UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Spiderzed/2011-07-09 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Spiderzed » 2011-07-09 Misconduct

9 July 2011

The Special Logs for today shows that Spiderzed has moved Cobra/Joining , Cobra/Guide , and Cobra/Diplomacy to Cobra (Group) sub-pages. Spiderzed even submitted them to UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests#Cobra_pages That's not what I'm here about though. As that's perfectly fine and acceptable. He's well within his rights to do so. However, redirecting the original pages to his pages is why I'm here. Under wiki protocol those sub-pages on Cobra need to either be blanked or deleted (and I'm pretty sure it's deleted and not blanked). As a Sysop Spiderzed should know this, but went ahead and did things his way regardless. I see this is a very cut and dry case of Misconduct. I would suggest that the sub-pages be handled as proper protocol dictates as well as whatever punishment protocol would dictate for Spiderzed's misconduct. -- Goribus 01:37, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Uhh, Gor, the wiki automatically puts those redirects in when it moves the pages. :P I'll delete them, which Spidey should really have done, but it's not really ever been misconduct to miss out a part of a move. Unless you can prove malicious intent, however, in which case, obviously it would be misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 02:23, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I've deleted the redirect stubs, and moved all non-contextual links to redirect to the Cobra (group) versions.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 02:32, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Actually, no, that is not the case. The wiki software does not automatically create redirects: there is a checkbox by which redirect creation may be selected or deselected. (See screenshot.) That in itself would normally not be so bad, and were it any other sysop I would not have an issue, but I find it hard to believe that Spiderzed did not know what he was doing; moreover, as an involved party who has been involved in a protracted edit dispute and arbitration case over these group pages, he should have know better than to move them himself, but instead filed a request or asked another sysop to do so.
He did not do, so now he should deal with the consequences: this is technical misconduct, and may furthermore constitute a breach of his Arbitration ruling. (I've not checked the exact terms, although A/A breaches are normally handled via A/VB, so this angle should probably be pursued there or via Karek's talk page.)
That said, I fully expect most sysops to band together and protect one of their own from “harassment” – I'll be very (and favourably) surprised if this results in a ruling of Misconfuct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:54, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Doesn't help that he showed he knew he shouldn't be the one moving them previously at that. Technical misconduct, absolutely, failure of judgment most definitely. Vandalism? Not really. Easily fixed with deletion by scheduled. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Uhm, Rev, there's no option not to create a redirect when moving pages. Look at your own screenshot more carefully. Not that I think that it changes your point at all. Just saying, that's all.~ _{10:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, LOLwhat -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:52, 9 July 2011 (BST)

So tempted to put Rev up for misconduct for bias in his ruling where he says:"were it any other sysop I would not have an issue".--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Because he's an involved party in an arbitration concerning these pages, you nimrod. Go ahead, I could use some laughs. Creating a Misconduct case over a minority Misconduct report would be hilariously farcical and absolutely par for the course. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Dude, it was a joke. O.o --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Wait. You took me seriously? o.O …Why? I personally try not to take anyone seriously if I can help it. Especially not myself. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:26, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Personally I'd say no, he didn't actually rule by the looks of it. If he did there could be a couple of ones someone could pounce on, namely not reading before ruling (something I'm quite sure Karek put Conn up for misconduct a few years ago), etc. I'm not really fussed about it personally, beyond the lols and fail, as well as the possibility he was just trolling us all, in which he's fucking had me beat all evening, for sure! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:31, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Oh. Huh. Yeah, my bad! Been spending too long on other, more functional wikis. Also, it's been a long week and I've been drinking…
Here's what I meant to show you guys. Guess I need to add the suppressredirect right to the list. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:28, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Poor form? Lazy? Possibly. However, it's an automatic part of the move function which sysops on this wiki tend to never ever need to mess with and therefore don't. Having someone come and discuss it first rather than assume it was malicious would have probably had the better outcome here, as it seems to have been fixed without any issue and I highly doubt SZ did it to force such a thing happening. Not misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:11, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Yep, looks like a simple case of missed deletion of redirect caused by page moves. Happens so often that there is a scheduled deletion criteria for them when ops miss them. SZ mentioned on a/m that the move took a few extra steps than normal so my guess is that he got wrapped up in the intricacies of those steps and failed to put the finishing touches. Not Misconduct. ~ _{04:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)}

Ironically, I'll be very (and favourably) surprised if this results in a ruling of Not Misconfuct. --Rosslessness 09:42, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I'd need more than an image from Rev proving our point even more rather than his own before I give this Misconfuct at all. Then again, I'm just an evil sysop trying to protect my own! Even though Spiderzed doesn't like me and I barely know or care who he is! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:03, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Revenant cropped the original print screen, if he hadn't have, and shown the description text above, it would have shown something similar to where it states "The old title will become a redirect to the new title", without any description of any option to turn it off. As Karek said, SZ said he probably shouldn't be doing the moves himself, but he did and Goribus had no issue with that in itself, and is something I don't see as an issue in itself either, at least relative to misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:14, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I don't really see an abuse of sysop power here. Was it bad practice not to delete the redirects? Yes. Could it have simply been a mistake? Yes. Did he gain any long-term advantage from it? No. Hence, I think this is not misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:27, 9 July 2011 (BST)

BTW, the "supress redirect" permission is, for some reason, not assigned to sysops. I posted on Kevan's talk page about it a while ago but didn't get a response.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:27, 9 July 2011 (BST)

Probably just wasn't added automatically when the software was upgraded to support that feature. We should really write up and sign off on a comprehensive list of tweaks for Kevan to do when he next gets a chance. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:30, 13 July 2011 (BST)

I had actually filed a very similar move request some days ago. It didn't face resistance but for the ongoing arbies, so I figured that it was ripe to be carried out. Also note some other things:

1. The page already existed as copied code (against which no one objected). The move was only about keeping the edit history of the page in one place.
2. The pages were blanked by Goribus, proving he had no interest into them.
3. Due to the existing copies, a move required additionally deletions, making it a good bit more complicated than the run-of-the-mill move. As I had created that extra work by creating copies, I figured I should be the one who carries the extra workload for it. (And even that not perfectly, if you look at Talk:Cobra/Guide/Talk:Cobra (group)/Guide, where I had missed that a copy existed.
4. All the pages were effectively Crit 7. It shouldn't be a question at all whether they could be moved or not, as noted by Rev.

I'd have dealt with the remaining incoming links over the course of today, and then deleted the redirects as they'd be done with their purpose. (That being said, I think Cobra/Guide (and solely Cobra/Guide) should be kept, as it is a featured guide and as such has a good number of external links going to it. But that is a question for elsewhere, not for A/M.) -- Spiderzed█ 11:53, 9 July 2011 (BST)

I don't disagree that you should be able to move them (page move rights should be delegated to Autoconfirmed users, IMO, which is what I was getting at in the note you cite), but as it stands it is a sysop-only action. You were an involved party in the dispute, so you should have let someone else handle it to avoid any appearance of personal bias in the way you handled it. You went ahead and did it yourself, and did so in a way which favoured your side in the conflict, thus furthering your own personal agenda. Even if, as you say (and I have no reason not to take you at your word), you still used a sysop-only power and made a procedural mistake which benefited you. Thus my ruling of technical misconduct due to violating procedure designed to defuse personal involvement.
I don't see this being more than a slap on the wrist if it comes through, but it needs to be reinforced that we have enough sysops on the team that sysops shouldn't need to use sysop powers where there could be considered even a sniff of personal involvement. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:36, 13 July 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Should have left it for one of us to do but not deleting the redirects after the move isn't anything more than either laziness or forgetfulness. -- Cheese 23:13, 11 July 2011 (BST)

This has been sitting undiscussed for a week now. Would any uninvolved op mind to tally and cycle this? -- Spiderzed█ 12:52, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct making my opinion clear. --Rosslessness 12:55, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Conclusion

Closed as Not Misconduct. Spiderzed please (and I notice you have been) consider conflicts before doing this in the future. Rev makes some very sensible points. --Rosslessness 12:57, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Fair enough. Next time I create such a complicated move, I'll just put up a step-by-step guide for deleting, moving and undeleting and let the proper channels take their course (or wait for another op to tell me to jump through the hoops I have created myself). -- Spiderzed█ 13:01, 20 July 2011 (BST)