UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Conndraka/2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Conndraka » 2006

00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I was wrong with the below case. Conndraka actions are more chaotic than i thought. :\ I am not saying this because he deleted my group page, deleted it's image and now i cant get it back, and deleted an image i uploaded and used in a bug report, but it was them that make me start to notice some of his actions...

I wont look for other examples, since i have a good one in hand. If you take a look at this page, you will notice that this image was removed by Conndraka because it was an "Unused Image Deleted per UDWiki:Moderation/Guidelines)". The Guidelines tells that unused images OLDER than 30 days should have been removed from the wiki. That image was uploaded in November 14th, so there is no FUKCING way it could have been unused for 30 days... and it wasnt even unused! It was linked here! Conn not only deleted an image that was NOT 30 days old, but that wasnt even unused! He doesnt check the stuff he is deleting!

I think that the 'slap in the wrist' punishment i gave was too easy on him :\ I blame Vista for the idea.--People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He was going through Special:Unusedimages and an image can be deleted after 2 weeks according to this scheduled deletion request. The image was created on the 14th and deleted on the 26th, so he was very close. Just for future reference Hagnat, "unused" images refer to images that have no instances of "inclusion" on any page (ie just a link isn't good enough). Not Misconduct, though Conndraka needs to be a bit more careful on checking the dates in the future.--Gage 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to change the guidelines with a single 3 people vote voting, i think the least you could do is to change the wording on the Moderational Guidelines. There it is still written 'older than 30 days' --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say I didn't participate in that voting procedure due to my possibly misinterpreted assumption that Xoids comments were putting the exnay on the referendum. I feel that the permanent nature of images deletions warrants the old style of allowing them to linger at least 30 days. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Xoid's word is, believe it or not, not law. It got the votes, it passed. End of story.--Gage 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, this section of the deletions page is just a big flaw in this wiki, right ? 3 votes to change something of this size ? c'mon... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't my fault that nobody pays attention to that page, nor is it Conndraka's. Don't like it? Take it somewhere else. A rule exists, so we cannot punish a mod for following it, no matter how many people contributed to making it.--Gage 04:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As listed here timing is 1 week. I was following that guideline. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that is old revisions, not images entirely.--Gage 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Doubly warned Comite when Comite edited a page in good faith; trying to bring NPOV to Caiger Mall. Conndraka has made some seriously questionable judgements of late, and some severe breaches of the guidelines — including permabans not being recorded on numerous occasions.

I'm of the opinion that Conndraka is no longer fit to carry out his duties and am seeking consensus for his demodding. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Misconduct - blatant. Demodding? A possibility IMO. What should we do with him this time? The eye for an eye policy of the page would indicate two warnings.--Gage 03:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure about demodding, but it's definitely misconduct.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to recuse myself from any demodding going on, but yes, I do think it's misconduct. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What are we going to do about it then? I do think demodding is out of the question.--Gage 06:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, double warning is misconduct. I already felt the consequences of double warning plus some other stuff already, and it sucked really hard to a point that led me to stay away from the wiki. I say, just revert the double warning (it not done already), and tell conndraka was a naughty boy and forget it. There is no reason to demod someone like conn just because some few mistakes... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Being a "naughty boy" is quite the understatement. It wasn't just "a few mistakes" that got me irate, it was a rash of unreported and unsupported permabans, warnings and other actions. Look through the block log, and go through the history of M/ VB and VD. There are numerous unreported bans from Conndraka. If Conndraka continued to ignore protocol like he had been doing, I'd have been a lot more vehement. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps if you ban people without reason, issue undocumented warnings and warn people at rapid-fire pace another dozen or so times the ever absent Hagnat, in his divine wisdom, might finally take notice and think you were out of line. Until then do whatever the fuck you like — it's not like there's any accountability here any more, right guys?

sigh. Since no one seems to care, I'll make this brief. Conndraka? Don't be a dick. Report bans and warnings you issue. Keep your nose clean, and for the love of god, I know the block function is all too easy to use but try to exercise some restraint. Consider your Hagnat decreed slap on the wrist given. –Xoid M•T•FU! 16:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

07:02, 11 November 2006

Banned Ken irons indefinitely, didn't report it, states "violating the TOS" but didn't state how he violated it. Not kosher. –Xoid M•T•FU! 07:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Going through the edits, I don't see why he was banned other than pissing off Conndraka. I do see vandalism in the past, but that was before and he was already banned for that.--Gage 07:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
See My Talk Page... See The History of The Predators, He was warned not to Edit the NPOV section of the page. Then Check their IP addys. Ken admits to using the Proxies... following the addys we see that Fathom, Witchblade, Ken Irons and Mayor Fitting (at the very least)are the same individual. Checking back on my Talk page you'll see where Fitting even encouraged getting Banned. Most importantly, Ken Irons in the past has violated TOS by threatening electronic terrorism vrs Myself, The DHPD, and was responsible for STARS having to compleatly reformat their Board recently. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You're supposed to report things of this magnitude to M/VB, and while you've stated your reasons for doing so, I'd like some diff links. Note that the STARS board reformatting, being off site and not directly tied to the wiki in any way, is irrelevant. –Xoid M•T•FU! 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No but it shows ability to back up the threat...Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 08:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This is where you "NPOVed" their group page. It certainly does not look NPOV to me. Here is where he changes it to a version that pleases him more. Again, not NPOV. Conndraka, don't try to NPOV a group when you obviously a biased party. NPOV issues should have been taken up in arbitration or possibly vandal banning, and are undeserving of a permaban, especially considering that his next ban was to be for a month. Edits to your talk page are irrelevant, as talk pages are exempt from almost every wiki rule there is. Admission of proxy use hardly proves he used them because he could just be blowing smoke. I don't see any reason why he was banned other than the fact that he pissed you off Conndraka. I know for a fact that I have violated the TOS (unintentionally) before, and there is a lot of legal jargon there so I probably could get anyone banned for a violation of the TOS. You banned 4 wiki accounts without as much as noting your actions on M/VB, and skipped to a permaban on a user who's next ban should have been for a month. I think this squarely falls under misconduct, but I am willing to hear the opinion of some other mods.--Gage 09:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here We see the obvious bad faith edit of the NPOV section of the Predators.
Here We see edits under both Ken and Mayor Fitting. Where fitting esentially asks to be banned, Ken posts my personal information (not a big deal to me but still a violation of TOS as it is used to imply a threat) His posts also broke a template (again another minor manner but I choose to see it as Vandalism.
HereKen denies having more than one char, when it has already been proven he has multiple Chars.
Here He admits to clearing the DHPD talk page, part of which was posturing BS by himself that put him in a less than flatering light.
Here He deletes more off of the talk page and leaves us a pleasent message.
Here He threatens to "Hack our pages silly" including forcing pop ups and pornographic images of Rossie ODonnal (shudder) This is the most serious violation of teh TOS.
Here As Witchblade he denies being Ken Irons when the IP log will show that he was indeed Ken Irons (espescially when Rowanmayfair was one of the Alts used by Ken when he blanked DHPD pages and was blocked temporarily.
HereHe lies about being former Airforce (I should know I AM ex-airforce) But in adition to his lengthy tirade He admits that there was only four players in Predators when they helped sack Gailbrath Hills (a long story...but to say the least in another post he admited to Zerging during the Galbraith Hills but doesnt do that anymore...
Here He Blanked the DHPD Brainrot list page...
HereBlanked the Science Page...
HereBlanked the Science Page again under the name Rowan Mayfair (aka Witchblade's creator see above)
Here You see where I warned Mayor Fitting for vandalism but let him walk because at the time I din't know they were the same individual, and subject to escelation of the Vandal Banning range.
Here Chris discusses How fitting had helped in the take down of the STARS message board (ala the same manner that Ken Irons threatened against us. this confirms Both a genuine willingness and ability in doing damage to offsite message boards (in possible addition to wiki edits), with his "ability" and "intent" proven, I, as the owner of the DHPD board had no option but to take the threats listed above as genuine and not just posturing. Since such threats are against the TOS, and Ken has (as the record shows) also been hit for vandalism on this Wiki it shows persistance and Willingness to do harm to the Wiki. I therefore stand by my decision. I am willing to accept a penalty for failing to document this appropriatly, but still feel the evedence as listed above clearly speaks for itself. A large amount of miscelanious crap exists offsite, but ratehr than gather all that up as well, the wiki-evedence alone, speaks for itself.
Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 10:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself a friend of Conn after nearly a year of contact with hin through UD and DHPD. I understand proper procedures may not have been followed here and he has agreed to accept any penalty levied against him. I would ask for leniency though. As you may recall the DHPD badge image was recently vandalized and replaced with tubgirl. Thanks to quick actions by Conn and others my wife didn't see that nor did my children (we keep the comp in the living room). Given the vandalism and threats made I appreciate Conn's efforts to protect our pages from the possiblity of having something like that happen again. DHPD-PRC FmrPFCBob 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Conndraka, that would all be well and good, if those edits had actually been recent. Many of them are on the 14th of September, and some are from the 7th of October.--Gage 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize timeframe was an issue. But his intent and ability are clearly established, and He Did violate the TOS. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is not misconduct. Time is not really an issue and, as Conndraka said, his intent and ability was clearly established and he violated the TOS.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Time is absolutely an issue. He was already warned/banned for those edits.--Gage 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
All of them?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. All of them were at least a month ago. Didn't you look at them?--Gage 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No He was only Banned for three of those edits prior, and not sanctioned at all at all for certain violations, specificaly the threats. If I had known then that those actions were bannable, I would have pursued having him banned then. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Violating the TOS isn't a bannable offence in itself, strangely enough. Technically, we can't even be impolite to one another here, much less what has happened in the past. Grossly violating, in the sort of fashion that may attract attention from either the registrar or the host, is a bannable offence purely because something major enough is a bad faith edit and already covered by the rules concerning vandalism.
Now, to the actual case at hand; there are times when it's best to recuse yourself. This was one of them. There was absolutely no pressing need to ban Ken and his alts. Bringing forth a fully detailed case on M/VB was what you should have done. The sheer number of diff comparisions and history involved is something that requires significant time to look through — you could quite easily be burying us in evidence. –Xoid M•T•FU! 03:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Misconduct Even Conndraka admits this was handled inappropriately. I am unbanning Ken as well as his alts and Fitting. These are the type of edit conflicts that should be resolved through arbitration if the problem persists. In precedent the moderator should ban themselves for the same period that was endured. Lets give him a day to do that should he choose. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 04:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That precedent only exists for a moderator punishing themselves before a judgement is reached, essentially they're not only admitting wrong doing but enforcing their own penance as well. This is different, with a judgement reached, punishment is supposed to be enacted immediately. A 27 hour ban for the incorrect ban of Ken irons and his alts. If anyone else wants the honours, I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. –Xoid M•T•FU! 04:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Done.--Gage 04:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot prove that Mayor Fitting is Ken Irons so we have to assume that they are different people. Conndraka will receive a 54 hour ban as a result.--Gage 05:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

16:47, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Conndraka has banned a user for "vandalism" without using the Vandal Banning page. This is a clear abuse of power. He claims that the user is a sock puppet for me, which isn't true, and regardless, requires proof. He also says the user is using an open proxy, which he assures me he is not and that the ip address is a dynamic one issued by his ip in London. The user is ree toric. I can't find the user account, because apparently that has been deleted, as well.

Conndraka cheats so much that he thinks everyone does it. Seeing his history (the desk sargeant thing) who's more likely to be cheating here? I don't cheat because what's the point of playing the game if you're going to cheat?

He created a group around my character and in honor of his fight against the DHPD. There's nothing illegal about that. He's not my sockpuppet and I demand you show any proof you have that he is.

I ask that these pages be reinstated and that the user be allowed to come back as well. Here is the speedy deletion page that shows the pages deleted. Speedy_Deletions Also, Conndraka must be reprimanded for his abuse of power.

If you do a reverse lookup on the ip address's used you'll probably see that reetoric is based in London. I know this because I've talked with him both by email and by im. If you look at my ip addresses you'll see that mostly they come from Alabama, which is where I live. Sometimes the T1 at work routes to Dallas, TX.

I work for a virtual isp. I could have a hundred ip address and sock puppets and you would never know it. However, I don't do this. It wouldn't be fair or right. --Maxwell Hammer 16:47, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Thanks for confirming your status as ReeToric for us all. Goodbye. Cyberbob  Talk  16:50, 27 October 2006 (BST)
That'd be a lot more convincing if you didn't photoshop "proof" of you living in London, Maxine. Also hurts your credibility that the IPs used ReeToric are used for anonymisation services, 'eh? –Xoid S•T•FU! 16:54, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Comment from the accused: Yawn Once again the crap is old, and you got nailed. again. Conndrakamod T CFT 17:30, 27 October 2006 (BST)

01:53, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Restored the Deleted page Dunell_Military_Zone under the pretense that two Delete votes did not count on the voting because of the justifications behind them was that the page was imitated on another part of the wiki. Regardless of the justifications of the votes, there were still eleven deletes over nine keeps, which resulted in the deletion of the page. Conndraka failed to follow proper protocol by failing to either dispute the case with the Moderator who deleted the page, or to request the page be undeleted. – Nubis NWO 01:53, 11 August 2006 (BST)

I have reviewed the available evidence, and as far as I can see it, the page was improperly undeleted. The page received eleven valid delete votes and nine valid keep votes. Unlike the suggestions page, where votes must be justified, the rules for the deletions page do not specify that a deletion vote must be justified, or even that any comments placed along with a vote must be relevant or explanatory. To be specific, the rules state "The specific vote keyword should be bolded within the lodged vote. Any relevant comments are also allowed, but these should not be bolded." I will re-delete the page, since it received more delete votes than keep votes, but I will not be issuing Conndraka a warning, since I do not feel that his error was serious enough to warrant that action. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 04:53, 11 August 2006 (BST)
Restored. Again. – Nubis NWO 09:25, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Counting the Votes not striken as of the time of Xoids calculations placed the Vote at 9 to 9. Deleting the page without a majority was the violation. Conndrakamod TCFT 09:29, 11 August 2006 (BST) Contention Withdrawn. Miscount on my part. Conndrakamod TCFT 09:35, 11 August 2006 (BST)

After all the time I took to neatly format this? *mutter mutter, grumble grumble*

Deletes (10)
Xoid, Saromu, Krazy Monkey, Bob Hammero, DHPD-SDC FmrPFCBob, Technerd, Darth Sensitive, Max Grivas, Niilomaan, Calzion Smith, FormerpfcBob
Keeps (8)
Conndraka, Marty Banks, Major Grippy, Rockphed, Victor McDade, Paradox244, Ron Burgundy, Labine50
Unsigned, Unstricken Keeps (1)
EDogg
Unsigned, Unstricken Deletes (1)
Cisisero

–Xoid S•T•FU! 09:39, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Yes but you forgot FormerpfcBob' KeepDelete and Ron Burgundy's Keep. Conndrakamod TCFT 09:47, 11 August 2006 (BST)
And Bob Hammero's delete. I swear that I got it right on the day, but I only just got up now. (Didn't get to bed 'til 07:00 this mornin'.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:52, 11 August 2006 (BST)

It looks as though this is all settled now, so I'm moving this to the archive. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 01:21, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Conndraka/2006&oldid=1810040"