UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Spiderzed/2011

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Spiderzed » 2011

Contents 1 23 November 2011 2 Axe Hack, Vapor, Karek, Revenant, Spiderzed 2.1 Amicus curiae 2.2 Summary 3 7 October 4 9 July 2011 4.1 Conclusion 5 6 May 2011 5.1 Required Link 5.2 Ruling 6 4 May

23 November 2011

Axe Hack, Vapor, Karek, Revenant, Spiderzed

This misconduct case arises from the insane ruling reached in the Johnny Rotten case. In the case, the above five sysops decided to permaban Johnny Rotten for editing defamatory text in to the userpages of Carrie Cutter and Sister Rita. All five ruling sysops found the case to be vandalism, and, as Johnny Rotten had numerous edits before that point, he should have received a single warning, in line with the escalation system.

Instead, Vapor posted a permaban ruling, stating that he "got no tolerance for that shit". Vapor's ruling immediately begs the question; Do we now ban people because we can't tolerate them? When I asked the sysop team further why Johnny Rotten was permabanned, and specifically what rule or policy he was banned under, Vapor again replied by saying that "It's the "Text Rapists Don't Get Second Chances" rule." This rule does not exist. He also cited harassment, which has only ever been allowed as vandalism in the most severe cases of harassment over a long period of time (i.e. Iscariot case), and even then only gives a single escalation. Johnny Rotten only made a single edit to each of their pages, and as such there's no way this could qualify as harassment. Vapor also cites a Terms of Service violation. as Thad helpfully quoted on the case, a terms of service violation includes "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene (illegal pornography), libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable". The only terms of the above which could even be considered violated would be "abusive", "harassing" (although not by UDwiki standards) "vulgar", "invasive of another's privacy" and "hateful". UDwiki has always operated under a policy of free speech. If I want to use abusive language to somebody, as long as it isn't racially themed, it's always been allowed. As such, we really don't have rules against being abusive and hateful implemented. In terms of being vulgar and invading another's privacy, there clearly was an offence of invading the privacy of these user's wiki pages and posting vulgar comments there. However, this would only merit a single escalation, as has always been the case on UDwiki. If the sysop team wanted to stretch the rules, they could have treated each case as a separate instance, and given 2 warnings. They did not.

The second ruling came from Axe Hack, who gave no justification at all at any stage during the case. Next came Karek. Karek justifies the ban by saying that "it's got enough things going for it between multiple venues on and off wiki". As has always been the case, we do not punish activity which goes on outside the wiki. Just like we can't permaban zerging players from the wiki, we can't permaban text rapists, just because they're text rapists. Zerging, might I add, is specifically against the rules of the game, whereas we have no statement from Kevan saying it should be banned. This wiki itself voted against a civility policy. The short story is, simply, that we can't punish anything that goes on outside of the wiki. There are therefore no grounds to consider it a ToS violation, as noted above.

Spiderzed also votes to permaban, noting that "In crass cases like this, the TOS apply indeed." This is not the case. I refer to the infamous Goatse case where something very much "crass" occurred, and in a tight vote, the user was found to have vandalised, and was given a single escalation. It should be noted that Spiderzed voted Not vandalism in the above case. In "crass cases" as Spiderzed calls it, there is no deviation from the escalation system and no reason to do so. Likewise, the above case was ruled a ToS violation, and still there was no permaban. Revenant gives a final opinion, justifying his ruling with "I support this zero tolerance stance for text rapists". Once again, there is no justification whatsoever for banning somebody based on in-game actions.

Next I'll talk about Permaban votes in vandalism cases. The general rule states that "Any user reaching a fifth (or higher) ban faces the possibility of a permaban vote". There are only 3 exceptions to this rule:

1. The user has only made 3 or less edits, and they are all vandalism (three edit rule)
2. The user is a spam or ad bot
3. Kevan has specifically approved of the banning, and his owner privilege was used as the basis for the banning.

None of these conditions was fulfilled. In the case of applying standard procedure for permaban votes, a two thirds majority of sysops is required. At the time of banning, only 2 sysops had supported the ruling. The case is very similar to the Iscariot permaban case where he was banned quickly so that he couldn't defend himself on his own case.

Ultimately, the sysop team had 2 legal options in this case. The first was to give the user one warning (two if they wanted to separately punish the offences). The second, as indicated in the case, was to contact Kevan and have him banned via legitimate means. If the sysop team had done so, and Kevan had agreed to ban the user, then the permaban would have been legitimate. As it stands, they did not seek approval. I would still advise them to do so, because personally I think Johnny Rotten is bottom-dwelling scum. However, they didn't do it, and it's already becoming apparent in subsequent cases that the sysop team is completely ignoring the entire system of escalations and just permabanning any vandals now. The sysop team needs to be held to account for their misconduct in this case, deterred from doing the same in the future, and advised to follow the correct routes of procedure. If they didn't like the current rules, they always had the opportunity to set up a policy discussion.

Sorry about the text-wall, but this is really unacceptable behaviour by the sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also pretty much stumped with the way this was handeld, seeing so many sysops, some of them experienced, going against the very fundementals of our years old vandal-system. I said most of what I wanted to say on the vandal case, which is on some points in line with what Yonn typed above. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd like to say that I do consider text-rape to be a ToS violation but I specifically repeat that every kind of ToS violation has arguably happened within the wiki and we've never handled it with a permaban. Otherwise a lot of longtimers here would be long gone. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

again don't you guys have like homework you should be doing? move the fuck on losers.--    bitch     13:04, 23 November 2011 (bst)

I'll try to keep this short. No this has nothing to do with any assumed dislike of Johnny Rotten or his in-game actions. It has everything to do with keeping text-rape (or as I put it "this shit") off the wiki. Permanently. While we have allowed other forms of ToS violations in the past with only a slap on the wrist, text-rape simply lies in its own category. I honestly feel that even one infraction qualifies as harassment and it serves absolu-fucking-lutely no purpose. I'm sure that Carrie and Sister Rita probably feel the same, though I'd rather not drag them into this. Now I could have started a policy discussion to instate a zero-tolerance policy on wiki text-rape and waited the two + weeks to try to get it passed while Johnny got a stern scolding on his talk page. If I must, I will start that policy. However, and I quote The Adminstative Guidlines, that sysops are "... trusted users of the wiki, [and] are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." I made a judgement call when I banned Mr. Rotten and given a second chance, I would do it again. The remaining ops can rule however they'd like on this case and it won't likely change my mind even one inch on this subject. I did what I felt was right and I'm disgusted that this Misconduct case exists. We did what was right and we'd be doing the user's of this wiki a huge disservice to allow it to continue even one more time. FFS, you two. Get your priorities straight. ~ _{14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Oh and I forgot to add that in the subsequent and completely unrelated vandal cases, very standard and established policies were followed when banning occurred and they have absolutely no merit in this Misconduct case. I'll ask you not to even bring them up here. I'm not even sure why you're concerned about them. ~ _{15:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Probably because you banned the account as a vandal alt of nobody, but whatever.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't quote the discretion clause without any knowledge of the vast amounts of misconduct case law on it. It isn't a be all and end all clause allowing sysops to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise there wouldn't be misconduct. The clause exists to allow sysops to legislate in areas where there isn't any policy and where the community hasn't expressed an opinion in the past. This case is covered not only by some of the oldest guidelines on the wiki, it's also been judged by the community that civility and TOS aren't areas that they care about and aren't areas they want legislation in. You've blatantly violated the community here by deciding that the rules no longer apply. Hell, you might as well permanently ban me, because "my priorities aren't straight". Fuck you, vapor. You're a nice guy but you're way off the mark here. You and the other sysops are turning the wiki in to a shitty little "us club" where you can ban whoever you want with or without reasons backed up by policy. The fact of the matter is that you and axe hack decided to, without the backing of even a majority of sysops, ban a user who didn't know that what he was doing was against the rules (it isn't against the rules of the game and he has little experience of the wiki). Sure, this guy's a scumball, but if we can now ban new users because they commit a single offence to one of our in-game friends, or a member of a group that we've just joined, then suddenly we start banning arbitrary people. Take a fucking step back and look at this objectively. If you can't find a legitimate area of policy backing your actions, you really shouldn't be doing it. Actually read all of the pages I've linked and talked about, and you'll see that you can't just ban this, and that this is an area the community's looked at before. If you think they need to look at it again, set up a policy discussion. This isn't Vaporwiki, you have no fucking right to start banning random people.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You truly misunderstand how "spirit of the law" and judgement calls work. That guideline is there to allow sysops some leniency within the esthablished rules and policies. It means you don't have to take the rules necessarly literally. It does not mean you can completely ignore all law on a personal whim. That would be carte blanche. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yon, please. To say this guy didn't know what he was doing is wrong is pure idiocy. And I know that the discretion clause isn't to be used to just get my way or do whatever the fuck I want. The judgement call rule is very apt here. As I said, I looked through past cases to see if a ruling had ever been brought up against a text-rapist. There are none to be found. Believe it or not this is the first. And hopefully the last. You can try to lump this into past ToS violations if you want but it quite simply it isn't the same. I think you two are the one that needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here and stop wagging your tongue making a complete ass of yourselves. If you want a mindless fucking robot as a sysop that can't see the forest through the trees and actually DO SOMETHING then feel free to put me up for demotion and nominate Thad or yourself. Or you can just accept my ruling as doing the right fucking thing to have done in the first place. ~ _{17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

And if you're saying that goatse and rape are somehow the same is your idea of a joke, I'm not laughing. ~ _{17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

That's not what he is saying. They are both ToS violations.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't adressing the issue at hand at all, at least not rationally. So there wasn't direct precedent. Policy then? You have been explained why you should have acted within policy. You didn't. Your ruling and permaban are entirely based on your own personal whim. Not based on the policies, precedents, guidelines. If you can't see what is wrong with that, well, *sigh* -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't doing the right thing, Vapor, you're abusing your power because some asshole did something in-game to a friend of yours from a group you've just joined. You're the one who justified the case as a TOS violation, not me. If you don't think it's a TOS violation, then you need to find another reason to ban him. As it stands, you said it is a TOS violation, so you should have escalated him, because that's what we do to people who abuse TOS. You can't just change your tune now because it's become apparent that you were wrong and you still want to be a sysop so you can ban more people who you don't like in game. Maybe we should make being a member of Flowers of disease a pre-requisite to having a wiki account? That's certainly the precedent you're starting by banning people without legitimate cause. There IS precedent on TOS violations, you've said it's a TOS violation. It's as simple as that. Don't try to change the rules of the wiki because it's a different TOS violation to those already discussed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're completely off the mark, Yon. Has nothing to do with FoD. Don't even go there. ~ _{19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

When you ban a user who greifed a member of a group that you are now a member of, where do you think I'm going to go? At the very least you should have ruled yourself out as an involved party.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrie and I weren't members of the same group until much more recently than my ruling. I didn't even know she had joined FoD until yesterday because I had no internet all weekend. Furthermore, I am more than capable of seperating in-game and wiki interests. I would have done the same thing had it been some day one UD player or someone I completely despised. I made a jugement call and it was the right one to make. If you can't understand that then we're done. There's no point going back and forth. ~ _{22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Yoko, you're being a complete prat about this m8. Like it's been mentioned already, this was a judgement call, but more than that, it was the right call. Sometimes it's not about policy, but about what's simply the right thing to do. Do you even consider the effects and embarrassment this idiots actions actually caused to both parties involved? Instead, you'd rather cause an unnecessary hissy fit over rules and regulations. Grow up m8, and at least attempt to respect the human aspect in the situation. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

wanna guess how this turns out? the rest of the syops agree with the ruling. yon and thad run away screaming "wah! wah! my but hurts!" than go and find something else to cry about. nobody cares what you two jerk offs think anymore. beat it.--    bitch     19:34, 23 November 2011 (bst)

If the sysops on this wiki decide that it's ok to ban people without precedent then I don't want anything to do with this wiki or this game any more.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether on the MERCY Forums, in game, or now on the wiki there is a clear pattern of Abuse that can be followed by all. This isn't an isolated issue, and in my judgement this isn't some behaviour we can modify. I've spent a while scanning the VB back catalogue for any other text rape monkey business and have found no clear precedence either. So Not Misconduct. Now excuse me whilst I change into something more comfortable. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when do we permaban people for stuff that's happened off the wiki? Cite one case that wasn't intrinsically wiki related.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well apart from, lets say personal emails requesting unbannings being considered in de-escalations, or using in game screenshots, profile links and zerg listings to confirm that wiki posters are the same person, or arbitrate which group retain ownership of group pages after the separation of groups. (To cite examples off the top of my head) we use off site evidence all the time. What we then do with that information is our own choice. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But we don't ban people for what they do off site. None of the things you cited even make any sense in this discussion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are. Because in all cases these are *Insert sound effects* Judgement calls. We publish banned users comments on the wiki regardless of the fact they are banned, we weigh up IP and posting style evidence to ban Izumi alts when we aren't 100% certain. We mediate between people who all believe they are correct. Besides, in your last three posts you've cited precedents. Can you actually supply them if you want to convince me? Thank you. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How are any of those things banning users for things they've done off of the wiki? As for precedent, every fucking case in the history of urban dead wiki is precedent, because in none of them did we ban somebody for something they did off wiki.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That level of Precedent. I wondered why I'd seen no actual cases about text rape. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet you all keep insisting that this is a TOS case so let's use the precedent on that, shall we?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgement call that more than half the sysop team has agreed on so far. If it helps you feel better, I can cite ToS. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

only 2 made it when the ban was issued, and there's precedent against this being a judgement call.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time you did a law degree? Pretty sure you do arts and crafts, don't you?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was threatened to be killed on here, but that wasn't even considered a vandalism. When I mentioned it to Kevan he said something to the effect of: "Wah, someone on the internet threatened you. Cry me a river." So, that's precedent that harassment or threats don't result in anything. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's word for word accurate? --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Kevan said:

Sorry to hear that a stranger on the Internet said something about killing you and smashing your computer. If the existing policies don't cover this and you feel that it's a concern, then you should propose a policy change or take it up with one of the other wiki moderators. Regards, Kevan

The team at the time, did not care at all, so... --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Owner privilege that goes against you is nice now?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not misconduct - judgement call... discretion... etc. -- boxy 06:52, 24 November 2011 (BST)

Amicus curiae

The following was submitted by Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) for consideration, as his case was cited as precedent in the complainant's statement. Presented without further comment. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Rev and all the other sysops named in this pointless case are more than capable of defending themselves. Indeed some of those named in the case would be happier if I didn’t chime in, but Yonnua decided to mention me. This was his first mistake. His second was not knowing his policy and precedents when mentioning me. Sysops active when I was participating on the wiki will know that this is a fatal error.

Yonnua’s case rests on two parts, firstly the reasoning that sysops used in their rulings and secondly the punishment handed out.

For the first part, there is no requirement in policy or precedent that requires reasoning in sysop decisions. None at all. If it became the standard that sysops could be escalated for using faulty or emotional reasoning for making their rulings then I could go through the archives and have every single sysop you’ve ever known permabanned. The first part of Yonnua’s reasoning has no basis and therefore no standing in a misconduct case. As rulings cannot be contested, the only defendant in this case should be Vapour, who actually banned the offender. Banning someone against policy and precedent can be misconduct, but it must be proven that the ban was against policy and precedent.

Now the second part. Yonnua has tried to equate this to a case to an illegal permaban that certain incompetent (well, more incompetent) sysops tried to subject me to. You’ll notice there’s no link to judge the facts, and just an appeal to emotion. Bad form for a misconduct case. Now the real precedent can be found here. The wiki’s ToS clearly states:

You agree not to use the service to:

• Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene (illegal pornography), libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.

• Harm minors in any way.

• Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, ‘’’promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual’’’, or promote any act of cruelty to animals.

• Do anything that in the opinion of PoundHost.com is likely to bring the service into disrepute.
  
  

Now, for Yonnua to have anything approaching a case that this isn’t a lawful ban under precedent for breaking the site’s ToS he must have:

• complete proof that both wiki victims were over the age of majority

• complete proof that the edits do not fit the definition of any of the quoted sections above

• contacted PoundHost.com and confirmed that they do not believe that the edits in question bring their service into disrepute

• passed the bar in the United Kingdom and be willing to cover Kevan from any liability or damage that could result from a blatant threat which is illegal in the UK where Kevan and the server reside
  
  

Unless he’s done all of this, he has no case to contest that this is a justified block due to a violation of the ToS. The case is very straightforward, in this edit the offender clearly makes reference to STI tests. The game has no such ‘features’ therefore it can not automatically be assumed that he was talking about an in game incident. Any possibility of real violence or threats on this wiki has always been met with permabans for the safety of Kevan and the users of this wiki.

This case is therefore, Not Misconduct.

I’ve been gone for over two years and I still know precedent better than Yonnua. Don’t you all feel like stupid futhermuckers for promoting him?

Love, hugs, kisses, fluffy puppies and cute kittens – . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Iscariot, may you get whatever Christmas Number One you most want. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've done all of those 4 things, so you can go fuck yourself iscariot. Secondly all of the points you made were addressed in the OP, thirdly Fuck off.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm joking HAHAHA except for the fuck off part.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What utter shit. We've already established ToS violations don't get a permaban (see J3D, Cornholio, etc). Second, in your precedent Ross permabans the culprit based on the 3edit rule, not a ToS violation. Try again. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, the wiki is not for furthering the harassment of another user as thad learned the hard way a few years back and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. We've always acted to stop this type of harassment when it's come up, be it jed posting cyberbob's personal information to the wiki or thad and his umbrella drama and we'vve always done it as a necessary action above and beyond other policies. THIS is exactly what the judgement clause is for.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Word! ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

22:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Did we permaban jed and thad?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we used the escalation system as embedded in policy and precedent. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I just simply pointed out that there have been inconsistent rulings in things like this in the past due to favoritism, laziness, etc. Even then, Kevan did state that either a policy needed to be enacted to spell out the enforcement the generic ToS, or that it was up to the sysops and their individual rulings to handle the case. It looks like they did that here. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

holyshit you are a bad lawyer yon. people coming back from the dead just to prove you are a moron. you really passed the bar? i don't believe it. NO, FUCK YOU hahaha--    bitch     23:45, 23 November 2011 (bst)

Umm, no? I'm nowhere near old enough? Chill bro.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait for the next person who calls someone a nigger to be permabanned--Anime Sucks 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

get back into the pen, u stupid nigger --hagnat 02:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well guys, good to know that we now have the precedent to ban anybody we don't like regardless of whether there are rules or not, so long as we say that it's a judgement call and have one other sysop agree with us, regardless of if we're involved parties or not. Good precedent, I like it. I'm sure many of history's great dictators would agree with you about that one. Good luck in the future, UDwiki.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

bye yon, don't let the door hit you in the ass on you're way out.--    bitch     13:41, 24 November 2011 (bst)

Would have never expected Yon to be rage quittin'. --AXE HACK _{TALK χIII} 16:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I leave you lot alone for five minutes...Anyway, over the time I've been a sysop we've let quite a lot of TOS violations slide (the various Nazi groups, Columbine Kids, that goatsie picture that was kicking about for a while, etc) but in this case I think we've reached that point where a permaban is warranted. Everybody here with something resembling a brainstem knows that rape is bad, there's no denying that. Vapor is right in saying it's not acceptable. Yonnua is right for stating that we don't permaban for harrassment. However since a no-tolerance policy ingame hasn't disuaded him, I very much doubt a sentence of text on the wiki will do so. A permaban was the right call. Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary

With 3 of a possible 5 sysops ruling Not Misconduct this case is closed as Not Misconduct. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just read all this. What a fucking dickwank of a ruling. Rules are rules unless we make our rules the rules K annoying 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought I'd chime in by saying a few things:

• The rules are there for a VERY good reason, and the long-established precedent in these cases is that sysops escalate them normally.
• Sysops are here to serve the community, not the rules. If it comes down to a choice between what's best for the community vs. following the letter of the law, the former is the correct choice.

• If the former is chosen, the proper course of action is to vet it out in Misconduct afterwards, as has been done here, since it is not something that should be taken lightly.

• While events off-wiki cannot be punished on-wiki, that doesn't mean cases related to them must ignore them when considering the context of the case.

Anyway, I didn't see the edits in question, so I don't know what all was involved, nor do I support one side or the other in this argument, since I haven't seen any of the evidence. And now, I'll butt out. —Aichon— 04:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the edits were still there when you wrote this. I only deleted them now. -- Spiderzed█ 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw mention that they were going to be deleted days earlier, so I figured it had already happened, and didn't bother clicking the links. Oh well. —Aichon— 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did i ever take the misconduct page off my watch list :P  --MS¤PK  ^{Please Vote!} 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

7 October

• Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

See here. --AXE HACK _{TALK χIII} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

All I did was to make a crappy edit a bit less crappy by at least linking an explanation for the main page change. Sure, in hindsight, I should have simply rolled it back. But I don't see how my edit made the page worse, not to speak of bad faith. Even a soft warning would be ridiculous, IMHO. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 9 October 2011 (BST)

This one is a little borderline. He's adding info on the reason for the idiocy. Should have just rolled it back -- boxy 06:41, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Yes, he should have just rolledback rather than adding the link, but adding the explanation isn't vandalism by itself. I'd still recommend a soft warning of "Be more responsible when editing protected pages".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:12, 11 October 2011 (BST)

Should have immediately rollbacked the edit that was obviously vandalism/misconduct. Instead of doing so he just made an irrelevant alteration, irrelevant as it was going to be reverted regardless. He probably did not want to feel left out on the joke, but that's not a proper sysops action. If you see blatant vandalism like that a sysops should always act when possible, maybe ignoring it if you can't be bothered (though still poor), but certainly not toying with it for kicks. A soft-warning really isn't that ridiculous considering this and should it happen again it should just be a warning altogether.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Actually, there's a point to be made that it's probably not vandalism but, I could see the argument for misconduct. Assisting inappropriate edits isn't something sysops should be doing, someone vandalizes the main page it should be revert on site. Not link to an explanation of the joke. Oh, and get your soft-warnings out of here, you don't non-punish on A/M unless you're trying to shame someone instead of curtail misuse of privileges(the point of this procedure). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:32, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Maybe for you, but in my opinion soft-warnings can be used to discourage users from making certain actions, nothing more. There's no policy on soft-warnings whatsoever and there's no reason why we couldn't use it on misconduct as well. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:37, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I suppose it could be construed as Technical Misconduct (editing protected page, not reverting silly change, sysop higher responsibility, slap on the wrist don't do it again yadda yadda), although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

I'm pretty sure sysops have never been forced to do their job before. If a sysop sees that a spambit has vandalised a page, they don't have to revert and ban the bot. They should, but they don't have to. On that basis, imo, the rulings shouldn't focus on what he should have done, but on the nature of the edit he actually made, and whether or not that was misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:13, 13 October 2011 (BST)

There is an important distinction between your example and this case. Namely, that if you for whatever reason do not ban a user, you are not using sysop powers, therefore by definition it cannot be misconduct. On the other hand, editing a protected page is a sysop-only power, and Spiderzed's edit played along with the “joke”, thereby implicitly approving of the vandalism (else he would have reverted it), thus Misconduct.

That said, TRWTF was that farce of an Arby's case being allowed to proceed as long as it did. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 22:22, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Btw, it may not be clear from my previous statements, like User:Revenant I believe this to be Misconduct for most of the same reasons. We've punished intentionally ignoring vandalism before. It's more than procedural certainly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Also, I want everyone who uses templates and formatting in section headers to die, please. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 03:50, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Agreed.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Inafire! -- boxy 10:50, 15 October 2011 (BST)

What a fucking stupid case. He looked at it and made the right move. Fuck you axe. annoying 04:00, 13 October 2011 (BST)

What you say?!? He didn't update the wiki news box to announce the change – a heinous crime of the highest calibre. We should throw the book at him! ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 13:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

.....EXACTLY annoying 05:24, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Hahaha. Never change, wiki admins! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:35, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Again, COUGH.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:45, 24 October 2011 (BST)

I count two for Misconduct, one for Not Misconduct. I think "Mehsconduct" could sum it up. I move we make Spiderzed warn himself and record the punishment himself. All in favour? ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 07:48, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Aye. ~ _{16:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}

BTW one of you forgot to sign your ruling. Tsk. ~ _{16:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)}

I would just to get over with this farce, but there is policy. -- Spiderzed█ 16:21, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Oh, yeah. How annoying. Well, I'll wait a little longer for others to weight in, then we'll end this. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 21:56, 29 October 2011 (BST)

Not that the sysop team needs to be told to do their job or anything, but please do your job, sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I count one "Not Misconduct" one "Technical Misconduct" one "Misconduct" and a "Mehsconduct" from myself. I'd sum it up as Misconduct. Spidey, if you see potential vandalism like this in the future, don't add to the dog pile. Just revert or at the least just don't add to it. Your punishment is a warning. ~ _{15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)}

9 July 2011

The Special Logs for today shows that Spiderzed has moved Cobra/Joining , Cobra/Guide , and Cobra/Diplomacy to Cobra (Group) sub-pages. Spiderzed even submitted them to UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests#Cobra_pages That's not what I'm here about though. As that's perfectly fine and acceptable. He's well within his rights to do so. However, redirecting the original pages to his pages is why I'm here. Under wiki protocol those sub-pages on Cobra need to either be blanked or deleted (and I'm pretty sure it's deleted and not blanked). As a Sysop Spiderzed should know this, but went ahead and did things his way regardless. I see this is a very cut and dry case of Misconduct. I would suggest that the sub-pages be handled as proper protocol dictates as well as whatever punishment protocol would dictate for Spiderzed's misconduct. -- Goribus _Talk ^Cobra•RDD 01:37, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Uhh, Gor, the wiki automatically puts those redirects in when it moves the pages. :P I'll delete them, which Spidey should really have done, but it's not really ever been misconduct to miss out a part of a move. Unless you can prove malicious intent, however, in which case, obviously it would be misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 02:23, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I've deleted the redirect stubs, and moved all non-contextual links to redirect to the Cobra (group) versions.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 02:32, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Actually, no, that is not the case. The wiki software does not automatically create redirects: there is a checkbox by which redirect creation may be selected or deselected. (See screenshot.) That in itself would normally not be so bad, and were it any other sysop I would not have an issue, but I find it hard to believe that Spiderzed did not know what he was doing; moreover, as an involved party who has been involved in a protracted edit dispute and arbitration case over these group pages, he should have know better than to move them himself, but instead filed a request or asked another sysop to do so.
He did not do, so now he should deal with the consequences: this is technical misconduct, and may furthermore constitute a breach of his Arbitration ruling. (I've not checked the exact terms, although A/A breaches are normally handled via A/VB, so this angle should probably be pursued there or via Karek's talk page.)
That said, I fully expect most sysops to band together and protect one of their own from “harassment” – I'll be very (and favourably) surprised if this results in a ruling of Misconfuct. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 08:54, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Doesn't help that he showed he knew he shouldn't be the one moving them previously at that. Technical misconduct, absolutely, failure of judgment most definitely. Vandalism? Not really. Easily fixed with deletion by scheduled. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Uhm, Rev, there's no option not to create a redirect when moving pages. Look at your own screenshot more carefully. Not that I think that it changes your point at all. Just saying, that's all.~ _{10:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, LOLwhat -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:52, 9 July 2011 (BST)

So tempted to put Rev up for misconduct for bias in his ruling where he says:"were it any other sysop I would not have an issue".--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Because he's an involved party in an arbitration concerning these pages, you nimrod. Go ahead, I could use some laughs. Creating a Misconduct case over a minority Misconduct report would be hilariously farcical and absolutely par for the course. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Dude, it was a joke. O.o --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Wait. You took me seriously? o.O …Why? I personally try not to take anyone seriously if I can help it. Especially not myself. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 04:26, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Personally I'd say no, he didn't actually rule by the looks of it. If he did there could be a couple of ones someone could pounce on, namely not reading before ruling (something I'm quite sure Karek put Conn up for misconduct a few years ago), etc. I'm not really fussed about it personally, beyond the lols and fail, as well as the possibility he was just trolling us all, in which he's fucking had me beat all evening, for sure! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:31, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Oh. Huh. Yeah, my bad! Been spending too long on other, more functional wikis. Also, it's been a long week and I've been drinking…
Here's what I meant to show you guys. Guess I need to add the suppressredirect right to the list. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Poor form? Lazy? Possibly. However, it's an automatic part of the move function which sysops on this wiki tend to never ever need to mess with and therefore don't. Having someone come and discuss it first rather than assume it was malicious would have probably had the better outcome here, as it seems to have been fixed without any issue and I highly doubt SZ did it to force such a thing happening. Not misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Yep, looks like a simple case of missed deletion of redirect caused by page moves. Happens so often that there is a scheduled deletion criteria for them when ops miss them. SZ mentioned on a/m that the move took a few extra steps than normal so my guess is that he got wrapped up in the intricacies of those steps and failed to put the finishing touches. Not Misconduct. ~ _{04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

Ironically, I'll be very (and favourably) surprised if this results in a ruling of Not Misconfuct. --Rosslessness 09:42, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I'd need more than an image from Rev proving our point even more rather than his own before I give this Misconfuct at all. Then again, I'm just an evil sysop trying to protect my own! Even though Spiderzed doesn't like me and I barely know or care who he is! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:03, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Revenant cropped the original print screen, if he hadn't have, and shown the description text above, it would have shown something similar to where it states "The old title will become a redirect to the new title", without any description of any option to turn it off. As Karek said, SZ said he probably shouldn't be doing the moves himself, but he did and Goribus had no issue with that in itself, and is something I don't see as an issue in itself either, at least relative to misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:14, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I don't really see an abuse of sysop power here. Was it bad practice not to delete the redirects? Yes. Could it have simply been a mistake? Yes. Did he gain any long-term advantage from it? No. Hence, I think this is not misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:27, 9 July 2011 (BST)

BTW, the "supress redirect" permission is, for some reason, not assigned to sysops. I posted on Kevan's talk page about it a while ago but didn't get a response.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:27, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Probably just wasn't added automatically when the software was upgraded to support that feature. We should really write up and sign off on a comprehensive list of tweaks for Kevan to do when he next gets a chance. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 04:30, 13 July 2011 (BST)

I had actually filed a very similar move request some days ago. It didn't face resistance but for the ongoing arbies, so I figured that it was ripe to be carried out. Also note some other things:

1. The page already existed as copied code (against which no one objected). The move was only about keeping the edit history of the page in one place.
2. The pages were blanked by Goribus, proving he had no interest into them.
3. Due to the existing copies, a move required additionally deletions, making it a good bit more complicated than the run-of-the-mill move. As I had created that extra work by creating copies, I figured I should be the one who carries the extra workload for it. (And even that not perfectly, if you look at Talk:Cobra/Guide/Talk:Cobra (group)/Guide, where I had missed that a copy existed.
4. All the pages were effectively Crit 7. It shouldn't be a question at all whether they could be moved or not, as noted by Rev.

I'd have dealt with the remaining incoming links over the course of today, and then deleted the redirects as they'd be done with their purpose. (That being said, I think Cobra/Guide (and solely Cobra/Guide) should be kept, as it is a featured guide and as such has a good number of external links going to it. But that is a question for elsewhere, not for A/M.) -- Spiderzed█ 11:53, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I don't disagree that you should be able to move them (page move rights should be delegated to Autoconfirmed users, IMO, which is what I was getting at in the note you cite), but as it stands it is a sysop-only action. You were an involved party in the dispute, so you should have let someone else handle it to avoid any appearance of personal bias in the way you handled it. You went ahead and did it yourself, and did so in a way which favoured your side in the conflict, thus furthering your own personal agenda. Even if, as you say (and I have no reason not to take you at your word), you still used a sysop-only power and made a procedural mistake which benefited you. Thus my ruling of technical misconduct due to violating procedure designed to defuse personal involvement.
I don't see this being more than a slap on the wrist if it comes through, but it needs to be reinforced that we have enough sysops on the team that sysops shouldn't need to use sysop powers where there could be considered even a sniff of personal involvement. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 04:36, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Should have left it for one of us to do but not deleting the redirects after the move isn't anything more than either laziness or forgetfulness. -- Cheese 23:13, 11 July 2011 (BST)

This has been sitting undiscussed for a week now. Would any uninvolved op mind to tally and cycle this? -- Spiderzed█ 12:52, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct making my opinion clear. --Rosslessness 12:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Conclusion

Closed as Not Misconduct. Spiderzed please (and I notice you have been) consider conflicts before doing this in the future. Rev makes some very sensible points. --Rosslessness 12:57, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Fair enough. Next time I create such a complicated move, I'll just put up a step-by-step guide for deleting, moving and undeleting and let the proper channels take their course (or wait for another op to tell me to jump through the hoops I have created myself). -- Spiderzed█ 13:01, 20 July 2011 (BST)

6 May 2011

For the vandalism case Here.

Specifically, for ruling vandalism on a case against existing policy. Specifically, the relevant signatures policy which was brought up in the report itself.

For reference, the signature in question that was being considered was:

--Laughing Man [Date and time stuff]

I would like to quote the relevant portions of the policy concerning what is illegal in a signature:

Signature policy

*Signatures which have images higher than 14 pixels high. Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means. Signatures which impersonate another user. Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP. Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions (closing the browser for example). Signatures which contain images larger than 50kb.

Laughing Mans signature did not violate any of these.

1. There was no image more than 14 pixels high.
2. There was no attempt to impersonate another person. It was his username.
3. There were no links to any special pages in his signature.
4. There were no malicious code or links in his signature at all
5. Since there were no images in his signature so nothing greater than 50kb.

So under the policy there was no reason to prosecute him. But what about spirit of the rules?

Well... Unfortunately you added the next section to the policy:

Signature policy.

What would be allowed *Anything that doesn't come under what isn't allowed.

So the policy used to condemn Laughing Man for his signature in the case this misconduct case is about explicitly permits everything that is not prohibited by the policy. There is no requirement of a link in a persons signature in any extant policy.

No. What we have here is a case of tribalism. Where responding to the "threat" of another large organized group the existing sysops of this wiki threw policy out the window to oppose them and their behavior, which they did not like, but was still legal. They assumed bad faith without evidence, and they did exactly the wrong thing. What they should have done is what is going on now: If they didn't like the behavior, they should have started work on an amendment to the signatures policy to prohibit it. They did not, and engaged in mass misconduct. Naturally, this has not ended well and resulted in a confrontation between groups. It is a shame that the group in power failed to retain the moral and legal high ground. but then again, corruption is sort of a sysop and crat hobby on this wiki, and whenever the goons show up tribalism goes amok among them (My own final misconduct case when I was here is a pure example, being convicted of misconduct based on what was, at worst, a vandalism charge).

Get rid of this retarded us versus them mentality and do your fucking jobs like you are supposed to instead of trumping up baseless charges and convicting people in a kangaroo court. If you had any credibility at all, you destroyed it with this case. Of course, the sad thing is you never had any credibility.

So, in summary:

• No policy prohibited Laughing Mans signature
• The policy expressly permitted anything not prohibited by it.
• The misconduct in question was for ruling the case as vandalism.
• The sysops could have tried to change policy and then dealt with the "problem". They did not.
• Mistergame was excluded from this as he only brought the case, he did not rule on it as a sysop.
• Vapor was also excluded from this as he did not bring a ruling of out and out vandalism, instead trying a meaningless "soft warning".

This is a fairly open and shut case. Remember: Sysops are not moderators. We even have a policy saying that. You cannot go around persecuting a group you do not like in an official capacity. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:25, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Required Link

The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below. Um, where's the link grim? --Rosslessness 12:00, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this is how the policy works --Rosslessness 12:05, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Please refrain from breaking the case with a level 2 header. I have converted it to a level 4 one to put it beneath the level 3 one this misconduct case has been filed with. The wording of the what is allowed section supersedes that as it explicitly allows anything that is not covered under what is not permitted. Furthermore, it is obvious that the community at large agrees with my interpretation, or this very subject would not be under a policy vote right now. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:10, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the fix. --Rosslessness 12:20, 6 May 2011 (BST)

What Ross says. The need for a linked handle is part of the policy and noted separately from the acts that constitute vandalism (and the catchall element to say what isn't vandalism). But I'll gladly leave this to decide for Axe, Cheese, Rev, RHO, Thad and Vapor as the only ops allowed to vote on this (and potentially Karek if he makes it through and the case is still open by the time of his promotion). -- Spiderzed█ 12:28, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Seems SA, Hagnat and Karek agreed with me as well.--Rosslessness 12:32, 6 May 2011 (BST)

The open language of that "What is allowed" section more clearly supports my interpretation. As does the fact, as I mentioned before, that the wiki sees it this way based on the policy being voted on at this moment. You should have done a better job when writing that policy. As it stands, what it says runs contrary to how you wish it and renders that entire section pointless. As for that, it is not my fault if you perpetually failed to enforce a rule correctly. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:37, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks Grim --Rosslessness 12:38, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Vantar, I never knew him--Rosslessness 12:50, 6 May 2011 (BST)

shit, put them all up for misconduct, quick quick -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:16, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Cyberbob and Sysop loving kitten owner Iscariot also agree with our interpretation.--Rosslessness 13:19, 6 May 2011 (BST)

As everybody else has already said, the signature policy requires a link. Also, as you seem to think you're god's gift when it comes to understanding how law works, allow me to actually explain how it works, as a law student. It doesn't work by "This looks like how it must be meaning because I be wanting it to be this way". Basic rules of statutory interpretation dictate that expressing one thing excludes alternatives. As it says that "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page" then that's the case. The alternative, having no link, is not permitted under policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)

You are a fucking idiot. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:13, 6 May 2011 (BST)

This is a fairly open and shut case - if you say so, it must be true... let us all bow to your superior intellectual power, oh mighty grim --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:29, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Oh wow. I totally never saw this coming. I am going to go cry in a corner over my hurt feelings. No really. Honest. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:37, 6 May 2011 (BST)

To be fair Grim, while I understand how your argument might possibly have a slight point about one line in the policy needing rewording this portion of the policy that leads into the one you're referencing makes it pretty damn clear a link is a minimum requirement and that that section about formatting above and beyond said link. The policy spells it out quite clearly that a link is required.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:41, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Grim, where did it say in udwiki policy that a crat could demote allsysops on a whim and re-arrange the admin pages as he so wishes? Just asking. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:30, 6 May 2011 (BST)

--|||||||||||||||||||||| 18:32, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Things this user needs...oh forget it. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

if that's the best you could come up with them I'm actually sorta dissapointed. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:36, 7 May 2011 (BST)

It seemed fitting, what with you being the most butthurt person on the wiki. It's almost like you're mad at everyone because you're going to lose your spot because no one likes you. Oh wait, no one likes you. --|||||||||||||||||||||| 02:07, 7 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure why you and a lot of your friends are so content claiming everything is some sort of [goon]bias or reaction to some sort of primitive emotion, like losing 'power'. I'm indifferent as to whether I'm a crat or a sysop, I never really wanted to be a crat in the first place. contrary to what you seem to think of every sysop on this wiki... And butthurt? What idiot is trying to misconduct us for a case against you? Don't think it's me at all who is butthurt, least of all comparatively. Again, you're only disappointing me, you're usually so good at getting people mad. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:24, 7 May 2011 (BST)

lol.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Ban them all! Permabans, every one! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:00, 6 May 2011 (BST)

It seems like I'm the only non-invloved op in this misconduct case. Lovely. The policy pretty clearly states that a link to your userspace is required and there's boatloads of precedent that not having one is considered vandalism on this wiki. He was notified before being brought to A/VB and given longer than a week to adjust his sig. While I thought it was a minor violation and deserved a soft warning, the others were just acting on precedent and policy and in no way abusing their power. I'll agree that a lot of drama came from the ruling but nobody could predict that nor should ops base any ruling on how the accused might react if warned for vandalism. Boxy, Ross, DDR, Spiderzed and Yon were all ruling within reasonable realms of established vandal banning policy/procedures. Not Misconduct. ~ _{19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Actually, there are Axe, Cheese, Rev, RHO and Thad as non-involved ops apart of you, with Karek as potential additional voice in a couple of days. -- Spiderzed█ 19:41, 6 May 2011 (BST)

True. What I meant to say was active non-involved but that's not really the case, either. ~ _{19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Oi. I'm active as well. ;p -- Cheese 20:27, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thads involved, he brought the case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:35, 7 May 2011 (BST)

True, but he hasn't been put up for Misconduct by Grim, and has been explicitely spared. However, if others agree with that assessment, we might as well ask Thad to withdraw his ruling. -- Spiderzed█ 03:31, 7 May 2011 (BST)

As Grim has rightly pointed out, Laughing Man's signature did not break any of the six points under the "What wouldn't be allowed" section of the policy. However he failed to take into account (or chose to ignore) this part of the policy from the "Required Link" section above: The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages. The signature failed to meet this requirement (note that it says "Required Link" not "Optional Link") and, as Vapor, I agree that the sysops involved were well within their remit to rule the way they did. I'm therefore ruling Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 20:27, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Grim has pointed out a somewhat of a flawed sentence in the policy. Instead of discussing this through a policy discussion, he instead tries to wikilaw people into a dumb misconduct case. There's a boatload of precedent on this not to mention the policy itself dictates the need for a link. This case is indeed open and shut. Not Misconduct. The policy currently under voting has no merit here anyway, since it hasn't been accepted. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I'll might as well refrain from ruling if it is being disputed. Case isn't worth much trouble anyway. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:17, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You people need to make me a sysop quickly so I can make the tough decisions that others shy from. Permaban all of them. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:03, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Have changed your emphasis to italics, since you are not a sysop and could confuse with that when it comes down to tallying stuff. -- Spiderzed█ 02:16, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Are you saying you'd honestly be going through, making a tally, read that, and then just add a "permaban" column? ;P --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:27, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct – as Cheese. (Wasn't sure if I'd have to recuse myself until I read the links in detail.) ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 13:11, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Can one of the non-involved ops count up the rulings? Pretty sure it's a case closed, but I'll leave that to one of the guys not being misconducted to say.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:32, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Ruling

It's been several days since any discussion so I'm going to close this case as Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 12:02, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Obviously, probably should have been done like a week ago. What's the new archives procedure here? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Put a copy of the case in the sysops archive under a dated header (in this case all the sysops), then add a not misconduct to each of the sysops tallies on their individual archive pages, add links to the case on the individual sysops individual years, and then remove the case here, iirc. if it isn't done by tomorrow evening I should be able to.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:01, 9 May 2011 (BST)

If nots, I'll get it when Imma be sober. -- Cheese 01:40, 10 May 2011 (BST)

4 May

Putting myself up for Misconduct, because I've made a massive mistake. In the latest bot combatting, I have accidentally blocked Chief Seagull, who had wiped a spambit page and was showing up in RC as editor of it. I have unblocked him ASAP, but have still performed Misconduct and need to be banned for the same time that he was. As for formal escalations, I'll leave the decision up to my fellow ops. -- Spiderzed█ 21:44, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Farcical Misconduct - Most mundane thing ever but by precedent, you must be banned for A WHOLE MINUTE. I hope you're happy with yourself, you most grievous offender. But seriously, I honestly don't care. A minute long ban is pointless. Don't do it again and I don't care.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:46, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct Action done in good-faith, quickly fixed his mistake. Come on Spidey, are you serious? Do you want us to ban you for 1 minute? Didn't Rev accuse of making petty cases a few hours ago? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:49, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Dude admitted it was misconduct and was trying to make it right. Just let him. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Misapplied bans are considered as a serious matter regardless of length, so I felt it was better to come forward myself and take it here, then to make it seem like I shoved it under the carpet and hope no one notices. -- Spiderzed█ 21:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Is good, I can only think of one other sysop to ever actually note their own misconduct and he was one of the original five. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It's a mistake that is as minor as it gets. Don't worry, I'm not dragging you out for it, but this isn't misconduct. Yeah, you shouldn't have done that but just because it's a sysops power doesn't mean good-faith gets thrown out the window. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually, it's textbook. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Lots of ambiguity there, not to mention a ban out of abuse and a ban out of mistake are completely different things. The entire idea behind serving the unjust ban time is sketchy. Makes you wonder what would have happened to Ross if Karek found this Deadman walking this out after a year. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:36, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually there's not. He'd serve a year and there would be no question. Check the archives, we always make them serve the ban so they ban cautiously. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:40, 4 May 2011 (BST)

To cut this branch of the discussion short, by precedent I consider the ban time as _non-negotiatable_ and expect to have to carry it out. The only debateable point is whether I get escalated or not. -- Spiderzed█ 22:47, 4 May 2011 (BST)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:06, 4 May 2011 (BST)

^. Misconduct != A/VB. Punishment here while occasionally documented on A/VD doesn't have any impact on your VD record unless otherwise ruled specifically to. Such a ruling has never happened iirc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:14, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Just off the top of my head, I remember Mis being escalated twice based on Misconduct and have always considered this as standard procedure (with other effects like bans as embellishments based on the Misconduct in question). -- Spiderzed█ 23:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

News to me. That's a new and stupid precedent set there, also one of the cases where it can be ignored as being called the ruled punishment. Either way A/VB is for bad faith edits, A/M is for precedural foul ups. Escalation requires intent. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:28, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Happened to me too, and Aichon's ban (from doing what happened in this case) is even recorded in his vandal data.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)

You should only be warned for misconduct if that is specifically the punishment decided upon. All bans for misconduct also go on VD, but are not necessarily counted as escalations. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

It's more the principle of the thing, Meister. Spiderzed should probably just go ahead and ban himself for a minute. --  AHLGTH 01:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Sysops are explicitly no longer permitted to punish themselves for Misconduct. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Oh dear, that is rather stupid. And I do now remember that policy, and I apparently voted for... *oops*--  AHLGTH 05:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct – Glad to see you doing this. If you're OK with it, I'll just ban you for the same length of time.
As for escalations… personally I think that sounds rather stupid. Sure, the ban should go on your record, but that should be it, IMO.
Edit: Fucking ninja! Thad, A/VB has a note regarding petty cases because it concerns actions that any user can perform. Sysop powers are more restricted, and any use of them needs to be held to higher standards. Spiderzed has shown that he understands this. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 21:53, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Recent Changes said:

20:34, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) unblocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) ‎ (mistaken for spambot in the hurry D: ) 20:33, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) blocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Spambot)

Here are the relevant logs for archival purposes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks, Karek. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct - He made a mistake, he fixed it and he apologised. Ban him for a minute to even the books, job done. -- Cheese 10:31, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct as Cheese. Illegally banning someone? What a tard. --Rosslessness 10:37, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Coming from the North-east of Scotland, I can see how he automatically suspected the seagull. =p -- Cheese 10:40, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Misconduct but as minor as it gets. So keen not to bother but being consistant with the "eye for an eye" thing regarding bans is something we should try and keep up as much as possible (would've laughed if we made Conn do it for the grim bannage though) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:29, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Five votes for Misconduct. As I obviously can't rule, and as Axe Hack can't connect right now, there are only 9 possible votes. So, yeah, decision for Misconduct can't be overturned no more. Someone finally ban me and wrap this up. -- Spiderzed█ 16:07, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Case is closed as Misconduct Spiderzed has been banned for a minute. As a real punishment spiderzed, I demand you update your own misconduct archive. --Rosslessness 20:16, 5 May 2011 (BST)