UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Karek » 2009

January 20th

We all know what this is for. Karek overturned the democratic vote occurring on A/D regarding the Umbrella Corporation/Report page because it violated crit 6. While at first glance it would appear he is right, actually bothering to read the old request shows that isn't actually the case. The page was put up for deletion by yours truely because it seems i temporarily forgot where A/MR was and also thought some might want it deleted. The votes over the next 6 days were close to split, at which point the owner of the page cleared it of content allowing boxy to speedy the page ala crit 1. Thus we see the page was never actually deleted with its content on it. Rather the page was deleted empty, then the content was moved to another page. Anyhoo jump forward a few months and it's put up by Haliman and the community, this time voting purely on the content of the page and not the fact that it is in the wrong space are in the process of allowing the page to stay, keep votes were clearly ahead, however the voting was by no means over as it had only been up 6 days. At that point Karek deleted it and Nubis declined an undeletions request.

From this case i first want the page undeleted. Then the deletion request can continue. While i don't give a flying fuck about the page i feel that since the other umbrella have a similar page this one should be allowed. Secondly i want Karek vandal escalated. This wasn't a minor skipping of red tape. It was a major misuse of sysop powers and furthermore demonstrates the worrying trend towards certain sysops doing what they please when they don't agree with the clear will of the community.

Oh and just so everyone is aware i did request that Karek undelete the page and allow the vote to continue and stated i would use a/m if that didn't occur, so i am trying to avoid drama where possible :) --xoxo 00:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the A/VB thing. That's kinda important because that's when I deleted it. --Karek^maps?! 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, and the a/vb case that changes precisely nothing.--xoxo 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lemmesee... some fool makes a harassment page, and when it goes for deletion he removes all content from it and the page gets speedyed under crit6. It then gets recreated and it gets deleted 6 days after being posted into deletions, AGAIN. Well, the page had a undergoing voting process that was halted by the original creators, the voting continued when they recreated the page. Since there are more delete votes (if you count both votings), i must say that i give reason to any sysop to delete as voting was more than over for this page. The users involved abused of their legal-foo skillz. Not Misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing you're ignoring is that at least one of the delete votes (mine) and perhaps some of the others merely want it removed from the main space. The cases are about different pages, it is not so clear cut as content. If i had a page deleted from the mainspace i would recreate it in my userspace and depending on the content there is a good chance it would be allowed there. The 2nd deletions vote is the only one that accurately reflects the community's view of the page in its current form. Besides, if Karek is so sure the community doesn't want the page what did he have to lose but letting the voting finish?--xoxo 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the same content.

George is gone -- as of tonight! What, are you trying to take his place, J3D???

There were no WMDs in Iraq.... and the content of the 2 pages was identical. --WanYao 03:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct and the A/VB changes everything, if you were a sysop you would know this....ohhhh. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All that the a/vb shows is that Wan agrees with Karek...--xoxo 02:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I do agree with him. You said: "Thus we see the page was never actually deleted with its content on it." Bullshit... The page was blankde by its author after significant outcry against its existence. MisterGame agreed to delete as inappropriate content. Deleted as Crit 7, iirc. He doesn't get to change his mind on that, given the context.

What you're doing by superficially citing "democractic process" etc. etc. has a name J3D: "demagoguery".

Et tu, Brute? --WanYao 03:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While that could have been a fair defense, the latest case clearly shows that the community is happy for it to exist as a subpage. So why isn't it?--xoxo 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't we delete everything under Umbrella Corporation as a Crit 6 and that would follow policy and it would stop some flame wars. Not Misconduct --– Nubis ^NWO 04:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That'd be just as valid, go right ahead :) --xoxo 04:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)