UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Rosslessness/2010-03-12 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Rosslessness » 2010-03-12 Misconduct

12 March

Also voted not vandalism in a case about racism. While in the previous case against Woot he voted vandalism, he voted not vandalism for his fellow sysop Misanthropy. It's obviously misconduct when a sysop discriminates against Hispanics saying it isn't offensive when they're insulted, though I think this has more to do with personal dislike for Woot and favoritism for fellow sysop than outright racism. However, instead of simply giving Misanthropy a warning like he deserved he was given not vandalism. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that this is pretty much hopeless right now? --Thadeous Oakley 18:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I will go to Kevan. He doesn't stand for this kind of crap. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Two cases, so pretend this comment goes on both of them. Here we go, I'll spoil the ending for you.

Based on Bob's precedent, we are aware that sysops can vote not misconduct on their own cases. DDR and Ross both vote not misconduct. Mis shows up and votes not misconduct. Boxy stops in inside 24 hours and votes not misconduct based on the fact that sysops are under no obligation to follow precedent and presents three cases as evidence along with quoting the 'cover everything' line from the Sysop Guidelines. That's a definitive 4-0 not misconduct. That's the final score.

The only change to this could be The General showing up to vote not misconduct in the vain hope of hanging on to his status before we all kick him out on his arse soon in a re-evaluation.

It's a simple matter of maths, 9 sysops, of which two never (or claimed to never) want anything to do with drama pages. 7 possible votes, 4 of which vote not misconduct as I've predicted. End of misconduct cases.

Sonny goes to Kevan's talk page and whines. Kevan ignores the matter.

Fin. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this is turning into a massive clusterfuck, let me do Boxy's bit for him:

"System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it."

This wiki has no governing policy in place regarding racism and what is and what isn't racism. This has been escalated due to possible breaches of of TOU due to UK legislation (the most common one being spouted in the media at the moment is incitement of racial hatred). Given that there is no policy regarding racism in place on this wiki, nor any policy regarding interpretation of the TOU, sysops are empowered under policy to make decisions on a case by case basis based on their own judgement. The sysops ruling not vandalism/misconduct in these case were using their judgement, as they are required to. End of all cases. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Sonny has realized this is a lose/lose situation. If he manages to get them to go back and rule vandalism on Misanthropy then its pretty obvious they will turn around and vote vandalism on him for his homophobic references. He loses. If nothing happens with this, he loses. Even if Kevan does come down and say Misanthropy's comment was distasteful then he will turn around and comment on Sonny's being the same if not worse. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not misconduct - I look forward to my own inevitable case for ruling as such on these cases. 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So let me see. A user uses the "n" word and its ruled vandalism. In response a wiki user responds that he's a dirty mexican.

The thing I don't understand here is where exactly the racial slur is in Mis' comment. Woots apparently from Central America and has a filthy mouth. Explain to me how this is a comment designed to slur all Mexicans and you might have a case. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Check Woot's IP, its out of Costa Rica. Which for you Geography Majors, its in Central America. Google "Dirty Mexican" its a slur against Mexicans, and in this case its insulting all Hispanics. Calling a Korean a "Nip" or "Gook" is offensive despite it being more aimed at Chinese. "Dirt Mexican" is not unlike the previous "nigger" that Woot said. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant be bothered to check Ip's I'll take you're word for that. But I did google the mexican thing. Then I did the same, but with dirty french, canadian, indian, french, british, italian and a couple of others. And it appears that they're all insults. Thats interesting, because they all seem to be insulting, but about different people. If I called Woot a mexican, would that be racism? If I called him dirty, because of his potty mouth, would that be racism? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well Woot isn't Mexican so calling him Mexican because he lives in Central America, yes, that is insulting. Calling a black person a slave is insulting even if their relatives came from East Africa and not West. On the dirty because of his language subject, if he had said this then it would be different. Then again if he said anything different it would have a different meaning. That's why different words exist. If he didn't mean that he could have quickly edited it. He didn't. He fully meant to insult Woot because he lives in Costa Rica. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha. 03:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find racism to be funny. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just looking forward to that moment when you stretch your shitty logic so thin it snaps. 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you can ignore how bad racism is just to be spiteful towards me. You must be proud of yourself. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your point is that calling woot a dirty mexican is racist because he's from latin america and therefore calling him mexican is racist. It'd logically follow, then, that calling, say, Ross, a European, a dirty scot, would be just as racist. Except OF COURSE IT FUCKING ISN'T hur dur. Find somewhere else to be stupid, I have cartoons to watch. 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So by that logic when Rakuen called you a "nigger" it wasn't offensive because you're not black. Glad to know. Want me to make another miscontribute case against you for unlawfully banning him or do you want to? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a term that exists only to be a racial slur. Mexican is a harmless word denoting people from Mexico. It's as racist as calling a Scouser a Brummie. Try again? 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You called him a "Dirty Mexican". Different meaning. Try again? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n}

A Mexican, who is repeatedly getting banned for profanity. Been explained already, lad. 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said though. And its already been said, lad. He's not Mexican, he's Costa Rican. Playing ignorant on his nationality now is offensive. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the initial comment, I doubt anyone on the team here either knew or gave a shit where he was actually from, so it's not a case of playing anything. And I do believe what I said was, in fact, what I said. I can lend you some books on child language acquisition if you're still struggling to understand simple english. 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have proof stating the contrary. You are an active member of the #redrum IRC channel, so is Woot, under the nickname Rakuen. He has stated several times that he lives in Costa Rica, of which you acknowledged on IRC and even on the Brainstock forum. Have you forgotten our discussion on the Admins there not allowing Hispanic mods or admins? I do believe we have. Stop playing ignorant, its unbecoming. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. This Misconduct case is about ME. Get back on topic. You people can sort this out on your own misconduct case. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - All sysops are free to have their own opinions on cases. If you feel it was biased, ask for a second opinion. -- Cheese 22:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A second opinion is now almost completely pointless. Cheese's NM stands as there's no way you can infer involvement as with Mis' NM. Therefore the current score stands at 1-0 NM. You require a minimum of 2 misconduct rulings and no further no misconduct rulings to win this case. Given that there are nine sysops other than Kevan's accounts, you've seemingly disqualified three, although I can deliver precedent allowing them to vote, and Cheese has already voted meaning you have to get your two misconducts from the pool of:

• Boxy - Not going to happen, if he does show up to rule it'll be a carbon copy of either my long post or an 'As Cheese'
• The Rooster - Never rules on these. Ever.
• Red Hawk One - Said he'd never rule on these, but lies a lot so might, but he'll still vote NM
• Suicidal Angel - Struck his original misconduct ruling and then has refrained from further rulings
• The General - Your best chance for a misconduct ruling as a final act of spite before he's slung out on his ass at his upcoming re-evaluation

Even if The General does actual show and act like a petulant child, it's still a tied vote and you need a majority to convict. This'll run for one more week and then be closed as not misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm allowed to have a second opinion so I'll seek a second opinion. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair. You might need to message the other sops directly on their talk pages. tried with Boxy, but as yet no response. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wake up, moron, this entire case is your second opinion. You bring the whole thing to try an get the case reversed in A/VB and it doesn't work. So what, it's a third opinion you want now? Confirmation on the confirmation? I used to think Iscariot was the master of dragging dead cases out... --

 

 

 

 

22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You mad? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ, are you two having brain tumours for breakfast? He's entitled to ask for a second opinion. He's not entitled to get a second opinion. These cases have valid rulings on them for not misconduct. After a week of no substantial contribution you just declare them closed as not misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. That's what I was disagreeing with in the first place :/ --

 

 

 

 

22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - although I don't entirely agree with the a/vb ruling -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:22 20 March 2010 (BST)

Case closed/archived as Not Misconduct. --

 

 

 

 

10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)