I'm going to keep this short and to the point. For several weeks/months Dtm has been somewhat active in the clan chat. A significant number of conversations involving him reduce to him arguing that anyone that plays more or in a more 'efficient' manner than him is a 'no-lifer'.
I feel he does this in a deliberate way to bait people into arguing with him. I know myself and several others have - to the point of adding him to my ignore list on several occasions. I don't believe that this is acceptable, even if he hasn't directly broken any rules of the clan chat.
However, he has also been previously banned for breach of the rules (regarding revealing personal information) - link.
Precedent for banning user who has not broken any rules directly: Forum:Ban Bawble.
- From: a proofreader/Nebuleon: 8, 10, 13 May
- 11 May
- 15 May
- 29 May
- 2 June
- 16 June
Raw screenshots are available.
Support - As proposer.00:04, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Support - As co-proposer and provider of screenshot evidence. Dtm142:
- has been side-tracking conversations by saying that the subject matter is "for no-lifers", and has been making a point to say that things are for no-lifers even after being asked by GhastlyJello, and others, not to abuse the term "no-lifer", which has negative connotations;
- has been arguing that his opinions are instead "stating facts";
- has been asking to "please cite" things that he had clearly said just before;
- has been calling opposing arguments red herrings against him;
- has been saying that his opposers either "cannot handle his 1337ness" or cannot refute his opinions and therefore they are facts, even if it's clear to others in the Clan Chat that refuting could cause more heated argumentation or outright flaming;
- has been ignored by at least 3 users who mentioned it in the Clan Chat: FF7, rw Sentenced, and myself - as well as Gaz Lloyd, the proposer.
- Addendum, I don't think the personal information ban is related to this one at all. 02:30, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Support -fetus is my son and I love him. 01:06, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- And your reason for supporting is...? Haidro (talk) 01:42, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Written above. But in summary it would amount to trolling.01:55, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, sorry. I misinterpreted your question as responding to my comment, but it was to Elune. Elune's very small comment made me miss it entirely. 01:59, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose permanent ban - Not being someone who is especially active in the cc, I cannot say I have witnessed any of these events. However, I did not see anyone trying to warn Dtm in the provided conversations. Whilst Dtm is indeed a bureaucrat, we all have flaws in our characters. Dtm's seem to be being opinionated and a tendency to troll. I would rather see Dtm admitting he was part of the problem here and saying he would work on the issues raised here. It is also possible to try and change the conversation if you think it is going in a direction not suitable for a harmonious cc instead of needlessly continuing the line of discussion, again not something I saw in the screenshots provided.
Most of my exposure to Dtm would be through Special:Chat, and I would not say he has displayed behaviour that might warrant a similar action here. If anyone feels the need to try and find such evidence, there are logs that date back ~5 months. If Dtm can manage to not cause such problems in one chat medium perhaps it is not entirely him at fault for casing problems in another chat medium.
I am of the belief that the ignore list is the best route forward here, unless it can be shown that Dtm has repeatedly broken the rules of the cc. The incident involving personal information should never have happened, and Dtm should have known better, but sometimes personal information can be released accidentally, and without harm intended. Cåm 01:38,23/6/2012 (UTC)
- To add on to that, I've never seen Dtm act like that in S:C before, I really had no idea he was like that (at least in the cc). Quite disheartening - but perhaps he can change the way he acts in the cc based on his good behavior in S:C. 01:54, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Seconded. 06:39, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose permanent ban - I'm going to have to side with Cam here, she really beat me to writing my own opinion. Dtm's behavior as shown in the screenshots, although cynical and self-righteous at times, are not warrant for a ban. The ignore list is a much better option here, given the lack of severity in the situation. We should treat this as we would treat any minor-rule-breaking user (despite having no rules being broken,) and give warnings first. I am in full favor of a reminder to Dtm to be kind and courteous to others in the chat (and generally to every human being,) but nothing more. Should his negative behavior persist following the reminder, the most I would be in support for would be a 1-2 day ban. — Enigma 02:02, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Erm, I'm not a girl... Cåm 02:12,23/6/2012 (UTC)
Comment - It is true that Dtm gets rowdy very easily, in the few times I've seen him in chat. However, I did not see any one else trying to avert the situation, and instead, kept on edging him on. It is like taunting a starved dog. But he isn't always bad, and I've seen him help out others with questions a few time.02:14, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Lengthy but not permanent ban - While I generally agree with the opinion of some users that Dtm can be an abrasive and unpleasant player to be around, I believe that some of these events have been blown out of proportion. In my opinion, my take on these events will be definitely inferior to players who were involved at the time, as I am unable to gauge the emotion and circumstance of the conversation as well as participants. I'm about two-thirds of the way through the "evidence" as I type this. Based on ,  and , this does not yet approach the severity of Bawble's contraventions, which is being used a precedent by the proposer. This   makes Dtm appear to be a rather stubborn, insulting and rude character, and at most warrants a temporary ban. This  is the most clear contravention of a rule, it is nothing more than a nearly-direct insult at Jello. If taken as an isolated incident, it also warrants a lengthy temporary ban.
Concluding with , Dtm seems to have some sort of aversion to behaviours he likes to term "no-lifing", and clearly makes some misrepresentations of what no-lifing is. While everyone has the right to their own opinion, using it to insult others is not acceptable. Although this has been occurring over a presumably lengthy period (assumption here, no time stamps), I cannot really see anything that really deserves a permanent ban. Like I said in the beginning, my opinion may well be inferior to others who were actually present in the CC, or know Dtm better than myself (The only fact that comes to mind is that he closed the Bawble thread, ironically). 222 talk 07:23, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I don't consider 'cocksucker', in dclaws.png, to be intended to apply to Jello until he speaks about using dragon claws. So I consider it to be mostly harmless. 22:32, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Reading the chatlogs the worst thing I see it him using the word cocksucker. I have seen many times profanity is used in the cc. Using the word no-lifers is an insult along the lines of noob. In no way what DTM do deserve any kind of ban. Unless there is something I am not seeing, no ban is needed Atlandy 12:10, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Comment Forgive me If i missed something in the screenshots. I somewhat skimmed them. Has he been formally warned, and if so, can someone provide evidence of this? Furthermore, has he been kicked, as a followup to the warning? It seems as though this stage went unchecked just so you could get more evidence to serve your own purposes. Also, showing that he was banned for a different reason at an earlier date is entirely irrelevant and should be removed from the 'evidence' given, (a la Simple Fact Evidence). Also, regarding your point of trying to get people into arguing with him, i refer you to RS:DFTT."f we pay attention to them, make comments, and talk about them amongst ourselves, then we are recognising their existence and impact, which makes them come back for more" Cursed Pyres 13:50, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I mentioned the previous ban in passing, just to say that he has rather than to use as any significant evidence. 00:05, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose perm ban, support short ban. - From what I have seen in the screenshots, I'm leaning more on the side that this is being blown out of proportion. Some of the things he has said hasn't been great, but at the same time, they haven't been bad enough to warrant an extreme case of banning someone for good from the clan chat. I'ld only call for a few weeks ban personally, I have seen a lot worse in my time in the clan chat go unnoticed, but then again, people would do anything to get at a 'crat.14:45, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- If I had a nickel for every f-bomb thrown about in the cc....This is way blown out of proportion Atlandy 15:38, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Question - How many times has he been warned? Were the warnings handled well? I don't think anyone can seriously take a stance without knowing if he was warned sufficiently yet or not. 16:17, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Support temporary/short ban - Between these screenshots and what I've seen of his behaviour in the clan, I think a temporary ban would be best. A permanent ban seems way too extreme, and maybe a temporary one will send him the message that some things need to change.16:33, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Strong support - Dtm has been trolling this clan for too long. Every time I do something efficient I'm suddenly a "no-lifer"... in fact, almost everything that I do differently from Dtm makes me a "no-lifer" and somehow he's always better than everybody at everything in his eyes. I also vividly remember (no screenshots, sorry) when he said something along the lines of "everybody except me in this clan is an idiot" (not actual quote, something like that, I'm sure somebody has a screenie) and when he said that everybody who disagrees with him is either an idiot or delusional. I really can't see any upside to him being in the CC. Again, every time somebody tries to say something about it he just gets all defensive and says he's being used "as a strawman" and that we can't actually refute his arguments. I think the CC would be much better without him. Wicid13 19:47, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Ban until he asks to be let back in - not immediately, of course, but put him out for a while like a misbehaving dog to show that you can't expect to be unreasonable without repercussions. That leaves us with a warm rosy glow of having been lenient, but is likely to have much the same outcome as a permanent ban - he appears to be unable to admit that he is wrong. Everyone wins!20:16, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
It would be good if people could withhold comments for a mo until we can find out whether or not he's been [repeatedly] warned in the past and/or how he's reacted to that warning. Ronan Talk 20:44, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- Dtm has been warned a few times, but not kicked (except for the unrelated personal information issue). In the screenshots:
-  sees Dtm stating, for at least the third time, that his key was removed for no reason (13 May) - I said that stating the fact over and over looks like a grudge (pictured), and annoying (not pictured), to which he reacted in a way that I don't remember. It also sees Dtm arguing about healing and the Monastery and being warned (in a rather rude manner) by Overlloyd ("Alternatively you could try not to be a giant douchebag for a day", 10 May) - after this, he dropped the subject. And finally, it sees GhastlyJello asking Dtm to "stop being a fucking troll" (May 8), to which he reacted by saying "Umadbro?".
-  sees Overlloyd asking the chat to move on after answering Dtm's question about healing. He reacted by moving on, only answering afterwards because I asked what the original question was.
-  sees Dtm arguing that he uses an insult without connotation (to which I reply, comparing it with another, worse insult), and Overlloyd saying "Your dedication to the 'joke' is unnerving" (29 May).
- Other conversations mostly see counter-trolling and counter-flaming, but no warnings.
- He reacted to Overlloyd's "'joke' is unnerving" comment by continuing to use the term, sometimes (see 2 June and 16 June for examples), but also replacing it with "Zezima-type player" (not pictured).
- The Clan Chat has continued to use the term 'no-lifer' in a joking manner after this.
22:32, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm still of the opinion that there seems to be faults on both sides here. Those carrying out the warnings (I did not identify them as warnings on my initial reading due to the manner they were carried out) do not seem to be displaying the level headed behaviour I would expect of those in a authority position. Cåm 22:59,23/6/2012 (UTC)
- I apologise for being rude at some points. In the heat of the moment and the exasperation of the argument happening yet again, and the focus of the argument being about putting down/degrading the in-game achievements and work/generally being mean about a generalisation of the player myself and my friends (and what I would assume a significant part of the clan, our userbase and the playerbase of the game as a whole) are [that is, people who play more/have played more/have higher skills than Dtm], stuff happens. That's a poor excuse but still.
00:05, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- Gaz might have been rude at points, but I'm sure he had his reasons.
00:21, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
- I can testify that I've spoken to Dtm in the past about this (the past being before June). I haven't had much time in the past month, and hence have really with him since the beginning of the month. However, in May, I've told him a few times to move on when he got too disruptive about topics including, but not limited to, people no-lifing, and something about his key. They were not standard warnings, per se, and probably would not count as such in a formal definition (hence the quotation marks in the first sentence). Furthermore, I've only done so thrice, as memory serves.
- I have not been testy with Dtm as far as I know, and I do think that others will agree with such; as such I do not believe that my statements have exacerbated or provoked the situation. However, I do reiterate that they were not real warnings and should not be treated as such.
- In the interests of full disclosure, I was the one who asked Gareth to kick Dtm in February over the personal information incident. However, that was a routine enforcement of clan chat rules, understood to be such by all parties involved, as he told me later. As such, that incident did not have any bearing in our future actions.
- I also do not have any screenshots of my "warnings" to Dtm, but the circumstances were fairly similar to the screenshots provided above.
- This is simply a statement of fact (an affidavit, for those legally inclined persons) from me, and is not and should not be construed as personal support or opposition to this proposal. --King LiquidheliumTalk 00:36, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Gaz might have been rude at points, but I'm sure he had his reasons.
Ban until he asks to be let back in - He has been doing this for years, so everyone get used to it. This is a prime case of people being over-sensitive. I guarantee that simply having a ban thread against him is more than enough to get the message across that he needs to change his attitude. Now he has clearly upset people and broken some rules so he should be punished. He should have an undefined ban for as long as he needs to fix his attitude. May that be a month, or a year, he better be different when he comes back.22:48, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
I oppose any ban based solely on previous behaviour. Why not leave him a nice message at the conclusion of this forum, informing him that his behaviour is unacceptable, and that he will be banned for a short to moderate amount of time if he keeps it up. That way, he will have fair warning and understand that we consider what he is doing as wrong, but at the same time be allowed to improve upon that behaviour. ajr 17:09, June 24, 2012 (UTC)
Support- Dtm is disruptive and takes away from the enjoyable community atmosphere of the cc. It seems to me that his only response to this is along the lines of you're wrong and i'm right (H) etc etc. It is disappointing to see such immature behavior from a 'Crat. I believe that a permanent ban or at least a long term ban pending a change in Dtm's attitude towards other people in the cc is required. I feel that the leaders in the cc have dealt with this well giving dtm ample opportunity to make a positive contribution to the cc similar to that which he makes to the wiki itself. I have seen no change Dtm's attitude or willingness to change. Therefore I support the proposal to take action removing a negative influence on the cc community. Raglough 07:30, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - So, no response from Dtm? :o Raglough 12:43, June 29, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - It has been several days since the last substantive comments, and it does not seem like Dtm will comment here. While Special:ListUsers' "Last logged in" column is notoriously unreliable, oftentimes showing a time earlier than the "Last edited" column, I do not believe that it can ever show a false positive (that is, displaying someone as logging in when in fact he has not). This states that Dtm was logged in on June 28, so he had ample opportunity to comment on this if he wanted to.
The consensus is for a ban, but not a permanent one. As people there is no consensus between a short and a lengthy ban, I will set the ban time to be 1 month. This is in accordance with standard ban times, taking into account a previous 2 week ban. Furthermore, as this thread did not propose a derank, Dtm will be eligible to rejoin the clan at the end of the month with the bureaucrat rank, which is either Overseer or Deputy Owner depending on whether he wants citadel editing rights.