UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/DanceDanceRevolution/2009-11-30 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » DanceDanceRevolution » 2009-11-30 Misconduct

30 November

Yesterday DDR banned me for 24 hours.

As we all know, certain sysops have been forging my A/VD history for sometime. Although we might get around to fixing that as part of the conclusion of this case, we shall accept at this point in time that any sysop must take the forged data as fact. This is the last version of A/VD before DDR decided to go about enacting my latest escalation. It is reproduced here for convenience:

User:Iscariot

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• 48hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) changed to a warning, as it should have been after descalation was applied
• 1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Everyone should take particular notice of the number of unstruck warnings I have. The number of unstruck warnings is one, from 11th March 2009.

I now refer you to the Administration Guidelines, a policy on this wiki, a copy can be found here. In particular the fourth sentence, of the second paragraph on the cycling of warnings and bannings. The statement in question is: "No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before."

We have already determined that I have only one standing warning. Therefore the appropriate escalation should be a warning. DDR did not follow the appropriate policy as set down by this community and instead gave me an unwarranted ban.

This takes my unwarranted ban time total, that Boxy says I can claim back from future bans, to a full seven days.

Normally I'd just insist on DDR serving the appropriate 24 hours penance and the accompanying administrative warnings. However, I went to DDR via IRC to inform him that the ban was wrong and he was committing misconduct by doing so, his response was:

[2009-11-29 09:24:22] <Iscariot> Please read paragraph two: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Cycle_of_Warnings_and_Bannings

[2009-11-29 09:24:56] <DDR|Werk> no thanks, i already read that and banned YOU for 24 hours

This changes the situation from a lack of policy awareness to a deliberate act of abusing the sysop power to ban those he does not like. DDR admits he has read the policy in question and having read it has then wilfully banned a user against the policy. Banning users for no reason is the act of a rogue sysop and demotion should be considered given his own admission about banning me even though he knew it wasn't permissible.

I have at least two other cases of misconduct surrounding his recent actions that I will bring if he survives this first case of banning a user against all policy even whilst aware. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot said:

[20:24] <Izzy> Please read paragraph two and then ban yourself for 24 hours: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Cycle_of_Warnings_and_Bannings 01[20:24] <DDR|Werk> no thanks, i already read that and banned YOU for 24 hours

Idiotic statements recieve idiotic responses, you disgusting liar. And now I can happily and with all truth say that Iscariot has presented forged logs for his own benefit in this case. You can't even trustworthy when presenting "evidence" on your own terms. What a joke. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that Iscariot claims that I don't like him (and hence that this is the reasoning behind his banning) is quite obviously a lie, and proves the utter integrity of himself as a user. I find it disgusting that he has to threaten me, resort to public speeches and also attempt to make bets on my status as a sysop in order for me to ban him from an IRC channel so he can attempt to use that against me in a wiki misconduct case. Trying every trick in the book and failing accordingly. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You 'banning' me in an IRC channel is no part of this case. The only evidence from IRC, even your own edited logs shows clearly that you admitted to knowing the policy. The issue here is your banning of a user against policy, I see you have no response to this charge and instead are trying to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant ghafla. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My logs are accurate, you are simply trying to find a way to weasel out of your misconduct. I did direct you to the section of the policy in question and you responded that you'd read it and still banned me. Of the two of us, I haven't committed misconduct recently, my word is worth slightly more than yours. Notice he makes no attempt to defend his actions or dispute that the charge isn't misconduct. He doesn't even have the good grace to admit his guilt. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no, they are not accurate. And I don't give one about the misconduct- I am happy with it passing on its merits, not that of a little parasite like you resorting to above tactics to try and libel my name. Grow up and just present the case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you taking debating lessons from Zombie Lord? I presented the case, and the policy that shows you are in error. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

But waiting for this isn't enough now is it? You have to forge logs, claim mine are forged, then continue to push anyone's buttons that will recognise you as anything near a human being. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The only edit I made to the presented logs is the change of Izzy to Iscariot to save people having to get up to speed about my IRC handle. You altered much more to try and cover up your deliberate disregard for the policies that this community has instituted. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Submitting unaltered text of my log of Izzy as far back as it goes. [1]. One imagines you'll do the same, Mr. Integrity. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have presented the section of my logs that is relevant to this case. I haven't read your pastebin link, but I imagine it's all stuff from private chat that can't be checked with other users? Your argument is "Iscariot is lying, take my word for it", you are the one who is editing the words of others to tarnish them. Your CDO has gone into outright paranoia. Please bring actual evidence next time. You are the one faking logs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - I missed said line on the guidelines. I plead no contest and would like a sysop to issue a punishment. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - I'd say a 24-hour ban, and Iscariot given a second warning on his record instead of the "week ban" he was just given. I don't think DDR intentionally screwed up - Iscariot's being his usual self with those logs. Cyberbob  Talk  07:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He said a lot in those logs, but not once did he point out clearly that "I only have one warning". An oversight, that could have been easily rectified if he'd not decided to play games. I'd say 24hrs, but I think it should only be a few hours, however long it took before Iscariot contacted DDR on IRC and had the opportunity to tell him. I have no doubt that if Iscariot hadn't been playing his usual riddle game, that DDR would have immediately unbanned him -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:00 30 November 2009 (BST)

Let's get this right, you are taking the forged logs that DDR presented as truth? Random words that don't even sound like me from a man guilty of open and shut misconduct? Not that there's a bias here or anything.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn... If I would have known you had actually considered him serious I would have taken my defence seriously... Of course I didn't knowingly keep his ban instated. The mere fact that a) he didn't tell me WHAT was wrong with it (and considering the ban at hand.. all the "doctored A/VD" and "Banned for 24 hours but a week? WTF" crap going on you wouldn't blame me for disregarding his ambiguous junk) and b) SA was also on IRC during the entire ban period and lo and behold, Iscariot didn't talk to him at all for any of it, as far as I know. And I would, considering I was talking to SA through it all. Seriously, if I had the motive to work up a harassment case against Iscariot it would very much pass... But I'm afraid it would just inflate his obvious victim complex further. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct, you absolute fool. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright you cunts, apparently I have to leave X-chat going on 24/7 so you faggots can't bitch and moan about forged logs.

Anyway, even if he forged part of the log, the part he may have forged makes NO difference in the case, only shows what he would consider a fair punishment. Does not change the fact that this was Misconduct, 24 hour ban, because you should know the guidelines well enough by now. Bad DDR. Bad dog. And Iscariot? Why won't you talk to me on IRC? ;_;

Oh, and when you make the other cases against DDR, just lump into one case so we don't have to decide to different rulings each time. :/ -- SA 11:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not about not talking to people, it's just I'm rarely active and leave my laptop on for days. Perhaps you will be the reasonable member of the sysop team that will fix my A/VD history? As for cases, each act of misconduct requires its own case so the matter can be considered appropriately. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

1. It was in a private chat. 2. It doesn't matter about the content, the forgery just proves his integrity as a user and the integrity of his motives. 3. He won't lump them all into one case because he seems infatuated with actually managing to get me demoted :/ and 4. Just ban me already. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And as for 3., that all depends on whether he bothers putting the other two cases up, since he insinuated in this case that he only intends on putting them up if this one never passed- demonstrating exactly where his intentions lie; getting retribution rather than just attaining justice. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the other two cases regardless of whether they are misconduct or not- one likes to know where exactly he/she has gone wrong with something and it saves me from making the same mistake again. Having said that, if they are petty as shit like you'd assume, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine that Izzy has a problem with me and not the other way around as he seems to think :/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As for 3? Grow up, I don't want to fill the misconduct page with cases if one will demote you and render the rest moot, one at a time saves us time and disk space. You know, disk space, the saving of which started this? The irony. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there's no question DDR screwed up here. But I have to say that vandal data system is a mess. There's got to be a better way of dealing with that, no?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

According to someone, there is. But the poor boy won't tell us, even when we accept his offer of "trading our status" as sysops for his version of the "truth". No point barking up this tree again. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's this "us"? You seem to be developing a persecution complex. You never accepted any offer of anything, you wouldn't even make it enforceable. Given your word means crap with your history of saying one thing and then doing nothing you have zero credibility without an arbitration ruling to back it up. Go make a case if you insist on being so self righteous. I'll take Ross as arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh ddr. I can see you're butt-hurt over this, and I understand why. But don't despair. There should be a way to implement a less convoluted system, and it should be possible to include community input. Heck, I'll try that now, I don't mind barking up trees. =) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hilarious of you to cry butthurt considering not only the massive irony of it coming from your mouth, but also the obvious point that it is almost entirely unrelated to this case at hand. I'm saying this from experience. You're speaking from idiocy. So is your new "policy", considering it proposes absolutely nothing and expects the rest of the community to rectify something that isn't even a problem. Congrats. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wha? I'm not butthurt about anything. Why would you think that? Weird. Anyways, the policy discussion is up and hopefully some good will come as a result.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much a majority of the current sysop team (I don't count The General; he's almost completely inactive). Banned for 24 hours, and Iscariot's record is amended to show a second warning instead of the weeklong ban Cyberbob  Talk  13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can Iscariot have his vandal data amended to record his 168 hours of ban time he has in hand? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)