UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Cyberbob240/2006
Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Cyberbob240 » 2006
20:10, 16 September 2006
Banned Blue Blade with a reason that he uses a proxy. While I feel that BB's use of a proxy is questionable, there is no current rule against users who use proxies. Otherwise then there wouldn't be a policy discussing wether proxies shouldn't be allowed here. Furthermore, all edits of Blue Blade are constructive and helpful to the community. --Gold Blade 20:10, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You do realise that there have been a number of proxy-wielding accounts who were banned by other mods before they'd done anything wrong, don't you. I was just following generally-agreed upon precedent. Cyberbob Talk 20:13, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Yes i do. However, he had actually been cintributing to the wiki, and other banned proxy users in general, had names that indicated that they had malicious intent. Also, you yourself caused me to realize: you definitely thought you were doing the right thing, but it was a bad move. In other words, you made grounds that allowed this to happen. Oh, the irony. --Gold Blade 20:17, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Ah, but Blue Blade voted Keep on a suggestion YOU wrote. Subverting the democratic process? Tick. Cyberbob Talk 20:24, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And? For all I know, he could be YOUR sockpuppet trying to frame me! Besides, I'm only letting you have your way: mods being treated equally as a normal user, and, it doesn't have to be bad faith, it just has to be the wrong thing. You said it yourself twice. --Gold Blade 20:28, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Except this wasn't the wrong thing, you fool. If it was, the person who originally banned a proxy user should be the one up for Misconduct, not me. Cyberbob Talk 20:30, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You would still be included. Do you want me to go through the entire history? I will. Besides, which one of you is correct: the Cyberbob five minutes go or the one standing here? --Gold Blade 20:32, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- They're in agreement, so both. Cyberbob Talk 20:33, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- No, they're oppisite of each other. If you say the earlier one is true, then you are eligible for Misconduct. If the one now is correct, then you have proven my point better than I could, Lorac Caladon. --Gold Blade 20:35, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- They're in agreement, so both. Cyberbob Talk 20:33, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- You would still be included. Do you want me to go through the entire history? I will. Besides, which one of you is correct: the Cyberbob five minutes go or the one standing here? --Gold Blade 20:32, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Except this wasn't the wrong thing, you fool. If it was, the person who originally banned a proxy user should be the one up for Misconduct, not me. Cyberbob Talk 20:30, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- And? For all I know, he could be YOUR sockpuppet trying to frame me! Besides, I'm only letting you have your way: mods being treated equally as a normal user, and, it doesn't have to be bad faith, it just has to be the wrong thing. You said it yourself twice. --Gold Blade 20:28, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Ah, but Blue Blade voted Keep on a suggestion YOU wrote. Subverting the democratic process? Tick. Cyberbob Talk 20:24, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- Yes i do. However, he had actually been cintributing to the wiki, and other banned proxy users in general, had names that indicated that they had malicious intent. Also, you yourself caused me to realize: you definitely thought you were doing the right thing, but it was a bad move. In other words, you made grounds that allowed this to happen. Oh, the irony. --Gold Blade 20:17, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Fine. But I just want to show proof that you are contrary in stand A and in stand B. Last senence. --Gold Blade 20:38, 16 September 2006 (BST)
Oh why can't these cases be like the one in the example...
Ok let's see. There definitely is no rule against proxy usage, except maybe slash wielding proxies, but only because they break nearly all the pages they edit. Some of you might have noticed that BB was using such proxy, but in my opinion that alone does not warrant the ban of the actual user, merely the proxy's IP. Now Cyberbob did also ban the proxy's IP (and 65535 other IPs btw) which I would have done myself (except for the 65535 others...) had I responded to M/VB report.
But then we consider the actual user Blue Blade... It's quite obvious that he is alt of some existing user. A) He used an open proxy B) Took name similar to one user recently prominently featured on wikidrama and C) started posting on the same pages than the user in B. And considering these facts I actually believe he's only reason to coming here was to cause more drama and misconduct cases. In which he succeeded rather well.
Anyway, what I meant to say: Cyberbob did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. Thus no warning to Bob, though I'll unblock few of those IPs. And let's see if we can get some actual rules to proxy usage. --Brizth M T 21:20, 16 September 2006 (BST)
04:05, 10 September 2006
Reblocked a user when there was clearly no need. He had been absolved of all charges when Axe Hack said he didn't mind him moving something to his talk page.--∴Gage 04:05, 10 September 2006 (BST)
More detail: Reinstated a ban even when he was the one that made the original report and not one but two fellow moderators (Xoid and Hagnat) expressely [1] and implicity [2] said that the right thing was to take off the ban if the offended user didn't mind the "vandalism" (the edit that was not vandalism). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:08, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Tools. Look at the precedent link I put up on VB. Cyberbob Talk 04:12, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Can I actually look at the precedent that Karlsbad pointed out, "tool"? It's the same for you right? because you obviously don't care about what fellow mods say.
To the ruling moderator: This is already too much coming from someone who is supposed to set an example, don't you think so? But, of course, you can consider me biased. And I must confess I am a little. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:17, 10 September 2006 (BST)
- If you actually read what I just said on VB, you would know that I backed down, and admitted my mistake. I would've been studying for my exams, then: I didn't come on the wiki much at all, and when I did I didn't have time to read anything on VB. Cyberbob Talk 04:19, 10 September 2006 (BST)
- And yes, I don't particularly care for hagnat much. Not a crime, though. Cyberbob Talk 04:21, 10 September 2006 (BST)
- I will wait for an uninvolved mod to rule. You can't fire a gun and expect a "sorry" to heal it all. And your faults go beyond a simple mistake, IMHO. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:22, 10 September 2006 (BST)
Mod Ruling: I am giving a ruling but I wish I was not actually forced to do so, as obviously this is more of a clash of personalities rather than an actual conflict over V/B enforcement. As such, I would hope that those parties afflicted with this particular retardation would take it off-wiki or into personal talk pages, specifically those ass-monkeys that are throwing up edit conflicts.
Now, I personally would be willing to accept a mea culpa by CyberBob, as the partys counter to him in his actions (Xoid, Hagnat) could ALSO not be bothered to either remember or correctly cite precident. However, a Warning is also in line with precident, as I remember clearly in my own Misconduct case. Warned.
As a Side Note: Gage, Matt: Thank You For Your Contribution. I assure you that they were considered with the full depth and veracity that they contained. --Karlsbad 04:28, 10 September 2006 (BST)
