UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2007

• Main
  • 2007 Archive
  • 2008 Archive
  • 2009 Archive

Umm, so about moving the Librarian Brent part to the archive in the morning. It's been a month's worth of mornings since then. Just a friendly litle reminder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedKnight (talk • contribs) .

Civility

I'd fully support a policy along the lines of Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL, if anyone wanted to put one forward. I wouldn't insist on it if there wasn't consensus, but it seems like something that'd be healthy for the wiki. --Kevan 09:51, 26 August 2007 (BST) (Note that this was just a comment in the previous thread, someone else turned it into its own section.)

Unfortunately, this place has taken on something of the life of a forum. And in such a place, theres going to be conflicts of interests, opinions, and tempers flaring. Such a policy would work if this didnt have to be the community for a game full of people, many of whom are in their late teens (Read: lack maturity). While i know im sort of the focus for this thing (Or at least, the ignition), a lot of people seem to mistake my general bluntness for general offensiveness (Which turns to real offensiveness when they get all angry about it and start something. They dont seem to get that i am a counterpuncher, not a puncher). Another problem is that attempting to enforce such a policy on everyone would require a virtual army of moderators, given the size of the wiki, and the fact that not everyone is willing to spend hours here. Personally, i like my free speech here. If people have problems ith it, they can just ignore me, or take it to arbitration if they think its happening excessively. --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 10:41, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Given that this is a games wiki, I think it has struck a good workable balance between freedom of speech and freedom from being harassed/insulted in the way that you "own" your own pages (be they User: or group pages), and can decide what to allow to be published there. Combat games will always create an element of "drama" between players, which can be enjoyable, but also has the potential to escalate into harassment. Maintaining the freedom to extend your "conflict" into this meta-gaming side of Urban Dead enhances the experience for many, while the ability to control your own user/group space as a no-go zone (if needed) provides a buffer for those who don't appreciate that kind of attention. I don't think we can easily enforce civility without detracting from a part of the purpose of the wiki... The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 13:31 26 August 2007 (BST)

• I left my comment at least partly because I'm an experienced (once prominent, now ex-) Wikipedian (User:Improv/User:Pgunn), and WP:CIVIL worked really well. It functioned more as an expectation of politeness than as an enforced rule - it sometimes had to be enforced but got most of its weight by keeping the norms of communication on Wikipedia civilised - people would just point at the policy, one or both sides would generally calm down, and the discussion would continue in a non-insulting way. Would that work here? I'm not sure, but I would hope so - it's easy to lose track of how we're all human when we can't see each other's reactions, and so it's easy (and understandable) for people to be much ruder online than they would be in real life unless the community says "hey, that's not cool". --Pgunn 15:34, 27 August 2007 (BST)

I don't care either way. I don't think you should need a big brother figure punishing you for being a jerk. But because of your behavior, I neither respect nor like you. Go ahead and tell me you don't care, we all know that isn't true; If it were, you wouldn't be here half as much as you are. The fact of the matter is I have seen the way you treat people; You are harsh, you judge people before you have any right to, and as for "counterpunching", you have little patience and strike as soon as you feel you're justified. You even permaban users on first and second offenses, which is clearly going beyond your authority. Not only is this not constructive to the wiki but it is giving the staff here a bad name, which I'm sure none of them appreciate. I'll admit I don't exactly have a clean record here, but at least I treat people with dignity and respect until they have clearly crossed a line. I resolve situations rather then try to fuel the fire as you enjoy doing, which makes you ill-suited to be a sysop in the first place. Just do me a favor and try to be a little more respectful, and stop trying to play the cool card. It doesn't work over the internet. Izumi Orimoto 12:28, 26 August 2007 (BST)

If you think i am abusing my power, by all means, report me for misconduct... again. I would suggest you reread the moderation guidelines before you do so though. Also, a sysop is a person who performs the painfully dull drudgework of the wiki. We have to go through procedure for everything, and a sysop has no power at all over other users or their behaviour (With the sole exception of the vandal banning page, where we can warn people). I seriously think you need to take a moment of your time to find out exactly waht a sysop is, and the responsibilities of the position, as well as the powers and the massive restrictions upon those powers. Also, learn to use indents. Just pop in one more : than the person above you has used. --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 12:39, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Just so you dont get lost (And because i am feeling uncharacteristically kind this evening), heres the guideline in particular i was adhering to when i permabanned those people: 3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. from here. And just so you know, there are three cases before anything involving me where the people were instantly permabanned. Yet it is MY actions that somehow reflect poorly on the wiki. I guess insta permabans by Boxy, Thari and The General dont count then. Hmm? I mean, its ME giving the mods a bad name, and not them, because they are them and i am me. It certainly couldnt be Matthew Fahrenheit who made a similiar decision further down the page. How about in future, when you want to attack a user, you get your facts straight BEFORE you attack? Hmm? --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 15:35, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Following Kevan, I'd back us having something like Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL--whether or not you're a sysop, there's no reason to act out or encourage bad behavior on the wiki--not in the name of free speech or any other principle. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:04, 26 August 2007 (BST)

We don't need a Civil policy. We have Arbitration. If you don't like how someone is being rude to you, go to Arby's. Then have the Arbitrator give you an online restraining order and a Large Curly Fries. From there you are no longer dealing with the person that was harassing you. And if they continue then they can get warned, suspended, and then banned. And Izumi Orimoto, if I'm the idiot then why am I the one who knows how to indent and you don't? ::::::::: FTW. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 00:31, 27 August 2007 (BST)

Yes, so would I. It makes the wiki a far less pleasant place to edit when it's filled with anger and malice. --  T   11:14, 27 August 2007 (BST)

Having a civility policy changes nothing, just makes it far less public, far more extreme, and people will instead try to use the system to settle their grudges, as a small handful already do.--Karek^maps?! 11:43, 28 August 2007 (BST)

Well, having to put up with a few more arby/VB cases (at least initially) is a price worth paying if it makes the wiki a more pleasant, productive and enjoyable environment. Personal attacks are pretty toxic to the atmosphere of the wiki; they drive away good editors and undermine any sense of co-operation formed. By preventing personal attacks, we could nip in the bud a _lot_ of the drama and pointless arguing before it starts. --  T   14:46, 28 August 2007 (BST)

And I think so long as any policy was applied with sense, discretion and importantly restraint, we'd ultimately get fewer wiki litigation cases, since there'd be fewer grudges borne from mistreatment lurking about. --  T   14:46, 28 August 2007 (BST)

Totally, cause following the guidlines to get what you want hasn't caused tons of bad blood in the past, this whole misconduct thing between Matthew Farenheit and Grim doesn't show that at all, the fact that nothing was ever resolved on the Ketchelbank debates over the danger level and they have again, for a third time, started doesn't show that arbitration, if anything, tends to make people dislike each other more and cause more "drama" between the involved parties. --Karek^maps?! 22:25, 28 August 2007 (BST)

It is better to let people vent now, rather than bottle it up until they are so frustrated it explodes, and then get even more frustrated when they get stomped down due to civility rules, and even angrier when we do it again, and so on and so on until the user is banned or goes on a vandal spree before being banned. Besides, Free speech is a treasure, and one im not willing to give up without a fight. People perceieve me as being rude and offensive simply because i am blunt and refuse to sugarcoat my descriptions to help you swallow them. You are either smart enough to understand what i meant or you are not, and i find this divides the universe neatly into the cool people, whom are great fun to talk to, and the idiots, who do nothing but whinge and whine, and are no fun. --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 22:57, 28 August 2007 (BST)

I'm afraid I don't see what tension is being usefully vented by biting a new user's head off, apart from your own. --Kevan 11:08, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Dang - you edit conflicted a post I was writing touching on the exact same point. =P --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:27, 1 September 2007 (BST)

And YOU edit conflicted my response, suckup.

I guess i could tone that down a touch, but it is incredibly frustrating how people walk in and constantly claim humans are underpowered and doomed just because the number of humans have dropped to about 50/50, or because several suburbs have turned red, as has happened recently. If you read other suggestions on the page, several of them, especially new users, are running around screaming that the sky is falling, and come up with all manner of really really stupid ideas, most of which are unneeded and many others which are counterproductive in the extreme. This is extremely irksome, especially for long time players such as myself who struggled through the zombie dark ages to todays fair society. Im sorry if it annoys you, and i guess i could be a touch gentler to new users, but it goes against every fibre of my being to sugarcoat stuff instead of being honest and forthright with everyone. It may come across as obnoxious, but im just being blunt and saying exactly what i feel. Besides, its suggestions. Its traditional to bite off heads :D What else would you expect of a long time zombie player? --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 11:37, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Forgot to add: That particular newbie also made another, arguably worse suggestion down the page. There are a lot of guides out there that help you develop your suggestion, and avoid some of the more spectacularly stupid ones he walked right into. It was his fault he chose to ignore them, and as a consequence walked right into a flame. There is also the school of thought i follow: Learn or Burn. Post smart, and you get a lot of decent feedback, everyone gets along, and the only disagreements are academic. Post stupidity and get flamed. You would be utterly amazed at how effective this system is at keeping the overall quality of discussion above stupid (And i can email you a link to a forum or two where this policy has been very effectively maintained). --The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 11:47, 1 September 2007 (BST)

I'm a suckup for disagreeing with you on a singular case, am I? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:39, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Is it that big a deal to "sugarcoat"? We wouldn't expect people to put pink hearts and smileys in, just to bite their lip and hold back on the personal attacks. Which is easy, isn't it? Looking at your "rooftop defence" comment, it actually splits completely into good, solid sentences that explain why the suggestion is a bad one, and a few overdramatic attacks. Attacks that obviously risk turning away a new user (and even if he's bad at suggestions, he might be great at templates or status reports or something else), possibly with a frothing spray of vandalism on their way out.

I know that flaming works for some sites, and I know that civility works for others. I'm just saying that it's about time we discussed which line the UDwiki should officially take, rather than letting editors (and particularly moderators) pick their own individual stances. --Kevan 20:27, 1 September 2007 (BST)

Well, that the thing, isnt it. For about two years, the standard procedure has been to beat people over the head with a stick for posting dumb suggestions, and this generally has the effect of either smartening them up or driving them off. Newbies who sign up just for the suggestions page as their first stop have been, in my experience, uninterested in contributing to the wiki as a whole, and we lose nothing if we accidentally drive them off (Also, i dont believe i have seen any of them go crazy and delete huge amounts of stuff, but i did go missing for six months between january and july, so i dont know everything that happened then). Also, we are not moderators. We are sysops. It isnt within our responsibility to moderate discussion. We have to perform administrative tasks, nothing else. Sysops opinions arent meant to be held in any higher authority than a regular users. If it will make you feel better, i will remove the sysyop tag from my signature so i look like just another user, but i will fight to the death for my right to club people with a stick if they post something stupid in suggestions, or launch hugely misguided attacks on myself. --The Grimch ^U! 23:57, 1 September 2007 (BST)

I'd have to agree with Grim. Free Speech is a blessing, and i'd hate to see us censored from our true opinions about what happens around due some kind of Civility guidelines. Sysops opinions and behaviour should not be constrained because of their job (called by some a janitor job). It's not the first time this issue have been debated in the wiki, and probably wont be the last. And if a user is going to sum the way one or two users replied to him as the way the entire wiki behaves, then we clearly don't need this kind of folk around here. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:45, 2 September 2007 (BST)

When and how did the sysops get the idea that a civility policy would constrain them and only them? This discussion is beginning to sound like a defense of a sysop's right to flame just like any other user. Yes, free speech is a blessing, but free speech has never been extended to every single possible expression. Some things are just not meant to be protected speech -- including personal attacks, IMO.

Additionally, if one's tolerance for "stupidity" is so low that that person just has to flame a newbie, maybe it's time for a vacation. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 01:18, 2 September 2007 (BST)

This discussion was started because of sysop flaming (And kevan said: rather than letting editors (and particularly moderators) ), but that doesnt mean it applies only to us. And i already took a six month unplanned vacation this year. No intention of another, kthnxbai. --The Grimch ^U! 01:34, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks for reinforcing the need for this policy, then. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 01:46, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Kevan said:

I'm afraid I don't see what tension is being usefully vented by biting a new user's head off, apart from your own.

I can actually see a point to it in Suggestions, it can lead to them either putting in more time considering the effects of their suggestions and how people would see it in the future, yeah it will drive some people away from suggestions but in the end there need to be less numerous suggestions and more thoughtful ones, it's part of the reason why there are so many dupes and repeats of bad ones(in my opinion). If Grim is mean to them on the Suggestions talk page they can rework their suggestion until the issues he brings up are lessened or gone, if someone is mean to them on the Suggestions page itself they will, as is frequently suggested to them, go to the suggestions talk page first before submitting a partially or completely undeveloped idea.--Karek^maps?! 13:26, 2 September 2007 (BST)

And how exactly would a civility policy have helped in the Ketchelbank drama, Karek? The users involve were fairly civil in their disagreement, but there were still edit wars The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 12:07 29 August 2007 (BST)

I don't know what you were reading but before I got there it always was starting into flaming, the only reason it ever got civil between those two is when people told them to stop and that they would come in and settle the argument.--Karek^maps?! 04:22, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Official M/M Template?

	Mod Abuse LOL
	Help, help, I'm being repressed!

What do you think? --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might be looking for "oppressed"--Gage 18:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I just watched Holy Grail less than 10 minutes ago. It's repressed.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it is a Monty Python joke? The picture wasn't clear enough for me to realize.--Gage 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make it say "Strange women lying in ponds, handing out swords, is no basis for a system of government." but it would make the template huge.--_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Know Where to Put This....

Cyberbob permabanned Graman because he has the same IP address as me. This is because we're co-workers and our work server uses one IP address. I don't think it's misconduct so much as an honest mistake, but we'd like it if the problem was given a quick fix. Thanks! -- Murray Jay Suskind 21:27, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Hi Murray, and congrats on the Mayoral election. I've got the same problem and it's an interesting issue. Basically the Wiki cannot discriminate between two different IP's if they're coming via the same transparent proxy IP. The issue could be solved if the server admin allowed X-Forwarded-For headers. At the moment I'd say there are quite a few people getting annoyingly insulting "Banned/Warning/Zerging/Alt" messages from otherwise well meaning sysops as well as wiki abuse thrown at them because of this problem and I can't see how this helps the wiki. In fact I might bring it up in a policy discussion, cos the most one can say about two users with the same IP here is that they are EITHER the same person or behind a transparent proxy. In that case we should change the warning and banning templates to reflect the ambiguity. --Zeug 07:40, 2 May 2007 (BST)

honest mistakes

"Honest mistakes can be categoriesed as good faith edits" can I quote you on that next time i cock up :) --Honestmistake 12:04, 10 October 2007 (BST)

more seriously though the suggestion in question "golden shower" is just a re-hash of something that we have just given serious consideration to. It should have been in humorous but in effect its just a bad taste version of something a fair number of players actually do want! --Honestmistake 12:07, 10 October 2007 (BST) Please take this to the talk page, Honest... and the suggestion in question was not about golden showers, but crucifixes -- boxy • talk • 12:19 10 October 2007 (BST)

my OOPS! and that one did indeed suck! --Honestmistake 13:06, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I'd like to add something to this page along the lines of the odd minor mistake made in good-faith should be let slide. No-one expects sysops to be perfect, and the misconduct rules should be reasonable about this, especially if the mistake is totally reversible. Thoughts? --Toejam 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) PS I know this might happen anyway through sysops exercising their best judgment, but it'd be handy if this were written down - it's more solid that way.

Problem is that everything a sysop can do is totally reversable, including page deletions. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Except picture deletions.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this - I don't wish to water down or weaken Misconduct for the times when it genuinely is in the best interests of the wiki to charge a mod with misconduct, and I do think that's it's proper that we have a system to limit the damage from a bad-faith sysop or, to a lesser extent, an incompetent one. That said, I think there should be some allowance made for slip-ups if there's good intentions behind them. --Toejam 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's the way the wiki works already... I know I've made a couple of minor mistakes and even a few deliberate decisions to bypass the written rules when something is better done right away... and I know other sysops have too, without being reported here. People understand that already. I don't see the need to put it in writing, those who are going to report trivialities arn't going to take notice anyway -- boxy • talk • 09:58 14 November 2007 (BST)