UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Thari/2007

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Thari » 2007

4 December 2007

I would like to file a formal complaint on behalf of the user Tetha2, (a friend of my group ingame,) who told me that she was banned from the wiki with no reason given other than an apostrophe in the "reason for ban" field on her ban page by Thrai. This isn't the first time I have heard of problems from other people about Thrai (aka Gage) I would like you to look into this to determine the reason for the ban, if it is a legitimate reason, and if the ban can be lifted if it is not, and how long the ban is if it is a legitimate reason. Maria L 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That user hasn't been blocked from this wiki. Here are the logs and block logs for them -- boxy • talk • 23:52 4 December 2007 (BST)

Email one of us the IP (Dont post it, please. thats just stupid). It could be that he/she got caught up in a ban for an existing vandal. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanna say that I don't remember this particular case... maybe you mean this guy?--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone heard via email? This is a link to send me an email via the wiki (just replace the name for someone else). I think we can rule not misconduct on this one, unless there is further evidence brought forward -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:32 9 December 2007 (BST)

28 November 2007

Deleted Imedadoodie without going through either A/D or A/SD.

The deletion log shows a deletion at 07:04, 28 November 2007 yet no such entry exists, nor has existed, on the relevant deletions pages. Furthermore, it does not meet any of the deletions schedulings, and it wasnt image upload spam like we have a precedent of outright deleting when used by vandals. Methinks sysops are starting to overstep thier bounds. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A definite mis-use of Sysop powers. Especially considering that the page was being used as evidence of vandalism at the time. Misconduct --Karlsbad 08:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The page was simply vandalism, deleting it is considered reverting vandalism, the same way that adbot pages are often handled. Although it would have been prudent to leave it (and it's history) available while it was being used in a vandalism case -- boxy • talk • 09:12 28 November 2007 (BST)

I should add that by doing this, Thari nuked the only checkuser data we could have had on Azndemonboi I undeleted it temporarily to try and restore it, but it didnt work. We now will never know if this person is an alt, and whos, unless the individual gets sloppy and does it again. Another reason to not delete things at the drop of a hat, especially when they are being used in vandal cases. This should also answer Cyberbobs concern on the talk page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered reverting vandalism, but it also breaks the rules since the page was being used to base a case of vandalism. Thari did not abused his sysop powers, but should receive a simple warning for his mistake, the same way a normal user would receive a warning for a mistake that harms how other pages work. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 10:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion has never been an accepted practice for the reversion of vandalism, especially not without going through A/SD first. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when has "revert" ever meant "delete"? You can't deliberately misinterpret the words here. The page wasn't an Adbot and therefore shouldn't have been insta-deleted. It was being used as evidence of vandalism and shouldn't have been deleted. Thari deliberately abused his sysop abilities, either because he doesn't know what the hell he is doing or because he was trying to cover-up the vandalism of a user who he had just pardoned on A/VB with an incredibly wrong decision. --Karlsbad 20:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The original page was already ruled out as vandalism, and it wouldnt take half a mind to realize that. I strongly back Thari's decision to delete that page, but the problem was with his timing. Since the page was used to back a vandalism case, it had a use. Once the vandalism case was ruled on, it was ok to delete it. Like i said before, a simple warning for his mistake should serve as punishment. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And how do you revert vandalism against a page that was newly created ? You return it to it's original state, which means no text and a big red link, which can only be achieved if you delete it. So, reverting vandalism can mean deleting a page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You Delete Spam, which is what the page was- however there are specific pages for doing so. You Revert vandalism using editing tools back to its original state. Thari did one and not the other. The user was not an Adbot and as such should not be considered to be one, so how can you hand-wave Thari's misconduct using a precedent that doesn't even apply? --Karlsbad 22:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Karlsbad has the right of this one. We have speedydeletions for a reason. Such a request would have been aboveboard and legal, not to mention immensely quick, especially considering the fact that Thari knew another sysop was online at the time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Hagnat, for whatever that's worth--maybe the way things were handled were a mistake, but hardly worthy of anything more than a warning, if that. --Barbecue Barbecue 13:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, is this still hanging around?
Ruling = Misconduct - for deleting a page in a way that it's page history became unavailable during an active vandalism case.
Punishment = Slap on the wrist, please don't let it happen again -- boxy • talk • 13:32 3 December 2007 (BST)

Very well.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)