UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/The General/2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Misconduct‎ | Archive‎ | The General
Revision as of 12:05, 18 August 2010 by Aichon (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » The General » 2006

14:51, 19 December 2006

Removed a warning from himself on the Vandal Data Page. This warning was applied by myself as a result of a previous misconduct hearing. This warning was not placed with any expiry date, and thus The General should not have touched it, much less struck it out. Given that the Vandal Data page is Protected, this is an abuse of his moderator abilities. --Grim s-Mod U! 14:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As per the rules, the warning had expired.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 14:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - A policy was passed allowing warnings (not bans) to be struck after 250 edits. It's kinda retarded, but. Cyberbob  Talk  14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the most retarded rule i have ever seen. --Grim s-Mod U! 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
No arguments here. Cyberbob  Talk  15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
But it was voted in and, although i'm sure you two are disappointed that I won't be demoted, whining about it won't change that.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
O RLY? Where, at any point, was it stated that this minor whine would get anything changed? Cyberbob  Talk  17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere, but, unless you really like whining, there seems to other point in doing it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Whining makes people feel better sometimes, even if they know they can't change what they're whining about. 'Sides, there's a fine line between expressing dislike and whining. I don't believe Grim and I have crossed it. Cyberbob  Talk  17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we archive this?--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 21:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I recieved an email from 3page confirming suspicions of General's betrayal of the wiki in giving the CheckUser history to the vandal crowd. I'm going to put him up for bannage, but he needs to be demoted as well. Cyberbob  Talk  01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Proof pending according to Cyberbob... - 343 U! 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the wait. Firefox crashed. Anyway, here it is: Proof.PNG
Cyberbob  Talk  01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm skeptical, but emails can be faked, but not just that, some jerk on the net can claim to be something else. For all we know, this can be Amazing himself, destroying our wiki. Could you please explain your suspicions a bit more? - 343 U! 02:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...It doesn't take very much to impersonate someone if you are able to get their IP addy. Ken Irons pulled mine without having access to Checkuser, and if it wasn't a dedicated IP I'm certain a slew of misspelled,profane, and irate actions would have been taken in my name. I just don't see it... maybe if one of the other mods could direct me to a spot in the logs I need to be looking at? Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We know this so far

  1. A mod gave the vandals the IP data.
  2. We will kill whoever it was.

Fortunately for The General, we cannot prove that it was him. Taking the word of a permabanned individual is ludicrous, and don't even try to argue differently. Do you have any more evidence than simply allegations? IP data from the forum this was posted on maybe? We could reference it against the mods we have now. That would be the only definitive proof in my opinion. Otherwise, this case is closed.--Gage 04:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And fortunatly for him xoid informed the general (trying to get a confesion) of the matter before I thought to use my former admin powers on that board to collect the ip proof, I can't get you guys much of anything unless a he repromotes me to admin status on that vandal boards. PS: can you just not ban me for a little bit so we can talk about this? Its not like I don't have 100 other proxies at my command. Your friend, Three page 06:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Pah! I didn't do anything of the sort until nearly a week after you said you weren't going to give us the user/pass combo. required for proof. Go stir up shit elsewhere.
Also; as I can clearly see from the email you sent Cyberbob, you tried to pass off all the accounts as N3PWV's work, despite the fact that some were definitively proven to be Gold Blade's. Ergo, N3PWV didn't let you in on his identity, he didn't let you in on shit. You're just full of tall tales, Staleman. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys are cunts. Just sayin'. Cyberbob  Talk  08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyberbob hates me, you all know that, he'd love to get me demoted. Emails can be faken, and we can't prove that that account is 3 page. and even if it is, is it really reliable to trust a know vandal?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with the sort of programs necessary to fake emails, OK? Yeah, attack me to discount my proof. I hate you, so anything I bring against you is invalid, right? Cyberbob  Talk  21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is anything but proof and you know it. Even if you were his best friend this wouldn't mean shit. Unless you have something more substantial, I think we both know this conversation is closed. Both of you, stop it now.--Gage 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless someone comes up with concrete proof in the next day, this misconduct case is getting sent to purgatory. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I know how concrete proof can be gotten. I look up N3PWV on google and I found that he was posting on this forums/topic: http://www.goodphp.com/index.php?do=topic&id=9769&PHPSESSID=d3e7764cbed0ec26b0fb8463da318b14#post100024667 about when the old vandal boards got shut down. All you have to do is get the mods there to confirm the ip of that poster :). 3page..6? 02:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, you think I didn't already try that? Incidentally, I guess I should be thanking you lot for pointing me towards Clickdev, they don't seem like too bad a host. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

14:52, 20 September 2006 (BST)

The General levied an arbitration against Roysten Crow for images he deemed inappropriate for the wiki. The General's request was pretty simple and legitimate, and although Mr. Crow argued that the images he had were on topic and not overly graphic, he argued his side in a civil fashion and didn't fight the removal of images on his page. The General continued to prod Mr. Crow on the arbitration page as well as Roysten's talk page, and The General posted this gem on the talk [1] page:

The General said:
Look, has it occured to you that is you'd showed some fucking respect, I would have been more willing to negotiate. I don't care if you masturbute to a picture of Mr. Ausawitz. If you can't think of a response which doesn't make you sound like a prococious 5 year old then go fuck yourself. And while i'm here, SIGN PROPERLY YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
  • The General is a moderator here, whom we trust to be a level-headed person that enforces the wiki's rules. We can't expect any moderator to be perfect, but this display is a bit over the top
  • The General implies that if Roysten showed "some respect" he would negotiate on the arbitration case...maybe I'm bad at reading comprehension, but I never noticed anywhere in this dialogue that Roysten was disrespectful. I find it humorous that he's basically asking for "gold" to be placed in "the basket" -- that is, if Roysten were to grovel at The General's feet, the case could be dropped.
  • Masturbating? I thought we kicked a rather prominent user of this wiki off the wiki for writing sexually related stories on his user page...
  • The General claims that Roysten's writing voice is that of a 5 year old -- who is he to decide how people can talk on the wiki? For all we know, Roysten's second language could be English. It's not up to the community or The General to decide at what level a person should talk.
  • Lastly, this gem: SIGN PROPERLY YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Not every user of this wiki is a pro at it. Granted, Roysten has been using the wiki long enough to figure out signing posts, but who cares really, he's putting his name on his posts.


I know that The General(and his friends) have a history with myself and my crew, so coming from me this critique may seem expected, but honestly, should our moderators act this way toward our users? There are enough people that accuse our mods of being biased and unfair because they ban people in an attempt to curb vandalism, we don't need to give people legitimate reasons to hate the moderators.

I'll leave it to you to decide what needs to be done in this matter. Myself? I think The General needs to be removed from moderator status and the wiki community re-vote on his promotion. He was able to gain moderator status before, it shouldn't be a problem for him to get it back, right? -- Rueful 14:52, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Discussion

Having looked at the various pages in question I'll chime in here and give my opinion. Based on the discussion as viewed at this posting I will say that although both parties have acted in a less than mature fashion ( The General less polite as evedenced by Ruefuls quote, Roysten_Crow more so but still prone to comments such as General won't accept anyone except the very person who is totally against me and who has a massive weed growing in their cornhole about our most recent member. ) neither party is guilty of gross misconduct.

Unfortunatly no moderator is held to a level of civility or standard of composure, nor is the behaivor side of activity regulated by any policy currently in place. The proposal that would have done so, was defeated. A shame that...

Anyway, The General is encouraged to be more "diplomatic" and "elegant" in future encounters, but beyond that, No Misconduct occured. Rudeness? Yes, Imature Banter? Yes. Miusconduct? No.

Ruling so penned. Conndrakamod T CFT 15:52, 20 September 2006 (BST)

Adendum It is my beleif that the "Show some respect" statement was a request for the respect due another user, not an extra amount of respect for someone in a mod position. Conndrakamod T CFT 15:54, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Yes, you are right, I was not asking for respect because of my mod position, but rather that he show some civilty to me as a long time member of the community.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:02, 20 September 2006 (BST)

If Rueful would check arbitration page, you will discover that Roysten Crow had insulted and attacked me multiple times, without provocation, and I had finally lost it. I will quote you (from UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration#The_End):

"This whole thing is ridiculous, spawned by a petty, stupid person who cannot just let this thing lie and who has to keep badgering and hassling to prove how important and powerful they are.

What a complete pantload of farce.

I don't care about arbitors, people have come forth, General hates them. I don't trust mister 'I hate the horde because they acecpted someone I don't like' (I have no idea what this person did, nor do I care, nor should it be relevant or even have warranted all this crap).

I have been reasonable, I have done what this General tool has mewled about. This should be the end of it.

Of course, we now give you Gage and General with their next session of revisionist action, denial, and flimsy assault...

--Roysten Crow 19:07 September 2006 (PST)"

--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:59, 20 September 2006 (BST)

I actually read the whole thing over the past few days, I guess I get a sick pleasure from seeing people argue. Roysten seemed pretty civil to me until the tag-team(you/gage) started to annoy him at the end. Maybe there's no policy in place to tell a moderator how to talk, but conducting yourself in a non-idiot fashion never hurt anyone.
Turning your attack back to me is a nice way to deflect this. Cheers. -- Rueful 16:08, 20 September 2006 (BST)
He had not said a single reasonable, sensible thing throughout the entire case which did not include an insult to me.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:10, 20 September 2006 (BST)
But wouldn't it be nice if you could show yourself to be better than him by refraining from responding in kind? Cyberbob  Talk  16:14, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Maybe, but sometimes the only way to make these people understand is to talk at there level. I had already tried talking reasonably, and he ignored it and replied with his "ZOMG CONSPIRICY THEORYS!!!1!".--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:19, 20 September 2006 (BST)
You know, this is deliciously ironic. You accuse me of being a troll, when in reality I only run into situations like the one you just described almost every day. Cyberbob  Talk  16:29, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Well, if you do run into these situations every day then you have my sypathy, if nothing else.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:22, 20 September 2006 (BST)
Thank you. Cyberbob  Talk  17:24, 20 September 2006 (BST)


Rueful, Rueful, I really didn't expect a frivulous case from you. Let's debunk this, one piece of drivel at a time shall we?

Rueful said:

  • The General is a moderator here, whom we trust to be a level-headed person that enforces the wiki's rules. We can't expect any moderator to be perfect, but this display is a bit over the top
  • The General implies that if Roysten showed "some respect" he would negotiate on the arbitration case...maybe I'm bad at reading comprehension, but I never noticed anywhere in this dialogue that Roysten was disrespectful. I find it humorous that he's basically asking for "gold" to be placed in "the basket" -- that is, if Roysten were to grovel at The General's feet, the case could be dropped.
  • Masturbating? I thought we kicked a rather prominent user of this wiki off the wiki for writing sexually related stories on his user page...
  • The General claims that Roysten's writing voice is that of a 5 year old -- who is he to decide how people can talk on the wiki? For all we know, Roysten's second language could be English. It's not up to the community or The General to decide at what level a person should talk.
  • Lastly, this gem: SIGN PROPERLY YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Not every user of this wiki is a pro at it. Granted, Roysten has been using the wiki long enough to figure out signing posts, but who cares really, he's putting his name on his posts.
  1. Read the guidelines and read the rules of this page. Misconduct is about abuse of power, not being unpleasant.
  2. The General already debunked this himself; Roy acted like a dick with "ZOMG CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!1!", The General acted like a dick in turn.
  3. Jesus H. Christ. Not you too. I thought Amazing was the only one who didn't read the reasoning why. For the record: LibrarianBrent banned him for an arbitration violation, and brought he sentence up to what it should've been because somewhere, someone had screwed up and Amazing got off warning when it should've been another ban.
  4. See point 1, see point 2. Also: fuck off. This site is written in English. If you can't communicate effectively or seem like an idiot because you can't spell that is your problem, not ours. Either make it obvious you're a foreigner, bone up on English, keep your mouth shut, do something important enough that people will ignore your poor English, or get lost.
  5. I care. People who don't sign properly cause all sorts of problems when you are trying to compare timestamps, find out who said what and just generally keep organised. I'm not going to take on an extra workload just because some putz is too lazy or too stupid to learn four simple keystrokes.

–Xoid S•T•FU! 10:32, 21 September 2006 (BST)

I guess I get it now...let me go lower my standards too. There we go, glad that's all worked out! -- Rueful 15:43, 21 September 2006 (BST)

21:37, 25 July 2006 (BST)

banned Housemouse for an edit that wasn't of a vandal nature. Flamming a talk page isn't vandalism. --Sandman 21:37, 25 July 2006 (BST)

Just check every single edit housemouse made. Then tell me that he didn't deserve to be banned.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:38, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Vandalism is defined as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki." Housemouse's edit was clearly in bad faith, and so, was vandalism. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:39, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Yeah, but the precedent is that you can say whatever you want about whoever you want on a TALK page. This edit was on a talk page, and therefore should be allowed.--Sandman 21:45, 25 July 2006 (BST)
But it was bad faith, plus this guys only other edits were unquestionable vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:48, 25 July 2006 (BST)
The precedent is that groups are in control of their talk pages. His comments were not welcome on ASS's talk page, and his only two other edits were vandalism. Any reasonable person would see that Housemouse's account was created only for vandalism. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:52, 25 July 2006 (BST)
if this edit were alone, he wouldn't have been banned. He just got his second warning, and then he made this edit, an edit which by itself is not vandalism. If you are going to ban someone, follow your own rules and wait till the third instance of vandalism. I have seen people telling people "FUCK YOU" on the users talk page... is that vandalism? No. I understand his other edits were vandalism, but this one wasn't, and this is the one he got banned for. Look at this edit. --Sandman 21:58, 25 July 2006 (BST)
I have looked at the edit. I am the one who reported the edit. The edit was made on my group's page. It is obviously in bad faith. Do you have an actual case here, or do you just want to bitch and moan? Because this isn't the place for that. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:07, 25 July 2006 (BST)

I request a mod ruling on this before it desends into a flame war.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:09, 25 July 2006 (BST)

I would rule, but I will abstain due to conflict of interest. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:10, 25 July 2006 (BST)

I have a question for you, "Sandman": why are you so invested in defending a vandal? –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 22:09, 25 July 2006 (BST)

The Ruling

Considering the nature of the previous edits of Housemouse, that they were his only edits to the Wiki, and also considering that he had been warned for them, yet continued to vandalise and troll the ASS page, I think the one-day ban that was given to him by The General was indeed a justified response, and was made in good faith for the Wiki. I dismiss this case. – Nubis NWO 22:13, 25 July 2006 (BST)

23:42, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Blocked Rueful for 48 hours.

In my opinion, he jumped the gun on this ban. He posted at 19:20, and actually blocked my account at 19:14, before any other moderators had a chance to weigh in on my actions. Hagnat disagreed with The General's take on my edits, and seemed to indicate that a ban should not take place.

The edits: 1 2 were to remove an exploit that allows users to float content outside the bounds of the user-editable space on the wiki.

The edit against Amazing's template was to disable the exploit on the Crossman Defense Force page(which I assumed Amazing no longer owned since he got himself banned and can no longer contribute to the wiki). The edit against The General's page was to get rid of a link in the floating text which was declared to (probably) be against wiki policy in hagnat vs. Amazing. Relevant text regarding the template exploit:

  • Only usable on pages owned by the user himself.
  • only 25 characters of plain text, no pictures, no links, no line breaks. no changing of font size, no nothing. the only thing allowed is standard roman characters. the only deviations are capital letters, italics and bolding. changing font color is also allowed.
  • all other normal editing limitations apply.


The General/Bob Hammero noted that I also removed the bold tags from The General's exploit text, and while it is true that I did, I merely overlooked the bold tags when I was trying to remove the link.

I believe that in cases such as these, the moderator that issues the ban has been blocked for the same time period as the duration of the unjust ban, if this is indeed ruled as misconduct. -- Rueful 23:42, 3 July 2006 (BST)

Knowing your history with Amazing, and the fact you referenced an arbitration ruling which specified what should have been done, it is not unreasonable to expect you to look into circumstances before getting gung-ho and making alterations. I don't see a lot of substance in this misconduct case. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:20, 4 July 2006 (BST)
I as well. However, Rueful was citing direct policy when he was making the second edit; the bold is an obvious mistake and not made in bad faith at all. However his first edit to the Amazing Is Watching Exploit/Template is an action that assumes ownship of a page currently in use by a group that represents and is represented by Amazing. As such, he was warned, and suffers from his past history in that he was banned 48hrs for his 4th warning.
Furthermore, citing a time-signature has no barring in this case: a moderator must be able to initiate actions to further this wiki and if said actions are decided to be incompadible with the wiki as per either this process or upon the vandalization page. --Karlsbad 19:22, 4 July 2006 (BST)

Silence! Hagnat is speaking!

Ouch. You were banned Rueful ? Sorry, didnt realize that when i said you shouldnt be. As you can see in my profile, i am a little short on a network card so i have to use this (crappy) connection that my university has. If i had seen this before i would surely unban you in no time.

Ok. Point 1

Amazing was banned. He is no longer welcome in this wiki. actually he was not welcome in the wiki A LONG TIME before his bannage. There is a lot of amazinf legacy things in this wiki that we could simply erase because no one care (like the Malton Neighbourhood Watch thing), or simply return to normality (namely, the CDF page who looks awfull and completly off-site).
This "Amazing is Watching" crap is something that should have been removed a long time ago, but wasnt because of my arb ruling while amazing was still loose. Now, a regular user removes it! Great! Explendid! This just shows that i am not alone here, and that this should be the will of the wiki. The General creating something equal only lower my opinion on him, and proves nothing.

Point 2

He removed the link. Great. He was following what vista said on my arb ruling, and even said that in the summary of his edit. He removed the bolding. Wooo! Lets burn his house down! Vandal! ... C'mon. Calling someone a vandal because he removed a BOLD tag ? What are we going to do next ? Banning someone who forgot to add a coma in a line of text ?

The above points were made in defense of Rueful. I already warned, TWICE, and banned him in the past. I know what he had done to the wiki, and for the wiki, and knows that this edits were not made in bad faith, but indeed to improve it.

Now, about The General actions.

It was THE GENERAL who filled the case against Rueful, it was also THE GENERAL who banned him.
It's been a long time tradition in this wiki (actually a policy that i dont have the time to look for) that a moderator CAN NOT ban someone he himself repórted in the Vandal Banning page. He must wait for another mod to step in and do the dirty work for him.
Don't take into account Rueful's "Second Act of Vandalism", reported by bob, because General banned Rueful 6 minutes before HIS OWN REPORT WAS MADE. Even then, he should had have waited for another mod to step in and state his opinion on that case.
So, General failled to comply with this wiki rules, and should be banned for the same ammount of time he banned Rueful, ergo 48h.

And i'm done with this case. --hagnat mod 01:53, 5 July 2006 (BST)


Point 1: It is not against the rules to ban someone whom you yourself reported Read. The. Rules.

Point 2: He blanked Amazing's page, I warned him. I then noticed it should have been a 48 hour ban, so I banned him. I followed the rules.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 06:01, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Except I don't think the edits were in bad faith. I just can't see someone as obviously not stupid as Rueful deliberately committing vandalism - on a non-throwaway account - when it would mean a 48-hour ban. And being so public about it to boot.
If the edits weren't bad faith, then the ban should never have taken place. Hagnat's right, General. You jumped the gun and broke an unspoken rule that has been in place almost since the wiki was formed. Cyberbob  Talk  10:45, 5 July 2006 (BST)


Just a few things:

1. The General is right that there is no policy forbidding mods to ban or warn someone they themselves reported. And I'm not aware of any tradition either.
2. According to timestamps here and here, The General banned Rueful after about an hour after reporting, not before. Timestamps on signatures may differ from the ones in history depending on your account preferences (time zone settings, using 01:00 matches the times).
3. Whether what Rueful did was vandalism, also known as Bad Faith edits, I don't know and I don't want to decide.
--Brizth mod T W! 12:35, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Hum. I was thinking about 2. on my way home yesterday, so i was wrong there. Still, General was wrong to ban someone he himself reported for vandalism. Imagine if any mod decides to start reporting people there and warn/ban them just a few minutes later ? This is the unspoken rule in this wiki, prolly all wikis. --hagnat mod 18:25, 5 July 2006 (BST)

I am siding with hagnat on this. There has been a long standing unofficial policy (And i am almost certain that it was actually written there at one point) that if a moderator reports someone, they are doing it in their position as a user of the wiki, and thus cannot then go and unilaterally render a verdict on it. This has, of course, been blurred by some moderators reporting vandal accounts on the page after banning them. The fact that no moderator can rule on a case he brings forward serves as a balance to the individuals power. As such, right or wrong in the banning itself, The General had no right at all to effect the banning himself, as he brought forward the case, and thus should serve the duration ban that he condemned Rueful to, and that it also be counted as a single warning against his name. Furthermore, i also feel that the edits made were not vandalism, and thus warranted no action. --Grim s-Mod U! 13:24, 5 July 2006 (BST)

So...is that the final ruling? Seems to me we've now had two separate rulings; Hagnat's, and yours. Cyberbob  Talk  13:33, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Grim's ruling is better, since General didnt removed Rueful ban even when i said his actions were not harmful enough to earn a warning/bannage. --hagnat mod 18:25, 5 July 2006 (BST)
So what happens to General? Cyberbob  Talk  18:32, 5 July 2006 (BST)
48h ban + warning. --hagnat mod 18:33, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Does it matter who does it? Cyberbob  Talk  18:46, 5 July 2006 (BST)
It would be great if General himself did it, just like Ster and Vista did when they were found guilty in their misconduct cases. --hagnat mod 18:51, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Okey dokey. Cyberbob  Talk  18:53, 5 July 2006 (BST)

I broke no rules. Read the rules again. It says that mods are not required to report vandalism. Rueful violated an arbitration ruling and blanked the page. That is vandalism on both counts. He knew he was wrong. He was warned, he did it again. I then noticed he should have been banned, please wait while I dredge up a link to the guidelines. Also, has anyone noticed that 3 mods believe I was right and 3 mods believe I was wrong?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:07, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Sorry General. The ruling has been made. Now, either you can warn and ban yourself (and still retain some semblance of respectability) or I can do it for you. Cyberbob  Talk  19:11, 5 July 2006 (BST)

link read it. Anyway, why do I warn myself? There is no precident for that.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:13, 5 July 2006 (BST)

OK then, I (or someone else) will warn you. Either you can ban yourself (and save at least a little face) or it can be done for you. Which do you choose? Cyberbob  Talk  19:15, 5 July 2006 (BST)
What he means is why does he get both a warning for vandalism and a banning fo misconduct? you usually don't get warnings for vandalism in misconduct and certianly not both.--Vista 19:18, 5 July 2006 (BST)
I already answered that with "I don't know." I'm just going by the punishment that hagnat and Grim s put forward. Cyberbob  Talk  19:58, 5 July 2006 (BST)
You might want to check the log, this said before before you anwsered that question. it was even said before the one you did anwser too--Vista 20:23, 5 July 2006 (BST)

The general wrongly banned Rueful not because he brought the case into vandal banning himself. but mostly because as the target of the edits, he should have known that it was a conflict of interest to take action as a moderator. That was an abuse of power. So I agree with that part of Grims' verdict But I've got some questions about wether or not reful edits were good-faith. Because I don't believe that. He has a consisant history of bad faith edits, starting drama and using loop holes to evade bannings. He has contributed nothing to this wiki except for all his Amazing related antics. His edits were bad-faith as he was obviously only trying to steer up shit again. So what I want to know: what happens to his vandal banning record?--Vista 19:16, 5 July 2006 (BST)

I just don't think that someone as obviously intelligent as Rueful would knowingly commit vandalism so publicly. But that doesn't matter any more. A note will be made that the 48-hour ban was handed out wrongfully. I don't know whether this means that he reverts to his next ban being a 48-hourly or not. Regardless, The General is going to recieve a 48-hourly and a warning. Cyberbob  Talk  19:19, 5 July 2006 (BST)
No I don't think that. Rueful's actions was vandalism, the general's was wrong to ban him as he was a participant. So I believe that the general should get banned but that ruefull record should remain as it is. And can somebody tell me why the general gets a warning for vandalism when what he did was misconduct?--Vista 19:23, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Except why would he be so open about it if he knew it to be vandalism. Remember, intent is the entirety of vandalism. Someone could blank a page and not be warned, if they somehow managed to convince a mod that it wasn't intentional or intended to disrupt the wiki. Regarding the warning - I'm not sure, to be honest. Ask hagnat or Grim s. Cyberbob  Talk  19:26, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Seeing his editing history and both the edit, the person he did it too and the arbitration case he was quoting I am sure enough that intent was to create and sustane more Amazing related drama. Although the infracting was very small, the lack of good faith editing of the user and the pattern involved make it a bad faith edit and this vandalism.--Vista 19:54, 5 July 2006 (BST)

***ANNOUNCEMENT*** - If The General has not banned himself by 18:30 19:00 BST, I will do it for him. Cyberbob  Talk  19:22, 5 July 2006 (BST)

And you will be reported the second you do. this case isn't closed.--Vista 19:24, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Yes. It. Is. We've had two separate official rulings. Remember Vista, your opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else's. This isn't going to be put on hold for you. Cyberbob  Talk  19:27, 5 July 2006 (BST)
I'll be generous and extend the deadline by half an hour. Cyberbob  Talk  19:29, 5 July 2006 (BST)
No we got 3. we've got Xoid and karlsbad saying it isn't misconduct, hagnat and grim saying it is misconduct and that reufull is innocent. and me saying it is misconduct and that reuful isn't innocent. and Xoids and karlsbad were first. Untill that isn't resolved this case is not finished. And you will extend any deadlines, you will not make any deadlines, you will not ban anybody involved in this case.--Vista 19:33, 5 July 2006 (BST)
What? You're basing the fact that this isn't closed on the sole fact that Xoid and Karlsbad got in first? What are you, 12? I thought we'd already discussed the issue of maturity on MSN, Vista. Cyberbob  Talk  19:36, 5 July 2006 (BST)
No I am basing on this on your lovely comment of somebodies "opinion doesn't hold any more weight than anyone else's" Xoid and Karlsbad opinion are as valid as yours and mine. I fail to see what principle you follow by saing that the case was closed after Grim S made his verdict but not when Xoid and karlsbad said it had little validiaty. I think both would be wrong as there is an obvious disagreement within the moderator team. I suggest we follow Bob Hammero's solution as that would make sure that every opinion of the moderators team's counted. I think a moderator following just the opinions he believes valid is not in spirit of this wiki, don't you agree?--Vista 19:46, 5 July 2006 (BST)
You're the one being immature, Cyberbob. They're equal.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:44, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Oh dear. Now I have to answer two comments with just the one. Fuck that. I'm going to answer Vista's, because he made the same point as General. Actually, Vista, you'll notice that neither of General's supporters (and I don't think Xoid is one any more; I convinced him of General's guilt over MSN) came out and fully made a ruling. My guess is, that they didn't feel confident enough to. Oh, and General? You have 10 minutes. Cyberbob  Talk  19:50, 5 July 2006 (BST)
So you felt it nessecary to try and convince him on MSN, afraid facts would get in the way on the wiki. Oh, and Cyberbob banning me now would be misconduct. Your word that you conviced him means nothing, and it is not up to you to guess how "confident" they are. What happened to your beloved deomcracy?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:55, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Actually, we were just chatting when this topic came up. But don't worry. You won't have to take my word for it. Next time he comes on (dang, that invalidates the deadline, doesn't it?), you can hear it straight from him. Cyberbob  Talk  19:57, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Yes, he can tell me. I still wonder, what do you have against having a vote? Afraid you might lose?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:00, 5 July 2006 (BST)
If you'll just reread my comment below...? I think you'll find that I said that the vote makes sense to me. Cyberbob  Talk  20:02, 5 July 2006 (BST)
I will say this one thing, and then leave, because I do not want to get in the middle of this argument. But I will say this: I suggest that instead of continuing to argue with each other, this be taken to a vote, or something similar that would establish what the majority of the moderators feel the right action is. It isn't productive to argue like this, and I would hate to see someone do something rash because they got caught up in the argument and got their ego in the way. That said, I will stay out of this now, but please think about what I said. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:05, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Sounds good to me. LIKE I ALREADY SAID, GENERAL. Cyberbob  Talk  20:07, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Then why were you trying to ban me without taking a vote?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:24, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Someone can tell me to stay out of this if my input isn't wanted because I'm not a mod yet, but since this looks like it's unfortunately heading towards a flame war of some sort, I'd like to head that off before it begins so that we can all avoid another instance of wiki drama.

May I suggest that, since this seems to be a heated issue to many if you, this be taken to an official vote (for moderators only) with a reasonably short deadline, with the understanding that whatever the majority rule is after that time be the action that is taken? That seems to be the most logical step, since the moderators all have equal power, but there does not appear to be a clear majority consensus. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:34, 5 July 2006 (BST)

I'd agree to that.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:37, 5 July 2006 (BST)
I bet you would. Although it does make sense to me. Cyberbob  Talk  19:38, 5 July 2006 (BST)
What exactly is meant by that statement?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:39, 5 July 2006 (BST)
It means... whatever you want it to mean. Cyberbob  Talk  19:40, 5 July 2006 (BST)
Ok.....--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:41, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Constructing a voting partion as bob hammero suggestions. please wait. (preferably to some muzak)--Vista 20:44, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Muzak away, I'm kinda... perturbed by this BS --Karlsbad 21:17, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Lovely Voting Discussion Section

(Like with Kevan's Promotions, this should be a section about statement of the wiki rather than a simple vote; state your opinion and WHY you believe so below, please. --Karlsbad 20:41, 6 July 2006 (BST))

As far as I read there were 3 different opinions, if we decide to do this I propose that the opinion with a simple majority after 3 days of voting discussion is enacted.--Vista 21:20, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Opinion 1

The edit Rueful made was vandalism and as such the general was right to ban him.

Moderators who agree with this

  • I'm right wacked-out that somehow because I didn't put the word "rule" in my post its somehow glossed over by others. The reason we don't have the "have to get another mod to okay that vandal-ban report of another" is because it is willfully idiotic when dealing with a 3pv-type situation. Furthermore, Amazing's user-pages are Protected just because we realize that Rueful and his ilk would do the following because Amazing isn't here to change them. And if you DO have a problem with the CDF page, perhaps a user, as a USER, should note that and see if CDF is willing to alter their formating. It seems that the ONLY reason this is getting hedged is because of some back-room bickering; how about we all realize that General didn't do wrong here? --Karlsbad 21:29, 5 July 2006 (BST)
  • I'ld have to say that Rueful's edit of Amazings page is vandalism and that The General was going according to the rules so shouldn't be punished. I kinda agree with opinion two in respects to the long standing unoffical policy and suggest to the General to be more careful in the future with banning people assuming that there isn't any immediate threat to the wiki. Of course it's silly to wait for another moderator to ban an Ad-bot or an active vandal. - Jedaz 06:40, 6 July 2006 (BST)

Opinion 2

There has been a long standing unofficial policy (And I am almost certain that it was actually written there at one point) that if a moderator reports someone, they are doing it in their position as a user of the wiki, and thus cannot then go and unilaterally render a verdict on it. This has, of course, been blurred by some moderators reporting vandal accounts on the page after banning them. The fact that no moderator can rule on a case he brings forward serves as a balance to the individual’s power. As such, right or wrong in the banning itself, The General had no right at all to effect the banning himself, as he brought forward the case, and thus should serve the duration ban that he condemned Rueful to, and that it also be counted as a single warning against his name. Furthermore, I also feel that the edits made were not vandalism, and thus warranted no action.

Moderators who agree with this:

  • Count me in. Cyberbob  Talk  03:48, 6 July 2006 (BST)
  • Since the above is my comment, i may as well sign on the dotted line. --Grim s-Mod U! 09:35, 6 July 2006 (BST)
  • We are what??!! Voting for a misconduct case ? Ridiculous! Anyway, this is where i stand for. The General is wrong, he is not new to this wiki and should know better that a mod can't delete/undelete/protect a page /ban/promote a user he himself reported for. --hagnat mod 17:41, 6 July 2006 (BST)
Yes he can, please read the rules.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 19:10, 7 July 2006 (BST)
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Cyberbob  Talk  03:31, 8 July 2006 (BST)
We aren't voting, we are stating our opinion in a sane and rational manner. This is me providing a counterpoint; And if we have that rule we should at atleast clarify it and give reasons WHY it should be that moderators cannot report-warn, and then ask ourselves if Rueful was still in the wrong even if General did report-warn, and if so then why we are threatening to ban General 48hrs for a minor mistake. Otherwise I would feel that this option would be unwarrented because of the lack of rational debate among parties. --Karlsbad 20:38, 6 July 2006 (BST)
Banning is never a minor event. W:Banning is never a minor event. Where the user in question has a vested interest in the outcome they should never decide it. That is where corruption starts. You dont let such people get off with a slap on the wrist. --Grim s-Mod U! 11:37, 7 July 2006 (BST)
The action of banning is never a minor event; it stops an individual (or mal-ware, whatever) from accessing what makes the wiki a wiki. However under our rule system the decision to use a ban is actually quite simple; Rueful deserved a ban for his bad-faith and vandalization edit, and because The General also choose to report how he in a way vandalized his page he is somehow unable to speak the truth about Rueful's editing practices. As such, there should be no "Vandal Warning" Given to a moderator who was acting as an effective enforcer of wiki policy, and a matching ban would serve only as a punishment (if accepted by the General) to enforce the arbitrary nature of enforcement regaurding the Vandal Reporting process. We aren't in the buisness of demanding blood here, just to serve as precident for, well, cases in which the vandal isn't actually destroying the wiki yet is definately in the wrong. --Karlsbad 18:43, 7 July 2006 (BST)
Once again, you are stating your opinion as unequivocal fact, specifically, that what Rasher did was in bad faith. Warnings are granted to people who break the rules of the wiki. The fact that they most often go to vandals is irrelevant. on several prior occasions a warning has gone on that persons record as a result of abusing their power (one of which was my own verdict on one misconduct case). There are a series of checks and balances for our power for a reason karlsbad, and if we start ignoring them when they apply to ourselves or people we like we become tyrants rather than servants of the community (Our position, in case you have forgotten). Our duty is to act in the best interests of the community, not in our own best interests by circumventing discussion and impartiality. The General forgot this when he did what he did, and you have apparently forgotten it too, to act the way you are. The issue of whether Rasher did wrong is entirely seperate to the issue at hand, and it is my studied opinion that what he did was in no way a bad faith edit. Once cannot simply assume bad faith just because of bad history. The change that was effected on Amazings user page was minor, and was removing a minor part that was outside the usual user bound space (Something i personally dont think should be allowed on this wiki, as that smells of official stampage). The Change to The Generals think was similiar, enforcing an arbitration ruling on the matter (No links in the damned things). If the edits were made in bad faith, there would be evidence of bad faith. What we have here is simply The General and yourself apparently deciding that because he edited the page and because he has a bad history with the user in question that the edit was in bad faith. How about you prove bad faith before you assert it. --Grim s-Mod U! 23:32, 7 July 2006 (BST)
Blanking a page is bad faith. He knew perfectly well what he was doing, I quote the comment "Decommisioning annoying template". He violated an arbitration desicion and vandalised a page, he was banned as per the rules.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:36, 7 July 2006 (BST)
I agree, blanking a page is a bad faith edit, which is why I didn't do that, I used "nowiki" tags to prevent the exploit html from properly rendering. Here's the diff. -- Rueful 02:35, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Rueful is correct The General. He blanked no page, and thus you have no case. I would rule that his action was a good faith edit to remove an exploit that tossed stuff around outside the standard editable space. He may have been wrong to do it, but he wasnt doing it with malicious intent, which is the essence behind vandalim reporting, as is so often cried out by the masses. I would also rule that any arbitration rulings requiring people to stay apart and not interact becomes null and void when one is permabanned, because its just silly otherwise, and normal rules apply. --Grim s-Mod U! 03:10, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Blanking a page is a slang term we've all used here; yet the edit was made to a template, not a true page, and therefore using the term blanking is inncorrect. Nothing links to a template like a page, and therefore the only way to eliminate the context of the Template is to ensure that it cannot be used on other page, such as using the >noinclude< tag, which is exactly what Rueful did. Therefore we should agree that while Rueful did not blank the page as written, he sabatoged the template.
Secondly, the template is STILL IN USE, Grim. And unless you want to be brought up for vandalization yourself, you can't edit it out of the page either as it is still within the bounds of the Arbitration ruling you can see here. If you don't like it, suggest to CDF that the template be removed and let the group remove it themselves.
Third, bad-faith editing what Amazing put up on his page is still shitting on his rug, even if he isn't home, which is exactly the reason why his pages are currently being protected by the moderation staff.
Fourth, there is a history of allowing moderators who follow the rules of the page yet fail to get a second opinion, when the action was in the right, to be only verbally admonished rather than treated like a common vandal.
In closing, I'm not arguing for The General to go about banning who-ever he pleases; I am rather arguing that this case be used for FUTURE precident in which we handle non-belligerent(sp?) vandals/rule-breakers on the wiki, not as a retro-active blood-letting. Give General his 50 hail marys, and use this as an example for any other issues we have on M/VB. --Karlsbad 07:57, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Just going quickly here because im tired: 1, You still assert that the edit was made in bad faith without any proof. Suspicioun != Proof. 2, if you actually went back into the history (And i did, you can find it about 2000+ revisions ago, that case was referring to hagnat banning a vandal alt (Standard practice on this wiki, vandal alts do not get the scaling warning system, as they exist only to vandalise, and are characterised by a silly name, and all the contributions being vandalism). Also, that case to which you refer was reported by Amazing, not by hagnat, so it doesnt even fucking apply to this case! Revision in question, Micheal.j's contributions (Both vandalism). Hagnat did right in that case, and as such he was let of. It has absolutely no parrallels to this case. 3, what you say is irrelevant to the discussion. You cannot simply assume bad faith because a page was subsequently prtected. --Grim s-Mod U! 15:14, 8 July 2006 (BST)

Opinion 3

As a moderator, The general should have known that it was a conflict of interest to take action as a moderator as he was the target of the edits. He should have let another Moderator take action in this case. He should've also listened when another moderator chimed in. He didn't. And thus he acted not in the way a moderator should. He should receive a 3 day ban for that (the time he banned Rueful a day.) but not a warning as it was misconduct, not vandalism, what he did.

Although the General misconduct himself by banning Rueful himself instead of leaving the case to another, Seeing Rueful lack of good faith editing and the pattern involved it was a bad faith edit and vandalism. Rueful should've taken more care seeing his history on this wiki. The ban should stay in the vandal banning records.

Moderators who agree with this:

  • Keep - Wait, what are we voting on? OK, seriously? I buy into Cyber's logic on how Rueful may have thought it was a good idea, but Rueful knew full well that his actions would be considered questionable, and should have looked into what was allowed (including asking Vista for clarification, if required) before going and acting on it. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:15, 6 July 2006 (BST)
Again, it is not a vote but a statement of belief. In all actuality, I am more apt to clairify a minor banning without a warning. But either way; The major section of the case (Rueful's Bad-Faith edit of Amazing's page) was not in conflict with The General (as he is not Amazing) and therefore the warning as such should not be considered a bad-faith action by a moderator. If we wish to apply the "no Report-Warn" rule to the page it should be stated here (as precident for future cases). --Karlsbad 20:38, 6 July 2006 (BST)
"Again, it is not a vote but a statement of belief." — Obviously I was being sarcastic with the "Keep - Wait, what are we voting on?", but that is besides the point. IIRC, I got threatened with having my balls cut off with a rusty spoon if I failed to follow due process for another user. Cyberbob's reasoning, while failing to convince me of Rueful's innocence, did start the gears grinding, and I remembered that. I also remembered how Hagnat got excused for something similiar. Everyone seemed to agree that what I did was misconduct. Everyone seemed to agree that what Hagnat did was not. In one, being proactive was allowed. In the other, being proactive was not. I can't really reconcile what is supposed to happen anymore, and as such I am now officially saying: "Fuck this.", until someone can explain how both of those rulings apply — is it purely a matter of all the mods agreeing that the banned user was rightfully banned that makes it "not misconduct"? –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:09, 7 July 2006 (BST)
What you did was misconduct because you banned them when they weren't breaking rules. I don't believe that they were breaking rules when when hagnat banned them, but that wasn't my desision--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:12, 7 July 2006 (BST)
So you are agreeing that it is purely a matter of all the mods agreeing that the banned user was rightfully banned that makes it "not misconduct", otherwise it is? –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:38, 7 July 2006 (BST)
Yeap, basicaly.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 18:22, 7 July 2006 (BST) +
Actually, I think everyone here believes that Rueful is a vandal. I'm arguing whether The General should be Vandal Warned and if there actually can be precident (and of what kind) can be attached to this case. --Karlsbad 18:43, 7 July 2006 (BST)
If Hagnat can get off it for the same thing simply because there was a majority agreement, then the same thing should apply here. I reckon' that it was vandalism. You do. The General does, obviously, Vista considers it vandalism. Now all we need are enough moderators to say one way or the other to break the "really close to a deadlock" we have at the moment, so that this waste of time can be archived. –Xoid S•T•FU! 18:50, 7 July 2006 (BST)
Actually, the people that hold Opinion 2 don't think Rueful was vandalising. Cyberbob  Talk  18:52, 7 July 2006 (BST)
So wait, how do you settle on your position in light of This Case? --Karlsbad 19:04, 7 July 2006 (BST)
While this case is similar, it's not completely so. That other user's contributions were all vandal edits. Rueful, while he's had a bit of a history of vandalism, is smart enough to not knowingly commit vandalism so publicly and openly. Cyberbob  Talk  03:34, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Way to damn him with faint praise, Cyber. Yes, Rueful isn't the type to go on a blank-spree, yet he also is a user with no true good-faith contribution to the wiki. But I see where the issue is; Rueful can be trusted to keep his head down and mouth shut and continue to contribute little if nothing, while the other user was a baligerent vandal. But why don't we actually present this as a new example and learning experience rather than as a punishment for something that wasn't against any set precident at that moment in time. --Karlsbad 07:57, 8 July 2006 (BST)

Verdict

The vote was started at 21:20, 5 July 2006 (BST), it is now 22:04, 8 July 2006 (BST). I hereby declare discussion closed as 72 hours (Three days) have passed, as was originally outlined. The outcome will be now determined:

1 The General did no wrong and rueful was guilty: 2 moderators. (Karlsbad, Jedaz)

2 The General did wrong, and should be banned for 48 hours and recieve a warning and that rueful did no wrong: 3 moderators (Cyberbob, Grim s, hagnat)

3 The general did wrong and should be banned for 72 hours but no warning, and rueful was wrong.: 1 moderator (Xoid)

The second option wins. Enacting the approved measures presently. Case Closed. --Grim s-Mod U! 22:04, 8 July 2006 (BST)

The General has been banned for 48 hours and has recieved his warning on the vandal data page. --Grim s-Mod U! 22:09, 8 July 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/The_General/2006&oldid=1761344"