UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel/2006

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel » 2006

13:00, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

This is the message left on my talk page: "Whether the zerging claims are true or not are irrelevant. You are disrupting the wiki, Denzel. Please stop editing the BME page. This is your second warning. Further edits to the page will be met with a ban."

There is absolutely no reason to ban me. I have been editing the NPOV section of the BME page, and to my knowledge it is allowed by the rules. Furthermore, i don't accept him saying i am "disrupting" the Wiki.--Denzel Washington 13:00, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Were you adding the Zerging claim or removing it? I'm just curious because the Mods went against me for removing unprovable Zerging claims from an NPOV area. If you were warned for adding unprovable Zerging claims, we'd have an interesting scenerio. -- Amazing 19:05, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I added things. But proof has been posted in the first place, and i don't get why mr. Legend X only got warned when he vandalized my personal page and not because he kept deleting the info. I will be posting a more complete NPOV section soon, and i wish it will stay there.--Denzel Washington 19:31, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Hahaha! They tell me I can't remove Zerging claims - And they tell you that you can't post them? This is hilarious. -- Amazing 19:54, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Two different mods made two different decisions. Until and unless someone sets up, and holds voting on, a rule on whether unprovable information should be allowed on group pages and in which parts (something on the subject is going on currently at Moderation/Policy Discussion) mods will make decisions based on their own best judgment, which will not always be consistent with each other. I feel that unproven information should only be allowed in the NPOV paragraph if no one contests it, which Legend X has.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:47, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

The point is that this is NOT unproven. Proof has been posted and deleted by Legend X multiple times. However, like i said, i will post a newly revised version, that hopefully you will retain from a NPOV enough. It does not matter if the page creator does not agree with it. It is not NPOV if it must be approved by the page creator. I want to make clear that i will NOT accept a ban for this.--Denzel Washington 21:20, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

As far as i know there is no reason why Denzel should have been warned for that. He was posting information with the proof to back up that information, and Legend X repeatedly took it down, as did his friends. The warning whould be removed immediately in my opinion, as it is completely baseless. --Grim s 21:52, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Zerging is by its nature impossible to prove without access to IP records. Images can be photoshopped, but more importantly, simply seeing two characters with similar names or even two characters known to be owned by the same person in the same location doesn't prove anything--that the player put them together on purpose, or that he is using them in concert, cannot be proven. The current revision, which merely mentions that BME has been accused of zerging, seems alright to me. I'll appreciate it if you not edit it further.--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:09, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

'STER, that's pretty rediculous. None of you "Moderators" can expect people to abide by rules that NOT ONLY DON'T EXIST.. but aren't even being drawn from prior rulings. Does anyone see how tremendously silly this is? If that's going to be the case, as a Wiki users, I can simply request a Moderator that fits my personal case, and BOOM - someone's warned for something that isn't against any rule and is supported by prior rulings. It's fantastically absurd. Besides which the decision probably changes based upon which person the Moderator doesn't like. -- Amazing 01:01, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

You should be abiding by common sense and common courtesy--rules are only necessary when people contravene those. You can't "request" moderators, it's luck of the draw. Prior rulings are subordinate to the judgement of the mod on the case. We are moderators because we are trusted to use our best judgement and to be impartial. If you are accusing me of not being impartial in this situation, please note that I have never had any dealings with Denzel or Legend X prior to this event, and I originally warned Legend at Denzel's request for editing his User page. I only proceeded to warn Denzel at Legend's request once Legend brought his vandalism of BME to my attention.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:09, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Wrong once again. Common courtesy says you should not post inflammatory information on a group page. Removing it is NOT against common courtesy. That whole statement doesn't even apply to recent events, given the fact that we are, at the core, still talking about such actions. Common courtesy doesn't seem to be a very big factor yet in Mod rulings, but rather ownership, POV nature, or the lack thereof. Additionally, you can request a moderator by posting a report and then posting on said Mod's talk page to alert them to it. You claim you cannot 'request' moderators - but you're speaking from guidelines as opposed to the existing methods available on the Wiki. I didn't accuse you of anything, I quite clearly said that decisions probably change depending on which person the Moderator doesn't like. If you were the only Moderator on the wiki, then it would mean you. As stated, it doesn't. It's a general statement based on the fact that rulings seem so highly subjective, and are being handed down by SOME who seem slightly less impartial than others. Had I said "STER IS BAISED! OMG" you'd be right there, but as it stands I'm making a personal observation based on my own view of this arena. -- Amazing 01:48, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Common courtesy says you should not post inflammatory information on a group page. Removing it is NOT against common
courtesy.

...Which is why I ruled for legendx, whose group page was having inflammatory information put on it and who was removing it, and against the guy posting the information. I think you're backtracking and twisting your argument around so much you've actually contradicted yourself outright.--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:32, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

I guess the problem here is I'm talking about all moderators when this is a topic about you specifically. I was once again drawing back to contradicting Rulings. I'll stay out of this now, I just remembered this is a "case" about you warning one person, not a discussion about the larger actions of the moderation team and where it conflicts. -- Amazing 05:58, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

The fact of the matter 'STER, is that Legend X vandalised Denzel Washingtons user page by removing verifiable information from it (Namely, the fact that Denzel had killed him to claim a bounty on him). In the case of the edits to the NPOV section it is clearly NOT vandalism (As it is a good faith edit, a lot of times over, to make the wiki more accurate despite actions from the guilty party to hide the truth), and my only conclusion is that you took offense at Denzel editing your version and replacing it with in my opinion (Due to the fact i know a lot about the character of the people involved) a far more accurate version. Yiour actions are CLEARLY an abuse of your position as a moderator. --Grim s 08:11, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Whether the information Legend X removed from Denzel's page is "verifiable" or not is irrelevant; any edit at all to someone else's User page other than a mod adding a banned notice is vandalism, with very few exceptions. Legend x took his warning and stopped doing the thing I told him was wrong, which is the optimum result as far as I'm concerned. The first few times Denzel edited BME's page were good-faith; when he was repeatedly asked to stop doing it, including by a moderator, they became vandalism. I don't have a "version;" I have nothing to do with BME and have to date never edited their page. And what you just said is essentially that we should listen to your opinion rather than mine because you are self-described as not impartial.--'STER-Talk-Mod 18:29, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Acording to The_Urban_Dead_Wiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines it clearly states that it MUST BE WRITEN IN NPOV... Which also means that you have been abusing your moderation powers by not allowing any edits involing turning a POV into a NPOV. And don't even think about bullshiting your way out of this, those guidelines were writen by Oddstarter, a respected member of the Wiki and that has not been vandalized ONCE. I demand that your moderating abilities be stripped from you.--EdFanMH 01:54, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

I think that's something of a stretch. The addition of zerging information is tenuous at best as to whether it's NPOV or not, because zerging cannot be independently verified, and any evidence of which is circumnstantial at best. The addition of claims that note that they are unverified is a stronger case for a clear NPOV edit, but then this was not such a case. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 07:03, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

As for this entire case, After looking through the evidence, I cannot find any evidence to indicate that 'STER used his abilities as a Moderator in an abusive fashion. The incident on the BME page was unfortunate, but considering there is no independently verifiable proof of the zerging action (and no, a screenshot is not independently verifiable, never has been, and never will be, no matter who took it, and what it contains), that attempts to resolve the situation in other methods had failed, and that Denzel and others would have likely continued this edit war without 'STER's interference, and that 'STER had gone through proper procedure (two warnings, then a one-day ban), I rule that 'STER is not guilty of misconduct.