UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct must be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.

Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page.

There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.

All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

Administrative Abilities

For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):

• Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.
• Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct
• Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.
• Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).
• Warning users reported in Vandal Banning.
• Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.
• Editing of Protected pages by any means.
• Research IP activity using the CheckUser extension.
• (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.

If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning.

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my Talk page as proof of this. -- Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

It looks like the page that was deleted did not belong to the requesting user, so you were in no position to delete it on sight. -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

Before Reporting Misconduct

Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the Administration Staff has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over UDWiki:Misconduct and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.

Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:Nubis

For deleting an image without going through the correct channels. Again.

Nubis deleted image File:2cola100.jpeg citing Moviefap.com as the owner of the work in the log, as a copyright violation. Copyright violations are not scheduled deletion material unless especially asked by the owner of the copyright.

Furthermore, after seeing the image (from personal request to the uploader) the image would most certainly have passed as porn, and deletable within the moment by a sysop who was around at the time (evidently myself and cyberbob, just by clicking one link). Its pornographic nature is quite obviously the only reason Nubis bothered to delete it at all (let alone on sight), though it appears he has looked for another reason to do so, now the Porn scheduled is no longer valid..

We got rid of the porn clause for this exact reason- to make sure sysops no longer had unilateral judgement over what stays and goes, and the true thing that should have happened was Nubis should have submitted it to A/VB under a case against Nallan, the uploader, Nallan would have been warned (something we would all whole-heartedly support once seeing this image) and the image deleted as vandalism- the only legitimate deletable offence it currently stands under, Nubis knew this and ignored it.

Nubis has flimsily defended his arguments on his talk page where he attempted to twist the words of the scheduled copyright clause despite the header of said citation directly contradicting his poor interpretation of the guideline (which also follows the "header" interpretation of the scheduled submission, and always had). He continued to cite copyright lingo from the page of the holder of said image, though told that the image would still have to have been submitted through A/SD (as per the guidelines), he blanked the entire conversation as despite the entire shitstorm that's been created on his talk page, there is still no proving that what he did was within the sanctions of UDWiki's guidelines.

He's had problems like this before, which we should all recall, for example submitting multiple crit 1's to the A/D system instead of the A/SD system by accident, and then responding to subsequent legitimate keep votes by disregarding them based on the time they were submitted and deleting them anyway (for the record: his argument of "If I had gotten there before the keep votes they would have been eligible for speedy deletion and I would have done it then instead" is a retarded argument considering if Akule (or any "keep" voters) had the same time-travel abilities they could have just voted before A/D's "3 speedy-delete" threshold to legitimise said A/D voting) to which he refused to admit he had done any wrongdoing and that he had submitted it to A/SD the whole time. The reason I am adding this onto the case is because this is not an isolated incident- Nubis is the only sysop who has issues with a trigger-happy deletion finger. I submit A/U#Deletions_reversal to be read by ruling sysops, as this.

Don't misinterpret my intentions. I don't give a shit about the image and I sure as hell think Nallan's uploading of it was vandalism (1). The image should have been deleted and I don't want it back in any form but Nubis has just got to learn to just use the goddamned red tape and follow the proper procedure. We follow it not because we want to, or because we like it, but because it's there and it's our job to adhere to the rules. Nubis has been doing this too often without any repercussions other than half-arsed warnings and "It's not big enough to be an A/M case". I'm sick of his werewolf-like "come out once every full moon and fuck something up, ignorantly defend my actions and leave" attitude. The punishment can be a teaching lesson on the difference between A/D and A/SD for all I care, I just want it communally recognised that this shit is not on and that it is misonductable- especially over the time period that he's been doing it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:49, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct for about the 3rd time. I'm recommending a 24 hour ban because warnings don't seem to be having any effect at all. Like DDR, I don't dislike Nubis, I just hate his attitude and the fact he refuses point-blank, time and again not to follow rules about deletion. You've done it with templates, regular pages (this one just narrowly ruled NM) and now with images (although I'm sure there was something about images ages back, but I can't find it). I've said it several times now, and in fact I'm just going to quote myself:

Krazy Monkey said:

The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules.

Easy as that. And don't try and stretch the wording of a policy beyond what is actually there. It just doesn't work. -- Cheese 16:16, 4 September 2009 (BST)

as well as a certain removal of ones own misconduct case here--CyberRead240 16:28, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - I disagree with pretty much everything DDR has used to try and shore this case up, but I do agree that rules are rules and that Nubis did the right thing for the wrong reason. As far as punishment goes, a 24-hour ban is totally ridiculous. An official warning is all that is needed here - at the absolute most. Hagnat was far worse than Nubis when it came to ignoring red tape and he never got anything even close to a day. Cyberbob  Talk  16:35, 4 September 2009 (BST)

i knew someone was talking about me.... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:32, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Well, just don't pretend like it isn't true. You were immensely proud of your red-tape-rejecting ways IIRC. Cyberbob  Talk  03:34, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Still am... but i never avoided the red-tape to attend to my personal agenda... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

1. I see, so you are ignoring all of the copyrights on the webpage, the terms of Service, this wikis own terms of usage, and the other places I quoted where that site said they didn't want their images used? Convenient. You also have as much proof that they had express written permission to use those images as I have that they didn't want those images used... Oh, no, wait. The whole site has MANY examples of them saying they didn't want the images used. But, somehow what is actually written on the website regarding their property in the first place is somehow less important than your friends' "rights".

2. The Speedy Delete/Keep vote - If you notice Link said: Speedy Delete - I'll delete them myself but I've got to go now. Linkthewindow Talk 22:54, 20 July 2009 (BST) well before the keep votes were added and after 3 Speedy Deletes were lodged, but no please throw them in here because you couldn't be arsed to do anything at that time. Not to mention the policy says if they get 3 speedy deletes they are deleted. Hence, the "speedy" part.

3. Since when did a scheduled deletion have to go through A/SD? That's the whole point of scheduling something.

4. If I go ahead and ban myself for 24 hours are you going to bitch about that, too?

5. Might as well go for the trifecta here: Not Misconduct--– Nubis ^NWO 18:34, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Wait Nubis is a copyright warrior? FLIP FLOP!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:01, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Since when can you rule on you're own case, please unbold that part. --Thadeous Oakley 21:12, 4 September 2009 (BST)

I've addressed every single one of those points in the case, so I'll be quick. 1. I cited your reasoning but regardless of its validity it's not enough to be classed as a scheduled. 2. Again: see above for "time travel" argument. 3. It's not a scheduled. As for 4 and 5, if you wish. I don't think a ban is necessary, I just want it to be known that this stuff is misconductable and the rules are there to be followed (and that we know it). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

What a load of word twisting shit. Also, please don't bold a ruling you make on your own case, Newbis. Against the rules or not (I don't know and don't care) it is poor form. Are you hoping someone miscounts or something? Or hoping another sysop doesn't read it properly and sees that there is a Not Misconduct ruling and reconsiders their own thoughts? Regardless, it influences the vote and you are not allowed to do that.--CyberRead240 03:14, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Changed the ruling to italics for now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:24, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis has banned himself for 24hrs, so this case is pretty much closed, and will be recorded as Misconduct. It's minor, given that everyone seems to agree that the image should have gone regardless. Just take it to A/SD or A/VB next time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:26 5 September 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob (2)

This edit where bob creates a case against a user who had made only one edit (see a/vb, talk:a/bp and the below a/m case). As he has stated himself he has no specific evidence that the user is a sockpuppet and only that it came from an exchange in Newcastle, NSW (see here. Yet in his report bob states that he has "pretty conclusive" evidence that the account is an alt from the "2 Special crowd". When he writes 2 Special bob is intentionally referring to the group 2 Cool in a derogatory manner.

2 Cool is made up of myself and User:Nallan. Bob has been told on several occasions and should be well aware I do not live in Newcastle or even remotely close to it. The fact that he implied that his super secret Checkuser info had me as a major suspect is utter rubbish and is a clear example of bob using sysop only powers (the right to see checkuser information) to further his personal vendetta against me by linking me to sockpuppet allegations. Not to mention that a/vb is certainly not the place to be throwing around defamatory names such as 2 Special in official reports.

This case is about cyberbob slandering my name without reason, and that is something that no user should have to undergo on official reports, by a sysop, regardless of the history between those 2 users. xoxo 05:17, 31 August 2009 (BST)

inb4 "OMG YOO SOW BUTTHURTZ LOLOLOL"--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

do agree though--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Boxy has put "official reports" on A/SD calling you 2 stoopid before, any user can make a vandal report, this is A/A material. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And for the fact you live in sydney, it's relevant to the case so just put it on there, as I am quite sure you have. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

dude, bother reading the case. It's about way more than just him calling 2 Cool 2 Special. It's about the fact that he uses information that for privacy reasons is withheld from the general community to imply i did something which he knows full well i didn't do, for no reason other than to make me look bad.--xoxo 05:26, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And yet you and Nick have admitted several times on the wiki that you two get together at each others houses and use the wiki, sometimes whilst drunk. I'm not surprised that Bob, being bob, included you as a suspect. I doubt you are surprised either. Paranoid, yes, but it's also understandable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

While they have admitted that, we have already established that the user Buzz Killington wouldnt be for the fun or usage of either of these two because they both voted differently on the Crat election, meaning that if they wanted to gain from this, they would have had more use just changing nick or jeds vote instead. Also, if they were at each others houses, the checkuser would match up with the users house they were staying at.--CyberRead240 05:35, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Making a 2 member wiki group called 2 cool with your IRL best friend and blindly supporting its ideals through thick and thin comes with consequences, one of which is being grouped with each other. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:38, 31 August 2009 (BST)

For different reasons (my distance, his vote for SA) neither of us is in reality a suspect, so why group us together as suspects? --xoxo 05:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Because he's paranoid, hence why he shouldn't have banned it, not why he should be A/M'd for anything else. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:50, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I've never used my account in newcastle and he has never used his here. We've been present while the other person editing the wiki. However bob specifically states 2 Cool as "pretty conclusively" the sockpuppeteers when one user lives 200km from the exchange in question and the other user voted against boxy. Clearly a personal vendetta when you consider a variety of users are not mentioned in the case, eg you. The fact of the matter is bob has no evidence as to who did it and to state that it is pretty conclusively this guy who lives 200km away or this guy who voted for SA is the very definition of harassment through administration and abuse of sysop powers.--xoxo 05:41, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Just throwing this out there, but I use my work computer and home computer to make edits on here. I live less than five miles from my work. I use the same internet provider at home that my work does as well, but for some reason, both show up as completely different IPs. My work IP shows that I'm at some place that's roughly 150 miles from where I actually am. I don't know about your IP situation, but that could possibly explain something. --DBHT 20:08, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly, If I was so inclined I could successfully prove I don't even live in Newcastle. My IP permanently traces back to the Sydney CBD. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:13, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Hahaha oh dear. You'll be lucky to dodge an A/VB case for this one Jed: "Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops. " Cyberbob  Talk  05:25, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You dick, you just posted information that doesn't help yourself? Harassment of a user through administration may result in Vandal Escalations, even sysops, is what you just said. You just used Checkuser and found someone in a different city to Jed, yet still posted his name as a suspect.......that is harrassment of a user on an administration page? Are you fucking retarded?--CyberRead240 05:28, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not to mention it is furthering a personal vendetta......--CyberRead240 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el Cyberbob  Talk  05:34, 31 August 2009 (BST)

u so crazy--CyberRead240 05:37, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob is from Australia.... And he has motive to frame 2 cool peepz, i.e. a history of feuding. So it's obvious he is a PRIME SUSPECT, in fact it just HAS to be him! Well... probably... In any event, BURN THE WITCH!!!!! Then call Scotland Yard, Watson.

The absurd logic above is the very same logic that cyberbob used on his A/VB decision. However, this Misconduct case is frivolous. --WanYao 06:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Perrsonal attacks are not a sysop power. Creating A/VB cases is not a sysop power. The first case may have had merit, this one does not.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:23, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct Tag, Bob you're it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:46, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - As above. -- Cheese 07:59, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism for making a petty harassing case, J3D. This case is as slanderous as the one you are bitching about. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:47, 2 September 2009 (BST)

So you are basically saying that the two cases are identical. So if it as as slanderous, you would vote vandalism on Bob then....You really are an idiot.--CyberRead240 05:41, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm saying that either this case is an exact repeat of what was posted below (and that would make it harassment) or it isn't a sysop only ability (wild accusations are usually left to the "community" though in regards to the sysop conspiracy) hence Not Misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't make any case against you, Jed or anyone else. You're pretty thick. Cyberbob  Talk  05:53, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You made the case against Buzz Killington and cited Jeds Group, whether or not you meant just Jed and Nick, or dA hOle BBk r-TaRDz is your own business, you didn't place a proper description on who you were saying was involved, only Jed and Nick, which it has been found that it is neither of them. You didn't need to name anybody, you could have just said it is a sockpuppet of another user, and left it at that. Instead, you named names incorrectly and it can definitely be perceived as slander. Admit it bob, you said it because it was another chance to show how witty you are by saying 2 Special instead of 2 Cool (LOL THEY'RE RETARDED I GEDDIT!) and a chance to go 1 up on Jed.--CyberRead240 06:00, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry that you're physically incapable of seeing the difference between actually making a case against a user and mentioning them in one. Cyberbob  Talk  06:02, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Putting technicalities aside, you thought that the user Buzz Killington was Jed or Nick.....therefore you are making a case against them....unless you didn't think it was them and you just decided to throw their names in to slander them? OH!--CyberRead240 06:09, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I was not making a case against them. If I was going to it would have been under its own heading. You're still (deliberately I suspect - that or you're just very good at convincing yourself) not seeing the difference. Cyberbob  Talk  06:23, 2 September 2009 (BST)

;) --CyberRead240 06:26, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Nice editing skillz Cyberbob  Talk  06:52, 2 September 2009 (BST)

also cheers for all-but-confirming that you guys are simply stirring shit. If this is found Not Misconduct I will be taking Jed to A/VB (for bringing the case) and you to A/A (for playing along and making things worse). Cyberbob  Talk  07:05, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Sorry but a sarcastic wink means all that now? U mad? I think this is misconduct, thats why I argued. The wink is because you are just going to fight to the death for the last word so I was ending the conversation. Why try to manipulate what I say just because you can? Wink meant end of convo. If you use it as anything else, you are twisting my emoticons.--CyberRead240 12:54, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Sexylegsread said:

Why try to manipulate what I say just because you can?

woah. --neo the matrix 13:04, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Dont pick around my posts for something that you can find, to make me look silly, just to try to validate your own argument. --CyberRead240 13:07, 2 September 2009 (BST)

pretend i did the same thing as my last comment except quoting your entire post Cyberbob  Talk  13:16, 2 September 2009 (BST)

last word--CyberRead240 13:26, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Stop ruling on non-existent crap and make the case against him then ;) --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:10, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I have before, but apparently to prove harassment it takes years of abuse. I'm just throwing this out here to remind people that J3D has a habit of making these petty cases and was one of the reasons behind the addition of the "sysop harassment" clause. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah but, that doesn't make every case he brings harassment. What in particular shows he knows it's not a case of misconduct to begin with? --Karek^maps?! 18:25, 2 September 2009 (BST)

The fact that J3D's major complaint is that his Rep was "damaged" by some random comment?

J3D said:

This case is about cyberbob slandering my name without reason

I agree with you, Karek. Every case he makes isn't harassment and sometimes he makes valid points. But then, so did Iscariot in the beginning. He is making this about his eRep and getting his feelings hurt. He wasn't banned (unless that is his account) and he wasn't A/VB'd. There is no civility policy and sysops aren't moderators. How many more cliches do we need thrown in to see that J3D (someone that always claims he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him) is acting hurt to stir up drama?--– Nubis ^NWO 20:31, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I tend to agree that this is J3D being a bit overdone in his victimhood.... However I do think Bob is going a bit far in naming names and revealing vaguely confidential info in this case.... Even sharing an IP address is not automatically Puppeting as it happens so easily. Hell one of the reasons my girlfriend doesn't play is cos we can't really co-operate as we share a house and thus an IP address. I know Bob didn't go as far as naming towns but still, suggesting guilt for living in the same town as someone else is a tad too much... especially when its public knowledge that these guys recruited heavily from their school/college! --Honestmistake 20:50, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Case closed as Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:26, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob

For permabanning a user without cause. See the case here

If cyberbob can provide proof that the account was a sockpuppet, or if I am missing important facts, then this case will be withdrawn. However, at the time I am presenting this case, there have no such facts or any confirmation of the account being a sock. --WanYao 21:35, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Question: why wait until now to make this case? You've been editing all weekend. Cyberbob  Talk  22:28, 30 August 2009 (BST)

But to answer yours: we know the edit came from a town that a bunch of the other Australian editors either live in or visit regularly, the account made what-was-at-the-time the deciding vote on the bureaucrat election on Boxy as its first edit, and we know that this sort of thing has happened before (see Shakey60). We've permabanned for less, and I did make it rather clear on the A/VB case that if any other sysop thought I was wrong I would be more than happy for them to overrule. Sysops are allowed to rule on their own cases if they see them as being fairly open-and-shut, and have been overruled plenty of times without being Misconducted for it.
It would be extremely funny if every sysop turned out here now and voted Misconduct on me (or whatever) because the case has been up for a good while and they have had ample time to overturn the ruling. Almost every other active sysop has made a number of edits in that time; any one of them could have simply voted Not Vandalism on the case and that would've been that. But hey, I'm not really expecting anything else because staying silent when it counts is what sysops do best! Cyberbob  Talk  22:44, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This is pretty petty, Wan.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:53, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This case is anything BUT petty. It has all the appearance of a sysop misusing his powers by prematurely permabanning a user on wholly circumstantial evidence. Bob didn't wait for any other sysops to pipe in before banning the user, either, he just went ahead with the perma. If he'd waited before slamming the ban hammer, there'd have been no case... If anything is "petty", it's your accusation of my pettiness, YK.

As for why I waited... Well, I don't stalk every page of the wiki 24/7... Besides, don't you think it was better that I waited, bob? You always complain about me being "reactionary" and such shyte. So wasn't it a good thing for me give you and other sysops some time to offer up a reponse to A/VB case? Come on, old mate, show some consistency here!! --WanYao 01:10, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Furthermore, check the date stamp, cyberbob. The case has NOT been up for even 2 days. Not everyone stalks to the wiki 24/7 like you, you know... As for the vote being the deciding one, what would have stopped you from backing off on making a final decision until after the VB case had gone through the proper channels? That wouldn't have been a big issue, I'd think... You should have waited until at least one other sysop chimed in.As it is, it appears like you were trying to influence the election -- in favour of one of your buddies, and against users with whom you have a running conflict. Whether or not this is true, it still has the appearance of such... And as a trusted user you ought to be intelligent and prudent enough to avoid such appearances of bias. Sorry if these critiques bug you or something... but they're totally valid. --WanYao 01:20, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A BLOO BLOO BLOO CONSPIRACY EVERYWHERE ALL AROUND US EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY Cyberbob  Talk  02:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Sorry but the argument that a sysop should be handicapped based purely on whichever users are involved in something (assuming no conflict of interest obviously) is totally ridiculous. Cyberbob  Talk  02:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Typically mature attitude there. Respond to a very serious, and unfortunately very well-founded allegation with idiocy...

Anyway... The argument goes exactly like this: your hands should be tied if there is a potential conflict of interest. That's why it's called a "conflict of interest", old chap.

Now... maybe you're feeling a little... persecuted? Well... Maybe that's because you're doing things that attract attention to yourself? You do a lot of work for the wiki, sure. But so do a lot of other people. And the work you do doesn't make the wiki your personal playground where you can just do as you please, ignoring and bending rules and codes of conduct like Hagnat on methadone. Because that's how you treat the wiki: your own personal sandbox. And any and every user who doesn't agree with you, who challenges the things you do in what you think is your little sandbox, you insult and berate like the petulant, troll-child you are. Well the act is getting mighty stale, Cyberbob. Mighty stale. --WanYao 04:43, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Meth is bad, mmkay. You wont be able to drink alcohol, so whats the point ? Try Vicodin, all the cool guys are doing it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:53, 31 August 2009 (BST)

:D --WanYao 05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - To be honest, I haven't made up my mind on whether or not Cyberbob was right in this case but I do believe that it isn't misconduct. He acted, in his opinion, in the best interests of the wiki and I don't believe it was a delibrate abuse of power. An incorrect ruling does not necessarily make it misconduct. I have, however, unbanned Buzz Killington pending input from the other sysops.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:03, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - Since when do we ban users because their IP comes from the same city as a three-man clique and a two-year disbanded group? You banned it as a sockpuppet despite its IP being independent of any known user and because you banned it after its first edit you didn't even give it a chance to prove that it wasn't a meatpuppet, by letting it edit other parts of the wiki. I know you didn't act with that intention in mind but I still think you acted too quickly in blaming the 2 cool clique (or even the 'clique' of an entire city). Obviously the account is ridiculously suspect it deserved to be on A/VB, I just don't agree with you assuming bad faith and banning a user on mere speculations. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I don't think you should be ruling on this case for the same reason you didn't rule on the A/VB case. You have a pretty obvious conflict of interest here, being probably the most likely user to have done it if it was a sockpuppet. Cyberbob  Talk  02:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Also, you say I didn't act with bad intentions in mind but rush on to say that that doesn't matter, and that the fact that I mentioned my belief of one of you guys being the person behind it is what makes this misconduct? Lol. If I was seriously into "blaming" anyone I would have put them up on A/VB too. It was just idle speculation, nothing more and it had little to do with anything except giving you guys an excuse to cry about it. Cyberbob  Talk  02:49, 31 August 2009 (BST)

"You guys". Here you go grouping me with 2 Cool and saying I shouldn't rule, because according to your theory, which you banned the user on, this user was most likely me accessing an account from someone elses house? It's all bullshit, Cyberbob, and read the ruling. You assumed bad faith and banned a user with no evidence to support it being a sockpuppet. Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:54, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You agreed not to rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, did you not? Yes you did. Cyberbob  Talk  02:56, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A case related to the unbanning of a user, and a case related to your actions in banning the user are two different things. Don't get me wrong. I want the user's vote on A/BP struck and banned if a sockpuppet. But at the moment none of us know who the hell this user is and neither do you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

It's all the same issue DDR, and you have just as big a conflict of interest in this case as you do in the A/VB case. Cyberbob  Talk  03:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I would be if I was any way affiliated with this account, but I'm afraid being in the same city as someone does not actually make them the same person. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

See I would back down here but your position here is invalidated by the fact that you were happy to not rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, as has been said. Cyberbob  Talk  03:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Again, you're twisting what happened and what's been said. I've already explained that I'm ruling on your handling of the case rather than what should have been the outcome of it, the latter of which is a matter of A/VB and is what, as a suspect, I was obliged to follow. Ruling on how you handled the case makes no difference to me either way, there's nothing I could gain from agreeing or disagreeing with it, whereas, as a suspect, there is hypothetically a goal in reversing a ban of a sockpuppet I created. Either way, I'll accept an invalidation of my vote if the sysops deem it necessary. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct As The General...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST) Unsigned "vote" struck. --WanYao 04:47, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Incredible. Cyberbob  Talk  04:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, quite... incredible, that is! That a sysop forgot to sign their vote. Well, as long as they come back and sign and stamp their vote properly, where's the problem? Nowhere! So... you can stop your frothing, Cyberbob, everything will be ok. --WanYao 05:14, 31 August 2009 (BST)

stop your frothing cyberbob *posts many hundreds of paranoid and self-righteous words* Cyberbob  Talk  05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

No paranoia. Just a straightforward presentation of facts and arguments. It's not my fault you can't follow sentences containing more than 4 words. Perhaps the ritalined-up troll-child will learn to read one day. Perhaps. --WanYao 06:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el a bloo bloo --xoxo 07:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

May I congratulate you Wan on becoming the wikimedia darling for obtuseness and self directed feigned ignorance. What happened was obvious and your bias is showing, and not helping your case at all as you now appear even more juvenile... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I found it funny- demonstrates your attitude to addressing a case- run in becuase your watchlist beeps you (you probably have 5 pages on it, right? All admin drama nests?), skim through (at leased I would assume), then make the quickest ruling possible, don't even bother double checking it, and then don't even come back to the case to see how people have responded (even if it may be something as simple as striking your fail ruling). Nice. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:03, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Ahh, shit, I forgot. You must have been ultra-busy with IRL stuff, right? Busy studying or perfecting your extensive knowledge of 'most elaborate court system on the planet' and 'learning to become a teacher' and stuffs, eh? I shouldn't have held my breath. People as brilliant as you shouldn't waste your time here when they are 'busy getting a life'. Oh, all of a sudden I'm jealous. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:08, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Fucking yes. Highlights the reason why Conn shouldnt even be here. Check the IP, if its within 18,000ks of Bob its probably his sockpuppet.--CyberRead240 15:06, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You mean I've stolen the prize for boneheadedness from you, Conn???! Anyway, I didn't know whose vote that was I struck because I didn't bother to look at the page history, so drop the bias schtick. Meanwhile, I wonder how many unsigned votes you've struck on your watch, as a matter of course, Conn? Next time, sign just your fucking vote properly. --WanYao

WanYao said:

Next time, sign just your fucking vote properly. --WanYao (No timestamp)

I'll cry if that wasn't a joke. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:17, 31 August 2009(BST)

Why would it have been a joke? I'd already said:

WanYao said:

Well, as long as they come back and sign and stamp their vote properly, where's the problem? Nowhere!

The vote been properly signed and now there's no issue. Time to move along. --WanYao 14:38, 31 August 2009 (BST)

ahahaha you're just too special. Check out how you signed your last post. The one where you told Conn to sign properly? Cyberbob  Talk  14:56, 31 August 2009 (BST)

:/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:10, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Here comes the part where half the sysop team is inactive until this boils over because they are too afraid of making a decision. I can see boxy making a ruling but thats about it.--CyberRead240 05:50, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Borkay, after reading up on this, it seems clear that Cyberbob wasn't acting in bad faith, nor abusing his power as sysop. He had good reason to believe that buzz was a sockpuppet. And there is precedent for banning socks without naming the puppet master. Having said that, cyberbob probably should have just left it open for a couple of days instead of playing banhammer whack a mole. But from where this sailor sits, it shouldn't be misconduct.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:23, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Lucky for us this sailor got raped by pirates weeks ago. Seriously though, Butthurt aside, permabanning a sockpuppet for being in a 162 km radius of two users (or three, if you count that one of the 3 suspects moved there 2 weeks ago) isn't out of line, is it? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Where does cyberbob live, anyway? Seeing as he's Australian... and has a hate-on for the users he accuses of sockpuppeting... motive, opportunity and potential proximity to the scene of the crime... that's enough for cyberbob be a prime suspect -- well, by his own logic anyway... --WanYao 00:51, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Melbourne, 1000km (like 600 miles or something you, to quote cyberbob, "amerifags")or so from syd/newcastle.--xoxo 01:49, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Dunno why you're attributing 4chan language to me when I've said repeatedly that I don't visit there and haven't for almost forever. Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

LMAO. Just when I thought you couldn't get any stupider, Wan. Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As DDR said, there was no conclusive evidence that Buzz Killington is a sock of either Jed, Nick or Read (or DDR as some of the discussion here appears to suggest) and as a result, you should have just raised your suspicions on VB and we would have given our opinions. Things like this are usually always brought up there, unilateral action and assuming bad faith are counter-productive. -- Cheese 07:56, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct He has the right to make the case and assign the punishment that is given for the infraction.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:42, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You certainly are pretty fucking dim, aren't you? There was no infraction, or perhaps you'd care to explain to us what it was? Sometimes you can make me cry Nubis. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:00, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Chill, DDR, sigh. Anyway... Nubis: permabanning a user without any legit evidence, and without any discussion with the other sysops... And doing so where there is a conflict of interest, i.e. a feud with the users accused of socking, as well as a possible vested interest in the outcome of the 'crat elections. I'd really like to understand how you just write this off as "standard procedure", Nubis. --WanYao 05:06, 2 September 2009 (BST)

First, it just happened to be a suspected sockpuppet account of that crew. If this had been a goon sockpuppet that was banned would there be this much bitching (except from the goons)? Second, in the past when sysops have not "pulled the trigger" on sockpuppet/3 edit vandals people bitch (I know this from experience). Third, he was acting within his rights as a sysop. Now if you can show me evidence that he let sockpuppet votes for other sysops go I will change my vote to misconduct in a heartbeat. It's happened before where sysops only struck certain votes when there was evidence that votes on the other side were just as shady (see the Goon's Meat Puppet Policy). --– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Oh Gawd that reasoning cant be for real...This just shows what little integrity most of the Sysop team has these days. The infraction, Nubis, has since been found to be incorrect. At the very least, Bob should be facing a ban for the amount of time he banned Buzz Killington for. If the sysop team, besides Charlie and Cheese who seem to be able to make decisions based on merit, and not on who is their FrAnDz these days, would grow a set and start banning and misconducting each other, maybe we wouldn't have this inferiority complex on the wiki that drives fresh users away. I ask you Nubis, did you even read all the cases involved to put the pieces together? Or did you just see the names of the people involved, read the first line and do your usual drivel of making a half assed attempt at an important vote. You're retarded, is what I am saying.--CyberRead240 05:46, 2 September 2009 (BST)

u mad? Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah, because you probably wont get stung for something you have done wrong. Highlights everything wrong with a place I once enjoyed.--CyberRead240 06:02, 2 September 2009 (BST)

That's just like, your opinion, man. Cyberbob  Talk  06:03, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, however the opinion to say Not Misconduct is held by those sysops who are seemingly all butt buddies.--CyberRead240 06:07, 2 September 2009 (BST)

That's just like, your opinion, man. Cyberbob  Talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Would just like to point out that the infraction has not actually yet been "found to be incorrect". I merely unbanned Buzz Killington until the case is resolved and everyone seems to be set on avoiding making a ruling on the case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:37, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You obviously don't understand that the infraction is "non existant", he banned a user because it made one edit and fell within a cities radius of Nallan and myself. And SLR who moved there a week and a half ago. Nonsensical, yes? You're just grouping yourself further with Conn and Nubis with the "Rule now, read case later" approach. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:14, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Until we have a better system to verify accounts than checkuser we have to use what we have. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

dont be mad, its just the internet silly Cyberbob  Talk  12:29, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I know I'm being mad but GGRRRRRRRRRR WTF --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm merely pointing out a technicality that the case hasn't actually been decided as Not Vandalism yet. That was the only point I was making (and I admit that it doesn't make much difference).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:43, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Wrong. As it stands, the only sysop with the balls to address properly the vandalism case in question is boxy -- who just voted "Not Vandalism". --WanYao 18:56, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Firstly, that wasn't the case when I made the original comment. Secondly, Boxy's "Not Vandalism" vote tallies against the implicit "Vandalism" vote made by Cyberbob.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:20, 2 September 2009 (BST)

So if boxy thinks not vandalism, why hasn't he voted here yet....--CyberRead240 04:04, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism doesn't neccessarily imply Misconduct. You are silly. Cyberbob  Talk  07:32, 3 September 2009 (BST)

moreso, he is active, so why has he neglected to vote on this. You are sillier?--CyberRead240 07:59, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Oh, thought you were saying "blah de blah why hasn't he turned up to vote Misconduct if he thought it was Not Vandalism". Sorry.
I don't know for sure why he hasn't voted on this one yet, but from his comments on the vandalism case I would assume it's because he doesn't want to get involved unless it's absolutely neccessary (due to Buzz's vote being on him). Cyberbob  Talk  08:09, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah but everyone is involved in the crat elections if they voted on either SA or Boxy, so I guess that would rule out everyone....tbh I think sysops are chosen as sysops because they are deemed to be able to act objectively when needed, and I think most people have the confidence in Boxy to act accordingly--CyberRead240 08:29, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Lead by example. --WanYao 10:09, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I must confess, I don't follow your logic. Cyberbob  Talk  10:16, 3 September 2009 (BST)

FTR, I believe that the account is indeed very suspicious, and some action was warranted (I don't want such a vote pushing me over the line), however a ban was a step too far -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:38 3 September 2009 (BST)

What would you have done instead? Cyberbob  Talk  10:47, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I think it has been established that you should have just put the account up for vandalism and alerted the other sysops before it was too late to strike the vote. I'm sure DDR was around at the time--CyberRead240 11:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

If you put the account up for vandalism for being a sockpuppet vote you are supposed to ban it since that's what you do to sockpuppets that vote... You can't strike the vote, say it is struck for being a suspected sockpuppet then allow the account to remain.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't ask you. Cyberbob  Talk  11:17, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I don't know... we're still to work through what to do about votes on important wiki issues that are strongly suspected of being meatpuppetry, since Kevan made it pretty clear he didn't want them affecting the running of the wiki... that's why I'm still not voting misconduct here. It's pretty clear that something had to be done, and there's no clear precedent for it yet, you used your best judgment, and were open to be overruled -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:12 3 September 2009 (BST)

OK, that's reasonable. Cyberbob  Talk  11:17, 3 September 2009 (BST)

It's been here some days without activity, it's safe to say case closed as Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:27, 5 September 2009 (BST)

---