UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct must be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.

Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page.

There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.

All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

Administrative Abilities

For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):

• Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.
• Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct
• Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.
• Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).
• Warning users reported in Vandal Banning.
• Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.
• Editing of Protected pages by any means.
• Research IP activity using the CheckUser extension.
• (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.

If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning.

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my Talk page as proof of this. -- Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

Before Reporting Misconduct

Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the Administration Staff has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over UDWiki:Misconduct and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.

Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:Nubis

Preemptive cunt showing once again he believes he is well above teh rules. And oh, how convienient the image is gone so the people can't judge for themselves. Wow you can be a fuckwit when you want to be. --xoxo 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And since fucknuckle has deleted the image i'll describe it as best i can. It was a low pixel presumably naked girl who had all the important parts covered with a chainsaw and a knife that had been poorly photoshopped over the top. Can the lady reupload so we can finally get the buttons taken off the control freak?--xoxo 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it merits a misconduct case but J3D is right that this was deleted waay too fast. It was not even unsuitable for work let alone pornographic and it had been up for deletions for less than an hour.--Honestmistake 12:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dug up from Firefox's cache for your viewing pleasure. I do not think it's porn. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also compare with this and this, images which have been on the wiki for over two years. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol... the first of those 2 is on my user page as i think Arson Lover is the last active Mistress. Both those images went through deletions if i remember rightly.--Honestmistake 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely its a nipple issue? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nipples are not rude, especially in this case when the nipple is actually covered by part of the generator, or a black spot, its hard to tell due to the resolution but either way few people regard full frontal female toplessness as porn so the merest hint of areola is pushing the definition way past reasonable.--Honestmistake 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly "the merest hint" of areola... it's the majority of the left one! Look closer :P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:42 26 March 2009 (BST)

Yeah but even in the policy vote you link below Nubis argues several times that this sort of thing was not its target "The intent wasn't against artistic nudity in classical art, but against posting things like cam whores writing people's character's names over their tits" Thats one Nubis gem but there are many others... Now obviously this isn't classical art but its closer to art than cam whores!--Honestmistake 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Pft, Americans play this game, that means that we have to assume everything is pornography. On a serious note, this isn't misconduct as the orignal image prior to alterations was clearly porn. --Johnny Bass 15:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WTF has the original got to do with this? I mean if it were deleted for copyright reasons then perhaps but you might as well argue that we are not allowed pics of humans as under their clothing they are naked?--Honestmistake 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The original would have a lot to do with it as it wasn't altered in a significant enough fashion to cover up what could be called objectionable. --Johnny Bass 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not-Misconduct - as per this ridiculous scheduled deletions vote that was passed, and come to fruition. There was part of the nipples showing, some people don't like nip, can define it as porn, and I wouldn't be surprised if those images Midianian linked to would have gone if we'd had this approved at the time too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 26 March 2009 (BST)

A nipple does not mean it's porn. A nipple doesn't necessarily even mean it's sexually explicit, and there's still a difference between porn and that. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions, blah. Where do you think the girls image came from? An art book? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:43 26 March 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't be surprised if it did. But neither would I be surprised if it didn't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

or one of several British newspapers which print fully naked (BUT ARTFULLY POSED) women on page 3 and pretty much any other page if its a slow news day.--Honestmistake 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If the picture included a text box reading "Chloe, 23, from Somerset, is really concerned about Kevan's lack of updates". Then yes, I might have agreed. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Like that?--Honestmistake 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also notice the distinct lack of nipples, meaning that this isn't porn. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look closer you will spot some just above the 1st skull ;) --Honestmistake 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use more examples. Someone please upload more examples. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, that's not a nipple, that's just the top part of the areola! No nipples in that picture. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this image acceptable.Although if it also included a Lolcat........ Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hows that for comparisson? No nipple at all here!--Honestmistake 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not-Misconduct And although I'm not going to go and delete them, both of the above examples count as porn by my communities local standards. Yes I know I live in the VERY repressed region of the U.S. But by technicalities ...the above images count as well. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nubis

Nubis blocked himself for 48 hours in relation to his misconduct case further down the page in order to undermine accepted misconduct procedures and allow him to dish out his own punishment. This allows him to save face as being noble enough to accept he was wrong however more problematically it allows him to set the maximum punishment for himself. The difference between a 7 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour ban in practise is very minimal. However the potential outcome of a demotion is obviously something nubis wanted to avoid so he took the most extreme length ban that would possibly be dished out in order to make sure that didn't happen and hey, make himself look good in the process.

To the point, this shows Nubis still thinks he is above the rules and perhaps needs a stronger punishment that reflects his long history of rule breaking rather than just the individual action of overbanning iscariot as well as setting a terrible precedent for sysops being able to ban themselves as a get out of jail free card for their actions.--xoxo 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh i also forgot to mention that Nubis' self ban should not count towards any punishment as it was not the result of the case, if he wants to ban himself well that's just great but it shouldn't count as his punishment whatsoever.--xoxo 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

see below --Cyberbob 07:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

lolno --Cyberbob 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct. And this time I mean it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whut? My "misconduct" case here is using my sysop powers to ban myself? If I edit my own page is that now a vandalism case? I know you weren't a sysop for long, J3D, but you might remember that it is the sysops that decide the punishment and outcome for misconduct cases and if they decided I should be banned longer or demoted then no matter what I did to myself I am sure one of them would carry out what ever punishment they decided on.

If I was one of the other sysops I would be pissed at your assumption that they "let me do whatever I want" and that if they wanted to demote me me just banning myself would stop them. And as far as my "history of rule breaking" not including the one below I only have 2 misconduct decisions over 3 years. Just because someone makes a lot of cases against you doesn't mean you are a vandal. Wait a minute, I think I found a quote that works here.

J3D said:

Cases that get declared not vandalism are meaningless. I could make cases against anyone for anything and that person would have a case against them forever, it'd just get declared not vandalism.

Sauce

But you go ahead and use my "history" against me. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I like it how you disregarded your history of 3 misconduct and 1 vb case and assumed when i said history i meant stuff that didn't happen.--xoxo 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW. What part of not including the one below I only have 2 misconduct decisions over 3 years is me disregarding my history? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Liar. 1, 2 and 3 plus the one below, which you've said you're not counting. Are you being deliberately deceitful? Or have you just learned mathematics from Hagnat? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't count that retarded case of Slightly Misconduct. The whole case and verdict is nonsense. Actually, if it wasn't for that case Iscariot wouldn't have gotten his little vacation and would actually be earning his way back to redemption with valid and helpful posts like above.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - if the rest of the sysops wanted a larger punishment, they would have spoken up, and still can. The offending sysop can plead no contest and a reasonable punishment themselves, as long as it's not "undercutting" what has been discussed. Precedent -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:49 17 March 2009 (BST)

Personally I thought the additional 5 and a half hours would have been enough but I feel Nubis decision was Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't right. A demotion was absolutely not a possible outcome in the last case. As far as I know HonestMistake was the only one to suggest it, and its a ridiculous punishment for a mistake which didn't actually hurt anyone. If the ban had gone for a week, or over the time that Iscariot was meant to be banned for, then sure, there's hell to pay. But he wasn't banned for any longer than he was supposed to despite Nubis' mistake, so there was no physical repercussion of his decision, just a mistake he made, which of course was misconduct but this isn't. No one could work out a punishment for Nubis so he did it himself, no sysops disagreed with the decision albeit General who said it was too large. Nothing to see here in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest demotion... I suggested a temporary suspension of powers equal to the difference between the correct escalation and the given escalation be considered as a possible resolution. I do not think any case of misconduct should go without consequence but I certainly did not think this one was deserving of any actual punishment and preferred what would in fact have been a form of "garden leave"--Honestmistake 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate intelligence? --Cyberbob 06:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate common sense? --Cyberbob 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate consistency? --Cyberbob 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate proportionality? --Cyberbob 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate paragraphs? --Cyberbob 06:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no merit in arguing with you Bob, you are an ass and a troll. Once again you are posting baseless attacks just to annoy me. There is no answer to your questions because they spring from your own personal lala land rather than having anything to do with things I have said or done, you post them merely to make yourself feel big and clever when the reality is that you are neither. --Honestmistake 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestmistake said:

I see no merit in arguing with you Bob [followed by 66 words]

yeah you're p much the easiest troll evar thanks for the good time we should do it again sometime --Cyberbob 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Innit so funny how you get on my case acting like the supreme wiki-janitor when I make worthless posts anywhere, but you go on a total trolling bitchfest simply because someone has made a point you don't like...--SirArgo ^Talk 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids, we seem to be in need of a Thank you for your input injection here. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --Cyberbob 22:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

also argo not "anywhere" as you hilariously overstate - just A/VB. if it was truly "anywhere" I'd be on your case 24/7 --Cyberbob 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I love bob's "trolling bitchfests". They honestly cheer me up seeing a funny comment of his in the middle of a drama wall. seriously, thank you Cyberbob.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Conndraka

His actions on the #Nubis case. He knew of the mistake and purposely refused to correct it. --Karek^maps?! 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

umm woah dude. How about giving me a chance here fella, Damn. My statements were based off of the escalations as posted on the vandal data and I wasn't going to go a researching them until the initial question of the ban length was figured out. Nubis hasn't even responded to the case yet. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

and another thing...It would be one thing If I point blank refused to do or undue something, but I hadn't (and to be honest still haven't worked through) all the details of the below case. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Bullshit. I took one read of the case and instantly gathered the following key pieces of information: 1) Nubis banned Iscariot in concordance with a 3:2 ruling on A/VB. 2) Iscariot's last escalation was on the 30th of January and consisted of a 24 hour ban. 3) This case was brought more than a month later and Iscariot had made more than 250 edits and as such qualified for a de-escalation. 4) Nubis banned him for a week rather than 48 hours which should have been the next escalation if Nubis hadn't noticed the de-escalation. The first 3 are ok and not grounds for misconduct, the last is. Simple as that. -- Cheese 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So your defense is you ruled without actually reading the case? I'm not sure how that doesn't actually seem worse. --Karek^maps?! 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheese, 3 doesn't apply - see Iscariot quote below. And if it was supposed to be 48 hours based on what was showing then I did make an honest mistake. Not Misconduct. There was no malicious intent, but just a mistake. It happens. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No malice does not equal No Misconduct... this was a mistake and you were not promoted to make mistakes (esp in Vandal cases) Its by no means 'demotion' serious misconduct but a ruling of Not Misconduct on a case like would be totally wrong.--Honestmistake 09:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way your ruling there reads like a ruling on your case rather than this one, such things tend to cause a lot of drama so you might want to unbold it? --Honestmistake 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. He either knew there was a mistake and went out of his way to not correct it or he didn't read the case summary and ruled anyway in which case he was ruling based on the assumption that you were right to ban Iscariot for however long regardless of the actual merit. Either one is misconduct. --Karek^maps?! 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Slap on the Wrist as long as Iscariot's Ban does not exceed 48 hours" seems to show pretty clearly that Conn felt the 48 hour ban was the appropriate one and should be the one served, as it wasn't at 48 hours he was right not to undo the ban until it was. IF he did not read the case properly it does call his motives into question but that doesn't really equal misconduct either--Honestmistake 09:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does! Misconduct is misuse of sysop powers. How is swaying a misconduct case (which he and only 10 others in the wiki can vote on) by making an uninformed, uneducated vote NOT misconduct? He had the responsibility to inform himself before making a decision. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops my bad, what i was trying to say was that this case should not be considered as misconductable because there is no real evidence to suggest that he was abusing his sysop powers. Conn looked at the face value of the case and acted accordingly, he seems to have seen that it was a case about accidentally skipping a step on the vandal ladder and his opinion is that that was not misconduct provided someone fixes it. It should be noted that he was the first Sysop to rule and that he had already changed his mind by the time this case was brought (well at the same time actually!) Its poor form to rule (and should be considered misconduct) without full understanding (or at least an attempt to come to one) but in this case i don't feel it should have been taken here so quickly.--Honestmistake 12:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity though can a sysop explain how a ban period is implemnted? I mean do you set a block in place that automatically expires or does someone have to actually unblock the user when the ban period expires?--Honestmistake 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The former. --Cyberbob 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I would think that Conn should have come back and checked to see if the ban had been reset when other sysops had made their opinion known. If he had failed to do so then that would certainly have been misconduct. --Honestmistake 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nubis

On the 11th of March Nubis banned Iscariot in accordance with a 3 to 2 Vandalism decision on A/VB. However, Nubis failed to check whether Iscariot deserved a de-escalation. Iscariot was last banned on the 30th of January and the case he was banned for this time was brought on March 5th (34 days later). He had also accumulated more than 250 edits by that time. Not only that, but Nubis jumped from a 24 hour ban directly to a 1 week ban, skipping a 48 hour ban that should have been between them. Even if this was an honest mistake, this is the level of mistake sysops should not make. Iscariot is still banned at the moment and has been so for over 24 hours already. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Add in a stated desire (more here and here) to see him banned without following proper escalation proceedings. It shows that this was not an honest mistake. --Johnny Bass 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed de-escalations is not a reason for misconduct:

Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

However, the jump to a week ban from a 24 hour is clearly incorrect. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does that read? o_O --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Green box. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Slap on the Wrist as long as Iscariot's Ban does not exceed 48 hours. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You could have unbanned him you know. -- Cheese 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct for the missing the de-escalation but Misconduct and a nice big link to this for skipping an escalation. We do have a link to VD on the vandal template for a reason. Please remember that, we don't need to give Iscariot any more reasons to think we're plotting against him. I've unbanned him now meaning he's served about 31 hours and 32 minutes, putting him 7 and 32 over a 24 hour ban. -- Cheese 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm Cheeze, you shouldn't have unbanned him yet. Im pretty sure the Majority is looking at 48 Hours as appropriate. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was at his third escalation, he qualified for a de-escalation, yet you think the appropriate action is to just ignore it and give him a fourth escalation. Care to explain why? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based my statement off of Gnome's quote above... Based on various factors I'm going to go with Misconduct with a Punishment of a ban of 7 hours and 32 minutes (or as close as we can get it). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can actually imagine you furiously back-pedalling at the top of a huge hill right now. XD -- Cheese 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine all you want, But my response actually edit conflicted with Karek's case above and wasn't awware of it until AFTER I had made this statement. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Midianian is right. --Karek^maps?! 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify before drama comes. Nubis made a mistake, an understandable one since no one deescalates Iscariot for good reason considering last time someone(Nubis) did he made an A/M case because it was a whole day too early. It's misconduct because it was a mistake with a ban and that should always be misconduct regardless of the intent behind it, banning a user for longer than they should actually be is just uncool. --Karek^maps?! 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This <--oops, wrong text in link. My bad. That didn't make sense as a reply to Karek. o_O

Iscariot said:

Aww, poor Hagnat, did you not read those wonderful boxes "Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions." I am responsible for my history, not you, not Nubis, Nubis did the wrong thing and that action should be undone. Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative. How am I meant to 'begone' when you won't allow me to work my way up the escalations tree?

And I just realized that I had accidentally replied in his comment. Surprised he didn't make a VB case for the impersonation. He can't have it both ways. Either he needs to request a de-escalation every time or we can de-escalate him when we notice. The week 48 hour ban should stay according to policy and what seem to be his wishes. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I did honestly miss the 48 hour ban by accident. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Hagnat on that. I think that screwing up a ban should always have consequences if just for the reason that it's the one thing that should be treated with the most delicacy as far as admin actions go. Well, with the exception of privacy information but, it's still a big deal and probably should have consequences. --Karek^maps?! 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

7 hours and 32 minutes of consequences? -- Cheese 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

General punishment is whatever additional time the person banned served so, I assume, yes. --Karek^maps?! 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming my subtraction is correct: Iscariot was banned at 13:16 yesterday (the 10th) and I unbanned him at 18:48 today (the 11th). 18:48 - 13:16 = 5 hours and 32 minutes....maybe I can't add up. =/ No idea how I got 7 hours. Either way it is possible to ban for that amount of time as I've tested it on myself for 7,32. Would you be willing to serve a ban of that length Nubis? -- Cheese 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me rot in peace. Second, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with ALL sysops that served since the green box was created and put on A/VB. We are sysops, but we are humans first, and threfore prone to make mistakes. Like i said to iscariot, if a sysop issues a wrong punishment (because vandal data is outdated) and another user points that out, he has the obligation to correct it and if he refuses to then its misconduct. And third, the 24h to a week ban jump is clear misconduct... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet I'm being eerily consistent with everything I've ever said or proposed. Screwing up isn't acceptable when your mistakes have consequences. This is the biggest single example of such a mistake having consequences, banning someone should not ever be something that is walked away from without some penitence and a slap on the wrist is never penitence. Just because it's an honest mistake doesn't mean it shouldn't at the very least result in the minimum punishment of time served and that the sysop in question shouldn't actually be willing to take that punishment as appropriate. Respecting starts with being willing to do the respectable thing and if anyone ever wants to be viewed as an admin/sysop they need to act like one. Isn't that what so many of you had problems with Grim over?--Karek^maps?! 10:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If a ban was wrongly issued and the user was kept banned more than it was supposed to, the sysop will be banned for the same extra amount of time the user remained banned... and the sysop himself will be the one to issue his ban. This form of punishment is not because the sysop committed misconduct (its only misconduct if he refuses to correct the ban time), but a rather old tradition we had in here that serves to keep the sysop smart about checking vandal data. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was saying, ruling, and proposing be done Hagnat. --Karek^maps?! 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that it says "You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are." It just says sysops might not be held responsible when dealing with out of date A/VD data. Not that the error will be upheld even when it's noticed. The green box is neither a "Get Out of Jail, Free" card to sysops nor a "Go Directly to Jail, DO NOT PASS GO" card to users. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin??? First I don't like Iscariots behavior but I have seen much worse in the past and been told that its perfectly acceptable on the suggestions page so I am not sure what justification for a ban there really is at all. I understand the arguments about harrasment etc but just don't think this counts as anything more than OTT Trolling. However, as a ban was the agreed on course I don't think we should be punishing Nubis for following Iscariots (not so polite) demand that he and only he should decide if he should get the due de-escalation. Basically that means that this is misconduct due to humanoid error on Nubis's behalf for skipping straight to 1 week. Even if we assume no malice its still clearly serious enough to warrant some sort of punishment... I would say loss of Sysop powers for a period equal to the incorrect ban, in this case 5 days? --Honestmistake 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's serious overkill considering that this exact case type punishment is not only used in examples frequently but well cemented in case history and precedent as whatever extra time the banned user served being given to the sysop as a ban of the same length. --Karek^maps?! 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a full ban though, I am suggesting a withdrawl of sysop only powers instead. The banhammer is a tool which we really do not want Sysops messing up with. In this case it was Iscariot (who pretty much does deserve a ban, just not this ban) but if it had been issued to someone newer and less in your face it may have gone un-noticed that the ban was longer than called for, hence a more stringent punishment than a slap on the wrist...--Honestmistake 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's stupid though. An eye for an eye, can't you see? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What has an eye for an eye got to do with it, we are looking for a suitable way to indicate that this was misconduct rather than to punish an "honest mistake" This is clearly misconduct because the ban handed out was too long, however if Nubis gets a ban under "eye for an eye" logic he will not get a ban at all because it was still within the 48hours Iscariot should have recieved. What i am suggesting is intended as a meaningful chastisement rather than a punishment. If we assume that Nubis jumped to 1 week by accident then punishment is not warranted but some action must be taken to indicate the communties disaproval of so blatant an error in such a delicate matter as A/VB. Its hardly ideal I admit but an outright ban is uncalled for and a sliding scale directly related to the size of mistake will act to focus attention when issuing bans in the future.--Honestmistake 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Community's disapproval"? Who died and made you Voice of the Community? --Cyberbob 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one died Bob, I just took it as common sense that no one in the community wants Sysops fucking up with the banhammer--Honestmistake 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You also took it upon yourself to decide what The Community thinks Nubis should receive as punishment. --Cyberbob 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No bob, i took it upon myself to make a suggestion for what I feel might be appropriate. A suggestion only, you will note, preficed with an "I" and ending in a "?" to show it was my opinion and only offered as a suggestion. Now if you are quite done harranguing me?--Honestmistake 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be done when you are. --Cyberbob 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot shouldnt have been banned at all. If he was entitled to get a warning struck, it would be his second warning, not his 24h ban, that would have been struck. Thus, this vandalism case would warrant him a second warning, and if he fucks up in another case it would be a ban escalation of 48h (not 24h). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot explicitly demanded that no sysop de-escalate him without his expressed wish being made clear. There is no rule saying this cannot be honoured (there is also no rule saying it must be ignored) and as such I cannot see any reason why it should not stand until such time as he changes his mind. That being the case he was on 24 hours and should have gone to 48 hours when the sysops ruled vandalism Its a technicality but an important one... its about time wikilawyering bit Iscariot in the ass! --Honestmistake 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You ever having sysop powers is pretty much the only thing that truly scares me on this wiki. --Cyberbob 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did he even look at the example misconduct case? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestmistake being rational? Lal. --Cyberbob 11:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, I guess we gotta just throw that boy into the banzone for the time required. If the ban time of Iscariot has been agreed at 24 hours, which seems absolutely right to me, there can't be much else to worry about. At the heart of this entire problem, to me, is a simple but serious mistake at the hands of Nubis. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Escalation

What exactly was the appropriate punishment? As Johnny Bass says here, the policy states that "the first escalation struck shall be the second warning" and "No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.". Doesn't that mean that Iscariot should only have recieved a warning and not been banned at all? Or am I missing something? O_o --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, he should have got only a warning, not a ban. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rules lawyer but the policy does say that a user can have warnings/bans removed and not that they must. Iscariot clearly stated that he did not want the Sysop team removing his escalations without his express permission and as far as I know he has not asked for them to be struck.

• "Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative."

That means that in all fairness he was facing a 48hour ban not a 24 (or less) There is no doubt that Nubis's mistake was misconduct but proposing he face a ban linked directly to the ban Iscariot served is nonsensical as, to my mind its a negative time period! Messing up on Vandal banning is a serious issue and deserves a very clear response to show that it is always unacceptable. --Honestmistake 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

dieplzkthx --Cyberbob 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way Bob, at what point do you think your constantly trolling me will count as harasment? Not one of your responses here (or pretty much anywhere I post) has been particularly constructive and its beginning to become annoying. --Honestmistake 13:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dammit.... alright 1 comment!!!--Honestmistake 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not harassing, I'm debating. If you don't like my debating style that's your lookout. --Cyberbob 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"dieplzkthx" is not debating, at best it is a request.

"You ever having sysop powers is pretty much the only thing that truly scares me on this wiki." & "Honestmistake being rational? Lal" are nothing more or less than unwarranted personal attacks and have nothing to do with any reasonable debating points you might make and even you know it. --Honestmistake 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the concept of debating techniques. Also to call those attacks "unwarranted" is a lie and you know it. --Cyberbob 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, he has some sort of point. If iscariot can be anal about nubis removing his warning 7 edits early, he cant blame nubis for not removing his warning when iscariot was entitled to, provided iscariot never asked a sysop to remove such warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Iscariot proved last time that he wants to be the one to ask for his warning to be removed. He just can't have it both ways because it happens to serve him better the other way this time. He still should get the 48 hour ban. But all that's irrelevant at the moment, this is a discussion about what should happen to Nubis because the ban was put down for too long.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A week is a long time to make a mistaken ban. I say give him a day-long ban as per the 'inconsistent and unsubstantiated example misconduct case result' above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Look, in the misconduct case Iscariot made about the de-escalation he even insisted that the warning be reinstated since it was struck early. But at that time he had made the missing 7 edits so common sense prevailed. Making it a week ban was truly an accident. If I had intended to "screw up" his ban I can assure you I would have gone for the perma-ban and hoped that no one noticed. I clearly didn't so it was an accident. Demoting me for a week is retarded. The punishment should be that I am banned for however long over the correct length Iscariot was banned. He wasn't banned over the 48 hours, but actually less than 48 hours, but wtf I don't care. Just so we can end this pointless argument about that asshole's wishes allow me to take care of this myself. Misconduct 48 hour ban.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work finishing this Nubis. We should have made a precedence for future cases though, it sort of leaves the issue of de-escalation. Should a users' wishes to stay escalated get priority over scheduled de-escalation? If this was already answered above, don't scream. The case started whilst I was afk so I've had a hard time understanding everything. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone was actually suggesting a 48 hour ban; General consensus seemed to be 7 hours. Therefore, I plan on unbanning you after 24 hours, unless anyone has any objections?

Oh, and by the way: I rule Not Misconduct on the missing de-escalation on the grounds that Iscariot has already made it quite clear that he does not want anyone striking his warnings without him requesting it. However, the skipping of the 48 hour ban was misconduct (even though it was an accident) with, IMO, an appropriate punishment being the amout of time over 48 hours which Iscariot served. In other words, a ban term of ~-17 hours (i.e. nothing).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Finish

OK, looks like this case is all finished and stuffs, but just to throw another spanner in the works, the appropriate escalation (once the de-escalation was taken into account) should have been a second warning. When de-escalating, the second warning (if still unstruck) is the first to go, not the highest ban. "If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning." -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:53 25 March 2009 (BST)

You're missing the main question: Does Iscariot have the right to refuse a de-escalation and whose responsibility is it to monitor those? --– Nubis ^NWO 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a policy discussion should be put up as the rules on this seem a little vague to me. --Johnny Bass 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)