*

d_latt

  • G Cup
  • 892
Whink
« on: August 24, 2004, 11:19:46 PM »
This thread is to discuss Whink's "temporary banning."

I'll start:
Whink's "threat" was not a threat. If you read it carefully, you would have seen that it mentioned no physical harm. He mentioned something about email, which is hardly a threat.

Also, Why have the mods chosen to be selective? Scarface egged him on for weeks, and nothing was ever done about him. He consistently called Whink hurtful names, made false accusations about his heritage and his identity, and basically threatened Whink just as much as Whink "threatened" him tonight.

I would consider --I hope you get your ass kicked-- more of a threat than --if you keep being so offensive on forums somebody is going to send you a virus via Email-- But that's just me. Plus, you have to take into account that Scarface was targeting him specifically for weeks and because of that, he was continuosly forced to retaliate. Was anything done to Scarface in order to keep some sort of peace, and keep the forums free of pointless flaming? Not to my knowledge...and if he was warned, he didn't care. He continued to flame.

I have no problem with moderators being moderators, but at least be consistent. If Whink gets banned for that, than why hasn't Scarface been banned? He caused the whole situation by deciding one day to go after Whink relentlessly. He has said some things that were extremely derogatory towards Whink. He also wished physical harm upon him, which is pretty much equal to a threat. If Whink has to get banned, than Scarface should be gone too.


P.S. I admit what he did with the HTML in certain threads was uncalled for, but I'm pretty sure that isn't why he was banned.

   

*

Gilroy

  • Z Cup
  • 2792
    • www.bambiblaze.com
Re: Whink
« Reply #1 on: August 24, 2004, 11:42:16 PM »
You know, while I completely that Whink shouldn't have been banned, there are some things I need to point out:

 
    The List
     
  • Whink has only been temporarily banned. This is not (yet) a permanent thing.  
  • Palomine said that the other moderators will be contacted. That means nothing is final yet, because they still have to reach a decision.  
  • Finally, as Fitzgerald pointed out in another thread, the moderators get to keep these threads all to themselves. I have no doubt that they will look into these threads, and see that for quite some time Whink has been egged on by Scarface.  


Anyway, now that I've said my piece, I'd also like to say... We support you, Whink!  
Post intelligently, calmly, open-mindedly, and sparingly. That is the way to Posting Zen.
<cite title="Signature">"There is no <del>spoon</del> <ins datetime="2005-04-26T07:22:00Z">WebZine</ins>."</cite>

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Whink
« Reply #2 on: August 24, 2004, 11:42:56 PM »
Whink made a threat. That in and of itself is a serious violation of site policy. Despite this, I did not immediately ban him.. I just locked the thread and then pulled it from public view for the other mods to consider.

Immediately thereafter, Whink appears to have gone on a rampage, seemingly intentionally corrupting threads that were posted to by the object of his threat (in part) as some sort of revenge. Whink also edited a post to make it appear as if I said something that I did not and then corrupted that thread too with more bad html in an attempt to keep users from SEEing that it wasn't me who made that post. All of the threads that Whink corrupted have been removed (at least a half dozen from various forums) ...once they're repaired they'll be returned.

I tried to send Whink a PM asking him to calm down and lay off the vandalism but I don't know if he got the PM or not... he certainly didn't reply. Eventually, he left me no choice but to ban him temporarily... if he kept it up it looked as if I was going to be up half the night removing threads he was intentionally corrupting.

Despite the ban, Whink appears to have managed to still log in. His actions tonight have been very poorly considered, but he was banned for the threat and not for his subsequent chaos. Every time someone gets admonished for a rule violation or (much less frequently) banned, there are always cries of 'why doesn't X also get banned... what he did provoked the action, or was worse, etc..." All that I can say to that is: if we were to ban every person who acted rudely, or teased someone, or said something in poor taste, a full third of our users would be shown the door. Thus, we exercise our discretion as objectively as possible. I have not personally pored over each and every one of Whinks 2,000+ posts and Scarface182 X? posts to consider every possible bit of backstory yet... I am a person, not a perl script. IME, Whink's done more than his share of 'egging' himself... and NO amount of that justifies a threat of physical violence or of a computer virus attack... as you can read for yourselves... 'egging someone on' is NOT specifically a violation of site rules... but threatening someone in any way ABSOLUTELY IS. Whink's threat crossed the line, and using my discretion it seemed to justify a ban (that I purposely and publicly described as TEMPORARY until the other mods could consider the matter). His subsequent vandalism of threads (after the initial thread lock but prior to the attempt at banning) simply is making his case that much worse... his own actions left me no choice tonight.

I've asked him privately and publicly (here) to lay off: to stop intentionally corrupting multiple threads, to stop trying to make it look as if I made posts I did not, etc... Despite my proportional and controlled response, he seems intent (at the moment) to simply create as much chaos as he can. Everything that he has done tonight and continues to do (including attempts to thwart a ban) will be considered by all of the mods as a group. If any of you are his friends and in touch with him personally, I'd suggest that you pass along the advice: Whink should calm down and lay off... he's only making it worse for himself. After we've had a chance to consider everything, we'll be in touch with him via email.

*

d_latt

  • G Cup
  • 892
Re: Whink
« Reply #3 on: August 24, 2004, 11:51:08 PM »
That sounds fair Palomine. You should know that I have no problem with you at all. But, I really think when taking a look at this current situation, you all should take a look at Scarface's post content in the past month or so. If what Whink posted is worth consideration for a banning, than some of what Scarface has posted fits that criteria as well.  

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Whink
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2004, 11:59:08 PM »
I agree completely... as soon as the other mods have had a chance to review everything, THEN and ONLY THEN will any decision re: permanent action be reached by us as a group. The current ban of Whink is, as stated, temporary... despite his threat and vandalism of threads and his attempt to put words in my mouth.

As everyone is aware, all users can edit/delete their own threads for a period of time after posting. As mentioned, I am only one person and cannot possibly review every single thread posted... like all of the mods, I skim threads looking for vioations, but I/we don't examine every single post in detail. If you have SEEN actions/behavior on the part of ANY user that is of concern, please feel free to PM me (or another mod) with a link to the offending post so that it can be considered and if necessary, addressed. If you feel that a particular post is so troublesome and are concerned that it might get edited before a mod can look at it, feel free to pullquote from it in the PM to a mod (or take a screencap if you prefer), but bear in mind that if differences (btwn the pullquote/cap and the linked post) DO appear, neither can be lent much weight.

Thanks.

*

MunchWolf

  • What Tagline?
  • 11466
Re: Whink
« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2004, 01:07:56 AM »
I hope to see Whink back soon ...

-Munch "Not that I have any say" Wolf

*

MissChievous

  • Finger Food
  • 1467
  • The Emprah Protects
Re: Whink
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2004, 01:13:14 AM »
Me too.

And me too
"She's like our own personal Harley Quinn, except Harley looks at her and says "boy is SHE fucking nuts!"" - Agent Dee

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8580
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: Whink
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2004, 01:18:43 AM »
Yes Palomine, I have a problem with my own 6000 odd posts....they trouble me. Would you possibly review them to make sure I am not disturbing myself?  
[Rent this space]

*

MunchWolf

  • What Tagline?
  • 11466
Re: Whink
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2004, 01:21:24 AM »
I have a problem that you are only 160 away from me, when last week you were closer to 200

-Munch "Not that I've been paying attention" Wolf

*

Gilroy

  • Z Cup
  • 2792
    • www.bambiblaze.com
Re: Whink
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2004, 01:25:28 AM »
You know... if we do let Whink back on, we should force him to start over with a new profile.

That way, it'll be the same ol' Whink, but all his ill-gained posts will be gone (and you know he'll love that).  
Post intelligently, calmly, open-mindedly, and sparingly. That is the way to Posting Zen.
<cite title="Signature">"There is no <del>spoon</del> <ins datetime="2005-04-26T07:22:00Z">WebZine</ins>."</cite>

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8580
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: Whink
« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2004, 01:28:40 AM »
Mr. Kettle...
[Rent this space]

*

scarface182

  • G Cup
  • 774
    • www.ilikebigbustedfrogs.creepo.orgy.wad
Re: Whink
« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2004, 02:22:18 AM »
What a load of crap. Everyone here knows Whink goes off on the slightest little thing anyone says to him. It's been said before LOTS, and not by me...

Go ahead and check all my posts.

Here is something to consider:

Whink/Gilroy/you alerted the mods AND owner to EVERY, and i mean EVERY (just ask the long suffering mods) damn post i made in the last month since Palomine told us to take our disagreement to emails and pm's....

Like Palomine says, he checks EVERY reported post.

The mods and owners found NOTHING to suggest i was overtly "flaming" anyone nor did they find anything to back up your ridiculous assertions that i was harrassing anyone, and should be banned, much to your eternal chagrin...

This latest rubbish started because i posted a goddamned smilie face agreeing with one of Rtpoe's posts on a thread Whink started. He/you need to realize when you start a thread you DONT own it!...

And how does Whink cope with this? Email me? nope...PM me?...nope. He goes and blocks EVERY single thread i have posted on, ALL other peoples threads! I didnt start any of them! Yeah, that'll get back at me!

Any wonder he's banned?

He not only made threats, he VANDALIZED this site, making other peoples threads inoperable and ensuring a pain in the ass night for Palomine. Like Palomine said himself:

 
Quote:

 Gilroy: you and Whink and NO OTHER USER is permitted to intentionally corrupt threads using screwy HTML to 'lock' threads or punish posts you consider to be flames. That IS "overstepping your bounds" by one helluva big step... users are free to express their opinions on almost any matter but users CANNOT decide to take rule enforcement into their own hands... the only result of that is the kind of chaos and anarchy that we've seen tonight. Don't be surprised if actions like this self-styled rogue moderation thing turn out to have serious consequences. Only the 5 moderators enforce site policy and lock threads... period. Users attempting to do so with purposely screwed-up code are only going to screw themselves.
 






Defend that.

   
"I'm Miguel, and these are my BITCHES"

- Mike Patton introducing the members of Tomahawk to the crowd, 2002 tour.

"WITH-A, TEETH-A"

- Trent Reznor, NIN, 2005




*

scarface182

  • G Cup
  • 774
    • www.ilikebigbustedfrogs.creepo.orgy.wad
Re: Whink
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2004, 02:27:23 AM »
 Palomine also said:

 
Quote:

 Despite the ban, Whink appears to have managed to still log in. His actions tonight have been very poorly considered, but he was banned for the threat and not for his subsequent chaos. Every time someone gets admonished for a rule violation or (much less frequently) banned, there are always cries of 'why doesn't X also get banned... what he did provoked the action, or was worse, etc..." All that I can say to that is: if we were to ban every person who acted rudely, or teased someone, or said something in poor taste, a full third of our users would be shown the door. Thus, we exercise our discretion as objectively as possible. I have not personally pored over each and every one of Whinks 2,000+ posts and Scarface182 X? posts to consider every possible bit of backstory yet... I am a person, not a perl script. IME, Whink's done more than his share of 'egging' himself... and NO amount of that justifies a threat of physical violence or of a computer virus attack... as you can read for yourselves... 'egging someone on' is NOT specifically a violation of site rules... but threatening someone in any way ABSOLUTELY IS. Whink's threat crossed the line, and using my discretion it seemed to justify a ban (that I purposely and publicly described as TEMPORARY until the other mods could consider the matter). His subsequent vandalism of threads (after the initial thread lock but prior to the attempt at banning) simply is making his case that much worse... his own actions left me no choice tonight






That sums it up pretty well i think....
"I'm Miguel, and these are my BITCHES"

- Mike Patton introducing the members of Tomahawk to the crowd, 2002 tour.

"WITH-A, TEETH-A"

- Trent Reznor, NIN, 2005




*

Bambi_Blaze

  • X Cup
  • 2309
    • www.bambiblaze.com
Re: Whink
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2004, 07:51:16 AM »
I am so sad to login and see this news.  

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Re: Whink
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2004, 10:35:41 AM »
I only logged off 7 or 8 hours ago... I don't thnk the other mods have had a chance to look at anything yet and I am not going to make any permanent unilateral decisions myself about this entire matter until it can be considered by all of the mods as a group. Thus, everyone including Whink is simply going to have to be patient.

Regardless of the outcome of this fracas, you can expect to see the site rules ammended to include a strict prohibition against users attempting to moderate by posting code intended to lock or corrupt threads. That kind of behavior by anyone (and Whink was not the only one doing this last night... I belive that both Gilroy and rtpoe admitted that they too took such actions themselves) is absolutely not going to be tolerated... future incidents of users trying to take rule enforcement into their own hands is only going to have two results: HTML in posts will be discontinued AND the users who decide to appoint themselves moderators will get banned.

This site has rules and it has moderators. Whink's made it clear he doesn't like how we do our job... he's entitled to his opinion of course (no mod has tried to keep him from expressing it AFAIK) but neither he nor any other user will be permitted to moderate as they see fit using 'rogue' code to corrupt threads. Locking threads is an action that can only be taken by a moderator... Whink and Co. are NOT moderators here, thus they are NOT permitted to lock threads by any means whatsoever. Period.

Let me also add that simply because Scarface182 posts his opinion that Whink has/uses other logins, or because Scarface182 now chooses to gloat over what's happened last night, it doesn't give ANYone the right to violate site policy. Nor does it make Scarface182 RIGHT. He is posting his opinion within the bounds of site rules. Had Whink been satisfied with simply posting his opinions (which is something he's never been shy about) he'd still be here right now. But instead of simply disagreeing with Scarface182, or with posting a contrary opinion, he decided to cross a line and make a threat... ANY kind of threat is absolutely prohibited here.

Again: no user gets to moderate, even if they don't think the site's actual appointed mods are doing what they ought to. This entire matter will be resolved once the mods have had a chance to consider everything. In the meantime, EVERYONE inlcuding Whink's pals and Scarface182 would be well advised to just calm down and relax... more posts on this are going to advance NO one's case at all.