UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Revenant/2012

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Revenant » 2012

23 May 2012

For unprotecting my talk page without due request and posting in it. Also, i want my talk page to be protected again in its blank state --hagnat 18:37, 23 May 2012 (BST)

People must be able to contact other users through their talkpage. Protection of usertalk pages is only done for a good reason, usually temporary in case of continous vandalism or more permanent when said user is inactive. Neither case applies to you, so he was right to unprotect it.

Although it's not necessarly related, I would like to request Rev to log these actons in the future at A/PT though. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:52, 23 May 2012 (BST)

I am as active as a rock, you dumb fuck. I dont even have to scroll my user contributions page to see edits made in november :P --hagnat 19:26, 23 May 2012 (BST)

yeh they are mostly on my talk page :P--User:Sexualharrison01:24, 24 May 2012

Last I checked, rocks don't post on wikis.
What Thad said. You are active (you're posting on the wiki), and active users need to be contactable via their talk page. No exceptions. Really, only persistent vandals should have talk pages locked.
Logging on A/PT is nice, but not as necessary as it used to be now that the wiki software actually tracks this stuff properly. Still, might as well. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:29, 24 May 2012 (BST)

rocks--User:Sexualharrison01:49, 24 May 2012

Not really, people can have their page protected as much as they want if you ask me, that's how it seems to have been done in the past. if they aren't contactable, it's their loss. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:03, 24 May 2012 (BST)

I don't recall either myself or Thad asking you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:23, 24 May 2012 (BST)

burn D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:48, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Misconduct D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:03, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Irrelevant: I didn't edit a protected page; I unprotected it, then edited it (as a courtesy to Hagnat, I left it semi-protected); the page in that case belonged to an inactive user, which is not the case here; and the edit in that case was to change a user's name to "penis", which would be clear vandalism in any case. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:18, 24 May 2012 (BST)

admitting misconduct for fucking about with another users stuff with op buttons without their permission, nice D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:48, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Just give him a slap on the wrist and hope he doesn't accidentally ban and entire country out of reflex when you slap him. :) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 11:29, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Permission unnecessary. Active users must be contactable via talk page. Good faith, for the good of the wiki. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:42, 24 May 2012 (BST)

18 edits in the year before my talk page got uprotected does *NOT* makes me active. And of those 18, seven were in harris' talk page just to piss him off. In fact, i got *my* talk page protected just to prevent HIM from pissing me off by posting on it. --hagnat 16:01, 24 May 2012 (BST)

i feel the love--User:Sexualharrison19:12, 24 May 2012

i clearly cant do math anymore... it was nine edits after i got my talk page protected, and seven of them in harris page. --hagnat 20:41, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Misconduct. Certainly no need to alter the protection level of the page. Wanted to contact him for an official reason? You can, as sops can edit protected pages. Wanted to unprotect it for lols? That's a pointless misuse of buttons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosslessness (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

What about regular users? Contacting via a talk page is not a sysop privilege, and if a user is not inactive, they're expected to be able to be contacted. It's been a precedent for years that the only acceptable reason to self-request talk page protection is for inactivity. Finis and Iscariot are the only two examples I recall where their pages have stayed protected, and they've made 0 and 1 edits, respectively, since their pages were protected. The only question here is whether Hagnat is considered active or not. —Aichon— 19:33, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Tsk. Unsigned. I really am slipping. Hags contribs, if any, are far from active or regular. Plus if it's an emergency you could certainly email this user. This was nothing more than a random poking. Poking --Ross^lessness 21:38, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Um...That Email This User thing would only work if haggy had the box marked, "Enable e-mail from other users" checked off in his preferences. Looking at his userpage, the Email This User link is not there, so haggy doesn't have that box checked off. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:47, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Or you could ask on A/PT for it to be unprotected when there's something constructive to put on there.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 23:34, 24 May 2012 (BST)

That's not the way it's supposed to work (nor does whether or not it's constructive matter). You shouldn't be required to ask for permission to contact a user unless you've been ordered by arbitration to do so. —Aichon— 01:16, 25 May 2012 (BST)

^ This. Just because it's Hagnat does not mean he gets to be a special unique snowflake. (Sorry Haggers, you know I love you and all, but taunting Sexualharrison on his talk page about him not being able to post on yours? That crossed the line.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:48, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Not misconduct - it is not reasonable for active users on the wiki to keep their talk pages protected indefinitely -- boxy 06:24, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Technical Misconduct - First things first, that Hagnat's talk page was ever indefinitively protected was a stupid thing. Talk pages should only ever be protected for good reason, and even then only for limited time but under very unusual circumstances. I certainly would have unprotected it myself if it had been brought up on A/PT.
That being said, the way that protection change was handled was poorly done.

1. As that is neither a scheduled thing nor an urgent situation nor your own userspace, the proper way is to put a request on A/PT rather than to carry it out yourself.
2. If you carry it out yourself, the least thing to do is to document it on A/PT, rather than to let it slip under the carpet.

We rarely really enforce that procedure, but this time, it has been brought up on A/M, with explicite reference to the lack of a proper request. As the protection came from an A/PT request in the first place, it would also have been the sensible way to handle it via A/PT where the procedure in such a case could be discussed.
In cases like this where resistance by the affected user is likely, it is in your own best interest to cover your own neck before your act. -- Spiderzed█ 07:05, 25 May 2012 (BST)

I tend to agree. You monkeys. Someone else want to rule on this so we can slap a technical misconduct on this ratbag? --Ross^lessness 18:24, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Decisions, decisions. Looking through haggy's contribs, not counting the edits made in May, he's currently averaging 3.5 edits per month in 2012 (average 4.4 edits per month in 2012 overall so far should we count May edits), so he's not completely inactive. Maybe less active then he was in previous years, but not inactive. Revenant, yes, perhaps he should have documented the unprotection on A/PT. On this case, I'm leaning slightly closer to Not Misconduct, though not really by much. But like Thad, I too request Revenant to document these type of things in the future. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:04, 25 May 2012 (BST)

What the fuck are you niggers even doing.

I think you guys need to be changing what is being ruled on here, because as it sits, there is nothing in the guidelines saying one way or another about whether a users talk page should be protected just because they're inactive. Karke made an error in judgement by protecting it from the start.

Seriously, the only thing that is misconductable here is the fact that Rev didn't initially log it. Talk pages are left un-protected so people can talk at them, there has never been any thought otherwise back before I continuously went AWOL. I don't even know where you faggots started coming up with this shit at. My own pages were unprotected as soon as I started dicking around after my perma-ban. Having a talk page protected to prevent other users from using it was the wrong idea anyway, Hags should have used arbies. God damn.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:05, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Where did we came up with the idea that talk pages could be protected if a user were inactive? I dunno. I seem to recall a certain someone indicating that that was the only time when it was acceptable once upon a time. ;) —Aichon— 00:34, 26 May 2012 (BST)

There's an even earlier instance... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:40, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I was going for irony, not earliest. ¬_¬ —Aichon— 01:00, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I went for irony as well, AND earlier than Axe Hack's. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 07:53, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Oh? You had a different opinion before that instance. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 07:53, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Two different reasons. One was temporary inactivity, the other was long term inactivity. And even I was still active during my one month temporary inactivity. As for the longterm inactivity...I was out for what? Half a year during my April 2008 request? With no activity whatsoever. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:54, 29 May 2012 (BST)

Nukka, if you look there, I was not in support of protecting it because it was an arbitration issue. Him being inactive is the only other situation that isn't him being b& that would be suitable for protection, and I still didn't agree with it. In short i was calling DDR a homosexual for it. Axe's was something I probably didn't notice, otherwise I'd have yelled at karke for it then too.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:31, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I missed you. And yes, I know. I was just giving you a hard time because I could. <3 —Aichon— 04:03, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I think the first instance was with Fenis. He went inactive, and because he was constantly in the middle of vandalism (both for and against), we protected his talk page when he went inactive for a while. It was undone as soon as he started posting again -- boxy 03:23, 26 May 2012 (BST)

IIRC it was him. But that was for a good reason whereas this isn't.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:15, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Ludwig was earliest. The first actual request that was honored in recorded history was Matthewfarenheit's, but that only lasted until he returned that December and requested to have them unprotected. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 07:59, 26 May 2012 (BST)

We're talking about user talk pages. I don't think anyone has a problem with User or other user sub pages being protected -- boxy 13:13, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I do-THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:45, 26 May 2012 (BST)

<3 D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:00, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Misconduct We have a long established tradition of honoring Talk page protection requests. Only exception is Sysops who are not allowed to have protected talk pages by a similar long standing tradition. Now stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense, ban Revenant for a day, delete Hagnat's page with malice and aforethought, and lets all go back to ignoring posts by Thad and DDR since, as shown here, they add nothing of value to the conversation. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:33, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Actually, Thad got the fundamentals just fine. We should only be protecting talk pages for users who are actually inactive. Active users should be able to be contacted, which is why the talk page exists. To do otherwise leaves normal users no way to communicate with them, which can make it impossible to resolve editing disputes or discuss anything person-to-person, completely violating the point of a wiki.
I realise this puts me in a distinct minority here, but just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it's not stupid, and I refuse to be bound in current decisions by bad decisions past. This is a wiki, not a fucking judiciary. Precedent means jack and squat except that it's what people did in the past. There's absolutely no reason not to re-evaluate things, as consensus can shift and change.
Tell me, can you think of any other wiki where users are allowed to remain uncontactable? If so, compare it to all the others. That should be a good litmus test. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:50, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Hagnat is not an example of that user. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:59, 27 May 2012 (BST)

I'd actually like to see even one example of an active UD wiki user who's request for permanent talk page protection has been left in place for a significant period. I don't remember any such precedents or traditions -- boxy 14:01, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Me neither, so I don't understand where this idea of being uncontactable being kosher is suddenly coming from. Protection also always needs good cause, two examples of that I already mentioned above. Just for the sake of being annoying or "special" is not a good reason. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:30, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Still doesn't matter, still doesn't apply to this case. Also hagnat has done it before iirc, along with Iscariot, and a few others. Either way if this were actually a case of an active user then sure, unprotecting it would be acceptable. Hagnat posting very rarely and only really on a single user's talk page still isn't that case. For all intents and purposes hagnat is an inactive user. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:33, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Nope. He's more active than a lot of currently active users. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:27, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Bull, He has 9 contributions since he requested the protection ignoring anything involved in wiping his user page and reporting you. 1 jokes arbies post, 1 probably requested edit to promotions for Karloth, and the rest were a discussion with a single specific user. That is not active, especially when some of those edits state that he requested the protection specifically so he wouldn't have reasons to come here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:13, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Those weren't a discussion. That was him lording over someone else that it's impossible to contact him. Also, he claims he was doing it to piss Harrison off. If he wants to be considered inactive, he needs to act inactive. If he's active enough to misuse his protection, he's active. —Aichon— 04:55, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Actually the reality of that is that it was a friendly jab at a buddy who was constantly re-creating the page he was deleting/wiping as a friendly jab and thus causing him to return to the wiki. Harrison is actually part of why the PT request was made and he was making a remark to that effect. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:22, 28 May 2012 (BST)

So he wants to "win" a friendly "you can't mudkip me, but I can mudkip you" pissing contest? Meh. That's not inactive, and we shouldn't be getting involved -- boxy 16:27, 1 June 2012 (BST)

Actually, its been long since i decided to keep my talk page blank. Harris always editing it was what prompted me to protected it, and i intend to keep it that way --hagnat 18:37, 1 June 2012 (BST)

but i lovz talking wit you. you know if you left it for like two weeks I would probably forget about it. it's just your so anal about your talk page. sucks having fans huh? --User:Sexualharrison18:40, 1 June 2012

That's not exactly true either. As hagnat has stated, he gets email alerts from his talk page being updated and wanted to use his "Right to Vanish/Leave". It's not about winning some mudkiping contest. It's a friendly "There, now I can leave in peace for a bit" conversation that you all are trying to claim is "activity". --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:45, 1 June 2012 (BST)

My preferences > E-mail me when my user talk page is changed > Uncheck. And this idea that it was a "now I can leave in peace" only holds water if he actually left after saying it. Instead, he came back to say it again a week later, and then again a little over a month later. If someone is saying farewell more than once, they haven't actually left yet. —Aichon— 22:18, 1 June 2012 (BST)

>ignore ddr guys

>say exactly what ddr says in a stupidly uncompromising way with absolutely no precedent, but FUCK THAT LONG ESTABLISHED TRADITION CAUSE I SAID SO

>hi im karek D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:03, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Ever since we double teamed his girlfriend, set his house on fire and ran over his puppy with a car he's being all sour against us. That did all happen right? Because I can't think of another reason of why he'd harbor such a grudge towards people, consistently whining the moment you dare to make even the faintest remark. Damn we must be a bunch of monsters. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:45, 27 May 2012 (BST)

And you guys didn't invite me? I thought we were bros. (At least I got to… do… Thad… is that getting played out?) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:36, 28 May 2012 (BST)

We are now in a 3:2, with The General already having edited this section without ruling and Revenant being unable to vote. So, Misconduct it is. Can everyone agree with a plain and simple escalation on A/VD as punishment? -- Spiderzed█ 13:22, 27 May 2012 (BST)

I'd like to request the remaining sysops make their rulings, if it's all the same to you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:50, 27 May 2012 (BST)

I'm not in a hurry. In a couple of days, Shortround should come through anyway. -- Spiderzed█ 14:19, 27 May 2012 (BST)

I assume Hagnat's page remains unprotected even if it ends as misconduct? I think you summed it up the best in your verdict, the unprotection itself was fine, only the manner in which he did it wasn't exactly correct and it looks like most sysops can agree with this.

As an addendum, once this is settled I guess Hagnat could file another protection request in the near future with the reason that this time he'll be consistently inactive for a long term. <- the only good reason that would justify a protection in his case. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:30, 27 May 2012 (BST)

I didn't actually unprotect it; I set it to semi-protected. And I logged it on A/PT after you mentioned it (even though the software actually logs that properly these days, which it didn't used to), and notified the user on a page I knew he was watching. (Admittedly, I did pretty much ask for this case. Then again, I've never been one to shy away from doing what I see as the right thing, even if that lands me in hot water. Plus it's funny having Hagnat take me to Misconduct. ) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:05, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Being sent to this page so many times gave me an idea of what misconduct is when i see it. I am not sure i should be proud of *that*, but here we are --hagnat 00:17, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Haha, well, I am pretty much your successor in the IAR department, so I can't really complain when someone decides to take things directly here instead of discussing them; although I personally prefer to settle most things directly rather than via the admin pages, people have the right to do so. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:10, 28 May 2012 (BST)

I'm not going to get promoted and immediately rule on what is essentially a settled case that was pretty much decided before I was promoted (assuming I get promoted).--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:21, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Fair enough. Although I do believe you would be within your rights to do so. (Congrats, BTW?) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:17, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Oh, duh, thought you'd been promoted already. I should really wake up properly before getting on the Intermatrons. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:37, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Outcome

So currently Rosslessness, Spiderzed and Karek have rulings of Misconduct (albeit small) and Boxy and Axe Hack have rulings of Not Misconduct. Revenant can't vote, General seems unlikely to and I'm not going to. It looks like it's going to fall on the side of slight misconduct, but given the close nature (and the precedent on this issue) maybe it would be best to settle this with a soft warning? (not my ruling but I think we should decide on either a punishment or if we're going to hold out for the General's unlikely vote).--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 23:32, 1 June 2012 (BST)

Yeah, I should probably have run this through A/PT first, so I'll cop to technical misconduct, although I still hold Hagnat was abusing the (for good reason) rarely-granted privilege of user talk page page protection and deserved to lose it. My bad for forgetting how weirdly anal this wiki is about some things, I guess. Lay it on me. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:04, 4 June 2012 (BST)

As there's been no objection I'm closing this case with Misconduct and a soft warning.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 16:49, 8 June 2012 (BST)