Forum:Reconfirmation Request - Crazy sam10

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Reconfirmation Request - Crazy sam10

Foreword

Recently, there has been an incident in chat, beginning 10:16 26 Aug 2012 Wiki time regarding Crazy sam10, an inactive administrator. The record of the incident can be found here. Following this, he left the chat and proceeded to disable the chat feature, as evident here. Please ensure that you have a substantial understanding of the situation before voting, as this will determine whether the user in question will retain his sysop rights or not. If you do not have a substantial understanding, you may either abstain from voting or vote neutral.

---

This is in response to a chat incident beginning 10:16 26 Aug 2012 Wiki time. You will find an unabridged copy of the chat log here.

Upon completion of the incident shown in this log, Crazy Sam then took it upon himself to unilaterally disable the chat feature, and left the following message on the COD4 wiki for Jspoel. I've cut only a single word to avoid causing offence.

Hey JSP, it's me, Crazy sam10. I have reason to believe in due time you will be receiving a complaint of my actions on Vault Wiki. I feel you can do what you think is necessary, but I felt it was time to join chat and actively complain about their behaviour, instead of take what I said, they merely tried to point out my position and say it was my fault. The fact is Fallout wiki needs works on it's policies and how its admins are selected, while I feel I did a good job, my Admin forum had about 7 votes, most of which were from friends, many of the images need some better names, there's hardly any rules about behaviour, I felt disabling chat before I left was needed as after receiving a warning from a VSTF member they deduced calling him a "... Safety Task Force" was the best cause of action, also when presented with evidence I'd been supplied with that the current admins and mods are not dealing with appropriate issues I simply got told it's my fault.

To keep it short, do what you will when you receive the complaint about me, I did my best to make Fallout wiki good, but it's all for naught when the community wants to take after Cartman.

Defense

This I just received from VSTF member Callofduty4 on my talkpage at the Call of Duty wiki. I place it here in Sam's defense. I presume we will hear from himself too when he feels up for it. I think we can give him some time to gather his thoughts. Jspoel 03:26, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Response from Callofduty4

This incident has its backgrounds unfortunately. Please don't look so badly on Sam, he realises that what he did might have been over the top and he's sorry for that. It was the heat of the moment and he wasn't happy with what was going on. If he's not allowed to say what he said, then everyone else who said similar things should have similar action taking against them. The stuff said about VSTF wasn't appropriate, especially when one of them (me) was actually there. However, an apology was given and I gratefully accepted it, and explained my own actions.

Please remember that Sam is still a good administrator, he realises he was over the top with what he did and that he had a harsh tone. But he wanted people to know how he felt. That's something which he deserves to do, and I don't feel he should lose his rights over it. Just my thoughts as a user of the Vault/Nukapedia since last summer. Best of luck with this situation and I hope it gets sorted out fast. I also would prefer to now keep this to the Fallout armoury wiki, since the CoD Wiki is totally uninvolved in any of this. Callofduty4 02:08, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Response from CrazySam

I admit disabling chat was a bit OTT of me, but I'd like to show you a log of the other admins insulting the VSTF user and making a scene out of the user's warning. http://pastebin.com/A0LEDvtg I will take the ban as I do believe I was overly rude, but I wanted you to have the full log, given I was not the only one to break policy, as is seen with users treatment of the VSTF member. I am willing to take my full ban. I just wanted to let you know all the details, I admit I was overly rude, however I too was armed with some logs, such as http://pastebin.com/qYDxqA5q and this image although I raised these as issues that have come to my notice I was told to either give up my admin rights, or do a better job. While I admit I was rude, I don't feel I was being giving an attitude in response that was putting me off said behaviour. While you have a log of some things I said, which I admit looking back are very bad, I feel that doing a reconfirmation request after one altercation is a bit much, especially given in the logs I've shown users are clearly insulting and attacking a VSTF member. If users feel that attacking a VSTF member is OK and speaking ones mind is not than I personally fail to see how the Wiki has improved since Cartman! left. I've heard from multiple users that have left the wiki, all of which bad things, I admit the way I said it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was say "shape up, I've heard nothing but complaints". I joined at a time when users were trying to fob off a VSTF member, and it was the two admins in chat giving him the biggest greivence, I even heard later these same users did the same to a staff member when he joined later on. In short I feel that the response I was getting to my behaviour as well as others users behaviour prior to my altercation was hardly preventing me from acting the way I did, users were being just as snide in response to what I said and sadly it ended in me disabling chat out of rage. I noticed it was Sigma whom stared the reconfirmation, which is interesting as he was the one at the forefront of insulting me about the fact I have been inactive. - Crazy sam10

Poll

Should or should not Crazy sam10 retain his administrator rights?

Vote yes for the user in question to retain his administrator rights.

Vote no for the user in question to be removed of his administrator rights.

Poll finished on 2:26 am September 3, 2012 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

• - It was one event. I can't support the removal of rights for one event. Sam knows what he did was over the top but he was trying to make a point, please respect that he was trying to share his opinion about proceedings, even if he did it with a harsh tone. I have to say that basically all of what happened this evening sprung off of the really unnecessary feud between this wiki and the Halo Nation wiki. That's where all of this trouble is coming from, considering Sam had some things to say about it, so he knew of the situation and maybe that's why he joined the chat.
  We're voting to undo years of him being an admin for one incident. It's not worth it. Sam was one of the two people who made me feel welcome here last summer, he was, and still is always so nice to me and this is genuinely the last thing I'd expect from someone like him. I can't support the removal of his rights as this is just a one-off. Also note that the fact Sam contacted J right afterwards also shows he knew what he did did not go down well. It won't happen again, I can bet. Let's all just move on, there's too much drama going on here and it's not doing anyone any favours. This is all I shall say on this matter as my community involvement here has been recently limited and I reassert that the fact I am a VSTF member played no part in this and I am saying this as a member of this community and someone who's known Sam for a while. --Callofduty4 (talk) 04:36, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• First time this has ever happened. Ever. In the entire time I've known Sam, which is from the day I joined this website. 05:45, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• - Although I realize I'm fairly new to the wikia here, I also have been on the chat here and people have just gotten ridiculously vulgar, and inappropriate, something certainly needs to be done about this; O.K. now for this Sam guy, his intentions are good I can see that for certain, and I've read all the history involved as instructed to, and although he made A terrible mistake in trying to dismantle the chat, his intentions were good and you guys aren't realizing that, and this is his first mistake(albeit A big one!), I'm just trying to say, please give him another chance, if he fails again, by all means strip him of his right to being an admin, I will respond to your input. Wildwes7g7 (talk) 07:29, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Yes Sam should not have disabled the chat room, that was very un called for but i do agree on his side with some of the matters at hand.TheNemesisx 11:55, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

No

• I am astonished that people are voting neutral. Disabling the chat after a fight that had little to no credible evidence and using very weak blows is something only a disgruntled child would have done. Sam has done nothing for a long time and if he expects to be let go for this he is very clearly mistaken. ^{"You sir, are Pigeon Approved!"} 03:06, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• His immaturity in combination with the disabling of the chat feature and his inactivity and lack of dedication warrants a No from me.-- 04:15, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• There's really no point in waiting. I don't see his motivation to write a real defense so I doubt it'll happen. Plus, his actions were out-of-line anyway. 04:23, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• CharlesLeCheck 06:37, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• You earned your rights, but you don't deserve them now. You talk about Cartman and his ways, but you sure in the hell sounded like him during that incident. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 07:20, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Other than anothers bad acts, no reason has been given for his actions. His attitude isn't fit for an admin of this site (if there is a problem don't come into chat and moan for the first time in 6 months, fix it, especially if you're a leader), and harming 3rd parties in disabling chat is not on. Agent c (talk) 11:11, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Certainly not, you've proven both your detest of this wiki and your ineptitude for current wiki issues, policies and rules. Your actions are not befitting of someone in an administrator position, both insults and the abuse of power, even if it is a "heat of the moment" action I for one do not wish to see someone with administrator rights if they will act in such a manner in that scenario. If you truly felt as though users were breaking policies, of which you claimed at the time to have no knowledge of (see logs), then you should have acted with your rights rather then insult other users needlessly. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 11:50, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• Its my policy not to vote either way until the defence has had their say (this is a courtesy I extended to Cartman BTW) - and I advise others to do the same. But this had better be good sam. Agent c (talk) 02:36, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• As Agent c has stated, I am remaining neutral until the defense has had their say. As for my own input, I only need to say this: I never knew Crazy sam back when he was active on Nukapedia. I only saw him in the forums from time to time when I was a lurking anon. I DO know him quite well on the Call of Duty wiki, and he is a pretty cool guy there; however, this is not CoD wiki. This is Nukapedia, and this is the attitude he has decided to share with it. I look forward to your defense, Sam, as I don't want to see us lose an administrator. ~ Toci ~ ^{Go ahead, make my day.} 02:56, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• Agent C couldn't have put a better perspective on the matter. This is an unusual incident on here, and it has caught my attention. While I understand that CrazySam may have been an important editor for this wiki (I haven't met the man, but his editcount and former Admin position supposedly speak for himself), his actions on chat have not been those of a member who is willing to help; in sum, he's shown total indifference towards Nukapedia. In addition, I guess that just bringing up matters related to a personal beef (concerning Cartman!) to back his arguments up as to why this wiki supposedly lacks organisation is futile. Nevertheless, since I do not know him, I'll expect his defence and - as Agent C mentioned - it's the wisest thing to do. --C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 03:00, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
• I guess it's only fair to wait to hear from him. I must say however that, based off current information, I'm leaning towards no. I can understand getting caught in the heat of the moment and arguing, but disabling chat like that, I don't know. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 03:58, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

For the record, there are rules about behaviour. For those who feel the need to review them you'll find them here for the main wiki and here for chat. That an admin is unaware of our policies is for me a big red flag - how can one enforce rules if one is not aware of them; in addition saying that we are all "like Cartman" I am sure Sam only meant as an insult - against the very rules he thinks are not enforced.

When challenged as to what the issues are, Sam only seemed to be able to name the image names and some users defence of Cartman in a similar process to this as major issues that he felt needed dealing with, but you can review the logs at your leisure.

As mentioned earlier, after quitting chat Sam then took it upon himself to disable the chat function. With no consultation with other admins, or any direct reason for this action. This is a clear abuse of the power that he still retained as an inactive admin. Regardless of what was going on this is something he had no right to do.

Lastly, and I think this must be stressed, Crazy Sam is an inactive admin and one with clearly no intention of returning to any constructive role on this wiki. It is SOP in any major organisation that anyone who doesn't need access to something simply shouldn't have it. Whilst for most inactive admins we've left those rights there in the hope they may come back; in Sam's case leaving these rights open appears to be a liability that we need not take any further. This wiki loses nothing but a security hole in revoking his rights. Agent c (talk) 02:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Just in response to a query in chat. My belief is that if no defense is posted in a day or two, we check the wiki's he's been known to frequent. If he has edited there, we can assume he's forfitted his right to a defence - he would have gotten a pop up on those wikis he had messages here by that point. Agent c (talk) 03:05, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

People are still voting negative, aren't we supposed to wait until Sam posts something? ^Message 03:19, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Technically its not against the rules, and people voted before the defence in Yessies' and Cartmans' request. I'm disappointed others don't feel the need to wait for the trial to be over before voting, and rather vote at the halftime show. Agent c (talk) 03:22, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in waiting. Yes, perhaps if it was someone who was active in their dedication, we'd give them that respect. I see the disabling as immature vandalism. He misused his powers, which he obviously does not need. What would be his defense? He really does not seem to care about his position much.-- 04:17, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder on what the Crazy Sam had to say in Cartman's reconfirmation request:

Back when I was active at Vault I saw enough of Cartman to fully understand his conduct. He was condescending and patronising, these are not traits an admin should have. Whilst many of you believe an admins job is simply to enforce rules and check edits are mistaken. It takes both being at what they’re doing, and being polite to other users. Whilst I understand Cartman may enforce the rules I feel his treatment of other users is not up to the standards an admin should maintain. Admins are essentially leaders in the wikia, and new users will often come to them for help and when treated in the manner they are it more often than not makes them dislike the Vault. At the end of the day Admins should not be chosen purely on how many edits they have, they need a standing in the community as well. I have heard from many users who have since left the Vault they did so due to an unfriendly atmosphere, and statistics show it. Vault used to be one of the most visited sites, this is no longer the case. Yes you can argue it’s because of game releases, but the CoD wiki is gaining more and more users to its chat every day, and most of which stay due to the atmosphere, at peak condition we’ve hit the 30s in chat, whereas I’ve barely seen Vault beat 15 lately. To get more on to topic, I feel that it is up to admins to show professionalism in both their rule enforcement and attitude, and if an admin cannot treat other users in a polite way, or else they are simply ignoring policy by hiding behind their status. – Crazy sam10 18:43, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

By Sam's own standards I questions whether he grade. Coming in and saying what he said the way he said it does not meet the standards of what an admin should do (although at least here he acknowledges we have rules to be enforced). I agree with Sam admins should not be chosen just on edits but standing in the community - Sam has none beyond a few blog comments and some minor edits in June. He failed to show professionalism in his attitude. Agent c (talk) 04:59, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I do hope that by standing in the community you don't mean whether they are liked or not Chad. I'm pretty sure you don't; But anyway! There is only one user with rights that I would ever compare Cartman! with who won't be named. (Even though I'm sure he\she knows who he\she is.) We have rules that let us have fun while in the chat room which some of us are just accustomed to having. By which I mean that we are accustomed to it being there, not the rules that we have to follow. I know that I for one will be in a small depression should the chat not be there tomorrow! Our rules are perfectly fine the way they are. While I might be repeating myself, I feel like I can be open but not make other users feel uncomfortable. And should another user actually feel uncomfortable with the chat, (like talking about a real-world subject and the like ) they can say they do not agree with that kind of topic. After that the rules state everyone change the subject. Evidence these rules are enough is having nobody but users who think they are entitled to being able to break rules by saying certain words in a derogatory manner, or something else in the rules that other users don't agree with combat that the rules are too much or too little. Other than this I have also seen users from other wikis coming to ours for a while because of freedoms that they don't gave in other chats (mostly using "swear" words.) This is just my two cents. ^{"You sir, are Pigeon Approved!"} 06:13, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Lately I find myself having to stress to users how little chat means in the grand scheme of things. Sure, it's a bit of fun to chat with other users about whatever it is they please, but this Wiki is an encyclopaedia of Fallout, not Facebook. There are plenty of chat rooms around the internet to use.

Regardless, this isn't about that. The issue is that Sam got into a rather heated argument and in the end he clicked a little button (which every administrator has access to) that removed chat. The remedy was as easy as another of the many admins on this site to click that little button back and go on with their day. Do I think Sam did the right thing? No. Do I think he ought to be persecuted for one instance of bad behaviour on an otherwise impeccable record? Absolutely not. Let him serve his two week ban by himself; there's no need to get the entire Wiki involved. 06:24, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

That is the thing. Editing has slowed alot lately due to the lack of a new game. So chat is what is active and that is where this wiki has in a way is more active.--Kingclyde (talk) 11:26, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

By standing in the community I mean he basically doesn't no anything at all for the wiki. Some minor edits in June, mostly in userspace, this and nosing into Cartmans reconf. Request make up his activities here. Agent c (talk) 08:59, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are bringing up Cartman when he is long gone. On another note, you can't say what our atmosphere in chat is when you no longer are in it. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 06:20, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I was there during the time it all happened, and boy if it didn't rankle me to see ya trot in all high and mighty, putting everybody down and insulting us, telling us what we oughta be doing like ya sweat didn't smell. That ya know better than us what we are and are not, like we're all a bunch of crummy bums who can't do a darn thing right, like this place is a third-rate barrelhouse with no policy. Well Mr. Sam, we do have them here, and ya broke them.

I mulled over for a bit if it ain't bad-mannered to say my piece before you tell your side. But when it comes down to it, it's just like ya said, "Admins are essentially leaders in the wikia". At the end of the day ya just ain't the kinda of fella I want for a leader, and I don't need wait to hear ya tell your tale to know that. What I saw with my own two eyes is enough. CharlesLeCheck 06:37, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

By the way, whoever named those images of the chat... ya deserve a pat on the back ;) CharlesLeCheck 06:51, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Now, come on guys. Even if Sam did something wrong you don't have to be childish and taunt him like that. 07:46, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Agent c (talk) 10:11, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

sorry guys, I'm the 3rd yes vote, (Wildwes7g7 (talk) 07:28, August 27, 2012 (UTC))

Denis, it is customary for the jury to vote after both sides are heard, hence the neutral vote. Although my comments thus far could be seen as a bit of a prosecution of Sam, I am open to the possibility his defense argument might sway me, however unlikely that may be.Agent c (talk) 10:15, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I understand it is customary to hear both sides but the evidence is straight up and real plain. His view is that all of us "Nukapedians" are like Cartman in chat and don't belong in other chats. I would like to think we don't act like asses in other chat rooms. This looks to be yet another example of someone causing this so called "drama" yet again. My main concern is how this was dealt with, a reconfirmation request in my opinion was a little over the top for someone who has an otherwise spotless record. If I were in his position and was an admin, came in and went all haywire and got blocked fine. But to have a reconfirmation request put up, that would be borderline bull. The chat log clearly showed how he was taunted as well. In the end, in my opinion this reconfirmation should not have been called for a one time offense. He is being dealt with by blocks as of current. And just a note to user Stars and Stripes Forever, he couldn't defend himself he until someone copied his defense from his talk page. Anyways once again I feel he, after serving his punishment he should retain his rights as his record has been spotless and this was a one time event.--Kingclyde (talk) 11:21, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Were it an active admin who I can point to as having some good acts, I'd agree with you - Sam isn't, his most significant contribution from what I can see in the last 6 months was Cart's reconfirmation. Had he not disabled chat, I'd agree also. If he showed any sign of wanting to actually improve the community beyond petty name calling, I'd agree. None of these appear to be the case. 11:42, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I admit disabling chat was a bit OTT of me, but I'd like to show you a log of the other admins insulting the VSTF user and making a scene out of the user's warning.

Not in dispute, an apology has been given and accepted, disabling chat for one users actions is not appropriate, ever.

I will take the ban as I do believe I was overly rude, but I wanted you to have the full log, given I was not the only one to break policy, as is seen with users treatment of the VSTF member.

The VSTF member was, in the view of those of us present and appointed to admin/moderate the wiki acting well outside their remit attempting to "Warn" and threaten wikia involvement on issues where they, by their own admission, were ignorant of the full facts and had just accepted the others (Halonations) side of what had happened.

I feel that doing a reconfirmation request after one altercation is a bit much, especially given in the logs I've shown users are clearly insulting and attacking a VSTF member. If users feel that attacking a VSTF member is OK and speaking ones mind is not than I personally fail to see how the Wiki has improved since Cartman! left.

Noone is saying that it is okay. The user invovled apologised, and it was accepted. They chose not to progress things further. You however have had an effect on innocent bystanders, not acceptable.

I've heard from multiple users that have left the wiki, all of which bad things, I admit the way I said it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was say "shape up, I've heard nothing but complaints".

And we're still waiting to see what these issues are, beyond us all "acting like cartman" and the image namne thing

I joined at a time when users were trying to fob off a VSTF member, and it was the two admins in chat giving him the biggest greivence,

Hang on, he "Threatened" us first, and acted outside of the published VSTF remit. We were clairfying what facts he had (not all of them) and what right he felt he had to make such a threat to "report us to staff" for having some of our users dare visit the Halo wiki - users who except one were not present.

I even heard later these same users did the same to a staff member when he joined later on. A staff member who came over to our wiki in response to your posting on Jspoel's talk page over there, warning us not to let this issue overspill onto multiple wikis. There was some question as to what right he had to do so, especially when it was in response to your behavior.

Ultimately you have expressed a view that we don't have rules, policies and don't hand out punishments. We do. Ragequitting chat and disabling it is against the rules. You've expressed a view that we aren't picky enough about our admins, we are.

I'd agree there would be a case to make a lesser sanction, but other than generic issues and a failure from yourself as an admin to lead - something you feel is an important attribute, I dont see any redeeming features to suggest that you should retain rights. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. If you don't like the way things are done here, I thin you need to answer - what exactly are you doing about it? You're supposedly in a leadership position, lead. Agent c (talk) 11:03, August 27, 2012 (UTC)