UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

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

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

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

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

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

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

Administrative Abilities

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

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

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

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before Reporting Misconduct

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

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

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

Cyberbob

Ok, so I'm gone for a week and a bit and the place descends into madness? =/ Anyway, all this bullshit about the box on VB is a blatant abuse of power and the fact that it's been implemented without a policy is just using the sysop status as an excuse to push your own agenda on the community. This has been ruled Misconduct before and definitely should be in this case. Unilaterally changing it despite everyone else telling you not to is fucking retarded.

We VB people who blatantly spam the main page in a disruptive way, not for the odd comment. Seriously get a grip, this power trip ends right here, right now. -- Cheese 21:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob warned people for posting on A/VB main page in a constructive fashion, yet he constantly edits the page for trolling. He soft warned several users when such warnings are only given to repeat offenders (as in, users who post non-constructive comments). His ruling of vandalism against me for the creation of the bots pages shows how he has no clue what is actually vandalism (and drawde reporting it as vandalism make one question if he too know what vandalism is). his promotion drew several against "votes" from old timers who were active when cyberbob was a sysop for the first time. To sum it all, Cyberbob is a troll and shouldnt be in a position of power in this community. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

To add a quote from Bob himself that I think anyone ruling on this case should really take into consideration: "I am trying to prevent the precedent from being created where anyone can go bulldozing through pages without asking anyone whether it's a good idea first - yes these things can be reverted easily (usually) but it's far easier for people to make at least a show of going through the proper channels in the first place.". His hypocrisy is outstanding.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not MisconductAn attempt to actually improve the Wiki and how its done? How original...I might agree on some of Hagnats points but not on this one. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

This isn't improving the wiki at all. All it does is create drama and spam on VB. Go see the amount of crap that's surfaced in the past few days and then come and repeat that first sentence again. -- Cheese 22:21, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It goes much further than just that. On all counts he is a bully and a first class troll. The fiasco in A/VB is just the most obvious and easily cited example. Cyberbob consistently acts against the best interests of the wiki. He is a bully who abuses his powers: he just hides behind one-worders which are harder to pin down than the long winds of most trolls. And the fact that conndraka -- whose complete lack of impartiality and logic is famous in these parts -- supports him basically proves my point even further... --WanYao 22:34, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would like to refer you to this edit[1] where Conndraka writes, "its time we start getting a little more professional around here".

Hear, hear!

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start by getting rid of the single most unprofessional personality on the "team". Or is the blatant contradiction between what you say and what you do just another example of your self-vaunted "objectivity"??? --WanYao 23:16, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Edit conflictedAnd it's not just about whether this was a good change or not. He changed the policy while an open discussion on it was still going (go ahead and check the page, he admits it) and I really think it should have then moved onto policy discussion, since it is policy in essence. But instead he made up his mind, and rewrote part of it in his way without getting any true general consensus on it.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:35, 16 July 2009 (BST)

We need new sysops if you want this case to succeed. I can already see DDR's and SA's comment from a mile away no matter what argument you throw in. Impartiality sure. But yeah, it's time to put Bob to bed. He's been nothing but a troll, and abused his powers for it. --Thadeous Oakley 22:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

CyberClown has outlived his usefulness as a source of entertainment. Which wouldn't normally bother me except he has gone totally off the edge with his Activist SysOp tendencies, trying to write policy from the bench as it were. His usual tactics of trying to bully any opposition with one-liner trolling, rather than interacting with people directly and honestly, has morphed into this attempt of his to simply ban any non SysOp user who dares to speak up on Admin pages, sparing him even his usual trolling efforts to intimidate users he disagrees with into silence. It's time to take this mad dog down. --

| T | BALLS! | 22:56 16 July 2009(BST)

Awwww, did it really hurt that much? It's all fun and games until he (inevitably) turns on you. --ϑϑℜ 15:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Heh, your delusions are hilarious. The page your refer to is still "fun" and I welcome any further comments to it. Of course, that has nothing to do with CyberClown's blatant abuse of power in other areas of the Wiki, but whatever works for you, right? :) --

| T | BALLS! | 18:51 17 July 2009(BST)

This shit is exactly why i didn't vouch for bob as a sysop in the first place, it was always going to come down to this type of fiasco.... he has no regard for anyone on this wiki and basically regards it as his personal playground. He has the skills to make an excellent sysop and the maturity to put a 10 year old to shame. I just cannot see why we should accept his shit any more.--Honestmistake 23:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You know, it's great that I can finally talk on the main page, because this is misconduct, without being harassed immediately. An another note, it should be noted that Bob posted himself on cases he wasn't involved, like in arbitration. The content of his post was, as always, griefish and trollish.--Thadeous Oakley 23:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, in case Bob or someone else tries to nail me with my arbitration ruling: A/M allows community opinion, so I'm free to involve myself. --Thadeous Oakley 23:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)

this page specifically asks for all comment/discussion to be done here and not on talk pages so you should be fine.... I suggest you avoid any argument with SA if he shows up though as it will just make you look like your trying to pick a fight.--Honestmistake 00:05, 17 July 2009 (BST)

More disturbing than unilaterally shoving an undecided policy down everyone's throats is the manner in which bob seems to delight in antagonizing users into conflicts and then bullying them into submission. Of course this is an ultimately futile misconduct case, since the same group of sysops who promoted him in the first place will cover his ass.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:14, 17 July 2009 (BST)

lolling at how excited everyone is OMIGOD SQUEEEEEE --Cyberbob 01:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'd like to thrown this evidence of abuse of his sysop powers. Cyberbob clearly had a conflict of interest about these images, since they were uploaded to "honor" his birthday. The images were not pornographic, and were even classified as humorous earlier by another sysop during a image categorization run. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:20, 17 July 2009 (BST)

They were pornographic. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:22, 17 July 2009 (BST)

image1 and image2 - not pornographic --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:32, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Pornographic, sorry. --Cyberbob 04:33, 17 July 2009 (BST)

If that's pornographic, so is Slaves Of The Mistress. --WanYao 04:35, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Why, so it is. Off to A/SD. --Cyberbob 04:37, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Better get rid of these too, Mr. Falwell. Image:Boobs.gif, Image:Boobs_beer_and_barhah.jpg --

| T | BALLS! | 04:59 17 July 2009(BST)

I won't bother going through the motions of A/SD this time I guess. --Cyberbob 05:00, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob just clearly abused his position by bringing an obviously personal, petty matter into deletions. Just look at the unanimity of peoplewho otherwise are at each others' throats on the wiki -- unanimous that his clown has to go. That should be enough right there. The community has lost its trust in cyberbob, like, totally and a long time ago. --WanYao 05:04, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Are you out of your mind? Since when was putting images up for deletion anywhere near a sysop-only ability? You're insane. --Cyberbob 05:05, 17 July 2009 (BST)

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. --WanYao 05:12, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Uh, hello? He did the exact opposite of "using it as a badge of authority" by moving it to A/D after keeps were lodged. Bullying? He did it because you baited notified him as to the image's presence. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:35, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It was an attempt at bullying because he can in no way claim to have been unaware of the bouncing boob gif and he is certainly aware of the Mistress pics from their previous visit/s to deletions... I would not be suprised if he voted on them back then.--Honestmistake 09:12, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I too think opinions are completely static and are never ever ever subject to change. Did I mention I'm 10?
Even that is irrelevant because there is literally nothing related to being a sysop in putting pages up for deletion. If you, or anyone else, had wanted to you could have put them up just as easily as I did. I have not once even mentioned being a sysop outside of ruling on A/VB cases, so I'm deeply interested in where you get off trying to paint me as using my position to "bully" anybody. --Cyberbob 09:41, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I didn't say you were using your position to bully people on deletions, for the record i think that was just petty and spiteful trolling. A/VB on the other hand you are trying to turn into your own pissing pen by bullying anyone you can off the page with ludicrous and petty cases which you back up indirectly with your status as a sysop whenever you can. Its probably not actually misconduct this time because you are clever enough to stay within the letter of the law, but it is moving closer and closer and your attitude shows that you really are not suitable to perform the duties of Sysop. That clearer, its just my opinion but it does seem to be shared by an ever increasing number. --Honestmistake 09:51, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Cool so at least you admit that part of the frothing that's been going on has no relevance to A/M. Just for that I'll let you get away with this: "It was an attempt at bullying because...' --Cyberbob 10:09, 17 July 2009 (BST)

You will "let me get away with...' How very generous of you. --Honestmistake 10:16, 17 July 2009 (BST)

A little sense of humour goes a long way. --Cyberbob 10:19, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Indeed it does. You might want to reign yours in and concentrate on doing the job you asked for instead of just trolling for shits and giggles though... --Honestmistake 10:25, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah I agree... wiping the backlog of month-or-more-old unused images was totally a troll. You got trolled HARD on that one (don't even get me started on banning Izumi alt after Izumi alt... I'm surprised your hair didn't catch fire you got burned so hard)!!!!!!!!!! --Cyberbob 10:35, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Lol... But seriously Bob, I have said it many times before and I will say it again. You can be an asset to this community, you have time and skills that you do put to good use... you just don't have the temperament to avoid stirring up drama with stuff like A/VBing folk for fun. It seems like you are only happy when you are causing trouble. --Honestmistake 10:47, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I don't actually set out to cause trouble, believe it or not. I would love not to have to take people to A/VB but everyone is so deadset on trying to STAND UP TO THE MAN. Even all that stuff with keeping people off the main A/VB page is not in bad faith; there needs to be a setting where involved parties can work their way through a case without having to deal with irrelevancy. I'm interested in improving efficiency, not in powertripping or whatever other delightful motives get cooked up. --Cyberbob 10:53, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Oh now you're playing the innocent victim role. This gets richer and richer aaaaallllll the time.

Give.

It.

A.

Fucking.

Rest.

You brought all of this on yourself... you know exactly what you're doing on this wiki, and exactly what kinds of responses you're trying to elicit, you do it all on purpose, wilfully, with fully conscious intent. Don't try to sluff the responsibility for your own asshattery into other people... I know you think we're all soooo stupid.... but we're not that stupid. --WanYao 12:17, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Hahaha, I wish I was half as smart as what you think I am. Give the histrionics a rest Wan, you're only making yourself look bad. --Cyberbob 12:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Oh, and there are no "cards" being played here. My behaviour before was largely due to being in the heat of the moment, where the blood's pumping and almost everything is a kneejerk. I've spent a bunch of time away from the computer today; that has allowed me to calm down and distance myself emotionally from all this. Again I really do wish I had even a third of the canniness you attribute to me. --Cyberbob 12:25, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Now you're accusing me of histrionics? roflmao! This is coming from the person who took a couple of obviously sarcastic comments on images being "pornographic" at face value, and then submitted them for deletion -- using those comments as the justification for the deletion requests... This coming from the person who submitted some of the most petty VB reports in recent history, reports in direct contradiction of well established procedure and precedent... This from a person who makes it a mark of pride to "push people's buttons" for lolz. These "histrionics" didn't just spring from nowhere, or even solely from the events of the last 24 hours. You're just upset because someone is finally calling you out on your bullshit. Time to grow up, cyberbob, and take some responsibility for your actions. --WanYao 12:39, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry but again, you're giving me too much credit. There was no bad faith or anything of the sort in any of the cases/deletion votes I brought up last night. No ulterior motives, nothing. I'll cop to being reckless, and to making cases that were best left to other people for political reasons, but you need to stop chasing ghosts. --Cyberbob 12:44, 17 July 2009 (BST)

...You do know that all of this is irrelevant, right? --Cyberbob 12:50, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Ignorance is no excuse... Neither is being stoned or drunk or your meds weren't working or whatever... Even if we are to take your words at face value (which I don't, it's just after-the-fact dissembling imnsho), they just prove that you're an unstable and irresponsible personality with little touch on reality. Q.E.D. a person not to be trusted with sysop powers.

However... you're right... this is irrelevant... because the majority of the sysop crowd are apparently too chickenshit to stand up to you. --WanYao 12:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It's not irrelevant because the majority of the sysop crowd are too "chickenshit" (which is as untrue an assertion as I've ever seen btw), it's irrelevant because none of the actions we're discussing are sysop-only. Like I said to Honest: if you had so wished you could have made the exact same cases and deletion votes just as easily as I did. Apart from that you're obviously pretty deadset on attributing all of this to some kind of evil Scheme of Trolling or whatever, and I really don't know what else to say in the face of such mindless determination so this will be my last response to you on this matter (no, this is not an attempt to try and come off as "mature" or "the bigger man"). --Cyberbob 13:04, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It's completely relevant because your behavior in VB and Deletions can be seen to fall under the "bullying" and harassment section of the Misconduct policy. Read the policy again, Mr. WikiExpert... Then there is that pic you speedydeleted in the midst of your little "breakdown"... And, of course, that issue of you unilaterally "rewriting" policy (on VB) then trying to implement your little policy coup by shitting up the admin page with petty and frivolous cases.

Now... see... if this was just an isolated incident where you flew off the handle and acted like a twat for a while, an aberration... well, we all have our moments and those can be forgiven. However, the fact is that this all fits into a long and well-established behavior pattern. And of course you have nothing further to say in this matter -- because you refuse to own up to -- or take responsiblity for -- being a repeat-offender, career asshat. --WanYao 13:20, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Wow, please tell us what planet you live on, bob boberton. You know full well how specious your "argument" is... give it a rest. --WanYao 05:46, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Earth, probably. How's my argument specious? Please explain, I'm a bit of a dumbass, you see. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:50, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Nubis and General Headers

Not Misconduct. It's amusing that people say they want this wiki run smoothly and more professionally yet when someone tries to actually clean it up the drama queens come out and yell that they are being oppressed by power mad sysops. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:49, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - I didn't "vote" on Cyberbob's promotions candidacy because I hoped he had changed. None of those case were vandalism, it was merely a power trip where you tried to intimidate those who disagreed with you into shutting up. I think the mere fact that so many users have turned up here to tell you what a crap job your doing is ample demonstration that you do not have the support of the community. I'm not looking for a demotion, but Cyberbob needs to realise that this behaviour is not acceptable from a sysop. --The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:05, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I just thought you might like to know that making A/VB cases doesn't actually constitute a sysop ability, and that even if it did none of those cases were made because they disagreed with me. I would have literally done the same thing even if they were singing my praises. --Cyberbob 15:08, 17 July 2009 (BST)

No, but "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" is.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:19, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Interesting, when I made a case about the NUMEROUS cases that J3D and Iscariot made against me it wasn't EXCESSIVE but Bob making one case is too many? Huh. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I don't remember voting on that specific case so I can't comment. Would you care to point me in the direction of said case?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:56, 17 July 2009 (BST)

It's a little page called A/VB. It's one of the pages that sysops should be active on, not just A/M. You don't vote on A/VB cases so I am not surprised that you don't remember it.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:26, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I knew it would be located on A/VB, I was hoping for something more specific (i.e. a month). If I didn't vote on that case then I see no reason why the ruling there should affect my ruling here. If you want it to have any bearing on my opinion here then you will have to provide me with a link to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:50, 19 July 2009 (BST)

PS I didn't "vote" on Cyberbob's promotions candidacy because I hoped he had changed. This line right here shows you are biased against Bob, FYI. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:25, 17 July 2009 (BST)

No, it shows nothing beyond what it says: I hoped that his behaviour had changed and his cases on A/VB appear to indicate that he hasn't.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:54, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Like I said - the cases were not made in bad faith so how can it be bullying, let alone using my sysop status as a badge of authority? You agree with the part about the cases not having been made simply because they disagreed but you still think I'm bullying them using my sysop status? What? --Cyberbob 15:27, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I agreed that simply making an A/VB is not misconduct. However, using the sysop status to push through A/VB cases and issue soft warnings against those you don't like is misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:54, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I like the implication that if Hagnat was someone I liked it wouldn't be misconduct because everything that is done ever is personally motivated amirite (I didn't try and "rush" it, and my dislike of hagnat had nothing to do with it) --Cyberbob 17:57, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - for soft warning Hagnat himself, after reporting him for something that was clearly not worth such a ruling, and then ruling vandalism on a case where Hagnat was repairing the A/VB system. It was trolling and bullying behaviour using sysop only privileges -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:14 17 July 2009 (BST)

Sysops are allowed to report and rule on cases themselves.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:22, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Translation: LEARN TO PSYCHICALLY READ BOXY'S MIND OR ELSE FACE MISCONDUCT FOR EVEN GOING ANYWHERE NEAR A CASE HE THINKS IS A BAD ONE (whether you think it is or not) --Cyberbob 15:27, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - But borderline. Bob was brought here because of his pre-emptive change of the box. He asked for input, and he got it and changed the box accordingly. So it is not misconduct. General is right though, he needs to get his shit together and stop fighting with his heart. Fight with your brain, Cyberbob. It's blown this thing way beyond what it should have been and is displaying poor form as a trusted member of the community. --ϑϑℜ 15:23, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Thank you for recognising that I wasn't acting in bad faith. I'll have to make sure to be less quick off the mark in doing things that might attract controversy. --Cyberbob 15:27, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Ooooooh more promises!!! Like all those promises in your promotion bid which got tossed out the window immediately. Like the one you said a lot, about not getting your personal stuff mixed up with your sysop duties, LOL! Anyone who believes you're going to change... well... whatever. --WanYao 20:55, 17 July 2009 (BST)

olo --Cyberbob 04:00, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So, was DDR gentle with you the first time Bob? I cant even read this wiki without being forced into the image of you verbally licking out each others arseholes all the fucking time. Never thought you would amount to this idiocy ddr.--CyberRead240 08:35, 18 July 2009 (BST)

All I'm going to say is ask DDR for the IRC logs. There was nothing even remotely approaching arselicking going on; the polar opposite in fact. --Cyberbob 09:06, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So he wanted to vote Misconduct and you changed his mind on irc. Nice.--CyberRead240 09:07, 18 July 2009 (BST)

No. Buzz off. --ϑϑℜ 09:09, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So spill it then? What did you want to do before the IRC logs. If your opinion wasnt changed before IRC then why did bob bring it up? Seriously go look at the VB page. Everything against Bob, DDR, Nubis and Con vote not vandalism. Everything bob wants, the opposite. Its black and white.--CyberRead240 09:12, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Because good sysops tend to vote according to the merits of the case and not according to the people involved? --Cyberbob 09:14, 18 July 2009 (BST)

So you have admitted you're not a good sysop then? Petty case after Petty case right? Then when someone says your wrong, write something like "lolwat i gt it rong sadface omg". Then, maybe once in every 10 times you fuck up, 1 might go right and you get someone banned? Fuck off, your a twat.--CyberRead240 09:24, 18 July 2009 (BST)

You might think the cases weren't worth making but the decision to make them had nothing to do with the users involved. Besides - making cases isn't a sysop-only function. As I've said like fifteen times, you or anyone else could have made them just as easily if you'd wanted to. I'm sorry that you can't shoehorn any old behaviour you disagree with into a reason to call me a bad sysop :( --Cyberbob 09:30, 18 July 2009 (BST)

btw - thanks for admitting that my question was a good one by trying to dodge it but unfortunately you did a pretty terrible job of dodging --Cyberbob 09:31, 18 July 2009 (BST)

And good sysops change their mind about the merits of case when nothing new has come to light amirite? --xoxo 14:20, 18 July 2009 (BST)

nah only when they "sleep on it" --Cyberbob 14:22, 18 July 2009 (BST)

ah good i'm glad to see you aren't even going to bother defending him. --xoxo 14:25, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Like I was trying to tell Read, I have been doing the exact opposite of arselicking DDR. I'm glad he ended up making the right rulings in at least a couple of these cases but yeah. --Cyberbob 14:29, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Or only when you realise how much of a loose cannon you've been in 3 days of straight drama you caused, personally apologised to the victims involved and promised to the entire community that it will not happen again. --ϑϑℜ 14:27, 18 July 2009 (BST)

That's why you ruled Not Misconduct? --Cyberbob 14:29, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah... Wait. That arselicking was for that? I feel used. --ϑϑℜ 14:31, 18 July 2009 (BST)

God, don't you start...I never arselicked you, I apologised to you for being a dickhead on IRC - which I was. --Cyberbob 14:34, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Was joking :( --ϑϑℜ 14:36, 18 July 2009 (BST)

welp ;\ --Cyberbob 14:38, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Conn and Nubis had a message to send in their rulings and I wasn't part of that. I ruled not vandalism on everything bob gave except Honest. I have no interest in saving Bob from a punishment he deserves. --ϑϑℜ 09:38, 18 July 2009 (BST)

nm.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:54, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Nice justification you got there.--Thadeous Oakley 10:13, 18 July 2009 (BST)

fantastic post! --Cyberbob 10:17, 18 July 2009 (BST)

Ah, does it really matter? Everyone knew exactly how this thing was going to shake out before anyone even voted. Including CyberClown himself, or he wouldn't break the rules as often as he does. He's got a blank check, man! :)--

| T | BALLS! | 10:36 18 July 2009(BST)

Closing Header

Currently four Not Misconduct to three Misconduct (including Cheese.) Unless anyone else wants to vote ("anyone" includes me as I may get around to doing it a bit later tonight,) I'll close this tomorrow afternoon. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:06, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - for deleting those images - which you shouldn't have done as you were clearly involved - even though they were scheduled you should have stayed right away as you had a clear conflict of interest. I'm not going to state if I thought they were pornographic or not.

Since I'm the last active sysop to vote, I'll leave this open for a few more hours before archiving it as Not Misconduct as the vote is deadlocked. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:17, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Holy shit, someone else knows what a conflict of interest is!--SirArgo ^Talk 05:16, 20 July 2009 (BST)

nup just you.--xoxo 05:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

bob was accused of several crimes here, yet it appears some sysops have only taken into account a few of them. Can someone please list all of them here, and ask for a sysop vote to solve this tie ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:28, 20 July 2009 (BST)

banning me, deleting the images, being a douchebag - thats a start.--xoxo 05:29, 20 July 2009 (BST)

If it's a tie, it's closed as Not Misconduct, afaik. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)