UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2008-04-07 Misconduct

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2008-04-07 Misconduct

Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions | Demotions | Misconduct (TBD) | Promotions | Re-Evaluations
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

2008, April 07

Boxy misused his vandal banning privileges by making this ruling, while he is of course entitled to his own opinion the fact that he followed his ruling with a link to a post reprimanding one of the key people (me) involved in this case on a completely unrelated issue would demonstrate that his motives for his decision are totally wrong.

Furthermore the post made by me in question was immediately removed on an unrelated issue by Suicidal Angel who apologised for removing it and said i could place the comment on A/D as opposed to A/SD, rather then do this i moved my remarks straight to his talk page, Boxy's complaint in fact came after the post had been off any admin page for over an hour.

When someone made a fair complaint regarding this hypocritical action Boxy took it upon himself to make a vandalism case against the user.

It is my view that Boxy should desist immediately from having any involvement in this issue.--xoxo 12:57, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct. The ruling was with the power of a sysop. The comment was hardly out of bounds. And reporting a vandal case isn't a function of any extra power. Repeatedly making a frivolous case might be vandalism. But it isn't even close yet.-- Vista  +1  13:17, 7 April 2008 (BST)

I think he is trying to say that Boxy knew what I had done was not vandalism, but had done it out of spite anyway. Correct me if im wrong though, Jed.--CyberRead240 13:18, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Boxy reported you, but made no ruling. That would make it a frivolous case of reporting an user at most and not misconduct. As such it should go to vandal banning page. But I'll give you my ruling on that case in advance. I disincline to read it as such as you were being a bit annoying, so I'm assuming an overreaction on boxy's side. but not serious enough to warrent a warning.-- Vista  +1  13:27, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Even if you discount the reporting of User:Sexylegsread Boxy made a ruling on a A/VB case citing justification from a completely unrelated post, that is what this case is primarily about.--xoxo 13:36, 7 April 2008 (BST)
The justification was that it wasn't intentional, as long as it didn't happen again. The shitting up the admin page comment was a general warning, that was not only ignored, but actively defied... hence the later reports -- boxy talki 13:43 7 April 2008 (BST)

How many times do I have to move their crap, and warn them, before they "get it"? Take it to the talkpage yourselves, or be reported -- boxy talki 13:43 7 April 2008 (BST)

Nah, this isn't misconduct. If boxy had actualy given you a warning or whatever then there might have been a case for misconduct, but he merely reported you. Overreaction maybe, I haven't looked into it that much. And think very carefuly before you decide that making a vandal report, for whatever reason should be considered misconduct, or bad faith. If that passes it might just come back to bite you in the arse at some point. --SeventythreeTalk 14:30, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Personal tools