UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009

• Main
  • 2007 Archive
  • 2008 Archive
  • 2009 Archive

Example case

Some people pointed out that the example isn't a good example. It was suggested that we change it to a formatting example of what a case should look like. Agreement? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, it needs to be more specific. Maybe we should have multiple examples for different types of misconduct?--SirArgo ^Talk 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We really only need one, misconduct is loose. Eh, I might add that I'm finding the example I'm making to be too simple that it's pointless. Anyways....

===[[User:Sysop]]===
[case]

[discussion]

[ruling]

Lawl... remove the example entirely, or do you have a better idea?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really wrong with the example so much as its suggested outcome. There is a long history of not punishing sysops for such trivial issues if they can reasonably claim good faith, that's a good idea in most cases but it does make the example look stupid.--Honestmistake 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said here, either remove it completely or cut it down to just an example of the initial misconduct report (like what is already a part of the example):

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

--Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to the example calling it "Bad Page". If it is an attack page or otherwise "bad" page it may fall under a scheduled deletion. By putting something that is scheduled or vandalism in the example it gives a false impression of what should be reported. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was just copy&paste of what's already on the page to illustrate what I meant with “report”. Calling it Page is just fine with me. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should show the 2 usual possible votes, mis and no mis.--xoxo 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Revival

This does really need a change, mostly because since the introduction of the Crit 7 by Proxy Scheduled Deletion, the example Bad Page in all likeliness (admittedly one which is bound to the imagination, but really) is actually a Scheduled Deletion already. We should try and redo this example so this is no longer a problem. Maybe Bad Image, instead of Bad Page? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:55, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Just as a note (sorry for waiting a few weeks to put this here) I've changed the example, just with an added comment explaining that the Bad Page that was deleted was not a Crit 7 by Proxy (therefore avoiding the idea that it may be a scheduled deletion, etc.). --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 17 July 2009 (BST)

The current cases

Right, back am I, with the following observations.

• Failing to check deescalations before enacting an escalation is not misconduct, never has never will be.
• Escalating a user above the normal process is misconduct, however we seem to be quick to accept Nubis' claims of "i r stoopid and fuurgot, sorreh", especially given that motive based on past action was the reason that J3D was demoted. Looking at the same principles when applied to this case, it could be drawn that Nubis uses the 'mistaken' excuse and takes a two day ban as a way to avoid further scrutiny by the community and potentially lose his status as sysop. Given his comments on various promotions bids it is clear he sees the status as some sort of qualification as a 'more worthy' user of the community. This is further compounded by the fact his major argument point is my previous comments regarding deescalation rather than any attempt to explain his actions rationally.
• My current 'record' is something I'll look into in the future. However as a discourse has erupted I will note the following:
  • Those boxes on A/VB mean precisely dick. They were created, placed and returned to their position more than once by an unfit former sysop. They were never approved by community vote as with policy and are a way to stealth rule the wiki and circumvent the established process. They carry about as much weight as me putting one on my talk page stating that anyone who edits it must wear a pink tutu and provide photographic proof or they'll get a perma and their goldfish will be drowned.
  • On the subject of me claiming control of my vandal record, as Hagnat conveniently omits, the precedent was made in that case that users do not have control over their records as both (if memory serves) Hagnat and Boxy refused to unstrike the warning and even though found guilty of misconduct Nubis certainly didn't unstrike it. Users therefore have no say over their records as precedent has shown, Nubis using this as his only defence is frankly laughable. For purposes of proving how this is not so, I hereby pronounce that myself and all other users gain complete amnesty from the tragically biased rulings this wiki has suffered from and are to immediately have their records wiped clean. All non adbot perma bans from since records began are hereby rescinded and free balloons should be sent to all those affected and charge to Kevan. Let's see whether they stick to their notion that what I pronounce should be so....
  • The important notion that this brings up is that of the deescalations process. This should be made a weekly sysop task to be performed in the same way as checking the deletions/move queues or moving the archives at the beginning of the month. Putting the onus on individual users is stupid, considering sysops are hiding behind it in this case to push through an unwarranted ban and the process is newbie and meta (the majority of which don't understand the deescalations process, hell some sysops don't) unfriendly. If memory serves, J3D had to approach 3 sysops to gain a deescalation, one of which bluntly responded that he "didn't do deescalations", that's right, sysops get to pick and choose what the fuck they do round here when users approach them with a reasonable request. If this isn't made a compulsory task then I'm personally going to fall back on the excuse that if I request it on a current sysop or crat's page then it counts as me having made the effort. And I'll be putting all my requests on Kevan's talk page.
• I believe Nubis to be guilty of misconduct by negligence for something else, however since as he seems happy to switch between the 'dumb' and 'good faith' excuses, I will pursue this matter after he returns in order to ensure he has no way of pretending to be either dumb or doing it intentionally.
• On the length of the appropriate ban, I'd like it noted that this is the first time I've become aware of this, having logged off of the wiki after my ban was made. The time served by me is until approximately half an hour before this edit, wonder if Nubis will also serve this time? I'll not that more than one sysop has been in various channels of IRC that I'm in for various reasons. Not one thought it reasonable to inform me that my block had been cut short. Misconduct? Certainly not, but extremely poor form from a user group described as trusted.
• As for Conndraka, is making mistakes misconduct? No. Is allowing bias to cloud your judgement and not even bothering to concern yourself of the facts misconduct? Fuck yeah it is. Conndraka did not comment on the case. He ruled on it, making a judgement affecting the community before even looking at the facts. This is no different to him ruling vandalism on a case where the only links provided are constructive edits. J3D was demoted for assisting vandalism even though intent was never adequately proven. Conndraka's vote supported an act of gross misconduct and as I've said before seems to think that the 'i made a mistak :(' excuse is catch all for getting out of these matters. J3D was demoted for doing nothing whilst this wiki was damaged, Conndraka out and out supported it. Let's see if the same rules will apply to this member of a zerging group.
• Finally I'd draw the community's attention to general sysop competence. It has been universally recognised that whatever escalation may be going on my record is not a week ban. I count five sysops that have commented on the Nubis case (Nubis himself, Conndraka, Cheese, Karek and The General). You'll notice that not a single fucking one of them have bothered to go to Vandal Data and even attempt to correct the error.

For now, this is all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You've gotten bitter during that ban peri- oh... I did thoroughly enjoy reading that however. Can't say I agree with everything you've said, but you still have some interesting views on some of the aspects of these cases. I was waiting for someone to spout some precedence over the Nubis case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Made your bed, now lie in it. We will update what needs updating when we feel it is appropriate to update it regardless of how much you whine about precedent intentionally falsely claim. At least we had a quite few days without anyone harassing a newbie, a shame to see it gone so soon. --Karek^maps?! 16:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm i'm looking forward to you overbanning iscariot, that comment will provide sufficient proof that it was entirely intentional.--xoxo 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because I do believe it's a better place without him now means that I'll abuse the wiki, because I totally do that or could with the whole demotion thing. --Karek^maps?! 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

lol >< --xoxo 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just fixed his escalation to a 24 hour ban. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Quiet...

Ahhhhh....

Anyone else notice how peaceful the wiki seems to be with a certain someone, elsewhere? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:55, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Indeed. The whole place is filled with a gentle calming breeze.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:08, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Who, Grim Iscariot? --Cyberbob 22:38, 1 July 2009 (BST)

booooooring... can someone rock this ship a little ? -People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:00, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Keep talking like that and people will think you were a bad sysop on purpose...--– Nubis ^NWO 03:30, 2 July 2009 (BST)

They don't already? --Cyberbob 03:37, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Bar your sporadic work on your families project, you haven't been around much either. Drama's easily solved when an average of 3 sysops rule on every case. But I do agree, the place is a lot less stressful when he doesn't inhibit everything with his whining. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (BST)

I Try to vote on good suggestions and promotion bids. My opinions are in the minority on a lot of issues so I don't bother pushing them in favor of maintaining a more peaceful atmosphere. My views on conflict resolution in arbies is both frightening a legendary to some folks so no one bothers asking me to arbitrate (planned? hmmm could be ;) )and IF I happen to be on and not teaching or taking Graduate classes I try to hit the vandals with my disco-stick but there are considerably more active sysops who tend to get it before I do. And in that vein I've been accused of bias so many times one way or another its best to sit like an archivist in the corner gathering dust than to stir shit unnecessarily. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:13, 2 July 2009 (BST)

I was going to arrive with the revelation that without users like Iscariot, users like you just become a ghost in this place (hence the true reason for the quietness), but it seems you already have said it yourself. And as for the IRL shit you always find time to mention unnecessarily, can the shit, we don't give a fuck about your time issues IRL because sysops are expected to have a certain amount of their time dedicated to their duty on the wiki. Can't find the time? Always find yourself not bothering, when you do have the time? A/DM. Stop wearing your IRL issues like a badge of honour whenever someone pulls you up for being inconsistent or inactive. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:27, 2 July 2009 (BST)

I love how you are resorting to the Issy playbook of throwing out A/DM there. I also see how you aren't launching bitter attacks against sysops that never fucking do anything at all (Swiers anyone?) --– Nubis ^NWO 18:21, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Izzy isn't the only cat to do it. One specific example is that I remember Boxy using it on Conn during the Coup, and thats the one that comes to mind given 2 seconds of thinking. You know as well as I that whingeing about Swiers and Daranz is a lost cause because it will fall upon deaf ears. And at leased their one contribution every 2 months isn't a 'ho ho ho, let's waltz in here and make an idiotic and uninformed comment about the absence of another user'. I would like to separately ask though, what would your opinion be on Daranz and Swiers being demoted through misconduct for deliberately abusing guidelines to stay in a position which they are no longer fit to hold? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:50, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Swiers will be gone soon me thinks, with urbandead.info down it's likely he's not going to bother making the sysop edit reqs.--xoxo 22:20, 2 July 2009 (BST)

"...with urbandead.info down..." What? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:23, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Ah it's back up, good news indeed.--xoxo 00:58, 3 July 2009 (BST)

It's been down a fair bit lately :(. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:07, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Oh and nubis you used a/dm at me like 5 times, so hush hush you hypnocritter.--xoxo 22:21, 2 July 2009 (BST)

(this isn't about you, you bitter bitter child) --Cyberbob 22:29, 2 July 2009 (BST)

You were in the middle of a losing battle (if I did use it at all...) it would have been a way to save face instead of being demoted. Stepping up and saying, you know, maybe I'm not right for the position instead of becoming a bitter whining child would have earned you some respect.--– Nubis ^NWO 12:54, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Well Hell's Bell's! How did a fight start here? We were celebrating!--SirArgo ^Talk 18:52, 2 July 2009 (BST)

I can't say I miss Iscariot at all, I just don't agree with users like Conndraka being such a sore winner over it. If he had any sense he would be using the time to get stuff done on the wiki productively. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:57, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Ahh, yes, you are not allowed to be a sore winner so let's stop celebrating Wiki Independence Day (3 June 2009) right now! --– Nubis ^NWO 12:57, 3 July 2009 (BST)

I'll admit I'd be for it, but lets make sure he's gone for good first. Every likelihood he'll come back when he thinks up some new method to try and get one up on the sysops. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:03, 3 July 2009 (BST)

What happened to him? Didn't he get banned for two weeks and then not post again, or something?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:57, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but it was 1 week. --ϑϑℜ 13:58, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Odd. Maybe he finally got the message.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I would have said it's more that he doesn't want to face up to the "shame" of it. It's not uncommon for users who have been banned to either quit the wiki or go through a particularly quiet spell afterwards. --Cyberbob 15:51, 17 July 2009 (BST)

To be honest I didn't think he would face any shame whatsoever, he's had it before and come back in flying colours. If anything it would be the sysops for shitting on his pre-ban case so much that it looked forced. I think he's just gotten tired of fighting the war. --ϑϑℜ 15:55, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Temporarily, I might add. That's my call anyway. --ϑϑℜ 15:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)