Forums: Index War Room Admin behaviour revisited
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Not long ago the community raised some concerns regarding the attitudes and behaviour of admins in general as well as concerns over how user issues were being handled. With another user causing some distress to the community, I feel that it is once against time to review the manner in which issue was dealt so that we can avoid potential conflicts and misunderstandings in the future.

While I think the 5-day block on TheManOfIron was appropriate given his recent actions, I do not feel that it was completely justified given the circumstances. TMOI's most recent outburst was the result of edits to trivia sections on FG42 and DP28, in which an anonymous user politely raised the revert issue to WHISKEY35. TMOI launched an angry tirade at a remark comparing his actions to Hitler, which in itself was an intimidating action, but he posted it on Whiskey35's talk page instead of the anon's. Whiskey35 had every right to ask TMOI to cease and desist, but not like this.

If we're going to block users for intimidation and harassment, then admins should be not be taking posts personally and threatening to block users. Admins should warn users of the consequences of their actions, not threaten to use them. Personally blocking another user for comments made directly to the admin is a conflict of interest, and must be dealt with by another admin following the same processes. This was done by Callofduty4 in a prompt manner, though it was not necessary for Whiskey35 to write hostile correspondence to TMOI. An admin is not above a user. To see that sort of commenting from an admin is quite intimidating, and while TMOI may not have the best track record on the wiki, I'm afraid that inappropriate admin attitude contributed to his departure on bad terms. As a community, we should remember that conflicts are seldom caused by a single user, and that all users who are involved with conflicts need to be notified and warned appropriately, even if they are admins.

Secondly, TMOI's Block notification is extremely...inappropriate. Bovell and I have expressed our concerns on Callofduty4's talk page, but I feel it necessary to make it public here. It's really not that hard to write a polite notification or template for a block. Pulling off gimmicks is what pre-teen users do, not admins. I cannot take that block message seriously and it reflects poorly on the wiki's image. 1977 Constitution? Motherland? Premier Whiskey35? You might as well ban someone with "In Soviet Russia, wiki edits YOU".

That said, I want to take this opportunity as a reader and editor on CODwiki to ask admins to be fair and considerate in all cases of user issues and conflicts. A wiki functions effectively when its rules are followed and enforced. Admins cannot enforce rules if they break them. Small cases don't need to turn into public controversies. Let's take the practical, expedient option and focus on improving the wiki rather than getting into fights. --Scottie theNerd 15:18, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

TMOI did not attack/harass me. Therefore I wasn't biased when I gave the block - I judged what had recently happened and thought that it warranted a block. I even asked if other users supported the block on IRC - I would not have blocked him had other users not thought a block was necessary. The block notice was just a joke. It wasn't supposed to offend or upset him. I find it hard to believe some users cannot take a joke. I admire your wish for the admins to be fair and considerate - something we do actually strive to do. I'm happy you took the time to write this forum up because it does address some issues which need to be looked at. If you want I can take the block notice away and give him the normal one and then allow him to edit his talk page, but I refuse to go as far as apologizing. I do not feel TMOI deserves an apology - from me anyway. We even voted against permablocking him yet he still continues to be a problem - indicated by several users' responses on his talk page.
I do agree that sometimes things do get personal - but I stress that the joke block message was not personal and was only a joke. I completely agree that a user who has been attacked/harassed should not be blocked by the user he attacked/harassed, another administrator who was not involved in any argument should weigh up what happened and make the decision whether a block was warranted or not. If you want - you could make another forum regarding an addition to the COD:BP, which outlines that scenario, and I would fully support it.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  15:41, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Blocking users is not a game. We have a blocking template for a reason, and it shouldn't be altered for the intention of providing a "joke," as I'm sure the user in question won't find it very funny. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 17:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
I never said blocking users was a game, it's serious business and I always treat it as such, even though I was trying to be funny that time I still treated the block seriously and made sure to provide reasons for why he was blocked.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  17:52, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
You told him he was "thrown in the gulag for 5 days for the violation of several amendments of the 1977 Soviet Constitution". The only thing serious or legitimate in that sentence was the length of the block. While it may have been a joke to you, it's probably not to the recipient. You also told him that "You may not argue out your sentence" which disturbs me because, yes, in fact, he has every right to argue his block in a civil manner via his talk page if he feels that it is not just.
While most policies that you can get blocked for restrict what you can do, IAR is a policy that opens those things that the other policies normally prohibit if a special circumstance would make it so breaking that policy would actully be a good thing. The second line in the policy is there to keep people from using it for their own selfish ways out or into a situation as a failsafe, and it's not exactly something that you block people for.US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 20:56, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well I did still provide reasons for his block, and although I now know violating COD:IAR is not block-worthy, there were still 2 other valid reasons which I did provide, and although I did it in a very jokey tone it was serious.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  21:38, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my first remark that I posted however, I was just letting him know the that he would be blocked if he didn't settle down. Next time that happens I will make sure to be a "kinder, gentler Admin" in responding to some user that is out of control. TMOI, is hell bent on insisting that he get the last word in. Finally I had to be blunt and tell him to "stop talking to me". He still insisted on getting the last word in and responded yet again. I just stopped talking at that point and waited for another admin to show up in IRC. I was not about to take action without conferring with a senior/experienced admin. When an admin did show up, I let him know what happened and even posted the link to my talk page to show what happened. I felt like I was pretty much ignored as there was no response. I then waited for another veteran admin and that's when Cod4 showed up. Which led to TMOI getting blocked. I suggested he be blocked for 5 days as this is not the first time he was blocked for similar incidences. In light of the duration of the block, I think it is fair and considerate. Personal WHISKEY35 signature Talk 20:11, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Putting "blocked" and "funny" together is an oxymoron, as the two don't fit together. But considering this is the first time it has happened (it's the first, right?), we shouldn't take this "joke" THAT serious, though it did seem rather mean and rude.   Hax 217    talk-page  21:14, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

The number one rule of a joke is that it has to be funny. Honestly, if I had done something ridiculously stupid and trivial and he posted the exact same message on my talk page, I'd find that funny. Against a user who has gotten himself into hot water, lost his temper and earned a block; it's not. It's humiliation, and it shouldn't happen. Trouble users are still users and don't need to be ridiculed.
Nonetheless, this thread isn't to condemn the actions of the admins involved, but to applaud the processes that are being adhered to. Both admins above did the right thing, and I hope to see more of the same -- minus the gulag. --Scottie theNerd 22:06, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
And now that's the way you make a point. I completely agree with you, I'm always going to take the same route when dealing with situations like this, and yes, minus the gulag.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:13, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Because we know what happens when you put someone in a gulag...--Scottie theNerd 22:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, all too well. He's only there for 5 days. He should come out fine.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  22:25, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
@Whiskey: It's called "/ignore (insert name here)"Spock1nlmgrEnterprise 18:02, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion has been dead for over two weeks. Darkman 4 22:19, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.