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)

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)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:Krazy_Monkey

Sysop seems to have deleted Bin and Test, but I can't find them in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 23:45, 27th December 2008 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.

As is made clear by the Administration Guidelines, "Except in the third instance listed above, a system operator may not delete a page that he or she has requested be deleted", the third instance in this case being a page in his own userspace. The pages in question were not in his userspace and do not appear to be scheduled deletions according to policy. Therefore these were inappropriate deletions. Sysop has previously been subject to a misconduct case for failing to correctly follow similar procedure on administrative actions.

Expect 24 hour ban as per the example at the top of this page for a similar offence. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This was to test MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext. In order to see it working, I need to move a page. Simple as that. -- Cheese 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This should have been requested for deletion in the same way as any other user should have had to, in order that this could have been reviewed by another sysop. This is why the deletions process exists. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to quote this oft used part of the admin guidelines: System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored. I created the pages solely to test a system message. They were not edited by anyone other than myself, and their deletion did not bother anyone as a result. In my best good-faith judgement I thought tidying up after myself would be a good idea. Considering one of the pages was a scheduled deletion anyway (redirect resulting from a page move) and the other contained the word "Testing", you are pretty much condemning me over a seven letter word. -- Cheese 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How would I know what these pages contain? I can't see them. Unless they are restored I have only your word on this. The guidelines are clear in the fact that the only things you should be deleting without oversight are your own (read userspace) pages. These weren't in that userspace. One would think you'd have actually paid attention to the last misconduct case you were in and learnt to follow appropriate procedure in such matters. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to sit here arguing over nothing, I'm working in about 7 hours so I'm off for some sleep. Good night. -- Cheese 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page logs would have shown you that it was a page he made and then moved and then deleted(bin) and the page he moved it too. A simple search would have shown it was a empty page(it's been through A/SD tons of times) and another view of the logs would have shown you that he was the only contributor to the page which he had restored. These are all public in Special:Logs. This isn't misconduct of any sort, not even minor, much less of any relation to that case. So he didn't put them in his namespace, that's the only mistake he made here.--Karek^maps?! 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sysop user sub pages arn't scheduled deletions either, though, are they? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:04 28 December 2008 (BST)

We've actually been over this in the past and they are open to immediate deletion. Here's the actual guideline(3).--Karek^maps?! 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. I was looking under scheduled -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:50 28 December 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - 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. It's not the first time you've done it either. -- Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) <<< That sums up my view on this matter, I suppose. Misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - of the most minor kind, again. As can be seen in the deletion logs, the Test page was an Unused redirect resulting from page moves, which is already a scheduled deletion, and the other page was only contributed to by Cheese himself.

---

• 23:45, December 27, 2008 Krazy Monkey (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Test" (content was: '#REDIRECT Bin' (and the only contributor was 'Krazy Monkey'))
• 23:45, December 27, 2008 Krazy Monkey (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bin" (content was: 'Testing' (and the only contributor was 'Krazy Monkey'))

---

This type of testing is made extremely hard if you have to wait for other sysops to serve your requests, so it's understandable, however the actions really ought to be recorded on the deletions page so that non sysops can tell what's has been going on. Also fuller explanations in the edit summaries helps for people who notice it on RC -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:06 28 December 2008 (BST)

Or maybe if some people actually contributed to the wiki instead of harassing people that actually do this wouldn't be necessary to even discuss.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - of the most minor kind, again. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Following the concept of Jury Nullification, I choose to change my mind and vote Not Misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - I don't fully understand what you were testing but if it was possible for you to move pages in your user space, you should do that, otherwise go through the red tape.--xoxo 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - Per the letter of the rules. Pointless though they are, they are rules nonetheless. However, it is such a minor breach that I don't see how we can reasonably dole out any punishment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Sysops create test pages and delete them all the time. This is a petty case, and like petty vandal cases this shouldnt even be discussed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is petty, Hagnat, but Cheese himself thinks something like this is misconduct. And remember what he said when you tried to get unused templates as a scheduled deletion? He's one of the hardline red tapers.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes i really dislike talion's law... i am against red tape, and this clearly falls under my principles. Cheese might help mantain the red tape, but that doesnt change that fact that, in my belief, this is not misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Asking a 24 ban for this should be considered vandalism.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that asking for the 24 hour ban should be considered vandalism. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking for asking for a 24 hour ban for this to be considered vandalism should be considered misconduct. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - Pretty minor, though. --ZsL 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (Krazy Monkey)

resolved
Not Misconduct 5 (Hagnut, Conndraka, Thari, Nubis, Karek) Misconduct 4 (J3D, The General, Boxy, Zombie Slay3r)note:3 of 4 Misconduct votes identify the misconduct as so minor to be of the most minor of natures. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah i forgot, make that 4 out of 4.--xoxo 10:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also it seems Nubis ruled misconduct, he just didn't bold it...--xoxo 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He's in the total already J3d Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay sorry if i'm misreading something really obvious but it seems to me he's in the not misconduct total when he voted misconduct...--xoxo 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks and two different sysop attempting to pervert the result of a misconduct case by intentionally misrepresenting the result to the community. This action alone should also be misconduct. The vote currently stands at Not Misconduct: 4 - Hagnat, Conndraka, Thari and Karek; Misconduct: 5 - J3D, The General, Boxy, ZombieSlay3r and Nubis.

"Misconduct - 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. It's not the first time you've done it either. -- Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) <<< That sums up my view on this matter, I suppose. Misconduct. --– TANK! Nubis 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)"

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

miscounted Nubis...my bad. Regardless St. Crucifix, the effect is the same. Its so fucking trivial that nothing is going to come from it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh(!) Yes(!) You 'miscounted'. Right.... Notice all how despite my views on this user I still don't stoop to such immature tactics as changing his user name in a derogatory fashion. Trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct ruling with no punishment ≠ nothing. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even once it's agreed to be misconduct, we still need to decide a punishment. At that point, we could agree that nothing more than a telling off is appropriate.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Punishment (Krazy Monkey)

Given that this is as trivial as it gets, no punishment seems to be the consensus, as long as he agrees to keep these tests to his own namespace in future (or go through A/SD) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:43 30 December 2008 (BST)

I promise I'll be good. =( And I promise to play in my sandpit in future rather than in the big wide main namespace. -- Cheese 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Boxy

This case had one vote of vandalism and one of not vandalism, other sysops had commented but not ruled. Karek, as the bringer of the case, cannot make a ruling. Yet boxy decided to warn me about it anyway, which A/VD confirms. Given the borderline nature of the case (evident in a split decision) and the fact that Nubis ruled based on a "larger case", boxy was premature in issuing a warning.--xoxo 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis + boxy = 2 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Boxy ruled vandalism, not misconduct learn to count, it tends to actually make or break your case. --Karek^maps?! 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Counting? Does that include Hagnat intentionally misrepresenting the result of the Nubis case? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxy didn't rule. He said warning after he'd ruled.--xoxo 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify bu ruled i mean warned on my talk page and entered me in A/VD.--xoxo 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Nubis + Boxy ruling vandalism = 2, Hagnat ruling not vandalism = 1. 2 > 1 so therefore, he was within his right to warn you. -- Cheese 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was worth a try ;) --xoxo 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, is that an admission of a frivolous case I see there? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

try reading 4 lines up, check the histories. then come back.--xoxo 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've written above changes the fact that you just admitted you knew that Boxy's actions were within the rules. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*, please tell me you're playing stupid.--xoxo 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but something tells me you are. This case is flawed, and your comment shows that you knew it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct hmmmm....Precedent..... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - In case you manage to count 1+1= -1 :P.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (Boxy)

resolved
Not Misconduct 4 (Karek, Conndraka, The General, Cheese) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 09:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

The Administration Guidelines serve to regulate the conduct of sysops using their powers as trusted users. They contain many clauses designed to prevent sysops having to take sides in disagreements. These clauses are clear and leave no room for interpretation.

One such clause is:

In the event of protection, a system operator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state. - Emphasis from the original document

In the procedure to protect, S.O.S. Hagnat ignored this clause and intentionally chose a side, in this case reverting to a contentious edit.ot

Not only is this in breach of Administration Guidelines regarding the protection of pages, but the procedures regarding Arbitration are clear. They are that the contentious edit should be removed for the duration of the case, Hagnat's actions go contrary to this procedure as well.

Hagnat stated during his most recent promotion bid that he would no longer 'mod' the wiki, he was clearly lying. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has continued this behaviour by unilaterally deciding the content of the page whilst it is under protection. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, i should've protected the page as in the moment of the request, and so i did. I was following due process in there since you were the one who started the revert war, not boxy, therefore its HIS edit that is valid for the duration of the arbitration case, rather than yours. Since the revert war begun when boxy removed the entire section, i dont see how i acted in bad faith here. And where the fuck did i said that i werent gonna mod the wiki ? Putting words in my mount, iscariot ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I know you have problems with English, but reviewed is clear, it does not mean when the requested was entered, it's when the the protecting sysop looks at the A/P page. But good luck in trying to rewrite the language I know better than you to make yourself right here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

spirit of the law against law by the letter again ? I like how you managed to attack me, find a weak spot in my argument, and ignore all else. Here is the thing again: You are the one who started the revert war, if the page should be kept in any status before an arbie it should be the status prior the conflicting situation. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Making up more 'guidelines' like the ones you wrote and unilaterally put in Admin namespace without community consensus again? You can spirit or letter as much as you like, those guidelines are there to prevent the image of sysops being partisan, something you breach with your every edit. The guideline is there to protect sysops, you breached it intentionally for personal preference. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hagnat, the disputed edit gets reverted for the course of a case, not the edit disputing the edit. It should be reverted to the version with the signatures.--Karek^maps?! 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this, you know this, why doesn't another member of the sysop team know this? Because he makes up his rules as he goes along. Still waiting for those signatures to be put back in.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now on the right diff.--Karek^maps?! 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And all I had to do is write a couple of thousand words and bring a misconduct case to get something that should have been done automatically? Must be a slow day on the wiki.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have the wrong version. Would you like me to point you to a copy of the correct one? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I don't have time right now to dig through all of them to see where it started, I just reverted to the last undo action hagnat did with votes otherwise I'll have to copy and past the page code from an older version.--Karek^maps?! 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The last contibution by The Hierophant was the last addition to the page. The correct reversion will include everything in the code including his post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is now there.--Karek^maps?! 08:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Not Misconduct Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

^This but only because it's something that we don't often have to deal with, or at leas haven't in a long time. If it happens in the future this case is a reference point and should be used to settle any dispute over how this should be done. IF it is refused with the knowledge from this case in consideration than there is certainly a chance it could be misconduct.

Status

Unresolved
Pending final outcome of Arby's? Not Misconduct 1 Misconduct 0 Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbies is finished -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:59 30 December 2008 (BST)

UnresolvedResolved
Pending final outcome of Arby's? Not Misconduct 2 Misconduct 0 Regardless of that case this one has been done for a while. There's really nothing more to add.--Karek^maps?! 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

Does it get any more obviously biased? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob.... get a life, I made a joke in good faith which may or may not be worth a warning and J3D has made a flippant comment on the resulting A/VB case showing his clear bias and personal opinion. Opinion yes, which arguably means that apparently it should be on the talk page rather than the main... still, show me exactly where he has bolded the words "Not Misconduct" or are you suggesting that an opinion is now a ruling and does not need to be bolded to count as such? --Honestmistake 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not Misconduct"? I think you think you really did get a promotion. Your case would be VANDALISM since (as far as I know) you are still a regular user. This case would be misconduct. But if this is misconduct then Hagnat and I would be on here, too. (not that that's anything new).--– Nubis ^NWO 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring this case for the ruling, you self-important twat. I brought it for the "Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?" line that J3D felt he needed to include. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So because you didn't like his commentary (that didn't include a ruling by the way) you decided that is enough for a Misconduct case? Have you been taking lessons from Iscariot? I don't particularly like J3D and his clan, but sinking to this is a pathetic low even for you. Expressing his opinion isn't a sysop ability and we're not mods and ...radda radda radda. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He pretty clearly was declaring it not vandalism. Just because he didn't bold it doesn't change his intent. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis, he started off the sentence with a otherwise unqualified refusal. Unless the english language escapes me there's not much else he could have meant with "Nup." There's not exactly 50 ways to interpret that. We've had this dispute before with most of the sysops saying the following; 'Bold a ruling, does not make'.--Karek^maps?! 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried thinking about this the other way. If he had said "Yup" I would have thought that was saying he agreed with the report. I think I blocked out "Nup" as stupid commentary made by a "vandal" because I tend to believe that sysops should take ruling on Admin pages a bit seriously. Actually, I tend to block out all of J3D's comments (and sorry, Bob's, too) because they have become so much white noise on those pages. I am going to say that this is Misconduct, because it is a first step in what could be a bad trend (ruling on users not cases). Mostly, because he still hasn't shown any signs of straightening up his act.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct, actually, not a case at all. You used to know when people were joking bob. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from anyone else I would have chalked it up as a joke. J3D is a special case as you well know. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct and to avoid a misconduct case of my own I'll leave it at that. _{Happy Now Cheese? ;)} Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct, the first word makes it a ruling, the rest makes it misconduct for the reason Cyberbob points out._{Placed here because Conn's prophecy was right this tiem, we disagree.}--Karek^maps?! 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If this goes down as misconduct then I'm dragging Hagnat here for ruling on this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your signature included his name at the end. At a glance it could look like he was signing. He was also ruling on the "good faith" issue of you having an "obnoxious" flashing signature. He wasn't ruling based on his feelings toward you as in this case. It wouldn't have mattered who had that signature. Flashing text is annoying. And why would you think anyone would hate you and pass negative judgment on things you are involved in? Whatever would give you that idea? --– Nubis ^NWO 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha Karek, ok, I await butt-buddy boxys ruling. I wonder what it will be...--CyberRead240 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person". Not misconduct though, just more shitting up of admin pages with his usual drama, which should be handled on A/VB, if anywhere -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:06 19 December 2008 (BST)

It makes me smile everytime when i see Eric Bessette in there...--xoxo 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ruling based on your personal dislike for me rather than the merits of the case. You're behaving every bit as badly as J3D. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to my opinion of J3D (ironic, wat). But if you want to take offense anyway, feel free -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:48 19 December 2008 (BST)

whups, apologies --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to catch Sysops behaving badly 2, out this summer.--xoxo 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me while I stitch up my sides. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Blatantly not a ruling, my opinion of Cyberbob is sinking even lower than previously.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This makes me wonder how much we can get away with if we say it's not a ruling when it becomes something of an issue later.--Karek^maps?! 10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't even state it as a ruling. If you make a ruling and act upon it, that's misconductable. If you basically state "Hey guys, can't I make a biased ruling there" as a joke then that obviously isn't misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what else could possibly be meant by nup. If he's a sysop and is saying something isn't valid as vandalism that is a ruling unless he specifically states otherwise.--Karek^maps?! 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure he even says that much:

J3D

Nup. Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?

If it's clearly an opinion and not a ruling in this case. I will not make such a wide-sweeping statement as to set a definitive precident in all cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very common in Australian-speak to say "yeah" or "nah" or, in this case "nup", before you start your sentence. It is just his way of speaking. If he wanted to make a ruling he would have bolded it, I think.--CyberRead240 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hay Sexy - you're forgetting where the guy who brought the case up comes from. Also, those words at the start of the sentence that are supposedly so unique to Australia aren't. Even if they were, they aren't meaningless sentence particles. In conclusion, take your tiny dick out of your IRL faggot buddy's arse (given that you're even further than usual from being correct, it's not doing much good) and find something else to do plx. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is part of Jeds slang, its how he speaks and how I speak. It might be different in your hipster fucking upside down town. But in Sydney/Newcastle its pretty common. I like how you use "little faggot buddy" for anyone who is friends on here. Some repressed friendship/rejection issues perhaps?--CyberRead240 13:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Where the fuck did I say the habit itself doesn't exist? Sounds like someone needs their very-speshul eddication ramped up a notch... that aside, your attempts to try and pretend like it doesn't have any effect on the rest of the utterance are pretty retarded. I've spent two years studying shit exactly like this and while they may just be casual phenomena they aren't there just for the hell of it. Also, please quote me properly: I didn't say "little faggot buddy". I said "IRL faggot buddy"; something Freudian going on there perhaps? Methinks my comment regarding your dick size wasn't so far from the mark. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought even internet trolls didn't resort to "you haz a small dick lolz XD" and "u guise r so ghey". And don't you fucking say you have spent two years studying this shit. You just finished year 12. Shut the fuck up. You know nothing of the human psyche yet you fucking retard. When you go study human behaviour and foibles in University, then you can say you "studied" it. Sitting alone in class while the jocks throw their lunch at the back of your head for 6 hours a day is not "studying".--CyberRead240 06:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not human psyche you fucking gimp... linguistics. Hilarious of you to try and presume how I am at school - especially so when you look at the fact that you're plainly serious whereas I'm simply jerking your chain. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG DID YOU TROLL'D ME--CyberRead240 06:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

YAR I TOTALLY TROLL'D J00 --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

General, please quantify the exact difference between an opinion and a ruling, making sure to include how "Not Vandalism" is not simply a more formalised way of saying "Nup." --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is really in whether it is acted upon. So "Surely I can ban Iscariot because I feel like it" doesn't constitute a ruling, it counts as an opinion in my capacity as a user. If I said "Vandalism - Because I hate Iscariot" and then banned him, that would be misconduct. Per the rules at the top of the page:

• 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.

I see nothing in those guidelines that classifies ruling on a vandalism case as a Sysop ability. Only acting on a ruling is Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at that point there are at least two things that could have been caused by the initial ruling. There's that it could have lead to no future follow up on the case, in this case because Hagnat's comment, and Nubis' announcement of indecision it could easily have been seen as a majority against punishment and been treated accordingly. It also runs into the problem that there were signs it would be a somewhat contested case, which means that if it is viewed as a ruling it's given weight, which it should have been and should be as he's commenting there and is a sysop. Basically it boils down to this, either he was ruling and I assume the above means you don't particularly deny that that is a possibility or he was spamming the administration pages and as he has a history of doing that there's grounds for a vandalism case, although at this point that would be simply petty and should probably be left at talking too about what is and isn't proper behavior for a sysop on an administration page.--Karek^maps?! 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got it exactly right. If we count it as a ruling, which I am included not to do (but don't rule out), and misconduct him for it or he's simply spamming up the admin pages (given that there's no actual meaningful opinion in his post).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So... which one is it? Don't make comments like that and let them go un-followed-up on. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone know, not even I would have brought this here. But since it is, I find a curious similarity between the rulings and reactions to J3D's promotion.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can go fuck yourself kthx --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob, you don't get it, I agree with you. However do you really think that sysops are going to misconduct this and forfeit their right to make sarky comments on admin pages (and then escalate normal users for the same thing)? Not a chance. The only people that are voting misconduct don't want J3D on the team and are counting on their ability to cry through a future case that this precedent would create. This case is a wonderful example of the politics of the wiki in action. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

cool story bro --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nup... Iscariot has the nail on the anvil... or something profound and proverbial like that.... It's interesting that J3D might be non-misconducted for shitting up the admin pages with a comment that is -- at best -- quite clearly ambiguous and subject to interpretation as a "No" vote -- but regular users get ban anvilled for hammering their snarky comments on the said same Adminstratey-type pages. Curious contradiction, that, n'est pas? --WanYao 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further information to hand

I am changing my ruling to Misconduct due to further developments.

In this case, J3D refused to do anything about a clear case of attempted impersonation of an existing user's signature because it was aimed at someone they disliked, and probably done by one of his own friends (given the location the IP came back from). He was online shortly after the account made it's first post and was reported on vandal banning, yet didn't do anything but say it was hilarious, giving the sock puppet over 2 hours to post before another sysop (me) came online (even though they didn't do anything further). J3D has shown that he will refuse to protect people he dislikes from trolling, and instead will join in with the taunting on admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:15 28 December 2008 (BST)

People yelled at me because i warned a user because of what he said in a talk page. "We don't punish users for their opinion" or something under this lines was said to me. J3D actions were his opinion, and he didnt used any actions a normal user couldnt. There was no ruling (i, atleast, dont consider it a ruling), only an annoying comment that *maybe* shouldn't have been made. You accuse J3D of being lenient to his friends, and not punish vandals who attack his opposers. The first is light version of the doctor who doesnt treat his own relatives... the doctors judgment will be clouded by his relation to the patient, and in the wiki a sysop judgment on a friends case will always be contested. That's why i rarely rule on cases brought against saromu and anime... on the second case, of allowing those whom he dislike to get trolled... well, we had cyberbob as a sysop for a year... it can't get worse than that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This case is one of vandalism, not of misconduct. That sums my point. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat, something like what happened in the impersonation case is more akin to a cop looking the other way because they dislike the person being violated. It's incompetence and more than that it's just plain ridiculous to defend that as anything but purposely looking the other way. The guy even went out of his way to make a wise ass comment on the case. From the information we do have we can reasonably conclude that he knows who it was that made the account. That is misconduct and relates by and large to why this case got made. --Karek^maps?! 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't only ignore an obvious case of vandalism, he actively encouraged it by laughing about it when an A/VB case was brought. He put his hand up for this job, twice, yet he actively encourages vandalism now he's got the job? He has absolutely no business being a sysop if he's only going to do the job when it doesn't conflict with his allegiance to his R/L buddies, and their targeting of their latest scapegoat. He has a long history of encouraging vandalism against his opponents -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:22 28 December 2008 (BST)

So you are voting misconduct because Jed did not vote when he saw the case there? Dangerous precedent, really. And duly noted. Oh and with him "encouraging" it, and you saying thats wrong etc. Well....you do it too. You might think you are subtle enough with your words that nobody gets your double meanings behind what you say, but really, anyone who finished 10th grade can see that you are perhaps the most biased Sysop on here. Don't be upset because Jed is one of the few Sysops who retained a sense of humour once getting the job.--CyberRead240 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, stop denying it and move in with him already. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't rule because i was unsure how to. I was under the impression (and i'm sure you actually said this somewhere) that i should just leave a case if i was unsure. Since it seemed likely given the timing that the account was made for trolling perma would be the most obvious choice however the IP wasn't from anyones. Permabanning the user wouldn't make any real difference. Shrug i could have permaed the user i guess, but i don't see what sysop action i misused, boxy.--xoxo 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "just leave the case because you were unsure", you decided to have a laugh about it on the admin page, about how it would inconvenience the person being targeted.

J3D said:

If you people are trying to claim it was me, firstly you can't prove anything so i don't care...

No, we can't prove it was you, but we can be pretty damn sure it was one of your real life buddies using another ISP, and given how close y'all are, it's very unlikely you knew nothing of it. Regardless of what we can prove or not, you've once again shown yourself to be totally unsuited to the position of sysop, because you will always put your buddies first, and encourage them in their vandalism.

For a month after your promotion, none of the sysops hassled you about anything, and then, out of the blue, you decide to make it look like Nick was using your account and looking up my IP addy, made a frivolous Misconduct case against me, and now twice shown your total inability to deal fairly with cases involving Bob. You got your chance to be a sysop, been given a fair chance to make a go of it, even by those opposed to you getting it in the first place, and you've blown it. If you had any decency, you'd go to A/DM yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:25 29 December 2008 (BST)

FYI, Jed lives at least 150km, roughly two hours, away from all of his "RL" buddies on the UDwiki--CyberRead240 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this slightly confused me to. However, I would like to note that you seem to be in the same area as the vandal account.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really! Why did you look me up? Damn, I guess its Vandalism by postcode then?--CyberRead240 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you were related to the case; I looked up the vandal, you, J3D and Cyberbob. I then then did a whois lookup and matched up the locations. It doesn't make it vandalism but it does make your testimony of J3D's innocence rather less reliable.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless i'm mistaken bob lives in roughly the same area as me...have any of you stopped to consider that possibility?? Boxy you sure can act stupidly when you want to. And yes, before you say it, so can i. --xoxo 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. He's not even in the same state and the only reason I can mention that is that you've both publicly announced where you live.--Karek^maps?! 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yawn you sound like a broken record, get over yourself plz.--xoxo 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you think that edit was shitting up admin page (which i don't) it's still not a sysop action and thus not misconduct, i like it how you didn't bother addressing that bit.--xoxo 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruling is a sysop action. It's either vandalism or Misconduct and it looks very much like you ruled and tried to claim you didn't when it got brought here. --Karek^maps?! 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like a ruling. A ruling is generally bolded. Jed knows that, you know that, I know that, fuck who doesn't know that. Your fucking butthurt attempts to get Jed sacked are fucking ridiculous.--CyberRead240 08:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why your input isn't valued here. Read the rest of the case as there is some dispute over whether or not it was a ruling and J3D's claim certainly is far from satisfactory.--Karek^maps?! 13:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (J3D)

Unresolved

Not Misconduct

1. The General

Misconduct

1. Nubis
2. Karek
3. Boxy
4. Hagnut
5. Conndraka
6. Cheese

---

All 3 misconducts ruled on different things, how amusing. Karek thinks i was ruling, Nubis thinks i wasn't, but it's a worrying trend and boxy, well boxy just ruled based on something that happened a bit later on. So do we get a 7th party in, or what?--xoxo 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you were ruling just happens to be a major part of my consideration in the case and cements the fact that there is misconduct here. I agree very much with Boxy but see the view as two separate but extremely related cases. You're using your position to protect your friends through purposeful inaction(bias).--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Slayer, Thari or Cheesey will have to chime in...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't rule on something that came later on, I ruled on you continuing your harassment of the user, and encouraging a sock puppet impersonator by treating bobs second report as a joke instead of banning an obvious sock puppet vandal -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:13 30 December 2008 (BST)

I didn't realise not banning someone and loling at bob were sysop functions, my mistake.--xoxo 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When the decision is as clear as this, and it's one of your mates that you are refusing to take the sock puppet away from, yes. You choose to contribute to the A/VB case, yet you refused to act when the course was extremely clear. You signed up to ban sock puppets, not to taunt those being targeted by them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:22 30 December 2008 (BST)

The person who brought the case forward accused certain parties (me) of creating the account. IP check said it wasn't a sockpuppet. So i didn't rule yet explained on the case that i had IP checked, yeah i threw it a little extra somethin' somethin' but as pretty much every post on a/vb ever serves as precedent to show, that doesn't make misconduct.--xoxo 11:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet impersonation doesn't get any clearer than this, J3D. You don't say ha, ha, you will have to change your sig now in response to that. If you can't tell that this is a bad faith account, you have no right to do the job. But you of course did know that it was a vandal account, and that's the whole point... you chose not to act, and only taunt the person being impersonated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:18 30 December 2008 (BST)

Construe what you like from it, it doesn't change fact. I didn't rule on vandalism (as per your and others requests) and yet you still aren't happy. As read so often says, agenda?? :P --xoxo 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The hilarity of this all, is that it is not a sock puppet. It is someone that I know, (Jed does not, not sure if Nick knows them that well) who knows about UD and the Wiki who thought it would be lulz to do this. On msn with them, I said, yes, it would be lulz to do this. And so far it has lived up to my expectations.--CyberRead240 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexylegsread said:

I can assure you it wasn't anyone I know.

Sexylegsread said:

It is someone that I know

Yes, hilarious. Your testimony that J3D knew nussing has convinced me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:51 30 December 2008 (BST)

I guess I meant nobody in my "clique". Regardless, Jed knew nothing of it, until it appeared in RC. And btw, you do realize that it's spelled "Nothing" right?--CyberRead240 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nussing" is a reference to an old TV show, but nice try on being a spelling nazi to make points. Every time you add something to this discussion you are making our case against J3D. Keep up the good work!--– Nubis ^NWO 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I grew sick of J3D's attitude and behaviour. When i vouched for him, i didnt expected to see a cyberbob². Changing my vote to misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that 2 is representing a squared function rather than a straight version 2... because I never abused CheckUser whatsoever and I never encouraged vandalism. All my shitstirring was purely unofficial. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Get with the times man. Things have changed since version 1.--xoxo 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If by "things" you're referring to your willingness to violate privacy laws and laugh at vandalism based on its target then sure. Things have changed. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

yawn. I swear you've forgotten how to joke, guess full time trolling sucks it out a'ya.--xoxo 02:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

cool story bro --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing mine as well... Something doesn't smell right. Now lets move on....Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say misconduct as well. The ruling thing could be forgiven but blatantly ignoring an obvious impersonator of another user purely because you have issues with that user is a step too far. Especially when there is a strong possibility that at least one of you knows this person. If someone came along and impersonated the likes of Iscariot, I wouldn't let any issues I have with him get in the way of doing my job. You were promoted, J3D, because you gave the impression that you would actually grow up a bit and not cause excessive amounts of drama for shits and giggles. It seems my faith in you has been misplaced. -- Cheese 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote

It is clear that this user has a history of abusing and harassing certain users on this wiki. He did so even before being a sysop and clearly continues to do so now. This behavior is not likely to improve. If we allow it to go on we will only make it harder to do the normal required sysop functions if we have to continually deal with the "drama" and shitting up of pages by his clan. He has shown no great effort to contribute since getting the position and has instead violated rules and caused needless hassles. He has not lived up to the promises he himself made when putting in for the position.

I say we take a vote to demote him (Grim Clause). Violating procedures is serious, however, abusing the community is obviously worse. There is no justification for it and it is not behavior anyone should be allowed to indulge in regardless of position or not. This pattern will only get worse. Do we really want another sysop like Grim that can't get along with the users? --– Nubis ^NWO 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing this for a first offence is nothing more than a witch hunt. It's nothing but the continued attack by a group of sysops who were against J3D's promotion in the first place. If this goes through I see a policy being pushed through that will demote any sysop by virtue of a popular vote. Those perpetrating this hunt will be the first to go. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He started this shitfight. Everyone left him alone for a month after his promotion, because he was doing the job he signed up for... but he got bored, and decided to liven things up, and has now proven everyone who was against his promotion exactly right by showing that he will never go against his real life friends on A/VB (friends who are consistent vandals, just like him). It's a ridiculous situation to have him in the sysop team, able to tell his vandal buddies exactly which IP/sock puppet accounts we may be suspicious of (by accessing the checkuser log), especially given that they've now shown the inclination to start impersonating their latest target -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:12 31 December 2008 (BST)

You really overestimate my friendship with read. We don't live together, i don't know what he gets up to. I had nothing to do with the haha disregard that etc stuff, in fact the whole time i've only known as much about it as you have. One day of drunken antics on the wiki and you jump immediately to demote me, classy.--xoxo 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

against As much as I hate to agree with St. Crucifix, I do. I cannot and will not vote for demotion at this time. Now J3d must receive the sternest of warnings regarding conduct expected of a sysop with the knowledge that assisting or allowing vandalism in any form constitutes a serious breach of trust. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is purely vandalism by association. I know the concept of RL friends is lost on some of you, but me and Jed knew each other in grade 8. Speak about once a month on msn or irc outside of the wiki, and see each other prbably once or twice a year when he heads up north to see other people. Jed knows nothing of the person who created the HAHAHA etc account. It is fucking amazing how this "Misconduct" case has involved 3 different reasonings, none of which are true, and all invented by, well guess who, Nubis, Karek and Boxy. There is a serious issue, and whoever cannot see that they have waited a month to smash him down with their first chance must seriously have comprehension issues. Its simple, boxy waits a month, and him and his henchmen can knock jed down for the first thing he becomes mildly associated to, all the while looking like they gave him all the time in the world, when simply, it is all a plan. Jed has done nothing wrong but "lol" at a situation. A sysop does not have to vote if they are unsure of how to do it, and he didn't. An independent person, whos identification I know (an UD user, but not a regular wiki user), is respnsible for it. I merely let them do it. Jed did nothing. Now I await for Nubis to make a comment disregarding everything I say while hiding between the shadows of Boxy and Karek, who will recite bullshit reasons in an attempt to at least ban one of us.

If Jed gets demoted from this, a witch hunt, after one thing that wasn't even his fault but was blew out of proportion by a cock like boxy and co., then we can really see how much of a power trip this place is on, and why we see a decline in wiki numbers every day.

I won't say any more, because I don't have to. The information is all there, I knew, Jed didn't, but none of us typed or saved a single page creating it. Not a sockpuppet, and not misconduct BECAUSE JED KNEW NOTHING OF IT. Even when he posted on A/VB, I hadn't spoken to him about it. Fucking agenda. This screams it.--CyberRead240 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

inb4 bob--CyberRead240 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not a very credible witness, Read, throughout this whole case you have changed your story depending on what can be proven at the time, until you backed yourself right into the corner you now find yourself. I gave J3D every chance to live up to the expectations of those who vouched for him, and even after he went on his bender, and decided to make it look like Nallan was accessing his account to access my IP details, I still didn't misconduct him. How did he react? He continued to bullshit me on my talk page about it, and then started in on bob, and ignored your "real life friend" impersonating him, and instead decided taunting bob on A/VB was a better option than banning the imp.

Enough rope? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:02 31 December 2008 (BST)

More than enough rope... This isn't a "witch hunt", Read. It's a justified corrective measure to deal with someone who doesn't exhibit the minimum requirements of responsibility and stability to be a sysop. You guys perceive some kind of persecution... but the fact is that your clique has acted immaturely, disruptively and trollishly for almost as long as I've been involved in the wiki... THAT is why you get "picked on"... because you're obnoxious brats, that's why. J3D is the only one of your clique whom I actually like, and he's probably the best of you lot, which isn't saying much... But IMO he hasn't lived up to the expectations of a sysop, and that's the issue. --WanYao 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm for demotion, I can bring up the fact that this is exactly the thing that was ignored during his promotions bid or I can simply point out that other sysops have been demoted for far less. In the end though it all boils down to this; Much like with Hagnat I don't think you will learn your lesson with just this case here, I think you'll ignore any non-substantial punishment we give and to make this actually a punishment it would require demotion.--Karek^maps?! 09:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)