UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Gage » 2006

06:20, 12 November 2006

Revealed data gathered through CheckUser without meeting the criteria set forth in the Privacy policy. Moderators need this tool to research vandalism but in cases where no obvious threat of vandalism exists there is no need to release the information about the identity of alts or their IPs to readers in general. This is likely the most obvious case in which it was not reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Urban Dead wiki, its users or the public. As I am unaware of any precedent for this I am unsure what measures would be most appropriate to discourage this among mods in the future. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I never released his IP, brightspark.--Gage 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Precedent--Gage 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you do not find this to be a form of personal attack. I feel that the privacy policy has been ignored in several cases by more than one moderator and I feel we need some form of definition as to whether we are observing it or not. Again please don't take it personally. I chose this case as it does not involve authors other than Kevan but I feel even Kevan deserves the respect of the policy he put in place. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A new user shows up and immediately starts giving their input on a case on M/VB; nine times out of ten they've been sock puppets. Checking the identity was not misconduct. Revealing it was. Gage says he was under the mistaken impression it was allowable, because of this edit. He had assumed Bob used CheckUser to find that out, when it was merely an educated guess. (There were two suspects, and he had knowledge of it being either Scinfaxi or Jjames from the ASSault's forum. He picked one and hey!, what'd ya know?)
Although Gage should've read the guidelines, I believe this was an honest mistake. I'm not sure what the punishment should be either, but bearing that in mind [mistaken impression] I do think that anything exceeding a warning would be overkill, even that would be, truth be told. (For future reference: I believe a warning for a deliberate and knowing violation would be warranted though.)
Make it a warning and leave it at that? –Xoid M•T•FU! 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit: is there a lesser penalty available for this case specifically, given the circumstances? –Xoid M•T•FU! 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
You could always tell me not to do it again. I will admit to not reading the fucking manual, and Kevan didn't seem miffed by the unveiling. Now that I know the rules, I won't do it again.--Gage 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see this case serve as an initial polite warning to all of us mods that this should be a warnable offence. If that seems fair to everone one I hope we can let it go at that. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to de-"CheckUser" him for a short period of time? I think it shows that we're serious about this not happening again, doesn't hurt the wiki, etc. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't like to do this, but your permaban of that Appelflappenator guy was jumping the gun a bit. Two positive contributions, a couple neutral, and two naughty ones. I'll admit that it (superficially) looks more like two positive contributions, one neutral, three naughty ones… but you are supposed to look at the edits in context. I'm surprised really, you're usually much more careful than this.

Considering this wasn't a pressing case, you could quite easily have merely reported it and get a second opinion, but you did not. Thus I consider this misconduct. –Xoid M•T•FU! 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely thought he was a bad faith contributor... I should have gotten a second opinion. A well, hindsight is 20/20, right? Sorry guys.--Gage 07:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Misconduct - I think I deserve a two hour ban, and Xoid has agreed with me over IM.--Gage 07:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

22:00, 1 November 2006

Major Gage Spaminated my suggestion on limits to multi class without there being any votes on the matter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SporeSore (talk • contribs) .

That diff comparison is over the course of four hours of voting and is deceptive! I believe you are looking for this.--Gage 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty easy one here... 

From Section 3 re: the Rules on making a suggestion.

A Moderator can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps. This includes their own spam vote.

OBVIOUSLY Not Misconduct. The next time you bring a case 1. make sure you have reviewed the History properly and 2. Sign your damn complaint. and 3. When making a Suggestion have a look through the peer rejected 1st. Conndrakamod T CFT 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

01:12, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Deleted For God So Loved Amazing -- no notice was ever placed on the page that the policy was a deletion candidate.

5 people voted on the delete, whereas almost 60 had voted on the policy, not enough notice was given. (some of us don't check every page of the wiki constantly for updates)

Also Gage, you are an idiot, and using Data as a forum avatar is far from cool. -- Rueful 01:12, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Misconduct, easily. You can't just got and delete an active policy! I didn't even know it was nominated, and very few other people probably did either. Undeleted. No punishment shall fall upon Gage, however.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:17, 26 October 2006 (BST)
If I made a policy on the earth being flat it's being deleted mid-vote wouldn't even be in question. General, there are no rules against deleting a policy as it is being voted upon. The unban Jedaz petition could have been legitimately deleted, even a moment before it closed without technically violating the guidelines simply because it was a vandal created page. Regardless, some things shouldn't be done. I'll let others decide whether this was misconduct, but the page should've stayed.
Another thing, General, remember how you said you'd bring up the banning moderator for misconduct if the "Ban Amazing" policy ever went through? Expect the same. If, god forbid, Amazing is unbanned… Rueful isn't going with him. –Xoid S•T•FU! 01:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)
Not putting {{delete}} on a page is not the deleting moderator's offence, nor is it misconduct. It is sloppy editing, but Gage wasn't even the person who nominated it.
As an aside; I officially rule that Data sucks. Heh, suck on that Gage.
–Xoid S•T•FU! 01:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)
Indeed, that was my bad. Sorry Gage, I certainly don't want you to take heat for my screw up. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 03:20, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Agreed, in a way. I wasn't punishing Gage for it anyway. And, I don't mind if Rueful is banned or not, well, not enough to create drama about it anyway.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:44, 26 October 2006 (BST)

you wouldn't miss me? -- Rueful 01:52, 26 October 2006 (BST)
Not sure, if you get banned then i'll find out :p. Seriously though, if you want to get yourself banned, then there's no point in me argueing with you.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 01:59, 26 October 2006 (BST)
I never said I wanted to be banned, I'm performing a valuable service to the wiki community. I know that I can not bear the torch of keeping the wiki interesting, so I'm doing you all a favor(or favour for you Canadians) by making this sacrifice. -- Rueful 02:27, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Misconduct - you were early by about half a day. However, no warning will be assessed. I'm going to extend the vote time for a week and place the {{Delete}} template on the page. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 01:48, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Typically there is some leeway given for being "under time" due to different timezones. Given that Gage is in America, if anything he should've been a day late on deleting it if he wishes to use that excuse. Voting is pointless, however."

Also, just move the page to "served" and say it was kept: voting on whether it's deleted or not is pointless. (Deletion would occur after voting finishes. Deleting a policy once it's finished? It still doesn't change the outcome.)

Posted on behalf of Xoid.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 10:46, 26 October 2006 (BST)

23:41, 22 October 2006 (BST)

Removed a suggestion with 5 spam votes but not having the 7 needed to remove. Also did this to a suggestion that was not up for a reasonable amount of time to get other votes. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions#PKer_Criminal_Class --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 23:41, 22 October 2006 (BST)

Read. The. Rules. Not misconduct--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:42, 22 October 2006 (BST)
I haven't been here in over a month. Could you please redirect me to said rules? --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 23:44, 22 October 2006 (BST)
Top of the suggestions page, they've been there since the original spam vote rework.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:49, 22 October 2006 (BST)
Just read it over again. 7 spam votes needed or 3 for the mod to remove it. However for the latter it'd need to be an unintelligent suggestion. Since it wasn't and ALL of the spam votes applied for the KILL vote, not SPAM, it was not a legal removal. Instead Gage, being the level headed mod he is, should have removed the spam votes, including his own, which were in the wrong spot. Also the vote was up for 1 hour and 31 minutes, obviously not enough time for anyone to view. That is 3/48 of the regular time a serious suggestion is up for. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 23:54, 22 October 2006 (BST)
He followed the rules though, which means I can't ban him for it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)
He followed the rules for a case that did not exist. Since those Spam votes were not really Spam, it should not have been removed. Being a mod he should have removed the votes and have not contributed to it. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:04, 23 October 2006 (BST)
What are you babbling about Sonny? Spam votes that aren't spam? Huh?--Gage 00:09, 23 October 2006 (BST)
If I voted Spam and gave a reason that fell under the Keep category it would be removed for not belonging there. Why is it that you did not do that with Spam votes that belonged in Kill? If you did then there would be no reason for its removal. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:12, 23 October 2006 (BST)
To quote the Suggestion page "Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM." The suggestion did not fall under that so those Spam votes were invalid. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:13, 23 October 2006 (BST)
It broke one of the fundamental assumptions of the game. Get over youself man. I am a PKer and I thought it was ridiculous.--Gage 00:15, 23 October 2006 (BST)
It broke nothing. It broke no rules, no nothing. It had every right to a vote and you denied it of that. Why? I don't know. From the stories I heard you've been rather power hungry but I'm not going to base it off of that. Instead I'm going to base it off of you making a mistake. You removed a suggestion based off of invalid votes. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:18, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Straws.PNG STRAWS LOL
Anybody see somebody reachin' for straws say "Yeah!"

--The General T Sys U! P! F! 00:21, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Swfjmq.jpg Oh Snap!
Someone just got served!

--Gage 00:22, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Wow Gage. I am impressed by your awesomeness. I am sure that you can now sleep better at night knowing you just used a comical template on the wiki for a game that no one gives a shit about anymore. I give up, for Gage is truly the master of the wiki. May all who are retarded or still play the game, coincidently the same people, praise him. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)
Now that we got the stupid shit aside. Seriously. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)
I ain't going to cry over it or nothing. I'd just like to see a vote for it. If Gage truly feels the need to remove it, then fine. I don't see it staying harming anyone. I don't see it doing any damage. There was no reason for it's removal. But, like I said, if Gage truly finds it to be useless then I'm ok with that. --Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt! 00:35, 23 October 2006 (BST)
I do, now stop wasting my time.--Gage 03:18, 23 October 2006 (BST)


20:50, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Permabaned someone for a joke on their userpage.Misconduct starter 20:50, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Duh....cause 12 year old AOLer said he was Cyberbob, which he is not, thus it is impersonation. --Axe Hack 21:13, 21 October 2006 (BST)
But it's ok for people to claim to be Denzel Washington?--Misconduct starter 21:16, 21 October 2006 (BST)
As long as Denzel Washington isn't a mod on the wiki, I don't give a fuck.--Gage 21:44, 21 October 2006 (BST)
You realise that you just dug yourself into a hole there? That's admitting something close to bias in that, if I made Denzel Washington look like a fool you wouldn't care!--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:58, 21 October 2006 (BST)
Bias to cyberbob? He Hates me.
Cyberbob240
Gage, that high horse is not for you. You just don't have the intellect to pull it off, m'kay? Cyberbob  Talk  02:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)
Bias to this asshole? Yeah right.--Gage 22:05, 21 October 2006 (BST)
I would care if there was someone claiming to be Denzel Washington but not the actual celebrity Denzel Washington, just to clear that up.--Gage 22:07, 21 October 2006 (BST)
That's what I was reffering to, there's even a template saying that a user is an alt of Denzel Washigton when they aren't.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:15, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Since I saw cause to Permaban 12 year old AOLer as a vandal myself (Before I realized Gage had done it already), I can't really see where Gage doing it was msiconduct. Conndrakamod T CFT 22:42, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Why were you going to permaban him? There is no vandal report, and he wasn't vandalising.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)
Hell this misconduct case is Misconduct starter's first edit. I smell sockpuppet. --Axe Hack 22:52, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Isn't the permabanning of someone for vandalism supposed to go through M/VB? Whereas one reports and another rules on the incident? And did this person vandalize other than just saying he was Cyberbob? I mean, he didn't post as Cyberbob with a sig did he? Too many questions not handled through regular channels. --Zod Rhombus 00:56, 22 October 2006 (BST)

UDWiki:Vandalism
On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".

Don't tell me those were good faith.

M/G
When a Moderator warns or bans a user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page.

This indicates that a user can be banned before the action is noted on M/VB

M/VB
Moderators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

More support for my position.--Gage 01:03, 22 October 2006 (BST)

This is interesting. One the one hand, this guy is obviously a sockpuppet, and has zero intentions of actually contributing anything... but on the other hand, it didn't commit vandalism or vote on anything. I vote Misconduct, but am open to persuasion. Cyberbob  Talk  03:26, 22 October 2006 (BST)

If you define vandalism as an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki then all of his edits were of a vandal nature.--Gage 03:53, 22 October 2006 (BST)
We've been attacked for banning trolls, no? Would you say trolls are good faith users? Cyberbob  Talk  03:59, 22 October 2006 (BST)
Obviously the attackers were wrong then. I would blame nobody for the banning of a troll of the magnitude of Amazing--Gage 04:02, 22 October 2006 (BST)
You wouldn't, but the community likes its rules. IMO, they're spoilt, but that's the way it is. Cyberbob  Talk  04:07, 22 October 2006 (BST)
Does it help at all that Conndraka blocked him about an hour after me (without knowing that I had blocked him)? Obviously if I hadn't done it, it would be Conndraka in misconduct. Should we both be here because we committed the same "crime"?--Gage 04:13, 22 October 2006 (BST)
I don't know, to be honest. Cyberbob  Talk  04:18, 22 October 2006 (BST)


An obvious sockpuppet with no purpose other than to waste people's time and troll. Vandalism is defined as bad faith editing, in and of itself. That definition is only overruled by arbitration. Vandals who have no constructive edits don't get second chances, thus this was not misconduct. To top it off, the case was started by a confirmed open proxy or zombie; most likely the same user stirring up trouble.

General, there is a difference between an "I am Spartacus!" routine and this vandal's idiocy and you know it. When Denzel was accused of being absolutely everyone who supported him (this was without even a modicum of proof; in fact there was actual proof of his accusers being sockpuppets, not vice-versa) people were doing the "I am Spartacus" routine in both good faith and humorous fashion. This is quite clearly different. Not misconduct. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:49, 22 October 2006 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006&oldid=1810045"