UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/BobHammero/2006-07-18 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » BobHammero » 2006-07-18 Misconduct

02:53, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I was under the impression under the misconduct case of The General's that a moderator is not allowed to report-warn any non-threatening vandal. However at the Vandal warning page Bob chose to warn first and report later.

Seeing as this is moreso a vote on wheter current understood precident is to be followed or if we agree that faulty rules (such as the protection guidelines) need to be improved before we punish a user in the commission of their dutys. --Karlsbad 02:53, 18 July 2006 (BST)

First, although I don't think Karlsbad was focusing on this, although I did warn MrAushvitz first and report it later, you can see that the difference in the timestamps between those edits was literally 1 minute.

I have received conflicting information regarding what the guidelines for moderators are. While on one hand, we have The General's misconduct case, setting the precedent that moderators can not report and warn at the same time; at the same time, we have the moderator guidelines, which (vaguely) state that "Due to the time-sensitive nature of Vandalism, it is not expected that the Moderator gain community approval before banning vandals. It is, however, expected that a Moderator ban those who clearly act against the community's wishes, and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it. It is part of a Moderator's responsibility to ban any vandals they find on the wiki, subject to the guidelines above." Note that these guidelines cover banning, and not warning; there are no guidelines regarding warning users that I can see.

If I am allowed to participate in this vote, I would say that almost every part of the guidelines need to be revisited. I recently revised the Protection guidelines, on Vista's approval after waiting for any objections. The rest of the rules are at best vague, and at worst fatally flawed to the point that we can hardly do our job without risking misconduct or vandalism cases ourselves.

All of this said, if my error is truly so egregious, then I will accept whatever punishment my fellow moderators see fit. I thought that, given the nature of the edit, my actions were prudent, but if that is not the view of the rest of the moderators, then so be it. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 03:03, 18 July 2006 (BST)

If you want to have a policy vote, go do that, but don't drag the new kid through the system for it. Mr. A was being a buttknuckle, he got warned, good. Obla dee obla da-Banana Bear 06:04, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I think this should follow the lines of The General case, as a precedent, until the rules are sorted out. That's only in the issue of fairness. I agree that vandals need to be dealt with quickly, but I don't want the wiki to promote mod or user favoritism, either. --Zod Rhombus 06:21, 18 July 2006 (BST)

The flaws in the system are pandemic. I'm surprised that we've gotten this far. The ambiguity must be removed; Karlsbad may only be doing this to prove a point, but frankly, I can't blame him. Stirring up the hornet's nest on this is the only way this extremely serious issue will get the attention that it deserves. These guidelines are fatally flawed, and every moment spent operating under them helps to prevent required intervention due to the ever present fear of someone howling "Misconbitration!".

The General's misconduct case was little more than a witch hunt. A report-warn being justified "when we feel like it" is not a good enough reason to let others get off for the exact same thing. Consistency in the application of the rules is what we should be aiming for, lest some get special treatment. Does this mean Hammero deserves a misconudct case against his name, for this shit? Fuck. No. We know that. In the guidelines it says that "…and be prepared to reverse a ban should the community desire it." — does that not strike you as leaving room for an honest mistake? Yet we've already had numerous differing results for misconduct cases over "report-warn" incidents. Is it that we just operate on a simple majority here? Enough people say 'not misconduct' and suddenly is not?

Depending on which cases you want to look at, and whether they are even considered relevant, we may end up having the 'rule' of precedent standing against Hammero. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:27, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Just give Hammero a warning and address the issues, which is a step in the right direction. I believe what Hammero did was right and in good faith, he just did it in the wrong way. --Zod Rhombus 06:31, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Zod, no offense, but you are not a moderator. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:34, 18 July 2006 (BST)

True. However, while he cannot rule on this case, he is allowed to make his voice heard. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:39, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I comment on misconduct cases, and hope people will at least take on what I say. I would prefer not rule on them, particularly where it is too close to home. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:39, 18 July 2006 (BST)

And on that note, I'd like to quote Odd Starter, in his leaving message, for something very wise that he said: "I encourage those in the community to continue to mold this community as it's needed, to be bold in doing this, and to realise that the rules and procedures on this wiki are as malleable as anything else here, and should be improved and/or replaced whenever it is needed. Do not think that the rules as I wrote them are set in stone." I am in no way asking for any sort of favoritism here, but I think we need to seriously consider this as a critical look-at-the-rules moment, and perhaps look forward instead of behind when we think about what would be best for the wiki, rather than what has necessarily been decided before. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:34, 18 July 2006 (BST)

So you're saying the rules (or lack thereof) should apply differently to you than others, such as The General? --Zod Rhombus 06:42, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Yes, because when I say "I am in no way asking for any sort of favoritism here", what I really mean is, "the rules (or lack thereof) should apply differently to me." –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:53, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Sarcasm does not suit a moderator well. Didn't you read that I thought your action was in good faith and that the community should move on and address the issues? --Zod Rhombus 07:03, 18 July 2006 (BST)

But you still want a moderator warned over a guideline's loophole and a nonapplicable precident. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:08, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Ask yourself, does it really matter? Its not a ban. He not a vandal. The important thing for all of the wiki is to address the issues as Xoid has said to avoid all this. --Zod Rhombus 07:10, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I think you need to get yourself up to speed about what moderators are and what moderators are not. I am not required to be nice to you just because I am a moderator. All it means is that the wiki has agreed that I am more trustworthy than the average user, and granted me the responsibility of cleaning up a few kinds of messes that most people haven't proven themselves worthy of having to clean up. Got that? Now, to address your point: if the ruling ends up being "warn Bob," then so be it, although warning someone for acting in good faith seems strange. What I meant, and thought that I said clearly enough, but obviously did not, is that I think it is important that we look at the big picture here, and stop to think about what's right instead of what's had precedent -- because even that's not very clear. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:10, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I think you need to realize we are saying the same thing in different context. I agree the issue here is the big picture. I'm not against you. I'm for fairness on the wiki. That's all. No agenda. I understand fully what constitutes a mod, that's why I'm here. My point is to move on. --Zod Rhombus 07:15, 18 July 2006 (BST)

The thing is that, of course, people cares about warnings. If they don't they end up banned, and you have a close friend that could teach you what's that like. The good faith, well administered warn that Bob gave to MrAushvitz should not to be a reason to warn him. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:20, 18 July 2006 (BST)

That's not the reason. the PROCEDURE he followed was my argument. You even spoke in similar fashion on Bob's talk page. But really, it doesn't matter if he's warned or not, just that the wiki guidelines get more clarified, which is what I've said all along. --Zod Rhombus 07:28, 18 July 2006 (BST)

What of Hagnat getting off for something similiar? Or do you not remember Amazing's 24 hour ban before his long departure? The 'rule' has been applied inconsistently before, and most likely will be again. Which is why I say this tripe must stop here and now, before we get yet another moderator afraid of taking any action due to frivulous misconduct cases being tossed their way. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:00, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I agree. Contrary to popular belief, I don't like to see Misconduct cases, either. --Zod Rhombus 07:05, 18 July 2006 (BST)

MrAushvitz was being more than a "buttknuckle", he was being racist. This guy made an obvious act of vandalism, that no one can deny, unlike Rueful's edit that was not vandalism (as it was decided that way), so the precident doesn't aply. Even more, The General got warned because of the bad faith nature of his ban against Rueful, so that adds more reasons why this case shouldn't be taken as precident.

Bob Hammero did the right thing because according to Moderation/Guidelines, he was doing what was expected from him. If there has to be a punishment because of the "warn then report" he did, it should be no more than a heads up, not even an official warning, as Bob was acting in good faith and according to the wishes of the community. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 06:46, 18 July 2006 (BST)

No, the reason for the ruling on my case was that I should not have report-banned. Bob Hammero has made that mistake twice. We either follow precident and warn him or we follow the rules and rule that my case wasn't misconduct. I don't care which option we go for, but we can't continue picking and choosing the rules.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:29, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Twice? How is this the second time? Nevertheless, I agree that we need to decide what is going to happen. Either the rules will be changed, or I will be warned, but we can't have it both ways. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:33, 18 July 2006 (BST)

But you got banned because you didn't want to retract your actions and instead argued to defend them. So, after a voting the ruling was that you acted in bad faith and as such you deserved your first warning and a ban as long as Rueful's ban as punishment. However, Bob's actions were in good faith and right, altough made in a wrong way. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:38, 18 July 2006 (BST)

In my user opinion, I would like to see the mods show good faith and dismiss the case against BobHammero and strike out the ruling against The General until these rules get better defined. While not the same circumstances, clearly they are of the same nature. --Zod Rhombus 07:41, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Altough The General's misconduct case is a sad one, the main reason that he got his ban was because of his stubborn defense of the ban against Rueful because he tought the very small edit he made was vandalism (removing bold tags by mistake). This was seen as bias in The General judgements, maybe because the edit affected one of his friend's user page, and that warranted all the subsequent actions taken on the case. They're both very different cases. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:47, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Can't you get it through your head that if I hadn't made a stubborn defense against the ban, I would still have been banned, I was banned for the report-ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:49, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Sorry but when i made my comment yours still wasn't there. And the ban was earned because of the custom in misconducts cases to get warned for as much time as the wrong ban you made. Bob didn't made any mistake in his warning (the user won it), neither did him ban anyone. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:54, 18 July 2006 (BST)

No, I think they're pretty similar, because they both revolve around the same issue: what powers do moderators have? If the general consensus is that the rules need to be fixed, and my case should be dismissed, then great, let's talk about the rules. If the consensus is that the rules are working, and I screwed up, then I should be warned -- heck, I'll warn myself -- because I screwed up. But they both have to do with the fact that our rules are vague and inconsistently enforced. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:51, 18 July 2006 (BST)

In that fashion, all misconduct cases were built around weak and inconsistent rules, so they all should be checked. Altough I do agree with you about the fact that the rules ARE inconsistent. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 07:58, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I argued to defend myself against banning, if I had retracted my actions then I would have still been banned. Anyway, it's still precident on report-warning, Bob has done the right thing and has admitted that it was a mistake and that we either change the rules or he gets warned (i have a lot of respect for bob for doing that). I would agree with what zod rhobus has just said.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:44, 18 July 2006 (BST)

It wasn't racist. Minorities consistently get killed first in horror movies. This suggestion simply reflects that reality. It also gives more of a reward to black players. Does that mean he thinks blacks are better?Jjames 07:32, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Racism:

1. "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."
2. "Discrimination or prejudice based on race."

Pwned. Not that I even really had to point it out. Now please stop trolling. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:35, 18 July 2006 (BST)

It's not saying blacks are inferior, just pointing out that they are targets in horror movies. It isn't discrimination either. For one, it allows people toi choose whether to be black or not, secondly they get a bonus as well as a handicap. It simply is not racism. Please stop treting any person that disagrees with you as a troll.Jjames 07:57, 18 July 2006 (BST)

So you're going to tell me that awarding "black players" an extra bonus isn't "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability"? Huh. And you're in college, you say? Is it an online college? Is it accredited? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:04, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Why are you homos even mentioning me? I didn't even get a chance to grief or complain yet. Scinfaxi 08:30, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Ruling

The Suggestions page guidelines under rule 13 specifically state that "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and treated appropriately by moderators. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page." The spirit of vetting a case reported by one moderator by another moderator on the vandal banning page is not for who hands out the punishment, but for determining if vandalism ever actually took place, as it is assumed that the person who reports it is involved in some way (Which is not always the case, but the system works). In this case, MrAushvitz was determined to be guilty by a clear cut rule (Which was triggered by his posting of the suggestion), and all that was required was for a moderator to note down the appropriate punishment. This is a special case exemption from the normal processes of the wiki vandal banning page, and i rule that Bob Hammero did no wrong in warning MrAushvitz. Case is now closed. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 08:15, 18 July 2006 (BST)

I should note that The Generals punishment for his actions arose because he ruled that an edit against him and another was vandalism and acted accordingly. In this case the edit was explicitely defined by the pages rules to be vandalism and the rule in question was placed there by a majority vote. It is a subtle but important distinction from The Generals case. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 08:19, 18 July 2006 (BST)

Ok, point taken. I don't have the energy to argue with you.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:58, 18 July 2006 (BST)