UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Misanthropy/2010

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Misanthropy » 2010

11 August

This edit is in breach of rules and precedent. It's a protected page, and while adding his joke group is legal, the rest isn't; Making fun of the other groups and fucking up any pretense of NPOV a disambiguate page should have. Using your powers for a joke is not something that should be encouraged. The fact that it's a protected page makes it misconduct. If it weren't it would still be bad, as a disambig is suppose to be of Neutral Point of view.

He's been warned about something similar before, where he was told protected pages are only to be edited out of administrative need. And I while like the guy personally, it seems he has trouble taking his role as a sysop more serious. The former example was handled on his talk page, but looks like Misanthropy needs to be treated a bit more roughly then that. --Thadeous Oakley 17:12, 11 August 2010 (BST)

LOL -- Adward  17:18, 11 August 2010 (BST)

I can see the humor in it, I honestly do, but it's wrong, as I summarized in the bolded sentence. Fun stuff should be done within the rules. --Thadeous Oakley 17:19, 11 August 2010 (BST)

He was making an edit to reflect the creation of a new group. Clearly.-- Adward  17:21, 11 August 2010 (BST)

And at the same time make fun of the others. Do you think the disambig is NPOV now? --Thadeous Oakley 17:23, 11 August 2010 (BST)

It's a lot better.-- Adward  17:23, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Thank you for your input. --Thadeous Oakley 17:24, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Meh. If you want to extend this Umbrella circle jerk outside of its confines, be my guest, but if you honestly think this is all as serious as you're taking it, I'm not the one who's losing here. Anyway, all that can really be called for here is two removal of about two NPOV words from a protected page, which wouldn't even have needed protected if you kids could keep teddy in the pram. 17:25, 11 August 2010 (BST)

That. You also fail at wikimeme. You also have vested interest. I also like ham. Edit conflict mis bastard.-- Adward  17:26, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Hilarious. --Dawkins ^{[T][P!][W!][♞]} is currently: having his arm torn off by a zombie. 17:32, 11 August 2010 (BST)

I don't take your group serious, I take it as a joke, a joke fine to make. This isn't about the Umbrella circle jerk, at least not me. This is about you not taking your responsibility as a sysop serious enough. (<don't take that personal). I have disagreed with you about the context of humour before, but I think you overstepped a border here and it has to stop.--Thadeous Oakley 19:51, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - From the guidelines and precedent. -- Cheese 18:36, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Misconduct Cheese got it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:36, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - After being warned about this so recently, and considering the obvious bad faith.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 19:31, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - But only worth a wrist slap warning. —Aichon— 20:47, 11 August 2010 (BST)

Majority of Misconduct. Punishment?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 20:54, 11 August 2010 (BST)

A proper warning because he's already had a soft one over the Cornholioo one. -- Cheese 22:23, 11 August 2010 (BST)

I'd back this, and looks like Aichon would too. Anyone else want to solidify this?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 22:28, 11 August 2010 (BST)

This shit was a colossal lol, true to boot, and awesome. But I've warned him, case closed, misconduct. --

 

 

 

 

02:39, 12 August 2010 (BST)

Fucking worth it. 02:40, 12 August 2010 (BST)

^ --Haliman - Talk 04:11, 12 August 2010 (BST)

6 May

This has just been brought to my attention. Since when do we accept off-site requests for deletion? The added bit for crit 7 states: If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. Off-site is definitely not the sysop's talk page and even with the newest part (As of January 2010, this scheduling now includes pages that the author has blanked or replaced with text indicating a desire to be deleted. However, pages used as inclusions (such as many templates) are excluded from this criterion.) it doesn't come close. If Iscariot wishes the page deleted, he can come request it in person or someone can provide a screenshot of his request.

This could easily be incorporated into the existing scheduled deletions but until it is, it's a breach of the guidelines for deletion and as a result I believe this is misconduct. -- Cheese 17:17, 6 May 2010 (BST)

For Relevancy, also look here. --Thadeous Oakley 17:26, 6 May 2010 (BST)

this is some serious hairsplitting even for you cheese Cyberbob  Talk  17:38, 6 May 2010 (BST)

People have been brought here for less. =/ I don't like the idea of things being requested "off-site" and there being no record here of it. Not saying I don't trust Mis, but I don't like the precedent that it would set. -- Cheese 17:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Gah, I hate cases like this since it really shouldn't have been brought up at all and just makes things more difficult. The way I see it, Misanthropy did exceed his authority technically (if someone wants to cite precedent to the contrary, I'd love seeing it), but he was most certainly acting in good faith in doing so. I have no doubt that Iscariot requested this deletion, and that had Iscariot been forced to request it officially, more drama would have ensued. There's no way Misanthropy should be getting a warning or worse out of this, since he was acting in the best interests of the wiki and its users in doing what he did. But Cheese is right that it could create a dangerous precedent, so establishing that it's not the right thing to do is still a good idea. Thus, Misconduct with no punishment. —Aichon— 21:05, 6 May 2010 (BST)

You know what? No. This could be a dangerous precedent, but only when it's abused, and we have this page for those situations. Misanthropy didn't abuse it at all, so I'm changing my mind. Not Misconduct. —Aichon— 22:04, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Sorta... But you can always ignore precedents, and I think ross summed it up pretty well too; I'd agree if Iscariot hadn't had every single other page in his userspace deleted, but given that, its totally feasible that Izzy, an IRC regular, asked Mis, another IRC regular, to delete it. Izzy never made a contribution after getting said pages deleted since he's publivly left, doesn't want to come back just to get page deleted. There's no (incredibly) bad blood between the two, etc, etc. I mean, I agree that Izzy should have had to come here to have the page deleted, but IMO that's a different story to whether Mis should be punished for it. --

 

 

 

 

00:50, 8 May 2010 (BST)

dude he said not misconduct, dunno why you're arguing with him Cyberbob  Talk  16:34, 8 May 2010 (BST)

What do you reckon then bob? -- Cheese 16:49, 8 May 2010 (BST)

that it's ddr being ddr Cyberbob  Talk  17:26, 8 May 2010 (BST)

dude talking about the precedent bit, aichon knew what i meant, dunno why you're interfering. --

 

 

 

 

08:57, 11 May 2010 (BST)

This is pathetic. I guess you should Misconduct Link for unbanning me before my self-ban was up, because I asked him via IRC, and take Suicidalangel to A/VB because he edited my userpage and my talk page rules to say I was away cause I was homeless, because I asked him via IRC. Go on, consistency please Cheese. Nah, that's cool, those two don't annoy iscariot so why would you bother?

Another fine example of going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, when the user in question was just trying to help out. Can't wait for more cases like this to weed out the new op's "ignore the rules to help" attitude so they become butthurt rule-nazies like the rest of us ops became. --

 

 

 

 

01:16, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Jesus H Christ, I'm grouchy when I've just woken up. I still maintain the first paragraph though >=[ --

 

 

 

 

09:56, 7 May 2010 (BST)

WHAT THE FUCK IF YOU ASKED I'D HAVE GOTTEN ONSITE NOTICE. I don't have IRC access right now but hold this case for a day or two and I'll have Iz come on and formally request the deletion here. 13:20, 7 May 2010 (BST)

I've typically always been against claiming petty bias, but when its something as totally uncalled for and irrational as this case, it has to be made. Bias about enforcing the scheduled deleting that he personally passed, much? There I said it. Lols. Either way, does Izz still go on IRC? I could get such confirmation if you'd like. --

 

 

 

 

13:31, 7 May 2010 (BST)

The reason I didn't ask for an onsite notice at the time was because I didn't know about it. The first I heard about the user page going was when Thad posted on Undeletions. I fail to see how this is petty bias. =/ Mis deleted a page without a proper request being filed. This is nothing personal again him and like I said it's not that I don't trust him, I just don't like the idea that someone could swan onto IRC pretending to be that user and ask for a page to be deleted. At least here we have checkuser and the like to confirm that person is who they say they are. I don't want Mis to get a punishment, I just want it to be made clear that deleting something because you got asked offsite is not on. If they want it deleted, they should come here and post it like everyone else, it only takes about 30 seconds. -- Cheese 14:06, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Sent him a message on another forum to ask him to come round. If/when he does, drop his useless piece of piss plz? 16:18, 8 May 2010 (BST)

No...=/ I don't see us dropping vandal cases if the vandal goes back and undoes it all. You really can't see my problem with this can you? -- Cheese 16:48, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Your problem is that a deletion was done without an onsite request, which you see as misconduct, while I see it as falling completely within Crit 7. If the original deletion is backed up with the author returning to verify that he did in fact place the request, puts down a formal request to have the page deleted again, I fail to see what's wrong. 16:53, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Even if it is backed up, you still deleted the page because of an offsite request which I think is a big no-no. -- Cheese 16:54, 8 May 2010 (BST)

It was requested for deletion by the author/sole contributor. At no point is there a clause specifying that such requests need to be done on the wiki itself. 17:02, 8 May 2010 (BST)

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the Crit 7 by proxy says If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. I think that makes it pretty clear where it should be. -- Cheese 17:13, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Criterion 7, Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count.

The page was, in fact, requested for deletion by its author. That criterion states nothing about the need to use the wiki as the locale for requesting anything. 17:41, 8 May 2010 (BST)

To be eligible for speedydeletions, a page must be "listed on UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions", and a scheduled crit 7 must be done on your talk page. An IRC request neither fits speedy or scheduled deletions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:19 9 May 2010 (BST)

Go read this. -- Cheese 17:45, 8 May 2010 (BST)

The only thing there that you might be trying to point me towards is that a notice needs to be made containing a link, a time stamp and a reason for deletion, in which case I'll point you here. Aside from that, nothing you're actually showing me states anything contrary to what I've said. 17:52, 8 May 2010 (BST)

All Deletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered: A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility. A reason for deletion. This should be short and to the point. A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding Cheese 17:55, 8 May 2010 (BST) to the end of your request. You posted a notice of deletion not a request. There was no request posted on the page by Iscariot, neither was the page able to be deleted under one of the scheduled deletion conditions so therefore the following bit come into play: Any deletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator. Since the request isn't on the page, it's not technically been requested and you should have declined to delete it and told him to come here and request it in person just like anybody else would have to. -- Cheese 17:55, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct Iscariot had publicly requested the deletions of a great many pages and made it abundantly clear he was removing himself from the community. Of course if we get a comment from iscariot saying he didn't request it then its misconduct in my opinion. Meh. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:35, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - no punishment, keep the page unless it's requested properly. We can't have user's pages being requested for deletion off site -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:33 8 May 2010 (BST)

Ya, even if not misconduct, keep page undeleted? I would think so. --

 

 

 

 

06:32, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Under the letter of the law it's misconduct (it's even the goddamn example at the top), but as boxy, there shouldn't be a punishment.-- Adward  14:18, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Except that, unlike the example and what you said previously but deleted, he did make a note of it on A/SD. Also, it was the correct user requesting deletion for their own page, unlike the example. —Aichon— 19:14, 9 May 2010 (BST)

So are we going to close this up then? From what I can see, we have Aichon and Ross saying Not Misconduct, Boxy and presumably Cheese saying Misconduct (although I can't remember if he can rule as he brought the case). That leaves SA, who's been inactive for nearly a month, as well as Red and the Rooster, both of whom stay away from places like A/M. Other than that it's just me, and I have no intention of ruling on a case which started before I was even promoted.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:53, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Argh, it's always so hard to remember, but I'm very very sure it's "if you bring the case, you can't rule". --

 

 

 

 

00:46, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Actually sysops can only not rule on cases if they were personally involved beforehand (regardless of whether they brought the case or not). Lucky you have me here to help remind you! :) Cyberbob  Talk  03:07, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Actually, they also can't if they are the target of the case, but thanks for the help. I've trawled through the archives and in fact found all the evidence I need to support that a sysop bringing a case can also vote. So, cheese's counts. --

 

 

 

 

06:37, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Being the target of a case sort of counts as being involved beforehand. Cyberbob  Talk  06:50, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Well, if I'm correct, it's two all, meaning it'll be Not Misconduct. Can someone confirm this for me?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:23, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yup, 2 all, defaults to not misconduct. --

 

 

 

 

09:04, 11 May 2010 (BST)

With Two votes of Misconduct and Two votes of Not Misconduct, I'm going to archive this case as Not Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:42, 11 May 2010 (BST)

12 March

Ruling not misconduct on a case of two sysops ruling not vandalism against him. The sysop community is not supposed to be a clique but an impartial group of dedicated wiki editors. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Iscariot's above post, there's precedent allowing Cyberbob to vote not on his own case, so I don't really see the involved parties clause extending over this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was his own misconduct case. This is different. Misanthropy is covering DDR and Rosslessness for covering him. This would be misconduct. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you not paying atttention? Mis votes not misconduct on this, DDR and Ross vote not misconduct, so does Boxy in a more wordy manner. And you get an escalation for shitting up admin pages. Especially since there's no actual case here, except a long rambling chain of causality that's only some sort of conspiracy in your head. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One to talk about conspiracies, Iscariot... --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Go bait the newbies and declare war on a Brainstock group, nobody who's been on here more than 10 minutes thinks these cases are going to do anything but bite you in the ass. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to be so prompt, Sonbun, I'm pleasantly surprised. 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn you are such a little bitch when you don't get your own way Sonny. Cyberbob  Talk  01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Barring the fact that Sonny is in raeg mode, Mis DID break the ToU by calling him a dirty mexican. Misconduct(warning/softie), quit that shit yo'. >:| --Big Cat 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Debatable, but irrelevant. This is concerning me ruling not misconduct above, not whether or not I broke the ToU. There's a case on A/VB for that one. Silly moo. 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a silly moo who woke up much too groggy this morning and must re-evaluate what happened to half of my beard and figure out how coffee got every where. :| --Big Cat 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW THING! I've decided while this isn't misconduct-able out right, as shit can get confusing with the precedents people use and abuse around here, you were still an involved party. I've stricken your decisions above, and this case is now over and can be archived. Problem solved, little fuss, ja?--Big Cat 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if his vote for the other 2 do not count then I'm perfectly fine with this decision. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They will not. We need to stamp down on this "voting when involved" shit. And you need to consolidate mirror-cases in the future, as they get archived properly in the end anyway. :| --Big Cat 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that despite me thinking this is misconduct, I can't actually vote this way? You'll go ahead and strike my vote? --

 

 

 

 

08:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved party? Y/N?--Big Cat 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was my case in which his vote was made (and already struck so regardless of my vote it won't change that). Thoughts? --

 

 

 

 

08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Frivolous. -- Cheese 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind after reading through the rest of this. Misconduct -- Cheese 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct - Don't rule on cases against yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:25 20 March 2010 (BST)

This case has been up too long without any input, something I delayed as the user who's A/M case he ruled on initially... Fuck it. Misconduct, in cases like this I always remember these two precedents which spawned from the events in this case and the case above it, respectively. They aren't identical to this but it follows a very similar principle. I know Misanthropy was just playing the drama, but trolling begets trolling=bad. If any other sysop actually thinks my vote is illegal they may strike it. --

 

 

 

 

09:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) As I'm archiving the other two- what say we? Misconduct, warning? Don't think anything worse applies here. --

 

 

 

 

05:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah lets get out the banhammer. Give him a suspended warning, he does it again he gets a demoted for a couple of days. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If no complaint comes up I'll probably finish this with warning sometime tomorrow. --

 

 

 

 

11:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't Ross ruled on this? If he votes misconduct then there is a clear majority in the verdict, if he votes not misconduct there is a deadlock and there's no need for talk of warnings or bans. This is of course dependent on Aichon abstaining as he now gets a say in this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get a say just yet, since the promotion is still contingent on boxy's go-ahead, but if you wanted to know what I'd rule, it'd be Misconduct. I talked with Mis a bit about it on IRC yesterday or the day before, but, as I said with him, though I don't think he meant anything by it, he still stood to directly benefit from voting Not Misconduct on the others, which is a clear conflict of interest. Simple as that. I also don't see a reason for anything more than a warning at most. —Aichon— 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Warned. --

 

 

 

 

10:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)