Forum:Misuse of mod powers

Ok so I was told to come here by the people at http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Jacce#Bad_mod so please don't ban me.

The mod Jacce banned the people at 76.114.248.173 and 24.63.155.215 for what he says was, 'nonsense,' and what other people say was, 'unnecessary.' It definitely wasn't nonsense because I understood what they were saying and whether it was necessary is an opinion. The point is that they did not do anything bad. And this site's rules at Narutopedia:Blocking policy say, 'Users should not be blocked simply for making bad edits.' So Jacce broke the rules when he banned people who were only trying to help. And then after he banned them Jacce protected the pages they edited from more editing because of what he says was, 'excessive vandalism.' The Kazekage page has been edited four times in the last month and only one was vandalism. 1/4 isn't excessive. The Tsuchikage page has been edited two times in the last month and neither was vandalism. 0/2 isn't excessive. The only thing excessive is that Jacce protected the pages for six months because of one edit.

When I told Jacce that he shouldn't have banned these people some other people came and defended him by saying that it was no big deal that these people were banned because their bans will end in a few days. If you were banned because someone thought you were breaking the rules when it's actually the person that banned you who's breaking the rules would you brush it off as no big deal? Do you think it would be fair to be sent to jail and then have your jailers tell you you didn't do anything wrong but you still need to serve your full term? And then the person White Flash says that Nazism isn't so bad because other websites are even bigger Nazis. Not only is that extremely insulting but it sounds like an admission of guilt.

So I think that Jacce and other mods should stop misusing their mod powers by banning people who didn't do anything wrong and by preventing people from contributing for six month time frames as a response to one well meaning edit. I don't think whether or not the stuff these people added was important or whether or not they added it in the right place matters because they only wanted to be helpful. And wanting to be helpful is never bad. If you keep scaring away people that only want to make this site better then you're going to be left with people that White Flash says aren't Nazis but are only kind of Nazis.

Thank you for listening and please don't ban me because I want this site to be better.142.54.169.2 (talk) 22:01, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Opinions
I admire the admin involved here. His actions were proven, correct and thoughtful whenever I've seen one of his edits. I may be wrong, but are the suspicious trivia facts these two: "His chakra cannot be sensed by any ninja in the land He also Taught Particle Jutsu to the 3rd Tsuchikage." and "Gaara is one of the few Byronic Heros in the anime along with Itachi."?

As i can recall, we've had thousands of these (maybe unnecessary) trivia facts, but the users weren't blocked because of them. Maybe there is something more involved here? --Vecanoi (talk) 22:14, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes those are the edits. Adding something that's not necessary isn't bad if they're only trying to be helpful. The rules say they shouldn't have been banned unless they kept adding the same thing which they didn't do because they were banned after the first time they added it.142.54.169.2 (talk) 22:21, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never said Nazism is okay. You are now trying to change my words, I said other Admins led their Wikis with Nazism they're more worse than what you said "Oh I see. When someone gets sent to jail for a crime they didn't commit they should be like, 'Oh it's no big deal because I'll get out in a month.". - White Flash - (Talk) - 22:30, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

This forum is ridiculously unnecessary. IP user 142.54.169.2 you're blowing the issue— whether it be justified or no in your, or any one else's opinion— way out of proportion. This is all because of the way you arbitrarily came here and attacked someone from our community but not just anyone, one of the long-standing members that a lot of people here respect and even admire. You expected the community to respond in another manner other than outrage. Wait until Jacce gets on and he can address you directly instead of creating forums and blowing things out of proportion. One incident doesn't mean the person is misusing their power. He's been an admin from as early as 2009 I think someone would've noticed this by now. With that, I'd ask the rest of the community to ignore this forum and carry on with your work.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 22:47, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's other people making a bigger deal out of this. I told Jacce that he made a mistake and then other people came along and defended him. And then they told me to make a forum here which is what I did. Just because Jacce is a mod and just because he's been editing for a long time doesn't mean he can't make a mistake sometimes. You don't need to make excuses for him.
 * And this has been an issue before. Look at this link http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Jacce/Archive_4#Blocks This site's banning policy was specifically written because Jacce was being too free with his banning privileges and now he's being free with it again. He should stop banning people for first offenses because it's in the rules and because sometimes (like this time) he blocks people that he shouldn't.142.54.169.2 (talk) 23:05, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Respond
The edits made by mentioned IP:s are similar to hundreds of old edits. All they do is causing trouble and extra work for good users. Some are made in good faith, others with ill intent. Most IP just pop up, leaves an edit and disappears again, a short block rarely hurts anyone and it prevents the vandals from doing damage. And a note in the log makes it easier to find range vandals.

The problem with IP users is that it is difficult to sort one timers from vandals. When an account user does those edits it is easy to just leave a message on their talk page, an IP can be used by dozens of different people.

The policy about blocking didn't do much difference. The only change was that vandals could cause trouble before being stopped. This wiki is constantly attacked by vandals, all I'm trying to to is save the users from unnecessary work. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 06:00, June 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * The mod Dantman says that a short block rarely helps anyone either if you read what he told you in 2009. The rules should be updated to say that anyone can be blocked no matter what their intention was if they do something that bothers registered people because that's how this site works and the fact that the rules say otherwise is just confusing people like me.


 * And I want to know why you make pages uneditable for such a long time? Six months is a long time to be preventing anything especially when it's just because of one person.142.54.169.2 (talk) 18:50, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe because of the fact the page is constantly vandalized therefore should be protected. - White Flash - (Talk) - 18:54, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * For the first comment, time has passed and things has changed. Jacce | Talk | Contributions 18:58, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

It's a common saying that prevention is better than cure. I don't know about others but I'd much prefer the article being protected from IP users for six months than users having to constantly undo the vandalism that they cause. You may not have specifically done anything but IP vandals make it bad for all of you. There's nothing excessive about a six months protection on an article that would rarely need updating. The page was free to be edited by registered users which more times than not aren't here to vandalise the articles. If you feel that you wanted to contribute then then simply create an account or leave a message in the talk page if you don't want to do the former.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 19:03, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

If things has changed then update the rules. You're a mod and you can change those things. And no those pages are not constantly vandalized because if you look at the Tsuchikage page it's only been edited twice in the last month and neither was vandalism like I said before. I think you should look up vandalism in a dictionary because when I look it up it says, 'deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property' and there's nothing deliberately malicious about these kinds of edits. And just because these pages rarely need editing doesn't mean they don't need editing sometimes because if you look at the Kazekage page there's a grammar mistake in the trivia part where it's got conflicting use of 'was' and 'were' when it should only be one or the other. And the Mizukage page was protected for six months today even though there's an unnecessary comma in the lead paragraph where it says, 'The Mizukage's building, is the,' and should say, 'The Mizukage's building is the.' But because the page is protected I have to point these out somewhere else which just causes, 'extra work for good users,' like Jacce said which recreates the problem by trying to solve it. I shouldn't need to use an account for things like this because that flies in the face of how sites like this are supposed to work.142.54.169.2 (talk) 19:18, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

"I've never been more for excluding unregistered people from the site" Cerez' edit summary. Just to comment on this in case it's taken seriously, I don't believe one article is grounds for punishing all unregistered users. It's one thing for Jacce to ban out would be vandals, quite another to cut off everyone on account of 142.54.169.2 there. I mean even I, a registered user would suffer for that as I occasionally edit while forgetting to sign in. --Hawkeye2701 (talk) 00:57, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

No one's taking anything out on anyone because of one person. It just doesn't make much sense to me to carry on this argument. Jacce is a sysop and if he sees fit to up the protection level of an article for x amount of time, I don't see a reason to argue with that. Other than that, persons are able to request that the article be unprotected and even in some instances, the article is unprotected after the issue surrounding it is resolved. Not because the article is protected for x time means that the protection will remain for the duration. And like I said before, if you have edits that need to be done to an article while it's protected, use the talk page or else request to have the article unprotected and go from there. That's what everybody else does when they want to edit protected articles, don't see why IP users should be any different.--Cerez 365 ™(talk)18:44, June 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I requested edits in my last post and look nobody has done anything yet. I have reason to argue with six months protection because there's no reason to do so the pages aren't edited very often and when they are it's not vandalism so protection doesn't accomplish anything other than preventing potential good edits. And even if there was vandalism going on it wouldn't need to be six months because a month is a long time too without being unreasonable. If you look at the Raikage page it's only been protected for a month so what is it about these other pages that needs six months and pages like Raikage that only needs one month because I don't see any consistency. And Jacce is avoiding the issue about banning he says the banning rules are out of date but he won't change them either when that would be really simple for him because he's a mod.142.54.169.2 (talk) 19:11, June 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically you didn't request anything and if you were, it should've been done on the talk pages or made more clear in you post. In any case the changes have been made.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 19:40, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So when someone brings a problem to your attention that they cannot fix themselves it doesn't occur to you to do it for them unless they specifically ask you to in the proper place? I'd kind of hope that you would fix the problem as soon as you were aware of it no matter how it's brought up although if you weren't aware of it because you didn't read my whole post I can understand.142.54.169.2 (talk) 19:58, June 25, 2012 (UTC)