Forum:About Danuhau's status

I had originally intended to create a forum discussing this topic months ago, but the general attitude towards the events which made me think it necessary suggested that such a forum would have done nothing at the time. However, given Boggy B's recent [ block] and change of heart on the matter, I figured it was time for this forum to be created so that this issue could finally be discussed in the proper location (and hopefully by the proper people, too!). So, without further ado...

'''At best, I believe that Danuhau has not used his admin rights particularly well in the ~8 months he has had them. At worst, I believe that having him in the role of admin/bureaucrat here has caused more harm to this wiki than good.''' As a result, I believe he should no longer possess these rights. My reasons for these assertions are as follows:
 * 1) For starters, although it is not my intent to somehow imply that the positive contributions Danuhau made on this wiki were not helpful, the majority of the contributions he has been making do not require admin rights, nor are they enhanced by having admin rights.
 * 2) *To elaborate, Danuhau has [ made] [ exactly] [ four] [ edits] (beyond those necessary for setting up achievements) which required admin rights to make. Of those, all of the changes made were minor: two were rearrangements of elements in the top navbar, and two were changes to the main page. Of the latter two, the former was a bit of an unusual choice (the news template (which, despite its name, appears to have served as a bit of a "call to action" for visitors to the wiki) he removed no longer existed, but this was because he [ moved it] to a new title), while the latter technically did nothing (double curly braces (syntax: ) assume the template namespace by default, so adding "Template:" there was redundant). Every other edit Danuhau made on this wiki could have easily been made without admin rights.
 * 3) While we're on the subject of editing, Danuhau has over 1100 edits now. This presumably indicates a large amount of effort which went into improving the wiki. To an extent, this is true. However, considering strings of edits like [ this], [ this], and [ this] (the first instances of such that I found in Danuhau's contributions, which all could have been made in half as many edits each (or even in one edit each)), it appears that Danuhau believes in quantity of edits over quality. In most cases, this would be a bit bizarre and inefficient, but not particularly noteworthy. However, Danuhau also [ added that he passed 1000 edits] as an item on the front page wikinews feed (incidentally, he also added an entry to said news feed about [ passing 1000 achievement points]). To me, this makes the instances where a large number of minor edits are made to a single page in a short period of time look like edit farming, a bad-faith practice which is generally not looked upon too favorably on wikis.
 * 4) As for the issues which I contend actively harm the wiki: first, there are the particulars of Danuhau's blocking practices. (Full block log, for convenience)
 * 5) * Now, it is not particularly difficult to block a user; what is difficult is knowing when to block, why to block, and for how long a user should be blocked. Ideally, as mentioned in this staff blog, blocks should generally only be given out if it is believed that the block will prevent damage to the wiki. Beyond blocking users for vandalism, I do not believe Danuhau has good enough judgement to be trusted with this tool.
 * 6) **As an example, we have the issue of [ the first in this series of blocks] (at the moment, I'm not too concerned about the massive increase in block time with the second entry, as [ Danuhau claimed that was an accident]). The reason given for this block ("Bad attitude") is rather vague, and the length of time the block is for (3 months) seems a bit disproportionate (a sentiment also echoed by [ all of] [ the other] [ active users] at the time). This alone is questionable enough. However, when [ Q*terplx asked why he had been blocked], the [ response he received] essentially just said that "admins can block for any reason" and gave no further explanation. Considering how Q*terplx was a good-faith contributor right up until he was blocked (and I would assert that said block hurt the wiki as a result), I would expect there to be some very good reasons for such a block, but said reasons have not materialized (and not for lack of asking; several requests for proof were made in this (unfortunately now deleted) forum). In this case, I can't help but conclude that Danuhau did not have the best interests of the wiki in mind when he made this block, regardless of his claims to the contrary.
 * 7) ** Additionally, it appears that something similar to the above has happened again with Boggy B's aforementioned block. From what I can tell, the context for this block is [ this edit] on Danuhau's talk page, in which Boggy B claimed to be leaving the wiki. Now, enforcing a user's heat-of-the-moment decision to leave the wiki with an infinite block seems to me like it would be highly inadvisable, as minds can (and, by the looks of the messages Boggy B posted on Community Central, do) change pretty easily. Considering how the user in question was constructive, highly active, and even described by Danuhau himself as "vital to the wiki", I can't really think of a way that him being blocked (especially indefinitely) could be spun as a boon to the wiki.
 * 8) I also do not believe that Danuhau's attitude towards other users and their edits is particularly healthy for the wiki.
 * 9) *To start off with something relatively minor, but still potentially harmful: Danuhau's usage of the rollback tool on clear good faith edits is a bit disconcerting, as the tool is historically only supposed to be used on vandalism due to leaving no room for an explanatory edit summary. This just seems more likely than not to drive well-meaning users away from the wiki.
 * 10) *To move onto a somewhat more severe point, we have [ this edit] (which is a response to [ this edit], which is in turn a response to [ this]). Putting aside the statement about potentially blocking PartHunter for "...[wanting] to make the wiki messy" (which is clearly not an assumption that is made based on good faith), I would like to point out that claiming he is "in charge" and saying that people should not do things which he says they should not do (in a case where, I might point out, PartHunter had strong reasons rooted in factual workings of MediaWiki software for his actions) make it sound like Danuhau thinks that he "owns" the wiki, or is acting as a steward for it until Orangitu gets back, or something. I would like to point out that this is a common mistake; the wiki is owned by its community, not any one user or admin, or even any group of users or admins.
 * 11) As a final point which also features prominently in several of the other points here (especially Q*terplx's block), I would like to express that Danuhau's general lack of willingness to be transparent in several of his actions concerns me. Considering how wikis are based upon giving one's fellow contributors a lot of trust (trusting them enough to assume good faith, for instance), it is a little bit disturbing for Danuhau to say "...I was not obligated to inform you as a random contributor." or "...I am not obligated to give any further reason than the basic formality." (whether there was more info to give or not) to users, even those who have been blocked or those without accounts. In my opinion, this lack of information sharing shows a lack of trust in the community, which in turn breeds a lack of trust in the admin (as shown by this forum existing at all).

Hopefully, that was a clear enough write-up of why I believe that Danuhau is not suited to adminship/bureaucratship on this wiki. Thank you for reading. Oscuritaforze (talk) 08:24, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

 * 1) It is recommended, but not required, that you read the entire discussion carefully before voting!
 * 2) If you support removing Danuhau's admin and bureaucrat rights, please add at least your signature to the support section.
 * 3) If you oppose demoting Danuhau, please add at least your signature to the oppose section.
 * 4) All discussion regarding this topic should go in the comments section.

Comments
Wow, that was really ALOT... I just have to sum up why I did the way I did in different situations. I hope all of the users who might want to state their opinion here will read my arguments aswell before they decide.


 * 1) I see your point about my edit count. Since this wiki only has 350 pages, I had to edit pages several times to reach that number. I often edit several pages at once, and I might only spot one thing I can change before I skip to the next window, and when I check it up again, I see another "flaw".
 * 2) Some users might seem to be "good faith users", but this does not always stay. Q*terplx did good at first, but he became rude. When I corrected something in his edits, he often corrected it back. Boggy did some useful contributions aswell, but he had a bad temper and was really rude towards some. At first, I spared him because he made a big effort here, but I could not be his guard dog for any longer, and decided to block him. After all, he said that his goal was to get admin rights, and when he did not get it, he was going to leave forever. I used the term "vital" once, and it was just for appreciation of his effort. I regret this now, since it has been dragget in several times, and he was not really the reason why this wiki lived.
 * 3) My will is to make this wiki structured, and when someone try to oppose that, I am not happy at all. I know that I did not answer nice to PartHunter that one time, but I regret it. He has proved to be useful, so I have given him positive feedback on later contributions. I did never state that I owned the wiki, I said that I was in charge, since I am the only active administrator.
 * 4) There are several reasons why I don't inform everyone why I block someone/why I acted in some way: It would be discomforting for several users if I told everyone why I act. I am an admin here, meaning that I administrate the wiki, and moderate the users. I cannot constantly inform every contributor why I do what I do.

I'm sorry that I cannot answer so long, but I have to spent the evening with my family. I am not perfect, but I do the best I can to maintain a good community here.

- Danuhau (talk) 18:05, October 25, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for responding more reasonably than I was expecting. Perhaps this discussion will go somewhere yet! Anyway:


 * In that case, I would suggest using the "preview" and "show changes" buttons rather than publishing edits right away. This way, you can see what changes you have made so far and how the page will look once you publish, which makes it a lot easier to make a whole bunch of small changes in one edit rather than in 10+ edits.
 * Before addressing this point, I would strongly, strongly recommend reading "Help:Assuming good faith", as this is a principle which wikis quite frankly cannot survive without, and I've noticed that it plays a key role in a lot of the issues I raised above. Now, on to the response:
 * In general, good faith contributors will sometimes have disagreements, and they will also sometimes behave poorly. However, the former will naturally occur in wikis and can often lead to positive change, the latter can usually be corrected without blocking, and neither of these things actually indicates that a user is no longer acting in good faith.
 * The thing with Q*terplx is that no warning or explanation was given prior to his block, and he didn't even have an opportunity to change whatever was "wrong" with his contributions before you blocked him (and it took an additional message to even get him the ability to discuss the block on-wiki). The situation escalated as it did due to the rest of the circumstances surrounding the block (block length disproportionate with the given reason, no evidence for the additional explanations, refusal to actually tell the blocked user himself why he was blocked, etc.), but the fact that the block came out of nowhere in the first place is (as it now occurs to me) the crux of the issue. And honestly: looking at his previous contributions here and on other wikis, there is very little doubt in my mind that if you had pointed out where you thought he was being rude and asked him to tone it down, he would have either agreed and complied or disagreed and discussed the issue with you.
 * (I'll respond to the part about Boggy B in multiple bullet points, as there is quite a bit of ground to cover here.)
 * About you calling him "vital to the wiki": the problem is that the context you said that phrase in was to convince him to make an account because you believed he deserved admin rights (though naturally "appreciation of his effort" would play a part in that). You are obviously free to change your mind about that, but Boggy B making it a goal of his to become an admin here is not really surprising in that light. And, frankly? Just looking at the edits from late August/early September using [ Special:RecentChanges] shows that Boggy B was practically the only source of contributions for weeks at a time leading up to his block (with the exception of an editing spree by AcerEvan). As a result, describing him as "vital to the wiki" is a statement which has some truth to it.
 * Now, the circumstances behind Boggy B's block are a bit different in that he actually has done things which are almost unequivocally worthy of being blocked for. Thing is, considering how he hadn't actually done those things in months at the time of his block, it either looks like this is a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation in that the thing that caused him to be blocked was far less severe than things he did long ago, or you blocked him for leaving the wiki. In either case, I stand by my initial statement that indefinitely blocking this user does not help the wiki, as the tool which stops the rudeness (which, as I've mentioned, can be handled in other ways) also stops the constructive edits.
 * It's good to hear that you regret the rudeness of your message to PartHunter, but I am still concerned by the content of said message. There's no reason why you can't have your say in what you think keeps the wiki structured, but other users should be able to do the same. The fact that you didn't respond to PartHunter's actual reasoning for categorizing categories* and instead said what you said seems to show that you do not feel the same way. This brings me back to my original point: in spite of the fact that you did not outright say that you own the wiki, your words in this situation still seem to imply that you believe something of the sort.
 * First off, I'm not actually expecting you to create a blog with detailed explanations every time you make a block, or anything of the sort – in general, the reason field in Special:Block is sufficient for the purposes I am talking about. However, two things to keep in mind:
 * It is important to only block with good reason if you don't want the wiki to eventually die due to lack of contributors (which is the principle behind Wikia's general policy of not interfering in local issues, by the way), and
 * Politely explaining the reasoning behind a block when the blocked user asks is helpful in that it reduces the probability of their repeating what got them blocked in the first place.
 * On another note, what exactly do you mean by the statement "It would be discomforting for several users if I told everyone why I act"? Are you saying that you think some users are uncomfortable with admin transparency, or...?


 * *For the record, this (taken from here) is what it looks like when you view a category page which has other categories in it.


 * Regarding the last statements: I'm the last person who would begrudge you being away from the wiki due to anything at all in real life, especially family time. Take all the time you need to respond to this forum as fully as you want to.


 * Oscuritaforze (talk) 00:57, October 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am not perfect. I will do what it takes to change if needed. I have now read through the article you linked aswell. Yes, I try to be reasonable, but sometimes it can be hard to be transparent. An admin cannot only be transparent, since I need to keep order here. My biggest concern at the moment is that the staff is suffering, since I did not get too much time with Orangitu before I was left on my own here.


 * I do want to make the right decisions when it comes to blockage of users. When I block them, I always provide my reasons. Sadly, when it comes to the disagreement with Boggy, he kept on stating that I had not given him any reasons. I do my best to keep this wiki alive. For example, I post recruitment links on facebook pages and groups linked with Worms and Team17. Also, a little bit off topic, I have re-added the template now known as "Recruit". I did not feel that "News" was a proper name for that template. But anyways, I will try to have at least two new admins in place by the end of the year.


 * Having a bigger staff is always a pro. I can then discuss my actions and thoughts on this wiki and how it should be managed. Oh, and about Q*terplx: The users hanging around here at the time probably heard it, but I do not think that you knew that I had talked to him on facebook before I blocked him. He came to me, and he was not friendly... So I determined that he was not fit for this wiki. And another thing about blockage: I did request a disable of anonymous editing here, which they granted. What do you think about it?


 * Your last note: The statement I came with explained that I did not want to expose the ones who had done a bad thing. A block could give them a punishment and time to think about ther action, but I could not go around to tell everyone because I would not have been comfortable if someone else should tell everyone what I did if I did anything wrong. One thing I forgot to mention earlier, is that I actually perform other admin duties, such as deletion of old pages, redirects, pictures etc.


 * As you may have understood, I am trying to be reasonable and forthcoming here. Maybe you still want to "take me to trial" as in demoting me, but I doubt that this is the right time. I advise you to bring it up once more when this community has reached an expansion, as of more users contribution here. Last, but not least: I remember that we have had disputes before, but I do not hold anything against you for that, and I hope you have moved on from that point aswell.


 * - Danuhau (talk) 20:47, October 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * "Yes, I try to be reasonable, but sometimes it can be hard to be transparent. An admin cannot only be transparent, since I need to keep order here."


 * First sentence: I understand what you mean, and I don't necessarily think that admins should have to disclose everything (as some things have specific, practical reasons for not being public). However, considering just how community-driven wikis are, doing things which seriously affect the wiki and/or its community (whether it be instating a major policy, blocking a prolific user, or anything in between) without explanation or gathering a consensus undermines the trust which wikis are based on.


 * As for the second sentence: I can't quite understand what you mean by that, exactly? If you mean you expect to encounter situations on this wiki where there is a mutually exclusive choice between keeping order on the wiki and explaining your reasoning behind a decision, then I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would go as far as to say that if an admin thinks that they have to sacrifice transparency regarding a decision they made solely due to the potential for disruption within the community, then I believe making such a decision in the first place was a mistake. (If you can think up a situation where you don't think this would be the case, please post it.)


 * "I do want to make the right decisions when it comes to blockage of users. When I block them, I always provide my reasons. Sadly, when it comes to the disagreement with Boggy, he kept on stating that I had not given him any reasons."


 * I believe I've identified a key point of disagreement here: you say you always provide your reasons for blocking a user, but the issues are that you aren't specific with your reasons, and the reasons you give are not self-evident enough to stand on their own without comment. To use the recurring examples:
 * When you blocked Q*terplx, the reason in the block field was "Bad attitude.", while there were several other additional reasons* given in the discussion that followed.
 * With Boggy B, I assume this contains your reasons for blocking him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but points 1 and 2 look more like means of establishing context than anything else, so I'll assume that points 3 and 4 were the actual block reasons.
 * *From [ the initial conversation on your talk page]: "Bad attitude towards contributors, and having a superior behavior", some vague mentions of things you can only see with admin tools, and problems which apparently occurred on other wikis he frequented. From the deleted Forum:I can't believe this.: making rude comments to a school friend of yours who commented on an article here, and "threatening" you when you offered him admin rights (I guess this was the Facebook thing you mentioned yesterday?) From [ the conversation Q*terplx started] after being blocked: vague implications that he hadn't done anything "terrible" (?).


 * In the case of Boggy B, one of the few specifics which was brought up regarding his rudeness was this post, where he corrected a user who misspelled his name. Now, this couldn't possibly have factored into his block due to happening after the fact, so that leaves his "raging at vandals" as the only specific problem which was brought up. Thing is, this hasn't happened in months and months (and it didn't even happen last time [ Captain Falcon was here], which was at the beginning of August), so bringing it up doesn't make sense as a block reason as it doesn't show anything which needs to be changed for the block to be lifted (as said changes have already occurred), nor does it show anything harmful which was prevented by the block. As a result, it becomes much more difficult to tell what specific instances were factored into this block. (As for point 4, which actually does go into specifics: I've already given my opinion on the issue of making a post saying that one is leaving a wiki.)


 * In the case of Q*terplx (who is now called "Q*", apparently), none of the problems you cited were self-evident (seriously, at the time, I thought you had blocked him for three months for [ these] [ edits]), very few of them brought up specifics, and those that did didn't actually have any links to back them up (and there appeared to be nothing relevant in the deletion log, either).


 * If you are wondering why this is important, it all goes back to the issue of transparency and trust. If the evidence for something which you claim occurred doesn't show up anywhere on-wiki (and MediaWiki software logs everything), then it is reasonable for users of the wiki to call attention to this fact. (Of course, in such a situation, it is a good idea to assume that there has just been a mistake (if this would be a reasonable assumption to make, that is) in the spirit of assuming good faith.)


 * (Also, on a side note, I imagine that what Boggy B meant when he said you didn't give him any reasons for his block was that you left the "reason" field in Special:Block blank. That was resolved by the thread on your message wall on Central (as shown by his [ acknowledgement] of your reasons in this very forum), so the discussion is now over whether the block was justified or not.)


 * "For example, I post recruitment links on facebook pages and groups linked with Worms and Team17."


 * This is a bit off topic, but I'm a bit curious: what kind of a response did those links get?


 * "Also, a little bit off topic, I have re-added the template now known as "Recruit". I did not feel that "News" was a proper name for that template."


 * Thing is, that template wasn't supposed to have a static message, so a specific title like "Recruit" doesn't really suit it. For example, it was originally a [ call to action for people to edit Worms Revolution pages], then it was changed to be a [ reminder for users to sign their talk page messages], and so on until the present.


 * "Having a bigger staff is always a pro. I can then discuss my actions and thoughts on this wiki and how it should be managed."


 * Only staff? Or other contributors as well? Because the latter are just as important when it comes to deciding how a wiki should be managed as the former (something which is true on pretty much every successful traditional wiki). This goes back to the link to Help:Common mistakes, specifically the part there which reads, "One of the great things about wikias are that they're communities of like-minded fans, where everyone has a hand in making decisions as a group."


 * "Oh, and about Q*terplx: The users hanging around here at the time probably heard it, but I do not think that you knew that I had talked to him on facebook before I blocked him. He came to me, and he was not friendly... So I determined that he was not fit for this wiki."


 * Yeah, you never publicly said anything here about a Facebook conversation with Q*terplx that I know of. Was that the primary reason he was blocked, then? If so, then I'm not really keen on someone being blocked for something as difficult to verify, personal, and subjective as "being unfriendly in an off-wiki conversation" (particularly the fact that it was off-wiki), but that's still good context to have.


 * (Incidentally, would you be comfortable with posting a screenshot (with names/pictures/other identifying information removed, I would imagine) of the message in question? If not, I totally understand, but it would be extremely helpful to be able to see for the purposes of this discussion.)


 * "And another thing about blockage: I did request a disable of anonymous editing here, which they granted. What do you think about it?"


 * If the only reason you requested that anon editing be disabled here was due to the issues with Captain Falcon and/or the relatively small amount of anon vandalism which this wiki suffered, then I think it was probably too severe a response. With that change, the best result is that a bunch of vandals are discouraged from editing on the wiki while the well-intentioned users make accounts (which really doesn't seem to have happened); at worst, it puts an additional barrier in front of good faith anons which discourages them from editing. (And, for what it's worth, the single most prolific anon user this wiki has ever had (according to Special:WikiStats/anonbreakdown) was a constructive editor, but he hasn't edited here since shortly before anon editing was disabled.)


 * "Your last note: The statement I came with explained that I did not want to expose the ones who had done a bad thing. A block could give them a punishment and time to think about ther action, but I could not go around to tell everyone because I would not have been comfortable if someone else should tell everyone what I did if I did anything wrong."


 * Based on what you said about Q*terplx's block being based on a Facebook conversation, I can sorta understand what you mean by that first sentence (at least when it comes to this particular case).


 * However, the first part of the second sentence here contains what I believe is another key area of disagreement. In my opinion, the primary purpose of a block is to act as a preventative measure against damage to the wiki. Punishment, I feel, should be a secondary purpose at best – sometimes, it won't even be a factor.


 * As for the rest of the second sentence, I've already discussed that a bit, but I'll elaborate some more here. I agree giving the entire wiki a detailed explanation of what a particular user did to deserve a block apropos of nothing doesn't make much sense. However, if other members of the wiki can't figure out why the user was blocked and come to you for an explanation, then I believe they deserve that explanation as a potential check against abuse (doubly so if the user who was blocked doesn't understand why they were blocked).


 * "One thing I forgot to mention earlier, is that I actually perform other admin duties, such as deletion of old pages, redirects, pictures etc."


 * Thing is, similar to my point about it being easy to block a user, general maintenance/janitorial work like that can also be done by pretty much anyone. So much so, in fact, that many wikis just leave that stuff for (semi-)automated processes. Now don't get me wrong – cleanup work like that is important, it's just that it isn't anywhere near as important as many other parts of the admin position and is easy enough to do that it would only be notable for being done poorly.


 * "As you may have understood, I am trying to be reasonable and forthcoming here. Maybe you still want to "take me to trial" as in demoting me, but I doubt that this is the right time. I advise you to bring it up once more when this community has reached an expansion, as of more users contribution here."


 * The sentiment expressed in the first sentence is much appreciated, but I really don't think there's a "wrong time" for this stuff to be discussed. There may not be many people who do weigh in on this discussion, but I don't think the quantity of opinions gathered here is as important as having the discussion in the first place. (And I don't really see the problem in allowing opinions to trickle in over time.)


 * "Last, but not least: I remember that we have had disputes before, but I do not hold anything against you for that, and I hope you have moved on from that point aswell."


 * Some of the discussion in this forum was based on points I brought up in our earlier disputes which I believe are still relevant. Other than that, it's all in the past as far as I'm concerned.


 * Oscuritaforze (talk) 06:35, October 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to summarize this in short:


 * I do not disclose everything, but the blocked user do know what they have done wrong when they become blocked, so I just add a summary. If they don't knw their mistakes, they have not read Wikia's Terms of Use. If they reach out to me and complain even further, I am forced to list all reasons in the discussions to make them clear enough.
 * If I see one or two reasons to block a user, I might see more reasons later. That is why I add them afterwards. I will now gather all the reasons I have for why I blocked them, and post it in the block list. Then, there won't be any "vague reasons".
 * People can change, have different personalities, manage to pull them selves together to play innocent or whatever Q did. I know what he had done, but he managed to pretend he did not know.
 * I have already answered this before, but I do not own the wiki, and I am no freaking steward. Why would you even imagine that?
 * When it comes to the rollback tool for instance, I did not know how to use it. I had to try it out. It is not a big deal to use it the same way as to undo an edit, because the edit is not good enough if I revert/rollback it. It is basically the same.
 * If anonymous users want to contribute here, they will have to make an account. It is not that hard. The main reason I requested such a disable was that some users vandalized, and suddenly that I.P. would go to someone else who had not done anything wrong. Also, in some situations, some very similar I.P.s were involved in the same argument/editing dispute (maybe with only one number differing them). Since these changed, I did not want to block the wrong person. Orangitu had blocked a dozen of I.P.s as well, but If someone wanted to edit from there, they could not because someone else had used that particular I.P. to vandalize. Therefore, accounts are much easier.
 * We might be like-minded in the community, but being an admin gives you responsibility as well. I cannot stand there and mind my own business. A good example here is the argument between Falcoln and Boggy, where I tried the best I could to be transparent. I needed to take a stand to end it, since I could not let it go on.
 * You wrote: the primary purpose of a block is to act as a preventative measure against damage to the wiki. Punishment, I feel, should be a secondary purpose at best– sometimes, it won't even be a factor. For me, blockage is punishment. Yes, it should be used to remove potential threats from the wiki. The definition of punishment is basically that you will teach the involved person not to do this again, because they have to experience the consecuenses.


 * I think I answered everything you mentioned, but please do not bring up old points that I've already answered. And if you want some further replies, please summarize your request in short, as I have a hard time answering requests that measure more than one page.
 * - Danuhau (talk) 08:05, October 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * "And if you want some further replies, please summarize your request in short, as I have a hard time answering requests that measure more than one page."

Although the messages in this section are formatted like a standard reply chain, my messages are not only directed at you – rather, they are also directed at anyone who reads the forum. The reason my responses were so verbose is that I wanted to be as thorough as possible for the benefit of the readers. You are free to respond to however much of what I say as you wish.


 * "If they don't knw their mistakes, they have not read Wikia's Terms of Use."

It is not the responsibility of local admins to enforce Wikia's Terms of Use (see: this message from a staff member), and whether something is a ToU violation or not is at the discretion of Wikia Staff.


 * "I will now gather all the reasons I have for why I blocked them, and post it in the block list."

I actually think this is a great start in terms of transparency...


 * "Then, there won't be any 'vague reasons'."

...but, given the reasons you put in, I can't help but feel that there was still not a meeting of the minds on this topic, and I'm really not sure how I could explain myself better here.

Regarding the rest of it: I'm starting to think this discussion will just end up going in circles if it continues in the same way it has been due to fundamental differences of opinion, so I believe this will be my last response on this topic. Oscuritaforze (talk) 22:20, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I know I may not have a right to have a say in this considering my inactivity, but I'd have to agree with Oscuritaforze. Forgive me Danuhau, but I think blocking Boggy was a bad call. I do understand your reasons of blocking him -- and they are perfectly valid, since I too have felt annoyed with his attitude on more than one occasion -- but will this really help the wiki in the long run? As Oscu said, blocks are to prevent harm to the wiki rather than to punish an individual. By blocking Boggy, you've effectively alienated one of the most determined editors this wiki have had thus far. Yes, he may have a bit of an attitude, but this is really nothing compared to all the contributions he's done. In my opinion, you've just used the block to harm this already inactive wiki by making it even more inactive. If you are really, really keen on blocking him, at least use a non-indefinite block.

I've actually wanted to say something similar when you blocked Q*terplx, but I thought it would be fine since his block was just 3 months. Why you extended this to indefinite is beyond me.

The reason I'm so against these blocks is that in my opinion, you've given them far too severe of a punishment for something so petty. Sure, people can be rude, but this isn't something that can't be solved with a simple reminder on their talk page. The fact that you're an admin makes this easier, since they'll treat much more highly of your judgement compared to a regular user.

Also, the reason I recommend timed blocks over indefinite ones is that people can change (at least of course, if they're not a vandal). If they've done something so bad that they deserve a block, just give them time to think, and they'll come back a much better person who can give the wiki some much-needed help.

And this brings me to the point of Boggy's adminship request. To be honest -- if it were up to me, I wouldn't mind promoting him one bit. Sure, he may have "begged" for the rights, but I really was not much different back when I got promoted in 2010. He may have some unsuitable traits but I trust that he will mature over time -- as I did. A good proof of this is how he's much more temperate as a user than he was as an anon.

And that was my two cents. Forgive me if I struck a nerve Danuhau, but I really couldn't just stand around saying nothing.

--Orangitu | Talk 13:31, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

I've suspected it for a while, and a CheckUser request confirmed to me that Danuhau and TTTEUK share the same IP address. It's not just a coincidence that: I'm sure Danuhau is thinking up some phony explanation for this but I'm not interested. Just the other day he tried to block PartHunter the same way he blocked me, with no warning and no reason, and when I asked he gave another story about his school friends. This whole time he's learned nothing, he still abuses these privileges and lies about everything.
 * this account was created a few minutes after he blocked Boggy B's fake account
 * it shares the same name as Danuhau's favorite program (TTTE/Thomas the Tank Engine)
 * it supports everything Danuhau says or does
 * their edits are always one or two minutes apart

Enough is enough, I've blocked TTTEUK infinitely and Danuhau temporarily until Orangitu can demote him. If he's still kept as an admin after all this, then I'm out. -- Q* (talk) 15:01, November 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * (Posting here in an attempt to keep this discussion as centralized as possible.)


 * Danuhau &mdash; You seemed to express confusion as to how Q* arrived at the conclusion that you are using a sockpuppet. The answer is thus: when he mentioned a "CheckUser request" above, he was likely saying that he sent a message to Wikia Staff requesting usage of the CheckUser tool, which allows a user to look up which IP address(es) are used by a particular account and which accounts use a particular IP address. Staff presumably discovered that you and TTTEUK are using/have used (we can't know which) the same IP, and Q* interpreted that result to mean that you are using a sockpuppet.




 * As for the practical implications of this information: at best, that account belongs to a relative of Danuhau's who has come to visit (as Danuhau claims here), in which case voting on this forum represents a conflict of interests. At worst, that account is Danuhau's sockpuppet, in which case voting on this forum is a bad-faith attempt to skew the results in his favor. In either case, TTTEUK's opposition to this forum needs to be taken in a new light, regardless of what the truth may be.




 * As for my personal opinion on this matter: considering how often Danuhau makes difficult/impossible to prove assertions in the context of this wiki (including some which were actively questioned by a supposed involved party and [ others] which I have argued (and maintain) harmed the wiki), I am not particularly willing to assume good faith in what appears to be yet another such situation. As such, I personally believe that the CheckUser results are more likely to point to use of a sockpuppet than a relative acting without Danuhau's knowledge.


 * Oscuritaforze (talk) 04:12, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

New Checkuser request results
I recently had a discussion on this matter with Forze on steam, and we decided to see if we could prove the truth once and for all. Danuhau claimed that TTTEUK, his supposed half-sister, is currently visiting him, though she usually lives in Sweden. This would mean that she could only have edited from the same IP adress as Danuhau recently, and her previous edits would've been done from a separate IP adress.

So we decided to request another checkuser on Danuhau and TTTEUK, though we specifically asked to check their IPs from a few months ago, which should result in different IPs. Well, I recently got their reply, and here's what they said:

I don't need any more convincing. Q* was right all along. And yes, I still don't have an explanation as to why you blocked PartHunter and TTTEUK, maybe it was indeed your school friends, I wouldn't know. But trying to skew the community by using a sockpuppet is still disgraceful behavior, even worse when you forge a story and refuse to admit it. I'm not changing my stance on this matter.

--Orangitu | Talk 12:42, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Either this case of alleged sockpupetry is against the Wikia TOU, or it is not a case of doing anything wrong by any actual and applicable rules or policy. The reasons for this are located in my second statement I made below, just below the one replying to my first statement. Either way, it dosen't need to be discussed in detail here. PartHunter (talk) 05:55, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Hear me out before you judge me. Why not talk directly to me? About your little "investigation": When Q* mentioned that he had checked out my IP, he stated that "this account was created a few minutes after he blocked Boggy B's fake account". How long was that? well, one month ago. My half sister created the user for the sole purpose of supporting me, so how could she even have made edits in Sweden before that? She saw that I was upset about being blamed, so she made the account to try to help me. Even thougt it only created trouble, it was a kind thought. Anyway, I think this is absurd, how little thrust and will to resolve you are showing me. I hope you read this before you do anything drastic. - Danuhau (talk) 18:28, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Q* (talk) 00:15, November 9, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) After thinking about the matter and checking the history of both Danuhau and TTTEUK, I can say that I am much more inclined to believe in Q*'s explanation. Q*'s reasons were valid, and Danuhau's reasoning is barely believable. I'm pushing for a demotion. --Orangitu | Talk 02:15, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I just hate when people can't see their mistakes. An admin has the responsibility to clear out the "scum" of the wiki, and any other negative influence. When I saw this argument, I wanted to check up before taking sides. The points from Oscu were valid, but I think Danu answered good and took responsibility for his actions. If a user is bloked, he or she must acknowledge this, instead of calling himself innocent.
 * This admin has done a lot for this wikia. Of course some of his edits were minor, but an admin has to do every sort of work, not only "admins only" tasks.
 * - TTTEUK (talk) 18:23, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support :)
 * - Danuhau (talk) 19:55, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Both recent cases can be looked at to find a reasonable doubt about weather Danuhau is guilty of them: Given the blocking case occured when neither user had done anything that could possibly earn a block, and was not done properly, it makes the incident appear unlikley to be done by Danuhau. In the second case, can anyone find a potential and reasonable reason for Danahau to create a sockpupet account? Also, only one of the incidents can reasonably be Danahau's fault, as no-one would block their own sockpupet account without a reasonable reason to do so. These points create sufficient doubt for me to vote here, when combined with how Danahau has been the only admin (or user since promoted to admin) which has been active regularly and constantly over the past few months. Also, the burden of proof should be laid on the accusors/prosecutors in this case, as to do otherwise would mean that good faith has not been assumed, and, as Wikia is based in the US, would be a reasonable thing to expect. Also, if there has been sockpupetry, that is a violation of Wikia's terms of use, and as such should be dealt with by Wikia staff, not local admins. PartHunter (talk) 07:00, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * "Both recent cases can be looked at to find a reasonable doubt about weather Danuhau is guilty of them[.]"
 * There absolutely is reasonable doubt as to whether or not Danuhau the person (as opposed to the account) was the one who put those blocks in place, no disagreement there. Although it does concern me that it is yet again impossible to verify that Danuhau is telling the truth here, to be frank, the idea that someone other than Danuhau could manage to use his account to take administrative action against other users less than 15 minutes after an action which Danuhau acknowledged was his doing concerns me far more.
 * "Given the blocking case occured when neither user had done anything that could possibly earn a block, and was not done properly, it makes the incident appear unlikley to be done by Danuhau."
 * The problem here (and potentially the problem with this whole situation) is that it would have been fully believable to me (and apparently others as well) for improper blocks with no adequately explained reasons behind them to have been put in place by Danuhau. The reasons for this can be found throughout the rest of this forum, but suffice to say this wouldn't have been the first time such a thing had occurred.
 * "In the second case, can anyone find a potential and reasonable reason for Danahau to create a sockpupet account?"
 * The [ second edit] made by TTTEUK on this wiki (the first being a userpage edit 5 minutes earlier) was to add to this very section on this very page. Considering the purpose of this forum as a discussion of Danuhau's admin and bureaucrat status here, I'd imagine that attempting to skew the discussion to favor himself (and thus reduce the likelihood of demotion) would fit the criteria you were looking for regarding a "potential and reasonable reason" for sockpuppet use.
 * "Also, the burden of proof should be laid on the accusors/prosecutors in this case, as to do otherwise would mean that good faith has not been assumed, and, as Wikia is based in the US, would be a reasonable thing to expect."
 * For what it is worth, I have been been trying my best to assume good faith from the beginning of this incident back in March. That didn't even change when I started this forum at the end of October, as I initially gave Danuhau the benefit of the doubt when he claimed that Q* was initially blocked all those months ago due to a Facebook conversation. It's just that, in the face of what has been discussed in this forum and what has recently transpired, it seems reasonable for users involved in this discussion (me, Q*, Orangitu, etc.) to find it more and more difficult to assume good faith as time goes on and more of the same seems to occur.
 * "Also, if there has been sockpupetry, that is a violation of Wikia's terms of use, and as such should be dealt with by Wikia staff, not local admins."
 * Wikia will perform CheckUsers in appropriate circumstances by admin request, and people who use sockpuppets for vandalism or impersonation will likely have all of their accounts punished, but simply having multiple accounts (and even using one or more accounts as sockpuppets) is not a ToU violation (see: w:Thread:653737). As such, no matter what the truth in this particular case may be, this is strictly a local matter.
 * Oscuritaforze (talk) 10:29, December 1, 2014 (UTC)


 *   Why would somenone create a sockpupet account to vote on somthing where using a sockpupet account would actually be counterproductive? Are there any other cases of TTTEUK voting on anything? Has TTTEUK expsressed a different opinion to Danuhau anywhere on this wiki, or edited anywhere else on wikia? Also, has anyone checked the IP adress used for the blocks to see if they match (even partially), or seen if there was  logging on between the blocks, or multiple open sessions at the same time? You have been showing good faith, but not everyone who has been here appears to have been, although, as an assumption of partial good faith, I will assume that the apparent lack of good faith was not intensional until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that is was intensional. I partially mentiond good faith there because it reinforces and implies that innocent until proven guilty should apply in all cases on Wikia. Also, using a sockpupet to vote on somthing to prevent a loss of special privlages may count as abuse of the multiple accounts, and I can't find any policy on using sockpupets anywhere on this wiki, so either it is a terms of use violation or it is perfectly permissable and not punishable by blocking. PartHunter (talk) 06:08, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * 

​Is it a crime, that there are more than two accounts used in my home? And why would I block these two users without achieving anything. TTTEUK may have a relation to me in real life, but does that matter? And PartHunter is the closest this wiki has been to 100% good faith user, as he has kept away from arguments and always answered polite? Moreover, I do not want user turned against me, as it happened with Boggy. You are absolutely right when you say that my account performed the block, but I as a person have told you that I did not perform them.

I have talked the situation over with my TTTEUK, and she does not mind having her account shut down if it is really necessary. I do not want this to happen to my account, considering my achievements on various wikis and my position here.

I made up with Q* on Community Central chat before I promoted him here. Still, I was not fully convinced, so I only gave him admin right which I could later remove if necessary. He was a good contributor, and he knew a lot about the wikia tools, but he betrayed me without hearing me out. I am innocent in these "charges", and I will not forfeit.

I do not know what more to say, but remember that I am active every day now, and that I have defended my self in every argument. If I had done bad things and deserved to be moved away, I would have given up a long time ago. Consider an informal "probation" rather than a demotion, because I would like to be forthcoming. For me, this wiki and its community comes first.

- Danuhau (talk) 18:51, December 1, 2014 (UTC)