Discussion:Trust Issues

Trust Issues

Cua 06:42, 23 November 2009 (MST)

Hello. Before I get into the gist of the discussion, I would like to start off with a few disclaimers.

1. This post is created by myself; an impartial third party who has no say in the running of the wiki nor any involvement in the various occurrences that have occurred over the period of 3 months or so. I have used this site and it's various articles in order to enhance my gaming experience and I am happy in it's ability to do so.
2. I shall not hide the fact that, to post this, I am using a proxy server in order to create the illusion that my IP address is different. This is due to a recent trend I have noticed from the Recent Changes page that many people who 'speak out' or do anything that would mildly annoy the System Operator Green Dragon seems to be banned. This is just incase I ever want to edit anything on this site that may have errors on it at a later date. I'll make an expanded note on this later on.
3. I am not attempting to be malicious in any way, even though it may seem like it. Even if I am banned from the site, I will continue using it; I do not wish to create any more divide, I only wish for some issues I have to be raised in some kind of official capacity and for them to be addressed. Of course, if Green Dragon or anyone else does not wish to address them, that is fine; please do respond notifying me of your intent not to comment any further than such a reply.

With those small disclaimers out of the way, I would like to get into the flow of things. As noted by the title of this discussion, the first thing that I'd like to address is Trust Issues, so without further ado!

Trust Issues

In a System Operator, or especially the owner of a site, I feel there should be a certain level of trust. People should know that they act rationally and that they will not ban people for the slightest infringements of their rules; but rather stick to the set out guidelines given by the owner themselves. For the purposes of this point, I shall quote them:

“	When one does not edit with civility and etiquette one becomes a warning for each time (posted in the discussion; kept in tab with a per user (maybe templated?) system of warnings and bans combined). Warnings are given by admins; an admin should post one indent earlier then the post which is not civil with "<code><!-Written reason for warning.-> (1:1) <!-where (1 (user warning number) : 1 (user ban number)-> </code> --~~~~ and after that post it should continue along the same post thread (two later). The ban length starts with one week and then increases exponentially from the sixth warning (2 weeks).	”
—Green Dragon, [[1]]

This is a good policy to have. It allows for a structured system of warnings and ban lengths to be created. An adherence to this policy creates a way of dealing with repeat offenders and even allowing for small mistakes and minor infractions of breach of the rules to be passed off as just warnings. For example; if Jim did not know that doing Action X was against the rules, a warning would inform him that it was, indeed, breaking the rules and Jim would stop doing Action X immediately (in a hypothetical perfection situation).

But, the breakdown comes in the form of the fact I have not seen it in practice at all. This policy has been enacted from September 26th and yet, I have not seen a single warning. Although, I must admit that this may be a problem on my end, as I do not read every and all discussions, talk pages, etc, etc that have been written or commented on. However, I have seen 'blocks' (AKA Bans). Here are various blocks I'll pick out from the log that I do not personally understand why they occurred, with comments.

1. 03:16, 29 September 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked Dersius (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎- This block doesn't have a reason, but I did not see any warnings for this user. The last post he made was on Green Dragon's talk page. This may have been a post made in some form of Bad Faith based on some readings of it, but he was threatened for being banned for asking questions. Curiosity killed Dersius. This does not adhere to the policy posted three days prior.

1. 05:00, 2 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked Ehsteve (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Soliciting) - Soliciting is a vague term, but I assume it's going to mean the American term (since this is an American site), which is defined as; "a crime, an inchoate offense that consists of a person offering money or something else of value in order to incite or induce another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime." (by Wikipedia). His last post was here, again on Green Dragon's user page. He didn't seem to be soliciting anything to my eyes, although I may be mistaken, as I am not especially legal minded. This block does not adhere to the policy posted 6 days prior.

1. 04:46, 3 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked Deranged (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment) - Deranged's last post here was also on Green Dragon's user page, which I'm starting to see is a pattern. I admit he did something very wrong by removing content from pages, even if they were his own, but this is not intimidating or harassing behavior; far from it, in fact. But, there were no warnings against what he was doing and, as far as I understand he may not have been aware of the problems. This does not adhere to the policy posted 7 days prior.

1. 01:55, 8 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked Daniel Draco (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: You need to learn respect. Noone here is disrespecting save you; in the related discusisons.) - Astonishingly, his last post was not on Green Dragon's user page! This block breaks the pattern of last posts; but not really for bad reasons. I'm not really sure why he was blocked; he was asking something, then he was blocked between the time Green Dragon responded rudely and someone else made a point. I am not really seeing the 'disrespect' he was emitting, although only that he received some sort of dismissal. There were no warnings and he was simply banned. This does adhere to the policy posted 12 days prior.

1. 20:10, 9 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked Sepsis (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 3 months (account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: ather elite group of "wiki gods" that troll this Wiki, - Troll this wiki - your fucking insane. I spend time here for people like you. No.) - This made me go '???'. As far as I was aware, Sepsis was a contributing member of the society and was making various 4e creations that were held in high regard by some (although, I am not up to date on 4e). The page in question is here and it stems from a misunderstanding by Green Dragon on two fronts; first about the quote from Sepsis (who, as far as I can tell, was indicating people that had clashed stubbornly with him before, who Green Dragon had actually banned for such behavior (I presume they were banned for such behavior, it was noted in the ban note)) and his own policy. He gives a warning only after he unbans Sepsis, which leads to the next point...

1. 20:12, 9 October 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) unblocked Sepsis (Talk | contribs) ‎ (Fine.... But grow up - I have almost 50k edits. You have almost none. Stop acting big when your not (everyone).) - This is a carry on from the previous block. I also don't quite understand this one, maybe I'm missing something. But, Sepsis is told to 'grow up' for some strange reason; his comment was directed at people who Green Dragon had banned for 'trolling' (intimidating/harrassing behavior) after all. Then, Green Dragon makes a note about his edit count. Is this relevant? I cannot comprehend how edit count could possibly effect your social standing. Is this a rich/poor dichotomy? Do I have to have a certain edit count to be worth something as a public speaker? If you could clear this point up, I'd be happy.

1. Just one more, for I fear this is getting too long. This one caught me eye: 23:51, 20 November 2009 Green Dragon (Talk | contribs) blocked 195.226.135.138 (Talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) ‎ (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: annoying) - Annoying. That is the reason this contributer was banned? His last revision was this and his only other revision was here. Because he only has two edits and Green Dragon has over 50,000 is it acceptable to be banned for simply being "annoying". Annoying isn't even really a strong word, it's kind of a mild nuisance, really. But, he was banned for it. He had no warnings at all, which really does breach the 26th of September Policy once more. (I am not condoning the actions that the person in question did, but I was sadly amused by the response from Green Dragon which was, actually, nonsensical (it should read: "What I'm saying is not nonsensical.", I am sorry to inform Green Dragon that, even though Green, he is a dragon and dragons are large; therefore, he could not possibly be Yoda).

So, what am I saying? I'm asking if you can trust the owner of the site if he can't even follow his own policy. It's a good policy and one that would, if enacted, help the community. But, it has been used... Once. After the offender was banned and then unbanned with various derogatory comments. I am not specifically picking out bad points in Green Dragon's recent activity, either; I have seen this behavior has become a recent staple of his persona. In the User_talk:Eiji#Farmer article, Green Dragon seems to have gotten more and more unstable throughout the discussion. He has made various comments to the other discussers insinuating they are of a decreased level of intelligence then he and even gone as far as to 'shout' on the internet and threatened people with bans, without using the proper format. This does not give a good vision of the wiki itself as Green Dragon is meant to be the figurehead and he appears to lose his 'cool' at times.

That is all I have to say on trust issues for now. Next, I will move onto another section: Hooper.

Hooper

While Hooper is not specifically a figurehead or any kind of 'power' on the wiki, no offense intended by such a statement, he is a recurring contributor and a 'regular' who seems to have made some form of name for himself. I am not attacking Hooper directly as a person, but rather the way he is presenting himself online through the comments and post I have read throughout my time. I must repeat for prosperity's sake: This is not a personal attack.

So, as that is said; my opening statement is going to seem quite odd. Hooper is a chihuahua. He's got a bite and a bark; but he doesn't have the size to back it up with. Most of the time I've seen him posting in regards to any conflict, he's hiding behind Green Dragon (AKA his master?). In most discussions that are regarding anything controversial, you can find him yapping (as a chihuahua does) mild insults and things like "If you don't agree, just leave - and remain gone. Quite simple.", while others are being threatened with bans for standing up for themselves.

He also has the habit of insulting people who can't respond; specifically those banned by Green Dragon. For example, we look here: What Happened to the Tavern. I am not fully aware of what actually happened to the Tavern (or in it), but I can only assume something horrific, terrible and blood-curdling bad happened in it because that's how it's made to sound. But, on the note of Hooper's insults:

“	Same here. I put up with it for years but recently started treating them the same way they treat others and they literally can not handle it. They freak out. Really pathetic actually. I hope this helps others learn how to be properly collaborative in the future. Hooper talk contribs email 15:44, 19 September 2009 (MDT)	”
—Hooper, What Happened to the Tavern

It's so nice insulting people who can't form a proper response because they're banned or otherwise unable to post, is it? I surely do not approve of this and really do not feel it adheres to the wikipedia policy at all. But, I move onto stalking!

Well, stalking is a harsh word for it. But, as far as I understand it; Hooper took the liberty to log all the chats at some IRC chat that people were using for some reason without informing anyone. In such, he was 'secretly' doing it so he could spy on people; I liked Ehsteve's notation of him playing "Secret Agent", which amused me. For more information; see Incorrect Adoptionations for more details. I specifically enjoyed the irony of reading "Personal attacks should be refrained from, and they make any point you think you have become lost in your antics "anonymous"." from Hooper.

To my final point; Further Contributions.

Further Contributions

As I noted far back at the begin, I only plan to edit to fix errors on this site. I do have a wish to create things for myself, but from reading the Farmer discussion I have no faith nor trust in Green Dragon's ability to run this site in a rational manner. For reasons stated above and various other things that I have witnessed, I do not trust him. I know that losing my contributions is not really much and that you probably won't care about it, what with your oh-so-many valuable contributions you get every day. But, just informing you; you have lost the expansion one man can bring you.

Closing Statement

So, that's all I have to say on that and I believe these issues need to be addressed. If I am to be martyred or 'made an example of' (for both the people who agree with me and the people who don't respectively), then so be it. It should just be noted that I took a stand and wanted some things to be resolved; is that really bad? Just, for one last iteration; I like this site and I would hate to see it become barren because of trust issues that people may find with it.

- --Cua 06:43, 23 November 2009 (MST)

Post statement: Is it me or is Green Dragon's English degrading over time? No offense, but some grammar checkers would be useful for people to understand your full meaning. This is a textual based medium of communication; coherency is the key to proper communication.

  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   11:36, 23 November 2009 (MST)

Thank you for such a comprehensive look into the situation. Let me explain my part. First, I'll state the following:

1. I am just a user
2. The only reason I've been a figurehead is because I edit here and am not associated with the "Tavern Crowd" (there aren't many users who are not associated with that crowd who were active at the time of the split)

The initial concerns brought about where very valid. However, immediately the reactions where ludicrous. Yes, I log their chat. However, as you can see from the recent changes they watchdog this wiki while trying to act like they've left. I also log there chat because routinely users will discuss finding a way to harm this wiki, and it is important to have evidence. When the day comes that a quick glance at a day's log shows no sign of this, then I will stop. It is not illegal, and if it upsets people then they should simply stop threatening to do ignorant things.

The users then go around creating accounts on other sites and acting like "uninvolved anonymous" people to attack this wiki and promote the other. Be honest guys, and state your stance like I do. Its really pathetic. Also, just so you know, Proxies are outdated pieces of crap - no one remains anonymous on the internet. Not even you, though I'll play nice.

Now, to understand my "position" in all of this, one needs to go back a couple of years. Users who have left, such as TK-Squared, have routinely ran off individuals with their rude behavior. Then users such as DragonChild would openly trash other's contributions though he never actually put forth anything on this wiki. Surgo was highly rude and wanted power, as evidenced in the responses to his RfA. Now he is trying to force a merge over on the other wiki before that site's admin chimes in. GhostWheel, as evidenced in all his actions here and on the other wiki, showcases a belief that he and his items are superior to all and everyone. He has even been mad at the new wiki because others don't see eye to eye with him, and he must catalog all his perfect items to feel better. They love and want power because they lack it offline. It is a common and growing problem in the world (I'm talking to you - Tilla Tequila).

Attack me all you want, I'm good offline and comfortable in who I am. I'm not here for power (check my self-done RfA - I just wanted the ability to do more, not the power - I just didn't know the Tavern Crowd to ask someone else to do it - like half the other RfAs did). I'm here because I enjoy gaming, and I like wikis. I've been here longer than most these bygone individuals and edited more than half them combined. Not all nor most of my stuff is wonderful, a lot is absolute crap. And I love it.

E-Bullys for years. Victims for a single event. In my opinon: Good riddance.

Now, all the above is not an attack. Much like you called me out earlier, no I don't have a bite. I am not the owner, just a user. I'm just calling all these users out on their actions that harmed this wiki over years. Now Greed Dragon is being called out, but here is the thing: Although I disagree with a lot of his recent actions, and a lot of his edit summaries are confusing to me, he owns the site. If I disagree enough, I'll just stop editing. This isn't wikipedia - it is owned by an individual. You get annoyed enough - then leave.

So the timeline goes that GD put up with many rude people harming the growth of the website for years, then plausibly overreacts. Those users then start vandalizing the wiki, threatening electronic attacks, and other idiocy. So, even assuming that GD was 100 percent wrong initially back in August - that is one event against all the rest.

Now, you mention that me saying "If you leave - be gone" and similar things. But it truly is that simple. If you're so sure you can do better - go do it. Obviously it isn't getting you anywhere here, and each continued action just showcases how the people who may have been on the right side originally are beginning to devolve into the wrong.

So, I propose a perfect solution:

• Those who are gone - be and stay gone
• Those who disagree enough, stop contributing
• Those who wish to continue contributing come up with well thought out responses (such as this). However, realize that GD is not wholly in the wrong nor is Surgo et. al. wholly in the right.

The event is over. Lets move on.

Green Dragon 14:13, 23 November 2009 (MST)

To start: What you said above does constitute a ban. Intimidating behavior/harassment is when one belittles others users. You do that throughout. The warning policy is for, mainly, vulgarity and incivility (not Intimidating behavior/harassment). It's specific; you got that wrong.

That warning policy has, by word of mouth, been in effect for probably over a year and a few users have been banned as a result. TK-Squared is a prime example of this. A few others abound.

I did not, save in the edit history edited revision, say anything uncivil on User Talk:Eiji#Farmer — You need to read it. Hint: I'm not the IP, I'm Green Dragon.

Each of those bans you referenced above do not correlate to the warning policy. The warning policy is for things such as Sepsis's warning — not soliciting (advertising — you've seen signs on stores I'm assuming...), intimidating behavior/harassment, etc etc. Please note: If one is banned for warnings then their ban would say warnings. If they are banned for soliciting then it says soliciting. It's quite direct.

What the people above were banned for is not warnings. They each have a specific reason which correlates to what they were doing which is not allowed. Please note Wikipedia's policies are in effect too, generally. Warnings are specifically only used in the warning system.

A user edit count (the non-bot related ones) do correlate to one's status in a way. Someone with 2 edits will not have as much influence and say with what they say as someone with 2,000 edits. It's by personal knowledge (person to person) of the person too, of course, and one's edit count just arrives too (by editing); however one looks at it (both work).

Yes, Hooper recorded some chats people had about D&D Wiki. To be honest I felt he was worried these people ha some strange intentions. What one does outside of D&D Wiki does not correlate to D&D Wiki. I'm not the nicest person sometimes; I don't get banned on D&D Wiki as such.

I like to think my English is improving, who knows though.

I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies on matters of intimidating behavior/harassment, soliciting, etc. They are important.

Jay Freedman 15:01, 23 November 2009 (MST)

How come no one attacks my character? I feel left out Cua! Next time you feel like your having trust issues just come talk to ol' Jay. I'll fix dinner, we can have tea, maybe light a fire, and have a good old fashioned Thanksgiving talk. A real heart-to-heart, ya know. Anything you feel discouraged about we can just talk it out. No more outbursts of frustration, ok? Alright. Peace!

Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions