Forum:Proposition - Remove the Moderator Status of EpaX

THIS VOTE RUNS FROM THE 28TH OF MAY (12:00 PM PST), TO THE 4TH OF JUNE (11:59 PM PST).

The Issue/Case
As a moderator of the CAWiki, EpaX has disrespected me along with a few other users. Being a job of a moderator is a very serious position. Moderators are to respect the wiki, the environment, and other users, including administrators and moderators. He promised here that he is friendly and he “will treat other editor with respect,” yet, he does not practice what he preaches. I do not see that he is friendly; rather, he uses strong language that impacts negativity. Because of this, I am requesting for EpaX to be stripped of his moderator position. Please EXTREMELY CAREFULLY read my reason why this proposition is the appropriate action before voting accordingly.

An Insight of What Happened From the Beginning
In the past, he kept reverting useful information from other editors, including myself. I let that slide many times. But I had enough. I decided for this to be the last straw. Originally, I made this proposition because I was fed up with EpaX after he banned me and we had an argument across three walls. You can see them here, here, and here to get a better idea of what happened.

Combat Arms Wiki strives to create a peaceful environment where all editors can collaborate and share ideas. Users must have good faith among each other, as stated here. However, this was not the case with EpaX.

In my situation, I made an honest mistake where there was a misunderstanding with the category pages. Every time I make an edit, I double check to see if it’s correct before publishing. Because I publish articles in a way where some may think it’s unusual, I do it because it’s my preference. Every user has their own way of doing things. This must be highly respected since the Combat Arms Wiki stated that all users are equal here. No one is above the law.

EpaX always assumes that users are ignoring him when they do not reply back in their message wall. He does not have any good faith nor patience. Instead of waiting for me to reply on my wall, he gave me less than 10 minutes to answer back. He assumes that I kept on editing and ignoring his warning when I am in fact, not intend to. Due to the way Wikia works, it does not pop up a notification instantly when someone posts something on your message wall. You must refresh the page or publish your edit before seeing the notification. When I was working on multiple articles, all the articles were already opened in tabs. At the same time I was editing those articles, EpaX wrote on my message wall and published it before I started pressing publish in all of the articles I was working on. By the time it finished publishing all of my articles, I see a notification on the right top side of my screen. I clicked on Wiki Activity, then I proceeded to my message wall. It usually takes me more than 10 minutes to type a constructive reply. When I finally finished, I pressed publish. I was frustrated that my reply was not posted. I gave it another try. After typing another constructive reply, it did not get through. I decided to give it one more try, being already aggravated that my reply is not going through. After the third attempt to reply, it did not work. I thought that there was something wrong with my account until I saw what really happened after I scroll up the screen; I was blocked. Enraged, I went to see why I was blocked. Ironically, it turns out that the person who left the message on my wall was actually the one who denied me from replying.

Seeing that I was blocked for 1 hour, I thought, why not, I’m going to pass time by playing Combat Arms and hoping to see EpaX on there. It could clear up some confusion. Unfortunately, he was not on there.

After playing for an hour, I returned to Combat Arms Wiki 5 minutes early to check what is the exact time that my ban will be lifted. Inappropriately, EpaX extended my ban for another hour.

Although the wiki said that I should contact the administrator is there is a mistake, I could not do that. If you are blocked from the wiki, you are blocked entirely; the only thing you can do is view the wiki. Being furious, I logged on into another computer to write on his wall as this is the only way I can explain myself. I had no choice but to do this. I was unsure about EpaX because he can be abusing his ban power again by extending my ban, from another hour to infinity. After his discourteous reply on his wall, I knew that this would be the start of hell.

A Deeper Analysis of the Situation and the Aftermath
Because there was a misunderstanding of categories, a user should not be banned for it as it is considered very unjust. The mistake I made was encountered the first time adding categories. EpaX blocked me as his way of “getting my attention.” Adding another hour to my ban was not needed; in fact, I would probably not continue to make those edits after my ban is gone. I already acknowledged that I made a mistake. Had I ignored the warning after my ban is lifted, I would’ve continued to make edits after the 2 hour ban. EpaX claims that he needed to extend my ban because he assumes that there was no other moderator/administrator on at the time. It’s just an excuse EpaX made to get him off the hook. This excuse is not valid, as anyone can lurk in the dark viewing the wiki without logging in. EpaX is someone who assumes more than just being optimistic. A moderator should be considerate for both sides. Just because someone does not answer fast, it doesn’t mean that they are ignoring you. There are many factors to why someone may not answer fast. They could be taking a break, eating lunch, need outside leisure time, or simply done for the day. Banning someone after leaving a message on someone’s wall for 10 minutes is far too harsh. Have hasty characteristics for a moderator is not looked up upon the community. Below is proof that he gave me less than 10 minutes to answer.

Had I asked him to remove it off his user page, think about it. How would he would have answered differently?

Subsequently, he is also breaking the rules of the wiki. He is abusing his power by blocking me for an illegitimate reason and he is harassing me on the wiki according to the rules here. As mentioned earlier, my blockage does not fit anywhere on the block policy. On his user page, he said that I was having "consistent defiance and ignorance." As I wrote in a reply to ILYx3's thread, he sequentially replied, saying that it is "not harassment," but rather what I wrote. Either way, he is wrong on both sides. Calling someone defiant and ignorant is an insult (if it's not an insult, would you say that face to face with President of the United States?). He also brought up defiance on behalf of himself here on paragraph 6. Another offensive statement he wrote to me can be found here on the last paragraph.

Although I may have broken the rule of ban dodging, I’ll admit that I was also bad on my part. But I did it for a good reason. Please bear in mind that this whole proposition is NOT about me or my mistakes; it is aimed to decide the appropriate action for EpaX’s moderator status.

Granting that he contributes greatly to the wiki, remember that his job as a moderator may not fit him. He has not even apologized to me for blocking me by mistake. Also, there are many other great users on wiki that do tremendous work; yet, they do not need to be a moderator to complete their job.

The Question
Should the user EpaX be stripped of the position of moderator on the Combat Arms Wiki?

Yes

 * 1) Click For Reason ComradeJ (talk) 16:36, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) EpaX was not considerate with waiting for someone to reply back on their wall. A good moderator has to be open minded and see why the person may not reply back. From ComradeJ's situation, she did not see the notification pop up until she finished editing all of her articles. 10 minutes is not enough time for her to reply back, since she has to read the message carefully and reply back diligently. EpaX lacks the characteristic of being patient. While the situation may be really tense, EpaX does not have the right to block inconsiderably. He also needs to work on being more friendlier. His example of harassing someone shows that he lacks manner. Maybe he can be a better moderator if he fix these issues. He needs some time to think twice before he does something. Nexxy (talk) 06:16, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Still deciding. Both parties are wrong and right with their own reasons. Neither way, demoting EpaX would not be benefical for the wiki, since we are at a shortage of staff and editors. But EpaX mistreating an editor is unacceptable. -ILYx3 (talk) 04:58, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  I'm neutral but moving towards Opposed. I don't think some of the things Epax has done were fair but Comradej is quite mean and forceful... Also I have knowen Epax longer and if i am not mistaken he is more active then you. -Logs1248

No

 * The fact of the matter is that EpaX is a moderator of the CAWiki. His duty is to uphold the rules, and work to improve the Wiki. However, when carrying out these duties it is often necessary to punish, or side against, people who you may otherwise have no problem with you. Being a staff member on the wiki isn't about making friends, it's about doing the job which was entrusted with you.


 * Since becoming a moderator, EpaX has done just that. He has done his job efficiently, and continuously, and because of this he has, evidently, gotten on some people's bad sides. EpaX did not ban you because he dislikes you personally, or because he doesn't want you on the wiki, he did so because you were somewhat rapidly adding erroneous categories on to pages. The ban was made in order to quickly ensure that such categories would no longer be added to the wrong pages. The reason it was a one-hour ban is because that is the shortest duration ban that can be quickly given out. Should the ban have been extended? Even if you had not been ban-dodging, which you admit you were, this would be no reason to petition that someone have their status as moderator revoked.


 * TopsyKretts3 (talk) 19:10, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * EpaX is a moderator who knows what he's actually doing. Most moderators don't do as much as he does, such as cleaning up the wiki. He does his job as a moderator handing out suspensions and bans, but also goes above and beyond to help wiki. Though I admit he is quite straight forward in his talking and may seem rude. However, straight forward talking is what some people need on this wiki need. It prevents confusion. Other people may sweeten the deal up, EpaX does not, it really helps communication.


 * EpaX is not a robot or a computer, he is human. He WILL make mistakes, even big ones. Though every single time I've seen him make a mistake, he would eventually fix it.


 * Just like Topsy said, you were given a ban to stop the unnecessary adding of categories. IF you think 2 hours is a long time, well honey you have a REALLY LONG life ahead of you. In my opinion two hours is a very reasonable ban. You should be happy that it wasn't a day, maybe even a week long.


 * With the evidence that you have put out, it shows that you were ban-dodging. You're lucky he didn't ban you for even longer than 2 hours.


 * There is absolutely no reason for his Moderator status to be revoked.


 * LovingKate


 * Fact is, you added "wrong" categories to 74 pages. He was right to prevent you from changing more pages by giving you a temporary ban. He posted the message on your wall at 20:36 and issued the ban at 20:42. During those 6 minutes, you changed three more articles, the last one at 20:39. The few things I have to criticise at EpaX's behaviour are:
 * Not giving enough time to see if the warning takes action. Including waiting for a specific answer.
 * Calling 6 minutes without answer ignorance.
 * I wish that you keep cool in such situations and keep your respect for "not immediately applied instructions", then I don't see any problem in keeping him as Mod. Soulblydd (talk) 10:03, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Okay, I'm putting this up here because I think it's important. Are we really gong to allow Nexxy to vote? Five edits in total, and before today her last edit was a whole month ago. Her only edits before this one were adding an image of a crusher, of Hana's Mac-10, and leaving a message on ComradeJ's wall (One which makes abundantly clear that they know each other well, perhaps even in real life). I'm not saying that Comrade specifically brought Nexxy back to the wiki and told her to vote a certain way, but all things considered it looks VERY suspicious. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 07:05, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly what I was thinking. Also worth mentioning is that Nexxy only registered a month ago. 08:23, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * TopsyKretts3, you cannot discriminate any user on the wiki. You need to read this article.
 * EpaX, someone joining a month ago is suffice. Someone who joined in 1 day is considerable. If that's the case, you can remove KillerKate's vote off as well since she just joined 2 months ago. You may say she has a lot of edits, but that still does not mean they necessarily contribute to the wiki. Anyone can still rig their vote counts by, including, but not limited to, commenting on articles, writing on a user's message wall, writing a blog, uploading many images, and/or making lots of small meaningless minor edits, even if you click on minor edit. This is the reason why whenever I look at other propositions regarding promotions/demotions, I never take edit counts into consideration ComradeJ (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not just that she joined only a month ago, it's that she joined only a month ago, only had four edits previous to this one, had been completely inactive for the previous month, and obviously has personal connections to one of the sides. If she had joined only a month ago and had been active, then there would be no problem.


 * And bringing up the 'All Editors Are Equal' clause here would be akin to saying that we should allow someone in Nexxy's position to be a moderator because. All editors are equal in this case, because if they fit the necessary requirements to be able to vote, then no one will stop them. It's the same idea behind the voting age restrictions in some countries. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 18:01, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * The biased portion of the community exists, and although they have preference for one side, they still are part of the community. The reason the All Editors Are Equal rule exists is for this very purpose. Discounting a group just because it goes against what you believe is wrong. Lack of activity does not mean that they cannot analyze the situation and proof brought forth by the accuser any better or worse than you can. That is the point of the proof. Without it, it would come down to those who most actively participate making all decisions, like it already does. Probably something you all should work on, and stop feeling entitled to your job. 20:49, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not weary of Nexxy voting because she had her mind made before this vote was called, but because she hasn't been on the wiki in over a month and her first edit on her first day back *Her fifth edit in total) is this. Coupled with the fact that she and Comrade clearly know each other outside this wiki, perhaps in real life, is disturbing. It is even more disturbing when you have people saying that Comrade is calling them to the wiki and specifically telling them which way to vote, as seen on a message wall post on Comrade's wall by Logs.


 * And as to the issue of lack of activity, they can certainly analyze what the accuser has put forth, but that may not be the full story. People, when accusing others, tend only to tell their side of the story - the parts of it then make their case look good. It's no different than having a voting age in democracy. TopsyKretts3 (talk) 03:43, May 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take an insight of ComradeJ's actions.




 * She is clearly desperate in getting users like Logs to vote in her favour. She gives ridiculous reasons like "He's not even your friend in Combat Arms"; and when Logs publicises a part of it, she harasses him and says he is embarrassing himself.




 * As we all can see, Logs was very upset about her sly actions, up to the point where he decided to tell me, the opposition, about it. What do we think this says about her? She may seem all sweet and innocent on the Wiki, but behind people's backs she is doing things like this. I have absolutely no doubt that ComradeJ persuaded Nexxy's vote in this manner as well.  07:28, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Following this proposition, I'd also like for EpaX to remove the harassment off of his user sub page. He has already done enough damage to me by adding more injury to insult. Additionally, he destroyed my clean record log of no bans. ComradeJ (talk) 17:12, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want me to rename the heading, I will do so; but not the thread links. You should know that everything you post on this Wiki can be seen by anyone . There is no way you can say I am harassing you by saving those links on my subpage.


 * If anyone wants to view my side of this incident, they can view them here:


 * 1) Thread:78898
 * 2) Thread:78913
 * 3) Thread:78953


 * I'm not going to repeat my arguments again and again. 21:15, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * EpaX, you need to read the proposition carefully again. The only reason why you are repeating your argument is because you lack comprehension. There is no point for rebuttal if you keep bringing in the same information without wording it differently. There is nothing on the proposition where I mentioned the links you left on your wall is harassment in any way. You just have a bad word choice when you wrote your heading. Words do more than just meaning. They also symbolize your character, your communication, connotation, etc.


 * For your information, I already comprehended that anything published on the wiki is viewable to the public from the start when I joined this wiki ComradeJ (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

He's been cold and harsh since he was a moderator. He was pretty much friendlier before he was promoted. That's my opinion anyway.. :s ILYx3 (talk) 23:34, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. My time of promotion was at the same time as the beginning of year 11 for me, so my attitude may be due to work stress. I'll try to have a lighter tone. 00:08, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

"Not giving enough time to see if the warning takes action. Including waiting for a specific answer.

Calling 6 minutes without answer ignorance."

- Soulblydd


 * Yes, I admit I was in a rush at the time and made a swift and perhaps not the best decision. At the time of the warning post on Comrade's wall, I had to leave in 10 minutes and would not be back for another 3 hours. Judging the amount of non-reverted wrong additions to more than 70 articles in the space of half an hour, I made the decision that you see. If I had been around for longer, I would have waited some time longer. 12:01, May 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your bad decision has caused all of this to happen. Judging from your repetitive manner of making the same mistakes over and over again, I fear that you will never learn from your own mistakes. ComradeJ (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Although I am sure no one will bother reading anything I have to write, I gotta say, you both are at fault.

EpaX, you reacted harshly, and with retribution for a minor misunderstanding on Comrade's fault. You then exacerbated it by changing the block time by another few hours, which, although not long, isn't really cool in the first place without any reason to do so.

Comrade, you goofed, and instead of rushing over to the wall and start accusing of abuse, why not calmly take note of your own actions, and see why he may have blocked you. Then think of how you want to phrase the appeal to him to not be so harsh on the matter, and let it go. Instead, you felt the need to drag it out, and that is a silly thing to do, especially someone who powers who will with no doubt, abuse them like the rest of the staff has done, including me.

Side note, I can't believe this is STILL an issue. Don't you think you should come up with some regulations as to when a block is truly constituted, and for how long? It's a bit ridiculous that this still happens.

Best of wishes, 01:38, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * I would love to do that, but a moderator can keep extending bans from every minute to indefinitely. I was not sure if he would do that. I really wanted to talk to him, but like what I mentioned in the proposition, once you're blocked, you cannot say ANYTHING; you can't even reply in your own wall OR go in the Combat Arms Wiki chatroom (that's how bad it is when you get blocked on here). I did whatever it took to communicate to him, as well as searching for him online in the game. As ILYx3 mentioned in the comments, every since he become a moderator, I also see his character veered from being friendly to an antagonist. ComradeJ (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

"With the evidence that you have put out, it shows that you were ban-dodging. You're lucky he didn't ban you for even longer than 2 hours."

- KillerKate

Exactly. If he decided to extend your ban again to however he wants, how would you feel? The least he can do is extend my ban for a few minutes or release the ban when he is back. You can't tell his behavior in any way.

If EpaX was to go crazy and decided to block every user on the wiki for 1 year, I'm sure most people would ban dodge too because they can't communicate to anyone on the reason why they were banned or make discrepancies about the ban.

'''Please remember, this proposition isn't supposed to be aimed at me. It is to analyze EpaX's action and to decide on the whether or not to remove his moderator position. ''' ComradeJ (talk) 17:41, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

"He posted the message on your wall at 20:36 and issued the ban at 20:42. During those 6 minutes, you changed three more articles, the last one at 20:39."

- Soulblydd


 * I didn't see the notification until I finished editing the last article. In the proposition, I stated that I edited in multiple tabs, hence the reason why I did 3 more edits and publish the article quickly. Please take into account that you also need time to take a look at the wiki activity after finishing editing, reading the posted message carefully, and typing a constructive reply heedfully. For me, making a reply usually takes me 5 - 20 minutes because I do not like to make grammar errors and I do not like to write slang on the wiki. The other processes before that (looking at the wiki activity and finding out what EpaX is doing with my changes and reading the message on my wall) takes me 5 - 10 minutes. ComradeJ (talk) 17:53, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to sound biased but, not everybody is perfect as they might make mistakes. Z-Rex (talk)