile of people opposing his nomination [1]. This shows that community has NO trust in Amazings abilities to moderate in a fair and impartial manner. The guideline below has NOT been met by Amazing: 

Indication of trust in the candidate. We define this as a minimum of three 
other users (preferably users with at least 200 edits under their name), willing
to vouch for the candidate's suitability for the role.

As such, Odd Starter has completely violated the terms he himself laid forth on the Moderation/Promotions page. While it is mentioned there that is is not a vote, there was absolutely no one backing Amazing's application outside of jest, and even then there were not enough to proceed onto the second stage.

Also, on that page: 

This page is for users to request Moderator status. The act of user promotion
is restricted to those with bureaucrat status, and as such users will need
to request user promotion here. Moderators and Bureaucrats cannot assign
promotions unless the request has gone through this page.

Odd Starter is clearly in violation of this. --Grim s 06:14, 7 April 2006 (BST)


"A sysop is what we call a moderator (ie, they can delete, protect, ban, etc). A bureaucrat can make other people into sysops, and also gets all sysop abilities." At most, the rules simply oppose eachother, so really there is no case for misconduct in my opinion. Any other Mod wish to weigh in on this? -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:23, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Not a rule, an explanation of abilities bureaucrats are enabled to do provided on a talk page. It does not say that they may do whatever they wish. The actual policy would take precedence in this case anyway. The quote grim provided pertaining to promoting wiki users is the actual rule in this case, and there is no wiggle room left. "Moderators and Bureaucrats cannot assign promotions unless the request has gone through this page." (emphasis added). No "except if" or "if he feels like it". --Lucero Capell 06:29, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Well, the "explaination", to me, was a broader labelling as to the options these folks have. That said, one could, in theory, look at the meaning of "gone through this page". Since a Moderator can take a User-Approved request and dismiss it - I assume a Moderator can take a User-Disapproved request and approve it. After all, it "went through the page", meaning the user's promotion was posted and went through the proper channels, weather accepted or rejected. As I say, that's an "in theory" type of thing.
Even so, a User recieved a promotion. Had a user been banned "outside the rules" (to keep within your reasoning) then harm would have occurred. As of yet no harm has occurred due to Odd Starter's action - AND the rule he supposedly violated is questionable at best. I still don't see any actual Misconduct, and especially not any sliver of something that could/should have action based upon it.
It's clear to me that the "no mod can promote unless it goes through this page" guideline is in place to keep Moderators from promoting someone without giving people the chance to voice their opinion on the subject. As it stands, I put in my application, people voiced their opinions, and I recieved Mod status. (for a time) -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:37, 7 April 2006 (BST)

As a note, I am more than willing to take any punishment meted out at me. Don't think I didn't know the consequences of the act when I performed it. I freely admit that I broke some pretty hefty rules. I also admit that I may not have been in the best condition to make the choice. I am also aware that there is probably a great deal of angry people who are angry at me in particular for making this decision in full recognition that it would be an extremely unpopular one.

I cannot defend the indefensible - I broke my own policies to enact this. I claim that I did this because I felt I had no choice, and that I believed that I was doing no harm to the wiki itself. Let whatever Mod judge me decide for himself how badly I've screwed this up. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 06:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Isn't it funny that a promotion begets more uproar than any act of any other user on this Wiki? -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 06:54, 7 April 2006 (BST)
When its the wikis Bureaucrat promoting somebody who got no serious votes of support in his mod bid?, contrary to the rules he wrote? Yea it does. I honestly wouldn't care that much if you decided you want to burn for this, but seeing as how I'm the only other person around I'll be the one who ends up cleaning it up. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:57, 7 April 2006 (BST)
BTW, I won't take this case. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:59, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Well, I removed the listing before "Serious votes" could be placed. Furthermore, the voting itself had been up shortly and had relatively few votes compated to how many it would have gained had it been up for the full term. Positive votes would have been cast, to be sure. (Just look at the "Amazing as an Arbitrator" voting. Some of those folks would have voted in the positive had there been time. Certainly the 3 needed at the time.) Aaaanyway, as I say the "Rule" being cited is vague at best and no real Misconduct has occurred in my opinion. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:02, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Dude, the rule is in no way vague. It's in perfect black and white, for god's sake. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 07:04, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Not saying this for any other reason than my own view of it - The rule says a request must go through that page. Mine did. These folks are saying "going through the page" means approval. I'm saying that as I see it, it "going through the page" does not have any leaning toward approval, denial, retraction, or anything else. I'm simply stating my opinion on the matter, y'know? Really you may feel you did something wrong, or believe the rule stated you couldn't do that -- in SPIRIT that may be true, but in terms of "Misconduct" you're pretty much clear. That's all in your court, however. I understand that you are willing to accept whatever happens. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:09, 7 April 2006 (BST)
That's a very slender thread there. We've also never said that we'll be beholden to the letter of the law if the spirit of the law would seem to indicate something else. And believe me, if anyone knew the spirit of the law in this case, it'd be the guy who wrote it. Yo. -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 07:23, 7 April 2006 (BST)
I hear that. Yeah, I'm just speaking to the case of Misconduct itself. I mean, ideally you could rule on this yourself, since you created the rule and all that - but as it stands I'm here to throw in my 2 cents, (surprise!) and say that, as someone looking at this case and taking everything into account, I don't see this as ACTUAL misconduct. It's clear - to me at least - that even in the face of the rule existing for exactly what the protestors say, it is still not Misconduct worthy of action in any way, shape, or form. At WORST it's quite simply "questionable". This is no stealth promotion. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:29, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Wow, Amazing must be a student of the "New Criticism" style: it doesn't matter what the people who make and use the rules think, only his personal (and arguably biased) interpretation of them. Furthermore, the only reason you can't call it a "stealth promotion" would be because the community found out about it. It was never given the proper criticism. You yourself say that you withdrew the votes before it came to a head; therefore, you have NO STANDING on which you think you are qualified to be a member, because there is no credible and extended arguement for you, or against you (if

you discount the Amazing as Arbitrator arguements as non-relevent to Modship) --Karlsbad 20:51, 7 April 2006 (BST)

If you can actually provide a counter-point that mentions why my personal interpretation cannot be correct, please let me know and I'll happily review it and reconsider my position. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I'm sure this won't be accepted, but citing the text on this very page, "banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page." (along with other such text) that circumventing a vague (at best) rule that does not lean one way or another in terms of the end result of a Promotion vote - in no way constitutes Misconduct on any level that warrents action. Is it against the SPIRIT of the rule? Yes. I think that's clear. Is it Misconduct in terms of the "letter of the law"? No. Is it Misconduct in that it caused harm to the Wiki or any user? No. I highly suggest this case be closed due to a lack of any real substantial allegation of Misconduct to begin with. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 07:15, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Stop trying to weasel the words around. You're worse than a Bush-republican. Odd Starter himself said he broke the rules; just shut up and accept it.--Jorm 07:58, 7 April 2006 (BST)
If you can actually provide a counter-point that mentions why my personal interpretation cannot be correct, please let me know and I'll happily review it and reconsider my position. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I just wanted to mention that I support this action. Yeah, I know, everyone's going to hate me for it, but I have my reasons. And if you dissagree with me, use my talk page instead of spamming this place up. --Mia Kristos 07:36, 7 April 2006 (BST)

My complaint is that it's unfair on the people who have to go through the promotions page if Amazing gets the fast track it for annoying the mods! However, I do think that the best way to see whether Amazing would be a good moderator is to try him out.--The General 09:06, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I pretty much agree. I'm just speaking as to Odd Starter's position, here. A long record of service shouldn't be marred by going against the spirit of a vague rule. I know why Odd modded me, make no mistake, and I know I won't keep the position though I intend on being one of the most honest and hard-working Mods here. I'm just against this "We hate Amazing. Amazing is a Mod? Get Odd Starter, he's a traitor!" mentality that I am personally percieving here. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

The system exists for a reason. Actions such as those taken by Odd Starter completely undermine the system and strip it of any meaning whatsoever. What he has done is set a precident that if anyone complains about the moderation for long enough they can get moderator status for a week. This is completely unacceptable. As such i ask for his resignation as Bureaucrat (Not necessarily as a moderator, it wasnt his moderator privelages he abused in this instance) and the demodding of Amazing. --Grim s 09:19, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I think that's going a bit far. Anyway, we don't have any other bureaucrats.--The General 09:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)
He abused his power as a Bureaucrat. According to his own statements he knowingly violated his own rules in order to perform an action that the community itself strongly opposes. He knowingly violated the trust of the community he is bound to serve as a Moderator and Bureaucrat. As for the Bureaucrat issue: He can appoint another one. Two that would have my support are Zaruthustra and Spiro. --Grim s 09:47, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Question: Circumventing a rule he wrote in a way that does not harm the Wiki or its users is an offense worthy of a Misconduct report? Maybe I'm missing something here. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Eh? I get busy for a week and this happens? I have an idea how persistant and annoying Amazing can be at times, but that is no excuse to break the rules for the wiki. I agree that this sets a bad precedence, not to mention a bad example. I have no power to moderate/rule, so I'll leave that up to Kevan at the end of the day, and I hope he does that soon. I do have to say in Odd's defense that other than this one misjudgement, he has done a great job on the wiki so far. --Nov W!, Talk 12:37, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Well, as a Moderator, yes you do have the power to make decisions here - All Moderators do. Kevan doesn't take a lot of interest in the wiki, as such this is a tribunal of peers. In a Moderation Misconduct, the Moderator taking the case gets the final say. If you wish to take the case, Then your decision will remain final (though it looks like this is sufficiently political that perhaps another mod may want to confirm the decision, if it seems appropriate). -- Odd Starter talk • Mod • W! 22:40, 7 April 2006 (BST)
So we promote people for being annoying now? MaulMachine 13:21, 7 April 2006 (BST)
I think there'd be a lot more Mods if that were true. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

If anybody want it, here's my opinion, reversing of the decision based on the fact that it hasn't followed procedure, and slight tap on the fingers for Odd Starter for making it. Odd starter was just bit over taxed and amazing can have that effect on people. This was done out of desperation not malice, odd starter has done enourmous good for the community and should not be punished severly by trying to solve one of the biggest problems this wiki has, namely the drama that is always surounding Amazing.--Vista W! 19:46, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I believe this is the right way to act. We dont want to lose one of our greatest mods just because he failed at us once. Amazing can do this kind of things to people. I think i am going to name it "The Amazing Effect". --hagnat talk • wcdz 21:36, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Hmm. "Amazing can do this kind of thing to people"? When has someone promoted me to Mod before? Just curious. -- Amazing Mod SGP UDPD McZed's™ 23:28, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I know I'm not a prevelant user on the wiki, but I've read enough in the past weeks to convince me that although Amazing may be a dedicated mod, he'd be dedicated to all the wrong things. We have all seen how Amazing has a tendency to run and complain when something crops up (and yes, his enemies do as well, but they haven't been promoted). I could stand the insuing insults being thrown back and forth, it was the process of things. I have this ominous vision of anything anti-Amazing suddenly disapearing, being edited, locked, so on and so forth. Of course it wouldn't be that obvious, as I'm sure Amazing is smart enough to know that would land him on this very page. I just feel that Amazing is much too wraped in drama to be a fair and concice mod, and Odd Starter should have seen that (if in fact he didn't). The conversation above where Amazing took a rule that is fairly obvious; that a person needs 3 votes to be promoted (he recieved one I believe) and needs to go through the page (which is fairly obvious to everyone that it means approved in the page), and could turn it into "well, it did go through the page. I put it on and took it off; that's going through," is is the most disturbing part of this all. If Amazing continues to use wording whose meaning is obvious but can be turned into something vauge, he may be able to weasel his way past a lot of trouble, and cause a lot for others. GANKBUS may have had their final day soon. I was beginning to enjoy that saga, it was rather amusing. BuncyTheFrog Talk 23:50, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Well, that's simply speculation. Of course, you can watch and see if there's any "omg Amazing is crazy, help!!" events as you mention. There won't be. If I am as bad a person as you have described, why am I still allowed to use the Wiki at all? I'm just saying this because, from your text, it seems like there's a history of terrible offenses.
I should also point out that I was speaking as to Odd Starter's violation of the spirit of the rule vs. the letter of the law. -- Amazing Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™ 23:57, 7 April 2006 (BST)
I suggested no such thing as a list of terrible offenses. I am sure that what I said was clearly (mostly) speculation. I never said you were a bad person (you do like to jump to conclusions though), I said you were too caught up in too many conflicts here to be a fair moderator. While I don't always agree with the other side of the conflicts and don't always agree with you, the situations seem to escalate quickly, and I don't know how itchy your finger will get to use those moderation features. Like you said, I will have to wait for any events to crop up (and it seems one has, though I haven't read over it at all), but I believe that I shouldn't have to be looking for them in the first place. BuncyTheFrog Talk 00:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying. I just meant that - in order to assume I'd abuse Modship - it would SEEM like there'd be a history that dictates that. Not that you said there was, just a general "Wow, I'd have to be a real asbusive crazy stupid repeat vandal to abuse my abilities". And yeah, I'm pretty sure every moderation task I take up will be reported as Misconduct until people finally have to concede I'm on the up-and-up. -- Amazing Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™ 00:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)
I have no proof that you'd abuse modship, just a history with vandalizing (or alleged valdalizing, many of which I believe you were in the wrong for though) and bad relations with a majority of people on the wiki. If I were you, I'd lay low for a while and play everything by the book, as it seems you have already started to not do. You're on thin ice here. There are a lot of people who would rather you not get this position. BuncyTheFrog Talk 00:28, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Hmm. I'm actually going by the book in all respects. The hordes simply see an opportunity, y'dig? -- Amazing Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™ 00:34, 8 April 2006 (BST)
Hokay, so here 'tis. Deleting that image was not in my opinon by the book (yeah, now that we're on this subject it should probably be moved up, but I guess this just a continuation of the dialouge we've had going back and forth). It should go through the deletions page. If it did indeed violate a copyright, you could have got a speedy deletion and wouldn't have had to go through that argument in the first place. You're too quick to react, it seems that's all you do. In any case, I'm going to go away for a few hours, so don't expect a witty response to anything anyone posts for a while. BuncyTheFrog Talk 00:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Hold it, hold it! Everyone just back the hell up. Someone made Amazing a mod? I'm not sure whether I'm glad I've been away from this wiki (and UD in general, being an Outbreak dev now) or sad that things really have gone to hell without me. --Slicer 00:40, 8 April 2006 (BST)

For my part, I'm more than willing to consider Odd Starter's action as a momentary slip in otherwise decent moderation. We all make mistakes, but I believe Odd Starter's intention in this case was correct, even if his actions violated policy. In my opinion, this one incident of faulty judgement may merit censure, but no serious action need be taken in light of Odd Starter's history of good conduct and fair moderation. furtim 05:35, 8 April 2006 (BST)

LibrarianBrent's Decision

Although Odd Starter's actions violated policy, I do not feel that they are enough to merit any sort of ban or demoderation. Odd Starter is without a doubt the best and most active moderator on this Wiki, and removing him would be absolutely counterproductive and unreasonable. Odd Starter's posting history of excellent conduct and fair moderation decisions speaks for itself in this case. --LibrarianBrent 19:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Odd_Starter/2006&oldid=1761325"