UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Conndraka/2008

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Conndraka » 2008

02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For permabanning a user based on their name, a name which also happens to be a very direct shot as Conndraka in defiance of this policy. Using this as his explanation.

Conndraka said:

Ok. Hold on to your hemeroids... Per these guidelines I am using my good faith judgment. Since the UD wiki does not have a policy regarding inappropriate or disruptive user names, I consulted the primary Wiki documents that does have a policy here. The Name, but not the IP will be blocked. And I will do the same to any account until the community passes a policy that says different.

This is obviously stretching of the policies intent to allow Conndraka(a vested party who should not be taking any actions in regards to this user in the first place), to ban a user with a name he dislikes without use of an actual policy or any form of community consent. He's chosen to depend completely on his judgment in a case of a use whose name is a personal insult to him, whose group he has been involved with much drama in the past, and who he already once incorrectly permabanned through sloppy CheckUsering in which he accused the user of using a Proxy. Conndraka has been harassed and involved off and on with the SomethingAwful users for nearly 5 months now and throughout it has performed a serious of very questionable edits with the use of SysOp powers that have been let slide but this, this is a little too much.

Here Conndraka protects the page due to an active edit conflict, he seems to "forget" to revert it to the edit before the edit war and instead leaves it at the edit diff his group mate made, the one that caused all the drama. Just so it's a little more obvious that this is very likely not an innocent little slip up as much as him trying to use page protection as a method to get in the last word and have his way, as soon as I change it(2 hours later which is hardly long in wiki time) he files a request to have it changed back to the version he left it at and this where Katthew presents the common sense conclusion that the reason for the protection was to get his way.

That his judgment in those cases is anything but questionable is beyond a doubt, as he's personally invested n the outcome, that he claims he didn't realize CuntLikka was an insult seems secondary and like him covering his rear in case of a misconduct case, especially due to when the comment took place. --Karek^maps?! 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ill probably have more to add tomorrow.--Karek^maps?! 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With users such as a whale's vagina and MrAushvitz in the wiki, one can't justify the ban of a user for his user name. Unless it's a direct act of vandalism, like the names used by the 3pwv, there wasn't a reason to ban him/her. Seeing how Conn had issues with the dead in the past, i think he should have let another sysop rule on that case. Removing the ban and a single warning for misconduct should suffice, though. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek has a point on this one. With a personal interest in the case, you should just have left it to another sysop, thereby avoiding all this. Fair enough the name is offensive but we have users with names just as bad (see Hagnat's comment above) that continue to edit freely without bans. However on the other side, one could argue that the account was created with the sole aim of antagonising Conndraka, his only edit being a flame-bait post on the JR streets petition talk page. Then again, because of the personal interest and the fact that we have users such as a whale's vagina there is enough evidence to warrant Misconduct. -- Cheese 10:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A whale's vagina is totally different, not only is it not nearly as offensive (scientific term) its also a pop-culture reference! Cuntlikka, isn't. Well i don't think it is. Conndraka did the right thing, why does it matter what his/her motives were? Ignoring the whole zomg its personal aspect, does anyone actually disagree with this user being banned (so that they can still make an account with a different name) ??--xoxo 10:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur and feel that I should point out that the word "vagina" is utterly inoffensive. It's as equally offensive as the word "leg". It's a body part, and that's all. The word "cunt" is the (generally agreed) most offensive expletive in the english language. Comparing the two in terms of the offence they may cause is ridiculous. As for MrAushvitz - why is his name deemed to be offensive? He may have been using it to positively advertise the history of the nazi regime as regards the crimes of the holocaust. Saying "Aushvitz" is not, in and off itself, offensive. If his name had been "IlovewhathappenedatAushvitz", then, well - let's be honest here - he wouldn't have been allowed to keep it. "Cunntlikka" is simply not work safe, or family safe, in any way, shape or form. (I apologise if this is seen as interference, but I was simply astounded that these spurious comparisons were being made and accepted as fair, and felt that my input would shine a different light on the use of language in this case.) --Funt Solo ^QT 11:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, you could take the Scots meaning of the word where it was used as a greeting friends. :P -- Cheese 11:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly as Funt said. The bottom line, for me and I imagine more than a couple of other active users is that I generally read this while I am at work. If there is no safeguard to keep me from getting fired for opening this website then I am unable to access it, and that's a contibuting member gone. Maybe that doesn't matter for you guys, because I haven't really been around all that long, but you're trading off demonstrated good faith edits and participation for juvenile vulgarity. Furthermore, if the wiki is supposed to be able to provide game information, it should be able to do so in a non X-rated manner. There is a clear difference between off-color and vulgar, and I think most everybody agrees where that line is. To claim moral relativity is ridiculous. The word vagina and the name in question aren't interchangeable. To suggest they are is just dumb. - Headshot Hal ^{Talk +1 Casting Call} 12:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

why won't someone think of the children ? This is a game's wiki. If simply accessing it isn't enough for you to get fired, it's not a cuss word that will. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You must not work somewhere that has automated screens for inappropriate content. But that's fime. i am officially on strike. - Headshot Hal ^{Talk +1 Casting Call} 13:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we should keep the user banned. Unban and give him a warning? Har. A name used to attack a user and that is also highly offensive to a lot of other people is what I would call bad faith. That said, that's not the way you should go about banning someone. Some sort of consensus would have been better, or letting someone else rule on it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much the name as Conndraka's involvement and the lack of any sort of neutrality at all as justification for his actions. There are numerous other users with offensive nicknames but, this is the first time ever that someone has tried to enforce such a rule, the fact that the name that is being banned also happens to be a personal insult to Conndraka and the user also happens to be a member of a group that has been harassing Conndraka for months now kinda drives the lack of any real neutrality home. The fact that Conndraka seems to be assuming I'm acting out of some vendetta just goes to show his ignorance on a different matter, I'm sure we could all agree that if I was out to get anyone banned it would be Funt.--Karek^maps?! 01:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Another mention of me for no apparent reason - this time promoting the idea that I'm somehow worthy of a ban despite never having even been given a warning (or even been subject of a decision that might result in a warning). I'm beginning to think this is some form of obsession, Karek. How about we skip Arbitration and just try not to mention each other for a week, see how that goes? --Funt Solo ^QT 13:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Defense

First, The Name in question is the only thing Banned. The User is capable of creating a new account at their leisure. Karek provides the entire post where I provide the reasoning behind my decision. I Beleive Karek has a personal vendetta for some reason, perhaps resulting from issues during A/VB where Goon13 edits were called into question and that I was Hagnat's leading proponent in a recent case where Karek was shut down by numerous other sysops including myself. Karek has also taken numerous opportunities to take pot shots at myself... I can handle that, but I believe that Karek is acting inappropriately by bringing a Bogus Misconduct case. I'll write more as required. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, Since we don't have a guidline I went by what I could. as detailed in my statement. Again neither the User nor the IP is banned. Only the name. btw I don't find Whale's or Mr Aushitz blatently offensive like Ciggy (whom Ive never had contact with before) found Cuntlicker. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 03:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally I did what I did because it specifically says I can here primarily Moderators are considered "more authoritative" than normal users in the sense that only moderators can make decisions regarding moderator-specific responsibilities, and only moderators can definitively enforce wiki policies. and more importantly Moderators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, moderators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it. If Im guilty, then we need to amend OFFICIAL POLICY to reflect it. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree: Whether or not you believe it was the right decision, it cannot be denied that it is in compliance with official policy. If the decision is wrong then the other sysops should contest it and have the ban removed but this is Not Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct - I agree with the ban. It would have been much better being handed out by someone else, but that doesn't make it misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:56 27 March 2008 (BST)

2008 February 25

Protected this page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DHPD/the_dead_of_Dunell_Hills

And says that it was to "prevent edit war with non-departmental members." The history clearly shows no such edit war, can anyone go protect any page to prevent "edit wars" that may or may not happen in the future :P

Not only that but it didn't go through A/P.

Now usually I wouldn't go to misconduct, but I am worried because Conndraka is a "DHPD officer", hell their forums are named after him he must be pretty high up: http://conndraka.proboards57.com/index.cgi

And so he blatantly used his Sysop power to help his group. NOT ONLY THAT, but by protecting it he has fucked up a Speedy Deletions thingy: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions#The_dead_of_Dunell_Hills.2C_The_Dead_of_Dunnell_Hills.2C_The_dead_of_Dunnel_Hills

Not only that but now that he has protected it, the GROUP MEMBERS can't edit it! How ridiculous is that? Imagine if I was a Sysop and I redirected /red_rum to /DHPD/Warrants/ListofMurderers/Red_Rum and then protected it, it would be insane.

He completely crossed the line. --Thekooks 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Vandalism Misconduct, and here's why. The edit was done to prevent what was obviously going to be an edit war from starting, look to after it was protected and how the image itself was vandalized and repeatedly reuploaded with different images by the same people who would have done the edits to that page if it weren't protected. Conndraka used his judgement to protect a group sub page. The redirects were done after the matter by another user and have since been changed to not redirect to the DHPD subpage. Conndraka used his judgement and it saved us a lot of hassle and possibly more vandal reports/bannings.--Karek^maps?! 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh shit it is a group sub page. Well don't I look embarrased now. Whats the precdure, can I scrap this case outwright or do we have to let it continue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thekooks (talk • contribs) at 22:47, 25 February 2008.

I would like to say that it states in the Guidelines that, "System operators may only protect pages ... (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism. Before a page is protected, it is expected that the system operator will ensure that there is good reason for its protection — these include protracted edit wars, and constant vandalism by multiple users on a high-visibility page." I.e. not misconduct. --Z. slay3rT 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, the fact that it is a subpage pretty much ruins any argument of misconduct...my bad.--Thekooks 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)