Forum:New Administrators 2014/Controversy

The beginning of the voting progress became very suspicious to me. Eventually I did some research to see if there actually was a problem, coming across a major issue. Other users were pestering, threatening, or bribing other users to vote for them. The suspects so far have been users Staw-Hat Luffy and possibly Roranoa zoro. I was first aware by getting a screenshot of Staw pestering other users to vote for him. This was mainly on the One Piece Skype chat. He even changed the user rights of OnePieceNation on a different wiki so that he would gain his vote. He wrote it on his talk page, eventually trying to delete the evidence, but made a mistake. He left some evidence behind on his contribution page. He even asked inactive users to vote for him. All the evidence I gathered is here. But I forgot to include that he even went to other wikis, such as the Fairy Tale wiki, and asked them to vote for him. He tried to convince other users to not vote for the other nominations, especially by belittling JustSomeDude... and I. These actions are not acceptable, especially when we are trying to choose three of the future admins. 01:55, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
This is totally unacceptable. It's a clear and obvious violation of our poll rules. The fact that Staw tried to delete that message for OPN shows that he clearly knew the rules before he started scheming. I don't know really what else to say other than voter corruption should not be tolerated in any form. (It's really bad to see it from a user who's supposed to be a chat mod too...)In the short term, I think we need to focus on how we move forward from here with the election. Do we just void all the votes for Staw and Roa, or do we just redo the whole thing? And what about people like OPN who weren't just asked to vote, but made deals with the candidates? Do we remove their other voters? 02:07, October 3, 2014 (UTC)Since there seems to be compelling evidence on foul play, these unscrupulous candidates should be removed from consideration immediately. The voting process should be halted, until we weed out everyone possible. We can then restart the polls. 02:09, October 3, 2014 (UTC)From what is shown is that it was only Staw. The one I saw of Rora was just making fun of Staw's post about it. SeaTerror (talk) 02:11, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. I'm not even going to listen to this shit. Anyone found trying to strongarm votes will be disqualified and subject to the possibility of banishment without forum. This applies to all acts past, present, and future. This is non-negotiable. 02:12, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "past". We can't ban people for doing something before it was even a rule. SeaTerror (talk) 02:15, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to this discussion now, ST. This forum is about events that happened long after the rule existed. Don't get distracted by DP's rage at the accused. 02:24, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, fuck the edit conflicts. So we have evidence on Staw. But if there's no evidence on Roa, then he stays. If he is indeed just making fun on Staw's post. We will have to restart the entire poll now, since 13 people voted for Staw. 02:16, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I take my vote away from Staw

Joekido (talk) 02:18, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to restart the entire poll. Many people just voted for him. SeaTerror (talk) 02:18, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so those 13 people get one more vote. Staw is removed (possibly banned). Do we have evidence on Roa? 02:21, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence of Roa so far, but he could have been smarter about erasing any evidence leading back to him. 02:23, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Roa, but we shouldn't do anything to him. He is innocent, until proven guilty. Now Staw... BAN HIM!

Nobody700 (talk) 02:26, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

So remove all of Staw's votes and all voters who cast him poll, vote for someone else. 02:27, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Should we also remove his rights? He is suppose to be an role model to other users with his current rights. 02:33, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Anyone thinks he deserves a chance to explain himself before evoking the ban and right removal? If not, we can go straight for it. 02:35, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

This is some secondhand evidence (Jade can't post it right now, so I'm doing it for her) and the other person in the screenshot wants to remain anonymous, as far as I know. But this is evidence against Roa.

Even though I voted for Roa, I'd say the better option is to not allow people to change their votes. We just don't know who's vote was corrupted and who's was not. DP made the rule in advance that votes can't be changed, so people should have known in advance. If you're like me and were not asked to vote for Staw or Roa but did it anyway, tough shit, I guess. This is what happens when the system is broken by others who are too immature to handle it. 02:36, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yata, I'd say there's no reason to allow Staw to keep his rights now (inc his rollback rights) as he could use those to cause harm in a Gal-like rampage. But he should be allowed to try and defend himself from ban. 02:38, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I feel that Staw should be demoted from a chat moderator to a regular user, he clearly blatantly disregarded the rules, and as such, is unfit to be a chat moderator, someone who is supposed to enforce the rules, not break them.

We should wait for him to explain himself before banning him though. 02:39, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

So Roa has evidence against him too? Well, Staw and Roa did vote for others, should we nullify their votes? 02:42, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. 02:42, October 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, but it has be done. 02:47, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

No. Don't nullify their votes. That'll just make things more complicated. Keep their votes on and push the poll's expiry time back 3 days. 02:49, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

There's still not enough evidence for Rora. From what is shown it shows that the user is misremembering since they said "I don't recall exactly" which also seems like it on the last part of it. We need more more concrete screenshots of direct evidence for him. SeaTerror (talk) 02:52, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so we remove Staw, but keep his votes, and extend the deadline to the 10th. Meanwhile, maybe try to find more about Roa. 02:58, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

So what do we do about Staw's rollback and chat moderator rights? I strongly favor stripping him of these rights, as he clearly showed in this incident that he does not care about the rules. We need someone to enforce the rules in the chat, not someone who went as far as tampering with the admin elections. 03:10, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I know, let's wait for him to show up and give his side of the story. If he doesn't show up soon, then we can rip those away from him. 03:15, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

It is 6 AM there. SeaTerror (talk) 03:18, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

How can he possibly justify breaking the rules, with full knowledge of the rules and consquences? And anyway, even if he can justify cheating, it is absolutely no excuse to allow him to keep his rights. 03:21, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I wish a young, handsome, intelligent guy saw this coming. oh wait! i did! When i brought up people buying votes. It was ignored. but whatever, as long as it benefits someone's campaign to bring up the issue, then people will start pushing the issue, its whatever. I think people have been unnecessarily harsh with Staw in the past, so maybe this time a little restraint should be shown.Lets go with the Zoro method, if he comes back and sees the error of his ways and gives a heart felt apology, we put this behind us, and make it his last strike. 03:32, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Look,yes the person in the scrnshot was me. If you people want argue over this or whatever than let me save you the trouble:

1. Roa did come over, he did pm me and said something along the lines of "Staw is down in the polls" and implied that I should give him a vote or something.

2. What is clear is that the intent was to get me to vote for Staw.

3. No I do not know if they were in cahoots or if he was acting on his own accord.

4. All of the above are facts. Anything else suggested is left up to your own debate. FleetAdmiral   04:07, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think while Staw has clearly been more prolific and obvious with his corruption of the election, there's enough evidence against Roa as well. Between the screencaps in the gallery of him talking with Staw, how Staw asked people to vote for both himself and Roa, and Roa asking (or at the very least implying) FA to vote for Staw, it's clear that the two of them conspired together. To punish one and not the other just should not be an option.

However, there since there is more evidence of Staw acting poorly, and very little of Roa, if we were to take action beyond disqualifying them (and their votes), in the form of bans or whatever, I would say Staw deserves more punishment than Roa. But that probably should be a separate discussion, and focused on each person individually for their individual transgressions. 05:12, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a rule about inactive users voting in polls. A lot of the people Staw was talking to/bribing were users who meet the criteria for voting in polls but rarely, if ever, edit here. It doesn't seem fair that people who aren't involved with the wiki anymore should still be allowed to vote, especially for something as critical as new admins. 05:21, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Is there a rule against bribing :D Do whatever you want I legit don't care, but nobody ever said you can't bribe :D 05:41, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we kind of did. 05:53, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes there is. "Users are forbidden from bribing or convincing other users to change or alter their vote in exchange for any reward or favor, whether they are serious or not." 05:58, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I hope you guys didn't expect me to read such a long forum... Anyway., lelouch summed up the discussion for me and yeah, remove my rights, ban me, do whetever you want to me. But Fyi, the only person i kinda bribed was OPN, nobody else. And if asking is against the rules then Calu shouldn't be in the votings list too. But I'm not gonna start a war with screenshots and shit, you people never liked me anyway. Just fuck off doing anything to roa. I'm the only one who did bad stuff, i'm the only one who should be punished. 06:14, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

"there's enough evidence against Roa as well." No there isn't. Unless you have a more direct screenshot. SeaTerror (talk) 07:35, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

OK,lemme say what i want to(my English's not good enough to explain exactly what i mean,sorry but i'll try my best):
 * Looks like I've got 16 votes and I didnt "ask" any of them to vote for me,I believe all of em voted me on their own accord.
 * here's my screenshot with chat with FA,I did ask him to vote for staw(Im not a dumbass digging my own grave linking this screenshot,i just truly believe there was nothing wrong with it at all):
 * It was more of a reminder to him that he's eligible to vote along with a small message to vote for staw(whom i'm obviously supporting to be an admin along with JSD).I mean almost it's inevitable for anyone who reminds people to vote in a poll to tag a message like "try voting for me/this candidate dude"
 * I also thought it might turn into a hilarious conversation/trolling that i can link in our chat.

"I don't have any evidence of Roa so far, but he could have been smarter about erasing any evidence leading back to him. ",No im not smart enough for that especially when a buncha detectives are ready to dig through contribs,
 * Since many believe i cheated,i think we can make an exception for them take away their votes from me.
 * About OPN and Staw;The former wanted to be a crat on berserk wiki for a long time and staw had already decided to make him a crat too,it just happened at the wrong time(election season?)...it's pretty obvious whom he'd have voted for even if we just linked him the poll..but lets not talk about that.
 * Lemme be honest about this,both staw's and my nominations initially(as many realised) started out as trolling but we're serious about helping the wiki.
 * If any of what i did was truly wrong,im ready to withdraw the nomination.
 * I've one question though,is it wrong to link the poll to people eligible to vote?(Staw more or less did only this,except maybe with OPN but he was making him a crat anyway).

(About Staw)"He tried to convince other users to not vote for the other nominations, especially by belittling JustSomeDude... and I",..all of us did it(me,st,many others) none of us actually mean it at all it's just a small act of trolling.

PS even if this leads to any bans,we wont snap like gal:)Thanks.--

So you're telling me this whole "controversy" is about what Roa just posted? You're joking right? All it looks to me is people looking for any excuse to get rid of the competition. Come on Calu chill out, you used to be one of the calmer people. And Jade just......lol. 10:01, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this sure looks like "pestering, threatening, or bribing other users to vote for them". http://puu.sh/bXsz2/113f450439.png 10:28, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

The people here are unnecessarily harsh with Staw-Hat Luffy. He was with his back against the wall and simply had other obligations during that period, like fighting against crime, which prevented him from finding the time to read the memorandum poll rules. Staw-Hat Luffy is the admin our wiki needs but not the one it deserves. MasterDeva (talk) 13:35, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what Roa posted is a problem. He asked FA to vote FOR Staw, which is against the rules. It doesn't matter who Roa asked him to vote for, the fact that he asked him to vote FOR anything is voter tampering. Asking people to vote in general (like in the screenshot Lelo linked above) is not against the rules since you are leaving the decision of who to vote for up to them. But tracking down one person and asking them to vote FOR something is not making the decision totally their own. (And Calu's little campaign poster is no problem, since she didn't use it to target any specific users, she just posted it in main chat)

And for anyone who is too lazy to read the rules regarding "Discussing Polls in other places", here they are exactly the way they've been the rules for the last two years :


 * '''Users are discouraged from telling other users who have not yet voted to vote for a specific poll option. This is so that the other users will go into the poll with an open mind. Users are however, encouraged to inform other users that the poll is open without conveying their opinion.


 * Users are forbidden from bribing or convincing other users to change or alter their vote in exchange for any reward or favor, whether they are serious or not. Examples of violations of this rule would be


 * Telling a person you will give them some sort of real or imaginary gift in exchange for their vote.
 * Telling a person they should vote with you because you are friends or they owe you a favor.
 * Telling a person they should vote with you because of any reason that is unrelated to the issue in the poll.'''

Hope you guys can actually read them now. And Deva, that's not correct at all, these rules have been in effect for two whole years. And Staw participated in the discussion the last time these rules were brought up. He should be aware of them, and ignorance is not a legitimate excuse. 13:45, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I was obviously kidding JSD, although I presume only Staw will be able to "get" it since it is somewhat of an inside joke. MasterDeva (talk) 13:53, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Now that my vote for Staw is considered null, can I cast another vote for another user?

Yeah, as long as it's only 3 votes. 14:46, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

That has yet to be decided. The rules DP made for the voting say that votes cannot be changed. Better to wait and see how this goes before any votes are changed.

Also, I believe since we were given proof that Roa broke the rules, it's time to disqualify him as well. I guess I'm just waiting on an Admin to confirm we should do that. 16:01, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

A'ight, please let me know when I'd be allowed to cast a new vote.

Given the circumstances, they can be recast. It's the reason I ordered the deadline be pushed back by three days. 16:05, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

DP has given his word, so I shall vote for a new candidate. Thank you, DP. ;D

Dont wanna do this,but here we go:
 * "(And Calu's little campaign poster is no problem, since she didn't use it to target any specific users, she just posted it in main chat)"
 * "Users are discouraged from telling other users who have not yet voted to vote for a specific poll option. This is so that the other users will go into the poll with an open mind. Users are however, encouraged to inform other users that the poll is open without conveying their opinion. "
 * Calu did that,there's nothing about specific users or anything;she should be disqualified too..we're awaiting admin response.--

Ok guys, this is the last thing I'll say on this forum. If you want justice in your polls, then you should discualify Calu and ST too. Well ST is ST anyway, not gonna elaborate on this but Calu also was asking in PMs for people to vote for her, I know because those specific users told me. The difference is that she didn't make anything public, while me and roa did just because we didn't consider it bad. And if you think that her poster is not bad, I really can't understand your logic... No actually I do, you're just trying to take out candidates that could be a potential threat to your spots, Calu and JSD. Other than the OPN thing, I didn't bribe or threaten or whateevr anyone else, I said "Hey, will you vote for me?" They said "Sure" or "Sorry, I want to vote other people". I don't see what the fuck is even wrong with that,I really don't. And OPN would have voted me anyway since, unlike you people, I gave him a chance to talk to me and judge him by myself. The fact that roa linked you that screenshot by himself is enough proof that we did not consider what we did bad at all. And I ceratinly am not the only person who was expressing his opinion on who sould become an admin and who shouldn't. So, if any of the users who posted here actually want fair elections and not just want to have things easier for themselves, you're really far from doing the right thing. 16:16, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we remake the poll altogether from scratch and this time each candidate can make a "little speech/introduction" in the forum so that everyone will "tell other users who have not yet voted to vote for a specific poll option" fair and square? (still not allowing the personal campaign in other places though) Looking at the controversy here, it seems like an actual politic election so we may as well go all in.

Just my piece of mind .. I don't know about other members but Roa is NOT someone who will try any sort of dirty tactic to gain votes or win favor. I have known him for while and I have seen the things he has done(both good and bad) but he has done nothing unethical. If things said in chat at whim in the context of fun and silly-conversation started getting considered as hardcore proofs .... there will be ban forums opening for random members everyday on silly matters. Just saying.

If you have proof of others asking people for votes, then go get it. I'll be in favor of their removal too, I'm not being a hypocrite here. But this is the first I'm hearing of such things about others.

I'm not doing this for political reasons, but because I believe anyone who needs to personally ask for votes for them is not fit to be an admin. This isn't some perfect world where people are gonna vote for what they truly believe, but one where most of the time inexperienced editors won't say no to people personally asking for votes. Most people who need to be asked to vote aren't gonna take the effort to go look through the contribs and accomplishments of other users to figure out who they think deserves their vote, they'll just say "ok" and vote for whoever asked. That's why I think we need these rules, since the requirements to vote don't cover how much people care about the wiki. In the past I've been against having an "activity requirement" to vote, but this controversy is starting to change my mind on that, at least for elections.

And regarding Calu's poster, I think I need to explain more backstory. I actually wrote this rule we're talking about years ago in Forum:Forum Rules Update. The intent behind the rule was to help people to think for themselves in voting. As the rule is written, you can make a case that Calu has broken it (the way it's written doesn't really cover this exact situation). But judging from the intent I had when I wrote the rules, and from what I've seen, Calu's done nothing wrong. Showing that poster in main chat is like the equivalent of of putting up a political sign on the road; people can choose to read it, but they feel no obligation to vote for them. But what Staw and Roa have done is to personally track down people (sometimes at great lengths, like for those who are inactive here) and ask them personally to vote the way they want; People will feel a sense of obligation from that. Unless Calu actually did go into PMs with people who have not voted and asked them to vote for her, I don't see anything wrong with her actions.

And regarding Levi's post, I don't think that's truly necessary unless more people turn out to have broken the rules. Extending the poll and allowing people to change their votes should be fine in my mind. If it's clear that a larger portion of the candidates broke these rules, then maybe we should redo it.

Also, we still need admin judgement on if Roa is still the election. 17:09, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Even though DP removed Staw in the list of candidates for the Admin position, the voting is still in shambles because of the remaining existing issues and everyone is pointing onto one another. At this rate, even if we reach a community consensus, I have a feeling that this voting will be dragged on longer than the expected deadline, so if anything, I am in favor of resetting the poll back to zero for every candidates. That way (I think), those who are active in the wiki can vote and cite their reason, and those who are inactive or not even coming here anymore can remain inactive. In Roa's screen shot, FleetAdmiral said himself that he hardly comes here and he doesn't care who wins, so why vote in the first place? If we reset the poll, we can eliminate the excess votes and we'd have a fair election. I would also suggest that why not the admins themselves handpick their own candidates and just let us vote on those, but I don't want the election process to go that far (even though I said it myself.. ugh).

Whatever though, just my two cents. My vote still stands, and I'd go along with whatever that will happen.

Based on what I see (very little), Roa asked FleetAdmiral to vote for Staw. But in the other image he said whomever you see fit. I may say the first one is a transgression. 17:33, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Idk how u interpret the rule but here's what i've to say:
 * Rule says-:"Users are discouraged from telling other users who have not yet voted to vote for a specific poll option. This is so that the other users will go into the poll with an open mind. Users are however, encouraged to inform other users that the poll is open without conveying their opinion. "
 * What Calu did?tell other users to vote for a specific poll option.(through her little campaign poster)..the rules mention not to do it,it doesnt tell doing it in main chat to multiple users is accepted does it?--

Well, I'd say one transgrestion is enough. Is Roa disqualified, Yata?

And I've said just about all I can say as far as Calu. I don't want to stretch this out by posting a bunch and saying the same shit over and over again. I'm just gonna let other people discuss it for a bit first. 17:40, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

That rule is only supposed to apply to situations where it would benefit the user doing it. Such as telling people to vote on a specific manga image or something they had voted on. SeaTerror (talk) 17:51, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic, ST. This is a perfect situation where it benefits the user asking, it's an election. And if you don't think this was the kind of situation the rule is supposed to apply to, then I don't know what to tell you. I wrote it and I intended it to apply to all polls. Just because you didn't forsee it applying here, it doesn't mean you're right. 18:04, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Idgaf about staw, but it will be unfair if you remove roa as well from the poll for doing..nothing wrong. + He knows more stuff about coding and shit than all of you together, so yeah, he will be x100 more useful for the wiki than the current admins and the new ones. So the only thing you will accomplish if you remove him from the poll(which is obvious that he won along with jsd and calu) is to prevent one of the most skilled users from helping the wiki. 18:06, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Tell me how telling people to vote for SOMEBODY ELSE benefits them. That would be like if Obama told people to vote for Romney. It didn't apply to this because the situation is different and that was really only made for image polls and regualar polls. We had to revote on the rules because people kept trying to add Viz images and claimed it was a rule when it never was. SeaTerror (talk) 18:09, October 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Roa voted for Staw, he told FA to vote for Staw. It's no different than the way this rule would normally be invoked on a non-election poll. FA voting for the same person Roa voted for benefits Roa. It's simple. 18:42, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that instead of having a poll to elect new admins, we have a sh*tstorm of people pointing fingers. Who is right and who is wrong is another story, but I don't think this is the best atmosphere to elect new admins, since and admin should be a trustworthy user of the community. Even though all of the candidates are trustworthy, we are now pointing fingers so when the new admisn will be elcted, due this controversy I think there will be a lot of "but" or "what if" in the head of many users. I don't like that. That's why I propose to re-do the poll entirely: maybe that rule wasn't clear, maybe they did that in good faith, just remake the whole thing, give this time a place in the forum to them for "selling themselves" and whoever will be caught doing that again, will be removed from the poll.