UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Revenant/2011

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Revenant » 2011

23 November 2011

Axe Hack, Vapor, Karek, Revenant, Spiderzed

This misconduct case arises from the insane ruling reached in the Johnny Rotten case. In the case, the above five sysops decided to permaban Johnny Rotten for editing defamatory text in to the userpages of Carrie Cutter and Sister Rita. All five ruling sysops found the case to be vandalism, and, as Johnny Rotten had numerous edits before that point, he should have received a single warning, in line with the escalation system.

Instead, Vapor posted a permaban ruling, stating that he "got no tolerance for that shit". Vapor's ruling immediately begs the question; Do we now ban people because we can't tolerate them? When I asked the sysop team further why Johnny Rotten was permabanned, and specifically what rule or policy he was banned under, Vapor again replied by saying that "It's the "Text Rapists Don't Get Second Chances" rule." This rule does not exist. He also cited harassment, which has only ever been allowed as vandalism in the most severe cases of harassment over a long period of time (i.e. Iscariot case), and even then only gives a single escalation. Johnny Rotten only made a single edit to each of their pages, and as such there's no way this could qualify as harassment. Vapor also cites a Terms of Service violation. as Thad helpfully quoted on the case, a terms of service violation includes "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene (illegal pornography), libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable". The only terms of the above which could even be considered violated would be "abusive", "harassing" (although not by UDwiki standards) "vulgar", "invasive of another's privacy" and "hateful". UDwiki has always operated under a policy of free speech. If I want to use abusive language to somebody, as long as it isn't racially themed, it's always been allowed. As such, we really don't have rules against being abusive and hateful implemented. In terms of being vulgar and invading another's privacy, there clearly was an offence of invading the privacy of these user's wiki pages and posting vulgar comments there. However, this would only merit a single escalation, as has always been the case on UDwiki. If the sysop team wanted to stretch the rules, they could have treated each case as a separate instance, and given 2 warnings. They did not.

The second ruling came from Axe Hack, who gave no justification at all at any stage during the case. Next came Karek. Karek justifies the ban by saying that "it's got enough things going for it between multiple venues on and off wiki". As has always been the case, we do not punish activity which goes on outside the wiki. Just like we can't permaban zerging players from the wiki, we can't permaban text rapists, just because they're text rapists. Zerging, might I add, is specifically against the rules of the game, whereas we have no statement from Kevan saying it should be banned. This wiki itself voted against a civility policy. The short story is, simply, that we can't punish anything that goes on outside of the wiki. There are therefore no grounds to consider it a ToS violation, as noted above.

Spiderzed also votes to permaban, noting that "In crass cases like this, the TOS apply indeed." This is not the case. I refer to the infamous Goatse case where something very much "crass" occurred, and in a tight vote, the user was found to have vandalised, and was given a single escalation. It should be noted that Spiderzed voted Not vandalism in the above case. In "crass cases" as Spiderzed calls it, there is no deviation from the escalation system and no reason to do so. Likewise, the above case was ruled a ToS violation, and still there was no permaban. Revenant gives a final opinion, justifying his ruling with "I support this zero tolerance stance for text rapists". Once again, there is no justification whatsoever for banning somebody based on in-game actions.

Next I'll talk about Permaban votes in vandalism cases. The general rule states that "Any user reaching a fifth (or higher) ban faces the possibility of a permaban vote". There are only 3 exceptions to this rule:

1. The user has only made 3 or less edits, and they are all vandalism (three edit rule)
2. The user is a spam or ad bot
3. Kevan has specifically approved of the banning, and his owner privilege was used as the basis for the banning.

None of these conditions was fulfilled. In the case of applying standard procedure for permaban votes, a two thirds majority of sysops is required. At the time of banning, only 2 sysops had supported the ruling. The case is very similar to the Iscariot permaban case where he was banned quickly so that he couldn't defend himself on his own case.

Ultimately, the sysop team had 2 legal options in this case. The first was to give the user one warning (two if they wanted to separately punish the offences). The second, as indicated in the case, was to contact Kevan and have him banned via legitimate means. If the sysop team had done so, and Kevan had agreed to ban the user, then the permaban would have been legitimate. As it stands, they did not seek approval. I would still advise them to do so, because personally I think Johnny Rotten is bottom-dwelling scum. However, they didn't do it, and it's already becoming apparent in subsequent cases that the sysop team is completely ignoring the entire system of escalations and just permabanning any vandals now. The sysop team needs to be held to account for their misconduct in this case, deterred from doing the same in the future, and advised to follow the correct routes of procedure. If they didn't like the current rules, they always had the opportunity to set up a policy discussion.

Sorry about the text-wall, but this is really unacceptable behaviour by the sysop team.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm also pretty much stumped with the way this was handeld, seeing so many sysops, some of them experienced, going against the very fundementals of our years old vandal-system. I said most of what I wanted to say on the vandal case, which is on some points in line with what Yonn typed above. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd like to say that I do consider text-rape to be a ToS violation but I specifically repeat that every kind of ToS violation has arguably happened within the wiki and we've never handled it with a permaban. Otherwise a lot of longtimers here would be long gone. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

again don't you guys have like homework you should be doing? move the fuck on losers.--User:Sexualharrison13:04, 23 November 2011 (bst)

I'll try to keep this short. No this has nothing to do with any assumed dislike of Johnny Rotten or his in-game actions. It has everything to do with keeping text-rape (or as I put it "this shit") off the wiki. Permanently. While we have allowed other forms of ToS violations in the past with only a slap on the wrist, text-rape simply lies in its own category. I honestly feel that even one infraction qualifies as harassment and it serves absolu-fucking-lutely no purpose. I'm sure that Carrie and Sister Rita probably feel the same, though I'd rather not drag them into this. Now I could have started a policy discussion to instate a zero-tolerance policy on wiki text-rape and waited the two + weeks to try to get it passed while Johnny got a stern scolding on his talk page. If I must, I will start that policy. However, and I quote The Adminstative Guidlines, that sysops are "... trusted users of the wiki, [and] are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." I made a judgement call when I banned Mr. Rotten and given a second chance, I would do it again. The remaining ops can rule however they'd like on this case and it won't likely change my mind even one inch on this subject. I did what I felt was right and I'm disgusted that this Misconduct case exists. We did what was right and we'd be doing the user's of this wiki a huge disservice to allow it to continue even one more time. FFS, you two. Get your priorities straight. ~ _{14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Oh and I forgot to add that in the subsequent and completely unrelated vandal cases, very standard and established policies were followed when banning occurred and they have absolutely no merit in this Misconduct case. I'll ask you not to even bring them up here. I'm not even sure why you're concerned about them. ~ _{15:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Probably because you banned the account as a vandal alt of nobody, but whatever.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't quote the discretion clause without any knowledge of the vast amounts of misconduct case law on it. It isn't a be all and end all clause allowing sysops to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise there wouldn't be misconduct. The clause exists to allow sysops to legislate in areas where there isn't any policy and where the community hasn't expressed an opinion in the past. This case is covered not only by some of the oldest guidelines on the wiki, it's also been judged by the community that civility and TOS aren't areas that they care about and aren't areas they want legislation in. You've blatantly violated the community here by deciding that the rules no longer apply. Hell, you might as well permanently ban me, because "my priorities aren't straight". Fuck you, vapor. You're a nice guy but you're way off the mark here. You and the other sysops are turning the wiki in to a shitty little "us club" where you can ban whoever you want with or without reasons backed up by policy. The fact of the matter is that you and axe hack decided to, without the backing of even a majority of sysops, ban a user who didn't know that what he was doing was against the rules (it isn't against the rules of the game and he has little experience of the wiki). Sure, this guy's a scumball, but if we can now ban new users because they commit a single offence to one of our in-game friends, or a member of a group that we've just joined, then suddenly we start banning arbitrary people. Take a fucking step back and look at this objectively. If you can't find a legitimate area of policy backing your actions, you really shouldn't be doing it. Actually read all of the pages I've linked and talked about, and you'll see that you can't just ban this, and that this is an area the community's looked at before. If you think they need to look at it again, set up a policy discussion. This isn't Vaporwiki, you have no fucking right to start banning random people.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You truly misunderstand how "spirit of the law" and judgement calls work. That guideline is there to allow sysops some leniency within the esthablished rules and policies. It means you don't have to take the rules necessarly literally. It does not mean you can completely ignore all law on a personal whim. That would be carte blanche. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yon, please. To say this guy didn't know what he was doing is wrong is pure idiocy. And I know that the discretion clause isn't to be used to just get my way or do whatever the fuck I want. The judgement call rule is very apt here. As I said, I looked through past cases to see if a ruling had ever been brought up against a text-rapist. There are none to be found. Believe it or not this is the first. And hopefully the last. You can try to lump this into past ToS violations if you want but it quite simply it isn't the same. I think you two are the one that needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here and stop wagging your tongue making a complete ass of yourselves. If you want a mindless fucking robot as a sysop that can't see the forest through the trees and actually DO SOMETHING then feel free to put me up for demotion and nominate Thad or yourself. Or you can just accept my ruling as doing the right fucking thing to have done in the first place. ~ _{17:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

And if you're saying that goatse and rape are somehow the same is your idea of a joke, I'm not laughing. ~ _{17:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

That's not what he is saying. They are both ToS violations.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't adressing the issue at hand at all, at least not rationally. So there wasn't direct precedent. Policy then? You have been explained why you should have acted within policy. You didn't. Your ruling and permaban are entirely based on your own personal whim. Not based on the policies, precedents, guidelines. If you can't see what is wrong with that, well, *sigh* -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't doing the right thing, Vapor, you're abusing your power because some asshole did something in-game to a friend of yours from a group you've just joined. You're the one who justified the case as a TOS violation, not me. If you don't think it's a TOS violation, then you need to find another reason to ban him. As it stands, you said it is a TOS violation, so you should have escalated him, because that's what we do to people who abuse TOS. You can't just change your tune now because it's become apparent that you were wrong and you still want to be a sysop so you can ban more people who you don't like in game. Maybe we should make being a member of Flowers of disease a pre-requisite to having a wiki account? That's certainly the precedent you're starting by banning people without legitimate cause. There IS precedent on TOS violations, you've said it's a TOS violation. It's as simple as that. Don't try to change the rules of the wiki because it's a different TOS violation to those already discussed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're completely off the mark, Yon. Has nothing to do with FoD. Don't even go there. ~ _{19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

When you ban a user who greifed a member of a group that you are now a member of, where do you think I'm going to go? At the very least you should have ruled yourself out as an involved party.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrie and I weren't members of the same group until much more recently than my ruling. I didn't even know she had joined FoD until yesterday because I had no internet all weekend. Furthermore, I am more than capable of seperating in-game and wiki interests. I would have done the same thing had it been some day one UD player or someone I completely despised. I made a jugement call and it was the right one to make. If you can't understand that then we're done. There's no point going back and forth. ~ _{22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)}

Yoko, you're being a complete prat about this m8. Like it's been mentioned already, this was a judgement call, but more than that, it was the right call. Sometimes it's not about policy, but about what's simply the right thing to do. Do you even consider the effects and embarrassment this idiots actions actually caused to both parties involved? Instead, you'd rather cause an unnecessary hissy fit over rules and regulations. Grow up m8, and at least attempt to respect the human aspect in the situation. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

wanna guess how this turns out? the rest of the syops agree with the ruling. yon and thad run away screaming "wah! wah! my but hurts!" than go and find something else to cry about. nobody cares what you two jerk offs think anymore. beat it.--User:Sexualharrison19:34, 23 November 2011 (bst)

If the sysops on this wiki decide that it's ok to ban people without precedent then I don't want anything to do with this wiki or this game any more.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether on the MERCY Forums, in game, or now on the wiki there is a clear pattern of Abuse that can be followed by all. This isn't an isolated issue, and in my judgement this isn't some behaviour we can modify. I've spent a while scanning the VB back catalogue for any other text rape monkey business and have found no clear precedence either. So Not Misconduct. Now excuse me whilst I change into something more comfortable. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 19:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when do we permaban people for stuff that's happened off the wiki? Cite one case that wasn't intrinsically wiki related.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well apart from, lets say personal emails requesting unbannings being considered in de-escalations, or using in game screenshots, profile links and zerg listings to confirm that wiki posters are the same person, or arbitrate which group retain ownership of group pages after the separation of groups. (To cite examples off the top of my head) we use off site evidence all the time. What we then do with that information is our own choice. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But we don't ban people for what they do off site. None of the things you cited even make any sense in this discussion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course they are. Because in all cases these are *Insert sound effects* Judgement calls. We publish banned users comments on the wiki regardless of the fact they are banned, we weigh up IP and posting style evidence to ban Izumi alts when we aren't 100% certain. We mediate between people who all believe they are correct. Besides, in your last three posts you've cited precedents. Can you actually supply them if you want to convince me? Thank you. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How are any of those things banning users for things they've done off of the wiki? As for precedent, every fucking case in the history of urban dead wiki is precedent, because in none of them did we ban somebody for something they did off wiki.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That level of Precedent. I wondered why I'd seen no actual cases about text rape. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet you all keep insisting that this is a TOS case so let's use the precedent on that, shall we?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgement call that more than half the sysop team has agreed on so far. If it helps you feel better, I can cite ToS. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

only 2 made it when the ban was issued, and there's precedent against this being a judgement call.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When was the last time you did a law degree? Pretty sure you do arts and crafts, don't you?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was threatened to be killed on here, but that wasn't even considered a vandalism. When I mentioned it to Kevan he said something to the effect of: "Wah, someone on the internet threatened you. Cry me a river." So, that's precedent that harassment or threats don't result in anything. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's word for word accurate? --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Kevan said:

Sorry to hear that a stranger on the Internet said something about killing you and smashing your computer. If the existing policies don't cover this and you feel that it's a concern, then you should propose a policy change or take it up with one of the other wiki moderators. Regards, Kevan

The team at the time, did not care at all, so... --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Owner privilege that goes against you is nice now?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not misconduct - judgement call... discretion... etc. -- boxy 06:52, 24 November 2011 (BST)

Amicus curiae

The following was submitted by Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) for consideration, as his case was cited as precedent in the complainant's statement. Presented without further comment. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, Rev and all the other sysops named in this pointless case are more than capable of defending themselves. Indeed some of those named in the case would be happier if I didn’t chime in, but Yonnua decided to mention me. This was his first mistake. His second was not knowing his policy and precedents when mentioning me. Sysops active when I was participating on the wiki will know that this is a fatal error.

Yonnua’s case rests on two parts, firstly the reasoning that sysops used in their rulings and secondly the punishment handed out.

For the first part, there is no requirement in policy or precedent that requires reasoning in sysop decisions. None at all. If it became the standard that sysops could be escalated for using faulty or emotional reasoning for making their rulings then I could go through the archives and have every single sysop you’ve ever known permabanned. The first part of Yonnua’s reasoning has no basis and therefore no standing in a misconduct case. As rulings cannot be contested, the only defendant in this case should be Vapour, who actually banned the offender. Banning someone against policy and precedent can be misconduct, but it must be proven that the ban was against policy and precedent.

Now the second part. Yonnua has tried to equate this to a case to an illegal permaban that certain incompetent (well, more incompetent) sysops tried to subject me to. You’ll notice there’s no link to judge the facts, and just an appeal to emotion. Bad form for a misconduct case. Now the real precedent can be found here. The wiki’s ToS clearly states:

You agree not to use the service to:

• Upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene (illegal pornography), libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.

• Harm minors in any way.

• Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, ‘’’promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual’’’, or promote any act of cruelty to animals.

• Do anything that in the opinion of PoundHost.com is likely to bring the service into disrepute.
  
  

Now, for Yonnua to have anything approaching a case that this isn’t a lawful ban under precedent for breaking the site’s ToS he must have:

• complete proof that both wiki victims were over the age of majority

• complete proof that the edits do not fit the definition of any of the quoted sections above

• contacted PoundHost.com and confirmed that they do not believe that the edits in question bring their service into disrepute

• passed the bar in the United Kingdom and be willing to cover Kevan from any liability or damage that could result from a blatant threat which is illegal in the UK where Kevan and the server reside
  
  

Unless he’s done all of this, he has no case to contest that this is a justified block due to a violation of the ToS. The case is very straightforward, in this edit the offender clearly makes reference to STI tests. The game has no such ‘features’ therefore it can not automatically be assumed that he was talking about an in game incident. Any possibility of real violence or threats on this wiki has always been met with permabans for the safety of Kevan and the users of this wiki.

This case is therefore, Not Misconduct.

I’ve been gone for over two years and I still know precedent better than Yonnua. Don’t you all feel like stupid futhermuckers for promoting him?

Love, hugs, kisses, fluffy puppies and cute kittens – . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Iscariot, may you get whatever Christmas Number One you most want. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 22:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I've done all of those 4 things, so you can go fuck yourself iscariot. Secondly all of the points you made were addressed in the OP, thirdly Fuck off.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm joking HAHAHA except for the fuck off part.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What utter shit. We've already established ToS violations don't get a permaban (see J3D, Cornholio, etc). Second, in your precedent Ross permabans the culprit based on the 3edit rule, not a ToS violation. Try again. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, the wiki is not for furthering the harassment of another user as thad learned the hard way a few years back and it's ridiculous to think otherwise. We've always acted to stop this type of harassment when it's come up, be it jed posting cyberbob's personal information to the wiki or thad and his umbrella drama and we'vve always done it as a necessary action above and beyond other policies. THIS is exactly what the judgement clause is for.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Word! ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |

 

22:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Did we permaban jed and thad?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we used the escalation system as embedded in policy and precedent. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I just simply pointed out that there have been inconsistent rulings in things like this in the past due to favoritism, laziness, etc. Even then, Kevan did state that either a policy needed to be enacted to spell out the enforcement the generic ToS, or that it was up to the sysops and their individual rulings to handle the case. It looks like they did that here. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

holyshit you are a bad lawyer yon. people coming back from the dead just to prove you are a moron. you really passed the bar? i don't believe it. NO, FUCK YOU hahaha--User:Sexualharrison23:45, 23 November 2011 (bst)

Umm, no? I'm nowhere near old enough? Chill bro.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't wait for the next person who calls someone a nigger to be permabanned--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

get back into the pen, u stupid nigger --hagnat 02:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well guys, good to know that we now have the precedent to ban anybody we don't like regardless of whether there are rules or not, so long as we say that it's a judgement call and have one other sysop agree with us, regardless of if we're involved parties or not. Good precedent, I like it. I'm sure many of history's great dictators would agree with you about that one. Good luck in the future, UDwiki.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

bye yon, don't let the door hit you in the ass on you're way out.--User:Sexualharrison13:41, 24 November 2011 (bst)

Would have never expected Yon to be rage quittin'. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I leave you lot alone for five minutes...Anyway, over the time I've been a sysop we've let quite a lot of TOS violations slide (the various Nazi groups, Columbine Kids, that goatsie picture that was kicking about for a while, etc) but in this case I think we've reached that point where a permaban is warranted. Everybody here with something resembling a brainstem knows that rape is bad, there's no denying that. Vapor is right in saying it's not acceptable. Yonnua is right for stating that we don't permaban for harrassment. However since a no-tolerance policy ingame hasn't disuaded him, I very much doubt a sentence of text on the wiki will do so. A permaban was the right call. Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary

With 3 of a possible 5 sysops ruling Not Misconduct this case is closed as Not Misconduct. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 21:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just read all this. What a fucking dickwank of a ruling. Rules are rules unless we make our rules the rules K annoying 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this and thought I'd chime in by saying a few things:

• The rules are there for a VERY good reason, and the long-established precedent in these cases is that sysops escalate them normally.
• Sysops are here to serve the community, not the rules. If it comes down to a choice between what's best for the community vs. following the letter of the law, the former is the correct choice.

• If the former is chosen, the proper course of action is to vet it out in Misconduct afterwards, as has been done here, since it is not something that should be taken lightly.

• While events off-wiki cannot be punished on-wiki, that doesn't mean cases related to them must ignore them when considering the context of the case.

Anyway, I didn't see the edits in question, so I don't know what all was involved, nor do I support one side or the other in this argument, since I haven't seen any of the evidence. And now, I'll butt out. —Aichon— 04:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the edits were still there when you wrote this. I only deleted them now. -- Spiderzed█ 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw mention that they were going to be deleted days earlier, so I figured it had already happened, and didn't bother clicking the links. Oh well. —Aichon— 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did i ever take the misconduct page off my watch list :P        00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

28 May 2011

For blocking User:AinSynagoga for 24hr as per case UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#AinSynagoga against the blocking rules of UDWiki guidelines, with no reasoning other than that it is an account based purely to troll, which is something we do not interfere with (we have long been against a civilty policy).

Despite being a suspected sockpuppet there was no evidence towards proxy use, we don't warn/ban on flaming, there was no reason to ban the user for 24 hours even if there was only one ruling and the ruling was vandalism (by Revenant, mind). Banning like this during a case is the worst because it doesn't give the account time to prove to us otherwise that they are not a rule-breaking account and can prohibit their ability to mount a defence.

We do not ban users unless we are entirely sure, especially when we aren't doing it as per the regular escalations system. The only time we transcend the escalation rules is when the user is on a harmful vandalism spree and we stop the account vandalising there and then, and even then it's just for 3 hours or so, enough to undo the damage. This was not one of those cases.

This isn't on. Flimsily wording certain policies in an attempt to have your own way is getting more and more tenuous as your term goes on Rev, especially when it directly contravenes other policies, like the Guidelines. That bit's just my opinion though. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:32, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was acting directly in accordance with the Guidelines. Allow me to (re-)quote relevant sections, since it seems you don't actually read what you refer to:

“	3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. 4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.	”
—When a User May be Warned or Banned

“	System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.	”
—What is Considered Vandalism

Can't say I didn't ask for this case, although it seems that was the only part you read:

“	Since I have been the only sysop to rule so far, I am using my discretion and blocking this account for 24 hours while we sort this out. As always, feel free to Misconduct me if you feel it necessary, but please note that per the letter of the rules I can block this account indefinitely.	”
—ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Please stick to the facts and leave the mischaracterisation of my motives out of this, if you would? TIA. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:44, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You couldn't have permabanned the account, unlike what your quote says, and if you had you'd be here for a more important case. He did not commit vandalism. You may think so, which is why you rule, but we rule based on the rules and how they've been handled in the past, and 3ER is only applicable alongside an obvious edit of vandalism. This is not that case, if it were we could just have every user on the wiki banned if they have an argument about a group or a user on a talk page. That's not how we handle it and it is definitely not how we handle it for a single user who's had like 6 edits and probably needs the chance to prove otherwise he's intentions. Also while I'm happy to keep the personal quips out of it, I find it ironic that you're concerned about people mischaracterising you and your intentions, as it's most likely what you did with this account, sept you didn't give him a chance to tell us otherwise. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Also re:not reading, it's worth noting that you should have read what every user who posted on that case said: that your interpretation and misuse of the 3ER is wrong in this case. Because they were most definitely right. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:57, 28 May 2011 (BST)

"'The rules only apply when i'm the one quoting them' - DanceDanceRevolution" - - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:23, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That literally couldn't make any less sense -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Sure it could have; It could be literally anything you say ever, especially when goons are involved. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Again with cries of bias. Could it be that I am capable of ruling not on the people who do it but the actions they make? Could it be that your feelings of persecution come because you act like a fucking mongtard, rather than the tag you have attached to your shirt or the friends you have? God forbid. I literally thought he was a goon when I unblocked him, because doing my job is what I do, but again the only people who literally are so caught up with the 'bias topic' they are incapable of seeing things from a decent perspective is you and those blindly defending what Revenant does (I dare to wonder why). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:15, 28 May 2011 (BST)

When you start consistantly ruling impartially and fairly, then i will consider otherwise. While you still pander to the old boys club and circlejerk that is clearly evident on this wiki, you're going to see more people with positions similar to mine. The onus is on you to do your job, not cater to your friends and scratch eachothers backs. It's nothing personal, DDR. I feel the same way for the rest of the sysop backscratching club. It is literally impossible for you to be unbiased, whether it is dealing with goons, eachother, or mutually neutral parties. There is always an agenda lurking in the shadows, which is really unfortunate and kinda depressing. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:57, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Since your idea of "impartially" is anything that supports anything minutely close to a goon, I'll take that advice with the grain of salt that it is. And no offense taken. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:06, 29 May 2011 (BST)

When an account is created to do nothing but troll a specific group, why should they be given a chance to prove other intentions? Nothing good was ever going to come from him, just like nothing good has ever come from you. But I guess because he was trolling those dirty goons he should be given a fucking medal instead of a ban, right? Another glorious sysop in action. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:29, 28 May 2011 (BST)

TBH having ignored the whole conversation that the users posts were put on, I saw those difs and assumed he was a Goon being sarcastic. Not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this since one could turn around and say that the goon op is going on a vandetta against a non-goon troll which is certainly what it now looks like (thanks for bringing the non-important aspect of the accounts allegiance to my attention). Not that it would have mattered anyways since the only people who seem to think goon bias exists is the goons themselves. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

So you wouldn't have done anything to an account that was created to do nothing but shit up, say, the DHPD talk page? Somehow I doubt that. And I wouldn't say it's a bias against us so much as you being a fucking worthless sysop but there's nothing new there. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:48, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That is a really, really dumb question, because the answer would of course be, if they don't commit vandalism (Note again that flaming isn't vandalism) of course I wouldn't do anything to them. TBH Don't know why you used DHPD as a valid example because I have no affiliation with them and beyond the knowledge they were mass zergers who lied to kevan about it, and had a bad sysop associated with them I don't really have any feelings towards them whatsoever. If you used my own group as an example, my response would be to wipe their quotes, or take them to arbies, as is what is done with most cases of harassment or consistent flaming, and is what should have been done here. Not go on a butthurt renegade attack, use IP tools to inspect their background with a comb, then ban them anyway for 24 hours so they can't defend themselves, when people don't agree with my case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Having watched the drama fest, it is quite entertaining, I would say Rev is in the clear. DDR, you tried to make a point about talk page arguments. I think we can both agree that there is a difference between a disagreement and creating an account solely to troll a group, for the sake of common sense that need not explained but I will slightly. The account was created and then it's only contribs were flaming on The Dead's page(yes those 6 edits). No attempt to make a normal user page, signature(Aside from one poking at the SA forums) or anything mildly constructive points to that account only being there to flame. Which means it is not needed on this wiki. Lastly you said yourself those quotes Rev provided are justification it's not just how it's been handled in the past. Had America relied solely on past precedents we'd still have segregation and probably slavery and surely to God this wiki is a tad more flexible than a country..        04:06, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah no, we don't ban Goons for doing it. As such we shouldn't be banning users doing it to Goons. Common sense really. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

There is probably a few goon accounts that could use removing as well. I'm not denying that fact. At least a short ban to tell them to remove the stick they all seem to have stuck up their butt       04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, well. If we were doing this a few years back good users like Laughing Man, Riseabove or DCC would have been perma'd, hell there were sysops trying to even without it. Yesterdays trolls tend to become tomorrows involved users at least some of the time.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:14, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was gonna add a side note that I'd only have supported a short ban(at most 24 hours) and that a perma-ban would have been going too far but the edit conflict killed that and I didn't get around to adding it back in.       04:19, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Still don't think you understand. Trolling/Flaming is not vandalism. It is NOT vandalism. Someone who does not commit vandalism does NOT get banned. And using this as an example to real-world politics doesn't really fit IMO. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

By the way, Mazu, just so you understand how wrong you are, the SCOTUS overturned segregation (and most notably the ban on inter-racial marriage in Virginia) by relying on the precedent of the constitution. Pl0x not be talking about what you don't understand.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:43, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Notice when they ended segregation they over turned the previous decision of Plessy vs Ferguson, an earlier court case that established "Separate but equal".. Hence going against the precedent at the time. And wouldn't the most notable thing be public schooling being desegregated? I suppose that is another debate all together and thus unrelated. In either case I can see the reasoning that Rev shouldn't have acted after another already said to hold off, so I withdraw from a place I had not much business being at anyways(this discussion)..       20:24, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You also have very little understanding of the difference between primary and secondary legislation. Don't start this argument with me; you won't win. I'm a law student at one of the best universities in the world.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:12, 29 May 2011 (BST)

WIKI LAW! --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:17, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Screw the wiki part, it's all about LAW LAW.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:20, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Uhn-uh... thats Akule's gimmick, you need to pick a new profession.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:07, 29 May 2011 (BST)

I am now a vet.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 19:14, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Unjust bans are always treated as a serious offense. You only temporary ban someone with a good cause. Like when there is serious undisputed vandalism going on, like massive page blanking at that very moment. That certainly wasn't the case here, your vandalism/3ER claim was already being disputed by two other sysops, nor were the edits wiki-damaging in anyway. How about when you're up for vandalism next time for whatever reason, I ban you for the duration of the case until it is "sorted out". -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

All the various butthurt around here aside. You banned a user on a case you yourself reported. Even after another sysop essentially already ruled on the case as not vandalism because of this wiki's history of accepting that type of behavior from users. Sorry, Revenant, you don't get more say. Especially in a case where you were the one reporting the user(in which case you don't get any say).

That being said I 100% agree with the point you were trying to make and the fact that until you banned him over my objection you weren't in fact breaking any of the wiki's rules, at least not according to what I like to think of as clique rules(read hagnat cases). I suggest that should you want to have that interpretation validated in the future you get it cemented through A/PD and restate my historically consistent insistence that sysops are administrators and tempered judgement calls should be the norm for wiki ruling, spirit over word.

Also, seriously, all of you. Stop it with this ridiculous butt-hurt vendetta crap. It's annoying and the kind of thing that isn't acceptable when ruling on shit. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:55, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Who's being butt-hurt? Please don't tell me you actually think there's "goon bias" at work here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:05, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Actually I'm more talking about the Rev biasharassment by certain sysops. I could swear I remember you doing it too but that may just be me falsely associating you with the users that have been associating themselves with you, if that's the case then sorry. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:20, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'll say the same things I said to other users like SA or Misanthropy when they claimed I had the same bias against them: I don't hate users, only their actions, and only if their actions are wrong. As long as actions are done in blatant disregard for the long-established way we've dealt with them in the past (with no better reason to disregard them than "this is how I think it should happen" or "this is what wikipedia does") then I'll continue to fight for the established norm (though obviously I'm for whichever way is better as per each situation). The second Rev stops manipulating interpretations of rules to prove his own points (the notion other ops are being called out for bias here is overwhelmingly ironic given some of Rev's latest gems) and stops making renegade calls when he can't accept what the ops rule on as a team, then any apparent animosity between myself and him will magically disappear. Trust me I'd like it to happen more than anyone. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Well let me be clear this issue than. I don't feel any personal bias against Revenant. Having said that, I do think he's being rather stupid here, so yeah, I definitely let him know but not by putting the flamethrower on maximum like some goon, but by arguments. Yeah, I know I have a reputation for heated discussions. I say what I think, just not the type for sugarcoating. That doesn't mean I suddenly resent people involved, and no, there is no hidden agenda at work here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:46, 28 May 2011 (BST)

As for DDR, who I highly assume you meant by "association", while he's fully capable of defending himself, I'd like to point that if he were so biased than I doubt he would have promoted you and especially Revenant considering he has come to disagree with you both prior to your bids. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:50, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'm referring to this kind of crap and this crap too. With you it's more of a you need to lose some of the attitude you generally bring to A/VB and such as far as your response to users being escalated. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:18, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'll keep it in mind, but I don't really feel there's a problem with my attitude. People act stupid, I call them out on it. Direct yes, but if people take it personal than that's not my issue. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:24, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You're a whiny douche retard who cleary can't handle pissing in a toilet much less process a complex thought who somehow sucked his way into a position that may on times call for both. With so many terrible sysops to choose from you are the worst. Literally the worst. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on who is currently in the possession of EzekielUK. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:54, 28 May 2011 (BST)

-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:18, 28 May 2011 (BST)

--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:41, 28 May 2011 (BST)

+1, ;) -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

As tiny as it is, I haven't seen anyone wrap their lips around this much cock since EzekielUK and his equine companion came to the Hills. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:58, 28 May 2011 (BST)

--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:05, 28 May 2011 (BST)

- Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:00, 29 May 2011 (BST)

-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 07:13, 29 May 2011 (BST)

FFS Revenant: Both Karek and I told you to hold off, Karek actually said "you can't rule vandalism". Why the fuck would you do this? Misconduct and ban him for the amount of time the user was banned, as per the Aichon precedent, etc. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:26, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Which, btw is 24 hours and 15 minutes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Nah it's only 15 minutes, if it were that long I wouldn't have had to unblock the account. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:11, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Oh yeah, i misread the block log and thought it said he'd done it on the 27th. So then, a 15 ban is my ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:13, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Dangit, he'll break my record for shortest ban administered via A/M. —Aichon— 03:32, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed (and soon DDR) have one minute bans via A/M.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:46, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Misconduct. It's normally not a bad thing to get a rule or two wrong, but it is and has always been a bad thing when people get banned based on it - even when it's done in best faith. Just serve the ban time and be a bit more careful with 3ER bans. -- Spiderzed█ 15:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

It's ok to unilaterally block someone if vandalism is clear cut, or for a short time (a few hours) to get a second opinon from another sysop or two in the case of edit wars or when there is ongoing and persitent vandalism of high profile pages, but this doesn't seem to fit any of those criteria. Misconduct. Unless you're willing to nominate a specific edit as clear vandalism, and be prepared to rule vandalism on any subsequent cases of the same nature as vandalism, you can't apply the 3er to a user who is being mean -- boxy 15:17, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - As above. -- Cheese 15:40, 29 May 2011 (BST)

We have now four votes for Misconduct (plus an implicite vote by DDR bringing up the case). Given Axe's pending demotion and Rev's involvement, there are only 11 possible votes. I consider this as a safe enough majority to just enact the ruling and wrap this up. Feel free to misconduct me and ban me 15 minutes too if I get overturned by some miracle. -- Spiderzed█ 17:44, 30 May 2011 (BST)

That would be the perfect comedy ending to this. I won't rule it out. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:54, 8 June 2011 (BST)

FTR I don't, and never was, going to have an implicit misconduct vote coming from myself. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:27, 8 June 2011 (BST)

I might as well sit this one out. Been out of the loop for about a week and don't have a whole lot of time to read up on it. Consider this an abstain vote. ~ _{17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)}

It's not like there's a statute of limitations or limited duration, here. Feel free to take your time. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:54, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Mmmyeh. There wasn't any need to ban the guy. You pretty much gave the troll what he wanted. Just be more careful with the block button in the future. ~ _{05:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)}

So

I see you clowns have still managed to miss the key issue, so I'll explain this one step at a time rather than dump & run.

1. Would any of you upstanding gentlemen care to point to a specific edit that AinSynagoga made and I acted upon that constitutes what you feel to be a “good-faith attempt to improve this wiki”?

I can wait. This isn't going anywhere. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:54, 8 June 2011 (BST)

precedent set by me against one of the GANKBUS guys & Co. said that a user whose edits are only in bad faith can be banned. Dun remember if it was scinfaxi, rasher or rueful --hagnat 02:11, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Simple enough actually. It doesn't matter. The whole purpose of 3er is to specificall deal with users the likes of which equate to 3pwv. It's a rule that's sole purpose is to quickly remove and stop users who are intentionally and actively breaking the wiki. As it turns out this is also the only situatuion where a report warn is accetable. None of these allow you to unilaterally overcome objections to treating him as a 3er applicable case over the explicit objection of a third party sysop. Spirit over letter but in both instances you misstepped. Trolling as vandalism or contribution isn't actually relevant and is a discussion that should be being had seperate of this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:18, 8 June 2011 (BST)

More than able to accept the ruling of the team as usual I see (otherwise as karek) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:49, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Also, next time you quote something, read the whole fucking sentence, especially the part which says "and includes any", meaning it doesn't include anything which isn't the next part.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:47, 8 June 2011 (BST)

Yonnua Kommaput, your sentence structure is hurting my brain. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 02:29, 11 June 2011 (BST)

Please learn what a conjunction is and what grammatical role it plays. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:41, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Did you consider the fact that maybe english isn't my first language? But that could never be the case, especially not with somebody with a fucking russian display name.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:52, 12 June 2011 (BST)

Mmmkay. I'll chalk that up as a “No”, then? Next point. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:41, 12 June 2011 (BST)

2.

User:Karek

You banned a user on a case you yourself reported. Even after another sysop essentially already ruled on the case as not vandalism because of this wiki's history of accepting that type of behavior from users. Sorry, Revenant, you don't get more say. Especially in a case where you were the one reporting the user(in which case you don't get any say).

This is incorrect in several details. First off, “essentially ruled”? Really, Karek, I expected better.

Secondly, I did not report the vandalism; it was reported to me via IRC, so I examined the case and acted accordingly. Policy (which I cited already) states that “system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.” I had absolutely no stake in this other than dealing with a vandal. If you point me at them, I'll gladly do the same for any similar user whose contributions are all worthless. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:41, 12 June 2011 (BST)

That's fine, but you'll be banned accordingly, as we've similarly ruled above. I don't know why 2. is such a big issue, while you're right, ruling on vandalism cases is permitted by precedent, and banning a user you brought yourself even more so, I didn't really ever consider it the issue in this case. IMO it's dancing around the fact that you shouldn't have banned a guy that you banned, period. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:03, 12 June 2011 (BST)

I'm not finished yet; I'm just taking things one step as a time so that the slow/lazy can keep up. You obviously had no problems comprehending this point – good for you! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:47, 12 June 2011 (BST)

You wewre the reporter to the wiki, as such you were involved and had no right to rule. This has consistently been my stance, and very recently was yours in an a/m case. Second, you were told by another sysop that 3er did not apply before you enacted it. Everything else you've said is simply trying to justify ignoring these two facts. Especially in a case where precedent and policy(through intentional lack thereof) prohibit your action. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:46, 12 June 2011 (BST)

This is silly: 4/9 sysops who are able to rule/willing have ruled misconduct. No one else particularly agrees with you because you're missing the basic point that sysops serve the time of an incorrect ban. You made an incorrect ban, ergo, you serve the time. Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:06, 12 June 2011 (BST)

By the way, everyone, in case it wasn't clear, Revenant's actually already been banned for this case, so unless loads of sysops change their rulings, we should probably start wrapping up discussion. If Rev wants to keep arguing points he can, but this should probably be in the archive soon, considering the punishment was administered 2 weeks ago.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:58, 12 June 2011 (BST)