UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2009-11-12 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » DanceDanceRevolution » 2009-11-12 Misconduct

12 November

Breaking multiple aspects of the Administration Guidelines.

At 7:10am of 12 November 2009 DDR banned User:A250989181 for advertising. This is an act with a modus operandi we have seen many times before and I do not doubt its legitimacy.

As part of routine maintenance I placed {{Template:BannedUser}} on the user and talk page of the account in question. This served a dual fuction of indicating the status of the account to any user who was not aware of the case (users have previously been escalated for welcoming or otherwise engaging with banned users) and to allow the final part of the banning process to take place, that of the protection of the user pages of this account. As stipulated in the scheduled protections section, users should have their pages protected for the length of their bans, {{Template:BannedUser}} is neutral content for those without a page (as an uncreated page cannot be protected).

DDR then came across these pages and decided that he was not going to complete the banning process (by protecting the page according to its scheduled status) and instead deleted them. The scheduling for deletions give him no such authority to delete these pages on sight, the nearest is "Pages created by Adbots and Spambots are to be deleted on sight", however these pages were not created by an adbot or spambot, the were created by a user fulfilling maintenance tasks on this wiki. For comparison, the deletion of The Do¡¯s Don¡¯ts of Ugg Boots is in no way contested or part of this case.

DDR is a sysop and is more than capable of understanding the process of scheduling deletions should he wish his opinion that certain accounts should not get pages become part of the policies of this wiki, in that process I'd bring forward the obvious reasons why it would not be the best idea.

DDR is guilty of:

• Failing to complete the banning procedure by protecting a banned user's pages as defined by the scheduling
• Deleting a page that is not covered by the scheduling system without first going through A/D or A/SD

Both instances have resulted in warnings for sysops who have committed such acts in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look. This is in whole a part of the unnecessary over-codifying of the scheduled deletion which gave us the right to delete adbot pages despite our right to do it anyway; we've been able to delete adbot related things in the past beyond what was at the time codified into the guidelines, and I consider the account a product of the spambot clause we once took for granted, the one that allowed us to delete unnecessary products of spambit-related garbage off the wiki. Countless times in the past we've rejected spambot's rights and sanctions as compared to normal users and I consider giving them a protected banned vandal page a wrong extension of a spambot's rights; they aren't actually users and we've never treated them as such before now. While I'll take any sort of wrap if this becomes misconduct, I stand by what I've done as it is simply the act of eradicating unnecessary elements of spambot's marks on this wiki. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The spam bot had not input to this page being made, nor did it have any spam bot created content on it. The page will not help it's business or whatever, hell linking the deleted page with Ugg Boots in the title will do more for it than the page you deleted did. The simple fact of the matter is that you deleted a utility template that is there as part of the guidelines to allow that account's pages to be protected and also to inform users to, in effect, not attempt to converse with the account. You have demonstrated you know how the scheduling procedure works, go attempt change if you don't like it, but don't make up your own rules in the meantime. The red tape is there for a reason. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You know after my capers with Nubis how much I hate hasty and unnecessary deletions against the will of community, so you'll be assured I didn't do this on a whim. And if this becomes misconduct, I will most probably endeavour to have this passed as a scheduled deletion alongside the spambot clause. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

At which point you'll hear the arguments against such an idea, something you should have done beforehand and not just decided to do against the established guidelines and forced a misconduct case about this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If doing this was going against the established guidelines, then every sysop who had deleted a spambot-created page before the scheduled deletion had codified it would also be guilty of misconduct. Grim used to delete them on sight as crit 2's for god's sake. When it comes to spambots, we've never had to bother with what the guidelines restrict of us, we've always been given the benefit of being able to eradicate the extraneous traces that they leave. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Izzy, YNTGOM.--

| T | BALLS! | 09:15 12 November 2009(BST)

Creating pages for spambots serves no purpose whatsoever. Firstly, they have no contributions (once their pages have been deleted), so no one is going to come across them. Secondly, the only references to them are links from the vandalbanning page (that will be removed in days anyway), and other talk pages where they are discussed in the context of what they are. Both places make it clear that they are bots. Iscariot is creating pages that are totally unneeded, and will, in 90% of cases, become absolute stubs, with no way to find them unless a user searches the VB history, or the user list. He's just creating pointless work for the sysops -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:24 12 November 2009 (BST)

However, adbot related pages failed scheduled deletions, so this is minor misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:31 12 November 2009 (BST)

You're citing something that demanded the deletion of every comment and reference of a spambot, not just the page, the two are inherently different in practice despite their similarities in intent. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot is creating pages so that the guidelines (the protection of banned users) can be carried out. This also protects users from being escalated for welcoming or talking to banned users, something you assisted getting someone escalated for IIRC. A case of Boxy judging the user rather than the case yet again? I think so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was no page, there would been no need to protect it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:31 12 November 2009 (BST)

Didn't you notice I didn't make a ruling, Izzy, while I went looking in the archives ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:32 12 November 2009 (BST)

I noticed yet another ad hominem attack direct against me by you on an admin pages whilst doing something required or allowed by the policies of this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed you big noting yourself yet again, for doing totally useless stuff and then making out that the sysops are somehow letting the wiki down by not doing it themselves -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 12 November 2009 (BST)

I said nothing about sysops failing the wiki, are you automatically assuming bad faith? Again? I noted that DDR failed to go through the correct deletions procedure and charged his with misconduct for that, you seem to be ruling on something other than I brought here.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor Misconduct as boxy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

True DDR broke the rules while using sysop powers I don't think this should be misconduct. Instead, try working out a policy about whether or not adbots should have user pages made for them. Furthermore, users shouldn't be escalated for commenting on an adbot's page. We need less bureaucracy, more common sense, and more working together to resolve little issues like this.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Go on then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor misconduct and a stern bitching (delivered by me because he gotted me a warning D:< ) delivered demote the cunt and then a policy or scheduled deletion-thingy after the case.-- SA 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - I reckon we should demote the cunt Cyberbob  Talk  16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Tape is there for a reason. Perhaps a time out of demotion will help DDR figure out how to follow the rules. -- #99 ^DCC 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deary me Bob... And you complain that I get swayed. Should I just throw you up too now? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I'm pretty obviously lampooning Read. This is slap-on-the-wrist material if I ever saw it; I'm just having some fun with it. Cyberbob  Talk  01:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it makes either of you feel better I knew what was going on for every side in this conflict and I laff'd.-- SA 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how my obviously not serious, deliberately over the top statement of "demote the cunt" has now become jargon in this place. My influence knows no boundaries.--CyberRead240 11:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never meant the comment :/ of course its a joke. I just assumed you would defend something that you must have figured was in the right if you did it yourself. w/e, we aren't even getting warnings by the looks of it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed cause I'm a glipe who didn't read the rules. 19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only sysops can make rulings.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - But only just. Adbot pages don't need the banned user templates, its not even worth the effort creating the page. -- Cheese 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the case is more or less over, as Misconduct. I have to say I'm disappointed over this whole thing. Even Iscariot didn't have the balls to bring me and Cyberbob here as I suggested, which would have been the right thing to do since I only emulated his actions from two weeks ago (which no one cared about by the way, so god knows why I'd think it wasn't the wrong thing :/) and as such seeing Cyberbob of all people bandwagon just brings a tear to my eye. I guess you can revert the deleted pages and have them sent to A/SD and have Iscariot keep them and have it sent through A/D now, like it should be done according to guidelines? Oh, none of you will bother undeleting them? Typical. Punishment please. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I will hereby announce your punishment for crimes most horrid:

1. You will undelete and protect the pages you so heartlessly struck down in the prime of their life.
2. You will bring to each person who has posted so far in this case a (one/1) shrubbery. Persons posting after me for the first time are ineligible to receive shrubberies for this punishment.
3. You will change your signature for a period of one (1) month so that it reads "Dance Dance Revolution The Shrubber".
4. You will write and post your own administrative warning to your talk page.
5. You will ensure that this warning is suitably snarky and epic, think Grim giving an admin warning to J3D.
6. You will not use the letter 'K' on this wiki until such time as SA posts a sentence containing "Simon says".
7. You will name your first born "Finis Zeug Revolution".

Learn your lesson, show appropriate remorse and meekness and pray that you are never again subjected to such severe punishment! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I fucking love it, and fully support this as an official admin ruling.-- SA 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slap on the wrist misconduct. Not even worth an official warning. Just don't do it again until A/D/S allows it, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 13 November 2009 (BST)

If there is no further discussion, this can be archived tomorrow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:40 14 November 2009 (BST)

DDR is still using the letter k, and he (nor I) have been given the go ahead to give him a warning that is "suitably snarky and epic".-- SA 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Case seemingly closed as Misconduct, and as with the identical Cyberbob case, no official punishment will be given. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)