UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy Monkey/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Krazy Monkey » 2009

10th January

Hagnat and Cheese I'm grouping both of these together as they are implicated in the same misconduct, and given Hagnat's history of stealth ruling it'd be better if doesn't have the opportunity to influence his own case by ruling on Cheese's.

These sysops cooperated to justify the removal of a deserved permanent ban of proven liar and persistent vandal.

User:Kerkel had four contributions before recieving his perma-ban. Three to group pages even when his edits had been reverted and one to a user page. For these edits, two vandalism cases were filed, he first receieved a warning, and then under the terms set out in the Administration Guidelines he was issued with a permanent ban under the following clause: "In all but the fourth of the above instances, and the fifth should the system operator believe that the case doesn't merit the permaban laid out by standing policy, he/she should impose an infinite ban without a warning."

What we have here is a user with four edits, all vandalism, and therefore receiving their justly deserved permanent ban (technically according to policy it's an infinite ban, the technical perma comes next).

This user then returned with a new account, User:Rayols. This account made three edits, all contributing to a single response on Cheese's talk page. According to the Vandal Escalations Reduction policy, "Attempting to circumvent a ban will result in an escalation without any warning, for each attempted circumvention. If this takes the user beyond 12 months, then they are automatically permabanned." By circumventing his first infinite ban to edit this wiki, the user's contributions are automatically vandalism. As the next escalation would place him above a 12 month ban (he was already above 12 months with an infinite ban) he was permabanned.

Just for Hagnat's benefit, we know he has trouble with words:

Permanent - Adjective

permanent (comparative more permanent, superlative most permanent)

Positive permanent

Comparative more permanent

Superlative most permanent

1. Without end, eternal.

Nothing in this world is truly permanent.

1. Lasting for an indefinitely long time.

The countries are now locked in a permanent state of conflict.

A permaban, is quite obviously, a ban that is without end.

Now, skip forward to yesterday, and Cheese's character is shot at in the game as shown Image:Cheesescreen.jpg, because of this Hagnat and Cheese decide to unban this user. The user that has seven contributions over two accounts and has had a warning, an infinite ban and permaban in less than two hours, and these two sysops decide to accept this user's word over and override the policy voted and put in place to protect this wiki and the resources on it from vandalism.

There is no way in policy to de-escalate a permaban.

There is no justifiable reason to unban a user with 100% vandalism contributions, even with the sysop override clause.

We must also consider if this user would have been unbanned if it was Hagnat or Cheese's group pages or user pages this individual had vandalised. I think not.

Hagnat and Cheese have actively abused their position and opened up this wiki to continued vandalism because in Hagnat's words "i have to give credit to this guy". This also sets the dangerous precedent that actions towards sysops' characters in the game can cause responses on the wiki that override basic policy.

This user should have his permaban reinstated, the other accounts he edits with also permabanned and Cheese and Hagnat should be subject to demotion for their flagrant disregard and dereliction to their duty of using their sysop abilities to protect this wiki from vandals. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Help:Vandalism From UDWiki:Vandalism#Penalties_for_Vandalism

I don't know why more would need to be said but, this could easily be classed as overruling another sysop and misconduct would only come in with the lack of showing their decision on A/VB. The point remains though, the wiki doesn't exist to ban users and nothing is gained from losing members of the community because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul, drop it.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you haven't read any of iscariot's edits anywhere if you assume good faith on anything he does here. Not misconduct in each case. The ban system doesn't exist to punish users. But iscariot isn't here to contribute. He's just trolling constantly. The edit in question was in bad faith. And he was warned accordingly.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 12:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please rule to that effect to clarify it. That's really all I need on my part, it won't change my ruling below but it does validate the escalation more.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly say (aside from the fact that it's written there) that this system is one against punishment when it is clearly stated (as Iscariot pointed out) that less than 3 edits, all vandalism is a permaban. That system allows no compromise, no benefit of the doubt, no nothing. It is punishment and nothing else. While i agree that guy should be given another chance, i don't agree that what hag and cheese did was right. If you want the policy changed either a) make sysops mods again, which is exactly what they have become in the last 6 months or (even better) b) write a fucking policy! --xoxo 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit what you think, and that comment just proved them right. The three-edit-ban rule is operating under the reasonable assumption that if someone uses their first three edits purely for vandalism they're less than likely to be after making good-faith contributions. --Cyberbob 12:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I know what that rule was put in place to prevent. This isn't it.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the three edit rule isn't mandatory; It's completely up to the sysops.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It might not be mandatory but once enforced that is it, what i said still stands, if you don't like it, change it, don't just break it. This is obviously just going to encourage ops to throw bans around and think about the consequences later, a trend that is already pretty obvious...--xoxo 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's given no more weight than a standard VB escalation in it's permanence. Other sysops can, and have, come along and overruled them in the past.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres a nice piece of guideline somewhere that says if you give an undeserved ban you can receive the same length ban in return, can that happen please? --xoxo 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

durp hurp hurp that only applies in cases of rulings in bad faith. You really don't know shit about anything. --Cyberbob 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Link plz.--xoxo 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a link to prove to you that a rule doesn't apply to actions made in good faith? Lolwut? --Cyberbob 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me...--xoxo 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember that. We didn't want to have to wait for him and others like him to rack up the required number of edits for a regular perma or something. --Cyberbob 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - if a sysop feels that they can give a user the benifit of the doubt, and no others give a reasonable objection to it, then they are free to warn the user, and ban later, if their leniency proves to be misguided. If this account touches your page again, they will not get the benefit of the doubt again... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:06 10 January 2009 (BST)

I'd like you to confirm that you agree woth a sysop removing an issued ban and substituting a lower term based on actions towards his character in the game. To be clear, this user was permabanned, this isn't a case of I think they deserve it, they were permabanned and then later this has been removed by sysops without any policy being in effect to reduce that escalation. By agreeing with this you'd be happy with other sysops removing the ban on Grim and Izumi, provided they had a majority. You also make the recent work on trying to hash out a policy to revise permabans in certain cases worthless if you're going to say sysops can undo any permaban awarded according to their individual whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This user wasn't unbanned because they intimidated a sysop in game. Cheese laughed about getting attacked. The case was reconsidered in light of them giving an undertaking to not re-offend. I personally don't hold out much hope of them becoming productive wiki contributors, but their vandalism has been quite limited, and now that they know for certain that another similar offense will see them out with no hope for a return, they probably will not re-offend with obvious vandalism... and even if they do, they will be dealt with swiftly. Vandal banning isn't about punishment, but rather damage control. If any of the sysops had thought that this vandal was likely to be a constant re-offender, then they had ample opportunity to speak up and stop the re-evaluation of the permban, but none did, opening the way for the two sysops involved to show leniency. Permbans should only be used for the totally incorrigible, or those suspected of dedicated sock puppet vandalism (like 3pwv), that is the spirit of our current vandalism policies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:24 11 January 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'[

Not misconduct --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)