UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/MisterGame/2011
From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration | Misconduct | Archive | MisterGame
Jump to navigationJump to search
1st July
Special:Log/block shows a 3-minute block on User:Goribus, with no reason given or present. Without going through any channels, this seems to be an open and shut Aichon-precedent 3 minute block for the offending op, then. 
21:24, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- Check A/VB for the reason. Though, should the team think this reaction was overkill, then I'll serve my bantime. I do believe I acted within reasonable bounds though. --
Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:26, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- Case first, action second. No harmful edits were made so there was no reason for an emergency ban. Sort a VB case out as usual (though it's needless), but issuing a ban without due call has clear-cut repercussions - offending op receives the same ban, which in this case is the horrifying oubliette of three minutes isolation. Also you're a cunt but that's neither here nor there. 21:30, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm pretty it's action first in case of an emergency. Also thanks asshole, nice to see we haven't outgrown kindergarten level yet. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:35, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- The key being "in case of emergency". No emergency. You might not see the point in flavourful redirects to a group page, but it's not malicious - if I want to create four hundred different redirects to Red Rum going through every in-joke the group's ever had, it's perfectly valid. Grabbing some GI Joe in-jokes (documented here by the way) is not a fucking emergency. Dick. 21:39, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm still shoving Thad down at recess and hogging the slide so he can't use it. He better cough up his lunch money too. The pussy. -- Goribus 21:40, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- More needless personal attacks! I am shocked and appalled! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:00, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- "I do not understand this human concept of 'joking' and 'humor' Your ways are strange and mysterious to me Earth man." -- Goribus 23:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- More needless personal attacks! I am shocked and appalled! --
- I'm still shoving Thad down at recess and hogging the slide so he can't use it. He better cough up his lunch money too. The pussy. -- Goribus 21:40, 1 July 2011 (BST)
- The key being "in case of emergency". No emergency. You might not see the point in flavourful redirects to a group page, but it's not malicious - if I want to create four hundred different redirects to Red Rum going through every in-joke the group's ever had, it's perfectly valid. Grabbing some GI Joe in-jokes (documented here by the way) is not a fucking emergency. Dick.
- I'm pretty it's action first in case of an emergency. Also thanks asshole, nice to see we haven't outgrown kindergarten level yet. --
- Case first, action second. No harmful edits were made so there was no reason for an emergency ban. Sort a VB case out as usual (though it's needless), but issuing a ban without due call has clear-cut repercussions - offending op receives the same ban, which in this case is the horrifying oubliette of three minutes isolation. Also you're a cunt but that's neither here nor there.
It's two separate types of redirect, the pointless front company links and the "genuine", "original" "Supercool blah blah." ones. I'll look at the VB-ness of them (and reread the misconduct case) before calling this one. --Rosslessness 22:03, 1 July 2011 (BST)
Just because you don't like what someone is doing does not make it Vandalism. Abusing your sysop powers to force the issue makes it Misconduct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:42, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Misconduct - executions of these bans should only be done to stop clear vandalism, what Goribus did is more or less par for the course with a large group move/split like this and definitely could have had some more discussion first. Because it's the act that's more harmful than that actual ban, perhaps a warning is apt here if ruled misconduct. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:39, 2 July 2011 (BST)
burn him!--User:Sexualharrison04:14, 2 July 2011 (bst)
I'll plead no contest then. -- 
Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:00, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Misconduct even Thad says so. --Rosslessness 08:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Misconduct for the record. Banning him for making redirects was fairly excessive, a talk page note should have been your first port of call. -- Cheese 17:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Summary
With Thad pleading no contest I've gone and banned him for three minuutes. As usual in these ridiculous cases in addition to this punishment Thad needs to update his own misconduct data. --Rosslessness 08:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)
I think a warning wouldn't go amiss but that's just me -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:11, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- Three minutes dude. We're not going thermonuclear. Besides, consistency, I got a ban and I'm lovable and cuddly. --Rosslessness 09:39, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- You didn't do it under these circumstances did you? I got a mini ban too but mine wasn't like this either. Eh just my opinion, my vote would go to that as a punishment but if no one else really minds I won't press it. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:57, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- To be fair the consensus elsewhere seems that thermonuclear global war is the appropriate option. I was under the impression that thad had done or tried something like this before, am I mistake? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:31, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- Don't know if he's done it before, but there is a difference between a simple mistake and an overreaction. Banning someone for the same length of time as the ban is standard procedure in cases of mistakes (see: Nubis, DDR, Spiderzed, et al.), but in case of someone getting banned as the result of something other than an accident, a few-minute ban isn't necessarily sufficient, though it may be. In the case of my misconduct case, it was considered sufficient, since I was mistaken about how the terms of the policy should be applied. In this case, it may be considered sufficient as well. I'm merely pointing out that the option to warn does not disappear merely because a 3-minute ban was issued. —Aichon— 23:02, 2 July 2011 (BST)
- Pretty much. And I don't think he has done this before. I could be wrong but pretty sure. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 02:11, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- I'd vote for a warning. Thad has been told time and again to avoid bringing petty cases. Time to start adding some penalties. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:50, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- Erm bringing petty cases is vandalism not misconduct. He is here for the pre-emptive banning of a user, not for bringing a case. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:56, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- He made the case in an attempt to justify his blocking the user. He needs to learn to talk first. What he did was a step worse that just bringing a petty case to A/VB, and we've warned people for that in the past when it's been a repeated problem, which it has. If you really want I can bring an A/VB case for bringing petty A/VB cases, but…
How about a sysop poll for a warning? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:04, 3 July 2011 (BST)- How about some closure? Seriously, if you want to warn me then warn me, I promise that unlike some people, I won't throw a huge tantrum. No point in dragging it on. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:10, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- If there's no complaints in the coming hours I'll give you a warning -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:17, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- There's nothing wrong with giving short bans to stop vandals alongside a vandal case... if it's obvious vandalism. And yeah as lame as it is if you think Thad should be warned for petty cases, then you should make a VB case for it, it shouldn't be dealt with here. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 09:17, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- Actually there's plenty wrong with it which is why it's rarely ever allowed but in 3pwv cases. It's not whether it's obvious it's whether it's actively damaging to the wiki(page blanking, porn linking, etc on multiple pages actively at the time of banning). Anything less than that and it's misconduct, even if hagnat's A/M history flops on the issue. This was obviously not the case here.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:50, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- That's pretty much what I meant. Didn't articulate so well though out of a perhaps naive expectation that everyone would understand that (the way you said it) was exactly what I meant. Lul -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 15:26, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm with Ross on this one - it should just be a ban, not a warning.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 16:55, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- Never said they were mutually exclusive - we meant both. He's already served the ban time anyways -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 03:15, 4 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm with Ross on this one - it should just be a ban, not a warning.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 16:55, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- That's pretty much what I meant. Didn't articulate so well though out of a perhaps naive expectation that everyone would understand that (the way you said it) was exactly what I meant. Lul -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 15:26, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- Actually there's plenty wrong with it which is why it's rarely ever allowed but in 3pwv cases. It's not whether it's obvious it's whether it's actively damaging to the wiki(page blanking, porn linking, etc on multiple pages actively at the time of banning). Anything less than that and it's misconduct, even if hagnat's A/M history flops on the issue. This was obviously not the case here.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 14:50, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- How about some closure? Seriously, if you want to warn me then warn me, I promise that unlike some people, I won't throw a huge tantrum. No point in dragging it on. --
- He made the case in an attempt to justify his blocking the user. He needs to learn to talk first. What he did was a step worse that just bringing a petty case to A/VB, and we've warned people for that in the past when it's been a repeated problem, which it has. If you really want I can bring an A/VB case for bringing petty A/VB cases, but…
- Erm bringing petty cases is vandalism not misconduct. He is here for the pre-emptive banning of a user, not for bringing a case. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:56, 3 July 2011 (BST)
- Don't know if he's done it before, but there is a difference between a simple mistake and an overreaction. Banning someone for the same length of time as the ban is standard procedure in cases of mistakes (see: Nubis, DDR, Spiderzed, et al.), but in case of someone getting banned as the result of something other than an accident, a few-minute ban isn't necessarily sufficient, though it may be. In the case of my misconduct case, it was considered sufficient, since I was mistaken about how the terms of the policy should be applied. In this case, it may be considered sufficient as well. I'm merely pointing out that the option to warn does not disappear merely because a 3-minute ban was issued. —Aichon— 23:02, 2 July 2011 (BST)
Right! Let's wrap this up. Given that there's no concensus on waarning Thad, I'm going to put up a poll. Those looking for a precedent on warning in cases of wrongful banning should check this case in my A/M history.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 08:42, 7 July 2011 (BST)
- Just warn me already. Also your precedent seems to iffy, I didn't read everything but according to the verdict down bottom it should have been a tie, yet you still received a warning. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:19, 7 July 2011 (BST)
- I considered myself as way too involved to rule on the Misconduct case itself (although I would have ruled Misconduct, given our virtually never broken "one eye for an eye" policy on misapplied bans). Now that it is settled that it is Misconduct, would anyone mind if I chip in on the warning poll? I would go with Yes, as this wasn't just a simple mistake as in the one-minute bot bans, but rather a serious misunderstanding of the application of stop-gap bans. -- Spiderzed█ 06:46, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- I have nothing against it but it's more your choice than mine. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Isn't there some precedent by Cyberbob where you can even rule on your own misconduct cases? if so, that's stupid. But the point being, you should feel free.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 02:34, 9 July 2011 (BST)
- I considered myself as way too involved to rule on the Misconduct case itself (although I would have ruled Misconduct, given our virtually never broken "one eye for an eye" policy on misapplied bans). Now that it is settled that it is Misconduct, would anyone mind if I chip in on the warning poll? I would go with Yes, as this wasn't just a simple mistake as in the one-minute bot bans, but rather a serious misunderstanding of the application of stop-gap bans. -- Spiderzed█ 06:46, 8 July 2011 (BST)
Vote on whether Thad should be warned
Yes
- -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:01, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Seems about right. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:09, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Yes - This wasn't just a simple mistake as in the one-minute bot bans, but rather a serious misunderstanding of the application of stop-gap bans. It should be made very sure that something like this doesn't happen again, and a 3-minute-ban is a much too mild punishment to drive the point home. -- Spiderzed█ 16:51, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- It may be prudent to point out the precedent in Aichon's case where he had a "serious misunderstanding" of the rules regarding the 3 edit rule. Given that he received no such warning, and the ban issued in that case was a permaban, perhaps you should rethink your ruling, or not base it on your personal opinions of Thad.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 16:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- You may also notice that Thad's misconducted action was favourable for me (as it hampered my main arbies opponent). I still consider it as massively wrong and something that shouldn't go unpunished, regardless of who performs it on whom. -- Spiderzed█ 17:05, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Ignoring precedent is fun.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 17:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Aichon misapplied a genuine rule. He was mistaken. Thad banned someone with no justification. He was malicious. Therein lies the difference. Stop lying about precedent that simply isn't relevant. 19:44, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Read Aichon's comment above, where he too applies the precedent to this case. Frankly, I feel Aichon is in the best position to discuss his mental state regarding his misconduct case, not you. The only question is whether or not Thad's actions were so severe they warrant a ruling. In terms of what he did, it is exactly comparable to what Aichon did.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 20:02, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Again, they're not. One was the wrongful application of a rule which is valid in the right circumstances, one was a completely incorrect judgement call. Aichon wasn't warned, nor would anyone else who did the same thing as he did, as it's simply a correctable mistake. If you have someone who is acting on judgement calls outside of any rules, that's an entirely different matter. Stop comparing the two cases. 20:53, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Regarding my state of mind, I'll refer you to my initial comment at the top of my misconduct case, since it captures it better than my memory does. As Mis said, I was (apparently very) mistaken in applying a rule, and I made that abundantly clear at the time, but I was indeed attempting to apply a rule to clean up after someone that was engaging in unquestionable vandalism. The reason I brought my case up earlier is merely in reference to the fact that some cases involving incorrect bans result in bans + warnings for the offending sysop, while others merely result in bans. I wasn't trying to equate my case to this one by suggesting they were otherwise similar. Whether or not they are is up to you guys to decide, though I lean towards Mis' view that the intent and justification were different between our cases. —Aichon— 22:35, 10 July 2011 (BST)
- Again, they're not. One was the wrongful application of a rule which is valid in the right circumstances, one was a completely incorrect judgement call. Aichon wasn't warned, nor would anyone else who did the same thing as he did, as it's simply a correctable mistake. If you have someone who is acting on judgement calls outside of any rules, that's an entirely different matter. Stop comparing the two cases.
- Read Aichon's comment above, where he too applies the precedent to this case. Frankly, I feel Aichon is in the best position to discuss his mental state regarding his misconduct case, not you. The only question is whether or not Thad's actions were so severe they warrant a ruling. In terms of what he did, it is exactly comparable to what Aichon did.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 20:02, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- Aichon misapplied a genuine rule. He was mistaken. Thad banned someone with no justification. He was malicious. Therein lies the difference. Stop lying about precedent that simply isn't relevant.
- Ignoring precedent is fun.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 17:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- You may also notice that Thad's misconducted action was favourable for me (as it hampered my main arbies opponent). I still consider it as massively wrong and something that shouldn't go unpunished, regardless of who performs it on whom. -- Spiderzed█ 17:05, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- It may be prudent to point out the precedent in Aichon's case where he had a "serious misunderstanding" of the rules regarding the 3 edit rule. Given that he received no such warning, and the ban issued in that case was a permaban, perhaps you should rethink your ruling, or not base it on your personal opinions of Thad.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 16:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- -- Cheese 17:35, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- I already expressed my vote on this, but voting again for consistency. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:20, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm voting yes because pointless protocol and bureaucracy is part of his job and if he doesn't know said pointless protocol and bureaucracy before springing into action he should be punished for it. -- Goribus 23:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)Non-op vote struck -- Spiderzed█ 23:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- You are not a sys-op. You don't vote on anything in A/M. -- Spiderzed█ 23:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm not a Sysop yet. I haven't decided if I'm going to run or not. I figure since I do everything else better than you do, I'd make a natural fit for making this wiki less of a digital shithole. However, you raise a valid point, as in this case I didn't know all of the proper pointless protocol and bureaucracy. My Manwich! :( -- Goribus 00:07, 9 July 2011 (BST)
- You are not a sys-op. You don't vote on anything in A/M. -- Spiderzed█ 23:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- I'm voting yes because pointless protocol and bureaucracy is part of his job and if he doesn't know said pointless protocol and bureaucracy before springing into action he should be punished for it. -- Goribus 23:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)Non-op vote struck -- Spiderzed█ 23:58, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- hate to say it. but too bad your not a sysop, that would have made the list for best burn for sure--User:Sexualharrison14:01, 9 July 2011 (bst)
No
- No --Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 11:42, 7 July 2011 (BST)
- Hey Thad. Re-evaluate what's considered an emergency before giving three-minute bans. ~
18:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure thing bro sef!-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:14, 7 July 2011 (BST)
- Don't ever call me that again. I'm tempted to change my vote now. ~ 04:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Don't ever call me that again. I'm tempted to change my vote now. ~
- Sure thing bro sef!--
- No. One of the reasons I'm not running for crat again. Commenting on Thads A/RE --Rosslessness 16:57, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- You might get disappointed then! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:48, 8 July 2011 (BST)
- You might get disappointed then! --
The End
I can haz warning nao? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:19, 11 July 2011 (BST)
- I ask for Thad demotion as a warning for him not to fck up with them wikia rls --hagnat 20:32, 11 July 2011 (BST)
Warned and case closed as Misconduct. -- Cheese 23:23, 11 July 2011 (BST)
