UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Protected "UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage": sched [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
 
m (fixing format)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOCright}}{{Misconducttrack|5|7}}
* '''2006''', 6 cases, 3 not misconduct, 2 misconduct, 1 No Outcome
===23:41, 22 October 2006 (BST)===
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#23:41.2C_22_October_2006_.28BST.29| 2006, October 22]], Not Misconduct
Removed a suggestion with 5 spam votes but not having the 7 needed to remove. Also did this to a suggestion that was not up for a reasonable amount of time to get other votes. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions#PKer_Criminal_Class --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 23:41, 22 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#20:50.2C_21_October_2006_.28BST.29| 2006, October 22]], Not Misconduct
:Read. The. Rules. '''Not misconduct'''--{{User:The General/sig}} 23:42, 22 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#01:12.2C_26_October_2006_.28BST.29| 2006, October 26]], '''Misconduct'''
::I haven't been here in over a month. Could you please redirect me to said rules? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 23:44, 22 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#22:00.2C_1_November_2006|2006, November 1]] Not Misconduct
:::Top of the suggestions page, they've been there since the original spam vote rework.--{{User:The General/sig}} 23:49, 22 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#07:37.2C_10_November_2006_.28UTC.29|2006, November 10]] '''Misconduct'''
::::Just read it over again. 7 spam votes needed or 3 for the mod to remove it. However for the latter it'd need to be an unintelligent suggestion. Since it wasn't and ALL of the spam votes applied for the KILL vote, not SPAM, it was not a legal removal. Instead Gage, being the level headed mod he is, should have removed the spam votes, including his own, which were in the wrong spot. Also the vote was up for 1 hour and 31 minutes, obviously not enough time for anyone to view. That is 3/48 of the regular time a serious suggestion is up for. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 23:54, 22 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2006#06:20.2C_12_November_2006|2006, November 12]] No Outcome
:::::He followed the rules though, which means I can't ban him for it.--{{User:The General/sig}} 00:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)
::::::He followed the rules for a case that did not exist. Since those Spam votes were not really Spam, it should not have been removed. Being a mod he should have removed the votes and have not contributed to it. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:04, 23 October 2006 (BST)
::::::::What are you babbling about Sonny? Spam votes that aren't spam? Huh?--{{User:Gage/sig}} 00:09, 23 October 2006 (BST)
:::::::::If I voted Spam and gave a reason that fell under the Keep category it would be removed for not belonging there. Why is it that you did not do that with Spam votes that belonged in Kill? If you did then there would be no reason for its removal. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:12, 23 October 2006 (BST)
:::::::::To quote the Suggestion page "Spam votes are not a "strong kill", they are simply here to prevent the utterly ridiculous from clogging up the system. If you do not like the idea, and it's not some crazy uber power or something else ridiculous, VOTE KILL, NOT SPAM." The suggestion did not fall under that so those Spam votes were invalid. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:13, 23 October 2006 (BST)
:::::::::::It broke one of the fundamental assumptions of the game. Get over youself man. I am a PKer and ''I'' thought it was ridiculous.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 00:15, 23 October 2006 (BST)
::::::::::::It broke nothing. It broke no rules, no nothing. It had every right to a vote and you denied it of that. Why? I don't know. From the stories I heard you've been rather power hungry but I'm not going to base it off of that. Instead I'm going to base it off of you making a mistake. You removed a suggestion based off of invalid votes. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:18, 23 October 2006 (BST)


{{Straws}}--{{User:The General/sig}} 00:21, 23 October 2006 (BST)
* '''2007''', 6  cases, 4 not misconduct, 1 misconduct, 1 No Outcome
{{ohsnap}}--{{User:Gage/sig}} 00:22, 23 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#05:29.2C_13_February_2007_.28UTC.29| 2007, February 13]], Not Misconduct
:Wow Gage. I am impressed by your awesomeness. I am sure that you can now sleep better at night knowing you just used a comical template on the wiki for a game that no one gives a shit about anymore. I give up, for Gage is truly the master of the wiki. May all who are retarded or still play the game, coincidently the same people, praise him. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#03:15.2C_14_February_2007_.28UTC.29| 2007, February 14]], Not Misconduct
:Now that we got the stupid shit aside. Seriously. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:27, 23 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#04:16.2C_12_March_2007_.28UTC.29| 2007, March 12]], '''Misconduct'''
::I ain't going to cry over it or nothing. I'd just like to see a vote for it. If Gage truly feels the need to remove it, then fine. I don't see it staying harming anyone. I don't see it doing any damage. There was no reason for it's removal. But, like I said, if Gage truly finds it to be useless then I'm ok with that. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] [[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[ Assault on Stupid Survivors|ASS]] [[ DORIS]] [[Witch Burners|Hunt!]]</sup> 00:35, 23 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#05:12.2C_12_March_2007_.28UTC.29| 2007, March 12]], Not Misconduct
:::I do, now stop wasting my time.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 03:18, 23 October 2006 (BST)
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#01:58.2C_13_March_2007_.28UTC.29|2007, March 13]], Not Misconduct
 
*# [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage/2007#08:51.2C_26_March_2007|2007, March 26]], No Outcome
===20:50, 21 October 2006 (BST)===
Permabaned someone for a joke on their userpage.[[User:Misconduct starter|Misconduct starter]] 20:50, 21 October 2006 (BST)
:Duh....cause 12 year old AOLer said he was Cyberbob, which he is not, thus it is impersonation. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 21:13, 21 October 2006 (BST)
::But it's ok for people to claim to be Denzel Washington?--[[User:Misconduct starter|Misconduct starter]] 21:16, 21 October 2006 (BST)
:::As long as Denzel Washington isn't a mod on the wiki, I don't give a fuck.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 21:44, 21 October 2006 (BST)
::::You realise that you just dug yourself into a hole there? That's admitting something close to bias in that, if I made Denzel Washington look like a fool you wouldn't care!--{{User:The General/sig}} 21:58, 21 October 2006 (BST)
:::::Bias to cyberbob? He '''''Hates''''' me.
:::::{{Quote|2=Gage, that high horse is not for you. You just don't have the intellect to pull it off, m'kay? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 02:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)|3=Cyberbob240}}
:::::Bias to this asshole? Yeah right.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 22:05, 21 October 2006 (BST)
:::::I would care if there was someone claiming to be [[User:Denzel Washington|Denzel Washington]] but not the actual celebrity Denzel Washington, just to clear that up.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 22:07, 21 October 2006 (BST)
::::::That's what I was reffering to, there's even a template saying that a user is an alt of Denzel Washigton when they aren't.--{{User:The General/sig}} 22:15, 21 October 2006 (BST)
 
Since I saw cause to Permaban 12 year old AOLer as a vandal myself (Before I realized Gage had done it already), I can't really see where Gage doing it was msiconduct. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 22:42, 21 October 2006 (BST)
:Why were you going to permaban him? There is no vandal report, and he wasn't vandalising.--{{User:The General/sig}} 22:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)
::Hell this misconduct case is Misconduct starter's first edit.  I smell sockpuppet. --[[User:Axe Hack|Axe Hack]] 22:52, 21 October 2006 (BST)
Isn't the permabanning of someone for vandalism supposed to go through M/VB? Whereas one reports and another rules on the incident? And did this person vandalize other than just saying he was Cyberbob? I mean, he didn't post as Cyberbob with a sig did he? Too many questions not handled through regular channels. --[[User:Zod Rhombus|Zod Rhombus]] 00:56, 22 October 2006 (BST)
 
{{quote|2=On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki".|3=[[UDWiki:Vandalism]]}}
*[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal_Banning&diff=prev&oldid=433328 1]
*[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:12_year_old_AOLer&diff=prev&oldid=433325 2]
*[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Quagmister&diff=prev&oldid=433334 3]
Don't tell me those were good faith.
{{quote|2=When a Moderator warns or bans a user, the action should be noted on the UDWiki:Moderation/Vandal Data page.|3=[[M/G]]}}
This indicates that a user can be banned before the action is noted on [[M/VB]]
{{quote|2=Moderators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.|3=[[M/VB]]}}
More support for my position.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 01:03, 22 October 2006 (BST)
 
This is interesting. One the one hand, this guy is obviously a sockpuppet, and has zero intentions of actually contributing anything... but on the other hand, it didn't commit vandalism or vote on anything. I vote Misconduct, but am open to persuasion. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:26, 22 October 2006 (BST)
:If you define vandalism as ''an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki'' then all of his edits were of a vandal nature.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 03:53, 22 October 2006 (BST)
::We've been attacked for banning trolls, no? Would you say trolls are good faith users? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:59, 22 October 2006 (BST)
:::Obviously the attackers were wrong then. I would blame nobody for the banning of a troll of the magnitude of Amazing--{{User:Gage/sig}} 04:02, 22 October 2006 (BST)
::::You wouldn't, but the community likes its rules. IMO, they're spoilt, but that's the way it is. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:07, 22 October 2006 (BST)
:::::Does it help at all that Conndraka [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= blocked] him about an hour after me (without knowing that I had blocked him)? Obviously if I hadn't done it, it would be Conndraka in misconduct. Should we ''both'' be here because we committed the same "crime"?--{{User:Gage/sig}} 04:13, 22 October 2006 (BST)
::::::I don't know, to be honest. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:18, 22 October 2006 (BST)
 
 
An obvious sockpuppet with no purpose other than to waste people's time and troll. Vandalism is defined as bad faith editing, in and of itself. That definition is only overruled by arbitration. Vandals who have no constructive edits don't get second chances, thus this was not misconduct. To top it off, the case was started by a confirmed open proxy or zombie; most likely the same user stirring up trouble.
 
General, there is a difference between an "I am Spartacus!" routine and this vandal's idiocy and you know it. When Denzel was accused of being absolutely everyone who supported him (this was without even a modicum of proof; in fact there was actual proof of his accusers being sockpuppets, not vice-versa) people were doing the "I am Spartacus" routine in both good faith and humorous fashion. This is quite clearly different. '''Not misconduct'''. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 07:49, 22 October 2006 (BST)
 
===01:12, 26 October 2006 (BST)===
Deleted [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/For_God_So_Loved_Amazing|For God So Loved Amazing]] -- no notice was ever placed on the page that the policy was a deletion candidate.
 
5 people voted on the delete, whereas almost 60 had voted on the policy, not enough notice was given. (some of us don't check every page of the wiki constantly for updates)
 
Also Gage, you are an idiot, and using Data as a forum avatar is far from cool. -- [[User:Rueful|Rueful]] 01:12, 26 October 2006 (BST)
:Misconduct, easily. You can't just got and delete an active policy! I didn't even know it was nominated, and very few other people probably did either. Undeleted. No punishment shall fall upon Gage, however.--{{User:The General/sig}} 01:17, 26 October 2006 (BST)
::If I made a policy on the earth being flat it's being deleted mid-vote wouldn't even be in question. General, there are no rules against deleting a policy as it is being voted upon. The unban Jedaz petition could have been legitimately deleted, even a moment before it closed without technically violating the guidelines simply because it was a vandal created page. Regardless, some things shouldn't be done. I'll let others decide whether this was misconduct, but the page should've stayed.
::Another thing, General, remember how you said you'd bring up the banning moderator for misconduct if the "Ban Amazing" policy ever went through? Expect the same. If, god forbid, Amazing is unbanned… Rueful isn't going with him. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 01:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)
:Not putting {{tl|delete}} on a page is not the deleting moderator's offence, nor is it misconduct. It is sloppy editing, but Gage wasn't even the person who nominated it.
:As an aside; I officially rule that Data sucks. {{c|white|Heh, suck on that Gage.}}
:{{User:Xoid/sig}} 01:37, 26 October 2006 (BST)
::Indeed, that was my bad. Sorry Gage, I certainly don't want you to take heat for my screw up. -- [[User:Alan Watson|Alan Watson]] <sup>[[User_talk:Alan_Watson|T]]·[[Ridleybank Resistance Front|R]][[Philosophe Knights|P]][[Malton Telephone|M]]</sup> 03:20, 26 October 2006 (BST)
 
Agreed, in a way. I wasn't punishing Gage for it anyway. And, I don't mind if Rueful is banned or not, well, not enough to create drama about it anyway.--{{User:The General/sig}} 01:44, 26 October 2006 (BST)
: you wouldn't miss me? -- [[User:Rueful|Rueful]] 01:52, 26 October 2006 (BST)
::Not sure, if you get banned then i'll find out :p. Seriously though, if you want to get yourself banned, then there's no point in me argueing with you.--{{User:The General/sig}} 01:59, 26 October 2006 (BST)
:::I never said I wanted to be banned, I'm performing a valuable service to the wiki community.  I know that I can not bear the torch of keeping the wiki interesting, so I'm doing you all a favor(or favour for you Canadians) by making this sacrifice.  -- [[User:Rueful|Rueful]] 02:27, 26 October 2006 (BST)
 
'''Misconduct''' - you were early by about half a day. However, no warning will be assessed. I'm going to extend the vote time for a week and place the {{tl|Delete}} template on the page. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 01:48, 26 October 2006 (BST)
:Typically there is some leeway given for being "under time" due to different timezones. Given that Gage is in America, if anything he should've been a day late on deleting it if he wishes to use that excuse. Voting is pointless, however."
 
Also, just move the page to "served" and say it was kept: voting on whether it's deleted or not is pointless. (Deletion would occur after voting finishes. Deleting a policy once it's finished? It still doesn't change the outcome.)
 
Posted on behalf of Xoid.--{{User:The General/sig}} 10:46, 26 October 2006 (BST)
 
===22:00, 1 November 2006===
Major Gage Spaminated my suggestion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&diff=444656&oldid=444356 limits to multi class] without there being any votes on the matter.{{unsigned|SporeSore|}}
:That diff comparison is over the course of four hours of voting and is deceptive! I believe you are looking for [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions&diff=next&oldid=444444 this].--{{User:Gage/sig}} 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 
Pretty easy one here...
From Section 3 re: the Rules on making a suggestion.
 
''A Moderator can '''if they so choose''' delete any suggestion with '''three''' or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps. This includes their own spam vote.''
 
'''OBVIOUSLY''' Not Misconduct. The next time you bring a case 1. make sure you have reviewed the History properly and 2. Sign your damn complaint. and 3. When making a Suggestion have a look through the peer rejected 1st.  [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
===07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)===
Seriously, I don't like to do this, but your permaban of that Appelflappenator guy was jumping the gun a bit. '''Two''' positive contributions, '''a couple''' neutral, and '''two''' naughty ones. I'll admit that it (superficially) looks more like '''two''' positive contributions, '''one''' neutral, '''three''' naughty ones… but you are supposed to look at the edits in context. I'm surprised really, you're usually much more careful than this.
 
Considering this wasn't a pressing case, you could quite easily have merely reported it and get a second opinion, but you did not. Thus I consider this misconduct. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
:I genuinely thought he was a bad faith contributor... I should have gotten a second opinion. A well, hindsight is 20/20, right? Sorry guys.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 07:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
'''Misconduct''' - I think I deserve a two hour ban, and Xoid has agreed with me over IM.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 07:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
===06:20, 12 November 2006===
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AModeration%2FVandal_Banning&diff=455230&oldid=455228 Revealed] data gathered through CheckUser without meeting the criteria set forth in the [[UDWiki:Privacy_policy|Privacy policy]]. Moderators ''need'' this tool to research vandalism but in cases where no obvious threat of vandalism exists there is no need to release the information about the identity of alts or their IPs to readers in general. This is likely the most obvious case in which it was ''not'' reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Urban Dead wiki, its users or the public. As I am unaware of any precedent for this I am unsure what measures would be most appropriate to discourage this among mods in the future. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:I never released his IP, brightspark.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 06:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARev._Bubba_Flavel&diff=391670&oldid=391271 Precedent]--{{User:Gage/sig}} 06:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::I hope you do not find this to be a form of personal attack. I feel that the privacy policy has been ignored in several cases by more than one moderator and I feel we need some form of definition as to whether we are observing it or not. Again please don't take it personally. I chose this case as it does not involve authors other than Kevan but I feel even Kevan deserves the respect of the policy he put in place. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:A new user shows up and immediately starts giving their input on a case on [[M/VB]]; nine times out of ten they've been sock puppets. Checking the identity was not misconduct. Revealing it was. Gage says he was under the mistaken impression it was allowable, because of [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Rev._Bubba_Flavel&diff=391670&oldid=391271 this] edit. He had assumed Bob used CheckUser to find that out, when it was merely an educated guess. (There were two suspects, and he had knowledge of it being either Scinfaxi or Jjames from the ASSault's forum. He picked one and ''hey!, what'd ya know?'')
:Although Gage should've read the guidelines, I believe this was an honest mistake. I'm not sure what the punishment should be either, but bearing that in mind [mistaken impression] I do think that anything exceeding a warning would be overkill, even that would be, truth be told. (For future reference: I believe a warning for a deliberate and knowing violation would be warranted though.)
:Make it a warning and leave it at that? –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 
:'''Edit:''' is there a lesser penalty available for this case specifically, given the circumstances? –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.th7.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 06:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
::You could always tell me not to do it again. I will admit to not reading the fucking manual, and Kevan didn't seem miffed by the unveiling. Now that I know the rules, I won't do it again.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 06:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::I would like to see this case serve as an initial ''polite warning'' to all of us mods that this should be a warnable offence. If that seems fair to everone one I hope we can let it go at that. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 
::Is it possible to de-"CheckUser" him for a short period of time? I think it shows that we're serious about this not happening again, doesn't hurt the wiki, etc. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 00:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 
===05:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)===
Gage seems to have deleted UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/The_Official_Secrets_Act , I had just finished writing the proposition, hit refresh and was very surprised to see that it was infact marked for speedy deletion meerly 10 mins after creating. At speedy deletions page my freshly created policy four paragraphs long was awaiting votes along with Gages comments ( Stupid Criteria ) , upon hitting refresh it disappeared after being for 2mins.   The Policies created should be reviewed by ALL and not declared stupid by one individual.This Wikipedia is by the people for the people, why was my awaiting policy deleted before being reviewed by others? The only remaining trace of my page is on http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/M/PD#Under_Discussion    (11:30pm -12:30am Feb 13 2007)
:See [[M/D]] and quit bitching. This isn't a "wikipedia". As for your policy? Editing another group's page or another user's userpage is already prohibited by our rules here at [[M/VB]]. Actually, [[User:Thari|Thari]] deleted it the first time, I only deleted it when you recreated the page.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Not misconduct''' - The page was deleted by the accepted rules clearly laid out on the deletions page [[M/D]]. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 05:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:'''Not misconduct''' - Read before doing things like this.--{{User:Thari/sig}} 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that then, my only point is that for policies, it shouldn't be only few in control for who decides what, but that the page was only in for discussion and was subject to change by any user to how they saw fit. Instead of denying the public access to their own opinion.  --[[User:EqualPower|EqualPower]] 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:My point is that you need to figure out how a wiki works before you start suggesting changes.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 
===03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)===
I rather not see myself starting this case, but I can't see constant chatting with Gage as a solution, as I already asked him but he seems to understand what he wants. He has changed [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines]] in a way that chages the spirit of the policy text without community's approval not [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines&diff=560620&oldid=560478 once] but [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=560949 twice], claiming to follow the text of [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Sysops_are_not_Moderators|this policy]]. The policy clearly states that:
*Any page under the Moderation space would have Moderation replaced with Administration, and
*Each official document ranging from the System Operator Guidelines to the Suggestions page would have any mention of Moderator replaced with System Operator, and Mod replaced with Sysop.
There's absolutely ''no mention'' of the changes he made, including changing "Moderator" mentions to a new term deemed "Administrators", or the adding of '''a whole new section''' not approved by any policy voted on, in discussion or anything else. After the flagrant vandalism, he has [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines&diff=560952&oldid=560949 protected the page], thus making revertion of his chage impossible for me or any other normal user that notes the change, including [[User:Jedaz|the user that originally wrote the policy and may know what the policy spirit is about]].
 
This kind of action can be taken as simple "misinterpretation" as Gage participated on the policy discussion and early on the policy
had his motion for the new names for Moderators be changed to "Administrators" rejected by a huge majority. The changes to be made by the policy itself were very clearly stated in the policy's text and shouldn't be left to interpretation of a singe user in spite of the community as a whole. If Gage has a project that needs a future change of the text of the Guidelines in a way that resembles the changes he has actually made, he should include those changes on his own policy discussion and make them go trough the community, not forcing those changes under the disguise of enforcing a very different policy. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 03:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:I changed it back because you couldn't write worth a damn. Random words in the middle of a fucking sentence should not be capitalized. I didn't have time to do a massive page edit again because I am trying to study for Calculus II douchebag. I have a test tommorow, and I can't be arsed spending thirty minutes finding every little instance of "admin" or "administrator" and changing the words over. Some other mod can clean up the page if it is that big a deal. Quit bothering me. I'm tired of your shit Matt. Fuck off.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 03:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Proof of how much you can lie in need of defending yourself. I'm not your friend, but neither I'm your enemy: I want the new policy to be enforced "as it is". Sorry, but it is clear that you meant the Guidelines to stay as you changed them, after adding that new section at the beginning and all. My changes, may them be capitalized beyond your liking or not, were correct and followed the policy text word by word, and they were obviously prefferable than your "administrator" changes, yet you wanted them to stay. I'm not discussing this with you anymore, as I don't like to be insulted by a guy that considerates total knowledge of a certain language as knowing every term to curse and morally assault your opponent on a discussion. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:This policy change is going to take a while to smooth out. How about we use the talk page of the document in question, rather than fighting it out here? If you could go into a bit of detail about what the problem is, there? If it's just the use of sysops instead of admin, that's easily fixed (but there's plenty of other instances around to deal with. There's no rush -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::The policy is very clear Boxy. It states what kind of words should be changed to what in wich pages, all in order to avoid the confussion that carried with it the "Moderator" term when used on people like Gage. To go from a simple word for word change to add a whole section to the most important policy document without community's approval, and ignoring that you lost a discussion early on the policy discussion page and adding the changes you ''wanted'' to add instead of those that you ''should'', is '''blatant bad faith'''. He deserves punishment only for that, not mentioning that he insults me personally and my origins as a Spanish speaker. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 03:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::The only thing I did with that page was try to make it less confusing for someone who didn't understand what sysop meant. I didn't know until Mia told the talk page of the policy. Then, you came and fucked It all up with Random Capitalized words and Such. The initial edit was good faith. The reversion was fixing your fuck up. The protection was to keep you from doing it again. The added section was to avoid more work since I don't see the difference anyway. Jesus Christ Matt, drop the fucking conspiracy theory.
:::Insulted your origins as a Spanish speaker? Pulease. One of my favorite people on the wiki speaks Spanish as his first language. What is the difference between you and Thari? He isn't a blithering idiot.
:::I'm going to leave it to Boxy to do with the policy as he sees fit. We seem to have been FARKed and the wiki is slow as hell. I've also got to figure out how to compute arc lengths and surface areas of irregular shapes using integrals in the next few hours. I don't care what it says as long as it looks presentable; "system administrator" is not a proper noun. This is my last edit on this subject, as I don't like fighting a battle of the wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 04:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I will change most of the instances of admin back to sysop, if the wiki will let me... slow as hell. I don't see it as bad faith, he did ask politely on your talk page at first, and explained his reasoning -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 04:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't see his changing from "Moderator" to "Arbitrator" as bad faith myself Boxy, not the adding of the section as intended to change the Guidelines into a text that favores himself and other mods even more obeying some kind of conspiracy theory as Gage states. What I do see as bad faith is:
::::*Total disrespect for what the policy text say and was approved by the majority in favor of his own idea of what it should say. Gage considers his judgements beat the majority's vote.
::::*Blatant disregard of normal users attempts to correct his own mistakes by reverting them. Gage hates being contradicted by another users he repeatedly deemed inferior.
::::*Obvious abuse of Moderator abilities in order to prevent further good faith edits and changes in the policy in order to mantain a certain sense of pride, even when I stated that I won't change the policy text anymore as long as he ''follows the text of the policy when doing it himself'', thing that he did not. Gage pride is more important than the correct way to do things.
::::That is bad faith in the purest form. The intention of the text that he added himself can be interpreted, but the manner, the intention that he had at the moment of adding it and his blatant disregard for other people's opinion, even when there's a majority backing up said changes, in order to favoritize his own judgement shows what kind of person Gage is. He obviously now martirizes himself as he demonizes me. You should skim under the insults and bring up the facts. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Come now, it's not bad faith in it's purest form, although his protection of the page was clearly against the rules set down on the very page he was protecting. There wasn't heavy vandalism, or even a ''protracted'' edits war, and no request was made for the pages protection (by {{Usr|Gage}} or anyone else). Protections shouldn't be used to save yourself from dealing with disagreements, or to protect a page against grammatical errors -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, it must be the pressure of being insulted and forcing myself to be polite in return. I may have been dramatic by saying that it was bad faith in it's purest form, but it was indeed bad faith. The protection being the most obvious, but the disregard of community's judgement being peraphs the most serious one. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:This is '''not misconduct'''. Its a little late now but ... [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines]] should have been protected at the same time as [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Guidelines Rehashed]] if not earlier. By protecting the page Gage has accomplished what should have been done months ago. Matt's hurt feelings and the possible waste of his good faith efforts would have been spared if this had not been unattended. As Matthew has pointed out, in the end the page ''should'' reflect ''only'' the changes expressed in the [[UDWiki:Moderation/Policy_Discussion/Sysops_are_not_Moderators|policy]]. After that has occurred any user should be able to preform a diff comparison to the version presented before the policy was accepted (10:21, 14 December 2006) and see easily see these changes. I believe boxy has now [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FGuidelines&diff=561492&oldid=492767 accomplished this]. Any further discussion on the page content itself should be directed to [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Guidelines]]. --{{User:Max Grivas/sig}} 05:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 
===04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)===
Well, you can only really see it in the Recent changes, but he keep deleteing a "Vandal Created Page" that *I* created. Since when was I a vandal?  Page in question: [[User_talk:Gold_8lade]]. I know Gold Blade is supposed to be banned, but damnit, you do NOT have to keep deleting a page where I was carrying on a legit conversation, especially after *I* was the one to revert all of Blade's vandalisms! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:By responding to the vandal with anything other than a swift block you are only validating his activities. Congrats. He wanted me in misconduct, you put me there. Why don't you just give him a medal and a trophy while you're at it?--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::And how, exactly, am I supposed to block him? Did it ever occur to you that most Wiki vandals are people who are disgruntled, and that a friendly chat might help them mend their ways? Nope! Better to lay on the smackdown! Prove who has the bigger dick! Good going. There was a way to handle that situation, and what you did wasn't the right way.  IF anything, he is now MORE likely to come back and vandalize the wiki. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::He's been vandalising since damn near day one. He uses proxies to avoid bans, and breaks damn near every rule we have time and time again. He was one of the driving forces behind the halloween spree that never happened (although plenty of vandalistic advertisting of the impending non-event did). He has proven that, even when given the benefit of the doubt that he will vandalise. He will be given absolutely no mercy. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Well I'm sorry. I didn't know that, and it still gives him no right to delete a page that *I* made! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
::Agreed. Procedure is that vandals get blocked. If you want to chat with them before they get blocked, fine. But not after. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The conversation I had with him WAS before he got blocked! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::And it ends when they are blocked. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::It probably would have, had Gage not overreatcted. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::The golden rule is "don't override a sysop's administrative actions". You either try to convince them, or take it to misconduct. Instead you overrode his actions. There are procedures in place to prevent edit wars and stupidity like this from escalating and you didn't follow them. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
:And now, supposedly, if I recreate the talk page again, I get a 24 hour ban.  Keep an eye on this one, folks! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Recreation of deleted pages is a bannable offense, but deletion of pages that are not scheduled for deletion without going trough the normal channels is Misconduct. That talk page, no matter how much Gage wants it, isn't vandal created: he should have protected it from further edits as any vandal talk page, but he deleted it. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Vandal created pages have been deleted with impunity before. They serve no purpose. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::An addendum to that; even vandal's talk pages are. The only reason they're protected at all is to prevent recreation. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::So you're saying I'm a vandal? Cause you're referring to Vandal created pages, and a page that I made was deleted as such, so you must be saying that I'm a vandal. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::If Matt feels like using the 'must go through proper procedure' argument, then yes, you are. You're supposed to request undeletion of the article, not recreate. Speedy Deletion criterion 6. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Xoid, Mia's action don't justify Gage's bypass of the current procedures. Let me get this: Defending a friend over the rules is part of you being impartial and me not, right? --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Of fucking course not. You could try reading the post I made not long before you made this one. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::The page we are talking about '''wasn't vandal created''': Mia created it. The "addendum" you make has no rule or precedent backing it up: vandal user and talk pages get protected for the entire span of their bans. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::See response. Catch 22 is a bitch, ain't it boy? –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::I think she is talking about this part of what Gage said when he deleted it: "# (Deletion log); 04:23 . . Gage (Talk | contribs) (deleted "User talk:Gold 8lade": you create this page again Mia, and it is a 24 hour ban. '''Guildlines be damned'''. )"--[[User:Amanu Jaku|Amanu Jaku]] 04:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::That came later, but is certainly relavant. It's clear to me that Gage isn't fit to be Sysop if he's willing to violate the guidelines. Xoid is dangerously close, defending him. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
Xoid, my actions DO NOT excuse Gage.  If you want to report me for Vandalism, fine.  It would be pleasantly ironic to get reported for vandalism shortly after reverting several blanked page.  Either way, Gage needs to be dealt with for his actions. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Mia - you need to calm down. You both screwed up, but Gage moreso. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Of course not. He violated two rules, one of which you seem to have forgotten. "Threatening using sysop status" and "unwarranted deletion". He should still get punished, but I am highlighting the annoying crap that everyone seems to forget. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Good. It's nice to see you agree with me. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
The Path from helper to "vandal", a short report on the inevitable demise on wiki users by [[User:Karloth vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 04:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Troll somewhere else. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 04:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
 
You know what is funny guys? '''''I don't care.''''' I'm not going to post on this page anymore. I'm going to go do something worthwhile, like write this paper I have due tommorow. Sirens, take your wiki drama and shove it up your ass. Seriously. Oh, and while you are at it, drop the act: '''''everyone knows you are a man. You've admitted it to me yourself over AIM.''''' You have to be one of the most delusional people I have ever met on the internet. Leave me alone, and quit encouraging (and committing) vandalism. It no longer amuses me.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 04:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:It's nice to see how much you're letting this get to you.  And people tell ME I need to calm down. *eye roll* --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:You're the complete troll, you knew it? it's not like anyone cares what Mia does with his or her life, but you brought it up only in order to make you look better. What a waste of a person you are... --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::As are you. As am I. As is Cyberbob. The moment someone or something pisses you off, we all react the same. Begrudge him not. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:This is pretty clear misconduct--whatever one may think of the ends, the means are not justified, as Gage's responses suggest. I'm growing pretty tired of seeing the "but I know best as an angry, wearied mod" argument--if someone grows so tired of dealing with bad behavio(u)r that they can't do it in a civil (i.e. drop the ad hominem) and rules-bound fashion, they ought to step away and find something else less stressful to do. Think of the big win of saying "I told you so" after you walk away and the wiki goes to hell because you're not there anymore. --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
 
What's his current warning/ban level? '''Misconduct''', warning/ban++, case closed. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Where is this data recorded? --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::It isn't yet. It took me fifteen tries to get what I've been trying to say in, gimme a minute will ya? –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh, by all means, take your time.  I'm just not aware of where it is.  Vandal data, or somewhere else? --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::A/VD. I gave him his second warning just now. Funnily enough, he's blocked himself for three days. Technically that's misconduct too. Oh how I love these rules… –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Xoid, his first warning should be striked out. Also, you should recreate the deleted page and then protect it, isn't that the right thing? About the selfblock, don't worry, I don't report things done in '''good faith'''. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Restored, not recreated. It'll be done in a second. You're right about the first warning needing to be struck as well. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes it is. Lets bring up another case! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Luckily enough, good faith is excused. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
HEY GUYZ WUT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 06:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:OH NOES, TEH DRAMA QUEER GOT GAGE BANNED!!11!!one!! --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Aside from the blatant homophobia and ad hominem attack, is it really appropriate for a mod to be trolling as well? Come on, guys, whatever may frustrate you about things, can't we keep things civil? --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Um, I wasn't being a troll. There's a big difference between random spam and trolling, you know. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Apologies for the misunderstanding CB, was referring specifically to Hagnat's remark. Yours was, I agree, just random spam, and I, at least, had no issue with it. The generalis/zation "guys" was meant to encompass those mods who have gone out of their way to show incivility on this page. --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Righto then. No worries. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
===05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)===
(Block log); 23:04 . . Gage (Talk | contribs) (blocked "User:Gage" with an expiry time of 3 days: OH SNAP MOTHERFUCKERS. I'M NOT COMING BACK FOR 3 DAYS!)
 
Blatant Misuse of SysOp privileges, even if it was used on himself. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:''sigh'', '''not misconduct'''. Turning yourself into the authorities is hardly bad faith. Bad faith is the prerequisite for misconduct. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Jesus Christ, grow the fuck up, man.  ''Please''.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 05:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Technically, it is the appropriate level considering [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage#07:37.2C_10_November_2006_.28UTC.29|these]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage#06:20.2C_12_November_2006|two]] rulings never made it to A/VD. Or are enough edits in-between? I am shaky on that rule. --[[User:Amanu Jaku|Amanu Jaku]] 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Those two rulings would've required his last warning be a 48 hour. I remember them though, they were recorded against him, and wore off. Seems shit has been removed from VD, instead of <s>struck out</s> like it was meant to be. If someone dig through the diff. comparisons, that'd be handy. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::You talk about diff comparissons from the [[A/VD]] page? also, if you can add a clarification that warnings should be striken and not deleted, it would come handy: the page is protected, I can't do it myself. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Yup, thems the one. Good idea too. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::After checking I came to the conclussion that [[User:Gage|Gage]] Misconduct warnings were ''never added'', in the first case when they should and in the second case because it was consensus for the case to be used as a "polite warning" for all current mods and not Gage alone (first Checkuser offense ever on this wiki). I'm 99% sure that, if added, the other warning would have been striken by now too. If you want to add it, the date is 10 of November, and it should be second warning (it was made before the guidelines change). --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::I just trawled 2 months of diff comparisons, Nov 1 - Jan 12 - they never got added. I didn't see anything get removed that should have been either - just some strikes. (Beat me to it Matt - Damn simulpost) --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Really? Could've sworn… I'll manually add it using the timestamp from Gage's last post in that case. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|S]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.net F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::What's the thinking behind striking out spent warnings instead of deleting them? --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::::It's there to show how people have changed. Deleting just kills info, and striking is easy, so remembering that someone was once warned in the past isn't a big deal - you can see if they've reformed or are just biding there time between vandalism periods. (Did that make sense? It seemed kinda convoluted) --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 16:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::It was perfectly clear, thanks. I can see a case for removing the warnings outright too, there's some nice 'forgive and forget' symbolism that way. Although I'm a little biased on this subject ;-) --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, can someone explain to me why I had to fight through six or so edit conflicts to post something, and it's STILL gone? --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:Nevermind.  All's well now.  Peace out! --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 05:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
Just to remember some folks around here... it was a common practice for mods to ban themselves after their misconduct cases reached a negative veredict. This way he could leave a message, discuss for a short while the ruling, and then ban self when he accepted the fact. It was never misconduct, and i hope never become. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:But if we actually exercised common sense, we wouldn't be able to generate any type of drama at all, Hagnat!  ALL MODS MUST BE PUNISHED!<br />Banning mods/sysops for misconduct is just plain fucking stupid.  It's a stupid mechanism and doesn't do anything but create more work for the remaining sysops because they are short by one.  This entire process encourages back-faced rules lawyering from weasels like Celsius or whatever - people who have an agenda and will use the most minor of words to alter the interpretation of some strange, obscure "rule" (as if this shit were the fucking code of Hammurabi) if it will allow them to get someone LOLZ BANND for a day or whatever.<br/>Way to reward your civil servants, dudes.  Top-fucking-notch.--[[User:Jorm|Jorm]] 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
::Jorm, stop trolling and go back to your own stupid game (and yes, that's an ad ludinem attack). Your remark concerning the banning of sysops is, to use your very mature phrasing, 'plain fucking stupid.' Sysops, like any other users, can act badly and there needs to be a mechanism that responds to this behavior. Your reasoning, such as it is, is very poor, and more or less attempts to endorse the "I NOZE BEST COZ I AM MOD" kind of behavior, or similar excuses for such behavior, which fundamentally decides that because rules can be abused, they essentially don't matter at all. EDIT: and nice misreading of "common practice" as "common sense." Not the same thing, as I hope you now realize, post-rant. --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 18:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 
===01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)===
Gage violated the Deletion page policy rules by [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions&curid=2721&diff=551594&oldid=551591 ending a vote] before even 24 hours had elapsed, and did so at the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Gage&curid=19258&diff=551742&oldid=551608 behest] of [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Gage&curid=19258&diff=551810&oldid=551742 his] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Gage&diff=next&oldid=551810 friends]. I can also prove that he was not doing it to "squash wiki drama" because he left ''all of the other'' '''related''' deletion requests, and then left with parting words of "'''Kept''' - and yes, I know it is early. Bite me.--''[[User:Gage|Gage]]'' 22:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)". {{unsigned|akule}}
:Oh God, not the C4NT drama again.  That was a personal attack, and thus was abusing the Deletions page.  YOU should be in trouble, not Gage.  Also, that was a month ago.  Rather interesting timing, no?--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, it was clearly violating the rules of the wiki through the [[UDWiki:Copyrights]]. Regardless, it required 7 days to be put through. As for this misconduct request, I don't see any rules saying how much time can elapse between the violation and the request. I asked if this was considered misconduct, and guess what: It is. --[[User:Akule|Akule]] <sup>[[Journal:Akule|Akule News]]. </sup> 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::On top of that, he didn't delete the other requests related to it, meaning that he abused his moderator powers against someone he disliked as a favor for his friends. --[[User:Akule|Akule]] <sup>[[Journal:Akule|Akule News]]. </sup> 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::well, i would like to rule '''not misconduct''' on this, since this was a month ago... and you even forgot to add a misconduct case against me for the same cause, so you are just kicking gage while he is down in the ground... which shows how amazing of a person you are. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 02:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Seconded that. Not misconduct.--{{User:Thari/sig}} 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::Akule's an ass, no doubt, but just to clarify, how does this being a month ago, and/or being a fault shared by another sysop make it not misconduct? Mind you, I'm not saying I think it should be regarded as misconduct necessarily, but just would like clarification, even if Akule's an ass (did I say that already?). If it's technically misconduct per the rules for deletion page policy rules, then either the rules need amendation or we have to accept this as misconduct, no? Oh, and one more time for the people in the back: Akule's an ass. --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, I would risk to say that Gage's early withdrawal of the deletion request was following the desires of the community, and as such good faith (altough followed on his clasic style, "bite me" and all). The same would apply for Hagnat's removals and all that. Don't try to follow the rules so closely as you would reach idiotic conclussions, as Gage banning himself could have been Misconduct that way: Such actions, if they're made in the frame of good faith, are ignored unless they become harmful for the community. This is obviously not the case. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Fine with me--I'm certainly not in support of Akule's game, just wanted someone to put it under an appropriate classification vs. age/shared fault, which didn't seem quite right for rejecting this charge. --[[User:Barbecue Barbecue|Barbecue Barbecue]] 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 
I concur with Hagnat and Thari. It plainly can't mean that much to you if it takes you a whole freakin' month to notice it, and it was plain that the community supported his actions anyway (as evidenced by the fact that nobody reported it at the time - I'm sure someone would have noticed it). --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 08:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 
 
===08:51, 26 March 2007===
[[Special:Log/block|Unbanned]] [[User:Captain Jack Testes|Captain Jack Testes]] over his disagreement with a Misconduct case Thari had already ruled on. As far as I can tell, Gage doesn't possess any more authority than any of the other sysops, so it is rather intriguing that he believes it is justifiable for him to overrule Thari's ruling and then assume that his own "ruling" is unassailable and final. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 08:51, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:The current misconduct system is highly flawed and very open to this sort of infighting. A decision wholly dependant upon the first to decide is too arbitrary. Especially when it is open to interpretation and multiple rules apply. Having equal authority means that every voice that wants to be needs to be heard in this sort of cases. not just the one who just happens to be around. I propose we move to a consensus system with a verdict needing seconding. That said, Gage shouldn't have taken action while it was still being discussed. But at no point has first to come is first to decide ever been blanket applied to stifle out discussion. Cyberbob you yourself have never hold yourself too zealously to that rule if you disagreed with the outcome. However by taking action instead of waiting Gage made an error. He should have waited until there was consensus in his favour before changing.
 
:Also this case has too high a tit-for-tat feeling that I really don't feel is appropriate. This page is not for fighting out personal animosities.
 
:My Verdict, Gage gets a slap on the wrist for not waiting until the case was resolved. If anybody agrees or disagrees. Please, do tell.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 10:22, 26 March 2007 (BST):
::Agree, bad form rather than misconduct. But then, that applies to this (seemingly) retaliatory misconduct case too -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 10:41, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:::Retaliatory? I hold no ill will towards Gage. He's only doing what he feels is the right thing. He might be misguided, but I don't feel he's being malicious. How could I be motivated by revenge if I don't think the other person is out to get me? --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 10:43, 26 March 2007 (BST)
::::If you feel that he is acting in good faith (ie "He's only doing what he feels is the right thing"), then it's not misconduct, is it, just a difference of opinion? -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 10:50, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:::::No, no, no... I made this case because of Gage's jumping the gun with the unbannage. Misconduct is more about judgemental errors than actual bad faith (although that can sometimes play a part). --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 10:59, 26 March 2007 (BST)
::::::It would be quite easy to avoid the appearance of retaliation when next time somebody argues against you in a misconduct case, you let somebody else handle the actions of that person and abstain from it yourself entirely.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 11:01, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:::::::I actually did so, until it became clear that either nobody had noticed him perform the act or that nobody was planning to react to it. It had been nearly 3 hours... --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 11:07, 26 March 2007 (BST)
::::::::Probably, simply be a case of no other sysop being online. But I meant it more in the way of official actions, a comment in the original case certainly make sure it wouldn't go unnoticed and be far less prone to misinterpretation. That way you'd prevent a lot of misinterpretation and you don’t have to go into this sort discussions.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 11:44, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:::::::::No other sysop online? How is that relevant (or probable)? It doesn't take a sysop to start up a Misconduct case. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 12:11, 26 March 2007 (BST)
::::::::::It's only relevant because it is quite likely most users are not particularly knowledgeable about the rules concerning the behaviour of sysops during  misconduct cases concerning other sysops. And that they can't ban or unban of course. It wasn’t particular relevant, just a small aside. I’m not really in the mood to start arguing with you just for the sake of arguing. You gave an impression you didn’t want to give, I gave some advice how you could avoid making that impression. It’s really up to you if you think my advice will work for you or not.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 12:47, 26 March 2007 (BST)
:::::::::::Fine. I'll think about it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Hubrid Nox]] <sup>[[UDWiki:Administration|Sys]] [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]  [[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Witch Burners|B!]]</sup> 12:50, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Revision as of 22:13, 3 January 2009

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage&oldid=1354039"