UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Spiderzed/2011-05-04 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Spiderzed » 2011-05-04 Misconduct

4 May

Putting myself up for Misconduct, because I've made a massive mistake. In the latest bot combatting, I have accidentally blocked Chief Seagull, who had wiped a spambit page and was showing up in RC as editor of it. I have unblocked him ASAP, but have still performed Misconduct and need to be banned for the same time that he was. As for formal escalations, I'll leave the decision up to my fellow ops. -- Spiderzed█ 21:44, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Farcical Misconduct - Most mundane thing ever but by precedent, you must be banned for A WHOLE MINUTE. I hope you're happy with yourself, you most grievous offender. But seriously, I honestly don't care. A minute long ban is pointless. Don't do it again and I don't care.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:46, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct Action done in good-faith, quickly fixed his mistake. Come on Spidey, are you serious? Do you want us to ban you for 1 minute? Didn't Rev accuse of making petty cases a few hours ago? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:49, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Dude admitted it was misconduct and was trying to make it right. Just let him. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Misapplied bans are considered as a serious matter regardless of length, so I felt it was better to come forward myself and take it here, then to make it seem like I shoved it under the carpet and hope no one notices. -- Spiderzed█ 21:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Is good, I can only think of one other sysop to ever actually note their own misconduct and he was one of the original five. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It's a mistake that is as minor as it gets. Don't worry, I'm not dragging you out for it, but this isn't misconduct. Yeah, you shouldn't have done that but just because it's a sysops power doesn't mean good-faith gets thrown out the window. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually, it's textbook. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Lots of ambiguity there, not to mention a ban out of abuse and a ban out of mistake are completely different things. The entire idea behind serving the unjust ban time is sketchy. Makes you wonder what would have happened to Ross if Karek found this Deadman walking this out after a year. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:36, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually there's not. He'd serve a year and there would be no question. Check the archives, we always make them serve the ban so they ban cautiously. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:40, 4 May 2011 (BST)

To cut this branch of the discussion short, by precedent I consider the ban time as _non-negotiatable_ and expect to have to carry it out. The only debateable point is whether I get escalated or not. -- Spiderzed█ 22:47, 4 May 2011 (BST)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:06, 4 May 2011 (BST)

^. Misconduct != A/VB. Punishment here while occasionally documented on A/VD doesn't have any impact on your VD record unless otherwise ruled specifically to. Such a ruling has never happened iirc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:14, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Just off the top of my head, I remember Mis being escalated twice based on Misconduct and have always considered this as standard procedure (with other effects like bans as embellishments based on the Misconduct in question). -- Spiderzed█ 23:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

News to me. That's a new and stupid precedent set there, also one of the cases where it can be ignored as being called the ruled punishment. Either way A/VB is for bad faith edits, A/M is for precedural foul ups. Escalation requires intent. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:28, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Happened to me too, and Aichon's ban (from doing what happened in this case) is even recorded in his vandal data.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)

You should only be warned for misconduct if that is specifically the punishment decided upon. All bans for misconduct also go on VD, but are not necessarily counted as escalations. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

It's more the principle of the thing, Meister. Spiderzed should probably just go ahead and ban himself for a minute. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Sysops are explicitly no longer permitted to punish themselves for Misconduct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Oh dear, that is rather stupid. And I do now remember that policy, and I apparently voted for... *oops*--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct – Glad to see you doing this. If you're OK with it, I'll just ban you for the same length of time.
As for escalations… personally I think that sounds rather stupid. Sure, the ban should go on your record, but that should be it, IMO.
Edit: Fucking ninja! Thad, A/VB has a note regarding petty cases because it concerns actions that any user can perform. Sysop powers are more restricted, and any use of them needs to be held to higher standards. Spiderzed has shown that he understands this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:53, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Recent Changes said:

20:34, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) unblocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) ‎ (mistaken for spambot in the hurry D: ) 20:33, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) blocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Spambot)

Here are the relevant logs for archival purposes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks, Karek. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct - He made a mistake, he fixed it and he apologised. Ban him for a minute to even the books, job done. -- Cheese 10:31, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct as Cheese. Illegally banning someone? What a tard. --Rosslessness 10:37, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Coming from the North-east of Scotland, I can see how he automatically suspected the seagull. =p -- Cheese 10:40, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Misconduct but as minor as it gets. So keen not to bother but being consistant with the "eye for an eye" thing regarding bans is something we should try and keep up as much as possible (would've laughed if we made Conn do it for the grim bannage though) -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:29, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Five votes for Misconduct. As I obviously can't rule, and as Axe Hack can't connect right now, there are only 9 possible votes. So, yeah, decision for Misconduct can't be overturned no more. Someone finally ban me and wrap this up. -- Spiderzed█ 16:07, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Case is closed as Misconduct Spiderzed has been banned for a minute. As a real punishment spiderzed, I demand you update your own misconduct archive. --Rosslessness 20:16, 5 May 2011 (BST)