UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy Monkey
|
Misconduct Tracker | |
| Misconduct | Not Misconduct | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
2008, June 8
Ruling upon a case in which he had a vested interest in the outcome, in an attempt to set a precedent to excuse his own behaviour on an identical case on the page. Such behaviour is just plain not on. Its an attempt to stealth rule not guilty on your own vandalism case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:00, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- I'm a little suspicious of your own motives, Grim. You said We need a tipping verdict after commenting on the outcome of the vandal case being a tie, then bringing two ruling sysops (opposing your opinion, evident by a ruling and the case you made) to misconduct. Regardless, I don't think Krazy Monkey had a vested interest, he had already declared his stance before on the misconduct case of Karek and Hagnat. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:25, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- When he ruled, i had brought a case against him for the same thing there was a case against Karek and Hagnat. Also, as i grow tired of pointing out, motivations for making arguments are inconsequential. What matters is the soundness of those arguments. Also, his "stance" consisted entirely of striking votes is not misconduct, and taking it to either arbitration or A/VB, where he then ruled not guilty shortly after i brought a case against him for doing it himself. It is a rather clear cut case of an individual attempting to set a precedent towards acquittal on one case to ensure his acquittal in another identical case. I also mentionad at the time i could take him to misconduct for ruling on it, all i have done is follow through. Even if i had agreed with his decision i would have brought this misconduct case because its just not fucking kosher to rule on your own cases. How about instead of speculating on my motivations and thereby slandering me, you examine the facts and came up with the right answer? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:35, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- How about you don't always fucking assume that I am entirly inept at coming to an appropiate decision? Hmm? Is poor wittle AHLG annoying you because his feelings differ from yours? I thought you fucking finished with your attacks on my ineptness on IRC, rulings (I can list 'em). Apparently not. Also, notice the "regardles". Sheesh. Goodbye. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:51, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- Someone call the WAAAAAHmbulance, looks like a certain someone spat the dummy. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:45, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- How about you don't always fucking assume that I am entirly inept at coming to an appropiate decision? Hmm? Is poor wittle AHLG annoying you because his feelings differ from yours? I thought you fucking finished with your attacks on my ineptness on IRC, rulings (I can list 'em). Apparently not. Also, notice the "regardles". Sheesh. Goodbye. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:51, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- When he ruled, i had brought a case against him for the same thing there was a case against Karek and Hagnat. Also, as i grow tired of pointing out, motivations for making arguments are inconsequential. What matters is the soundness of those arguments. Also, his "stance" consisted entirely of striking votes is not misconduct, and taking it to either arbitration or A/VB, where he then ruled not guilty shortly after i brought a case against him for doing it himself. It is a rather clear cut case of an individual attempting to set a precedent towards acquittal on one case to ensure his acquittal in another identical case. I also mentionad at the time i could take him to misconduct for ruling on it, all i have done is follow through. Even if i had agreed with his decision i would have brought this misconduct case because its just not fucking kosher to rule on your own cases. How about instead of speculating on my motivations and thereby slandering me, you examine the facts and came up with the right answer? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:35, 10 May 2008 (BST)
| Contribs said: |
|
That bit which is between his being iffy on a ruling and suddenly ruling it not vandalism makes me tend to think he didn't care until he himself decided to strike some users votes. Which in turn means that Grim's right, he was invested in the outcome of my case and ruled purely because of that. Misconduct until someone can show differently.--Karekmaps?! 07:21, 10 May 2008 (BST)
- Right, technically I shouldn't have ruled but I felt that Grim had once again totally and utterly jumped the gun with this. My case had no bearing on my judgment at all. In a case such as this it's not entirely black and white, therefore it would have been a better idea to have a discussion rather than just doing an auto-warn as he always seems to do with he's on one of his power trips. Also, Grim, stop with the whole "Gnome is an inept fool who doesn't know what he's talking about". If anyone here is inept, it's more than likely you. Get over yourself. -- Cheese 15:14, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Ah yes, the power trip accusation. Ah, the power of past slander to shape present events and opinion. I have had no "power trips" in the past, and this also was not one. What was here instead was quite simple. A case to be ruled on (Nothing specifies that it has to be done by multiple sysops, or that discussion is mandatory). It was black and white. You are not allowed to remove other peoples comments from discussions, hagnat, karek and yourself all did so. Hence the warning on the hagnat/karek case. People have been warned for removing comments and votes before, why should you have been any different? If you wanted to oppose, you should have said "Id like another sysop or two to come in and weigh their opinions, not rulesd yourself on a case in which you had a vested interest, especially in favour of your own acquittal. Ill bet you my bottom dollar that if i had ruled not vandalism, you wouldnt have fussed, regardless of how seemingly "hasty" it was (Despite the fact it had all been discussed on misconduct for a week beforehand). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:00, 12 May 2008 (BST)
I'm thinking not misconduct due to this edit, where he strikes out most of his post, and makes it clear he's contesting rather than ruling on it after a very quick ruling and warning from Grim in such a disputed area without any other consultation with other sysops to confirm the decision -- boxy talk • i 17:17 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Except he leaves the "Not Vandalism" part as well as almost the entire thing unstruck meaning his ruling on the case remains. Also, when a second ruling appears and its differenty to the first, its always contested. He just fixed the language of the post to reflect that, rather than removing his verdict. The matter is not so much that he contested the ruling, but that he did so with a ruling of his own on a case in which he had a vested interest. That said, im growing used to you letting sysops off for pretty much anything up to murder, so this turn didnt suprise me in the slightest. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:18, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Grim, for Christ sake, get your head out your arse. So far this year, you have called Gnome and Con inept at least 4 or 5 times each, chucked your toys out the pram at every available opportunity you get and basically go around on an auto-warn spree every time something comes up in VB. On top of that, you're acting all hurt and offended because Boxy didn't agree with you. From the above case: 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. I think in the two years I've been on this wiki, I've seen more than enough evidence to put a misconduct case together on this subject. Being a dick to everyone is not the way to go about things. So grow up, and stop taking your bad mood out on everyone else. -- Cheese 23:31, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- So, no defense offered, just a string of abuse. Ad Hominem combined with an example of Poisoning the Well. If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and make the case. In fact, given how little substance your comment had, im calling you out on this. Make the case or piss off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- I read that, then I actually started to laugh. It's quite ironic coming from you, considering most of the comments you come up with nowadays are just a load of abuse anyway. I will be bringing the case, by the way. I just need a few hours to trawl through all the shite you've posted over the past few years. -- Cheese 23:43, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Have fun with that. And the key difference between what i do and what you were doing is that i add the insults and such as flavour, rather than using them as the substance of my posts. I like to use reason where possible. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:47, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- I read that, then I actually started to laugh. It's quite ironic coming from you, considering most of the comments you come up with nowadays are just a load of abuse anyway. I will be bringing the case, by the way. I just need a few hours to trawl through all the shite you've posted over the past few years. -- Cheese 23:43, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- So, no defense offered, just a string of abuse. Ad Hominem combined with an example of Poisoning the Well. If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and make the case. In fact, given how little substance your comment had, im calling you out on this. Make the case or piss off. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)
- Grim, for Christ sake, get your head out your arse. So far this year, you have called Gnome and Con inept at least 4 or 5 times each, chucked your toys out the pram at every available opportunity you get and basically go around on an auto-warn spree every time something comes up in VB. On top of that, you're acting all hurt and offended because Boxy didn't agree with you. From the above case: 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. I think in the two years I've been on this wiki, I've seen more than enough evidence to put a misconduct case together on this subject. Being a dick to everyone is not the way to go about things. So grow up, and stop taking your bad mood out on everyone else. -- Cheese 23:31, 11 May 2008 (BST)
I've been thinking about this situation, and have come to the conclusion that it should be not misconduct. There is a clear line where sysops should not be ruling on a vandalism (or misconduct) case against themselves, however they are entitled to voice their opinion on other similar cases. To deny them this right is to be able silence a section of the sysop community via strategic timing of such cases. These two case involve incidents that happened days apart, and it is obvious that sysops had differing opinions on whether it was acceptable practice or not. Timing these cases so as to make it so that 3 sysops from one camp were ineligible to voice their opinion on either of the cases undermines the checks and balances of having a diverse community of sysops to reach a consensus on an important issue such as this which will determine the precedence in future cases. All opinions should be heard, not just those that oppose such strikings -- boxy talk • i 04:19 21 May 2008 (BST)
- Except you're purposely ignoring the reason I ruled misconduct, specifically that he didn't chose to rule until after he himself was an involved party, there was no timing on anyone's part but his. There's no "ignorance" involved, there's simply him being unsure how to rule, then striking votes and thus purposely ignoring the precedent being set in that case, and then ruling Not Vandalism on that case so as to cover his ass in what was obviously something he shouldn't be doing. It's an extension of the vandalism case against him except in this case he's purposely abusing SysOp powers. The contribs/timestamps I showed above show this extremely clearly.--Karekmaps?! 12:03, 22 May 2008 (BST)
not misconduct Boxy does a real effective job of explaining why, but I will once more go into the fact that I believe Cheesy was doing right by what he was thought was right to do so. And allow me to set myself up here... Ignorance(by the classical definition) in a given situationdoes not equal Misconduct :). Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 06:42, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Misconduct For the many reasons that Karek and Grim pointed out. But I am happy to see that Cheese did not vote on his own case unlike Hag. And in rebuttal to this: Timing these cases so as to make it so that 3 sysops from one camp were ineligible to voice their opinion on either of the cases undermines the checks and balances That is why there are 19 Sysops. (20 at that time) If some of them aren't coming forth on these cases then that means we need to take a look at the inactivity policy and demotion requirements. Because with that many there should always be enough for checks and balances.--– Nubis 11:32, 25 May 2008 (BST)
Voting
this case is ignore more than mine was... lets solve this in a similar way, shall we ? In 7 days we then make a ruling --People's Commissar Hagnat talk - mod 04:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)
- Not Misconduct
- Misconduct + Warning
- Abstain
- involved in similar case, dont want to rule on this --People's Commissar Hagnat talk - mod 04:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)
- Obviously... -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Ruling
Based on the vote above, krazy monkey was found guilty of Misconduct (2 votes of 4, +precedence of my case). A warning was issued. Have a nice day, citizen. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk - mod 01:07, 8 June 2008 (BST)
2008, June 2
Warned me over a fairly contentious issue. At the very least he should have waited until it became abundantly clear that the majority of the sysops support the decision rather than acting as relatively unilaterally as he did (two sysops doth not a conclusive ruling make). --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 13:38, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- It's already happened: Grim did the same here. He didn't get misconducted for it. -- Cheese 13:41, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- A severe oversight that changes little. If he had been misconducted and found not guilty, now, that would be different. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 13:43, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- Not misconduct - lolwut ? --People's Commissar Hagnat talk - mod 13:45, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- Not misconduct - although I'd like him to reconsider his warning for such a minor bit of fun on the admin pages, there is clear precedent that sysops can rule on cases without taking every case to a vote... and you had been soft warned -- boxy talk • i 14:06 2 June 2008 (BST)
- You'd like him to reconsider his warning? Fat chance, given the biased fuck that he is. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)
Fucking hell this is stupid. Im trying to take a fucking holiday from this shit and since something i did that was completely different to whats gone on here has been brought up to excuse some stupid behaviour, i now have to comment.
- Cyberbob, your case is not contentious. We have been over the whole thing several times now. The horse is long dead, please stop beating it. We went over this two or three times last year, and we went over it again a few months ago. The end result is always the same. Shitting up admin pages is not on, so butt the fuck out unless you are directly involved or have some extremely pertinent information to add.
- Krazy Monkey. Its a requirement that two soft warnings be formally issued before standard escalations happen. A sysop asking someone to shut up doesnt count, something must be logged on A/VB. As such, Cyberbob only has a single soft warning regarding the issue at present.
I am not going to rule, because quite frankly, i dont want to rule and formally violate my fucking vacation while i participate in the Boxing Championship. However its my opinion that its minor misconduct because Krazy Monkey jumped a warning. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:03, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- Sick. Also, this will be a contentious issue for as long as my fingers are still able to type.--brb, church DORIS CGR U! 14:04, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- When did the soft warnings become so strictly codified? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- I was going to ask the same thing... where's this 2 soft warnings thing written down? -- boxy talk • i 14:10 2 June 2008 (BST)
- When Grim happened.--xoxo 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- I was asking myself the same thing... there is no rule on when a user will get officially warned for shiting on administration pages, neihter a rule on where the soft-warning should be logged. It's just up to good ol' common sense and the concensus of the administration team. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk - mod 14:11, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- Its just the done thing, historically so. Or have you all forgotten nalikill so readily? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:23, 2 June 2008 (BST)
The Nali case was a disgrace and a large part of what drove him from being an immature but eager contributor to a repeat vandal who copped an outrageously large ban for what would should have been a matter for arbitration. That said there is no way this should have deserved a full warning when a second soft warning would have been sufficient to back up a ban on his next frivolous edit! --Honestmistake 16:43, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- A ban? Lolwut? --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 22:20, 2 June 2008 (BST)
Not misconduct I don't see a problem. Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 18:13, 2 June 2008 (BST)
- Yeah, I figured you wouldn't. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 22:20, 2 June 2008 (BST)
It looks like maybe one misconduct, and three not misconducts, so it's not misconduct. --ZsL 21:18, 7 June 2008 (BST)
