UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Aichon/2010-06-06 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Aichon » 2010-06-06 Misconduct

Aichon

I'll spare the rules lessons and keep it simple, Aichon banned User:Lonercs permanently due to the 3 edit rule when it shouldn't have applied. Case here and the ban lasted three hours [1].

I'm not one to jump the gun on sysop misconduct cases and the only reason I'm enforcing this over a ban so small is because Aichon did this previously to User:Reddeyedjedi here last month. It means (given I trust Aichon to not hand out retarded bans like Nubis) is not because Aichon is lazy or a troublemaker, he just doesn't know the 3 edit rule well enough yet. Giving him the benefit of the doubt in the first case was enough I think, considering the rule isn't too hard to understand.

The combined ban time is about 5 hours so I doubt the sysops will enforce the "worthy" ban time by banning Aichon for the same amount, although IMO it would be a good lesson to teach to demonstrate that fucking up bans is bad (maybe its me being biased because I suffered the same punishment once). It's up to the ops obvs. --

 

 

 

 

11:36, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Just to provide my side quickly (I want to make sure you all know why I did what I did, even though it appears I was in the wrong), on the first case, I fully accept responsibility still, as I did at that time, and will in no way suggest it was anything other than a complete mistake on my part as a result of misunderstanding the rule. And I do agree that if you guys think this was another mistake on my part that this does establish a pattern of mistakes that needs to be addressed, so I certainly won't argue that.

The reason why I cited the three-edit rule here was that it specifically says the edits need to be "constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki", and I believe it has been established in the past (though I may be mistaken) that edits of a personal nature, such as to group pages and the like, are not considered to be such. Similarly, the edits he made to the location page were questionable, given that he wiped out a user's signature in doing so, and the edits to the danger report seemed similarly negligible.

This may very well be a case of me getting caught up in the heat of the moment and making a bad call, given that he was quickly getting into an edit war with me as I was undoing his damage. I just wanted to be clear however, that I did look through his contributions and did have a reason (though perhaps not a just or correct reason based on the fact that this Misconduct case exists) for doing what I did and did not slap him with the ban without checking his contributions. This isn't a case of negligence on my part, so much as coming to the wrong conclusion when checking things. If you all do rule Misconduct, as it appears that you will, I'll obviously be using that as a basis for making decisions in the future, and I will operate under the assumption that I reached an incorrect conclusion in this case, so you won't be seeing any repeat offenses. I apologize for the inconvenience of dragging you all into this in such a manner. —Aichon— 14:37, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Ahh- I see what you mean. Unfortunately, the nature of "constructive edits" is usually treated in a much more black and white approach- the non-constructive clause usually just applies to grieving or offensive behaviour which wouldn't normally be vandalism per se, but still non-constructive to anybody. Karek and Cyberbob once tried to pull the same concept over BBK's own little A/VB guy Shakespeare but they eventually decided not to bother pushing for it. Lame history lesson aside, the edits usually have to be very questionable in nature, not just fail and uneducated. Or that's how I've always taken it. --

 

 

 

 

15:10, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Well, I'm certainly not going to try to argue it, since I was just going with what I thought was the case. Anyway, sounds like another open-and-shut case then. I'll be happy to accept bans of whatever length is deemed appropriate and will amend my behavior accordingly. —Aichon— 18:41, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - Jumping the gun and giving undue bans has always been misconduct. Issue a ban for either the five hours for both or the three for just this case, assuming we were giving him the benefit of the doubt before.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:38, 6 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct Give him a lazy slapping. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:51, 6 June 2010 (BST)

The last instance of "misuse" of the 3 edit rule, it could be argued, was within the spirit of the rule. The poster had clearly shown his intention to be a vandal, and contributed nothing else, because both of his edits were clear vandalism (clearly defacing pages rather than breaking some of the more wiki-centric rules here). Not so this time, where the poster had made useful edits, and then weeks later got angry and decided to try to punish a group by defacing their page. Their first posts here were contributory, so this is misconduct and should result in Aich taking a 3hr ban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:14 6 June 2010 (BST)

I personally feel that this is trying to enforce a black-and-white nature on something that has always been a grey area before. I've consulted Bance Bance before about 3-edit vandals that weren't clear-cut, and there was a similar sense of it snot being entirely black-and-white. Punishing Aich for slipping up on something that has never had clear guidelines isn't something I'm okay with, so I'm voting not misconduct, though I do feel that perhaps some minor punishment like forcing Aich to be the guy who comes up with a clearer guidelines in the future might be better than the 3-hour ban that seems inevitable now (probably take about the same time, too). 19:21, 6 June 2010 (BST)

The application isn't exactly clear cut, however the intention of the rule is quite clear. It's to be used to get rid of accounts who's sole purpose on the wiki is for vandalism. It means that repeat (proxy) vandals can be dealt with effectively without having to go through weeks of warnings and minor bans. This user, however, signed up weeks ago, and while they did nothing spectacular with the account, it's clear that they didn't sign up with the sole intention of vandalism, because the group they vandalised hadn't even been created then. An account that comes on and makes edits to their own user page, and then immediately goes on a spree however may well be banned under the 3 edit rule if it's clear that the intention is vandalism, and he's just making nothing edits to make the decision difficult. The rule itself may not be entirely clear (or able to be made so without causing further problems, but what is clear is that this user doesn't fit it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:57 7 June 2010 (BST)

Unless there is further sysop input, I think we can call this as Misconduct and apply a 3 hr ban (being what Lonercs served of his perma before being unbanned) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:57 7 June 2010 (BST)

Considering we'd have to have all of the outstanding votes from the regular sysop voters come in as Not Misconduct (as well as SA to become active again) in order to merely break even in the voting, I'm not too worried, and as I said, I already accept the ruling as it is. I'd say closing it now seems appropriate. Also, it should be three hours and seventeen minutes, technically, since I'm supposed to serve the time of the unjust ban. If that's inconvenient (you should only need to enter "3 hours, 17 minutes" in the Other field), I have no objections with serving four hours instead. —Aichon— 10:16, 7 June 2010 (BST)

See you on the other side, brave soldier.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)

OK, done. Case closed as Misconduct and a 3hr 17min ban applied -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:28 7 June 2010 (BST)