Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Fireburn12's ban


Good day everyone,

As many of you know, the user Fireburn12 has recently been banned for one year under the the pretense of sharing the same ip as the TheSurvivor2299, a currently blocked member. And because users who share ips are most likely operated by the same person, the block of thesurvivor2299 was extended to fireburn12 and his related accounts, which he has declared officially and unofficially. However, I do not believe in the current evidence in fireburn12's ban, for the character of the survivor 2299 does not seem to coincide with fireburn. I am currently in contact with him, and am working to gather evidence to disprove the evidence that the accounts are run by the same person. If anyone has evidence against the ban or wishes to support me and repeal the ban, please state so below.

For evidence we currently have there is:

  • other accounts did not violate wiki policy, ban (if there is any) should be shorter
  • Survivor2299 is connected to user fireburn12 by ipchecking, but the given ip may not be reliable b/c the ip could come from a shared hosting web server provided by the internet service provider he uses

Thank you for reading --Josef (talk) 02:51, April 1, 2014 (UTC)


Comments

Well, I can say that your first piece of evidence simply isn't true. Fireburn had 1 declared alternate account (Ellie Williams), and 2 undeclared ones (if you count TheSurvivor2299). The other account, TheManWithAPlan21, entered chat and conversed with users without declaring it's affiliation to his main account, a direct violation of the policy outlined in our user conduct rules and regulations. Although, this in comparison would be considered a minor offense. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  03:12, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

I need to clear up a bit of misdirection first of all:

  • No 100% evidence has been provided to prove that Fire is the same person as the Survivor.
  • Because this cannot be proven, his other accounts can not be considered sock-puppet accounts since they were never used to circumvent anything.
  • While disappointed that Fire would listen to other people using alternative accounts, this is not a ban-worthy offense. His alternate accounts were never used to circumvent anything, and neither were they used to pretend to be a specific person, meaning that they were not impersonating another person/user.
  • For one, the multiple account rules are merely guidelines - not policies. How about we stop acting like guidelines should ever be enforced as policies. Secondly, our rules do not say that having unannounced alternate accounts will result in a ban. This is not a misinterpretation, as the guidelines were copied verbatim from the forum that resulted in its creation.
  • The personality is not the same. After Fire asked me for help and after I spoke with Follower a bit in private chat, I began cross-comparing comments from both the Survivor and Fire. Neither the writing structure nor the spelling matches up.

So what I am seeing is inconclusive evidence, and misuse of our guidelines by treating them as policies and enforcing bans where they are not warranted from our guidelines. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:24, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Your statement on guidelines is not true, Leon. While under the heading of a guideline, the policy is also under a subheading of rules and regulations, which is preceded with the message: "User conduct rules and regulations are enforced by immediate administrative action." Therefore, the multiple account policy is in effect, policy, and not a mere guideline. Administrative action includes, but is not limited to, bans and warnings, so the idea that the ban is unwarranted due to misuse of guidelines is, in my opinion, null and void. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  03:37, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
When I see Administrative action, the first thing I think of is giving a warning or suggestion first. Not throwing around the ban-hammer, which violates both good faith, and the common decency involved which should require those with Administrative rights to travel each avenue of approach before finally resorting to banning when all else fails.
I do not fault Clyde. The fact of the matter is, that the evidence he looked at was pretty damn good at the time. But now that it has been shown that the evidence is not infallible, and that the personalities do not match up, I just do not see how the ban can be warranted anymore. And if the ban enacted by connecting Fire and the Survivor is not warranted, then that means Administrative action should only consist of insisting, as the multiple accounts guidelines state personally, that Fire make note of his alternative accounts on his main account. Only should he refuse to do this can I possibly see a reason to ever ban him for gross violation of the multiple account guidelines. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:44, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I am not necessarily saying that Fire is innocent quite yet - I am merely looking at the facts currently in-front of me. Right now, I see only inconclusive evidence. But I also understand that I might not be seeing everything, so my thoughts here will be redacted if any solid evidence is provided. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 03:48, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
If infallible evidence is key, then that works both ways. Fact of the matter is, we have to make the best decision with the information in front of us, and the IP match is not the only piece of evidence that was looked at, nor was it considered exclusively when the decision to ban Fireburn was made. If the IP check was the only piece of evidence, could we assume good faith? I think so. But Fireburn established precedents on two occasions where he a) insulted other users (in a manner similar to TheSurvivor2299, I should add) and b) used a sockpuppet account for dishonest means. By no means is this infallible, but it does lend something to Fireburn's character. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  03:54, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have no reason to doubt you. But at this point, what I suggest is that the evidence is collected and presented to the community. The fact of the matter is that the lack of information present in this ban, especially since the only ban reason Fire himself was given was over his alleged I.P. connection to the Survivor, has left quite a bit of doubt towards authenticity. However, I would like to address the two incidents you brought up:

  • Insulting other users is not a multiple accounts violation. This would warrant an entirely separate and much less severe ban.
  • If Fire is not the Survivor, then how did he use his alternate accounts for sock-puppet purposes? The only subject I have seen brought up is that he used his alternate account to ask others what they thought about himself as Fire. This is dishonest, yes, but does not make his alternate accounts sock-puppets. Only if you use an alternate account to impersonate another user or circumvent the rules do alternate accounts become sock-puppets. And Fire did neither - if he cannot be connected to the Survivor, then that means he never circumvented anything. And while he was being dishonest in chat, he never claimed to be anyone else, meaning he never impersonated another person/user. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 04:00, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
The doubt towards authenticity is understood, but there are other ways to look at it then purely from a matching IP standpoint. Anyways, to answer your questions:
  • The incident where he insulted other users resulted in a 3 day ban in July of 2013. It is in no way related to this incident except to establish a precedent for character.
  • His alternate accounts were not sockpuppets until the point in time where the Survivor IP was linked to him. It then appeared that he used his main account to evade the Survivor ban. This is in direct violation of policy, and as per policy, bans from one account carry over to all other accounts. Calling them sockpuppets is a bit of a misnomer, as they are 'alternate accounts' but are still subject to the rules and regulations. TheManWithAPlan21 is considered a sockpuppet, as it was not declared at the time of entering chat. As I said before, this isn't nearly as severe as the other infractions, and, while dishonest, do not appear especially malicious.

FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  04:08, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

The Supposed IP match is the only piece of evidence tying it to survivor and has more than two weeks difference between Survivor and Fireburn using it. If it was the same day then I'd agree that its compelling. If it was a day or two out, I'd probably be persuaded. If there had been multiple overlapping matches, I could be persuaded... but if you went to a public place (as this mobile/shared IP address effectively is) two weeks after a known criminal was there, I wouldn't presume you were the criminal. Agent c (talk) 10:41, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

But at this point, what I suggest is that the evidence is collected and presented to the community.— Leon

Unfortunately, there's a problem with presenting all the evidence to the community. When we were granted check user rights we were specifically warned not to release personal information that we gain from using the tool. It would be a violation of Wikia's ToU if we did. And keep in mind Fireburn is a minor, so it's doubly important that we not openly discuss certain personal information that may have led to the interpretation of the information we had. I can't tell you his IPs. I can't show you the logs with those IPs on there. I can't tell you where those IPs locate to. I'm not willing to break ToU just to show everyone all the evidence. Hell, I can't even show all the BCs all the evidence. To make things worse, when I talked to Fireburn, which I finally was able to, there were things I could not ask him that may have helped his case because he's a minor and you can't ask personal information of a minor. When it comes to stuff like this you guys will have to either trust what we tell you is on the check user log, or not. But we can't tell you all the details no matter how much you may want them. On that note, some things came up in my discussion with Fireburn that help clear up the picture of what may have occurred. When we're done discussing it, Fireburn will be the first to know the results. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 19:55, April 1, 2014 (UTC)


With the I.P. matter, what I have been told is that the evidence is inconclusive - which is not always the case when running the Check User rights. On this forum, however, when bringing that up, I was told that other evidence was taken into account and that the I.P. link to the Survivor account was not the only variable that led up to his ban. That is the evidence I was asking to be collected and presented, since the I.P. business is currently not infallible enough to base such a lengthy ban upon as well as labeling Fire as a sock-puppeteer.
Keep in mind that when I argue this case, I am not arguing against the Check User rights themselves, and in most cases I support their use and I accept the bans instigated by using them. But in this particular case, I just do not see a personality connection, as well as the fact that it has been brought to light that in Fire's case, the I.P. check was not 100% reliable. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:00, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

1 year seems incredibly draconian a punishment for an IP violation. Just saiyan. Enclavesymbol 20:03, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Here's what goes into figuring out blocks and block length. First you got to figure out all the violations. For training purposes only, let's say that we have indisputably conclusive proof in this case and it's found that the two users are, in fact, one and the same, and there's no question in anyone's mind they deserve discipline. What would all the violations be? You've got 2 violations of abusing multiple accounts by evading a ban. Once when the user entered chat after a secondary account was chat banned, and a second time when the user edited the wiki and/or entered chat when the secondary account had been site blocked 3 days later for a different offense. That's 2. You also have the 2 violations of not declaring, once with the account that was blocked, and another with the account that was made shortly before the main account was blocked. The last one is by far the least of the offenses. So that's another 2.
Now you have to look at prior history. Since all accounts that belong to one person count towards additional later discipline, you've got that one prior block and two chat bans. So, adding the prior block, you've got a total of 5 site policy violations, and if you count the two evasion of bans when entering chat, you have a total of 4 chat policy violations. Even if you drop the least of the violations, that last non-declaration one, there's still enough violations to go 3 days/1 week/1 month/forever. Same with if it was just chat violations we're counting. There'd be 4. Same thing: 3 days/1 week/1 month/forever. Now also, remember, as we're so often reminded, there's latitude in setting these ban lengths. Case in point, survivor's first block was so bad he got hit with 1 month. We could have gone straight to permanent right from that. But Clyde didn't. He used that same discretion to reduce the 4th (and 5th) violation to only 1 year. So it's not as simple as you state, "1 draconian year for a simple IP violation." Every time we block someone, we have to check all this before setting the block. Sometimes it's even difficult to figure out what length to use when admins or chat mods have NOT followed the suggested 3days/1week/1month/forever guidelines. That's why I almost always follow the guidelines. I want the next person who has to block someone to have a clear idea of what to do. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:41, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
That explains the duration then. I didn't realize the variables. Apologies for the unfair accusation. Enclavesymbol 20:48, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
I would like to address Chad's comment that the IP match is the only piece of evidence connecting Fireburn12 to TheSurvivor2299. While this is technically true, in the interest of explaining my rationale behind this instance, I want to explore what (I assume) would happen if that was the only thing I was considering.
Assume good faith: Do your best to assume that other editors are trying to help unless you have evidence to the contrary.FW:UC
That is our guideline on assuming good faith. If the IP match to Survivor was the only piece of evidence, could we assume good faith? I think that would be acceptable, but an eye would (hopefully) be kept on the situation. But can we assume good faith? By our own guideline, we assume good faith unless you have evidence to the contrary. In this case, there exists evidence to the contrary, specifically two instances which I have detailed above, but I will detail again here:
  • Fireburn has been banned once previously, on Fallout Wiki:Chat/Logs/29 July 2013|July 29th, 2013 for insulting other users. I won't transcribe the logs, but the way in which he insulted said users does bear some similarity to the forum put up by TheSurvivor2299 a while ago. He was banned 3 days for this instance, which ties into the escalation of bans detailed by Gunny above.
  • Fireburn admitted to entering chat with an undeclared sock account, and, while not using it to specifically insult other users, did use it for dishonest purposes. I was in chat at this time, and it was this admission of an alternate account that led me to seek out Clyde for a check user the following day. It should also be noted that Fireburn previously entered into chat with his account Ellie Williams undeclared, and attempted to personify himself as someone different before being told to declare the account on it's user page.
We also have to consider the simple probability of two users using the same IP address. With roughly 500 active contributors, the chances of someone using the same IP address to log in as another user are minute. Statistics are cold, but they do shed some light on the probability of this occurring randomly.
In all, with the hard evidence (IP check) combined with the circumstantial, there appears far more evidence for his guilt than there is doubt of it. If more information comes to light, then there would be more cause for analysis, but as it stands, I think the correct decision has been made. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  23:40, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that the moment a person makes even a single mistake, that good faith can never be applied to them ever again? Unacceptable. When Fire was banned, it was not even 2014 yet. Why are you using an incident that old to justify not using good faith now in the present? Also, can you please stop calling his alternate accounts as sock-puppet? Until Fire is proven beyond a doubt to also be the Survivor, there is absolutely no justification to calling his proven accounts sock-puppets until evidence is provided that they were used to circumvent the rules/impersonate another user/person. Which as I mentioned earlier, he has not done (with the exception of circumvention should the Survivor link be proven). You say he attempted to impersonate another user, but this has never been brought up before, so I am asking since it is only being brought up now that evidence be provided for that. It needs to be provided anyways - I have already requested for the alleged additional evidence to be provided, and it still has not been shown. Unless we want to make a farce of this incident, I would appreciate information being shared with the community. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 23:46, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I use the term sockpuppet based on his actions with the account. The undeclared TheManWithAPlan account went to measures to decieve users (including messaging Fireburn12's talk page to make it seem like he was a different user, as well as asking Fireburn12 for PM's in chat, ostensibly for the same purpose). In my opinion, that constitutes sockpuppeting.

And no, I'm not saying good faith can't be applied, but the past actions appear to provide context related to the current predicament. Had Fire previously been banned for spamming, or posting pornography, then that does not establish any sort of contextual link between him and Survivor. Unfortunately, the actions for which he was banned for (insults) do provide that context. Therefore, in my opinion, it must be considered. I do understand your opposition to this in general, but I honestly think that the correct action was taken based on the information we have. Until we have more, or clarity on certain subjects, I don't see anything that can be done. FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  23:58, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

Here is TheManWithAPlan21 messaging Fireburn on his talk page: http://fallout.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFireburn12&diff=2116425&oldid=2116152, and here is Fireburn and TheManWithAPlan conversing in chat, appearing as different users (starts at 10:15): http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki:Chat/Logs/26_March_2014?t=20140326235735 FollowersApocalypseLogo A Follower  Talk  00:01, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
It is dishonest, and while I might be defending Fire here, I fully acknowledge that such actions are unacceptable and depending on how far he would/might take it, could construe a general wiki disruption. But in this case, it is also dishonest to state that his alternate accounts are sock-puppets because of impersonation, when he was not impersonating anyone (only if he specifically claimed/claims to be another person would he be impersonating someone else). Hell, if impersonation simply meant not being on your account and not making anyone aware it is you, almost everyone here would be a sock-puppet for periodically editing anonymously.
It most certainly should be taken into account. I agree with you completely. But to use that as an excuse to discontinue good faith hearings over half a year later is not acceptable. Hell, if I was petty enough, I could easily list off some sleazy shit that quite a bit of our Administration has been a part of to discount good faith against their future actions. But that would just be me looking for confirmation bias.
I think at this point, I have said everything I need to. I would just like to re-elaborate that evidence needs to be provided to the community. Of course we cannot show his personal information, but I have been told that unrelated evidence has also been taken into account, and it is this non I.P. related evidence that needs to be taken into account by the community instead of being portrayed as hear-say (thank you for the two links, I will be looking into them shortly). ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 00:09, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

As I've already stated, some of the information people are requesting here on the details that led to the determination that Fireburn was the same person as TheSurvivor2299 is personal information that I'm not gong to share. I did have the opportunity to finally discuss this with Fireburn and with some additional information he gave me (again, personal information that I'm not able to share), I was able to determine there was a good likelyhood that Fireburn could not have logged in at the time and place the check user log showed. I believe his account must have been compromised. I shared this information with Clyde, and Clyde has decided to remove the block.

There's a few things to take away from this entire situation:

  1. Check user must be applied in context with as much information we can gather to support blocks.
  2. There are going to be cases where we can not share all the info on blocks at times. I'm certainly not going to break ToU and reveal personal information. When situations like this arise, you're just going to have to let those of us with the tools get to the bottom of the situation.
  3. Wikia's ToU clearly state it's a violation to not protect the security of you password or account details. It's your responsibility to do so, so remember to periodically change your password and make sure it's robust.
  4. This whole situation arose because of the improper use of secondary accounts. If you don't want the added attention, and the possible IP check for other accounts or sock puppets, then abide by the secondary account policy and declare them before you use them.

One final note: While I support the community's right to open a forum discussing a ban, and even to show support for removing it, at least in my case, the polices are always going to be followed. This forum, and the support it showed for Fireburn, had nothing to do with removing the block. The hard information I collected did. I hope I do not see a day where the community here decides to try to undo this site's administration by popular decree and ignore the policies they themselves help put in place. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:15, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement