UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/LibrarianBrent/2006
From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration | Misconduct | Archive | LibrarianBrent
Jump to navigationJump to search
Administration » Misconduct » Archive » LibrarianBrent » 2006
03:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
hear i am again. is this going to be every week or what? User:LibrarianBrent banned Amazing for what he says is:
"Total bullshit. Banned for a case that was never made, a deletion request that isn't finished, and text that HAS BEEN CHANGED. It was merely REPEATING what Scinfaxi and Rasher and them have been saying about ME for a long time. Now I get banned for it, they don't (Woooo! Bias!) and I get banned for a fucking YEAR? I don't think so. Seems I misjudged LibrarianBrent's character entirely. He cites Arbitration Ruling violation. Not so. If it's not a violation for THEM to post info about ME in their userspace, then it's not a violation if I do it. See how that works? This is nothing more than Brent popping in, looking at something without knowing the whole case, and ABUSING his moderator abilities. The text no longer exists. When it did exist it was a repeat of other peoples' text. When it did exist, it was in my userspace. UNBANNED. Thanks."
i don't think i should have to do this a third time do you? stop being such nazis. ChickenJones
- The arbitration violation in question was pointed out by Kevan himself. I'm not sure how or why you are going to argue with that. Also, I added a title to this report and fixed your spelling of my username. Hope you don't mind! --LibrarianBrent 03:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- I can argue with that. I usually don't get involved with this stuff, but this is an exception. The mods, namely LibrarianBrent, have overstepped this time. Just because the UD game creator 'intervenes' and creates a charge against Amazing, doesn't make it right. The guy didn't create wiki code, so Amazing has just as much rights as everyone else. The fact that there was no input or even acknowledgement of the transgression - just insta-ban speaks volumes of the bias exhibited by the mod team and game creator himself. That is grounds for misconduct. Last I checked, wiki is peer-driven and that is where rulings must be decided. Bias clearly exsists, making this ban not hold up. If you are looking for legal precendent, my office can dig that up tomorrow. There should be no insta-bans, regardless of situation. Reverse the ruling. --Zod Rhombus 03:37, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- If I may direct you fine gentlemen's attention here? Check point four of the ruling. What Scinfaxi and co. did was on a personal talk page, which is exempted. What Amazing did was on his main userspace, which is not. As the ruling also notes, what Amazing did was therefore vandalism. Vandal committed vandalism - vandal got banned. Simple. Amazing's banning was not only legal, it was long overdue. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 03:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Templates, or Pages (Other than personal talk pages)created by either party that exists (or may be perceived by a mod) as existing exclusivly to antagonize the other party shall not be created by either party.
- Amazing's page was in exsistence long before this, and was not created exclusively to antagonize 'the other party'. This was the focus of the ruling.--Zod Rhombus 04:00, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod, by that
purposeful obfuscationline of reasoning, anybody (including Rasher, Scinfaxi et al) could repost the original version of Amazing's bullshit right here with your and his name replacing the originals, and it would be perfectly legal. I think it's pretty frickin' obvious that's not what the ruling intended. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:17, 9 June 2006 (BST)- How can I obfuscate when I simply cut/paste the ruling? Besides, the I'm not tackling the issue of what was posted, if you read closer, I am speaking out against the way the ban was handled. I question the methodology of the ban, not the postings.--Zod Rhombus 04:32, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- How can you not be obfuscating when I can't even be sure of what you just said? Seriously, spelling/grammar/logic check FTW. To reply to the part that was closest to coherent: you did not, in fact, "simply cut/paste the ruling". What you did was take a part of the ruling and then purposefully misinterpret it in service of your own ends, as outlined in my previous response. Ergo, obfuscation. Clear now? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:45, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Again, the focus of my last post was the methodology of the ban, not the postings (or said interpretations thereof). --Zod Rhombus 04:54, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Repeating something that's unclear does not magically clarify it, Zod. With regards to what I think maybe you might have said, if you acknowledge the illegality of Amazing's edits (which illegality is in no real doubt regardless of your opinion), you should have no problem with him being banned for them. That you do seems to speak more to your loyalty towards your faction leader (Co-leader? Hard to tell) than to any genuine concern for the rules or wellbeing of the wiki. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:02, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Again, the focus of my last post was the methodology of the ban, not the postings (or said interpretations thereof). --Zod Rhombus 04:54, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- How can you not be obfuscating when I can't even be sure of what you just said? Seriously, spelling/grammar/logic check FTW. To reply to the part that was closest to coherent: you did not, in fact, "simply cut/paste the ruling". What you did was take a part of the ruling and then purposefully misinterpret it in service of your own ends, as outlined in my previous response. Ergo, obfuscation. Clear now? --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 04:45, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- How can I obfuscate when I simply cut/paste the ruling? Besides, the I'm not tackling the issue of what was posted, if you read closer, I am speaking out against the way the ban was handled. I question the methodology of the ban, not the postings.--Zod Rhombus 04:32, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Zod, by that
I don't see why we're even having a conversation. Amazing stepped as far over the line as he thought was possible in an attempt to push the moderators' buttons. He was asking for a ban, and trying to be cute about it. Whupz, someone took him up on the offer. Case closed, and now we're out a whining, petulant child, which is no loss here. I see no misconduct; Amazing violated his arbitration rulings and committed greivous bad-faith errors.--Jorm 04:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Also, he's repeatedly created vandal and alt accounts in an attempt to get around his ban. That, in and of itself, is ban-worthy.--Jorm 04:27, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- And the proof is where? --Zod Rhombus 04:37, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- History of creating alt accounts when banned: User:Amazingalt, User:Amazing2 — and those are are the ones we know for certain. I find it more than coincodental that the recent vandal and his spree were attempting to extort Amazing's unbanning. (To paraphrase: "I'll stop, if you unban Amazing." — if this really was the 3page vandal, then it is entirely out of character for him.
- Also, your reasoning that this was not a violation of the arbitration case is spurious; I suppose that you also claim that since users other than Rasher were insulted in this case that the content in question wasn't created to exclusively antagonise 'the other party', only 'the other parties', and thus Amazing shouldn't be banned. This isn't a court of law; rules are free to be interpreted to their spirit, rather than their word. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:52, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Wrong. There was a case of cyberlaw that was brought out of U.S. Justice Dept. v. The 2600 Magazine that was based on an internet forum posting. I'm not sure where the wiki is hosted, but since Amazing's IP originates in the United States and he has a physical connection (i.e landline-based access) the ruling applies to him. The fact is that the wiki is peer-driven and actions muxt be taken after a case is made. This is if you continue to use the wiki format, since ownershipof it as intellectual property is community-derived. The ban is not peer-reviewed and must be rescinded. --Zod Rhombus 05:05, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Since when did the US have any say over what can and cannot be done on an internet forum or wiki in a foreign country? –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- To respond to your rhetorical question: Since never. This is just
AmazingI mean Zod getting desperate. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 05:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)- Since the rulings that affect cyberlaw in the U.S. defined in certain terms to protect the rights of the users whose IP physically originate in the U.S. --Zod Rhombus 05:15, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- To respond to your rhetorical question: Since never. This is just
- Since when did the US have any say over what can and cannot be done on an internet forum or wiki in a foreign country? –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Wrong. There was a case of cyberlaw that was brought out of U.S. Justice Dept. v. The 2600 Magazine that was based on an internet forum posting. I'm not sure where the wiki is hosted, but since Amazing's IP originates in the United States and he has a physical connection (i.e landline-based access) the ruling applies to him. The fact is that the wiki is peer-driven and actions muxt be taken after a case is made. This is if you continue to use the wiki format, since ownershipof it as intellectual property is community-derived. The ban is not peer-reviewed and must be rescinded. --Zod Rhombus 05:05, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- And the proof is where? --Zod Rhombus 04:37, 9 June 2006 (BST)
-my tupence I don't think Brent was acting in bad faith for starters. Excising Amazing for the wiki was done, not to antagonize Amazing, but to improve things. Was he right in banning him? I think Amazing destroyed any case he had by making alts to circumvent the banning. A year may be a bit of overkill, and I say that largely because I will miss all that lolarious drama he stirred up, that and the games not even been around a year. Brent did nothing wrong, zeal in defending our fair wiki can never be wrong. If you thought otherwise it would probably mean you...hated the wiki you don't hate the wiki, do you?-Banana Bear 05:10, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- No, I don't hate the wiki, I enjoy it. I dislike anyone who steps back from impartiality, creates a negative bias and acts according to that on another's account effectively ending that persons ability to access the wiki through fair use. Violation of fair use is a no-no in the States.--Zod Rhombus 05:31, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Fair use? I'm certain that defamation, libel and slander do not fall under that. Amazing got warned, time and time again. The only reason he wasn't banned earlier, was due to our rules protecting him from himself. In this case however, there weren't any rules shielding him from his own stupidity. He broke the arbitration ruling and thus got banned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:38, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Defamation, Libel and slander fall under the category of harming a physical entity, be it person or corporation. Since Amazing and other users here are merely reflections of characters created specifically for the Urban Dead game, that would fall under intellectual property, which by law is open to satire, which is what most closely resembles the counter-point to your 'bannable offense charges'. --Zod Rhombus 05:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- If you want to go that route, fine. Amazing isn't a person, and therefore has no rights. But we both know that's a load of shit, right? Yeah, thought so. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:53, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- The user of the wiki (Amazing's creator) has rights. Since he is unable to physically manipulate his account as a result of another's actions, his fair use rights under satire have been violated.--Zod Rhombus 06:04, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Wait wait wait, are we talking about a fucking copyright issue here? fair use? satire? Anybody see somebody reachin' for straws say Yeah!-Banana Bear 06:18, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- If you want to use this tact, Zod, then I'm afraid you are going to fail. Perhaps you still haven't gotten it, because you're one of those Americans who thinks his country is all powerful; bring on the US "Justice" Department if you must. The wiki, while allowed by people to edit, is the exclusive property of Kevan Davis. No one has any rights here except what is specifically allowed under English law, and what Kevan sees fit.
- By the way, if Amazing really want's his gay fanfiction back, you can email it to him. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Nice way to play idiot savant. The Justice Dept. lost the ruling. The whole reason for the cyberlaw case was for individual rights, not governmental rights. Unless Kevan can produce a contract or proof of proprietary wiki code, he owns nothing. Unlike Urban Dead, wiki code was not coded by him specifically, therefore without expressed ownership rights to the code, his ownership is null and void. and that's INTERNATIONAL LAW. (Yeah, studied that too.) Rescind the ban since it was put in effect without proper procedure set forth by you very mods. --Zod Rhombus 06:24, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- The user of the wiki (Amazing's creator) has rights. Since he is unable to physically manipulate his account as a result of another's actions, his fair use rights under satire have been violated.--Zod Rhombus 06:04, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- If you want to go that route, fine. Amazing isn't a person, and therefore has no rights. But we both know that's a load of shit, right? Yeah, thought so. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:53, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Defamation, Libel and slander fall under the category of harming a physical entity, be it person or corporation. Since Amazing and other users here are merely reflections of characters created specifically for the Urban Dead game, that would fall under intellectual property, which by law is open to satire, which is what most closely resembles the counter-point to your 'bannable offense charges'. --Zod Rhombus 05:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Fair use? I'm certain that defamation, libel and slander do not fall under that. Amazing got warned, time and time again. The only reason he wasn't banned earlier, was due to our rules protecting him from himself. In this case however, there weren't any rules shielding him from his own stupidity. He broke the arbitration ruling and thus got banned. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:38, 9 June 2006 (BST)
|
LEGALITY LOL |
| Zod Rhombus mistakenly believes they have a working grasp of the law. |
- Just whipped this up for the occassion. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:43, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- HAHAHA, Since I live in the EDT time zone, I've got to go to bed. Man, these guys are bottom-feeders, not real bright. There is a reason the "British Empire" doesn't have the word "Empire" in it anymore. Thanks for the laugh, JimboBob.--Zod Rhombus 06:54, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Just whipped this up for the occassion. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:43, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Now, that's the weakest, most pathetic shell of an argument I've heard in a while. Look: your client is a whiney douchebag asshole who constantly tried to get his own way, showed intense contempt for the mods (and for Kevan, for that matter), for the rules, for the policies, for the rules - and he flaunted his disregard for these things at every opportunity. Someone finally got sick of it. You know this; your client knows this. Stop trying to weasel out of it and take it like a fuckin' man.--Jorm 06:19, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Notice how I haven't used words such as pathetic, whiney, douchebag, asshole or fuckin' as seen in the above post. Would that not be considered the same as what Amazing said on his page? Would that not be considered offensive? Should the above user be banned? No. and neither should Amamzing. He could make the same case you have made against him just by this thread. --Zod Rhombus 06:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Bullshit. Amazing was the one who started those arbitration cases, full well knowing that their outcome is binding. No one has brought an arbitration case up against Jorm, and no one can at this time — there is no grounds for an arbitration case; he stated his opinion of what Amazing's conduct has been like; unlike Amazing who stated his gay fan fiction as fact. –Xoid S•T•FU! 06:34, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Notice how I haven't used words such as pathetic, whiney, douchebag, asshole or fuckin' as seen in the above post. Would that not be considered the same as what Amazing said on his page? Would that not be considered offensive? Should the above user be banned? No. and neither should Amamzing. He could make the same case you have made against him just by this thread. --Zod Rhombus 06:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Now, that's the weakest, most pathetic shell of an argument I've heard in a while. Look: your client is a whiney douchebag asshole who constantly tried to get his own way, showed intense contempt for the mods (and for Kevan, for that matter), for the rules, for the policies, for the rules - and he flaunted his disregard for these things at every opportunity. Someone finally got sick of it. You know this; your client knows this. Stop trying to weasel out of it and take it like a fuckin' man.--Jorm 06:19, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I don't know why there is any discussion over this. There are only two pages that we need to look at:
- Moderation/Guidelines: "As owner of this wiki, Kevan is not required to follow these Guidelines, and has full carte blanche of any activity within the wiki. Further, Kevan retains the ability to create new Moderators as he sees fit, and to remove Moderator rights from any Moderator found misusing them."
- User talk:Kevan#Extremely_offensive: "My reading would be that no, it wasn't vandalism in the standard sense, but it was a breach of an arbitration ruling (for antagonising outside of a personal talk page). --Kevan 12:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)"
Kevan has complete control of the wiki. Kevan ruled that Amazing violated his arbitration cases. LibrarianBrent banned Amazing for violating those cases. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 05:48, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Eh, that just means I'd be allowed to ban Amazing personally if I felt like it, and I haven't done that. I haven't taken any action on this, I didn't intend to have "ruled" on the issue, I just commented that he seems to have breached the specific terms of an arbitration ruling, and a moderator has (unrelatedly?) acted on this same fact. --Kevan 06:50, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Which is why I remarked that it was done outside of regular operating procedure set up by the mod team and thought the ban should be rescinded or reconsidered to follow the rules for account banning. --Zod Rhombus 06:57, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Now we are getting somewhere. If you wanted the ban brought inline with established guidelines, then say so. Since this is Amazing's third ban, 1 week. The next is a month, the last one is indefinate. I said I wouldn't rule on this, but in the face of an actual arguement, instead of spurious bullshit, I'll reconsider. Unblock + reblock for 1 week. Amazing had better shape up; if you really want to go down the lines of "law", Zod, then here's a big suprise: Amazing has repeatedly violated the Terms of Service. I'm sure if we asked the provider nicely that they would be glad to issue a cease and desist letter which we, sadly, would be legally obliged to act on. Then you can waste your time arguing with real lawyers. Ones who will make you pay for every hour of their time wasted when they win. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Check your facts, Xoid. There is no indefinite ban set up in the wiki banning parameters. Besides, arguing with "real" lawyers is what I do. And I'm not charging YOU ;) --Zod Rhombus 07:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- I wasn't going to get more involved in this crap, but you're just wrong: from Moderation/Guidelines, "Bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being a week, the fourth being a month, and the fifth being indefinite. A Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user on this scale, should the user attempt to circumnvent the ban." –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 07:19, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Since The General read my mind, and done that whilst I was typing this up, this issue is dealt with. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Actually, with regards to the issue of escalation, I'd like to call attention to this. To quote: "He was improperly escalated previously. As you can see from vandaldata, Amazing was warned, then banned for 24 hours. However, the first warning should have been 48 hours, the second warning a week, and the ban a month, since he had already been banned early in wiki history. When he was later banned for a day, that should have been a perma. A year is, in this case, a lenient sentence." I think it sums things up pretty well. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 07:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Actually, LibrarianBrent is wrong. See Bob Hammero's rebuttal. I had just pointed that out to LibrarianBrent a couple of minutes before Bob posted. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Actually, you're wrong that LibrarianBrent is wrong. See my rebuttal of your rebuttal on his talk page. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 07:29, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- JimboBob's reasoning is correct. See here for more details. Since this is Amazing's fifth ban (due to the two warnings he erroneously received after his previous bans) an infinite ban has been instated. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:39, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Actually, LibrarianBrent is wrong. See Bob Hammero's rebuttal. I had just pointed that out to LibrarianBrent a couple of minutes before Bob posted. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Actually, with regards to the issue of escalation, I'd like to call attention to this. To quote: "He was improperly escalated previously. As you can see from vandaldata, Amazing was warned, then banned for 24 hours. However, the first warning should have been 48 hours, the second warning a week, and the ban a month, since he had already been banned early in wiki history. When he was later banned for a day, that should have been a perma. A year is, in this case, a lenient sentence." I think it sums things up pretty well. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 07:12, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Check your facts, Xoid. There is no indefinite ban set up in the wiki banning parameters. Besides, arguing with "real" lawyers is what I do. And I'm not charging YOU ;) --Zod Rhombus 07:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Now we are getting somewhere. If you wanted the ban brought inline with established guidelines, then say so. Since this is Amazing's third ban, 1 week. The next is a month, the last one is indefinate. I said I wouldn't rule on this, but in the face of an actual arguement, instead of spurious bullshit, I'll reconsider. Unblock + reblock for 1 week. Amazing had better shape up; if you really want to go down the lines of "law", Zod, then here's a big suprise: Amazing has repeatedly violated the Terms of Service. I'm sure if we asked the provider nicely that they would be glad to issue a cease and desist letter which we, sadly, would be legally obliged to act on. Then you can waste your time arguing with real lawyers. Ones who will make you pay for every hour of their time wasted when they win. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Which is why I remarked that it was done outside of regular operating procedure set up by the mod team and thought the ban should be rescinded or reconsidered to follow the rules for account banning. --Zod Rhombus 06:57, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Not that it matters by now, but i also rule in favour of LibrarianBrent. Amazing's reign of terror is ended. Let us all rejoice. --Grim s-Mod 08:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
I present: {{Celebrating}}! –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:41, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- I've already got it on my page. I can only imagine what event many people will use it to celebrate ;) Cyberbob Talk 08:48, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Hey now, I just created the template. What people use it for is up to them. ;-) –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 08:51, 9 June 2006 (BST)
Actually I do have a question. Did anybody check if the ruling was enacted as the arbitrator intended it? Kevan interpretation is all nice and well But unless he takes action himself as owner of the wiki, It is the interpretation of the arbitrator we go by. And the arbitrator in this case is Hagnat.--Vista 09:36, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Well, sorta. It was Conndraka who actually wrote the ruling. Hagnat did a copy/paste from his ruling on Amazing vs. Rueful. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 09:42, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- And more relevantly, it's a moot point anyway. Amazing created a shitload of alts to vandalize the wiki after his ban, and that's worthy of a permaban in and of itself. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 09:45, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Do you mean the 3 page vandal vandalizing attacks yesterday? or the ChickenJones account? Or has there been more things that happens that I don't know about? (btw, I know about the arbitrator thingy... It was the same arbitration case I got my fingers slapped on...) --Vista 11:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Some of us find it more than suspicious that the "3pagevandal" attacks came after Amazing's ban. And that his demands were Amazing's immediate unbanning. –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- They came before, I believe. I'll check the data.--Vista 11:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)-- Ok here is what I found: at 19:41 the 3 page vandal started, Amazing was banned at 22:28. after wich the the 3 page vandal started again at 01:37 quickly after the banning of amazings alt. Now it could be Amazing posting as the 3 page vandal but the messages seems consistant with the regular 3 page vandal. While suspicion is not tottally unwarented, we can't put it as an action of amazing just yet.--Vista 11:44, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- What about the Suggestions page "3page" vandal attack, who demanded Amazing be unbanned before he would stop? Not kidding, see here. Does that even look like the 3page vandal's writing style? Doesn't to me. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:41, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- For a sample of what the 3page vandal's writing style looks like, I think his comment to me here is a good example. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 19:44, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- They came before, I believe. I'll check the data.--Vista 11:28, 9 June 2006 (BST)-- Ok here is what I found: at 19:41 the 3 page vandal started, Amazing was banned at 22:28. after wich the the 3 page vandal started again at 01:37 quickly after the banning of amazings alt. Now it could be Amazing posting as the 3 page vandal but the messages seems consistant with the regular 3 page vandal. While suspicion is not tottally unwarented, we can't put it as an action of amazing just yet.--Vista 11:44, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Some of us find it more than suspicious that the "3pagevandal" attacks came after Amazing's ban. And that his demands were Amazing's immediate unbanning. –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:25, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Do you mean the 3 page vandal vandalizing attacks yesterday? or the ChickenJones account? Or has there been more things that happens that I don't know about? (btw, I know about the arbitrator thingy... It was the same arbitration case I got my fingers slapped on...) --Vista 11:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)
- Mheh, I think you're trying to see what you want to see. It does remind me of some of his vandalism but as I said there is case for suspision. But what we really need is a way to compare IP addresses so we have proof. Unfortuneatly we don't have the plug-in for that. But we should get back to the topic at hand. How did hagnat mean the arbitration verdict? If Hagnat agrees with Kevans interpretation it doesn't matter as it is a moot point. If Hagnat disagrees we still have the 38 days Amazing is banned regardless to find a way if he was the 3page vandal--Vista 02:38, 10 June 2006 (BST)
- Kevan is right. Amazing did break multiple wikigate rulings. --hagnat mod 05:29, 10 June 2006 (BST)
- I find it deliciously ironic that the little turd gets sent to the perma-pokey because he was such a whiner. If he hadn't started all the wikigate drama, there wouldn't have been rulings or precedent for him to break.--Jorm 05:54, 10 June 2006 (BST)
- Kevan is right. Amazing did break multiple wikigate rulings. --hagnat mod 05:29, 10 June 2006 (BST)
- Mheh, I think you're trying to see what you want to see. It does remind me of some of his vandalism but as I said there is case for suspision. But what we really need is a way to compare IP addresses so we have proof. Unfortuneatly we don't have the plug-in for that. But we should get back to the topic at hand. How did hagnat mean the arbitration verdict? If Hagnat agrees with Kevans interpretation it doesn't matter as it is a moot point. If Hagnat disagrees we still have the 38 days Amazing is banned regardless to find a way if he was the 3page vandal--Vista 02:38, 10 June 2006 (BST)
18:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Have received the following email from user H4rdcor3:-
- I do not know how much you are involved in the Wiki page but I, h4rdcor3, have been recently banned by the administrator LibrarianBrent. The reasoning behind it was that I was an "obvious alt of banned user MaulMachine". I was not given any warning for the banning. I do know that if someone is an alt of a banned user it is an automatic permaban.
- [...]
- If LibrarianBrent would have done some research he would have found out by tracing our IP's that I connect from the Iowa State University network with the IP of xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx and that MaulMachine connects form the New York area. Therefore I cannot be an alt of MaulMachine.
- I am requesting an unban but if my post on MaulMachine's front page still constitutes a permaban I will accept that, but I would like it to be clarified that I am not an alt of MaulMachine and would like LibrarianBrent removed from his position of administrator.
I know Wiki moderators can't check IPs, but even so, it seems a bit hair-trigger to ban someone instead of undoing their single edit and warning them. I've re-enabled their account. --Kevan 02:23, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- I own a forum on which MaulMachine posts, and he does use multiple IPs. H4rdcor3's posts were/are clearly Maul's doing, as he has used multiple IPs on my own forum, which there are records to support. Always remember that Proxies exist and are plentiful. H4rdcor3's own quoting of his IP seems to draw a clearer line to a proxy. -- Amazing 18:10, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Yes, proxies are plentiful, but if you look at my two main posts: on the CMS Talk page and the post that was on Maul's front page you will see differences between us. The post on the CMS page I described how I read the page and how some of my friends (not players) understood the page. I felt that I had made my point and that your response did not merit further discussion because anything else I would post would just turn into a flaming war. Which would end up in someone getting banned. My post on Maul's page I will admin was uncalled for and should have not been posted on his page.
- The differences between Maul and myself as you can see is that if I had been an alt of Maul the disscussion on the CMS page would have continued with wild acusations and general bashing of both groups. Me, I know when a discussion is over and I can no longer make the other party see the direction I am coming from. This is why if from now on I am only going to be posting information that is relevant to game and and on my own page. I also will not be posting on the CDF page, ever. h4rdcor3 19:36, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- We communicate via IRC daily, he posted without my request, and i in fact asked him to edit the post to tone down the rhetoric. He's no alt. He's in Iowa and I'm in New York, anyway. MaulMachine
LibrarianBrent's summary of events
In this case, MaulMachine was a repeat offender who quite honestly should have been banned before he actually was, and indeed would have been if I had been more active on the Wiki at that time. As soon as Maul was banned, this user edited MaulMachine's userpage above the banneduser tags, adding a biased rant about how MM shouldn't have been banned. His previous edits only concerned the same groups that MaulMachine was originally editing. Based on his posting record and the timing of his edit to MM's userpage, as well as the knowledge that other users have used multiple IPs or accounts to circumvent bans in the past, I concluded that h4rdcor3 was probably MaulMachine's alternate account and should therefore share in his ban. --LibrarianBrent 03:01, 6 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Solution
Since no other mod seems to be interested in this, I'll have to judge myself. In hindsight, I believe that this was mostly a case of similarities between two user's edits causing them to seem like the same person, and I allowed my overall irritance with the entire debate to bleed through into this verdict, resulting in me failing to give h4rdcor3 the benefit of the doubt. h4rdcor3 probably only should have been warned for his edit to MM's page, not banned. Since I was in the wrong, I issue a formal apology to h4rdcor3 for his temporary banning. h4rdcor3's record will NOT include a warning for this action. In addition, I will immediately ban myself for a week in an effort to make reparations for this error. If you need to contact me before then with wiki-related matters, please send email to librarianbrent *AT* gmail *DOT* com. --LibrarianBrent 03:48, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- LibrarianBren, I greatly apreciate what you have done. I am sorry for the inconvience I have caused. h4rdcor3 18:47, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- It makes wicked sense if you really think about it. -- Amazing 00:54, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
- Thanks for taking the moderate approach, Librarian. MaulMachine 02:59, 13 Feb 2006 (GMT)
