UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Vapor/2011

13 April 2011

Vapor (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Ruling on a case where he himself is a possible victim of vandalism. He shouldn't rule on cases where he has a vested interest. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:28, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Sure. Fair enough. ~ _{18:38, 13 April 2011}

Hey Vapor, don't rule on cases that directly affect/effect you. Go strike your vote now. Thanks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning - Slight over-reaction here, thad. A quick reminder would have done it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:41, 13 April 2011 (BST)

Soft Warning - Yes, something like this shouldn't be done. However, I assume good faith, blame ignorance and not malice. Don't make it a habit, Vapor. (And Thad, such a minor first time infraction would have been better resolved with an informal reminder on A/VB. A/M could still have been used if Vapor had refused to withdraw the ruling.) -- Spiderzed▋ 04:11, 14 April 2011 (BST)

I don't find it that minor. It's a pretty bad call, being involved and after bringing this up at A/D, then A/VB, he should have known he could not have made an impartial ruling. Sure, it's not the end of the world, Vapor is pleading no contest and I doubt he'd do it again but ruling out of self-interest, whether intentional or not, is poor. Not to mention people have been misconducted for less, see Aichon. I don't consider Vapor to be corrupt all of a sudden, he's a great 'op, but I'm still pushing for Misconduct because of the grave nature of the edit in question, in my opinion. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 08:01, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Errantly banning someone unilaterally (and not just once, but twice), which is what I did, is quite a bit more grave than suggesting that a guy be contacted and told that he shouldn't do what he did. I made a mistake, was told informally not to do it again, did it again, and got slapped with Misconduct. I deserved it. Here, Vapor's actions didn't and couldn't negatively impact anyone since he wasn't asking for escalation, and his suggested course of action was entirely dependent on the judgement of the other sysops, since it couldn't go forward without them. That's why this is a trivial matter and should have been handled informally. It's certainly far more trivial than what I did. So long as he acknowledges that he made a mistake, which he's done, all should be well with the wiki world. —Aichon— 18:07, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Acting in a manner to deliberately harm the wiki by misusing sysop powers/abilities is misconduct. Showing leniency on behalf of someone who has aggrieved you whilst encouraging other ops to do likewise is to be lauded, not punished. Vapor has clearly done no wrong here, having ruled counter to what would have been a misuse of his responsibilities. To assume bad-faith on behalf of what you're reporting is sheer ignorance. Now stop being a fucking cunt and wise up. 23:12, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Comment - A more civil reminder than the above that self ruling Soft Warning is the same as ruling Not Vandalism, we talked it out, sorry for wasting your time. It's not equivalent to Report/Warn. --Karek^maps?! 01:35, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Not misconduct - he ruled not vandalism (that's what a soft warning is, no escalation, just informing the user not to do something that could be vandalism if they continue) on a case where he was the potential "victim". If someone "mock vandalised" Vapour's user page with his permission, I would expect him to rule not vandalism, and for other sysops to have the common sense not to take him to misconduct for it. If he was ruling vandalism on someone he was arguing with, that's misconduct... not this -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:57 14 April 2011 (BST)

You're not seeing a conflict of interest here? After bringing this case himself, with the specific intent of forcing him to remove his "code" through A/VB, he ruled that his "code" should be removed. He ruled with a soft warning yes, but the point was not to escalate Max, but to delete or otherwise alter his user-page.

The comparison with "mock vandalism" is dumb btw. Vapor actually does mind Max's edits, you'd think it be obvious after he, you know, brought the case up. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:54, 14 April 2011 (BST)

To summarize, he brought up a case where he was involved, and then made a ruling which worked directly in his favor. That's (soft) Misconduct, period. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:25, 14 April 2011 (BST)

He may "mind" the fact that his persona is being assumed by someone else (all be it, unintentionally), but he is not in conflict with this user, as is evidenced by the polite message he left on their talk page. He just wants it dealt with. The "ruling" may be impolite... but that is only to his fellow sysops. He should have had confidence in the rest of the team, and left it to be dealth with by others... but that is more an etiquette issue, and is best dealth with via posts to the A/VB page, or his talk page. There is no intent to use his sysop privleges to gain advantage here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:33 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct EXACTLY as boxy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:30, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Boxy gets it in one. -- Cheese 12:37, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct – But next time, please read A/VB#Before Submitting a Report before submitting a report to A/VB. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:16, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Thanks everyone for the input. I have taken all of this to heart and will act more accordingly in the future when submitting vandalism case which directly affect me. I will accept whichever ruling is decided upon. ^~ Vapor _{~ 15:09, 15 April 2011}

Ruling on cases one brings isn't misconduct by precedent and I don't consider this to be personal enough to warrant a conflict of interest that he should have avoided etc. not misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:35, 15 April 2011 (BST)

With 5 not misconducts this case is closed as Not Misconduct. Thanks. Vapor consider your actions, Thad always go talk page first. Hugs! --Rosslessness 16:56, 15 April 2011 (BST)