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)

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

Boxy

Clearly showed on SA's talk page that he's fine with SA's current sig which is just as repetitive as reads, and actually violates the sig policy by linking to another user. Read never reverted his sig to it's previous form, always altering it and engaged in discussion to see how he could fit it in to make all users happy, this he didn't actually need to do as at no point did his sig violate policy. Instead of having this chance he was banned by hagnat, twice. Now a user boxy likes comes along and does the same thing, however he is given a chance to alter his sig and is even allowed to remain with a policy violating sig. Boxy is showing clear bias towards someone he is chummy with which is not ok for a trusted user.

From this i want read's ban reverted and hagnat misconducted for issuing a ban against someone for doing something that boxy has clearly demonstrated he feels is okay. Failing that i want to see SA alter his sig so that it is not repetitive, long or linking to Nubis. Either way boxy should be warned to demonstrate the community will not tolerate bias in its sysops.--xoxo 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First Response

This isn't arbies J3d. If Boxy is guilty of Misconduct he'll be judged so and any punishment therein will be to affect Boxy exclusively. If you beleive the Nubis/SA sig to be vandalism you'll have to address that there. As of this moment I beleive the actions to be questionable but won't rule either way until I've seen some discussion on the issue. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed those spaces, but them back if you want them but i didn't see why they were there...i don't think the sig is vandalism, however by boxy showing he is aware of the sig and not reporting it he is saying he thinks SAs and by extension reads sigs are both fine. Classic catch 22.--xoxo 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. In both cases, the person reverting the sig did the same thing, fixed a sig that was a significantly confusing to others, and asked the person with the offending sig not to do it again. Reads response was to make his sig shorter, but still with the same level of confusion... only after he had been escalated and taken to A/VB did Read decide to make his user page link easy to find amongst the other junk links. Angels first response was to bold the link to his user page so that it stood out from the rest of the sig. If Angels first response was further use of his obviously, and deliberately confusing sig, my next stop would indeed have been A/VB.
What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour. He gets in A/VB trouble more often, not because I'm out to "get him", but because of his actions in deliberately seeking out such drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:22 6 February 2009 (BST)

If you admit that Read willingly changed to make it clear it was him signing once it was apparently most of the community found it confusing then why exactly did you support him being banned for a week? --xoxo 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because he only did it after it got sent to A/VB. He was being a totally unreasonable wikilawyer up to that point. Too late being reasonable, showing his bad faith -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:32 6 February 2009 (BST)

It seems likely to me read not unreasonably thought you were targeting him and thus was reluctant to change his sig substantially, the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing. Then he tried to change it but was banned before he was given a proper chance as per the sig policy. The point is the basic right of one week to get it in line afforded to SA was not afforded to read. Furthermore you seem to think the line for what is okay for each of them is totally different, hence bias.--xoxo 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

J3D don't be a fucking retard: the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing the case was posted by Hagnuts not some random member of the community complaining about about it. It was posted by a sysop that decided he wanted to ban him over it and then did so. If some random schmuck had posted the case and a few people said "yeah, his sig bugs me" then your comment would be true. -- #99 ^DCC 08:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SA didn't get a week to change it, I did it immediately on the promotions page, and then within minutes he'd made his userpage link stand out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:04 6 February 2009 (BST)

What's missing here is the relevance of the previous case which shows him exactly what is up to the standard. You assuming SA was simply more reasonable shining Read in a worse light because he had less information, information that arises directly from the case you're disparaging him for. --Karek^maps?! 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this merde. If Read's sig is "broken", so is SA's. I think that's a reasonable consistency to expect. However, there is/has been a HUGE difference in attitude and behavior between SLR and SA. The latter was trolling, pure and simple... the boy has a history of doing such thing... and that's why he was "picked on" and "singled out"... But if you think SA's sig is out of line, J3D, then report it to VB. Kay? --WanYao 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And that right there is the huge difference between SA's case and Read's. Read was actually reported to VB. SA was not.

J3D, I sympathize with you. I clearly think Read's ban was misconduct and he should have been given the full week to change his sig regardless of his actions. However, boxy isn't doing anything "wrong" here that involves his sysop powers, therefor no misconduct case. No one reported SA on A/VB so he wasn't being biased in a decision. If anything he may have been negligent by not reporting him, except that that isn't misconduct any more than not reporting vandalism is vandalism.

You should have made a VB case and watched to see how he ruled before leaping here to A/M.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"You should have made a VB case and watched to see how he ruled". Nice work from a sysop, encouraging people to file cases that they don't believe to be vandalism, simply to "catch out" sysops. That's the definition of a petty A/VB case, Nubis... and just so you know, I would have ruled vandalism in a heart beat on SA's initial edit, where he included your deliberately confusing sig. But no one brought the case to VB... and I always take vandalism to people's talk pages first, if I believe them to be open to rational discussion on the issue -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:08 11 February 2009 (BST)

Ok. Misconduct by gross negligence. Biased behavior towards users committing the same act of vandalism. If SLR's sig was vandalism that was voted such and the ban upheld then SA's would have been even more so. Should a case be made against Cheese since he posted on that page also and didn't report the sig or can we just tack him onto this one?

I was trying to give you an out and encourage users to follow procedure, but your comment made me realize that (like SLR) you have a history that should be considered in this case and therefor warrants special treatment. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's misconduct now when a poster (who happens to be a sysop) follows the A/VB page guidelines, and negotiates an outcome on the user's talk page before taking it to A/VB? Noice -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:28 13 February 2009 (BST)

No, dipshit. It's misconduct when you are an ass to a guy that was trying to cut you a break and not vote on the case. You're fucking lucky that all this vote does is cancel out Conn's. Get one of your butt buddies in here to vote not misconduct on this shit and move on. Can you be anymore of a self righteous prick? Nubis kept saying there were no sysop powers used but then you got all indignant. You shouldn't have fucking replied with your snarky little oh, look a sysop encouraging petty cases bullshit..-- #99 ^DCC 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And while I'm fucking at it, why didn't SLR get the "negotiation" period? You voted Hag's case not misconduct and he didn't follow the rules of A/VB. Cry me a fucking river.-- #99 ^DCC 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason that isn't an option for me is that i believe the 2 sigs are very similar and that neither are vandalism. As boxy thinks the first one was vandalism i would expect him to think the same of the second, hence this case and not A/VB.--xoxo 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, even if SA had been reported he would have only gotten a warning.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour." - Admission of bias. There should be no bias for or against any user on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're one to talk about being biased! You have zero trust in the sysop team based on their past actions and even when they attempt to defuse the situation with you, you just can't let the past go. And if you attempt to come back at me with the they're trusted users, we must hold them to higher standards bullshit, then you will just acknowledge your bias.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias doesn't just mean the way you behave towards users that don't kiss your ass Iscariot but you know that, you also know that Boxy means that Read has shown a predilection towards abuse in this manner and that was being taken into consideration. I'm also pretty sure we've talked to you about trolling admin pages and yet here you are doing it with an argument a 5th grader could see through. --Karek^maps?! 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When its all said and done I'm saying not misconduct in and of itself. Now I do beleive the sigs in question are Bad-faith atempts at a work of satire, but that isn't to be determined here. Choosing not to act IMHO can be misconduct, but not before the fact (i.e. the Sigs would have to be ruled vandalism FIRST then the misconduct case brought). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I tried saying that the sigs would need a VB case and boxy called me petty basically. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Hagnat

For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature.

Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, 42 minutes... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but he did at least unban him. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of the policy is not clear? "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature".

Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the procedure or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --WanYao 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--CyberRead240 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read has been pushing the sig policy deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are off line a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. Not misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)

I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from.

And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.---– Nubis ^NWO 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--CyberRead240 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's basic page ownership. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the beginning. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it is deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)

No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.

Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.

I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the second time in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)

No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still reverted it back to its original form. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were Not Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --CyberRead240 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So now redundant links are against policy? When did that happen? There is nothing, I repeat nothing anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.

Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, the only crime i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "1/6 of the links to his user page" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of punishment for when i come back. Até mais. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conndraka Break

Not Misconduct Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) _{who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely)}

All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a vandalism case will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.

Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig is vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB properly. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --WanYao 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, see UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per UDWiki:Vandalism. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct, provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It also says that The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals. Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.-- #99 ^DCC 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this way, perhaps you will find this section of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: "Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Karek Break

Misconduct - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --Karek^maps?! 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he does have a lot of cases.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This one, in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with a "real" escalation. --Karek^maps?! 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)

Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --Karek^maps?! 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this?! I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule Not Misconduct just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was nothing that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. Liberty 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)

Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. #4 Boxy, #4. --Karek^maps?! 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)

Cute, if you want to play dumb to justify your stance I can deal with that, make me do more work to dig up discussion about the relevance of a rule along with it's use historically will take some time, like when I had to make that point with arbitration Although we both know that I already made this point last time hagnat report warned a user and you dismissed it on the grounds of "I don't care we do it anyway" so I guess more links won't make you do anything but continue the stance of Fuck Due Process. But, maybe you should keep in mind that he didn't follow the letter of the policy and that you're arguing he did on a completely unrelated policy as opposed to the one he actually ignored but was relevant to the case(Signature policy). I have no problem with Hagnat and I couldn't care less about the letter of policy if it is contrary to the purpose, I was with Grim before because Hagnat ignored both and it frequently led to him screwing stuff up, this time though it's irrelevant that it's Hagnat, what is relevant is that he banned a user illigitimately and you're covering his ass for it becuase you think the user is bad for the wiki and happen to be using every half assed trick in the book to back up your argument. --Karek^maps?! 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually you know what, Fuck it. If you're too stupid to realize that you don't ban a user without discussion then it's not worth my time and I can only say that the only good thing for this wiki you could do is put in for demotion. If this is seriously the learning curve here for generally good practice I think I'm about done with this place. It doesn't take an idiot to see that you couldn't care less about giving users a chance or that you're refusing to understand that just because he was a troll does not mean he doesn't deserve as much leway as the rest of the user base. I can only hope for future users sake that you do eventually realize that it is abuse of the position and policy to attempt to use vague "loopholes" in one policy to justify ignoring another policy, especially in cases where the sysop is obviously acting in a petty manner. --Karek^maps?! 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Slayer/Suicidalangel Break

Misconduct - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --ZsL 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read didn't revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban after it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Verdict

Misconduct - by a 4 to 3 vote. ---– Nubis ^NWO 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --xoxo 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --Cyberbob 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. Liberty 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. ---– Nubis ^NWO 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page a lot, whether he deserved it or not.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--xoxo 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

then why did you call for his demotion?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--xoxo 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a teamangel?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --xoxo 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--xoxo 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- Cheese 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, I've changed my mind. Not Misconduct. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- Cheese 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig? Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He never reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the only edit that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came after hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was gaming the system ("you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it") -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)

Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he still tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat still was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It went through A/VB, and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)

Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as SLR never got his one week to fix it. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply". He tried. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like most users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxy: Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why this is misconduct. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and we can not do that, especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page_{(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember)}, Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it _{(something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded)}, Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion that was already taking place <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. Even though the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, even though Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and even though Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case was made before he was found to be a vandal, this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging against what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --Karek^maps?! 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheese: Incorrect, I provided Read with a polite request and some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig, Hagnat just came by and edited it without discussion. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely_{(both things have happend)}. You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time, he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --Karek^maps?! 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure is butthurt around here. --Cyberbob 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --Karek^maps?! 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --ZsL 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--Karek^maps?! 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with this to be used to deal with this. --Karek^maps?! 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's actually 4/4. Liberty 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --Karek^maps?! 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. Liberty 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --Karek^maps?! 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy NM, The General NM, Con NM, Karek M, ZS M, SA M, Nubis M, Cheese NM -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)

I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)

After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --– Nubis ^NWO 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I threw the bold back in then. Sorry Karek. And Nubis of course. Liberty 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we pretty much never count the reporter if they're a sysop. A quick jaunt through Hagnat's A/M archive would show as much. --Karek^maps?! 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't make any sense not to count the reporter if they are a sysop. I know Grim would make a big show about I'm not going to vote because I brought the case but you know he only brought the case because he didn't want it to get missed and he was too proud to have an alt account to post it. Not to mention he was trying to seem like he was taking the high road even though he was the petty one that jumped on all mistakes. (I'm still bitter)--– Nubis ^NWO 00:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As much as it will mean Hagnat will get away with yet another account of misconduct, I don't think there's any justification to allow the party that starts the case to rule on its outcome. Such rulings are inherently biased (you brought the case so must think it's misconduct) and lead to mechanics in the system that allow for easy witch hunts to occur. I was about to bring this case myself before you did Nubis, so we do agree, however ruling on a case you have brought is fundamentally wrong. I also added an extra header to break up the case as the file size warning was in effect when I clicked edit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit..Hell's freezing over. I agree with Iscariot (damned edit conflicted me too)If I recall...we have always assumed a vested interest caveat when considering the reporter. i.e. If we as sysops report misconduct we don't typically count the vote of the filer unless there is a tie among the other sysops...its sort of like considering whom ever files the case is the prosecutor. Can't be both prosecutor and Jury at the same time...normally. I'm thinking this is something we need to codify though for future reference. Its been a while since we did one of those sysop only-vote/determinations. I nominate Karek to come up with the wording. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not allowing the reporting sysop to vote is just plain stupid. It's remarkably stupid in a case like this which was going to be brought here anyway. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 12:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely Sysops are often in a better position to spot misconduct than regular users.. after all they do (supposedly) know what standards they are meant to abide by and many seem to be logged on more often than they sleep. Barring a sysop from ruling on cases like this could well encourage them to wait for others to report things or even worse to use stooges to make reports for them and neither of those is going to give the community the impression that the sysops are doing their job well.--Honestmistake 12:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I got to agree here with Honest and Mid, guys. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Me also. There is little difference between Nubis posting this case and a regular user, it is idiotic to forbid him from voting in it. We know if he didn't post this then J3D most certainly would have anyway. And when should such a little difference as reporting, become such a big difference as the whole outcome of the case? Liberty 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whne the rest of the Sysops team is trying their hardest to let their friend go unpunished. :) --BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Zinker was given multiple chances to change his templated sig even when it broke the rules harder than Reads did. Hell, Boxy even let him have another chance even though his next step would have been a 48 hour ban I think.--BFFs +SA+NSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSAN 4 EVA!!! 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if Nubis' vote is counted that still leaves the case at a tie. --Cyberbob 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Helpful Access Header

So...when is an official verdict going to be made here?--SirArgo ^Talk 08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the look of it... never. Unless the Crats care to step in and rule? Actually is that allowed?--Honestmistake 09:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, bureaucrats don't have any power over sysops aside from the ability to promote/demote users. Nice try though. --Cyberbob 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Bureaucrats can do everything that sysops can do, but can, in addition, promote and demote users to sysop status." That is from the Admin Guidelines is it such a leap to say that they cannot interfere here, after all they can demote so i can see an argument for them being able to act as tie breakers.?--Honestmistake 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is "such a leap". --Cyberbob 09:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If Crats were able to "interfere" in here then there would HAVE to be a special procedure for bringing cases against them since the other Crat could just step in and say not misconduct. There isn't. They can't. Don't give them any more ideas. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and nice try at what? I don't think I have said which way I think this should go.--Honestmistake 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The vote is tied, therefore nothing can happen; in effect a Not Misconduct ruling. It's what's happened in every previous case where this has happened before, I see no reason why this one should be any different. --Cyberbob 09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And how many times has a tie happened before? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There were a few that on skimming I couldn't determine an actual outcome when I was re-organizing.

Why not have Rosslessness cast the deciding vote since he was sysop when the case started? --– Nubis ^NWO 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but we could be waiting a while. Liberty 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If Ross can be contacted, bring him in.-- Adward  16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What's goin on? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This still wasnt ruled on ? Damn. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 20:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just keeping it warm till you got back...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we'll just have to wait for the next sysop to be promoted. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF? That is completely out of line with a fairly huge precedence; every case where the sysop vote has been tied has had in effect a Not Misconduct result. --Cyberbob 06:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice... that was a joke. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 09:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All I wanted was some damned resolution to the case! Why the hell is it so hard to just have a sysop say Not Misconduct and file it away? It's a tie so just close it or find a way to get someone else to vote. I don't care.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling it?

IF there isn't any movement within 24 hours of this notice,one way or the other, I say we call it Not Misconduct file it away and go on about our merry way. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted on Ross' talk page. Let's see what happens.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me read. I'm worried about setting a precedent (Good thing i wasn't demoted for misconduct) Whether I vote or not, Ill let you know tonight. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right In no particularly suprising way, I'm not ruling, as I have been demoted and misconduct is screwed up as it is, without people saying "What do the old sysops think?". I'm not going to even tell you what my vote would have been.

Whilst I'm here to save this miscounting fun in the future, why not use little boxes like those that have been thrown up on VB cases, each Sop adds his own for ease of reading betwixt the drama rather than bolding? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please say what your ruling would have been? --Cyberbob 21:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)