UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2009-06-03 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » DanceDanceRevolution » 2009-06-03 Misconduct

3 June

Overturning a rightful banning. The case was voted Vandalism. It is 2 to 1 with a DDR vote being one for Vandalism. The punishment is a week ban. Just because there is another issue on the table for consideration does not mean that he gets out of his punishment for this vandalism case. --– Nubis ^NWO 18:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

It's actually 2-2. You & SA are voting for Vandalism, DDR & Boxy are voting for Not Vandalism. In the case of a tie the generally accepted practice has always been to come down on the Not X side. --Cyberbob 18:42, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Check back, DDR actually did vote vandalism, however he also expressed that he considers the vandal case to be open. Nubis considered the vandal case closed and struck a ban, DDR didn't agree with the case being closed. Correct me if I´m wrong, this is all a bit confusing. I am also not quite sure when a case is considered closed.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 18:51, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Whoops, missed that. You don't see too many rulings embedded in the middle of textwalls like that.

3-1 in favour of vandalism then. My other comment is wrong but I still wouldn't count it as misconduct because it's an extremely contentious case and not all of the sysops have voted. The permaban vote is firmly in opposition of SA's proposal, which seems to have more or less taken over the whole section. If the sysops who have voted in there were to also vote on the actual case brought by Karek then I would say it would be acceptable for a final ruling to be made either way, but not until then. --Cyberbob 19:00, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Wait, so that's summed up as no to the perma, but yes the vandalism (1 week) case? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

At the moment yes, but like I said there are still a heap of sysops left to vote on the vandalism case. Given that the permaban discussion has p much dominated the whole thing I think it's likely that people have just not realised that there's a difference. --Cyberbob 19:14, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I made it clear, so they should realize. I probably did it in an incorrect manner, but I'll leave that you guys. See what I did?--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 19:34, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Misconducted for insisting a very important case stay open? I could have easily misused my power and voted Not Vandalism merely to have Iscariot unbanned, Nubis. You know well that your ban was preemptive considering the circumstances.

While now, all the sysops have gone onto the case and expressed their opinions on the permaban vote, which means they have read the case to some extent, and not ruled. For that, you may say that you ruling is no longer out of line. But you banned Iscariot based off your one ruling. You waited one day, no sysops had even had the chance to log on and read it, let alone rule, besides you and myself. We had a large enough discussion between just You, SA and myself, in that very case, and all were waiting for the other sysops to give their views on the permaban, but you cut it all short in order to rule vandalism, ban Iscariot so he could not contribute to the case, and push the vote onto the other sysops, before they had even read the case and gather and understanding for what is going on. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Because of the above, I had deemed the abnormally fast ruling on the A/VB case a bad-faith attempt at prohibiting Iscariot from being able to defend his perma-ban vote, and for that I am disheartened that I am here instead of Nubis, but that isn't relevant at this point... I could have easily beat the system by ruling Not Vandalism, but I didn't because I really thought Nubis was better than this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I may also add that in the light of the permaban vote turning belly-up, I see it as a direct result of Nubis pushing this case before he allowed for any direct discussion. Whilst I am admittedly surprised that the sysops ruled as quickly as they did, I was expecting Nubis would realise his onus of convincing the other sysops that Iscariot needed his ban, but instead he responded with petty sarcasm to the only opposition before ridding the other sysops the chance to offer discussion. I therefore conclude to you, Nubis, that the only chances this permaban vote had of succeeding were subsequently destroyed by your hasty actions and pushing of the vote, rather the discussion. Congratulations, Nubis, you have won yourself another, more rightfully bitter Iscariot. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - this case was obviously going to be controversial, and it's entirely reasonable to put off something permanent like a ban (you can't go back in time and take back a ban if it's found to be in error like you can a warning) until a significant number of sysops have had a chance to contribute. The person you should be reporting for misconduct is the sysop who started a permban vote when it was clear that the month escalation hadn't been reached yet, as specifically required by policy.
Oh, wait... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:55 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct, and I'm glad Boxy is still mostly worried about his image.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:01, 4 June 2009 (BST)

in b4 boxy attack. Thank you for your input.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Ironic :) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:29 4 June 2009 (BST)

This reminds me of the time my s'opship was cruely taken away in the aftermath of NYE...--xoxo 09:23, 4 June 2009 (BST)

hahaha, no. This has literally nothing in common with your case. --Cyberbob 09:33, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I meant the part where nubis/boxy (it was one of them...) pushed something through quickly when no one was paying that much attention...--xoxo 07:32, 6 June 2009 (BST)

God hope not. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Case has been ruled Not Misconduct.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:56, 10 June 2009 (BST)