User:Dylan Mak Tyme/BoxyImpeachmentCase

The Charges

1. Boxy made and failed to reverse an obviously bad verdict of not vandalism in the Saromu case.

2. Boxy suggested that the vandalism represented a reasonable policy suggestion, even though a system is in place to introduce policy without committing vandalism.

3. Boxy attempted to hide the incensed response to the decision by copying it to the discussion page rather than actually addressing it.

4. Boxy finally took administrative action, but only against a dissenting voice, barring Crabappleslegalteam from posting on the matter even on the discussion page.

The Vandalism Banning Page Entry

Saromu

Saromu (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Has vandalised an awful lot of suburb pages, deleting all groups in the "Survivors" category, even though in many cases they are still there. Not only is this inaccurate, if not often blatantly untrue, it is a case of "blanking sections" without real justification or right. Surely it's up to the groups themselves to remove themselves if they're not there (which they often are)?--Crabappleslegalteam 13:46, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, many of those suburbs I've been through where he removed the survivor groups don't have those survivor groups. That and it is kinda a good thing for those sections to be periodically blanked, many groups have a history of not removing themselves when they aren't in a suburb.--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)

This is a bit pre-emptive, however, we think, and somewhat self-servingly innacurate, for a zombie player--Crabappleslegalteam 12:42, 7 September 2007 (BST)

In the case of Molebank, there were multiple groups clearly active in the suburb in the preceding week, with many buildings barricaded and at least two lit around the clock to my knowledge for the whole day preceding the post. It is not up to some Saromu/Karek cabal to dictate policy for managing group lists. Our group did not notice Mr. Saromu/Corleone on his alleged tour, but had he acted in good faith and referenced publicly available intelligence on the area, he could have kept easily avoided any charges of vandalism. Deleting other user's contributions is a criterion for vandalism. He did so with reckless disregard for accuracy. The "not vandalism" declaration recorded below is rash, encouraging further vandalism of this sort and undermining faith in the wiki administration. An addition, boxy speculates on accepting Karek's absurd policy without formal proposal or community input. I move that the decision be reversed and boxy suspended from sysop duties and privileges for an appropriate period. Dylan Mak Tyme 19:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)

That was me who removed all the groups. I toured the whole western side of Malton and over the course of 7 days have not found a single barricaded building in any of the suburbs. That is why I cleaned up the suburb pages. Lukinswood is one I toured recently and didn't see any signs of life, which led me to removing all the groups from the suburb. I thank you for informing me that there are still some survivors active there since the point of removing the groups was to see who was still active. Thank you for your time. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 17:48, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism - I can't see any bad faith in this The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 15:47 6 September 2007 (BST)

Subsequent discussion moved to talk page The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 06:11 9 September 2007 (BST)

The Matter Removed by Boxy to the Vandalism Banning Talk Page

Saromu

Saromu (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Has vandalised an awful lot of suburb pages, deleting all groups in the "Survivors" category, even though in many cases they are still there. Not only is this inaccurate, if not often blatantly untrue, it is a case of "blanking sections" without real justification or right. Surely it's up to the groups themselves to remove themselves if they're not there (which they often are)?--Crabappleslegalteam 13:46, 6 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, many of those suburbs I've been through where he removed the survivor groups don't have those survivor groups. That and it is kinda a good thing for those sections to be periodically blanked, many groups have a history of not removing themselves when they aren't in a suburb.--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 6 September 2007 (BST)

This is a bit pre-emptive, however, we think, and somewhat self-servingly innacurate, for a zombie player--Crabappleslegalteam 12:42, 7 September 2007 (BST)

In the case of Molebank, there were multiple groups clearly active in the suburb in the preceding week, with many buildings barricaded and at least two lit around the clock to my knowledge for the whole day preceding the post. It is not up to some Saromu/Karek cabal to dictate policy for managing group lists. Our group did not notice Mr. Saromu/Corleone on his alleged tour, but had he acted in good faith and referenced publicly available intelligence on the area, he could have kept easily avoided any charges of vandalism. Deleting other user's contributions is a criterion for vandalism. He did so with reckless disregard for accuracy. The "not vandalism" declaration recorded below is rash, encouraging further vandalism of this sort and undermining faith in the wiki administration. An addition, boxy speculates on accepting Karek's absurd policy without formal proposal or community input. I move that the decision be reversed and boxy suspended from sysop duties and privileges for an appropriate period. Dylan Mak Tyme 19:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)

That was me who removed all the groups. I toured the whole western side of Malton and over the course of 7 days have not found a single barricaded building in any of the suburbs. That is why I cleaned up the suburb pages. Lukinswood is one I toured recently and didn't see any signs of life, which led me to removing all the groups from the suburb. I thank you for informing me that there are still some survivors active there since the point of removing the groups was to see who was still active. Thank you for your time. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 17:48, 4 September 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism - I can't see any bad faith in this The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 15:47 6 September 2007 (BST)

OK! We've no especial desire to penalise Mr. Corleone, and since he has essentially admitted his error we'll simply revert his edits. Mostly later in the day - we're too drunk right now. Cheers!--Crabappleslegalteam 01:42, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I'd suggest that you don't just revert the edits, rather, just put back the groups that you know are present in the suburb The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:21 7 September 2007 (BST)

Well, that would perpetuate the injustice of the original deletions! The wiki is meant to represent the game, and shouldn't be a playground for the most aggressive editors. Firstly, since Mr. Corleone clearly deleted groups we know were in various suburbs while they were still there, we suspect this is widespread. Secondly, by his own admission, he didn't even check inside the buildings. Thirdly, even if he had found no-one alive, being a zombie doesn't stop a person being a member of what have only recently been redefined as 'pro-survivor' groups. Fourthly, the whole thing is clearly set up so that Mr. Corleone and other zombies can monitor when and where groups are willing to 'declare' themselves alive and well and living in street 'y', so they can remove them specifically. Fifthly, he had no right in making the edit in the first place, and so they should be reverted. Sixthly (?) we're not going to waste valuable character time determining the exact extent of this gross misrepresentation. Seventhly (?!?), these things are fiddly! Is there an easier way of doing it than copying and pasting?!?--Crabappleslegalteam 12:36, 7 September 2007 (BST)

actually, we've figured it out now.--Crabappleslegalteam 12:43, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Actually, what Sonny did should happen on a semi-regular basis so that groups that aren't there aren't listed. Otherwise it's misinformation and counter to the purpose of the listing of the groups.--Karek^maps?! 16:52, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Not as misinformative and contrary to purpose as deleting the whole lot within (in some cases) several days (and cerainly not a month!) of zombie invasion, when members of those groups are most certainly often still there, and have certainly often returned in a matter of days. What do you want, constantly expanding and contracting group lists on a daily basis?!? There's enough inaccurate 'reporting' of "there is literally no-one left anywhere within miles, honest, we've checked! There's no point survivors coming here etc etc." without being accompanied by such heavy handed deletions as these. --Crabappleslegalteam 19:03, 7 September 2007 (BST)

And if you and your buddy boxy would like to see such policy instituted, then propose it. In writing. Like a sapient. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

If the groups are still there, let them put themselves back on. If they arent there anymore, or simply dont care, they wont. If they do care, then whoop de doo. Takes 30 seconds to put yourself up there again. No big effort, and it cleans the page up. This wiki is meant to be informative, and having dead or missing groups listed as present defeats the purpose of being informative. --The Grimch ^U! 19:16, 7 September 2007 (BST)

As Crab says. SSCC has had a presence in Shuttlebank right through Sonny's deletion. Yes, I could have with "no big effort" added us back after Sonny's deletion, but why should the default assumption be that we're gone, an assumption made by someone who doesn't even live/unlive in the suburb regularly? If a member of Extinction had deleted us, I'd find it less grief-ful, since they do indeed have a number of members there who would reasonably be able to assess our presence or lack of it. Basically, I think if we're going to err on this wiki, it should be on the side of inclusiveness, and major edits like this should be done by people/groups with an investment in a given suburb, not by someone just passing through. --Barbecue Barbecue 00:35, 8 September 2007 (BST)

As we've said, the deletions are entirely disinformative. Read above for the reasons. The prize for most blatant bad faith edit we've reverted so far? Chancelwood! There've never been less than about 200 survivors there for the whole time! Why should other players have to keep checking to see if some propagandists have deleted their group from the page that day or not anyway? Oh, and everyone knows that not all the red suburbs (and white ones, for that matter) are correctly tagged as such as well--Crabappleslegalteam 20:25, 7 September 2007 (BST)

finished, we think! Hopefully that's everything, and we didn't faff anything up by accident. Looking through, there are a number of places where other users got annoyed with this blanket editing, and there have been a few mini wiki wars over it. Having checked some of these comments, we've changed our minds, and suggest it's quite clear these deletions deserve a proper warning at least--Crabappleslegalteam 21:12, 7 September 2007 (BST)

In strong support of Crabappleslegalteam motion to reverse the "not vandalism" decision we note that today, and in addition to our statements of response above, we note that only two days after the vandalism incident, Molebank has received an objective review and been recategorized as yellow on the threat map. --Dylan Mak Tyme 21:21, 7 September 2007 (BST)

I'd like to say something. I was gone a few days and I get a vandalism charge? Oh lawdy. And for the one month thing. Yeah, that was a muck up. I remembered, for the most part, to switch around the names of the suburbs when I copypasta'ed what I said into the Summary box but I didn't remember to change the time since the last significant sighting of a group in the suburb. But yeah. The NW and W suburbs are empty of all life, except Dunnel Hills and the ones close to the south which have some pockets of resistance. So we all clear on this? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 03:32, 8 September 2007 (BST

We're clear on the basic fact that you are deleting groups arbitrarily to support the impression the zombies are being more successful than they are - stop talking cobblers mate! The basic fact is, this is one of those times when boundaries and group presence is constantly shifting, and you zombie propagandists keep rewriting suburb pages in your favour at the drop of a hat. Stop it! Just "Dunnel Hills and the ones close to the South!?!" Dream on, mouldy boy!--Crabappleslegalteam 20:53, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Suburb talk page? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:30 8 September 2007 (BST)

Or arbitration? This is going on a bit for this page - although why you just don't realise Sonny is sloppily rewriting core elements of pages innaccurately, deleting details pertaining to other groups without permission and refusing to accept contradiction we don't know! This is blatantly another aspect of the current attempt by zombie players to encourage survivors to think the situation is worse than it is, along with changing suburb danger levels innaccurately and posting innacurate news points. The latter 2 are relatively acceptable. Deleting other groups names from suburb pages en masse, innaccurately, without permission is not. Bad faith! Bad faith!--Crabappleslegalteam 20:53, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Dude, you already lost the bloody case. Shut the hell up about it already. It was a cleanup, and personally i think all groups, human and zombie, should be deleted from the pages, and only re added by the groups that are still there. --The Grimch ^U! 21:37, 8 September 2007 (BST)

It was not a cleanup, it was propaganda. Some of these deletions were so untrue it was laughable, and the rest are certainly not definite. A cleanup is where you tidy things up. This was quite unfair distortion in support of the zombie cause. We want to ensure that that is accepted so Corleone, and everybody else, thinks twice before declaring whatever side they are on to be the only game in town on core elements of suburb pages. Where have all the moderate moderators gone?!? It's getting so these pages are meaningless, because hardcore zombie players are steamrollering their cause all over them! Look at the evidence, discover objectivity, and realise that this is all just plain wrong!!! --Crabappleslegalteam 02:14, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Then draft a policy change.

Propaganda? Dude...there was no one in those suburbs. You're a retard. Not a person with mental disabilities. No, that would be mean. You're just retarded in the sense that you're a Klaxon going off for no reason. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 02:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

I was running scout missions through that area over that period and you are an obvious liar and a fool, covering an act of pure propagandistic vandalism with a lame story when tagged on it. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Bullshit. Anyone looking at the protests in the various areas knows that! Anyone playing the game in these areas knows that. The wiki is becoming useless as an information source because of this rubbish. Congratulations! This wiki is becoming more useless, and it's partially down to you - you've apparently got the support of several mods, but it is bullshit all the same and everyone knows it!--Crabappleslegalteam 04:07, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Crabappleslegalteam, Boxy told you to drop it and go to the appropriate page. Please, heed his/her advice or you may just wind up with your own entry on this page. Nalikill

Boxy's decision is the problem here, sysops, much less bureaucrats, condoning and supporting obvious vandalism is the problem here. The absence of a process for removing sysops or making them in any way accountable for either mistakes or abuses is the problem here. Get that problem under control and the Saromu's take care of themselves. --Dylan Mak Tyme 15:05, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Not vandalism. POOP. There goes another sysop telling this wasn't vandalism. How many more do you want ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:23, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Crabapple, I gave you a link to where you could further discuss this issue. Now leave this case alone The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 03:12 9 September 2007 (BST)

We just think you should discourage this kind of rubbish. And that link doesn't refer specifically to this, but to more policies that would penalise groups that don't have sufficient wiki representation to defend against such abuse. We'll stop now, but we've had a reasonable amount of support, because we're right, and if this doesn't tell you something, this wiki has a problem. If our deletions of these gross infringements are reverted, we hope you'll consider our subsequent vandal reports more seriously!--Crabappleslegalteam 03:58, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Hey Chicken Little, give it a rest already. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 04:19, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Thats a pretty egregious use of the Royal We there. Exactly how many people are being grossly infringed if not even one of them isn't present on the wiki to ensure its accurate? Five? Ten? Two? --Karlsbad 06:36, 9 September 2007 (BST)

Conclusion

There is no policy for the appeal of erroneous or abusive decisions by sysops on this wiki. The motion I am about to present has, and votes cast with regard to it have, no binding force.

Boxy has made a decision insupportable by the facts in the Saromu case, and actively worked to hide a very active dissent. The motion on the table is: Boxy's actions having undermined user faith in Boxy's judgement and, by reflection, the judgement of the wiki administrators, that Boxy be permanently removed from any administrative role on the Urban Dead wiki. In the world according to Saromu and Boxy, any vandalism that can even remotely be justified as a policy proposal is fair game. As a precedent, this decision is a de facto repeal of the vandalism rules and must not be allowed to stand.

A vote for is a vote to have Boxy permanently removed from any administrative function on the Urban Dead wiki.

A vote against is a vote to retain Boxy as a Bureaucrat on the Urban Dead wiki.

Voting section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. --Dylan Mak Tyme 16:38, 9 September 2007 (BST)
2. because he doesnt like mudkipz. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:28, 5 October 2007 (BST)
3. because there can be only one.-- Vista  +1  20:50, 6 October 2007 (BST)
4. Clearly, all sysops and bureaucrats should be infallible. Just like the Pope. 'arm. 14:00, 7 October 2007 (BST)

---