UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2010
Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Nubis » 2010
28 July
As most of you know, I made an attempt a few months back at determining the correct state of Iscariot's vandal data, and I realized today that I had forgotten to follow up on it. Read through that link since it provides the details I'll be working from, then come back here. My intention here is that we can clear up all outstanding issues as a result of this case, so I'll be highlighting a lot of potential cases of Misconduct for us to rule on, even if I might not personally think they are Misconduct, just so that there is no reason for us to ever think about this stuff again. It'll be a mess, since this whole ordeal is anything but simple, but I'll try to keep it organized, at least.
Now, assuming you have read it, it should be obvious that misconduct took place, some more egregious than others, and some which has already been dealt with. I'm not pushing for everyone involved to be brought up on Misconduct, since sysops should reasonably be able to trust existing vandal data, meaning that any sysops that unknowingly acted on faulty data should not be held responsible for their actions.
The most obvious example of Misconduct, and where this whole circus began, is Nubis' banning of Iscariot for a week, since at the time, Iscariot was due a de-escalation (i.e. he should've had just a warning instead), and even if he wasn't due one, it should have been a 48 Hour Ban, not a 1 Week Ban. However, Nubis has already been brought up for Misconduct on that, so it's basically a closed case. Of note, however, was the strange ending to the case. From what I can tell, no formal ruling was ever decided regarding Iscariot, so they left him on record with having served a 24 Hour Ban, since he had served about ~29.5 hours before they unbanned him. It wasn't until months later that boxy made an attempt to fix his vandal data to accurately reflect that he should have received a warning.
Potential Misconduct 1: Linkthewindow was the one that "corrected" Iscariot's data to say 24 Hour Ban (instead of the 1 Week Ban it previous said), when it should have actually been a warning Iscariot received, so he's the likely one to hold accountable for not properly fixing the vandal data at the time.
A few months later, Nubis "corrects" the data and applies a new 1 Week Ban at the same time. Iscariot was once again due a de-escalation at the time, so he should have merely received a warning. Additionally, since Iscariot had never received a 48 Hour Ban, Nubis should have supplied a good reason to change the 24 Hour Ban to a 48 Hour Ban, but instead merely cites a lack of de-escalation on file. Nubis was never brought up for Misconduct from what I can tell for this case.
Potential Misconduct 2: Nubis alters Iscariot's VD without good cause.
In September of 2009, boxy went back and corrected the vandal data so that it fell in line with what Iscariot should have received following the earlier Misconduct case. That is, he correctly applied a de-escalation of an earlier warning, struck the erroneous 24 Hour Ban that had been changed to a 48 Hour Ban by Nubis, and then applied a warning in place of the ban.
Potential Misconduct 3: boxy did not do anything about the 1 Week Ban that Nubis had incorrectly applied, despite the fact that it should have been clear a 1 Week Ban was impossible without having first received a 48 Hour Ban. He also de-escalated the incorrect warning.
The next month, boxy applied a de-escalation to Iscariot's vandal data, seemingly without a reason.
Potential Misconduct 4: boxy de-escalated the incorrect warning again, since de-escalations are supposed to start with the last warning, not the first. There's also a question of whether sysops have the right to de-escalate at any time, as opposed to having to wait for either a request or a new escalation.
After that, not much else occurred, aside from DDR bungling one ruling, but that's already been brought up for Misconduct, so the case is closed with him, and I didn't see anything else unusual at the time.
Anyway, I've placed headers below where we can discuss the individual actions separately. Feel free to add more if you think I missed part of this ordeal or that someone else should be brought up. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Potential Misconduct Discussions/Rulings
Linkthewindow "corrects" Nubis' ban
In the case where he "corrected" Nubis' wrongful 1 week ban to a 24 hour ban, I would say Not Misconduct. There was an open question remaining in Nubis' Misconduct case of whether or not unrequested de-escalations for Iscariot were valid, so he may have been working under the assumption that they were not, which, given the context of the case, seems perfectly reasonable. Had that question not been left open, however, I'd think very differently on the matter. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Not Misconduct ---Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:25, 28 July 2010 (BST)
This was quite a while ago, and I honestly can't remember anything related to this. Still, I'll accept whatever punishment the team decides on in the case that this is declared misconduct. Linkthewindow Talk 10:57, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Nubis alters the VD
In the case where Nubis altered the former 24 Hour Ban to read as a 48 Hour Ban and then applied a 1 Week Ban, I'm leaning towards calling it Misconduct, but would like to see if anyone else can provide additional context. Nubis should not be held responsible for failing to apply a de-escalation at the time of a new escalation, since precedent and common sense says that that'd be foolish, but the previous 24 Hour Ban on record should not have been altered without excellent justification, and merely saying that a de-escalation is not on file is not sufficient. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Okay, having looked through it some more, I'm thinking Misconduct with a punishment of a 5 day 1 hour 29 minute Ban. If we excuse Nubis for failing to de-escalate Iscariot (which is standard practice, since sysops aren't responsible to check for de-escalations while escalating, though it is best practice), then the next escalation should have been a 48 hour ban, so Nubis should have to serve the difference between the 48 hour ban and the 7 days 1 hour and 29 minutes that Iscariot served. —Aichon— 05:45, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Misconduct - As per my Not on Boxy below. Also, slightly irrelevant, as Nubis is no longer an op, and we recently decided that we shouldn't hold trials against old ops in their absence. But yeah, totally conduct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:36, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- Fuck that, we never decided that we shouldn't, we decided that the ops couldn't because they didn't have the balls to stand by the decision. I've always been for it. -- 04:02, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- Yeah, I have no recollection of saying we shouldn't rule on them. I recall there being a sentiment of, "it's not worth it if they're not around any longer," but never a case of, "we can't punish them for past misdeeds." Plus, we generally agreed that there was no Misconduct we could pursue in that case anyway without additional evidence. —Aichon— 04:38, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- I'd be happy to ban him even though he's gone.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:10, 29 July 2010 (BST)
boxy fails to fix the data
In the case where boxy did not address obvious errors in the data while fixing other ones, I'm going to have to go with Not Misconduct. It's pretty clear that he was merely trying to fix the mistakes that were left over from the Misconduct case, since he provided a link in his edit comments to the point in the case where he (correctly) explained what should have happened at that time. I am not of the opinion that we should punish sysops for making improvements, even if they knowingly do not fix every problem they are aware of. That said, I do think it was irresponsible, since the problem should have been easy to fix at the time. As for his de-escalating the incorrect warning, it made no material difference, since both of them were older than a month at that point, and I don't think it's worthy of a Misconduct vote. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Not Vandalism - The epitomy of good faith, and sadly, the thing Iscariot made the biggest fuss about.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:29, 28 July 2010 (BST)
boxy de-escalates incorrectly
In the case where boxy de-escalated the incorrect warning and did it seemingly of his own volition, I'd like to hear his reason for doing it, if he can recall what it was, but I'd still say Not Misconduct, since there were no rules saying he couldn't de-escalate if he wanted to, and it had been more than a month since either of the warnings, so it made no material difference which was de-escalated first. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Not Misconduct - We should misconduct people for making the situation less problematic for future (de)escalators.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:30, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Fixing the data
In addition to addressing who is responsible for these mistakes, I would like for us to make the effort to undo the mistakes as part of our rulings here (which was something that should have been done in the original Nubis Misconduct case and would've helped us avoid all of this). I believe that we should retroactively give Iscariot all of the applicable de-escalations he was due but never received. If you check my write up of the ordeal in my user space, I catalog what his vandal data should look like based on those assumptions. I've reproduced it below for your convenience:
Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)de-escalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)48hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Improperly applied, changed to a warning.Warned - 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)de-escalated 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)Improperly applied, changed to a warning.Warned - 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)de-escalated 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)1 Week Ban - 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Improperly applied, changed to a warning.
As an aside, I know there have been questions raised, even recently, of whether or not we can de-escalate Iscariot without his permission. I think that whole argument is nonsense. He has no more right to say that you can't de-escalate him than he does to say that you can't escalate him since the vandal data doesn't belong to him. If he doesn't want to remind us to de-escalate him when his time comes, that's his business, but saying that we can't do our job without his permission is utter stupidity. Also, I only ever found evidence of him taking issue with being de-escalated improperly, not with being de-escalated at all, so I think it's a non-issue either way. —Aichon— 05:11, 28 July 2010 (BST)
jesus christ i thought we already established that nobody gives a fuck about this dumb shitty "issue" Cyberbob Talk 05:54, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Will fixing this issue bring Iscariot back? One hopes that nothing comes of this, then. I haven't read a bit of this except the headers and I'll give my pre-emptive assumption that Nubis should be the one whos head is on the chopping block here, but I'll read through and make a proper call later. --
08:05, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- I haven't spoken to Iscariot about any of this, so I have no idea what impact this would have on him. He and I haven't exactly been on speaking terms these last few months anyway. —Aichon— 08:14, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Or...
...we could just forget about this? =/ Iscariot always liked pointing this thing out as an example of sysop bias against him. The minute Aichon posted that page about correcting his VD, Iscariot buggered off and we haven't heard from him since. I don't really see what we gain from wasting more time over this anyway. As was mentioned, Nubis is no longer a sysop and the only one who really committed any sort of misconduct in relation to this so let's just change his VD to what is proposed here (which seems perfectly alright by my reasoning) and consign this painfully long drawn out dramafest to the bin where it belongs. -- Cheese 23:16, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- I back this.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:26, 28 July 2010 (BST)
- The benefit I see is in closing the book. Leaving things unfinished, as I had, would leave room for more allegations of bias and a Misconduct case against myself or anyone else who might've been aware of the information I presented and yet did nothing about it. The way I see it, there's really not much to do here anyway. Three of the four potential cases of misconduct are pretty open-and-shut, I think, and the fourth should be simple to rule on. I'm hoping the whole thing can be wrapped up in a day or two without a need for anything more after that and without any extensive drama. And if Iscariot ever does return, we can just cite this case and say we already handled it all, case closed, which defuses any future issues as well. —Aichon— 01:03, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- Exactly. Personally, I think it's disgusting that you are all ops but "can't be fucked" addressing this for one last time (the one "last" time doesn't apply to most of you because trust me, most of you haven't done enough to fix the problem in the first place). For fucks sake, it will take 1 day, we can get it out of the way, and then if Iscariot comes back and whinges we have the right to tell him to get fucked because we've done what's finally been considered right by the majority of the sysop team. It really isn't that hard. -- 04:08, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- Precisely. I just want this done, gone, and never to be heard from again, and since I've done most of the heavy lifting necessary, it should be quick and easy to get it finished now. —Aichon— 04:52, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- This is why I ruled on all the cases, but if you truly think doing this will stop Iscariot whining about his vandal data, then I have to strongly disagree. He repeatedly said he wanted to see "Boxy" held responsible. Since Boxy isn't responsible, he still won't be happy.-Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 09:40, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- Exactly. Personally, I think it's disgusting that you are all ops but "can't be fucked" addressing this for one last time (the one "last" time doesn't apply to most of you because trust me, most of you haven't done enough to fix the problem in the first place). For fucks sake, it will take 1 day, we can get it out of the way, and then if Iscariot comes back and whinges we have the right to tell him to get fucked because we've done what's finally been considered right by the majority of the sysop team. It really isn't that hard. -- 04:08, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Finally had a look through. I've seen Link's contributions related to his case many times above and have never seen it as misconduct. I'll be a monkey's uncle if Boxy will be misconducted for his actions above, I was standing there right with him at the time and until someone (aichon) was willing to go through this painstaking effort, it was by far the best we could have done despite Iscariot's nitpicking. Nubis, as I've been saying for a goddam year, is Misconduct. Ban him for 6 days as per precedent, finally balance out Iscariot's vandal data and be on our way. --
04:08, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- xfd a ban on nubis would be the most pointless thing. dont be a robot Cyberbob Talk 04:55, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- I know it'd be pointless, and it would have been pointless by the time we'd found out it had happened which is why it was never brought here, but it's the right thing to do, it's exactly what happens in these situations (remember the same thing happened to me as mentioned above), it puts the VD back to square one, so it's the logical step. -- 04:59, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Misconduct Nubis. Not Misconduct all else. Fanks. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 12:11, 29 July 2010 (BST)
Holy Fuck
You are guys are the biggest douchebag assholes that ever lived. I'll try to explain all of this shit slowly so that you can understand it. 1. I fucked up and applied the wrong length of ban (check the stats - I voted on many cases, but rarely applied bans*). I spaced and skipped one level. 2. Izzy pitched a fit about being responsible for his own de-escalations since he A/M'd me once on it. 3. I didn't want you assholes to ban me at that time because one of you might have been fucking smart enough to see the other name on the IP, but man, I overestimated the intelligence of you all. 4. Please ban Nubis and get this out of your fucking systems because it's truly retarded that you even keep bringing this up.
- And since I wasn't really "Nubis" I didn't really know how to do most of the wiki admin shit, by the way. That's why I didn't do it.
The boner you all have for Nubis is disgusting. Get over it! --
#99 DCC 16:16, 29 July 2010 (BST)
- "Get over it" he says, returning to a wiki he never uses simply to bitch.
21:41, 29 July 2010 (BST) - Come to think of it, since DCC has admitted to being the one behind those actions, it'd make sense to apply any punishment towards DCC as the primary account. —Aichon— 04:10, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- Seconded. -- 05:09, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- Agreed.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 10:37, 30 July 2010 (BST)
- Seconded. -- 05:09, 30 July 2010 (BST)
I guess we better keep this going before it gets any more stale than it is. To clarify before anyone acts on this, does any op have a problem with banning the DCC account for the period of time rather than the Nubis account? --
04:23, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Decision Time
So, for the time Iscariot wrongfully served, a ban of 5 days, 1 hour, and 29 minutes, for DCC and file this under Nubis' archive? Then switch Iscariot's VD to be what I posted earlier on this page (which is the same as in my userspace, which Cheese linked). Agree? Disagree? Say your piece below. —Aichon— 04:49, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- Ban time= go. Banning DCC instead of Nubis= go. Retroactively giving him warnings and striking his bans because of this? Not on. I've already explained why on the talk page of your userspace discussion on this, Iscariot specifically demanded that it not happen at the time, no reason why we should be doing it now. -- 05:17, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- I thought I had mentioned earlier, but the only evidence I can find of him getting upset is when Nubis did it before Iscariot was eligible for de-escalation. Also, see my paragraph after the revised data here. Even if he did request it, I don't think that should stop us. Kowtowing to demands that we not de-escalate people when regular procedure demands it is giving them power than they're not due. The vandal data doesn't belong to them. —Aichon— 05:30, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- He made a very big point about it in odd places such as talk pages, I don't think I'd be able to find the evidence if I tried. Also, regarding the power over ones A/VD, that's entirely the point, de-escalating a vandal before applying a ban is a privilege a sysop doesn't have to partake in, if he didn't want us to exercise that it is simply obliging, not bowing to demands. Because of this there is absolutely no reason why we should just turn around and say that those de-escalations should have occurred. There are scores of users on A/VD who could have had the same de-escalation applied before a ban, we aren't going to go back and meddle with their A/VD are we? -- 06:30, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- It was my understanding that they should have had their de-escalation applied as soon as someone realized, otherwise a person's VD has no consistency in its recording and is subject to the whims and desire of whichever sysop happens to file their escalations. We don't hold sysops accountable for failing to do so, of course, since de-escalations are generally not filed the minute the person is eligible, but sysops are supposed to de-escalate when they are escalating if the user is eligible. End of story. Doing otherwise, especially in the case of bans, is acting in a biased manner, since you'd be favoring some with a de-escalation but not others. And once a new escalation is on file, you're causing them damage that will take twice as long for them to remedy as if you had honored the first de-escalation they were due.
- He made a very big point about it in odd places such as talk pages, I don't think I'd be able to find the evidence if I tried. Also, regarding the power over ones A/VD, that's entirely the point, de-escalating a vandal before applying a ban is a privilege a sysop doesn't have to partake in, if he didn't want us to exercise that it is simply obliging, not bowing to demands. Because of this there is absolutely no reason why we should just turn around and say that those de-escalations should have occurred. There are scores of users on A/VD who could have had the same de-escalation applied before a ban, we aren't going to go back and meddle with their A/VD are we? -- 06:30, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- I thought I had mentioned earlier, but the only evidence I can find of him getting upset is when Nubis did it before Iscariot was eligible for de-escalation. Also, see my paragraph after the revised data here. Even if he did request it, I don't think that should stop us. Kowtowing to demands that we not de-escalate people when regular procedure demands it is giving them power than they're not due. The vandal data doesn't belong to them. —Aichon— 05:30, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- As for there being other cases, cite them and let's get them fixed. Just because a wrong thing happened many times does not mean it should be excused. —Aichon— 07:59, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- Yes, they should have de-escalations applied as soon as someone realises, Yes, it's subject to the whims and biases of the escalating sysops, but that's the way this wiki was/is. Simply, regardless of the past, we do not go back and re-correct vandal data because a de-escalation should have applied. This situation is obviously different and in a normal situation I would agree with you, but when there was more than enough reasoning in not de-escalating Iscariot because it was his preference, then the deliberate (and respected, by both parties) action of withholding a de-escalation should be respected. -- 09:19, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- I suspect you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Unlike self-imposed bans, where the user is explicitly given the ability to request it, the user is given no such ability here, and since sysops are supposed to correct it as they are aware, I see no reason why it shouldn't be done here. I see it as cut and dry, black and white. You don't. I respect that, but I definitely disagree. —Aichon— 11:12, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- Yes, they should have de-escalations applied as soon as someone realises, Yes, it's subject to the whims and biases of the escalating sysops, but that's the way this wiki was/is. Simply, regardless of the past, we do not go back and re-correct vandal data because a de-escalation should have applied. This situation is obviously different and in a normal situation I would agree with you, but when there was more than enough reasoning in not de-escalating Iscariot because it was his preference, then the deliberate (and respected, by both parties) action of withholding a de-escalation should be respected. -- 09:19, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- As for there being other cases, cite them and let's get them fixed. Just because a wrong thing happened many times does not mean it should be excused. —Aichon— 07:59, 1 August 2010 (BST)
- Has this specific error already been covered by a previous Misconduct case? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:36 1 August 2010 (BST)
Since we obviously need a ruling here, shall we deal out the ban as listed by Aichon above, and hold a sysop vote on the vandal data?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 11:16, 3 August 2010 (BST)
- I think that's apt. Since it's been 4 days since I asked about banning DCC and no sysop has expressed any disagreement, I've banned DCC for 5 days, 1 hour, and 29 minutes as per Aichon's reasoning above. Since the A/VD is a different matter to banning DCC, I think we could get away with archiving this and posting the vote on UDWiki:Administration/Discussion. -- 13:05, 3 August 2010 (BST)
