UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/LibrarianBrent/2005

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)