UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/LibrarianBrent/2005

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » LibrarianBrent » 2005

02:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I'm not sure if this is the place to put this, but I'd like to formally request LibrarianBrent be effectively asked nicely to stop talking to me on the Wiki.

That may seem like a joke, but really I'd like not to flame or insult him on a constant basis (I only have so much patience) and he has been checking up on my edits, telling me not to edit so often, butting in on a disagreement I have with another player (that is so far relatively civil, not requiring a Moderator's help) and needless to say he also banned me a while back for 24 hours because I added a suggestion to the Suggestions page after he deleted it. (That's not vandalism, it's disagreeing with his errant removal and reposting my work. I did not delete or harm anyone else's work, so there was no cause for banning.) He also outright lied and said I threatened Vandalism, which can be disproven in black and white on the Wiki itself.

Overall he seems very personally involved -- Which can be confirmed by you all in the fact that NO OTHER MODERATOR has ever spoken to me in the LEAST. It's LibrarianBrent only, and it's LibrarianBrent often.

If I am such a magnet for Moderation, why is he the only one to notice? I suspect that the bad blood from the banning situation is being carried over by Brent.

As such I formally request NO PUNISHMENT, only that he be ASKED not to speak to me on this Wiki. It's totally destroying the flow of my usage of this site, and it's entirely purposeful. As witnessed on a few Wiki pages, he's snide and insulting at the drop of a hat, which is not how anyone should conduct themself while representing a site.

I think I have a right to request another moderator handle anything Brent may bring to your attention. Perhaps you can even recuse yourself willingly, Brent. That would probably be the best course of action at this point.

Even more text

I am going to keep this as brief as possible given everything that occured. I have more links if you want them, but I stripped this down to the bare minimum:

Here is the link to my original suggestion, it is at the bottom and is titled "Antibiotics" http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&oldid=31591

Please also note these sections of the rules as written:

"Spam for the most ridiculous suggestions. Any suggestions with three (3) unopposed Spam votes may be immediately moved to Peer Rejected Suggestions. If any other valid vote has been cast, the suggestions must remain for the whole two weeks. "

and

"Keep - I am the author and I am allowed to vote once on my own suggestions. --MrSuggester 05:01, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)" in the vote example.

So basically here's what we have so far: I suggested an idea which may or may not suck hard. Two people voted "Spam". I voted "Keep", which I am allowed to do. The rules say that if any other valid vote is cast, the suggestion is not deleted.

---

Here's is a link to the page with the third "Spam" vote, which does not allow deletion because of the previous "Keep" vote.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&oldid=31602#Antibiotics

---

Here is the History page where LibrarianBrant deleted my suggestion saying "4x unopposed spam except author's vote."

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&limit=50&offset=250&action=history

Note that the author's vote still counts as per the rules.

---

Here I reposted the suggestion, because it was inappropriately deleted.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&oldid=31640

Brent was violating the rules and the spirit of the system due to personal preference.

He deleted it again, I reposted it again, he deleted it again, I reposted it again, and he banned me.

At one point I said I would "Repost it as many times as you delete it and raise hell." Meaning I would argue with him about it on the Discussion page and his 'talk' page if he kept violating the rules as written.

This is a WIKI, and as such anyone can edit the pages. I didn't delete anyone else's work, I reposted my own. Beyond the rules of the Suggestions page, the Wiki itself is open to edits of any kind, so I was working within the rulse of BOTH the suggestions page, and even larger - the rules of the Wiki itself.

Brent said I 'threatened vandalism' in the reason for banning me. I can only assume it's because I said I'd raise Hell.

So basically I got banned for a HUGE stretch of what I said, as well as reposting something he was deleting without warrent. I'm sorry but I don't think editing a Wiki page without deleting someone's work is a bannable offence..

---

At one point I also forgot to put a space between lines on the Suggestions page (between the ----- of the linebreak, and the ===TITLE=== area of my suggestion) so Brent then put "Stealth posting!" as a reason for banning me. This was a template error which he did not even let me fix before he banned. I can't fix it if he's quick to jump on me for what are now personal reasons. I explained the rules of the Wiki and the Suggestion page to him, and I guess he didn't like that.

---

He himself ignored the Suggestion page rules, ignored the Wiki standards (that anyone can edit a page without malicious intent) and banned me for three things, two of which I DIDN'T EVEN DO.

1.) Reposting my deleted suggestion, which I did and was right to do based on the rules of the page. 2.) Threatening Vandalism, which I did not do in the least. 3.) Stealth Posting, which I had never even heard of and was clueless about until I realized he meant my typo of not putting a space between lines in my template.

---

He later said Suggestor votes don't count as opposition. That is not anywhere on the page, and was made up after the fact by Brent himself in an attempt to justify his error. The rules have since been amended.

---

As for the links to his further following of me, just check my discussion page and this link:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:MaulMachine

And this:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Amazing

And this:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:NEMO

And this when I tried to create a new feature for users that he didn't like -- a general complaint page:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Complaints

(Keep in mind that complaints and requests for moderator action are different things. Current Moderator Action pages are not a place for general complaints.)

---

Thank you for your time. -- Amazing 02:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Some Comments (Odd Starter)

I'll start this from the top.

Suggestions Stuff

From the top.

Considering I was (reasonably) involved in Suggestions at the time, I think I can give some extra context. At the time of the event indicated, many of the rules for Suggestions, though initially laid down, were in a state of flux. On the talk page, many people were indicating that the question of self-votes was a contentious one. At the time, I was of the opinion that a vote is a vote is a vote, and that a suggestor could actually stop their suggestion being removed by Spam votes (also, I was also opposed quite considerably to the Spam vote anyway). However, this was not the consensus at the time, and thus the rules were altered.

At the time, the social rules and the written rules were not in perfect alignment, as consensus was slow to filter into the front page rules. At about the time of Amazing's Suggestions This discussion was taking place. Throughout the next few days, more than a few people were commenting on this thorny issue, but in the end, the consensus bore out that Spam Votes could not be removed by a self-vote. While the rules were not yet firmly placed in stone by the time LibrarianBrent had acted, they were, for the most part, in accordance with the will of the community.

Further, the actions afterwards to prevent Amazing from reposting his suggestion were also, for the most part, justified. It was indicated that if certain pages had specific rules, that not abiding by them would be considered vandalism. As Amazing was not, he was banned. This was prior to the Moderation Guidelines, so the three-strikes policy did not exist as an official policy, and from the evidence I see, I think that LibrarianBrent was probably not overstepping the unwritten policy at the time.

It should also be noted that Acording to the Block Logs LibrarianBrent had actually unblocked Amazing once a misunderstanding had been resolved, and once it was identified that a block against Amazing was not being released at the appropriate time (the system is set up for timed bans - we cannot block users indefinitely), LibrarianBrent worked hard to resolve the problem. This doesn't seem to be the work of a Moderator who has let antipathy towards a user blind their judgement.

Links

Several of these seem, well, justified interventions, as opposed to malicious following.

• User talk:MaulMachine - LibrarianBrent was doing what I would probably have done in his place - he had identified a situation where two people were at conflict, and suggested that an Arbitration may be a suitable next step. This is not overstepping bounds, and of course, any user can suggest an Arbitration.
• User talk:Amazing - Much of this has already been identified above.
• Talk:NEMO - Yeah, this could be unjustified. It's a tad narkier than was absolutely required.
• Complaints - I can hardly fault a user for responding to calls for complaints against himself, and I think considering the circumnstances LibrarianBrent has composed himself rather well, attempting to point out that other avenues exist for the service provided.

---

• I agree with most of what you say to a certain degree, the only real departure in our methods of thought would be the Suggestion Page fiasco, as it would be vandalism if a non-moderator had kept removing a suggestion even if the community itself was seeming to move toward supporting the rule change at a later date. -- Amazing 03:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Response from LibrarianBrent

I apologize for my comment on the NEMO page, as, looking back, I see that it could easily be considered rude. --LibrarianBrent 23:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Hmm. I guess we're good then. I think that comment was the defining factor by which I judged everything else you did, and assumed a sinister tone behind it. I apologize for being quick to the draw in reposting and all that. I should have waited until the next day and requested permission to repost through the proper channels. -- Amazing 03:41, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't know if anyone wants to "officially" declare this closed or what. I'm willing to drop my other complaints because I'm happy with one apology.. I don't need or want to go trying to beat out several. -- Amazing 07:02, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Very well, Case closed, I'll move it to the Archive in the morning. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 13:20, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

12:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

User:grim s - Was vandalised by LibrarianBrent (01:41, 24 Nov 2005) after i was banned from the wiki for 24 hours for persuing a war with matthew Stewart, who was attempting to grief my organisation through his groups wiki. The edit was reverted by Kevan within minutes, but i believe that these actions are ones unbefitting a moderator of the wiki. I only report now as i only just checked the history of my page. --Grim s 12:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator Response: By "vandalised", I assume you are referring to the replacement of your page with a generic temporary statement describing why you were banned. This was common before Template:Banneduser was created, and until that point in time, it had never been complained about. Kevan later said that he felt as if this was taking things a bit far, which is why I created the template in the first place. --LibrarianBrent 02:55, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Response to Response - It was still the deletion of my page by another user, which is vandalism. The status of the person responsible and the reason for deleting it (Except where the content breaks the rules) are irrelevant. It is and was vandalism. Also, why did you move this here? I have nothing against your actions as a moderator, just your actions as a wiki user, which was why i put it in the vandal reporting section. Personally, all i want is an apology. --Grim s 04:39, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator Response: This was moved to the misconduct section because your complaint is about what was considered a moderator action, not one of my edits on the wiki. --LibrarianBrent 15:00, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment: Grim s has repeatedly vandalized my group Wiki (D.D.D.S.) which is what he was banned for. My understanding of vandalism policy as it currently stands is it must be a repeat offense with warning for it to be punishable (to ensure it simply isn't a misunderstanding), which Grim s can not claim against LibrarianBrent. This is obviously a misunderstanding in the absence of policy and has already been corrected by Kevan himself. --Matthew-Stewart 05:02, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment: There's nothing wrong with a general statement being added to a user page, stating tha the particular user is banned. Perhaps the content of the page should've been preserved, and only a template added to the page. But then, it would appear we didn't have the template at that point. Since we have a template now, we can proceed accordingly from this point on. I see no need to take any actions about the issue presented by Grim here. --Daranz|talk| 16:13, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment: My basic take on the situation is:

• This discussion does indeed belong on this page rather than on the vandalism page. LibrarianBrent was obviously taking this action in conjunction with his moderator duties. If Grim would rather have it referred to as "vandalism", then I think it's even less likely to result in any action, since the action was performed as part of what was considered by LibrarianBrent at that time to be standard operating procedure for a ban.

• I don't believe that the action taken was egregious or malicious. He merely took steps that he felt were appropriate in conjunction with the ban. Kevan considered this to be a step too far (rightly, in my opinion) and reverted those steps.

• The real problem here is that there was no set policy in place for handling a banned user's page. I don't believe that LibrarianBrent's actions qualify as vandalism, and in the absence of a real policy surrounding a user ban I also don't feel that this qualifies as moderator misconduct.

--Chester Katz 17:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Can we have another moderator deliver a final ruling here so that we can have closure on this issue? --LibrarianBrent 23:00, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ruling: This does not seem to be a clear case of vandalism against another user, nor does it seem to be an abuse of Moderation Powers. It appears to be a simple misunderstanding of Moderation action (which occured during a period in which procedure around these actions was ill-defined anyway). It appears that Kevan has already taken action, and LibrarianBrent has not repeated the action since. As it is Grim's page, and he can happily change it back (and has since), I do not believe any more action than has already been executed is required. If Grim truly wants an apology, this should be a user-to-user action, not a mandated response.

Thus:

• LibrarianBrent did wrong, due to simple misunderstanding
• This has been rectified by Kevan
• The damage has been repaired
• LibrarianBrent has not repeated the action since
• The gravity of the offense does not seem to require any further action
• No further action is to be taken
• An apology will come if LibrarianBrent wishes to issue one, but this is not a mandated sentence.

I declare this case closed. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 23:15, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)