User:Aichon/Other/Iscariot's Vandal Data

I know this may very well come back to bite me, but after it came up yet again in conversations around the wiki, I figured I'd finally take a crack at determining the truth of Iscariot's vandal data, and, honestly, I think I have an airtight case for what it should be. To be honest, looking back through all of the past arguments that I was digging through, I realized that most of them were wrong, since they were all working on a broken foundation of incorrect facts and mistaken edits. Rather than starting where the arguments are now, I decided to go back to the very beginning and build it from scratch, that way there's no room for dissent.

Since Iscariot has always been on everyone's case about not providing evidence for the changes they make to his data, I thought I would try to provide as much documentation as possible, enabling anyone to go back and follow the logic of it all. Hopefully, this will also resolve things once and for all, since it does prove that Iscariot has not been lying about his data being inaccurate all these months, while also ensuring that we have a chain of documentation against which we can base any future claims.

Summary in Advance

Here's a list of every escalation Iscariot has had that has been documented in Vandal Banning. I'd encourage you to refresh your memory be glancing at each, though don't worry too much about it all, since i'll summarize the important points below. I'll assign each of them numbers so that they're easier to reference later. The dates provided are the dates that the rulings went into effect, which would also be the dates from which any de-escalations would be determined.

#1 - 28 October 2008, resulted in a warning

#2 - 7 January 2009, resulted in a warning

#3 - 11 January 2009, resulted in a warning

#4 - 30 January 2009, resulted in a 24 hour ban

#5 - 11 March 2009, resulted in a 29 hour and 32 minute ban

#6 - 8 June 2009, resulted in a 7 day, 1 hour, and 29 minute ban

#7 - 29 November 2009, resulted in a 1 day ban

Numbers 1-4 seem pretty straightforward and were all handled properly for the most part. Things start to get hairy for 5-7 however, due to the fact that all three of them were improperly escalated. The trouble begins with #5. At the time, de-escalations should have meant that he only had one warning on his record, meaning that #5 would be another warning. Instead, it was escalated as a 48 hour ban, of which he served 29 hours and 32 minutes until the mistake was discovered and reversed. It seems that it wasn't properly documented though (speculation, mind you), which was a contributing factor to #6 occurring.

When we get to #6, it just makes matters worse with a case that appears to be a mockery of common sense and justice (I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know what everyone was thinking, but looking back on it as an outsider, it looks downright insane), which resulted in a week long ban being applied for reasons that are inscrutable to me. Since he should have been de-escalated once again after #5, #6 should have also been a warning, but was instead a week-long ban (plus a little more, explained later).

And then we get to #7, which, again, causes issues. He should have been de-escalated yet again, resulting in only receiving another warning, but was instead given a week ban. Thankfully, depending on how you look at it, he only was required to serve 24 hours on the ban since previous "ban credit" was applied towards the other six days of the improperly administered ban.

The end result? Iscariot should have two warnings and no bans active on his record RIGHT NOW, as well as 9 days and 7 hours of banked ban time for bans he should have never served.

For most of you reading this, I'd suggest skipping the next section and going straight to the proper sequence of events, since that's the important part of this page. The section immediately after this one is all about documenting what did happen so that we can accurately annotate his vandal data, but annotations get applied to the facts, and the facts are handled in the proper sequence of events section.

Actual Sequence of Events

Now, as we all know, mistakes were made. What I'll attempt to do here is give a thorough breakdown of everything that happened, as it happened, in order, by recreating his vandal data and explaining each step along the way. In the end though, aside from notation of the mistakes that occurred, this section should not have a material impact on Iscariot's actual vandal data, since what matters is what should have happened, rather than what did happen. I'll try to link the relevant diffs as I can find them.

Following #1

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)

He was issued a warning for #1. Straightforward. Nothing fancy.

Before #2

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)

On 3 December 2008, Nubis de-escalated Iscariot before #2 occurred. While over one month had passed, Iscariot had not yet reached 250 edits, as can clearly be seen by looking at his user contributions from starting on 28 October 2008. In fact, he didn't hit the required number of edits until 10 December 2008. Regardless, before #2 occurred, he had reached the required number of edits anyway, so this mistake, while stupid, had no material impact on the data in the end.

Following #2

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nubis filed a second warning. Again, standard stuff. Nothing funny to see.

Following #3

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)

Krazy Monkey filed another warning. Same deal. Nothing funny here.

Following #4

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nubis filed a ban. No monkey business that impacted things has occurred just yet.

Following #5

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nubis incorrectly files a one week ban, which is later "corrected" by Linkthewindow to a 24 hour ban following Nubis' Misconduct case. Iscariot served 29 hours and 32 minutes of the ban according to the block log. I'll get into what should have happened later on.

Following #6

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• 2448hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Nubis "corrects" Linkthewindow's previous edit by changing the prior ban to a 48 hour and applying a week ban. Again, no de-escalations were applied as they should have been. Based on the block log, Iscariot served 1 hour and 29 minutes of the ban before DDR unblocked him because the case was ongoing, followed by another 7 days once the case was concluded. I've seen comments from Iscariot this far back complaining about his vandal data, and from what I can see, he has good reason for doing so.

Before #7, Part 1

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)
• 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)

On 27 September 2009, Boxy made an attempt at fixing Iscariot's vandal data. The result is reproduced above. He did correct the 48 hour ban which should have been a warning, but no note was made regarding the second incorrectly applied one week ban. Essentially, the data is still mistaken.

Before #7, Part 2

• 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)

On 28 October 2009, Boxy applied a de-escalation to Iscariot's vandal data. The wrong warning was de-escalated, but this doesn't have a material impact on things, since it had been more than a month since either of the warnings. No corrections were made to the incorrect week ban, however.

Following #7, Part 1

• 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) descalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Week Ban- 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC). Note: 6 days of this ban was stripped from bantime to make up for the last improper week ban.

DDR de-escalated the previous week ban (which shouldn't have been there anyway) and applied a fresh one week ban to Iscariot, but knocked off six days because of banked ban time that Iscariot had. The ban was improperly administered, however, since Iscariot only had one warning at the time. This prompted a re-ordering of the vandal data shortly thereafter (seen later) in order to make things more readable for sysops. Iscariot served the full day of the ban, according to the block log.

Following #7, Part 2

• 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)
• Warned - 01:09, 29 November 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 de-escalation was applied.
• 1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) descalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Week Ban- 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC). Note: 6 days of this ban was stripped from bantime to make up for the last improper week ban. Was improperly administered; amending to a second warning instead.

Cyberbob corrected DDR's mistake and tidied the data up a bit, but otherwise left several existing mistakes untouched.

Following #7, Part 3

• 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)
• 48hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to a warning, as it should have been after de-escalation was applied.
• 1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) descalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Week Ban- 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC). Note: 6 days of this ban was stripped from bantime to make up for the last improper week ban. Was improperly administered; amending to a second warning instead.
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Boxy simply re-ordered the data in order to make it more readable on 1 December 2009. This is how Iscariot's data looks today.

Proper Sequence of Events

Now, in order to illustrate what I believe should have been the correct sequence of events that took place, I'll recreate what his vandal data should have been at each step along the way, had every single escalation been handled properly and without mistake. I'll then provide a brief explanation of the changes that occurred at each step. As a side note, I've also provided dates on some de-escalations that didn't have them in his actual vandal data, in order to make things clearer on when they should have occurred.

Following #1

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)

This is just his initial escalation, so nothing to see here.

Following #2

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, over one month had passed since #1. And to save you the trouble of counting his edits to be sure he was eligible, here are Iscariot's first 250 edits immediately after #1 was issued. He hit his 250th edit on 10 December 2008, which was before #2, meaning that he was due for de-escalation. His first warning should have been struck at the time that #2 was administered (as opposed to when Nubis did it a month earlier).

Following #3

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)

Nothing fancy here. Just a simple second warning. No de-escalation should have occurred since it had only been two days since his last escalation.

Following #4

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, nothing fancy. It had been less than a month since his previous escalation, so he did not qualify for any de-escalations.

Following #5

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is what it should look like, not what it does look like. Had #5 been properly administered, we can see that it's been over a month since #4, he had his 250 edits, and so his January 11th warning would have been struck as per de-escalation policy.

Following #6

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, had it been properly administered, his previous warning in March would have been struck and a new one would have taken its place, since it had been over a month and he had his 250 edits.

Before #7

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)
• Warned - 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) de-escalated 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On 28 October 2009, Boxy de-escalated Iscariot. Nothing especially funny about this, aside from the fact that I can't find a request anywhere for it (for folks from the future, A/DE didn't exist at the time, so de-escalation requests were made on talk pages of sysops). Boxy may have merely taken the initiative to do so however, which he is in his rights to do, and Iscariot had his 250 edits already, as well as it having already been more than a month.

Following #7

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT) de-escalated 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)
• Warned - 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) de-escalated 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that it had been over a month and Iscariot had the required number of edits, he should have been de-escalated as per policy, thus removing his 24 hour ban from back in January 2009, and then given a second warning.

Proposed Vandal Data

Now, clearly, we can't fix the past, but we can try our best to set things right. Merely changing his data to reflect the ideal would not be the proper course of action at this time, given that mistakes require documentation when they have changed things. That said, since mistakes have a way of compounding on each other, many de-escalations were mis-applied, so I suggest that we simply apply them where they should have gone without any notation, reason being that it'd be ludicrous to document everything there, rather than simply correcting it. The goal should be that we best preserve the chronology of escalations and the material mistakes. So, I propose the following:

• Warned - 22:40, 28 October 2008 (GMT)
• Warned - 14:44, 11 January 2009 (GMT) de-escalated 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 24hr Ban - 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• 48hr Ban - 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Improperly applied, changed to a warning.
• Warned - 03:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC) de-escalated 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST)
• 1 Week Ban - 13:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) Improperly applied, changed to a warning.
• Warned - 03:43, 3 June 2009 (BST) de-escalated 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Week Ban - 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Improperly applied, changed to a warning.

• Warned - 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Warned - 01:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT: Ban time "owed" was removed for reasons cited on talk page.)

Doing it in this way preserves a record of the improperly applied bans that he served, while also making it clear where things stand in terms of de-escalations. I'd also suggest we add addenda to the relevant A/VB archives with a link to this article (or wherever it is that this information eventually gets posted), so that future generations of sysops can track down the data if necessary. I really don't see how there can be any objections to the data I've given, but, as with everything, people are welcome to their opinions, and I'd like to hear some others' thoughts on all of this (aside from the "Aichon, you idiot, you're stirring the pot," type of stuff). This talk page is open. Let's hear it.