UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Vapor/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)

13 April 2011

Vapor (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Ruling on a case where he himself is a possible victim of vandalism. He shouldn't rule on cases where he has a vested interest. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:28, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Sure. Fair enough. ~ _{18:38, 13 April 2011}

Hey Vapor, don't rule on cases that directly affect/effect you. Go strike your vote now. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning - Slight over-reaction here, thad. A quick reminder would have done it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:41, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning - Yes, something like this shouldn't be done. However, I assume good faith, blame ignorance and not malice. Don't make it a habit, Vapor. (And Thad, such a minor first time infraction would have been better resolved with an informal reminder on A/VB. A/M could still have been used if Vapor had refused to withdraw the ruling.) -- Spiderzed▋ 04:11, 14 April 2011 (BST)

I don't find it that minor. It's a pretty bad call, being involved and after bringing this up at A/D, then A/VB, he should have known he could not have made an impartial ruling. Sure, it's not the end of the world, Vapor is pleading no contest and I doubt he'd do it again but ruling out of self-interest, whether intentional or not, is poor. Not to mention people have been misconducted for less, see Aichon. I don't consider Vapor to be corrupt all of a sudden, he's a great 'op, but I'm still pushing for Misconduct because of the grave nature of the edit in question, in my opinion. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:01, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Errantly banning someone unilaterally (and not just once, but twice), which is what I did, is quite a bit more grave than suggesting that a guy be contacted and told that he shouldn't do what he did. I made a mistake, was told informally not to do it again, did it again, and got slapped with Misconduct. I deserved it. Here, Vapor's actions didn't and couldn't negatively impact anyone since he wasn't asking for escalation, and his suggested course of action was entirely dependent on the judgement of the other sysops, since it couldn't go forward without them. That's why this is a trivial matter and should have been handled informally. It's certainly far more trivial than what I did. So long as he acknowledges that he made a mistake, which he's done, all should be well with the wiki world. —Aichon— 18:07, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Acting in a manner to deliberately harm the wiki by misusing sysop powers/abilities is misconduct. Showing leniency on behalf of someone who has aggrieved you whilst encouraging other ops to do likewise is to be lauded, not punished. Vapor has clearly done no wrong here, having ruled counter to what would have been a misuse of his responsibilities. To assume bad-faith on behalf of what you're reporting is sheer ignorance. Now stop being a fucking cunt and wise up. 23:12, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Comment - A more civil reminder than the above that self ruling Soft Warning is the same as ruling Not Vandalism, we talked it out, sorry for wasting your time. It's not equivalent to Report/Warn. --Karek^maps?! 01:35, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Not misconduct - he ruled not vandalism (that's what a soft warning is, no escalation, just informing the user not to do something that could be vandalism if they continue) on a case where he was the potential "victim". If someone "mock vandalised" Vapour's user page with his permission, I would expect him to rule not vandalism, and for other sysops to have the common sense not to take him to misconduct for it. If he was ruling vandalism on someone he was arguing with, that's misconduct... not this -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:57 14 April 2011 (BST)

You're not seeing a conflict of interest here? After bringing this case himself, with the specific intent of forcing him to remove his "code" through A/VB, he ruled that his "code" should be removed. He ruled with a soft warning yes, but the point was not to escalate Max, but to delete or otherwise alter his user-page.

The comparison with "mock vandalism" is dumb btw. Vapor actually does mind Max's edits, you'd think it be obvious after he, you know, brought the case up. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:54, 14 April 2011 (BST)

To summarize, he brought up a case where he was involved, and then made a ruling which worked directly in his favor. That's (soft) Misconduct, period. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:25, 14 April 2011 (BST)

He may "mind" the fact that his persona is being assumed by someone else (all be it, unintentionally), but he is not in conflict with this user, as is evidenced by the polite message he left on their talk page. He just wants it dealt with. The "ruling" may be impolite... but that is only to his fellow sysops. He should have had confidence in the rest of the team, and left it to be dealth with by others... but that is more an etiquette issue, and is best dealth with via posts to the A/VB page, or his talk page. There is no intent to use his sysop privleges to gain advantage here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:33 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct EXACTLY as boxy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:30, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Boxy gets it in one. -- Cheese 12:37, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct – But next time, please read A/VB#Before Submitting a Report before submitting a report to A/VB. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Thanks everyone for the input. I have taken all of this to heart and will act more accordingly in the future when submitting vandalism case which directly affect me. I will accept whichever ruling is decided upon. ^~ Vapor _{~ 15:09, 15 April 2011}

Ruling on cases one brings isn't misconduct by precedent and I don't consider this to be personal enough to warrant a conflict of interest that he should have avoided etc. not misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:35, 15 April 2011 (BST)

With 5 not misconducts this case is closed as Not Misconduct. Thanks. Vapor consider your actions, Thad always go talk page first. Hugs! --Rosslessness 16:56, 15 April 2011 (BST)