UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Spiderzed/2012-09-12 Misconduct
12 September
This is pretty blatantly abuse of the undelete function's ability to see user deleted content in response to a refused undeletion request. Sysop tools don't exist for the purpose of using them to help pick on and humiliate users or to revive pages they requested deleted(on or off the wiki) for those purposes. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:14, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- Bring it on. I have never been someone to try to weasel out of misconduct charges (in fact, in the past I had put up myself for Misconduct), and I am certain I can live with it should my fellow sys-ops decide to misconduct me.
- That being said, my
twothree cents I think yet need to be added:- The page we talk about isn't a big deal. It doesn't contain anything so juicy that it absolutely needs to be hidden from the public eye, like TOS violations or personal dox. It's merely a policy draft, and the community's reaction to it.
- There's a lot of wild speculation going on about the reasoning behind the page blanking. Singling out "harassment" or "humiliation" as the definitive reason is fishing in muddy water. It might simply be something as innocent as the policy failing to receive any serious backing. We can't even be sure that the user was aware of the fact that scheduled deletions get triggered by blanking user pages. I'd prefer if we could stick with the facts, and just with the facts.
- Technically I haven't been using any tangible sys-op powers. It is already questionable if this is a Misconduct case at all, or rather a case for A/VB. In the end, this will be up to my fellow ops, but is a point I wish they keep in mind.
- That's pretty much all I've got to say, barring direct questions. -- Spiderzed█ 18:07, 12 September 2012 (BST)
Spiderzed specifically said it was out of the cache on his old machine; we have no reason to disbelieve him. Even if it was viewed via Undelete functionality, I'm not inclined to view it as misconduct. The requesting user contributed to those pages and should, in my opinion, have the right to review them on request. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:27, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- So technical unlikeliness of the fact that his "Cache" has a 2 year old page and wiki formats it your argument is it's not misconduct because he posted harassing comments to the user and thus has ownership rights over deleted page content removed from the wiki because of his and DDR's harassment? I would also like to buy that two foot tall magical unicorn you're selling. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:34, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- That baby ain't for sale, I bought it for his birthday.
04:38, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- That baby ain't for sale, I bought it for his birthday.
If it weren't for that comment he made about the cache, I'd rule a slap on the wrist warning immediately, but because of that comment, I'm inclined to at least hear him out and see if he was kidding or if he actually did recover it from there. So, Spider, which is it: was there actually a cache you grabbed it from, or was that you just playing coy about what you actually did? Of course, I have no way to tell if he's lying or not, but it's his integrity on the line, so there is that, and this is clearly not a serious offense anyway, so there's few disincentives to telling the truth. —Aichon— 04:38, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- That remark about browser caches was of course in jest. I had thought the context of the thousand monkeys with thousand typewriters had made that abundantly clear. -- Spiderzed█ 18:07, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- I knew you were kidding around, but I didn't know how much was kidding. Anyway, even though you didn't click one of the buttons, so to speak, you did use your sysop powers to access information and release it after a ruling contrary to that had been handed down. So, slap on the wrist Misconduct and a warning to go with it would be my thought. I'd just as soon have not seen this brought here though, since it's such a minor thing, for reasons already stated. —Aichon— 18:26, 12 September 2012 (BST)
this has been done before by request before without any past issue. I'd hate to say it but precedent is more on spiderzed's side than against it. whether the ops disregard an example like this another issue. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:12, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- In the above example I requested a goofy spambot page be undeleted. the next day SA used the undeletion function to post the contents of the page, links and all on my talk page. no one cared. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:25, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- The spambot has significantly different implications. If UDWiki doesn't have linkbacks disabled(and it's standard disabled in newer versions) it would actually be akin to helping the spambot. Otherwise it's a neutral and irrelevant action when contained in a manner like that example. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:07, 12 September 2012 (BST)
Also I just remembered a similar occasion where SA used undelete function again to recreate assylum in his user page. you can find it here. It appears undeletion for personal and (i would hesitantly say) harmless/apolitical reasons hasn't really been an issue at all in the past? A ZOMBIE ANT 06:25, 12 September 2012 (BST)
- You mean the page he made the deletion request for? The same request where taking it into a subpage was the proposed solution to what qualified it for deletion in the first place? This is more akin to things like the Umbrella group fights or the Finis Valorum picture but having the added bonus of being down through the use of special privileges. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:07, 12 September 2012 (BST)
This is simply misconduct, imo. Access to deleted pages is a sysops only privilege, even if there was no actual sysops "action", you're still sharing the material without proper consent. While the page in question isn't that important, going beyond established administrative rules for the lolz is still blatant abuse of your powers -- 
Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:20, 12 September 2012 (BST)
I have no idea which way I should lean. Someone had asked me about the page's contents in IRC when that undeletion request went up. I almost gave it to them. Almost. Instead, I told them it was something incredibly stupid and left it at that. I'm inclined to say misconduct, except that would probably make me a hypocrite since I've thought about doing the same thing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:16, 12 September 2012 (BST)
Anrael knelt silently on the hot sand. The scorching sun beat down mercilessly against her back, its heat bearing straight through the tattered rags that clothed her fragile flesh to scorch her pale skin to a burning red. She buried her fingers deep into the coarse sand, feeling the heat in the tender flesh of her fingers.
Her head bowed forward she knelt. An abandoned angel; solitary figure of silence and sadness. A lonely soldier left on the plain of a battle unwitnessed. Her mind torn, her body bleeding and burnt, and her wings... oh, her wings...
A low moan hissed forth from her parched lips, more a chocked sob than a tortured cry, as she threw her head back to the heavens. Blue eyes snapped open, tear tracks running fresh down her pale white cheeks. Her bony fingers clenched, clawing deep within the sandy ground as she rocked back and forth on her knees.
The low moan grew in volume and pitch, turning from a low, hoarse cry to a shrieking cackle that echoed across the empty desert - laughter of madness. Laughter of the insane.
As the heat beat down and the wind blew the sand in whirls the wingless angel knelt there, laughing to the empty sky. Blood spattered and scorched, surrounded by the tattered remnants of her once beautiful feathered wings, she knelt. Whilst high above, the wrathful eye of the sun kept silent, judgmental watch on the desert below.
Great watcher in the Eternal Blue. Judge of the Judged. Tormentor of the Fallen.
Silently it watched. Whilst in the centre of the endless desert the laughter went on...
By which I mean, Misconduct for the reason Thad states. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:00, 12 September 2012 (BST)
Misconduct - lame page, btw, not worth even the risk of a slap on the wrist -- boxy 11:44, 13 September 2012 (BST)
Not Misconduct – Spiderzed was responding to a valid Undeletions request. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:49, 13 September 2012 (BST)
- It's pretty clear that was precisely what he was not doing, since he even states as much in the edit in question when he says that it's technically not an undeletion. I.e. he knows he's skirting the ruling on the request, which he could have just as easily challenged instead. —Aichon— 06:45, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Hmm, given further thought, I'd had to rethink this. Spiderzed was incorrect when he stated that he used no admin powers, as viewing deleted page revisions is an admin ability. That in itself does not constitute misconduct. He was providing the text of the page requested, although not in the manner requested, but sysops are given the power to use their discretion, so that was not necessarily misconduct. However, what I think is misconduct is making the text of the page available on a third-party site, thus violating the implicit license given when it was submitted to the Urban Dead Wiki.
Sorry, SZ. I recommend next time just using “email this user” if it's a page the user has a legitimate interest in but does not merit full undeletion.
ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:33, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Wow, encouraging him to do it behind our backs next time. So much for "trusted" users.--
Thadeous Oakley Talk 15:32, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Wow, encouraging him to do it behind our backs next time. So much for "trusted" users.--
- Hmm, given further thought, I'd had to rethink this. Spiderzed was incorrect when he stated that he used no admin powers, as viewing deleted page revisions is an admin ability. That in itself does not constitute misconduct. He was providing the text of the page requested, although not in the manner requested, but sysops are given the power to use their discretion, so that was not necessarily misconduct. However, what I think is misconduct is making the text of the page available on a third-party site, thus violating the implicit license given when it was submitted to the Urban Dead Wiki.
So, let's try and wrap this up. We have Karek, myself, Ross, and boxy saying Misconduct, with only Rev in disagreement. Are we going for a warning or just an intangible wrist slap? I'm leaning towards a warning just because it was an intentional decision to disregard the ruling. —Aichon— 06:45, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- I'd call for a wrist slap if he deletes the pastebins, otherwise throw the book. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:33, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- It was purposefully set to auto-delete in a few days, but has now been manually deleted anyway. -- Spiderzed█ 14:59, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Good man. Just making sure. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:29, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- So long as there are no links to the content on the wiki any more I don't think we need to warn him.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:37, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- So we "don't warn" for intentional misuse of admin tools now? Every argument that says well clearly this is misconduct, clearly he isn't trying to defend the fact that he used undeletion to pull this page content externally, he also isn't trying to defend the reason he did it(which was to facilitate harassment and mockery of a user) instead he's been reaching to try and justify why the user initially wiping the page after being shit all over by DDR, Spiderzed, etc doesn't matter. Revenant, Aichon, you're both clearly reaching to justify his actions on this but this isn't a small procedural issue so cut the clowning about for his sake. This is harassment with sysop tools. A warning would be the letting it off easy result in a case like this. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 17:09, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Karek, do I need to make my already-bolded text super-sized so that you can see that I recommended a warning for his Misconduct? Maybe I should have rephrased how I started this thread of the conversation, since I seem to have not been clear enough in my statement that four of us agreed on Misconduct and that I was pushing for a warning? Apparently you missed that too, since clearly I'm "reaching to justify his actions" because I started off by trying to give him a chance when I felt that you were too quick to assume abuse, despite the fact that everything I've said since has been recommending and even arguing that we should rule Misconduct and give him a warning. My suggestion to you: stop disagreeing with me over things that we agree on. Can we give out Misconduct and a warning, or do you want to create more arguments to put in my mouth? —Aichon— 19:40, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- I was referring to your minimizing what he'd done throughout the case but particularly the last sentence of your comment you have your bolded ruling in where you're claiming it's both minor and probably shouldn't have been brought here. This is literally where it goes and the only way it could have been less not minor would be if he'd been banning or deleting that persons' content without permission. I don't just read rulings, I read context. Yours is saying "technically misconduct but only cause we have someone arguing it". --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:18, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- That is not at all what I said. However, in reading back through, I can see why you could have easily taken what I said that way. Let me try to clarify. From my very first comment here, I stated I was ready to rule misconduct if not for a single misgiving. Once that misgiving was cleared up, I had no qualms with ruling misconduct. There were no ifs, ands, or buts intended in anything I said. It was misconduct. Period. The line you're referring to is not saying, "it's only misconduct because someone called him on it". I'm firmly in the camp that says, "things are illegal, regardless of whether you get caught" (I believe that to be a core tenet in maintaining one's personal integrity). As such, your bringing him here had nothing to do with whether or not it was misconduct. It absolutely was. Where I disagree is that everything must be handled via official channels as a first step, and that holds true whether we're talking about cops pulling people over, people personally wronging me, or a vandal here on the wiki. I believe that the best way to handle things is oftentimes on a personal level. Once it's in the official channel, however, I have no issues with ruling appropriately and handing down the appropriate consequence. And since this was a deliberate action that caused no meaningful harm, and it has reached the official channel, a warning is the only thing that makes sense. So, on that, we agree. On the rest, the outcome won't change even if one of us convinces the other that they are right, so I'm content to just drop it. —Aichon— 05:11, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Works for me, clarity in rulings is important. Especially since we have had some sysops unable to understand precedence through context. Unless explicitly stated assume someone will misinterpret you. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 07:14, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- That is not at all what I said. However, in reading back through, I can see why you could have easily taken what I said that way. Let me try to clarify. From my very first comment here, I stated I was ready to rule misconduct if not for a single misgiving. Once that misgiving was cleared up, I had no qualms with ruling misconduct. There were no ifs, ands, or buts intended in anything I said. It was misconduct. Period. The line you're referring to is not saying, "it's only misconduct because someone called him on it". I'm firmly in the camp that says, "things are illegal, regardless of whether you get caught" (I believe that to be a core tenet in maintaining one's personal integrity). As such, your bringing him here had nothing to do with whether or not it was misconduct. It absolutely was. Where I disagree is that everything must be handled via official channels as a first step, and that holds true whether we're talking about cops pulling people over, people personally wronging me, or a vandal here on the wiki. I believe that the best way to handle things is oftentimes on a personal level. Once it's in the official channel, however, I have no issues with ruling appropriately and handing down the appropriate consequence. And since this was a deliberate action that caused no meaningful harm, and it has reached the official channel, a warning is the only thing that makes sense. So, on that, we agree. On the rest, the outcome won't change even if one of us convinces the other that they are right, so I'm content to just drop it. —Aichon— 05:11, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- I was referring to your minimizing what he'd done throughout the case but particularly the last sentence of your comment you have your bolded ruling in where you're claiming it's both minor and probably shouldn't have been brought here. This is literally where it goes and the only way it could have been less not minor would be if he'd been banning or deleting that persons' content without permission. I don't just read rulings, I read context. Yours is saying "technically misconduct but only cause we have someone arguing it". --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:18, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Karek, do I need to make my already-bolded text super-sized so that you can see that I recommended a warning for his Misconduct? Maybe I should have rephrased how I started this thread of the conversation, since I seem to have not been clear enough in my statement that four of us agreed on Misconduct and that I was pushing for a warning? Apparently you missed that too, since clearly I'm "reaching to justify his actions" because I started off by trying to give him a chance when I felt that you were too quick to assume abuse, despite the fact that everything I've said since has been recommending and even arguing that we should rule Misconduct and give him a warning. My suggestion to you: stop disagreeing with me over things that we agree on. Can we give out Misconduct and a warning, or do you want to create more arguments to put in my mouth? —Aichon— 19:40, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Why is Karek of all people the only sysops right here? Sysops have received warnings for less, again even if the page in question is rather silly its still intentional misuse of the sysops position, which should always be warned for. Deleted pages are deleted for a reason, most of them trivial, but some for reasons that are personal or privacy related, and the community puts trust into sysops not to fool around with those pages. I find the lack of a stern reaction troubling really. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:14, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Why is it that both of you failed to notice that Rev is the only one still suggesting anything other than a warning, and that ALL of us are agreeing on Misconduct at this point? I find your lack of reading comprehension troubling. —Aichon— 19:40, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- I'm reading it just fine, if you look over it again you'll find it's not just Rev, see Shortround, boxy (If I read it correctly) and Rev is agreeing on misconduct for entirely different (wrong) reasons. I would have thought this was pretty open and shut, though this is not the case, although perhaps I'm repeating myself a bit here.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:55, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- I'm not really bothered either way, but I don't see any harm that's been done if it's all gone. Nobody else can see it, JY isn't even on the wiki to be embarrassed by it. So I'm very meh about the whole thing. Definitely misconduct but I don't know if a warning is necessary. The majority have said warning so we'll go with that. :) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 00:22, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- I'm reading it just fine, if you look over it again you'll find it's not just Rev, see Shortround, boxy (If I read it correctly) and Rev is agreeing on misconduct for entirely different (wrong) reasons. I would have thought this was pretty open and shut, though this is not the case, although perhaps I'm repeating myself a bit here.--
- Why is it that both of you failed to notice that Rev is the only one still suggesting anything other than a warning, and that ALL of us are agreeing on Misconduct at this point? I find your lack of reading comprehension troubling. —Aichon— 19:40, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- So we "don't warn" for intentional misuse of admin tools now? Every argument that says well clearly this is misconduct, clearly he isn't trying to defend the fact that he used undeletion to pull this page content externally, he also isn't trying to defend the reason he did it(which was to facilitate harassment and mockery of a user) instead he's been reaching to try and justify why the user initially wiping the page after being shit all over by DDR, Spiderzed, etc doesn't matter. Revenant, Aichon, you're both clearly reaching to justify his actions on this but this isn't a small procedural issue so cut the clowning about for his sake. This is harassment with sysop tools. A warning would be the letting it off easy result in a case like this. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 17:09, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- So long as there are no links to the content on the wiki any more I don't think we need to warn him.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:37, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Good man. Just making sure. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:29, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- It was purposefully set to auto-delete in a few days, but has now been manually deleted anyway. -- Spiderzed█ 14:59, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- See above statement and don't color me with Thad's brush. Also you forgot Shortround and that my point is that just warning him is still letting him off easy in addition to that the fact that anyone proposed not warning non-procedural misconduct is also absurd, more so than you taking offense at not understanding what I was referring to. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:23, 16 September 2012 (BST)
The funny thing is that you dont even *need* to undelete a page to see its contents with sysop powers. This is just spiderzed being dumb while harassing a user, and a warning should be the least and harshest form of pushiment he should endure. --hagnat 17:22, 15 September 2012 (BST)
Misconduct and Warning --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 19:56, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- I think you should make it two warnings to be on the safe side. ~
20:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Someone's being a troublemaker... —Aichon— 20:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- What? I would never obstruct the law in such a careless fashion. One for harrassment and another for gross misuse of mod powers, right? ~ 20:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- The thing that most amuses me, is Thads "Open and shut case" line. Grim said something quite similar once. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:42, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- It's funny cause the clear cut ones are the ones where people always seem to try and minimize them if the person isn't universally reviled(i.e. Amazing and J3D). --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:18, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- The thing that most amuses me, is Thads "Open and shut case" line. Grim said something quite similar once. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:42, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- What? I would never obstruct the law in such a careless fashion. One for harrassment and another for gross misuse of mod powers, right? ~
- Someone's being a troublemaker... —Aichon— 20:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)
Warning - for intentionally overruling a valid decision by two other sysops on A/U -- boxy 00:38, 16 September 2012 (BST)
Holy god, this case had it all- strange rulings later reversed (rev), text walls (aichon), being argumentative retard for the sake of it (karek) and annoying buttheads (me, thad). And all over such a tiny case- methinks the lack of drama on this wiki has built up tension that can only be unleashed by a good old misconduct case. Congratulations for playing, gentlemen. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:26, 17 September 2012 (BST)
Case closed as Misconduct and Warned.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:20, 20 September 2012 (BST)
