UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Amazing/2006-04-07 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Amazing » 2006-04-07 Misconduct

Amazing

Deleted a page [1] without going throug the proper channels. Log --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:45, 7 April 2006 (BST)

I don't think that an image is a page. Also, copyrighted images are not allowed to be uploaded. Check the Policy discussion to see my thoughts on this. -- Amazing 23:48, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Copyright or not, a page must be put on one of the deletion pages before it is removed. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:05, 8 April 2006 (BST)

An image is not a page, and beyond that - The deletion area itself states that a Mod may circumvent the voting in certain cases. In this case it was circumvented due to clear and obvious copyright infringement and violation of the upload agreement. I've also put forward a notation on the Policy Dicussion page about all of this. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:09, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Not a page? The why are there requests for image deletions on the deletion page? Were they not pages, as you claim, the mods would delete them without this process. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)

There have probably been cases where they have. I'll wait for another Mod to chime in here, but it really looks like there's nothing to this report. (Rules state a Mod can circumvent voting, Image is not a page, Image was copyrighted.) -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:16, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The image was taken from the same wiki it was reposted on. By your logic, then, an image used on one group's page couldn't be reposted elsewhere without permission from that group. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Correction. The image was taken and edited. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:21, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Placing a circle with a line through it is hardly editing. It'd be like taking the RRF's logo and putting that sign around it, to represent that your group is opposed to them. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:23, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I have to disagree. To me, "hardly editing" is not a good description of editing. Anyway, let's wait for another Mod to take up this case if they so choose. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:26, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Oh, that shows absolutely no bias whatsoever in deleting an image that so happens to be critical of you. *rolls eyes*. Have we ever heard of "freedom of expression" before? --Vanankyte 00:24, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Hi! Check the Policy discussion page and definition of copyright. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:26, 8 April 2006 (BST)

As soon as you upload to the wiki you lose your copyright. Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. I believe that includes images... --Technerd 00:27, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but that's speaking speifically of contributions. Hosting an image is not a contribution. I do commend your fast thinking, though. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:29, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The copyrights section says "Copyrights! We don't need no stinking copyrights!". But aside from that, this has nothing whatsoever to do "copyright" considering you uploaded the image to the wiki yourself for anyone to use. If you don't want people to use it, don't upload it to the wiki. That is not an excuse for deleting images that happen to be critical of you, showing bias, without going through due process. --Vanankyte 00:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but you're incorrect. Uploading an image for hosting does not place it in the public domain. The fact of the matter is that it was my property. Even if it had a halo over my head, it was a violation of copyright. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:32, 8 April 2006 (BST)

con·tri·bu·tion - An article or other work submitted for publication. The wiki is the publication... --Technerd 00:35, 8 April 2006 (BST)

File hosting is not a contribution as I see it. -- Amazing 00:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You would not have deleted the image if it had had a halo over your head and said "Amazing rocks!". You deleted it because it was critical of you and displayed a disagreement with your existence and your modhood. This shows bias, and whether the image "violated" anything or should have been deleted or not is immaterial, in that it should have gone through the proper channels and you should not unilaterally make such decisions in cases especially where it may be construed as bias, as it directly concerns you. --Vanankyte 00:36, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I would have deleted anything that violated my copyrights, and have for years. -- Amazing 00:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing's Responce

The image was an edited version of something I uploaded to the Wiki. Nowhere is it said that images uploaded for hosting become public domain. I believed I was within my right to remove an image that violated copyright law - since the upload page has the user agree that they are not violating a copyright when uploading.

Furthermore, the deletions area specifically mentions 'pages' not files. I admit that might've been a misunderstanding on my part, but even so the same are also says Mods may circumvent voting in some cases.

Anyone is free to use any image I've uploaded, but editing my work and uploading THAT is a violation of copyright. In the future I'll use the deletions page, but this is just the Horde's opportunity to jump on me. Nothing more. -- Amazing _{Mod ♥ SGP ♥ UDPD ♥ McZed's™} 00:37, 8 April 2006 (BST)

How sour it may seem, images uploaded to the wiki are free game, unless they're official copiright material in the first place. It's just a question of common decency after that really.--Vykos 00:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Wait.. can I ask why you're assuming it wasn't copyrighted in the first place? The minute it's posted anywhere, it's copyrighted. -- Amazing 00:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

If a protester puts the "( \ )" symbol over the logo of the company they have grievances against on a picket sign, that's not copyright infringement. This is the same thing. The copyright isn't even the issue. You did not use the deletions page, and as such you need to be reprimanded. You shouldn't get away with breaking the rules. --TheTeeHeeMonster 00:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Please take a moment to read all of the text in the Deletions area. This seems to be a simple misunderstanding. -- Amazing 00:53, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Even so, check the copyrights laws again. How come you think so many artists are getting screwed over due to the internet? And besides that, spoofs and satire are aproved of in most Western Countries, even if the material was copyrighted in the first place. I can imagine you deleted it, but that's it..--Vykos 00:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)

"For consistency and accountability, Moderators also adhere to the guidelines listed here." That one? --Lucero Capell 00:57, 8 April 2006 (BST)

"In a restricted set of circumstances, Moderators may delete pages without full consultation of the wiki community." I would assume one of those circumstances is copyright violation. "Fair Use" does not undo copyright infringement. "damage to the commercial value of the work" is not covered under Fair Use. -- Amazing 01:04, 8 April 2006 (BST)

WHAT COMMERCIAL VALUE ?--hagnat ^{talk • wcdz} 01:07, 8 April 2006 (BST)

http://avatars.doompuppet.com -- Amazing 01:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Let me see this... Awww, how cute. You create avatars based on characters from copyrighted games and sell them in the intarweb and now is saying that someone is doing wrong about using your own avatar as parody agaisnt you ? Awwww.... --hagnat ^{talk • wcdz} 01:20, 8 April 2006 (BST)

What? They're original creations based on people's descriptions they themselves wrote. I can see that a lot of this is coming from actual misunderstanding. Please familiarize yourself with the material before commenting, eh? -- Amazing 01:31, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, "Moderators may delete pages without full consultation of the wiki community" [overdone emphasis mine] means that it still has to be submitted on the Speedy Deletions page. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:09, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Hmm. In looking at I can see that's probably what it means. Users do not have a right to upload images that violate copyrights, however, and I don't believe users get to vote to let someone violate the rules. -- Amazing 01:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Again, it is a protest. Just like putting a ( / ) on a Microsoft logo and making a sign out of it isn't copyright infringement, neither is this. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Tell that to Microsoft, who I'm sure sues for less. Also, be sure to tell the judges who decide against the copyright violator. No, this is not covered by Fair Use as it has a real effect on the value of my property. -- Amazing 01:19, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Can you cite any cases of Microsoft (or any other company) successfully suing a protester for such an action? --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:22, 8 April 2006 (BST)

http://kierondwyer.com/LCD/GREED.htm Do your own research. -- Amazing 01:40, 8 April 2006 (BST)

That case on the site refers to someone selling the image, not simply modifying it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Note "Do your own research". -- Amazing 01:50, 8 April 2006 (BST)

So why can't you? You were the one who brought up that Microsoft has probably sued for that or less, true? It's your research to do, not mine. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Because you've decided to use the Moderation page to incite an arguement, jumping on the first sliver of POSSIBLE mistake in order to harm my Mod status. That means that you, dear friend, do not warrent me spending any more time than I wish. I could unequivically prove you wrong, and you'd still deny it. Doesn't matter. Moving on. -- Amazing 01:58, 8 April 2006 (BST)

No, I used the moderation page because you broke the rules. And if you think someone is breaking the rules, you report them. That is the purpose of the moderation page. And before I go, does anyone else notice the irony in his previous post? --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Feel free to point out where the deletion rules mention images aside from basic Wiki formatting clarification. Then show me what guideline for deletion covers images. Guess what? The only one that comes close is "Author request", and even that says "author" and "page". -- Amazing 02:06, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The image is on a wiki page. You deleted that page. There was also text on that page. Even if the image isn't covered, you deleted the text on the page that went with it. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

This is where it becomes clear to anyone that TeeHee is just trying to score a De-Modding and nothing else. -- Amazing 02:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, fistly I would love to see proof of copyright. Secondly I would also like to see your paperwork exempting you from the parody usage clause in internatinal copyright law. --Stroth 01:34, 8 April 2006 (BST)

http://avatars.doompuppet.com If you know anything about copyright, you know that the creator's work is copyrighted right off. Perhaps call the copyright office. -- Amazing 01:40, 8 April 2006 (BST)

And if you knew anything about copyright, then you'd know that as long as someone has A: Altered it in anyway and B: Isn't making money of off it and possibly C: Is using it to make fun of the creator, then you would know that this falls under the Parody act of International copyright law and as such, is not a violation of copyright. --Stroth 01:52, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Not if it devalues the work. -- Amazing 01:58, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, yes it does. why do you think there's so many porn sites out there doing parodies of cartoons? --Stroth 02:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)

So you're saying none of them get shut down or sued. -- Amazing 02:06, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Not for a lack of tryiing. And disney can't sue someone for altering a screencap so that Priincess Ariel in a compramising position with a horse then you certanly don't have a legel leg to stand on. --Stroth 02:10, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Wow. You actually are saying none of them get shut down or successfully sued. -- Amazing 02:14, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Because..... --Stroth 02:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, I'm sorry, but this is a clear work of parody. It's not intended to make money off of and frankly unless you have some pretty solid evidence that their parody devalues your work you don't have a leg to stand on. Stroth, that doesn't mean that there isn't gray area there. In the case of using the little mermaid, you could argue they are capitalizing on the familiar image of said character in order to sell their porn. However in this case motive plays a big part in copyright law, from the looks of it if an image is modified in order to express a critique of an idea it has usually been seen as parody. Prosperina 11:26 11 April 2006 (BST)

Needless to say, I disagree based on the US Copyright Office's own info. No more need be said though, so....* -- Amazing 00:30, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Zaru's Response

And we have actually established that even things that go against the rules go to community vote. As for "hosting", thats a no go. The entire point of no copyrights is not bogging the wiki down in pointless grey area legal debates about fair use that honestly none of you are qualified to be commenting on (unless somebody has a degree in copyright law and they never mentioned it). The wiki isn't for private hosting. Thats a waste of bandwidth for Kevan and an invitation to trouble. This isn't a hosting site. All submissions (markedly, not pages) are subject to free use unless otherwise licensed under a creative commons or GNU liscense. If you want to host those go to fileshack, but as long as they stay here people can use and edit them. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Feel free to cite all you say in the ToS for tis Wiki. Otherwise what you're saying is just your own opinion. As for hosting, it's there to host files. It's for file hosting. It's for uploading things to host. Anything beyond that, again, is your own opinion unless you can cite the ToS for this Wiki. If you can't cite "files uploaded are free for anyone to use" in the ToS or anywhere in the rules on this wiki, you're simply making up rules as you go. I can speak to fair use because I am a long standing artist and professional writer. -- Amazing 01:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I have removed the images from the Wiki. Zar, you can delete the Copyright Violation now in accordance with what you've said. -- Amazing 01:50, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Then speak to it and provide legal evidence to counter that which I have raised. --Lucero Capell 01:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I have. Fair Use does not cover usage that devalues the work. -- Amazing 01:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You don't want to play that game, because if theres no rules it means it couldn't have broken them and you were also in the wrong to delete it. It might have been illegal in the countries it was done in (maybe) but not by our rules. I'm sure you'll enjoy seeing Lucero in court. Plus for it to break fair use you need to prove that it devalued your work commercially. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:53, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I look forward to you deleting the image or petitioning for its deletion according to your statement: "If you want to host those go to fileshack, but as long as they stay here people can use and edit them." That's all I have to say. -- Amazing 01:59, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Odd's Response

A quick note - Yes, Images count as pages Moderation/Deletions is specifically for all non-speedy deletions. There is a deletion schedule for unused images, but I recall that this certainly was not being unused.

Regardless, I would note that:

1. The Image is a derivation of the image on Amazing's User Page.
2. If that image is copyrighted, the Amazing has basically permitted it's use on the wiki, if it's Amazing that holds the copyright.
3. Thus, it would be assumed that it is held under the general license of this wiki (which is undetermined, but considering precendent of other wikis, is probably similar to GDFL
4. If this is the case, then alteration of the image is perfectly acceptable under the GDFL, as long as the image is released under the same license.

Even if this line of reasoning does not hold, derivative works are not always violations of copyright, and I believe that in most countries, fair use for commentary purposes are legally acceptable, as well as for satirical purposes. I would rule that the image most definitely falls under at least one of those criteria.

Further, Amazing has also violated another important rule, that is that Deletion of images, unless under a deletion schedule, must go through the Deletions pages. If he placed a request under the Deletions page (either one, I might add), then by the guidelines then he is not allowed to delete it himself. This is specific safeguard put in - A Moderator requires another Moderator to perform Deletions, Blocks, Undeletions, in fact anything except blocking vandals. On either of the Deletion pages, I believe this is clearly spelled out, though I may do some work into making it a little more so. It was expected that Amazing, once given his status, would actually go through the guidelines on each Moderation page and abide by them.

"It was expected that Amazing, once given his status, would actually go through the guidelines on each Moderation page and abide by them." Haha, that's a knee-slapper. Tell us another one! (You KNEW this was going to happen. You sacrificed your own integrity to watch him impale himself on the sword you gave him. Nice.) --Slicer 01:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Slicer, cut it out. We're all human, and we all make mistakes. Give Odd a break, he's been a good guy for most of this wiki's history. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:39, 8 April 2006 (BST)

That's my point- he's human, he's a good guy, and he's made either a brilliant tactical decision to make Amazing self-immolate, or he royally fucked up. If Odd wasn't a good guy I'd be much meaner. --Slicer 01:44, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Uploading an image to the Wiki does not mean the user may download, edit, and re-upload it. Therein lies the violation. Saying that it is free to use when uploaded only means they can use what I uploaded in its uploaded form.

That said, does this "you were supposed to go through the deletions page even though it doesn't say that, and the deletons page has no mention of this in its strict list of available reasons to delete" mean there will be a punishment or what? -- Amazing 01:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, the example of a mod getting banned on this page is almost this case word for word. Look at it. The mod gets banned for deleting something not listed on that page, even if it was by the author's request. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:57, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Unfortunately the letter of the rules does not support what you say. They need to be edited to include images as opposed to pages. Read the guidelines for listing a deletion. It's clearly mostly about text exclusively. -- Amazing 02:04, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The guidelines for listing a page for deletion have nothing to do with you deleting them. Images are covered, as they are currently and have been submitted on that page. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:07, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Read the Deletion rules and Guidelines for what can be deleted. Images being submitted means nothing. Besides which, images have been deleted outside that page, I'm sure. It's just that you don't want me doing it, and you'd like to score a De-Modding. -- Amazing 02:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You're using your mod powers for a personal agenda, not the good of the wiki. You removed content that you found contrary to your opinion, and without going through the right page. Although I don't believe you should be a mod, I'm not doing this just for the hell of it. If you didn't do anything wrong, I wouldn't have reported you. I would have let you serve your week and form my opinion of whether or not you were fit to be a mod then. But you didn't stick to the rules, and now we're here. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I have violated no rule. Sorry. -- Amazing 02:19, 8 April 2006 (BST)

C'mon man be real. You deleted it because you were personally offended. Other than that, that paraody has every right to be hosted here as your original work. There's no way you can wrigle this through a corporate view.--Vykos 02:09, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Read the Policy page. -- Amazing 02:11, 8 April 2006 (BST)

j00 == 0wn3d.--Jorm 06:30, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Come join us in 2006, little 1337 k1dd13. -- Amazing 06:43, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Final Decision

It is clear from the current evidence that a Misconduct was committed by Moderator Amazing. Both myself and Moderator Zaruthustra have consulted and come to the same conclusion in this manner. Specifically, the Misconduct was the deletion of an image from this wiki without proceding through correct procedure.

Due to Amazing's temporary Moderator status, I believe it suitable that the punishment in this case be the stripping of his Moderator status. At this point in time I believe that the size of the infraction is not sufficient to warrant any further punishment.

The issue of Copyrighted images, and the copyrights held by individuals, unfortunately is beyond my scope, and beyond the scope of this page. I am not a lawyer, and I suspect neither is Amazing. This is an issue that should probably be resolved, in this matter I invite all interested parties to Moderation/Policy Discussion for a full discussion on what this wiki's official stance is to be towards copyrighted images.

Myself and Zaruthustra declare this case closed, and request that no further comments on this case be placed on this page. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:16, 8 April 2006 (BST)

No rule was violated. Way to continue the Poor Moderator tradition. -- Amazing 02:21, 8 April 2006 (BST)

From Moderation/Guidelines under Deletion of Images:

Moderators may only delete pages that users have requested be deleted on Moderation/Deletions and Moderation/Speedy Deletions. Deletion requests on Moderation/Deletions must be ratified by the community (measured by the results of a two-week vote), before a Moderator may delete it. Deletion requests on Moderation/Speedy Deletions must follow the Speedy Deletion guidelines for a Moderator to delete it. Further, Moderators may not delete a page that they themselves have requested be deleted. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to check these pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above.

I do not, frankly, see how it gets any clearer than that. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:29, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Moderators may only delete pages that users have requested be deleted on Moderation/Deletions and Moderation/Speedy Deletions. Deletion requests on Moderation/Deletions must be ratified by the community (measured by the results of a two-week vote), before a Moderator may delete it. Deletion requests on Moderation/Speedy Deletions must follow the Speedy Deletion guidelines for a Moderator to delete it. Further, Moderators may not delete a page that they themselves have requested be deleted. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to check these pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above.

Perhaps you can explain how a hosted image file is a page. Also, the Speedy Deletions page says a Mod may circumvent the voting as I understood it - AND - There are no guidelines by which an image can be reported, so according to those rules, Images cannot be reported for deletion.

You've proven yourself a bad Moderator in Modding me AND De-Modding me. You've done nothing here but show that I've always been right about the Moderation on this Wiki. It's piss poor.

I also don't see "Deletion of Images" much less anything "under" it. -- Amazing 02:32, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Image:Noamazing.jpg is a page. No image exists on this wiki without an attached page. Deleting the image deletes the page, and vice versa. Nothing can be deleted on this wiki without a page also being deleted. It's how the wiki works. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:36, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Well, that's basically just a way to work backwards from the action you want to take toward a reason to take it. You know that, I know that, everyone (even the ones who wanted me de-modded enough to make a bogus case) know it.

Well, no. Since the spirit of the rules always trumps the letter of the rules, even without perfectly written down lawyer-style rules, it's pretty clear that Images follow the same policy of pages. You are, like you often do, attempting to manipulate the written version of the rules in order to claim that a violation has not taken place. While that works in a real life court, such tactics cannot work here. You have, quite consistently I might add, performed this trick. I am now officially saying to you that we do not consider the letter of the law, only the spirit of the law. As it turns out, I can also beat you on the letter of the law, but trust me, I don't need to. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You haven't and can't. As per violating the spirit of the rules, the spirt of the rules still supports me on this. Also, why are you replying within my post? That's pretty much a violation of wiki guidelines. -- Amazing 02:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Also, stripping someone of Modship for one case in which no rules were violated, OR AT WORST, a rule was violated in GOOD FAITH since I THINK it was not violated - just shows you were looking for a way to save your ass. When exactly did you realize you'd have to find a way to get rid of me, even if it meant going to it without me doing anything wrong - OR - doing something very insignifigant wrong because I thought it was right?

Dude, if I wanted to get rid of you, I'd've banned you. As it turns out, it wasn't just my decision - Zaruthustra also agrees. And, in fact, If you asked any other Moderator, I expect that they also would agree with my conclusion. Go ahead, try it. If you find a moderator that claims otherwise, I'll happily revoke the decision. Removing your Mod status was probably the least possible punishment, since it doesn't actually stop you from doing any job on the wiki that you weren't already doing. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Surprise, someone who hates me agreed to de-mod me over a non-violation. Wow. -- Amazing 02:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)

If I was going to VIOLATE THE RULES and knowingly jeopardize my position, don't you think I'd do something bigger, with ACTUAL EFFECT?

It could be claimed that if you wanted to violate the rules, you'd violate rules that you thought you could get away with. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:51, 8 April 2006 (BST)

You and I both know that no such rules exist. That is to say, you and I both know I could get away with violating NO rule. I knew that and thought I had read and understood the rules and I could circumvent voting in the case of the upload ToS being violated. -- Amazing 02:55, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Get real and stop choking on your own hatred and bile, all of you. -- Amazing 02:41, 8 April 2006 (BST)

^ Irony. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:54, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I was conducting myself very civilly in the face of tremendous trolling, insult, and flaming for the past 24 hours. Now I guess I see it doesn't matter HOW I conduct myself. You'll never change your behavior. -- Amazing 02:57, 8 April 2006 (BST)

We don't have to; its not a fair wiki- it is a useful one. And as such, if your work aren't useful, your work gets edited. And the actions of the last 48 hours prove that most of the wiki considers your work non-useful to the wiki. Therefore, maybe you should leave until you can contribute something useful. --Karlsbad 05:49, 8 April 2006 (BST)

See, when you say things like that, you just prove me right. All you are is a troll trying to "win" against me. Dude - it "aren't" a contest. And it wasn't 48 hours... And a handful of people aren't "most of the wiki"... O_O Wow, lot of mistakes there. Almost as if you're just spewing whatever comes into your head. -- Amazing 06:04, 8 April 2006 (BST)

I never implied a "win" of any sort. 48 hours might be incorrect currently, but if you count your issues of April 6th into April 8th, then I think you would understand- if you are capable. And "most of the wiki" is a value judgement. And since most of the wiki considers my values and judgement notable, QED. --Karlsbad 22:32, 8 April 2006 (BST)

LibrarianBrent's view

In my opinion, the uploader of this image should be considered a vandal (image uploaded solely for the purpose of harrassing another user), and the image should have been deleted without warning, as happens to pornnographic images, pages uploaded by spambots, or similar incidents where it is unquestionable that the page was intended as a vandalisation or insult on the Wiki. This has previously been wiki precedent-established policy, as evidenced by previous precedent with images such as File:Angst.jpg and File:All-gay-sex11537r002.jpg, and I am uncertain as to why this issue has surfaced now, or even why there is a debate about this. The uploader of the image should have been warned or banned as a vandal and the image should have been immediately deleted from the wiki. I see no moderator fault in this situation, although I agree that the circumstances under which User:Amazing became a moderator were slightly suspect. --LibrarianBrent 19:06, 8 April 2006 (BST)

The image was not intended to harass. Were it, the creator would have put up a more abusive image, perhaps one of Amazing dressed as a woman, or a masochist. This image was merely a protest at mod action, and not a direct insult to anyone. --TheTeeHeeMonster 19:34, 8 April 2006 (BST)

As Teehee said, the image was not intended as an insult, nor was it intended as harassment. It was intended as a protest against moderation action. There was no "F' Amazing!" caption, there was no insulting text (no text at all, in fact), actually, the only alteration performed to the image was adding the universal "No" symbol. When put in context of the Amazing Should not be a Moderator template, the image served to illustrate the "No Amazing (for moderator)" point. No insult. --Lucero Capell 19:37, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Holy shit someone agrees with me. Holy shit I get to be a Mod again. Holy shit it's someone I tried to get de-modded when I was a newbie on the Wiki. Holy shit people don't know the meaning of 'harass'. -- Amazing 19:47, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, someone does. No, you don't. Yes, it is. Yes, they don't. But you don't either. Surprise Amazing, just because you don't like an image does not mean it is harassment. The image is no more harassment than the template is. It is a tame, organized protest against moderation action, not an insult or vandalism. --Lucero Capell 19:58, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, Odd Starter said he'd withdraw his decision if another Mod disagreed. I can see your point of view as per the image, but really the image was uploaded with the intent of harassment since you were very clearly trying to go about this all in the most antagonizing way possible. The only reason you didn't dress my avatar as a woman was because you probably couldn't pull it off. Otherwise, you most likely would have done it. -- Amazing 20:02, 8 April 2006 (BST)

Any idiot with photoshop could have. A quick copy/paste of a dress over the image would have sufficed, but changing a few pixels to make the leather outfit could easily be managed. Maybe we could have added devil horns, some fire in the backround, and given you a pitchfork. That wouldn't really be all that hard, just some straight lines and two partial circles.--TheTeeHeeMonster 20:15, 8 April 2006 (BST)

That should tell you what I think of his abilities. -- Amazing 20:21, 8 April 2006 (BST)

As a post-note, while I did state that I'd withdraw my decision if another Mod disagreed with my decision, Kevan's removal of my Bureaucrat status unfortunately prevents me from going through with that action. My apologies. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 12:29, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Apology accepted. Clean slate as far as I'm concerned. -- Amazing 18:29, 9 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing's Summary of LibrarianBrent and Odd Starter's words

Odd Starter apologized to me for being unable to Re-Mod me since Kevan stripped him of his ability to because of the prior case. In light of LibrarianBrent's validation of everything I've said, (the masses will claim that their mob rule is correct, of course) Odd was supposed to Re-Mod me, but as previously stated, cannot. -- Amazing 02:38, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Odd's actions have been overridden by a higher authority (read: Kevan) who obviously does not want your position as a moderator restored, therefore his promises are null and void. Just drop it already. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:17, 12 April 2006 (BST)

No shit. That's what I said. -- Amazing 00:20, 13 April 2006 (BST)