UDWiki talk:Administration/Sysop Archives/Vista/2007-10-11 Misconduct

Vista

Good faith, bad faith... I'm the one with the gun.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  11:51, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Huh? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:53, 10 October 2007 (BST)

The power of Google tells me it's movie quote adaption from Ash in Evil Dead 3 (Army of Darkness).-- Vista  +1  12:29, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Oh please, give up. Give Grim bureaucrat powers and declare him overlord of this wiki, let him demote/warn/ban/ridiculize/whatever everyone he wants (including Kevan, because he's such a looser compared to him, only having created this game, this wiki and all and daring to propose a civility policy afterwards...) and modify/move/delete/blank every page he would like to because we know he's right, and automatically pass all his policies. After a month, remove these powers, and the wiki would be such a nicer place to be!

I actually have a lot of points to make, but bringing them into this kind of discussion where Dr-House-without-the-charm is trying to fight against everyone that disagrees with him would be too good of a present for him. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:32, 10 October 2007 (BST)

	Mod all the Zambahz!
	This user thinks that we should stop wasting time and just make every single zombie player on Urban Dead a Moderator.

I guess you want to use this template, right? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:38, 10 October 2007 (BST)

No. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:16, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I dunno, he seemed quite sorry about bringing the case and was making it in good faith I beleive. He genuinely thought he was in the right. Personaly I think Vista's approach of leniancy and fair warning works better, but there you go.--Seventythree^Talk 18:35, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Of course 73. That's one point: we have a Sysop whose understanding fails to cover everything that has to do with assuming good faith. Vista's approach was OK, it was good since the start. Boxy was presented with the same problem a while ago [1] and because Boxy's failure to defend his decision Grim's ego, already quite big despite having missed around 6 months of administrational style changes, got a fix. Grim's obsolete (as proven on this misconduct case) and biased (as it was proven by Akule on his A/A case) style is harming the wiki, and the fact that he's eager to include himself on any case he finds in order to feel more important (he already inserts his opinion so much as to make the mayority of posts in any contenious case since his comeback) multiplies this harm exponentially.

This Misconduct case brought in good faith? I'm sorry, but no: it was just made to prove the point and feel superior. That's all Grim s is about. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:16, 10 October 2007 (BST)

You too used to provide your input in every case in the administration pages, to the point that it was your actions that coined the term backseat modding. Differently from you and nalikill, Grim is doing his job as a SysOp. While i like to bend rules sometimes for the goodwill of the community, Grim is just trying to enforce a rule that exist for a page he used to be highly involved with. You can't criticize someone for doing their job. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:35, 10 October 2007 (BST)

No, I'm critizicing him not only for failing to renove his administrational practices with the times but for forcing others Sysops to step back. He's being a drag, among other things.

My "backseat modding"? You only were annoyed that I made valid points quite a lot of times and you felt attacked. Much like recently when Xoid, Gage and Cyber left and you automatically got your guard up because you thought yourself my (next) target. Grow up! I was helping and enforcing the very same style of Administration that you're enforcing now! Do yourself a favor, make it simple and IRC Sonny, Jorm and Grim: it's no wonder that while you claim to be such different guys you always come up with the same opinions. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 20:09, 10 October 2007 (BST)

*Cahem* I think that Hammero, Xoid, Gage and Cyberbob were the ones calling you a backseat mod, not me. And while i enjoy being part of the hive. i have a mind of my own and tell jorm, sonny and grim to piss off from times to times. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:30, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Well, I would say that the misconduct case againgst Vista has ground to a halt, as everyone involved seems to be sensible enougth to realise that pursuing it much further would do much more harm than good. However, Matthewfarenheit, how can you claim good faith being the basis of how the entire wiki and not offer Grim_s the same good faith? I understand that you two have had your differences in the past, but from what I've seen of you both editing, your edits are in good faith, but your interpritation of each others actions leads to confusion.--Seventythree^Talk 21:30, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Matt, fuck off. This vendetta of yours has past the point where it is amusing and has become tiresome. If i ever make a legitimate mistake that ends up in misconduct, feel free to criticise me there, otherwise, butt the fuck out. This case doesnt concern you, so piss off. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:34, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Some info: Matt is acting the way he is because, shortly after my return i took exception to his empty headed style of sysopping and made a point of correcting him. We then bashed heads a few times. Since then he has been harbouring a grudge against me when i couldnt care less about him. The only reason i keep having to deal with him is because he keeps chasing after me like a beaten wife comingback for more. In the 6 months i was gone, there werent many changes at all. We only lost the excessive shouldnt-have-been-a-sysop-in-the-first-place crew, and a group i was glad to see the back of. I dont want to be a buerocrat. I withdrew my part in that pretty early. I didnt even want to be a sysop in the first place by the vandal sprees, which have not abated, changed my mind. If you have a problem with how i handle things, find some actual misconduct, until then quit your sniping. I can actually rule on a case devoid of any bias, y'know. I dont hold grudges, they are fucking pointless. I dont let my personal feelings get in the way of what i feel must be done. Why do you think i brought this case agaisnt vista in the first place. I like the guy, i really do. It fucking sucked that i had to but i had to do it, because the rules, as written and as their stated intent clearly runs counter to what Vista stated (I remain unconvinced on anything to the contrary). Fuck, we had a pie fight on the vandal banning talk page and it was a lot of laughs. Grow the fuck up matt and patch up your ego. Stop assuming bad faith everywhere and analyse. I am not satan or some bastard child of him. Power is not an interest for me. OMG! I HAVE POWER ONLINE! HURR!!! Power online wont put food on the table. Hell, if i cared about power at all i could have checked up on this wiki while i was offline for six months by going up the road and signing in from there, but i only used it to keep in touch with the NW forum mods and tell em i was alright, and that something terrible had not happened. Seriously matt. You are a fucking embarrassment. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 21:59, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I think your swell too. Completely wrong about this rule, but a swell guy.-- Vista  +1  00:29, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Well, maybe those differences won't be put aside today. I have got to agree with Grim_s though about the wanting to be a sysop thing. I'm glad I'm not!--Seventythree^Talk 22:09, 10 October 2007 (BST)

This really seems to be a conflict between Grim's strict interpretation of the rules, and Vista's looser one. Damn ambiguity. --^T 22:21, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Surely then It's decided on which serves the wiki best in the given situation?--Seventythree^Talk 22:22, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Y'see, this is where we have a problem, because i just dont see how that can be interpreted any other way. Its wording is extremely clear. Such things are vandalsim, and treated as such. Everyone was warned, right there on the fucking page. If people go ahead and do it anyway they deserve a warning for breaking a rule that says they will get one. Good faith? Bad faith? How can you apply them to anything but an insult suggestion? Any other case the assume good faith thing vista wants to stick in would make the cases unpunishable and dilute the rule so strongly it will be almost meaningless. While the VB system is not about punishing people, rule 10 of suggestions is. The whole discussion behind it focuses entirely on punishing the idiots who posted them, and the wording reflects that. Honestly, how vistas interpretation can possibly hold anything but air is beyond me. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:30, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Maybe this is just one of those times when it is best to agree to disagree and let things lie. After all, the actual case this is all about seems to have been sorted out on the user in question's talkpage. Maybe because the guy was pretty new a little bit of leniancy in the first offence is the best policy? Or maybe you're right, and rules are rules and must be stuck to, and allowing someone leniancy in one case will just lead to an erosion of how the system works and more problems in the long run? My point is, this does seem to be a matter of interpritation, and as such it may well be best to just let it lie, and everyone moves on, kinda thing. --Seventythree^Talk 22:46, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I see where you are coming from, but that 'treated appropriately' part can be viewed as ambiguous. I think that you see it as (correct me if I'm wrong), "Give the user a warning." Vista sees it as (again, correct me if it's inaccurate), "Take into consideration the circumstances of the post and then decide whether to give a warning or not." If the sentence stated, "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and a warning will be issued by a sysop," then there would be no contest to the outcome. Argh, edit conflict. --^T 22:50, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Well, interpretations can only go so far. There are such things as clearly right and clearly wrong interpretations, and what we have here is one of those. I hate to sound like anything nasty, but in this case, im pretty sure its me whos right. I wouldnt have brought it this far if i hadnt been. The treat appropriately part comes after the thing has been defined as vandalism. Thus no matter what appropriate treatment, it is approriate treatment for actual vandalism, not vandalism determination, which is the only place good faith comes into play. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:58, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I did the same thing when I was new and I didnt get any leniancy. If he doesnt get a warning I DEMAND one of mine removed. Sockem 22:57, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Grim, that makes more sense to me now, so we should probably amend that rule to make sure it is interpreted in the correct way. It should say, "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy is considered vandalism and a warning will be issued by a sysop. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page."

But Grim s' interpretation is clearly and absolutely the wrong one. I'm arguing that it is a rule just like every other rule, and Grim is arguing that that single rule, alone amongst every other rule is meant to punish people, while such a rule would be clearly against everything this wiki is based on. Not only does his interpretation run counter to every other rule we have on this wiki, it directly contradicts the actual voting discussion history of that rule. Both in the discussion and in the voting on that rule it's said quite clearly that sysops would have the last say. The author of the rule, Jon Pyre, mentions that several times.

Grim also imagines a purpose to that rule that it never had. Seriously, While the VB system is not about punishing people, rule 10 of suggestions is? Grim promotes a horrible misguided view of the rule here. the rule in question wasn't added to punish anybody. It was instituted as a deterrence after a long period of time that had a diverse group of experienced users willingly putting up joke suggestions to troll and create drama because people were sick of that and thought it could make Kevan stop reading the page. It was not targeted against newbies and was a simple codification of the normal Good faith/bad faith rule regarding suggestions. If the rule should be clarified, hardly necessary IMO, it should be by changing it from is considered vandalism to will likely be considered That would make the rule more clear while it would retain the original meaning.-- Vista  +1  00:26, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Id go with that change, but i still think you are wrong. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:48, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I'll go ahead and change it to, "Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy will almost certainly be considered vandalism and treated appropriately by a sysop. If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page." If a sysop rules and another disagrees with the decision, tough luck. Sounds satisfactory? --^T 02:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

It requires a vote, if I'm not horribly mistaken, to change the suggestions rules.--Karek^maps?! 04:57, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Sockem, if you consistently make good-faith edits to the wiki, then your warning will eventually be struck (after 250 good edits or something like that). You haven't made any staggeringly serious infractions, so it would be best not to worry about it.

Damn, that Nalikill misconduct case came up quickly against you, Grim. --^T 23:28, 10 October 2007 (BST)

And Hagnat + boxy appears to have made the right decision. Lets all calm down and stop yelling "Misconduct" and "Ban ban ban!" We're all friends here, right?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:46, 10 October 2007 (BST)

I hope so.--Seventythree^Talk 08:02, 11 October 2007 (BST)