UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/No autobans allowed

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Level 2 headers for easier editing

Er, so isn't it already against the rules to ban and unban yourself in jest?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not, or I think so at least. As said in the policy itself, Hagnat did it twice in less than a month already. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that big of a problem. Let it alone.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet you admit it is a problem. And I noted that as well. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of problems. But that doesn't mean we have to fix them all.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
But there's no harm in fixing it. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not taking this discussion beyond this indentation level because it may be more a problem of philosophy that one of the policy itself, but if a problem like this can be solved with just a vote, even if it's insignificant, as long as there's no concern about the policy text itself then onseself position must be for it. The insignificance or grandiosity of the matter at hand doesn't play much of a part unless one's searching to cause drama and bring attention to oneself. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't given any reasoning why you or anyone else should be worried. Your "evidence" you do use could be used as evidence of misconduct (it showing a precedent of determining bad faith) possibly but doesn't support your original point (e.g. why should we care). --Karlsbad 19:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think you're right in that the "case" I make could be used as evidence on some sort of Misconduct case, even if I never wished to make such a case (c'mon, Hagnat didn't broke any written rule neither did you by supporting his decission). But what I do think that concenrns the community about this case is that, in comparison to cases such as the recent "Delete the Deletions page" prank, it's pretty much the same. There's the general mockery of procedures and the lightheartened attitude towards administrational pages that current Sysops have consistently punished as of lately. That Sysop themselves engage in these kind of actions worries me as well. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet the deletion of the Deletions page would have been open for voting and taken up time and space on the page (votes to save the deletions page, people voting as a joke, etc), and was obviously not in good faith. Meanwhile the "keep me away" Ban took up maybe three minutes of my own time on a quiet day, and as you note is not a case of Bad Faith. It did not "mock" the page as is, because the ban was upheld and did not form a giant recursion as the Delete Deletions would have. If anything the UNBAN itself is the only mocking there, and therefore that itself would be a better policy to put forth. --Karlsbad 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not judged neither will I try through this policy discussion to judge whether the whole cases mentioned or any of their parts constituted bad faith. I merely mentioned that they didn't broke any written rule (at least, in no evident way), because that's part of the problem that I'm trying to adress. That said, giving an unwarranted ban to an user that can revert it anytime with no set punishment... is not in any way, even slightly, mocking procedures? Hint: this is a retorical question and I want no sarcastical answer. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I must inform you that I have already given a sufficient answer in a previous reply. Please re-read the section that says that "If anything the UNBAN itself is the only mocking there, and therefore that itself would be a better policy to put forth." Stridently defending anything you ever do solely because it is Your Idea is not a mark of a self-aware or insightful contributor. If you wish to reply, I ask that you actually consider what I noted and then react as if it was criticism rather than a personal attack. --Karlsbad 19:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

i wrote a bunch of stuff in here, and then my firefox crashed. Yay. Anyway, This is not a problem that needs to be discussed. You are just creating a thunderstorm in a cup of water. or whatever the fuck this expression translates into english --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Tempest in a Teacup. --Karlsbad 20:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
yes, that one. And BTW, my self-ban was not for laughs. I needed that ban to focus on some RL stuff. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
A ban means nothing to a Sysop, as it can be reverted in seconds. If it was some kind of psycological measure, then you really are desperate, even more because you broke both these bans weeks earlier than intended. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I think I'm not. If it's just for the sake of finger-pointing, then you're the one that's creating it by being defensive about such a small issue that, yet again, has been recognized as a problem (even if a little one). --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You cited my name four times in the policy and you want me not to discuss on it ? Geeeenious you are Matthew. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I give you that, but I didn mention as well multiple times in both the policy itself and this discussion page, that I meant no harm to you or anyone engaging into these kind of practices up to now. You just see what you want to see. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jebus H Fahrenheit - lock up your brain cells, people! What's next, Fahrenheit? Banning humour? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He bans humor, and I'm leaving. -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I will... NOT. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks lik someone was watching Borat recently. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually Boxy made the same joke recently, and I shamelessly stole it. I did watch Borat, but quite a while ago. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just no. We have enough fucking drama already without you trying to stir up more. This is a non issue matt, and you know it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't fall low enough for you to tell me what I do and don't know. I already aknowledged that the problem is minor. With your comment you prove that you do not want to discuss the issue at hand but try to attack the author. I'm done with the crossed accusations here, take it onto my talk page if necessary. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Where the fuck did you learn to read? I said it was a non issue, as in its not in any way, shape, or a form, a problem. You say its a minor problem, but it really isnt. Thers is absolutely no fucking need for this policy and you damned well know it. This is just another attempt to pull drama out of your arse. I guess we are fortunate that all we got was a heap of shit this time. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 20:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you're so emotional about this. Plus, you haven't really made an argument for your case, unless ad hominem has suddenly become a valid debate tactic. Personally, I think this policy would be a good reminder to the sysops that the UDWiki is neither a playground nor a substitute for a social life. --MordredMalTel 02:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I know... how dare they try to find some fun in a thankless job that is otherwise filled with drama and whine? Intertubes: Serious Business. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:19, 20 Nvember 2007 (UTC)
Yeah! Everyone should just shut up and let them do what they want. How dare people mock those who volunteered take on a job that means extra work for free and then complain about how hard it is! I mean, it's not like they can walk away or take time off when it gets too rough. --Akule School's in session. 02:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question, Akule - how is anybody's wiki experience being affected by this issue, aside from the epic dramaz that have been conjured from out of thin air? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
He wasnt complaining about how hard everything is, he had a project he needed to complete, and this was getting in the way. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No, my little post above was to mock Cyberbob's rant, as he was mocking other people. Below, I seriously discussed the situation as it makes sense that his real life has priority over the wiki. I just don't think he needed to go as far as to ban himself. That just seemed unnecessary and hinted that he has an addiction to the wiki. --Akule School's in session. 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Im getting emotional? This is the first ive heard of it? No, what you were reading as emotion was, in fact, just me thinking this whole policy is comptemptuous because its about nothing. Is it a problem? No. Does it hurt anyone? No. Is it giving douchebags like Akule and Matt the opportunity to troll? Yup. (In fact, this whole policy because matt is sore about what happened a few months back and him trying to geta little revenge with this little sniping as soon as the opportunity, weak as it was, came up). If hagnat wants to ban himself, it harms no one but himself. This really shouldnt even be being discussed here. If you really, really think its such a big problem, feel free to put him up on charges of misconduct, and you can get a nice ruling by every other active sysop on the issue. If not, then please refrain from kicking up yet more drama. We already have more than enough to deal with as is. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You owe me two minutes of life for making me read this policy. What a waste of time - he asked to be banned so who cares when he comes back? Jonny12 talk 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What the? Surely this is just not an issue. Hagnat banned himself to get on with some real life stuff, and made a little joke out of it. No damage done at all, made me chuckle a little. In reference to your discussion to the deletions page prank, I put that up for deletion and walked away absoultely ban/warning/permaban free after people agreed that it was a laugth and I didn't realy mean it. I was given a bit of a telling off and told not to do it again, and I haven't. Nali, on the other hand, undeleted it repeatedly, and I beleive got a warning for it. Hagnat can surely ban himself if he realy feels like it, and why shouldn't he have a bit of a joke about it? It hurts absoultely no-one, unless you have someting againgst the guy, I guess. Apart from anything else, he's proven himself to be a valued and respected member of the community, as have most people on the wiki. He's even managed to attain the position of sysop. Let him have a laugth if he wants one. Hurts = No-one, therefore, no policy needed.--SeventythreeTalk 22:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While this is a pretty minor problem in terms of the actual effect that self bans have it does have a real point. It is absolutely the same as putting up deletions for deletion... both are humorous in intent and neither causes a problem in and of itself... If the deletion thing had been allowed to run its course what would it matter? Its not like the sysops would have taken the result seriously and actually deleted anything and I don't believe archiving it would have taken a fraction of the time that was devoted to the removal and bans that were the chosen course! If one non-serious use of admin pages is bad faith/misconduct/against the rules why not this one? The problem here is not whether it causes a problem but whether it shows different treatment of different users. It does and that needs to be avoided!--Honestmistake 22:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mini-Vote

Is this policy worth being discussed and voted ?

  1. Spam Worthless discussion FTW! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Problem or not, it's still a minor whatever it is.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Change - No, how's about we allow autobans but tie them to a temporary demote, so we can all get the respite we were promised? -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 21:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Change As Atticus Rex, it makes more sense that way. At least that way if they do ban themselves or soemthing like that they do have to sit out the ban. - Whitehouse 21:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    Atticus and Withehouse, I do like your idea. I encourage you to discuss it through other header. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spamarama Llama - OMGWTFBBQLLAMAS. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. SPAM WITH HAM This shouldn't even be a policy...I mean, Who really cares? --User:Axe27/Sig 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. No - Just... no. There are far more worthy issues you should be expending your energy on, Matt (less petty-appearing, too). They didn't do anything wrong, so where's the harm in unbanning themselves if whatever they were doing happens to end sooner than they expected? Obviously it's a different matter if they had done something wrong, but that would already be Misconduct. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    If people can get *cough* "soft warnings" for *cough* "shitting up administration pages", perhaps what's been done here really is Misconduct. Just saying. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 04:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Spam - Shuck it Trebek. Shuck it hard and shuck it long. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 02:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - -- boxy • talk • 03:18 19 November 2007 (BST)
    Hrmn...no justification here. That's not very helpful feedback. Should I strike this vote..? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. No - I don't think it's really needed.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep Cuz they should'nt abuse power. Omega 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Spam Absolute non-issue. And as for abusing power, um.... what power? The power to ban yourself? And this has what effect now?--SeventythreeTalk 08:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Spam - Mountain out of molehill much? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Spam - Big deal. I think it's funny and also useful for someone to just get away for a while. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Spam - I would not have believed this level of pedantry possible before reading M.F's comments above. In the most civil way possible, I ask the authors and supporters of this discussion to kindly return the last 5 minutes of my life spent reading this nonsense. Since that is temporally impossible, kindly credit my account by opting to NOT visit such things on us in future. Just don't hit 'save page' next time. Ithankew--Squid Boy 18:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. THIS IS FUCKING STUPID - Pointless waste of time. Seriously. Go read a book or something. I Am Legend is a great title.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This vote isn't aimed at anything but creating drama, and many of those eager to present their oppinion on this inconclussive, biased and useless bid will do it because their past disposition towards myself and any of my creations predisposes them to create drama around me and then blame me for the effects. I stronlgy encourage this part of the discussion to be deleted as it mocks the A/PD procedure itself, but if such a thing is not allowed then I encourage voters for the policy not to present their oppinion in this drama fest of a vote. And yeah, this disclaimer will probably cause more drama, but it was necessary in my POV. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So does this whole policy in a way thought.--Karekmaps?! 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Matt, please don't presume to have intimate knowledge of the motivation behind people's actions. Tarring everyone who votes in this bid with the same brush is simply asinine. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Endure the bans

Atticus_Rex said:
Change - No, how's about we allow autobans but tie them to a temporary demote, so we can all get the respite we were promised?

While not in a quite ironically vindictive stance, I like your idea. I'd like to see if someone has anything to object to this. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply change policy so that any ban of a sysop includes a demotion for the timebeing of the ban. If someone wants to ban themselves, fine. But make them stick by that decision. – Nubis 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. As I said, I like this change but I'll just wait a day or two before making it so any objections can be made to the two versions of thew policy itself.
Also, if the Sysop in question wants to be unbanned and asks a Sysop to unban him through outside channels, would he be allowed to be unbanned? IMHO, no, as it would be almost the same that unbanning himself. What do you think? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone being unbanned without going through proper channels generally results in misconduct. I don't know why it should be any different. – Nubis 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably because in this case the sysops didn't break any rules or do anything wrong, the ban was requested as a temporary thing and was done as a privilege to the sysop, not as a punishment for vandalism, harassment, or anything else.--Karekmaps?! 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What you guys are saying makes sense, you shouldn't be able to un-ban yourself, but it's really a non-issue. There is something called self control so I fail to see the point of self banning. --Blobdude 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem when a sysop unban self while serving a ban period for vandalism, but a sysop who asked to be banned should be free to unban self anytime he wishes. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but why would you want to ban your self? Exercise self control and just don't vist the wiki, you can always say on your user page that you will be inactive for a little while. --Blobdude 00:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A very simple question... would Nalikill have gotten into trouble if he had issued (let alone broken) a self ban? Now technically he isn't allowed to because he isn't a sysop and would have been spamming the admin pages but it would have been no more frivilous and no more harmful so what realistically is the difference? --Honestmistake 09:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I got the feeling the Sysops were actively trying to avoid having to ban him again, he just put himself in that position by doing something that can only be interpreted as vandalism.--Karekmaps?! 13:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that his recent 1 month ban was his own damn fault! removing it once could be seen as good faith but getting into a revert war seems stupid and downright self destructive! The log-out joke itself should be considered bad faith vandalism but isn't and in his position Nali should have checked before getting that involved! However I was hypothetically asking what people think would happen IF he issued a self-ban on the admin pages rather than comment on his latest ban! I used his name only cos it seems like something he might have done, I could just as easily used mine or Funts or anyone else who is taking some sort of stance at the current atmosphere. --Honestmistake 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it would have been done if he wasn't a sysop for all the reasons why people are saying this policy sucks, if Nali can't unban himself then it is like a punishment.--Karekmaps?! 13:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be causing confusion here, damn Nali for getting banned when i wanted to use him as an example :)

I will start again... what will happen if i register a ban on myself on the vandal banning pages? will it be taken as a joke or will I be accused of "shitting up admin pages" and warned/banned for actual vandalism? --Honestmistake 14:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, depends why you are asking for the ban, Suicidalangel got a warning for doing something similar but it was for an edit of his own that he sited and reported as vandalism. If you did something like Hagnat you'd probably be refused because you aren't a sysop and it would be equivalent to punishing you for nothing because you can't remove the ban. And if it was for the pure purpose of causing a hassle, i.e. you're doing it to prove a point because of something like this, I'd assume you'd get a soft warning in such a case.--Karekmaps?! 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
If a Sysop has been vandal banned then he/she should obviously be temporarily demoted so they can't un-ban themselves, otherwise you wouldn't be able to effectively punish them. However, I still don't see why anyone would want to ban themselves, especially if they haven't done anything wrong. --BlobdudeTalk TM MC 16:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To remove temptation of cvoming back when they have other activities that need doing. Also, personally i dont think ssops should be demoted when banned. It just causes more work, and if they do unban themselves from a proper A/VB ban (Rather than self imposed exile), you have an ironclad misconduct case against them, which would either get them banned again, demoted, or both (Actually, i think using ones abilities in such a manner is demotion-worthy, plus reban-worthy). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
How many times do I have to say it: Use Self Control. Just say you will be busy and can't visit the wiki for a while, then don't visit it until you have done what you needed to do. --BlobdudeTalk TM MC 23:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Honest asked "what will happen if i register a ban on myself on the vandal banning pages?" It absolutely depends on who deals with it first, and how they feel about you at that moment in time. And, if someone likes you, and treats it like a joke, then you may find that someone who doesn't like you gets their knickers in a right old twist about you not being horribly punished. Absolutely, this place is all about personal politics and fuck all to do with any rules. They're just incidental, and very, very bendy. It's all down to personal perceptions of your intentions. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some people might consider it abusing the administration pages and start an arbitration case against those who do it, as it is not a serious ban and clutters up the administration pages when someone could merely use self-control and just not log on. When we are seriously patrolling the Vandal Banning pages for unnecessary communications from users not involved in individual banning reports and handing out warnings or banning for those who violate that, how can you seriously state that these bans aren't worth the same level of response? --Akule School's in session. 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How dare you agree with me you wiki-lawyering little troll... I feel dirty! Actually you seem to have put your finger on exactly the point i was trying to make. It does seem to be different rules for different ranks, Its not a real problem but neither were other cases that got squashed! --Honestmistake 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally! someone woh listens. You got it exactly. I'll give you a cookie after I finish baking them. --BlobdudeTalk TM MC 01:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. :D --Akule School's in session. 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do have a penchant for pointing out the obvious. Unfortunately, without change nothing can be done. Good luck on getting that accomplished. Oh, and if I can use myself (everyone's favorite target) as an example how much of a difference there is in the various cliques of people and how they are treated, I will. --Akule School's in session. 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Needed? Maybe. Wanted? Seems like not

For those that added their constructive criticism regardless everything else, thanks. For those that didn't I have no words. As I see it this policy, needed or not, doesn't have a snowball chance in hell to be approved, given the current hostile treatment to me and small issues such as the one hereby presented. I DO NOT WISH to create more drama, like some idiotic users accused me of (creating drama themselves, but who'll listen anyways?), and given the current situation then it would be useless to give the policy a proper treatment (vote) without accomplishing nothing beyond the drama itself. I'll be withdrawing the policy around tomorrow. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly a bad policy, it's just that it probably won't be needed. A policy that applies to nothing isn't very useful, is it?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It's actually not only this, but a series of slight abuses of the Sysop status that worries me. In a not so distant past a Sysop was supposedly not entitled with a greater opinion than the normal user, but now we have them posting crap on A/VB while normal users cannot, we have them barring normal users from posting on certain pages as well, we have them vandalizing their criticism and marginizing them and their input on the pretext of searching for a better system. I clap my hands at how the guidelines have been twisted but not broken with such skill, patience and dexterity. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Sysop spam talk on administrative pages should be moved to the talk page like any other user, but it is usually not. Preventing the average user from adding useful imput to A/VB is stupid and counterproductive, but removing talk to the talk page is necessary so things stay clean and simple. The same applies to the Misconduct page. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, now there's a topic I wholeheartedly agree with you on. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we could probably have some sort of official topic/policy on this maybe. Yes? Drama? Arr?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think that that kind of crap needs to stop; it's merely the self-bannings that I don't see a problem with. Were something to be drawn something up dealing with it I think it would be something many people would support. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately this policy doesn't have anything to do with the above. If someone would like to start something, that'd be great. It'd also be nice to point out the sysops don't hold more authority over users in a generic sense. The only extra authority they get is administrative-only abilities.-  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's already there, actually. It's misconduct for a sysop to use their position to bully a user or otherwise get their own way. Problem is, it needs to be fairly explicit for a case to be considered, Misconduct being what it is. Implied statements, due to their subjective nature, are generally rejected. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Just never seen a misconduct case like that.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Most people recognise the futility of bringing up subjective cases. Gage and Matt (this isn't a flame, merely an example) tried to add it to a misconduct case already brought against me, but the case failed. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Matt, people can only call it as they see it. It's their opinion - they're entitled to it. If you don't like their opinion, that's fine, but don't automatically dismiss it as being in bad faith. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was going to explain you my comment, but you would only express how much you think I twisted their meaning and that I only meant what you want it to be it's meaning. So I gave up trying. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, please do - despite what you may think, I am a reasonable guy. Don't tell me I've never listened to you when you make a good point, Matt. I'd comment on your hypocrisy in assuming I would make an assumption, and attacking me for it, but that would only stir up more drama. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Policy_Discussion/No_autobans_allowed&oldid=908533"