User talk:Aichon/Other/Iscariot's Vandal Data

Okay, so I know I'm stirring the pot, but am I wrong? If so, I would genuinely like to know, otherwise I soon intend to change Iscariot's VD to match what I proposed. It actually took far longer to document than to research, so I'm surprised this hasn't been handled previously. —Aichon— 00:37, 21 April 2010 (BST)

That was fresh dawg.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:45, 21 April 2010 (BST)

Two things:

• Did Iscariot ask for his de-escalations at the time? I can't recall whether the onus for that has passed to the sysops but at the time it was 100% on users to keep track of their edits and ask for their de-escalations when they came due.
• Frankly I'm having trouble caring about this; Iscariot has had more than enough opportunity to come up with something like this but instead he chose to wage an incredibly vague war of words with all and sundry. Give him his de-escalations but don't give him the "owed" time. It's a stupid practice in every case except where outright maliciousness on the part of the sysop can be proven (which it certainly cannot here). Cyberbob  Talk  06:00, 21 April 2010 (BST)

In response to the first question, from what I can see, no, he did not, at least with the one that Boxy applied on 28 October 2009 (as for the others it's always been standard practice to de-escalate before changing vandal data, which came up repeatedly in some of the misconduct cases I read through). Boxy would be the one who would know better, but I checked the history of his talk page and found no de-escalation request, nor did I find one on Iscariot's own talk page in his history, though it's possible I missed it. That said, even though it was up to the users, I was under the belief that sysops were permitted to apply de-escalations if they so desired, though it rarely happened. It's also possible Boxy merely did it as another step in trying to correct Iscariot's vandal data. If so, I'm not sure what to make of it, but I'd prefer to let it stand, rather than retracting it retroactively.

As for the second point, I hear you. By no means does something like this research exonerate Iscariot of his responsibility to act reasonably in providing any information he had, rather than playing games with the sysops. Whether he actually knew everything I've shown here or not, I don't know, but whatever he did have, he should have shared before now. Honestly, I'm more doing this so that the argument can finally be done and so that we won't have this thing cropping up every few months whenever policies, A/VD, or some semi-related topic comes up. I'm sick of hearing about it and wanted it done once and for all. Of course, Nubis was pretty darn incompetent, if not malicious, especially with the uncalled for permaban vote and whatnot. —Aichon— 06:18, 21 April 2010 (BST)

• No, you're right bob, if any user assumes that Iscariot should have received obligatory de-escalations before being escalated, they don't understand the context which Iscariot held his A/VD. Iscariot was always vehemently against having ops de-escalate him unless he requested it. Period. I even remember at the very end of 08/early09 that he took a longer ban rather than have himself de-escalated without his permission, or something retarded like that. No idea why, can't remember. As such, any escalations that occurred to Iscariot shouldn't have obligatory de-escalations applieed unless Iscariot had asked for them himself.
• Again, agree with Bob, but only 50/50. Similar to the way my bias in this whole affair will be put into question, I do so onto Nubis. It's been a known fact for 8 months now that Nubis banned Izzy for a week when it should have been a day. I would be willing to vote for malicious action since Nubis and Izzy got on like The Colonel and Ronald McDonald. Furthermore, we don't "give ban time credit" back, rather, we ban Nubis for 6 days as part of a misconduct case. It doesn't matter if he's demoted, that is what should happen. Precedences for this go back as far as A/M allows, as well as a very recent one izzy helped establish himself on meeee, ironically bestowed while I was trying to give him ban credit (and as such failed through clumsiness more than anything else). Those responsible for a wrong ban get banned accordingly, having been part of Iscariot's crap related to this from the start, I'm inclined to think he doesn't deserve any "ban time" as credit, even if it were the right thing to do. --
   
   
   
   
  08:49, 21 April 2010 (BST)

In relation to what you said Aich, Iscariot's known this for as long as it's been the case and he hasn't made any effort to actually have it changed, rather than pester and use it as some sort of 'secret mechanism' for pestering sysops among some other things... Umm, just for the record it was SA that called for the permaban not Nubis, though I consider Nubis to have done something malicious at the time given the context, will explain it to you on IRC anotehr time if you'd like. I think that's all I have to say just now, in the end I really don't care what happens to this, chances are iscariot will be just as pissed off to have this amended cause it means he can't whinge about it anymore, and knowing him he'll still say it hasn't been done right and continue to whinge anyway. But to the point, meh, I don't really care, it's just he shouldn't have ban time credit. Similarly, I'm hoping that 9 hours of ban time credit you've proposed doesn't include the day that I banned him for, because I've already paid my due punishment for that and it's been rendered null, like all similar precedences before it. Ban Nubis for 6 days, which is what should have happened when it was done. Iscariot waited so long that nubis was demoted and the 6 days won't mean dick to him? Izzy's problem, not ours. --

 

 

 

 

09:00, 21 April 2010 (BST)

That's some good logic there. Yeh the banked unban time is a little silly. That would only encourage any user to go ahead and vandalize the wiki knowing they had carte blanche in doing so. My two cents.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:01, 21 April 2010 (BST)

And now I think about it, the "intent" thing is void in cases like this, since I fucked up by accident, it was accepted by the sysops in their ruling that they believed I'd done it by accident, and I got banned (and my fuckup wasn't nearly as bad as Nubis' anyway), so intent shouldn't come into this when it comes to deciding whether Nubis should be banned. I guess it just makes sense. --

 

 

 

 

13:49, 21 April 2010 (BST)

For what you've done, DDR, I demand you are demoted from sysop.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:50, 21 April 2010 (BST)

This post would be retarded if DDR hadn't already demoted himself ages ago. As things stand it's just hilarious. Cyberbob  Talk  18:12, 21 April 2010 (BST)

;P--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:47, 21 April 2010 (BST)

See now i'm demoted I don't have to try. Funny thing, looks like nothings changed for you, from your behaviour. --

 

 

 

 

03:14, 22 April 2010 (BST)

I'd get rid of the banked ban time but aside from that looks reasonably sound. Also, it has the bonus of potentially shutting up Iscariot for about 5 minutes or so. -- Cheese 18:23, 21 April 2010 (BST)

How do-able would it be to 'exchange' the banked up ban time for an early de-escalation on the current warnings? 14:29, 22 April 2010 (BST)

I don't think there's any precedent for doing it. De-escalations happen only one reason (enough edits/time), and the others are right about not allowing banked ban time, since the proper course of action is banning the sysop who would be Misconducted for that amount of time. The whole point of this page was to set things right once and for all, and those Misconduct cases, coupled with fixing his data, would do the job, all of which is already precedented and within the scope of what we're allowed to do. I'd prefer not to create new precedents with this whole thing if possible, since that just complicates things in the future. —Aichon— 23:41, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Statement of Intent

Having read through what was said about the appropriate way to handle the ban time, I do have to agree: banked ban time is not the appropriate response, and what should be done instead is to apply the ban time to the person responsible for incorrectly applying the ban, so long as they can be held reasonably responsible. I.e. As said elsewhere, sysops shouldn't be misconducted for applying bans legitimately based on faulty vandal data (e.g. if Iscariot had 2 warnings and a 24 hour ban still on record, but the ban should have been struck previously...in such a case, a sysop applying a 48 hour ban should not be misconducted, since the error was not his), but they should be misconducted for applying bans illegitimately on any sort of vandal data, faulty or not (e.g. same situation, but instead of applying a 48 hour ban, they apply a week ban, which is not the correct response in any situation).

Anyway, as I said on the page, I do intend to modify his vandal data according to what I said. I'll remove the part about banked time for the reasons stated, but does everything else check out? Anyway, as far as Misconduct cases go, the point of my actions here was not to lay blame on anyone for anything, nor was it to seek out that sort of result. If someone else makes the relevant Misconduct cases, I'll base my decisions on the evidence I've cited here, but I'm not going to make the cases myself, since I fail to see how or why the onus is on me, and I think they would do more harm than good at this point. —Aichon— 04:34, 22 April 2010 (BST)

The onus is on you because you're making the effort to amend his vandal data and until that undue banning time is paid for it won't be right at all. If you still dont intend on doing it, at leased put the data ahead (of who should be misconducted and why, assuming nubis isn't the only one who did it incorrectly) so someone else can. Normally I'd be happy to, but I'm phasing away so surely someone else could give the nubis-vendetta a go. --

 

 

 

 

04:51, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Well, I'm sure there are plenty of people who could be brought up for stuff that occurred (e.g. Link, Nubis, Boxy, you, and potentially others all made mistakes that were avoidable, even with the flawed data in place), but the only one I see that really needs to be brought up is Nubis, and that's assuming he/she/whatever hasn't been dealt with already in previous Misconduct rulings (I don't feel up to reading through them at the moment, though I'll do it at some point in the very near future). Since you and Nubis were the only ones that applied blocks on Iscariot, you're the only two that would even potentially need to be brought up on Misconduct for the ban time that was incorrectly applied, but you were already handled with the Misconduct case, which just leaves Nubis. I'm not gonna argue about the onus thing since it's not worth arguing right now to me. That said, I don't quite follow the wording of what you meant from the parenthetical statement onwards. Clarification? —Aichon— 07:46, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Meh, just that you made it your job to see this through until Iscariot's VD was fair and it won't be until those who deliberately (or otherwise) gave him incorrect bans be punished to balance the 'crime' out... Until someone does that it won't be at its most fair. I don't really care anymore anyway, izzy's left (seriously though lol @ the "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PROPER VANDAL RECORD, AS A CITIZEN OF THE WIKI WORLD") so meh. Honestly, just leave it fucked up now, it's a whole lot of drama for a null purpose now, and unless you do fix it mercilessly and ban nubis for 6 days it won't be right IMO so I don't really know.. --

 

 

 

 

00:27, 23 April 2010 (BST)