UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/A Helpful Little Gnome/2008-09-30 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » A Helpful Little Gnome » 2008-09-30 Misconduct

A Helpful Little Gnome

Deleted United_Zombies_of_Malton.

As deletions are a sysop only power this is a misconduct rather than a vandalism case.

Gnome deleted UZM following a arbitration ruling by Cheese. As has been ruled approximately a thousand times in the past, arbitration cannot override established wiki processes. By following this ruling Gnome breaks from the established deletions process and summarily ignores those users who have voted keep on the (then) ongoing deletions case. Even though I noted this at the bottom of the case, he still decided to exert his authority as a sysop against the community.

This is an act of moderation.

Contrary to what Cheese states on the deletions page it was not a speedy deletion, a speedy deletion would have been illegal due to people voting keep, and Gnome's own edit summary on the deletion log clearly states he was deleting in accordance with the ruling.

Request ruling of misconduct, the undeletion of UZM and the restoration of the deletions vote to allow established process to continue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:10, 30 September 2008 (BST)

The page creator has saved all he wanted to for re-use in line with the arbie's ruling and has asked for it to be deleted himself. There is absolutely no need to keep the page anymore and leaving it until the end of the due process would be almost as bueracratically petty as this case!--Honestmistake 10:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

The page creator asked for a speedy delete. As a current deletion case was underway that had at least one keep, a speedy couldn't have happened. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:19, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Actually... the bureaucratic mess came about when an Arbitration was decided upon which overrode the wiki process. There was a MAJOR conflict right there, when Cheese said -- in spite of the page in question being at the time up for deletions voting -- that UZM would be deleted. IMNSHO he had no right to say that. And, I am unfortunately compelled to agree that AHLG, therefore, had no call to follow that Arby decision... And, all this bullcrap and red-tape clusterfarking has just resulted in more confusion, more ambiguity and more pointless drama.

Now, I'm not clear as to whether the page's author voting speedydelete automatically makes it go back to the speedydeletion queue. I was actually under the impression that it did... Which would mean Iscariot's premise for this Misconduct is mistaken. But I really don't know... hopefully someone with more experience and knowledge does know. --WanYao 12:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

To illustrate what Wan and I are getting at here, if arbitration can circumvent wiki process, it would only take three users to break the entire wiki, two to engage in the case and one arbitrator. If that arbitrator's decisions would override anything else, he could promote/demote sysops, ban users, or (as here) delete any page on this wiki that they choose.

On the owner/speedy point. I was under the impression that only one case for deletion could be open at once. This would be common sense to stop the deletions pages being flooded. As soon as Zeug requests a move to speedy, all current votes attached to it would follow, and the keeps would bring it straight back to A/D. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:08, 30 September 2008 (BST)

If the author was the only person to edit it (includes minor junky spell-fix edits or whatever) then he can A/SD it at anytime regardless of other people's votes. If anyone else edited it (and i have a feeling jorm and co did and got them reverted) then once it's got a keep vote its gotta stay on A/D.--xoxo 13:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I had edits on that page J3D ;)

The whole point is, if there can only be one case open per page at one time in the deletion process, then those votes would follow. Speedy states that any keep vote stops a SD and moves the page back to the normal deletions queue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:50, 30 September 2008 (BST)

NOT MISCONDUCT Iscariot - you are an idiot and a shit disturber. Stop making drama and go back to trolling Talk:Suggestions. I'm reposting what I posted on the Deletion page.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You all go "forum shopping" posting this on deletions and arbitration then complain when you get two conflicting results? What did you think was going to happen? Personally, I think the arbitration decision should stand over this deletion voting because both the author and the community had an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. Voting always runs the risk of meat/sock puppets while discussion and discourse are more fair. And if in this instance you all decide that the policy/procedure should trump the compromise and discussion of arbitration then you will be basically saying "We don't want to think for ourselves. We want to be slaves to policy." I know arby's is "broken", but it is the best system we have that tries to be fair and balanced. By saying that wiki procedure trumps a legitimate arbitration then we might as well post Arby's on this page next to UZM. --– Nubis 21:48, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I'd watch what I were saying there fucko. I do not troll the suggestions page. A troll is after eliciting an emotional reaction, I just want fucking morons to go away, I don't care to find out whether they cry or not. Also, at no point have I forum shopped or began a arbitration case about this issue until this item of misconduct occurred. So how's about you stop trying imply that I have some sort of presence in this whole affair as some overlord puppeteer and go and look at it objectively. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I'd be a little smarter when trying to make up insults, "fucko". Otherwise you're just going to get laughed at. :< --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry, didn't realize you were a whiny little cunt and that you were sensitive about the T word. But let me get this straight, Wan posts the Deletion request, Jorm/MOB start an arbitration, and you just happen to be the one that is so butthurt by the injustice in the system that you are the one that brings misconduct charges up? Not buying it, drama queen. Also, if you were so dead set on the VOTE being the final say so why the fuck did you offer to arbitrate?

I offer to arbitrate. -- St. Iscariot GC PK WTE 21:36, 22 September 2008 (BST)

GO AWAY. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I fixed your indents there ;)

Does someone not understand irony? Zeug seemed to. What this decision effectively means that anything can happen from Arbitration, there was no deletion request made, but because the Arbitrator decided to stick that in his verdict, there is no response from any party. This kills the arbitration procedure, can you see any user agreeing when the arbitrator can decide to delete the pages in question? Everyone's going to refuse every single arbitrator, the system may have been damaged, but you've just broken it beyond repair. Well done there. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:19, 30 September 2008 (BST)

And let me add that 2 or 3 users can not "break" the wiki with arbitration unless the arbitrator they pick is a complete moron. The whole point of arbitration is to come to a sensible compromise. If these phantom 2 or 3 evil users that Iscariot is trying to protect us from tried something like this you can be sure that one of us evil sysops would abuse our powers and ban them. (AM I RITE? LOL) --– Nubis ^NWO 15:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

"2 or 3 users can not "break" the wiki with arbitration unless the arbitrator they pick is a complete moron"...or unless the arbitrator that they get to select is in on it? Did you even think about that? What happens when The Dead decide to run this system you've just given your approval to delete the DHPD page without the DHPD even being involved?

And "one of us evil sysops would abuse our powers and ban them", yes, go ahead and espouse the fact that certain sysops see the voted policies and guidelines of this wiki to be purely optional, way to attempt to restore the community trust right there... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

This shows how little you understand the system. So, you are saying that if the Dead put the DHPD page up for deletion and got everyone to vote it deleted that you would rather that stood (the holy policy!) than if someone from the Dead and DHPD picked an AGREED UPON arbitrator and plead their cases? Because I'm curious what argument could be used to sway someone that BOTH SIDES would agree upon to completely negate one group over the other. Your knee jerk reactionary response of POLICY UBER ALLES is disturbing.

Your example is absurd, by the way. I guess you don't read talk pages much these days? If these two groups that "practically tore this place apart" can actually get along and joke on the wiki then maybe there is hope yet. Not to mention that not even the Dead could brute force a policy through or did you forget Kevan stepping in and vetoing the meat puppet policy? But no no, you continue running in fear, Chicken Little, that these mysterious evil users will destroy the wiki.

What really destroys the faith in the community is sysops that ignore common sense and power trip hiding behind policy. I know AHLG gets a lot of shit for not being a policy hardass (and sometimes being too soft of a touch) but at least he isn't afraid to consider that maybe feelings and intent matter more than vaguely worded red tape. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Who said DHPD had to be involved? That page didn't belong to Zeug, it wasn't in his namespace or a group, it was a community page. It was deleted even though I don't remember Jorm requesting it. The fact is that I can get two other people together with me and start deleting shit whenever I want through A/M, and you all don't seem concerned, because hey, you'll just 'abuse' your powers when it fucking suits you. The fact that there was over a dozen members of the community voting keep on a community page that was summarily dismissed based on the actions of a minority doesn't seem to concern anyone here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:11, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Nubis, again, nails it on the head. Iscariot, please go and find something better to do with your time than spamming admin pages with petty, idiotic cases. If you think you could run the wiki better, then put your money where your mouth is or shut up. -- Cheese 17:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, because A/PM isn't a popularity contest or anything.... I got over those when I left school. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I see this page has become as pointless and inconsistent as A/VB. Accordingly for the benefit of those users that actually give a shit, I present the relevant policy.

Let's look at the most important section shall we? "Moderators may only delete a page in one of three instances:" Emphasis mine. That qualifier seems quite definitive doesn't it? Let's look at to what it talks about:

'"1. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions, and that page is eligible for Speedy Deletion according to the current guidelines for Speedy Deletions. Before serving the request, moderators are expected to review the page to ensure its suitability for Speedy Deletion.

2. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions, and that page has been deemed eligible for Deletion by the wiki community, in compliance with the rules of the Deletions page.

3. A page has been created by a moderator in the User namespace as a subpage of the moderator's user page, no user other than the moderator has made substantial contributions to the page, and the page is not required for any significant reason. In this case, the moderator should make note of his or her deletion on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions either before or after he or she has deleted the page.

4. When acting in accordance with approved policies."

It is inelible for number 1, it has at least one keep vote.

It was eligible for number 2, but only once two weeks were up and having been judged to be deleted by the community. This process had been begun but was incomplete when Gnome deleted the page.

It is ineligible for number 3, Zeug isn't a moderator (sysop) and wasn't in any user namespace.

It is ineligible for number 4, there is no arbitration policy.

So, there it is, policy clearly defied by a sysop, and other sysops backing them up. Trusted users....

Let's also remember that Arbitration binds only its participants, but that page was in no-one's namespace, making it community property. The lesson to be learnt here is that disputes between two users can now have far reaching consequences due to some power mad arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I believe there is something of relevance that Iscariot should be made aware of: see the second bullet point where it says (my italics to denote a quotation):

"Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, 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 moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."

I just wanted to point out that over-arching policy clause that allows any sysop to act outside of other policy if (essentially) acting in good-faith. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:03, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Less than 20 minutes before that 'get-out-of-everything-ever-free-card' came out? Damn, My bet was for at least an hour.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:06, 30 September 2008 (BST)

If you don't like it, you should know where you can try to get rid of it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Wow.... this has gone waaay too far. I do agree that something is completely broken in a system where an Arbitration case can overrule wiki policy and process... But I do not agree with where this discussion has gone...

And I explained why I believed UZM was elegible for deletion about 30 billion fucking times... and how it was different than, say, putting the DHPD up for deletions.

But so many of you people just don't fucking seem to listen... It's not even about disagreeing -- it's about people not even fucking LISTENING....

And, Jorm's Arby case had NOTHING to do with me. Nothing at all. He did that on his own. Period. All the imputations being tossed about are bullshit.

This is just insane. --WanYao 19:49, 30 September 2008 (BST)

"This, this is madness!"

"This! Is! UD WIKI!!!!"

Yeah. I went there. Seriously though, what the fuck is up with all this shit? If there was a way to actually take over the wiki with three people and Arby's, don't you think I'd have tried it ages ago? It'd be funny as hell though...Actually, can I get two volunteers? You know you want to...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:41, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Pick me. I'm qualified. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:43, 30 September 2008 (BST)

We already know you won't hesitate to pull the trigger on the old delete button! I, for one, welcome our new GNome overlords. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:01, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Alright, I need one more volunteer, and don't worry everyone, I'll take responsibility for any punishment we may or may not receive. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:03, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Count me in but I demand my share of the blame ;) --Honestmistake 11:39, 1 October 2008 (BST)

And my final word on this: Delete - Extinction in a popular vote situation? Goodbye page, so long, farewell! -- St. Iscariot GC PK WTE 20:58, 22 September 2008 (BST) A page that you (among many others) voted delete on was deleted?!?! Oh shock and horror the system works! But, no, please feel free to continue bitching about the fact the page was deleted. I know you will. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - The deletions vote was almost up, and a line ball decision. The arbitration case had changed circumstances, and the page author had changed his vote to speedydelete. If the author wants it gone, meh -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:08 1 October 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Ok, this has been quiet for the past 4 days so I'm going to say that this case is effectively closed. Gnome has been unanimously found to be not guilty of misconduct. Case Closed -- Cheese