LordTunnel warned me without bringing me to the vandle banning page first. And even then is it not in the rules that the reporter can not be the one to warn the acused vandle. And even then the only reason that he stated was that my post was to the likeness of vandlism, which does not matter if the edit is in good faith which it was (no harm was intended). A train 19:19, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

Then, please do something constructive. You should really not be fooling with the main templete without Mo's permission. One warning realy does nothing. --LordTunnel 19:44, 9 August 2006 (PDT)
Yeah but my innocence is not the issue here (my warning was retracted by the general), I am annoyed that you bypassed all protecal and just banned me without even going through the VB page. AND you were not allowed to give me the warning in the first place because you were the one to "report me" on my group page. A train 20:20, 9 August 2006 (PDT)
He is, read M:G.--The GeneralT POT Mod 20:28, 9 August 2006 (PDT)
My bad (woops I mixed up UD rules with SW rules), Moderation Misconduct report retracted. A train 20:40, 9 August 2006 (PDT)

The GeneralEdit

I am filing a misconduct case on The General for unlawfully banning me here: He banned me for no reason and for not stating any reason on the vandle banning page. G nunnel 09:32, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

You're creating alts to bypass the rules. You understand this, yes? Warnings and bannings apply to the user himself, not simply the account name. -- ♥ Mo 09:51, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
He never stated a reason though. He just banned me. G nunnel 10:04, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
It was quicker, saved time and typing.--The General Mod 10:28, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
I don't think anyone involved doesn't know the reason. -- ♥ Mo 10:35, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Actually I don't think you guys actually do know the reason. After Lord Tunnel got warned twice did he ever do anything to agnoledge or even give a hint that he was the same person as those supposed alts. No. The alts names were L Tunnel, T lunnel, Ltunnel and G nunnel. The person useing those obvisously wanted those names to be asociated with the real Lord Tunnel. The alts that I used put the same message that Lord Tunnel used in prior warnings to futher make the impersonation look real. Then I went ahead and filed a misconduct case for the sole reason of putting the impression that the alts were the same as the real Lord Tunnel. If Lord Tunnel was really the culprit he would have filed the misconduct case useing his real username, not used such obvious alt names, and not used such an obvious message that would point to him.
You guys will never know who I really am. Maybe I am someone who hates Lord Tunnel, someone who hates Karys, or someone try to teach you mods a lesson about impersonation and jumping the ban gun, maybe even Mo himself. Mr.impersonator 11:00, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Too bad LT never thought to deny the alts were his, eh folks? That would've lent some credibility to this - as it stands there is none. -- ♥ Mo 11:03, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
You don't seem to understand... Getting Lord Tunnel banned was my original goal... I am finding this situation more and more amusing. Imp 2 15:44, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Don't believe you, anyway, LordTunnel could of mentioned that it wasn't him.--The General Mod 15:58, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Should be very easy to resolve via webserver logs and IPs, shouldn't it? We might not get a perfect match, but we're a small enough community that we may not have two such valuable members from the same ISP/geographical location... --WarrenZ 16:02, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Only Mo can check that, I don't have access to the database.--The General Mod 16:37, 13 July 2006 (PDT)
Unfortunately Proxies are plentiful. Lord Tunnel has a history of alt abuse, and has made absolutely no complaint under his main account. What's more if someone were trying to get LT banned, they wouldn't simply create alts and then reveal their plan when the alts get banned. Anyone can see that it makes no sense whatsoever as a "plan", and has absolutely no point. Therefore we can see it was concocted after the fact. Case closed. -- ♥ Mo 18:23, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

"Lord Tunnel has a history of alt abuse" Um, what history other than the ones I created. "made absolutely no complaint under his main account" 1 thats because hes banned, 2 he probably doesn't even check the recent changes very much. "if someone were trying to get LT banned, they wouldn't simply create alts and then reveal their plan" Well that was my original plan, I don't really care that much about what happens to LT now. Whel I filed the misconduct case my point was to teach the mods a lesson about impersonation. And about revealing my "plan" to quote Johny Dep, "something about if I told you you would not believe me even if I told the truth" but now I want to convince you guys so you will learn a lesson about impersonation. "it was concocted after the fact" well my plans changed in the middle of everything. So simple yet so incorrect 21:25, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Since we're replying in a manner so as to completely obscure things, I might as well say shoe, donkey butter clap manager. Lightbulb shack. You're really accomplished nothing, unless your super-double-secret goal was to waste your own time. -- ♥ Mo 23:01, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

Well said Mo, buc can you please find the ip and see if it matches any of the Users that hate me??? I realy want to know who my unknown enemy is! I found it strange Destroyer just left my guild and that The General acted very short tempered. I swear to god (I am very religious) that I have created no multiple accounts on wiki or had any of my proxies ever do it. Thanks for understanding, --LordTunnel 09:49, 14 July 2006 (PDT)

The GeneralEdit

Banned me for a month without a warning, and without even a notice on Vandal Banning. He assumed (always a dangerous thing to do, assuming) that I was going to continue, when in fact I had finished all the trolling I'd planned to do. He banned me straight away, without asking me to stop on my talk page: again, this was because he assumed it would be thrown in his face with much swearing and namecalling. Besides the fact that General has only ever looked at my bad side (he conveniently ignores all the newbies I help out), had I done so, he would've had more than enough reason to ban me. But I didn't, so he didn't. --Cyberbob 02:52, 20 September 2006 (PDT)

"A Moderator is expected to warn the user twice (in response to at least two different edits) on their talk page before administering a ban", however that doesn't mean they have to warn the user. If the General thought your actions were vandalism (which trolling for no reason is close enough to) then he should have only given you a 24 hour ban according to the rules. So since you were banned for 24 hours and 1 minuite I think that the General should serve the time extra that you spent banned. Ok ok, you'll be asking, "how does this bring me justice?", well seeing that you come from the Urban Dead Wiki I'm just bringing you the exact same justice that you have done for so many people. General, do you accept your punishment of a ban of 1 minute? - JedazΣT POT ΞD GIS S! 05:51, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
So, if I hadn't come from the UD wiki the result of this would be different? Please. --Cyberbob 06:08, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Yeap, for what it's worth.--The GeneralT POT Mod 06:09, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
In that case, I request another mod to rule on this, as I flat out refuse to accept such bias. --Cyberbob 06:15, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Well if you wern't trying to stop me from "going out with honour" then I may have felt some sympathy for you, but you have proven youself a troll time and time again. Anyway back to the punishment, General, I shall now ban you for one minute. Thats my final ruling. - JedazΣT POT ΞD GIS S! 06:19, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
No. Impartiality does not involve handing out different decisions to people you don't like. Another mod, please. I can wait. --Cyberbob 06:21, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Ok, lets see. You have proven yourself to be a troll many times, a trait which is not desirable in anyone, thus I feel that the 24 hour ban was justified. However if you wish for another moderator can come along and state their verdict you can, but I doubt the outcome will be any different. - JedazΣT POT ΞD GIS S! 06:28, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Since you already openly admitted that your decision was biased, and seeing as Amazing prides himself on being better than the UD wiki, I think I'll get an unbiased decision even from him. Stop trying to suck up, Jedaz. --Cyberbob 06:35, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Why do I need to suck up? When people are openly stating that they will miss me? I'm happy knowing how I have influenced the people around me. I have enough friends so I don't need to suck up. Trolling never gets you anywhere Bob. And yes, I am bias because I know your history. Anyway thats enough from me as anything else I have to say isn't relevent to the misconduct case at hand. If you wish to continue this conversation then please do so on my talk page. - JedazΣT POT ΞD GIS S! 06:46, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
This is an interesting case. I didn't think someone who didn't want to be here would file a misconduct case for being helped out the door. That said, it's clear that there was a boiling over of emotions here, at least in some respects. Cyberbob, you came here to troll and to hold things over Jedaz. That rings of bad faith to me, as I'm sure it would for the UD Wiki. I am picturing a similar scenerio where a Scroll Wars moderator comes over to the UD Wiki for the first time and starts attacking you personally. I'm not sure that person would not be banned as an "obvious alt of Amazing". Where does this leave us? The rules of this wiki are quite clear - but the spirit isn't at this point. This resource is rather new, and there was every reason for The General to think he was acting in good faith given your behavior on a site whose rules are all simply imports from another site. The General, I'm giving you a stern notation that, though we haven't discussed and and you weren't to know, the rules do indeed apply here - even for people who are trolling. Bringing him to Arbitration or making a Vandal report on his flaming would've sufficed, though I understand the point that it wouldn't have stopped him. The reasons for letting The General off with a note here are that the owner of this wiki is staunchly anti-UD-Wiki-Mod-Team, givng The General every reason to think he was doing what I would want as the owner and chief goomba of this site - and the fact that Cyberbob stopped by simply in order to puke venom in Jedaz's eyes, with very little showing he had any intent of contributing to the wiki otherwise. If CB had come by and started making suggestions (for example) then a ban would've been so far out of left field that it would be obvious misconduct. As it stands he came to stir up trouble, and for that I'm calling an even "tie". I'm not going to call another, so both users are on notice. Bob - Don't let this get out of hand, I always did want to have recourse against trolls on the UD Wiki, and I might put forth a policy for voting. General - Momentary lapse, I understand. We never discussed this, and that's my fault. -- Mo mod 10:15, 20 September 2006 (PDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.