UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karlsbad/2006
Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Karlsbad » 2006
06:22, 25 September 2006 (BST)
Should not be ruling on my cases. He has been in arbitration for accsuing me of being Scinfaxi, he is clearly biased against me and is in no way fit to rule on these cases. hagnat ruled differently on at least one of his cases and left it up to me on another, which karl rudely objected to. He is making attack templates about me trying to suggest I have vandal alts when the only alt I have ever had has been one I openly acknowledged and never broke a rule with. It is clearly inappropriate for a mod to rule on a case he has been on the opposite side of with the accusing party. --Jjames 06:22, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- tyfyc. --Karlsbad 19:09, 25 September 2006 (BST)
- off topic discussion moved to discussion page.Jjames 03:33, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Just for the record: I'm just commenting here, not ruling on this case.
| Jjames said: |
| It is clearly inappropriate for a mod to rule on a case he has been on the opposite side of with the accusing party. |
- Inappropriate? Not necessarily. I've ruled in favour of people I utterly detest because the rules were on their side. I've ruled against people whom I consider good friends because the rules were not on their side. It is not the history or personality of the moderator that comes into question here — only their actions. That said, when I honestly feel I cannot look at something objectively I stay the fuck away from it. I believe this is close to that point, but not there yet. –Xoid S•T•FU! 03:54, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Well since you also called me Scinfaxi, it's innapropriate for you to rule on this case. Why doesn't a mod that hasn't purposely tried to antagonize me rule on this case?Jjames 21:57, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- This isn't a case about you being called Scinfaxi, so that arguement is moot. And if the moderator team decides to treat this much like have choosen to ignore arbitration, will you call everyone else biased against you? To get this going, could the person that is calling himself "Jjames" please make an actual arguement based on edits and rulings with intelligent and civil concepts such as "evidence" rather than the whining of "OMG BIAS!". --Karlsbad 23:10, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- so far the only mods that have told me I can't bring some one to VB for calling me scinfaxi are ones who have called me scinfaxi. Another mod ruled differently from you so I think his interpretation was correct as he was uninvolved. Why shouldn't a mod refrain from commenting on a case related to an act they have commited? And this is about calling me scinfaxi. You ruled gage was in the clear for his bad faith reports designed only to make me look silly on the basis that my other cases had no merit. This was a biased decision and you should have left it up to another mod. and quit insinuating I am anyone but jjames. You can't prove anything to the contrary. (Except Rev. buuba, which I have frely admitted and who has broken no rules.)Jjames 00:13, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Please include edits links for references. Also please include an actual debate rather than your own opinion. This means including an actual arguement against the ruling using LOGIC instead of your own opinion and biases. I apologize if you were too stupid to realise that you can't argue without facts in Misconduct, I should have realized this and said so more clearly. --Karlsbad 01:32, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Our arbitration case.[1] you ruling on gage's case. [2] Hagnat ruling differently than you. [3] Further evidence of your bias as you ask me to prove I'm not cyberbob, a burden of proof that has never been on the person in vandal banning. This followed by a bad faith attack template. [4] You are clearly biased against me. I don't know how much more innapropriate you could possibly be as a mod.Jjames 01:50, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Bias noted. How were these decisions wrong? Remember, cite precident, edits, and a factual arguement beyond your own supposition.
And as a counter: your remarkable absence while the vandalisation was going on and the unique ability of yourself to begin posting as soon as it stopped completely merited at least a remark, if not a flat-out accusation. --Karlsbad 02:06, 27 September 2006 (BST)- It's precedent not to rule on cases where bias exists. By admitting bias, you have admitted misconduct. The fact that your ruling was wrong is demonstrated by hagnat's counter ruling. It is not the policy on vandal banning to insist someone prove their own innocence regardless of odd coincidences surrounding the case. This was a breach of precedent and coupled with bias is clear misconduct.Jjames 02:10, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Odd Coincidence indeed- why would a vandal stop IMMEDIATELY after you started posting? Again, using logic and links rather than supposition, prove that the decisions were wrong. --Karlsbad 02:19, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- It's probably not a coincidence after all. One of you ssholes is probably timing it to make me look bad. --Jjames 03:40, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Jjames, you are a drama whore. Everyone is biased.--Gage 02:47, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Odd Coincidence indeed- why would a vandal stop IMMEDIATELY after you started posting? Again, using logic and links rather than supposition, prove that the decisions were wrong. --Karlsbad 02:19, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- It's precedent not to rule on cases where bias exists. By admitting bias, you have admitted misconduct. The fact that your ruling was wrong is demonstrated by hagnat's counter ruling. It is not the policy on vandal banning to insist someone prove their own innocence regardless of odd coincidences surrounding the case. This was a breach of precedent and coupled with bias is clear misconduct.Jjames 02:10, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Bias noted. How were these decisions wrong? Remember, cite precident, edits, and a factual arguement beyond your own supposition.
- Our arbitration case.[1] you ruling on gage's case. [2] Hagnat ruling differently than you. [3] Further evidence of your bias as you ask me to prove I'm not cyberbob, a burden of proof that has never been on the person in vandal banning. This followed by a bad faith attack template. [4] You are clearly biased against me. I don't know how much more innapropriate you could possibly be as a mod.Jjames 01:50, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Please include edits links for references. Also please include an actual debate rather than your own opinion. This means including an actual arguement against the ruling using LOGIC instead of your own opinion and biases. I apologize if you were too stupid to realise that you can't argue without facts in Misconduct, I should have realized this and said so more clearly. --Karlsbad 01:32, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- so far the only mods that have told me I can't bring some one to VB for calling me scinfaxi are ones who have called me scinfaxi. Another mod ruled differently from you so I think his interpretation was correct as he was uninvolved. Why shouldn't a mod refrain from commenting on a case related to an act they have commited? And this is about calling me scinfaxi. You ruled gage was in the clear for his bad faith reports designed only to make me look silly on the basis that my other cases had no merit. This was a biased decision and you should have left it up to another mod. and quit insinuating I am anyone but jjames. You can't prove anything to the contrary. (Except Rev. buuba, which I have frely admitted and who has broken no rules.)Jjames 00:13, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- This isn't a case about you being called Scinfaxi, so that arguement is moot. And if the moderator team decides to treat this much like have choosen to ignore arbitration, will you call everyone else biased against you? To get this going, could the person that is calling himself "Jjames" please make an actual arguement based on edits and rulings with intelligent and civil concepts such as "evidence" rather than the whining of "OMG BIAS!". --Karlsbad 23:10, 26 September 2006 (BST)
- Well since you also called me Scinfaxi, it's innapropriate for you to rule on this case. Why doesn't a mod that hasn't purposely tried to antagonize me rule on this case?Jjames 21:57, 26 September 2006 (BST)
Despite his admitted bias and an opposite opinion from another user, hagnat, karlsbad ruled on my VB cases.[5] How far does he have to go before it's misconduct?Jjames 04:33, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- When I'm wrong. ZING! --Karlsbad 06:10, 27 September 2006 (BST)
- Anyone notice how Xoid ruled on hagnat's case but not Karlsbad's? That is because nobody thinks this is misconduct.--Gage 06:12, 27 September 2006 (BST)
I have decided to be the bigger person and am dropping my misconduct case. I think you were wrong, but we all need to move on now.Jjames 22:28, 27 September 2006 (BST)
07:54, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Called me a "troll lawyer" and suggested that we were the same person. Called my case malicous and retalitory. (What was I supposed to be retalialting against anyway?) These are bad faith, because he can't prove his claims. I really think this could have been solved civily, but karlsbad refuses to behave in an unbiased moderator-like manner.Jjames 07:54, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Wow. Just wow. are you sure you're not Amazing? --Zod Rhombus 08:02, 18 July 2006 (BST)
CASE CLOSED. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:59, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Based on what? I don't feel you are behaving in an unbiased manner. Since you have called me a troll, you aren't trusted to be fair. I don't know why I am not being given the benifit of the doubt when I have always behaved civily on the wiki, and usually in a way to reduce conflict.Jjames 08:02, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Based on both my and The General both fucking saying that it's closed. You have no case, now go away. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:05, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- And misconduct is only for the abuse or misuse of moderation-only abilities. You troll. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 08:07, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- This is a different case based on his bad faith accusations. I guess it could be considered vandalsim too, but I thought since he was a moderator and it occured on the misconduct place this belonged here. Should I go to vandal reporting instead? I'm not a troll, I've just never filed a misconduct case before. Jjames 08:10, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Go report it to vandal banning and waste our time there.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:12, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- A vandal report isn't the place either. If there's a place for thin skinned guys like you it may be Arbitration, BUT you don't have a case! IMHO, you already deserve a Vandal report yourself for the misuse of community pages. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 08:14, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Go report it to vandal banning and waste our time there.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:12, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Based on both my and The General both fucking saying that it's closed. You have no case, now go away. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:05, 18 July 2006 (BST)
This is not a misconduct case. Please read the Moderation Abilities section above and take this to arbitration. --Grim s-Mod U! 08:20, 18 July 2006 (BST)
07:10, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Warned MrAushvitz for his suggestion saying it was a humorous suggestion. He had no right to determine the intent his suggestion which could just as easily been considered serious. This is an abuse of power that allows him to play mind reader and punish people for any thought crimes he "finds". He was also rude and dismissive when presented with a concerned criticism of his behavior. This is nothing personal, I just worry about the over zealous moderators usnig vandal reports to give them powers denied them by policy discussions.Jjames 07:10, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- I delivered the warning, so if you want to attack someone in this witch hunt, attack me. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:12, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- It isn't about you, Bob; if it was anyone else who wasn't willing to tell Scinfaxi that he's a no-account POS who will be hired to defend1 the country from the evil malcious behavior of Luxemborg at best because he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, then Jjames would have most likely let it go. But because I insulted his "college room-mate" he's going to become a troll-lawyer once again. --Karlsbad 07:18, 18 July 2006 (BST)
1Not that I actually believe that he would even be hired by the Pentagon to become a 007-superspy OMG G0LD3N-3y3pwnzUr0xx0rLOLOOLLLL!
- It isn't about you, Bob; if it was anyone else who wasn't willing to tell Scinfaxi that he's a no-account POS who will be hired to defend1 the country from the evil malcious behavior of Luxemborg at best because he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, then Jjames would have most likely let it go. But because I insulted his "college room-mate" he's going to become a troll-lawyer once again. --Karlsbad 07:18, 18 July 2006 (BST)
I posted before scinfaxi. Learn to read timestamps Karlsbad. Calling me a troll is not the unbiased behavior a moderator is supposed to exhibit. I'll add it to the complaint.He said you could save it under humorous IF you wanted to. Suggesting that it was intended NOT to be humorous, but he wouldn't be offended if you did. It still doesn't justify punishment. + - p.s.Calling me a "college room-mate" implies that I am not. That is a baseless attack and is therefore bad faith. It goes into the complaints against you.Jjames 07:26, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Dude, cite it first. Because if you did you would see that it says here, and I quote: " AUTHOR KEEP - My sinceire apologies for not making one LAST suggestion before I quit the game... but it's a good one is it not? You are more than welcome to save it under humourous suggestions if you like. MrAushvitz 00:55, 18 July 2006 (BST) ". Therefore the suggest-maker understands that he is making a mistake and has no involvement in the suggestion process anymore, and therefore a warning is also a way to get a poor suggestor out of the "ring" as it is punishment for purposly suggesting something intended to be Humerous. --Karlsbad 07:15, 18 July 2006 (BST)
P.S. Scinfaxi, you should tell your "college room-mate" that failing to read the text you quote from is going to make him fail a test.
- This is clearly retaliatory. Man, both of these cases suck. They should be dropped. --Zod Rhombus 07:23, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- Ok, Misconduct shouldn't be the playground for users not interested in contribute at anything like Scinfaxi and his friends. File a case if you really have one. This one should be closed, NOW. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 07:25, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- This case is not connected to Scinfaxi. I just thought this was misconduct. I am not a troll.Jjames 07:28, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Karlsbad has done nothing wrong. Unless Jjames or Scinfaxi have something substantive to add, this case is closed. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:28, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- You can't close a case you're involved in.Jjames 07:33, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- BobHammero is a non-involved party. You relate the two because they are both up and they are about seperate facits of the case: one is about wheter or not it was correctly humerous (Kb) the other is about a report-warn situation (Bob Hammero) the fact that they are about the same case is inconsequential to the closing and/or opening of a case. --Karlsbad 07:36, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Moderators are allowed to warn users for making humerous suggestions on the main suggestions page, case closed .--The General T Sys U! P! F! 07:36, 18 July 2006 (BST)
Bob Hammero ≠ Karlsbad. Case closed. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:37, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- (Karlsbad Pops champaign) and as a Toast, as from the origional source of wiki-drama: AND I WANT THESE MOTHERFUCKING SIGS OFF THIS MOTHERFUCKING WIKI! --Karlsbad 07:40, 18 July 2006 (BST) Oh and P.S. I'm going to bed, I hope when I wake up there isn't two more malicious and retailitory misconduct cases for the both of you guys. --Karlsbad 07:42, 18 July 2006 (BST)
- (Bob Hammero toasts Karlsbad) Huzzah! To closed cases! –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:43, 18 July 2006 (BST)
07:29, 9 July 2006 (BST)
Unblocked The General because he disagreed with the ruling in the previous misconduct case. This is blatant abuse of his powers as a moderator.
Logs --Grim s-Mod U! 07:29, 9 July 2006 (BST)
Ugh. Yes, because I'm right. Rueful did Vandalize, You are choosing to shut down a discussion rather than attempt to defend your faulty logic. Congrats. --Karlsbad 07:32, 9 July 2006 (BST)
- It was a majority ruling. A majority which overrode you. You may not agree with it but you MUST accept it. You have already fucked up The General by giving him another 10 hours of ban time, because you cant ban as precisely as i would like. At this stage everything you do, including your stupid whining, only serves to hurt him more. Give it up already. --Grim s-Mod U! 07:44, 9 July 2006 (BST)
- After a long discussion with him (Several hours at least), i feel that if any action is to be taken i suggest a warning (at most) be made, and nothing further. --Grim s-Mod U! 10:31, 9 July 2006 (BST)
- Hmm... I have to agree that it is an abuse of your powers Karlsbad, although I also disagree on the outcome of the case as well that is not what is in question here. If you didn't like the outcome then there were other ways as to going about it other than un-baning The General without talking to other people first. Also as Grim has pointed out your actions have prolonged the ban on The General. As Grim brought fourth this case, and requested that only a warning be issued thats what I shall do. In future if you don't like the outcome of something there are other ways to go about it rather then using your moderator abilitys to get what you want. If this occurs again then this case may be refrenced against you. Case closed. - Jedaz 11:14, 9 July 2006 (BST)
- After a long discussion with him (Several hours at least), i feel that if any action is to be taken i suggest a warning (at most) be made, and nothing further. --Grim s-Mod U! 10:31, 9 July 2006 (BST)
<math>Insert formula here</math>
