UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Misconduct‎ | Archive‎ | Gage
Revision as of 20:29, 13 November 2010 by Aichon (talk | contribs) (Reordering)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Gage » 2007

08:51, 26 March 2007

Unbanned Captain Jack Testes over his disagreement with a Misconduct case Thari had already ruled on. As far as I can tell, Gage doesn't possess any more authority than any of the other sysops, so it is rather intriguing that he believes it is justifiable for him to overrule Thari's ruling and then assume that his own "ruling" is unassailable and final. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 08:51, 26 March 2007 (BST)

The current misconduct system is highly flawed and very open to this sort of infighting. A decision wholly dependant upon the first to decide is too arbitrary. Especially when it is open to interpretation and multiple rules apply. Having equal authority means that every voice that wants to be needs to be heard in this sort of cases. not just the one who just happens to be around. I propose we move to a consensus system with a verdict needing seconding. That said, Gage shouldn't have taken action while it was still being discussed. But at no point has first to come is first to decide ever been blanket applied to stifle out discussion. Cyberbob you yourself have never hold yourself too zealously to that rule if you disagreed with the outcome. However by taking action instead of waiting Gage made an error. He should have waited until there was consensus in his favour before changing.
Also this case has too high a tit-for-tat feeling that I really don't feel is appropriate. This page is not for fighting out personal animosities.
My Verdict, Gage gets a slap on the wrist for not waiting until the case was resolved. If anybody agrees or disagrees. Please, do tell.--Vista 10:22, 26 March 2007 (BST):
Agree, bad form rather than misconduct. But then, that applies to this (seemingly) retaliatory misconduct case too -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:41, 26 March 2007 (BST)
Retaliatory? I hold no ill will towards Gage. He's only doing what he feels is the right thing. He might be misguided, but I don't feel he's being malicious. How could I be motivated by revenge if I don't think the other person is out to get me? --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 10:43, 26 March 2007 (BST)
If you feel that he is acting in good faith (ie "He's only doing what he feels is the right thing"), then it's not misconduct, is it, just a difference of opinion? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:50, 26 March 2007 (BST)
No, no, no... I made this case because of Gage's jumping the gun with the unbannage. Misconduct is more about judgemental errors than actual bad faith (although that can sometimes play a part). --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 10:59, 26 March 2007 (BST)
It would be quite easy to avoid the appearance of retaliation when next time somebody argues against you in a misconduct case, you let somebody else handle the actions of that person and abstain from it yourself entirely.--Vista 11:01, 26 March 2007 (BST)
I actually did so, until it became clear that either nobody had noticed him perform the act or that nobody was planning to react to it. It had been nearly 3 hours... --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 11:07, 26 March 2007 (BST)
Probably, simply be a case of no other sysop being online. But I meant it more in the way of official actions, a comment in the original case certainly make sure it wouldn't go unnoticed and be far less prone to misinterpretation. That way you'd prevent a lot of misinterpretation and you don’t have to go into this sort discussions.--Vista 11:44, 26 March 2007 (BST)
No other sysop online? How is that relevant (or probable)? It doesn't take a sysop to start up a Misconduct case. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 12:11, 26 March 2007 (BST)
It's only relevant because it is quite likely most users are not particularly knowledgeable about the rules concerning the behaviour of sysops during misconduct cases concerning other sysops. And that they can't ban or unban of course. It wasn’t particular relevant, just a small aside. I’m not really in the mood to start arguing with you just for the sake of arguing. You gave an impression you didn’t want to give, I gave some advice how you could avoid making that impression. It’s really up to you if you think my advice will work for you or not.--Vista 12:47, 26 March 2007 (BST)
Fine. I'll think about it. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 12:50, 26 March 2007 (BST)

01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gage violated the Deletion page policy rules by ending a vote before even 24 hours had elapsed, and did so at the behest of his friends. I can also prove that he was not doing it to "squash wiki drama" because he left all of the other related deletion requests, and then left with parting words of "Kept - and yes, I know it is early. Bite me.--Gage 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by akule (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Oh God, not the C4NT drama again. That was a personal attack, and thus was abusing the Deletions page. YOU should be in trouble, not Gage. Also, that was a month ago. Rather interesting timing, no?--Lachryma☭ 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was clearly violating the rules of the wiki through the UDWiki:Copyrights. Regardless, it required 7 days to be put through. As for this misconduct request, I don't see any rules saying how much time can elapse between the violation and the request. I asked if this was considered misconduct, and guess what: It is. --Akule Akule News. 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
On top of that, he didn't delete the other requests related to it, meaning that he abused his moderator powers against someone he disliked as a favor for his friends. --Akule Akule News. 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
well, i would like to rule not misconduct on this, since this was a month ago... and you even forgot to add a misconduct case against me for the same cause, so you are just kicking gage while he is down in the ground... which shows how amazing of a person you are. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Seconded that. Not misconduct.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Akule's an ass, no doubt, but just to clarify, how does this being a month ago, and/or being a fault shared by another sysop make it not misconduct? Mind you, I'm not saying I think it should be regarded as misconduct necessarily, but just would like clarification, even if Akule's an ass (did I say that already?). If it's technically misconduct per the rules for deletion page policy rules, then either the rules need amendation or we have to accept this as misconduct, no? Oh, and one more time for the people in the back: Akule's an ass. --Barbecue Barbecue 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would risk to say that Gage's early withdrawal of the deletion request was following the desires of the community, and as such good faith (altough followed on his clasic style, "bite me" and all). The same would apply for Hagnat's removals and all that. Don't try to follow the rules so closely as you would reach idiotic conclussions, as Gage banning himself could have been Misconduct that way: Such actions, if they're made in the frame of good faith, are ignored unless they become harmful for the community. This is obviously not the case. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me--I'm certainly not in support of Akule's game, just wanted someone to put it under an appropriate classification vs. age/shared fault, which didn't seem quite right for rejecting this charge. --Barbecue Barbecue 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Hagnat and Thari. It plainly can't mean that much to you if it takes you a whole freakin' month to notice it, and it was plain that the community supported his actions anyway (as evidenced by the fact that nobody reported it at the time - I'm sure someone would have noticed it). --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 08:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Block log); 23:04 . . Gage (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:Gage" with an expiry time of 3 days: OH SNAP MOTHERFUCKERS. I'M NOT COMING BACK FOR 3 DAYS!)

Blatant Misuse of SysOp privileges, even if it was used on himself. --SirensT RR 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

sigh, not misconduct. Turning yourself into the authorities is hardly bad faith. Bad faith is the prerequisite for misconduct. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up, man. Please.--Jorm 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Technically, it is the appropriate level considering these two rulings never made it to A/VD. Or are enough edits in-between? I am shaky on that rule. --Amanu Jaku 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Those two rulings would've required his last warning be a 48 hour. I remember them though, they were recorded against him, and wore off. Seems shit has been removed from VD, instead of struck out like it was meant to be. If someone dig through the diff. comparisons, that'd be handy. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You talk about diff comparissons from the A/VD page? also, if you can add a clarification that warnings should be striken and not deleted, it would come handy: the page is protected, I can't do it myself. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, thems the one. Good idea too. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
After checking I came to the conclussion that Gage Misconduct warnings were never added, in the first case when they should and in the second case because it was consensus for the case to be used as a "polite warning" for all current mods and not Gage alone (first Checkuser offense ever on this wiki). I'm 99% sure that, if added, the other warning would have been striken by now too. If you want to add it, the date is 10 of November, and it should be second warning (it was made before the guidelines change). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just trawled 2 months of diff comparisons, Nov 1 - Jan 12 - they never got added. I didn't see anything get removed that should have been either - just some strikes. (Beat me to it Matt - Damn simulpost) --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Really? Could've sworn… I'll manually add it using the timestamp from Gage's last post in that case. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the thinking behind striking out spent warnings instead of deleting them? --Toejam 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's there to show how people have changed. Deleting just kills info, and striking is easy, so remembering that someone was once warned in the past isn't a big deal - you can see if they've reformed or are just biding there time between vandalism periods. (Did that make sense? It seemed kinda convoluted) --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It was perfectly clear, thanks. I can see a case for removing the warnings outright too, there's some nice 'forgive and forget' symbolism that way. Although I'm a little biased on this subject ;-) --Toejam 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, can someone explain to me why I had to fight through six or so edit conflicts to post something, and it's STILL gone? --SirensT RR 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. All's well now. Peace out! --SirensT RR 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to remember some folks around here... it was a common practice for mods to ban themselves after their misconduct cases reached a negative veredict. This way he could leave a message, discuss for a short while the ruling, and then ban self when he accepted the fact. It was never misconduct, and i hope never become. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But if we actually exercised common sense, we wouldn't be able to generate any type of drama at all, Hagnat! ALL MODS MUST BE PUNISHED!
Banning mods/sysops for misconduct is just plain fucking stupid. It's a stupid mechanism and doesn't do anything but create more work for the remaining sysops because they are short by one. This entire process encourages back-faced rules lawyering from weasels like Celsius or whatever - people who have an agenda and will use the most minor of words to alter the interpretation of some strange, obscure "rule" (as if this shit were the fucking code of Hammurabi) if it will allow them to get someone LOLZ BANND for a day or whatever.
Way to reward your civil servants, dudes. Top-fucking-notch.--Jorm 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Jorm, stop trolling and go back to your own stupid game (and yes, that's an ad ludinem attack). Your remark concerning the banning of sysops is, to use your very mature phrasing, 'plain fucking stupid.' Sysops, like any other users, can act badly and there needs to be a mechanism that responds to this behavior. Your reasoning, such as it is, is very poor, and more or less attempts to endorse the "I NOZE BEST COZ I AM MOD" kind of behavior, or similar excuses for such behavior, which fundamentally decides that because rules can be abused, they essentially don't matter at all. EDIT: and nice misreading of "common practice" as "common sense." Not the same thing, as I hope you now realize, post-rant. --Barbecue Barbecue 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can only really see it in the Recent changes, but he keep deleteing a "Vandal Created Page" that *I* created. Since when was I a vandal? Page in question: User_talk:Gold_8lade. I know Gold Blade is supposed to be banned, but damnit, you do NOT have to keep deleting a page where I was carrying on a legit conversation, especially after *I* was the one to revert all of Blade's vandalisms! --SirensT RR 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By responding to the vandal with anything other than a swift block you are only validating his activities. Congrats. He wanted me in misconduct, you put me there. Why don't you just give him a medal and a trophy while you're at it?--Gage 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And how, exactly, am I supposed to block him? Did it ever occur to you that most Wiki vandals are people who are disgruntled, and that a friendly chat might help them mend their ways? Nope! Better to lay on the smackdown! Prove who has the bigger dick! Good going. There was a way to handle that situation, and what you did wasn't the right way. IF anything, he is now MORE likely to come back and vandalize the wiki. --SirensT RR 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
He's been vandalising since damn near day one. He uses proxies to avoid bans, and breaks damn near every rule we have time and time again. He was one of the driving forces behind the halloween spree that never happened (although plenty of vandalistic advertisting of the impending non-event did). He has proven that, even when given the benefit of the doubt that he will vandalise. He will be given absolutely no mercy. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry. I didn't know that, and it still gives him no right to delete a page that *I* made! --SirensT RR 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Procedure is that vandals get blocked. If you want to chat with them before they get blocked, fine. But not after. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The conversation I had with him WAS before he got blocked! --SirensT RR 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And it ends when they are blocked. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It probably would have, had Gage not overreatcted. --SirensT RR 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The golden rule is "don't override a sysop's administrative actions". You either try to convince them, or take it to misconduct. Instead you overrode his actions. There are procedures in place to prevent edit wars and stupidity like this from escalating and you didn't follow them. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And now, supposedly, if I recreate the talk page again, I get a 24 hour ban. Keep an eye on this one, folks! --SirensT RR 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Recreation of deleted pages is a bannable offense, but deletion of pages that are not scheduled for deletion without going trough the normal channels is Misconduct. That talk page, no matter how much Gage wants it, isn't vandal created: he should have protected it from further edits as any vandal talk page, but he deleted it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Vandal created pages have been deleted with impunity before. They serve no purpose. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
An addendum to that; even vandal's talk pages are. The only reason they're protected at all is to prevent recreation. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying I'm a vandal? Cause you're referring to Vandal created pages, and a page that I made was deleted as such, so you must be saying that I'm a vandal. --SirensT RR 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If Matt feels like using the 'must go through proper procedure' argument, then yes, you are. You're supposed to request undeletion of the article, not recreate. Speedy Deletion criterion 6. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Xoid, Mia's action don't justify Gage's bypass of the current procedures. Let me get this: Defending a friend over the rules is part of you being impartial and me not, right? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of fucking course not. You could try reading the post I made not long before you made this one. –Xoid M•T•FU! 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The page we are talking about wasn't vandal created: Mia created it. The "addendum" you make has no rule or precedent backing it up: vandal user and talk pages get protected for the entire span of their bans. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
See response. Catch 22 is a bitch, ain't it boy? –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think she is talking about this part of what Gage said when he deleted it: "# (Deletion log); 04:23 . . Gage (Talk | contribs) (deleted "User talk:Gold 8lade": you create this page again Mia, and it is a 24 hour ban. Guildlines be damned. )"--Amanu Jaku 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That came later, but is certainly relavant. It's clear to me that Gage isn't fit to be Sysop if he's willing to violate the guidelines. Xoid is dangerously close, defending him. --SirensT RR 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Xoid, my actions DO NOT excuse Gage. If you want to report me for Vandalism, fine. It would be pleasantly ironic to get reported for vandalism shortly after reverting several blanked page. Either way, Gage needs to be dealt with for his actions. --SirensT RR 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mia - you need to calm down. You both screwed up, but Gage moreso. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. He violated two rules, one of which you seem to have forgotten. "Threatening using sysop status" and "unwarranted deletion". He should still get punished, but I am highlighting the annoying crap that everyone seems to forget. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Good. It's nice to see you agree with me. --SirensT RR 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Path from helper to "vandal", a short report on the inevitable demise on wiki users by Karloth Vois RR 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll somewhere else. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


You know what is funny guys? I don't care. I'm not going to post on this page anymore. I'm going to go do something worthwhile, like write this paper I have due tommorow. Sirens, take your wiki drama and shove it up your ass. Seriously. Oh, and while you are at it, drop the act: everyone knows you are a man. You've admitted it to me yourself over AIM. You have to be one of the most delusional people I have ever met on the internet. Leave me alone, and quit encouraging (and committing) vandalism. It no longer amuses me.--Gage 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's nice to see how much you're letting this get to you. And people tell ME I need to calm down. *eye roll* --SirensT RR 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You're the complete troll, you knew it? it's not like anyone cares what Mia does with his or her life, but you brought it up only in order to make you look better. What a waste of a person you are... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As are you. As am I. As is Cyberbob. The moment someone or something pisses you off, we all react the same. Begrudge him not. –Xoid M•T•FU! 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty clear misconduct--whatever one may think of the ends, the means are not justified, as Gage's responses suggest. I'm growing pretty tired of seeing the "but I know best as an angry, wearied mod" argument--if someone grows so tired of dealing with bad behavio(u)r that they can't do it in a civil (i.e. drop the ad hominem) and rules-bound fashion, they ought to step away and find something else less stressful to do. Think of the big win of saying "I told you so" after you walk away and the wiki goes to hell because you're not there anymore. --Barbecue Barbecue 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


What's his current warning/ban level? Misconduct, warning/ban++, case closed. –Xoid M•T•FU! 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is this data recorded? --SirensT RR 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It isn't yet. It took me fifteen tries to get what I've been trying to say in, gimme a minute will ya? –Xoid M•T•FU! 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by all means, take your time. I'm just not aware of where it is. Vandal data, or somewhere else? --SirensT RR 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
A/VD. I gave him his second warning just now. Funnily enough, he's blocked himself for three days. Technically that's misconduct too. Oh how I love these rules… –Xoid M•T•FU! 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Xoid, his first warning should be striked out. Also, you should recreate the deleted page and then protect it, isn't that the right thing? About the selfblock, don't worry, I don't report things done in good faith. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Restored, not recreated. It'll be done in a second. You're right about the first warning needing to be struck as well. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Lets bring up another case! --SirensT RR 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Luckily enough, good faith is excused. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

HEY GUYZ WUT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD? --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 06:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OH NOES, TEH DRAMA QUEER GOT GAGE BANNED!!11!!one!! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the blatant homophobia and ad hominem attack, is it really appropriate for a mod to be trolling as well? Come on, guys, whatever may frustrate you about things, can't we keep things civil? --Barbecue Barbecue 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, I wasn't being a troll. There's a big difference between random spam and trolling, you know. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the misunderstanding CB, was referring specifically to Hagnat's remark. Yours was, I agree, just random spam, and I, at least, had no issue with it. The generalis/zation "guys" was meant to encompass those mods who have gone out of their way to show incivility on this page. --Barbecue Barbecue 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Righto then. No worries. --Hubrid Nox Sys WTF U! B! 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I rather not see myself starting this case, but I can't see constant chatting with Gage as a solution, as I already asked him but he seems to understand what he wants. He has changed UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines in a way that chages the spirit of the policy text without community's approval not once but twice, claiming to follow the text of this policy. The policy clearly states that:

  • Any page under the Moderation space would have Moderation replaced with Administration, and
  • Each official document ranging from the System Operator Guidelines to the Suggestions page would have any mention of Moderator replaced with System Operator, and Mod replaced with Sysop.

There's absolutely no mention of the changes he made, including changing "Moderator" mentions to a new term deemed "Administrators", or the adding of a whole new section not approved by any policy voted on, in discussion or anything else. After the flagrant vandalism, he has protected the page, thus making revertion of his chage impossible for me or any other normal user that notes the change, including the user that originally wrote the policy and may know what the policy spirit is about.

This kind of action can be taken as simple "misinterpretation" as Gage participated on the policy discussion and early on the policy had his motion for the new names for Moderators be changed to "Administrators" rejected by a huge majority. The changes to be made by the policy itself were very clearly stated in the policy's text and shouldn't be left to interpretation of a singe user in spite of the community as a whole. If Gage has a project that needs a future change of the text of the Guidelines in a way that resembles the changes he has actually made, he should include those changes on his own policy discussion and make them go trough the community, not forcing those changes under the disguise of enforcing a very different policy. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back because you couldn't write worth a damn. Random words in the middle of a fucking sentence should not be capitalized. I didn't have time to do a massive page edit again because I am trying to study for Calculus II douchebag. I have a test tommorow, and I can't be arsed spending thirty minutes finding every little instance of "admin" or "administrator" and changing the words over. Some other mod can clean up the page if it is that big a deal. Quit bothering me. I'm tired of your shit Matt. Fuck off.--Gage 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Proof of how much you can lie in need of defending yourself. I'm not your friend, but neither I'm your enemy: I want the new policy to be enforced "as it is". Sorry, but it is clear that you meant the Guidelines to stay as you changed them, after adding that new section at the beginning and all. My changes, may them be capitalized beyond your liking or not, were correct and followed the policy text word by word, and they were obviously prefferable than your "administrator" changes, yet you wanted them to stay. I'm not discussing this with you anymore, as I don't like to be insulted by a guy that considerates total knowledge of a certain language as knowing every term to curse and morally assault your opponent on a discussion. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This policy change is going to take a while to smooth out. How about we use the talk page of the document in question, rather than fighting it out here? If you could go into a bit of detail about what the problem is, there? If it's just the use of sysops instead of admin, that's easily fixed (but there's plenty of other instances around to deal with. There's no rush -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The policy is very clear Boxy. It states what kind of words should be changed to what in wich pages, all in order to avoid the confussion that carried with it the "Moderator" term when used on people like Gage. To go from a simple word for word change to add a whole section to the most important policy document without community's approval, and ignoring that you lost a discussion early on the policy discussion page and adding the changes you wanted to add instead of those that you should, is blatant bad faith. He deserves punishment only for that, not mentioning that he insults me personally and my origins as a Spanish speaker. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I did with that page was try to make it less confusing for someone who didn't understand what sysop meant. I didn't know until Mia told the talk page of the policy. Then, you came and fucked It all up with Random Capitalized words and Such. The initial edit was good faith. The reversion was fixing your fuck up. The protection was to keep you from doing it again. The added section was to avoid more work since I don't see the difference anyway. Jesus Christ Matt, drop the fucking conspiracy theory.
Insulted your origins as a Spanish speaker? Pulease. One of my favorite people on the wiki speaks Spanish as his first language. What is the difference between you and Thari? He isn't a blithering idiot.
I'm going to leave it to Boxy to do with the policy as he sees fit. We seem to have been FARKed and the wiki is slow as hell. I've also got to figure out how to compute arc lengths and surface areas of irregular shapes using integrals in the next few hours. I don't care what it says as long as it looks presentable; "system administrator" is not a proper noun. This is my last edit on this subject, as I don't like fighting a battle of the wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.--Gage 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I will change most of the instances of admin back to sysop, if the wiki will let me... slow as hell. I don't see it as bad faith, he did ask politely on your talk page at first, and explained his reasoning -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see his changing from "Moderator" to "Arbitrator" as bad faith myself Boxy, not the adding of the section as intended to change the Guidelines into a text that favores himself and other mods even more obeying some kind of conspiracy theory as Gage states. What I do see as bad faith is:
  • Total disrespect for what the policy text say and was approved by the majority in favor of his own idea of what it should say. Gage considers his judgements beat the majority's vote.
  • Blatant disregard of normal users attempts to correct his own mistakes by reverting them. Gage hates being contradicted by another users he repeatedly deemed inferior.
  • Obvious abuse of Moderator abilities in order to prevent further good faith edits and changes in the policy in order to mantain a certain sense of pride, even when I stated that I won't change the policy text anymore as long as he follows the text of the policy when doing it himself, thing that he did not. Gage pride is more important than the correct way to do things.
That is bad faith in the purest form. The intention of the text that he added himself can be interpreted, but the manner, the intention that he had at the moment of adding it and his blatant disregard for other people's opinion, even when there's a majority backing up said changes, in order to favoritize his own judgement shows what kind of person Gage is. He obviously now martirizes himself as he demonizes me. You should skim under the insults and bring up the facts. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Come now, it's not bad faith in it's purest form, although his protection of the page was clearly against the rules set down on the very page he was protecting. There wasn't heavy vandalism, or even a protracted edits war, and no request was made for the pages protection (by Gage or anyone else). Protections shouldn't be used to save yourself from dealing with disagreements, or to protect a page against grammatical errors -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it must be the pressure of being insulted and forcing myself to be polite in return. I may have been dramatic by saying that it was bad faith in it's purest form, but it was indeed bad faith. The protection being the most obvious, but the disregard of community's judgement being peraphs the most serious one. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not misconduct. Its a little late now but ... UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines should have been protected at the same time as UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Guidelines Rehashed if not earlier. By protecting the page Gage has accomplished what should have been done months ago. Matt's hurt feelings and the possible waste of his good faith efforts would have been spared if this had not been unattended. As Matthew has pointed out, in the end the page should reflect only the changes expressed in the policy. After that has occurred any user should be able to preform a diff comparison to the version presented before the policy was accepted (10:21, 14 December 2006) and see easily see these changes. I believe boxy has now accomplished this. Any further discussion on the page content itself should be directed to UDWiki_talk:Administration/Guidelines. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gage seems to have deleted UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/The_Official_Secrets_Act , I had just finished writing the proposition, hit refresh and was very surprised to see that it was infact marked for speedy deletion meerly 10 mins after creating. At speedy deletions page my freshly created policy four paragraphs long was awaiting votes along with Gages comments ( Stupid Criteria ) , upon hitting refresh it disappeared after being for 2mins. The Policies created should be reviewed by ALL and not declared stupid by one individual.This Wikipedia is by the people for the people, why was my awaiting policy deleted before being reviewed by others? The only remaining trace of my page is on http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/M/PD#Under_Discussion (11:30pm -12:30am Feb 13 2007)

See M/D and quit bitching. This isn't a "wikipedia". As for your policy? Editing another group's page or another user's userpage is already prohibited by our rules here at M/VB. Actually, Thari deleted it the first time, I only deleted it when you recreated the page.--Gage 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not misconduct - The page was deleted by the accepted rules clearly laid out on the deletions page M/D. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Not misconduct - Read before doing things like this.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that then, my only point is that for policies, it shouldn't be only few in control for who decides what, but that the page was only in for discussion and was subject to change by any user to how they saw fit. Instead of denying the public access to their own opinion. --EqualPower 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you need to figure out how a wiki works before you start suggesting changes.--Gage 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007&oldid=1810046"