UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2011-05-06 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2011-05-06 Misconduct

6 May 2011

For the vandalism case Here.

Specifically, for ruling vandalism on a case against existing policy. Specifically, the relevant signatures policy which was brought up in the report itself.

For reference, the signature in question that was being considered was:

--Laughing Man [Date and time stuff]

I would like to quote the relevant portions of the policy concerning what is illegal in a signature:

Signature policy

*Signatures which have images higher than 14 pixels high. Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means. Signatures which impersonate another user. Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP. Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions (closing the browser for example). Signatures which contain images larger than 50kb.

Laughing Mans signature did not violate any of these.

1. There was no image more than 14 pixels high.
2. There was no attempt to impersonate another person. It was his username.
3. There were no links to any special pages in his signature.
4. There were no malicious code or links in his signature at all
5. Since there were no images in his signature so nothing greater than 50kb.

So under the policy there was no reason to prosecute him. But what about spirit of the rules?

Well... Unfortunately you added the next section to the policy:

Signature policy.

What would be allowed *Anything that doesn't come under what isn't allowed.

So the policy used to condemn Laughing Man for his signature in the case this misconduct case is about explicitly permits everything that is not prohibited by the policy. There is no requirement of a link in a persons signature in any extant policy.

No. What we have here is a case of tribalism. Where responding to the "threat" of another large organized group the existing sysops of this wiki threw policy out the window to oppose them and their behavior, which they did not like, but was still legal. They assumed bad faith without evidence, and they did exactly the wrong thing. What they should have done is what is going on now: If they didn't like the behavior, they should have started work on an amendment to the signatures policy to prohibit it. They did not, and engaged in mass misconduct. Naturally, this has not ended well and resulted in a confrontation between groups. It is a shame that the group in power failed to retain the moral and legal high ground. but then again, corruption is sort of a sysop and crat hobby on this wiki, and whenever the goons show up tribalism goes amok among them (My own final misconduct case when I was here is a pure example, being convicted of misconduct based on what was, at worst, a vandalism charge).

Get rid of this retarded us versus them mentality and do your fucking jobs like you are supposed to instead of trumping up baseless charges and convicting people in a kangaroo court. If you had any credibility at all, you destroyed it with this case. Of course, the sad thing is you never had any credibility.

So, in summary:

• No policy prohibited Laughing Mans signature
• The policy expressly permitted anything not prohibited by it.
• The misconduct in question was for ruling the case as vandalism.
• The sysops could have tried to change policy and then dealt with the "problem". They did not.
• Mistergame was excluded from this as he only brought the case, he did not rule on it as a sysop.
• Vapor was also excluded from this as he did not bring a ruling of out and out vandalism, instead trying a meaningless "soft warning".

This is a fairly open and shut case. Remember: Sysops are not moderators. We even have a policy saying that. You cannot go around persecuting a group you do not like in an official capacity. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:25, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Required Link

The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below. Um, where's the link grim? --Rosslessness 12:00, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this is how the policy works --Rosslessness 12:05, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Please refrain from breaking the case with a level 2 header. I have converted it to a level 4 one to put it beneath the level 3 one this misconduct case has been filed with. The wording of the what is allowed section supersedes that as it explicitly allows anything that is not covered under what is not permitted. Furthermore, it is obvious that the community at large agrees with my interpretation, or this very subject would not be under a policy vote right now. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:10, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks for the fix. --Rosslessness 12:20, 6 May 2011 (BST)

What Ross says. The need for a linked handle is part of the policy and noted separately from the acts that constitute vandalism (and the catchall element to say what isn't vandalism). But I'll gladly leave this to decide for Axe, Cheese, Rev, RHO, Thad and Vapor as the only ops allowed to vote on this (and potentially Karek if he makes it through and the case is still open by the time of his promotion). -- Spiderzed█ 12:28, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Seems SA, Hagnat and Karek agreed with me as well.--Rosslessness 12:32, 6 May 2011 (BST)

The open language of that "What is allowed" section more clearly supports my interpretation. As does the fact, as I mentioned before, that the wiki sees it this way based on the policy being voted on at this moment. You should have done a better job when writing that policy. As it stands, what it says runs contrary to how you wish it and renders that entire section pointless. As for that, it is not my fault if you perpetually failed to enforce a rule correctly. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:37, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks Grim --Rosslessness 12:38, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Vantar, I never knew him--Rosslessness 12:50, 6 May 2011 (BST)

shit, put them all up for misconduct, quick quick -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:16, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Cyberbob and Sysop loving kitten owner Iscariot also agree with our interpretation.--Rosslessness 13:19, 6 May 2011 (BST)

As everybody else has already said, the signature policy requires a link. Also, as you seem to think you're god's gift when it comes to understanding how law works, allow me to actually explain how it works, as a law student. It doesn't work by "This looks like how it must be meaning because I be wanting it to be this way". Basic rules of statutory interpretation dictate that expressing one thing excludes alternatives. As it says that "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page" then that's the case. The alternative, having no link, is not permitted under policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)

You are a fucking idiot. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:13, 6 May 2011 (BST)

This is a fairly open and shut case - if you say so, it must be true... let us all bow to your superior intellectual power, oh mighty grim --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:29, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Oh wow. I totally never saw this coming. I am going to go cry in a corner over my hurt feelings. No really. Honest. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:37, 6 May 2011 (BST)

To be fair Grim, while I understand how your argument might possibly have a slight point about one line in the policy needing rewording this portion of the policy that leads into the one you're referencing makes it pretty damn clear a link is a minimum requirement and that that section about formatting above and beyond said link. The policy spells it out quite clearly that a link is required.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:41, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Grim, where did it say in udwiki policy that a crat could demote allsysops on a whim and re-arrange the admin pages as he so wishes? Just asking. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:30, 6 May 2011 (BST)

--|||||||||||||||||||||| 18:32, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Things this user needs...oh forget it. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

if that's the best you could come up with them I'm actually sorta dissapointed. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:36, 7 May 2011 (BST)

It seemed fitting, what with you being the most butthurt person on the wiki. It's almost like you're mad at everyone because you're going to lose your spot because no one likes you. Oh wait, no one likes you. --|||||||||||||||||||||| 02:07, 7 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure why you and a lot of your friends are so content claiming everything is some sort of [goon]bias or reaction to some sort of primitive emotion, like losing 'power'. I'm indifferent as to whether I'm a crat or a sysop, I never really wanted to be a crat in the first place. contrary to what you seem to think of every sysop on this wiki... And butthurt? What idiot is trying to misconduct us for a case against you? Don't think it's me at all who is butthurt, least of all comparatively. Again, you're only disappointing me, you're usually so good at getting people mad. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:24, 7 May 2011 (BST)

lol.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Ban them all! Permabans, every one! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:00, 6 May 2011 (BST)

It seems like I'm the only non-invloved op in this misconduct case. Lovely. The policy pretty clearly states that a link to your userspace is required and there's boatloads of precedent that not having one is considered vandalism on this wiki. He was notified before being brought to A/VB and given longer than a week to adjust his sig. While I thought it was a minor violation and deserved a soft warning, the others were just acting on precedent and policy and in no way abusing their power. I'll agree that a lot of drama came from the ruling but nobody could predict that nor should ops base any ruling on how the accused might react if warned for vandalism. Boxy, Ross, DDR, Spiderzed and Yon were all ruling within reasonable realms of established vandal banning policy/procedures. Not Misconduct. ~ _{19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Actually, there are Axe, Cheese, Rev, RHO and Thad as non-involved ops apart of you, with Karek as potential additional voice in a couple of days. -- Spiderzed█ 19:41, 6 May 2011 (BST)

True. What I meant to say was active non-involved but that's not really the case, either. ~ _{19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Oi. I'm active as well. ;p -- Cheese 20:27, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Thads involved, he brought the case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:35, 7 May 2011 (BST)

True, but he hasn't been put up for Misconduct by Grim, and has been explicitely spared. However, if others agree with that assessment, we might as well ask Thad to withdraw his ruling. -- Spiderzed█ 03:31, 7 May 2011 (BST)

As Grim has rightly pointed out, Laughing Man's signature did not break any of the six points under the "What wouldn't be allowed" section of the policy. However he failed to take into account (or chose to ignore) this part of the policy from the "Required Link" section above: The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one of its subpages. The signature failed to meet this requirement (note that it says "Required Link" not "Optional Link") and, as Vapor, I agree that the sysops involved were well within their remit to rule the way they did. I'm therefore ruling Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 20:27, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Grim has pointed out a somewhat of a flawed sentence in the policy. Instead of discussing this through a policy discussion, he instead tries to wikilaw people into a dumb misconduct case. There's a boatload of precedent on this not to mention the policy itself dictates the need for a link. This case is indeed open and shut. Not Misconduct. The policy currently under voting has no merit here anyway, since it hasn't been accepted. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:31, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I'll might as well refrain from ruling if it is being disputed. Case isn't worth much trouble anyway. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:17, 7 May 2011 (BST)

You people need to make me a sysop quickly so I can make the tough decisions that others shy from. Permaban all of them. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:03, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Have changed your emphasis to italics, since you are not a sysop and could confuse with that when it comes down to tallying stuff. -- Spiderzed█ 02:16, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Are you saying you'd honestly be going through, making a tally, read that, and then just add a "permaban" column? ;P --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:27, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct – as Cheese. (Wasn't sure if I'd have to recuse myself until I read the links in detail.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:11, 8 May 2011 (BST)

Can one of the non-involved ops count up the rulings? Pretty sure it's a case closed, but I'll leave that to one of the guys not being misconducted to say.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:32, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Ruling

It's been several days since any discussion so I'm going to close this case as Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 12:02, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Obviously, probably should have been done like a week ago. What's the new archives procedure here? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:35, 9 May 2011 (BST)

Put a copy of the case in the sysops archive under a dated header (in this case all the sysops), then add a not misconduct to each of the sysops tallies on their individual archive pages, add links to the case on the individual sysops individual years, and then remove the case here, iirc. if it isn't done by tomorrow evening I should be able to.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:01, 9 May 2011 (BST)

If nots, I'll get it when Imma be sober. -- Cheese 01:40, 10 May 2011 (BST)