UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2010-10-19 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » DanceDanceRevolution » 2010-10-19 Misconduct

19 October

I think I should be warned for my unlawful edit to Talk:Combat 18 while it was under protection. It was originally protected to stop Cornholioo coming and editing the page under alts while he was under a month (and eventual perma)ban, though I'm sure you're all aware of the history.

Anyways, while Combat 18 is protected, the NSU page isn't, so we'd usually use the talk page of the latter to spread the usual bile and anti-nazi jokes, and while my intent was to throw my link there, I ended up mistakenly navigating to the more recent one and adding inflammatory video onto there.

A very similar thing happened here with SA, itself also a mistake, and while an important difference is the reason for protection in each case (finny did it specifically not to be harassed while he was on hiatus from the wiki), I similarly bummed out on my mod responsibility IMO.

I'm not trying to be pretentious BTW, I have a serious lack of trust in the community to treat the Nazis the same as other users, and the fact it went unnoticed for so long either means no one cares, or that people saw and thought it wasn't worth reporting because of the victim. My fear of the latter is the reason I'm bringing this here as soon as possible before people have the chance to consider dismissing it as a harmless mistake. Please discuss, guys. -- LEMON #1 14:31, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Misconduct if DDR believes it to be, it probably is. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:32, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - Can pull up precedent if needed on 'harmless' protect edits. I actually thought that edit was to the NSU page, though, since it showed up in my watchlist not too long after Harrison and I were spamming the latter with jokes too. 15:55, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - Open and shut. And, to be honest, I was aware of it having happened, but I don't bring A/M cases over stuff that's this trivial, regardless of the victim, except in rare circumstances. I had honestly figured at the time that someone else would have brought it. —Aichon— 21:37, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - As Aichon, I definitely wouldn't have brought this case (although I didn't see the edit), and the fact that you brought the case pretty much shows that there was no bad intent. I'm thinking Soft here, but anything more than a warning would be stupid.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:51, 19 October 2010 (BST)

"Demote the cunt" - Why are we even here? Just revert, and move on, as long as it was an honest mistake -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:23 20 October 2010 (BST)

I guess. But baiting him to break the rules was part of the reason the page had to be protected, and I misused an op ability to break the exact principles I held when protecting it in the first place, etc. Yeah, just an honest mistake, but if you protect a page then leave it protected for too long when others should be able to use it, then use it for personal gains yourself, you dun goof'd. -- LEMON #1 06:47, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I'm so on the fence with this that I'm considering changing my ruling and agreeing with Boxy. I think a major distinction with the SA case is that in that, somebody else brought the case, and here, you did.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:55, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I don't think it matters. The precedent shows that an accident in a case like this is considered Misconduct, and I'm inclined to agree with that precedent. That he decided to bring it is his choice, but that doesn't change the nature of the deed that was done, which is what we're ruling on. If whether or not it was an accident affected whether it was Misconduct or not, then yes, the fact that he brought it here would be in his favor, but that simply isn't the case, so it makes no difference. —Aichon— 10:13, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Except that every justice system in the world favours people who confess to those who don't.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:15, 20 October 2010 (BST)

So vote for Soft Warning if you think he doesn't deserve the Warning. I'll disagree, but that's your prerogative. It does change that Misconduct occurred, however. —Aichon— 15:39, 20 October 2010 (BST)

I know where you're coming from, but I was simply so shocked that no one had brought me forward for it that I felt compelled to bring it to the team to force an opinion- as I said I've becoming increasingly paranoid about bias when dealing with a generic hateable enemy like Cornholioo and the holes it shows in the sysops' rulings. Something tells me that if I hadn't have brought it no one would. Either way, I'd like if you didn't judge it on that and just judge it on the case at hand which is a guy making a dumb mistake and misusing his op powers in doing so to antagonise an already conquered user (and yeah, I know how self righteous I sound when I'm the one who has brought a case on himself, I'm just calling it as I see it, nothing more). -- LEMON #1 11:02, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Anyway, with four Misconducts and one Not Misconduct currently, I know I'm leaning towards a Warning. What do the rest of you think? —Aichon— 15:41, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Self confession is always good. As Aichon. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:05, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Soft Warning --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Rulings in terms of punishment from Mis and Boxy would be good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:53, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Warning, as I already intimated. It's standard enough practice and it'll be easily struck in a month. 15:31, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Warned.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:30, 23 October 2010 (BST)