UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis

	Misconduct Tracker
	Misconduct	Not Misconduct
	1	3

24 August 2008

For giving me vandal warning over an edit to a borderline 'impersonation case.

The details of the case are here.

However, to summarise the background of the case:

I posted a suggestion... This suggestion was copied by another user almost word-for-word, with 'no distinction or differentiation made in its title/header from my original suggestion. It was, in fact, a carbon-copy of my suggestion with only a few words changed at the very end. The sole purpose of the "new" suggestion was quite obviuosly to troll me. I therefore changed the heading to differentiate it from my own. There was no "bad faith" in my edit. I sought to avoid drama by simply making a change to clarify what was an obvious bad faith edit which bordered on impersonation.

I believe that Nubis' use of the ban hammer was quite unwarranted -- especially given the broader context of this case -- and it appears to be an abuse of his sysop powers in order to "make a point" against a user whom he has a personal dislike for and/or differences of opinion with.

That is all.

Have a nice day. --WanYao 03:42, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - You have never been banned, only warned. If other sysops believe the warning was unwarranted, then they will voice their opinions. If it is decided to be not vandalism then the warning will be purged from your record. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Misconduct- The warning was absolutely absurd. The fact it was only a warning and not a ban does not in any way diminish that. Nubis made a terrible call against someone against whom he, to all external appearances, has some kind of grudge against. I move for a warning. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:36, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Grim remember this:

Vandalism - Someone else created the suggestion there, someone else created the headers. The headers are very strongly implied to be the work of the author of the suggestion. Leaving them in the generic default doesnt give other people the right to change them to insult the poster of the suggestion, correcting them to match the suggestion is fine when left in th default (Much the same as a typo correction), but that did not happen here. Feel free to be insulting in your own posts, but do not resort to impersonation to do so. Also, the edit was entirely made in bad faith, and asking only really applies when there is some doubt over the intent of teh edit. No matter how hard i try i cannnot see how this was made in any small part in good faith. --The Grimch U! E! 04:08, 7 August 2008 (BST) FYI: Im holding off on processing this due to Nubis's stance here. --The Grimch U! E! 04:10, 7 August 2008 (BST)

--– Nubis ^NWO 13:11, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I was actually the only one to say it wasn't vandalism since it was the same thing that Grim did for J3D.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I also find it funny that changing the header to such a lame joke that Ioncannon made it is the type of vandalism that we want to stop yet Wan's trolling and shitting up admin pages is just lovely. Wan, "Burn the witch" is hardly a constructive contribution to the page.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Maybe Wan should have changed the header on HIS OWN SUGGESTION instead of vandalizing someone else's.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:16, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Maybe Ellaandcharlie's headers should have been different in the first place. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:16, 24 August 2008 (BST)

While I cannot claim to read Nubis' mind, it is no secret that he has considered a number of my A/VB reports to be "frivolous"... And that my often vocal concerns with the problem of serial trolling on this wiki do not to measure up to the Something Awful standards of macho "it's-just-the-internetz-grin-and-bear-it" toughness" -- to which Nubis aspires. To the point of issueing a "soft warning" recently for my "frivolous" cases. And, I presume, this warning had something to do with driving that point home. Sure looks like it from where I stand... And, I predict he's very likely to bring up these "frivolous" cases in some capacity in his "defence" (or, even more likely, pretend, now that I've mentioned it, that he was going to do no such thing...).

However, I find it curious that my "frivolous" VB cases are of more concern than to him than the serial trolling that goes on regularly on this wiki. Which trolling has often been the subject of my "frivolous" VB cases and comments. And which trolling, as demonstrated by Nubis' consistent comments and actions, are apparently just o-kay spiffy with him... The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me... if not to others...

Very shortly before this (now overruled) vandal warning was posted to my Talk page, I had chosen to have nothing to any longer with any "administrative" matters on this wiki, nor to contribute any longer to the Talk:Suggestions page -- because I want nothing further to do with the trolls' free-for-all playground that this wiki has become. I find it very interesting how very soon after I edited my user page to reflect this fact, Nubis decided that it was time to level this vandalism warning against me... After the case had been sitting in VB for almost two full days... Frankly, I do not think the timing was a concidence...

Yeah... I made the right decision to walk away... Just, sometimes, people don't let you do such things quite as quickly and cleanly as you'd like. --WanYao 08:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Well, that's surprising. I always thought you were a much tougher guy, WanYao. Surely you won't let that let you down, will you? --Aeon17x 08:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct But I also think this could have been a place for one of those "soft warnings" as opposed to an official one... Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 15:27, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, he didn't go around banhammering users or torturing puppies, he just voted on an A/VB case, which is within the rights of his Sysop powers. If we start Misconducting people for that then our entire system is gonna hit the fan. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

No, he didn't "just vote on an A/VB case". He unilaterally declared my edits to be vandalism and then slapped a warning on me. He did so in a very sketchy case, where it was most certainly not clear that it was vandalism; in a case which was not about my vandalism (why not a separate case brought up against me, if I was so out of line?). He make that very controversial call without consultation, without allowing other sysops to vote on the matter or even to discuss it. And he did not apply similar or consistent standards of conduct to the user who literally plagiarised my own work in an effort to troll to the Talk:Suggestions page. Yup, plagiarism is a-okay to Nubis; identifying and correcting said plagiarism is ZOMG vandalism in Nubis' book. As I said above, "The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me..." --WanYao 18:11, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Nope, Not Misconduct, and I have half a mind to re-enforce the ruling. Either both things are vandalism and you_(Wanyao) vandalized first or you were filing a petty case in which case you were wasting everyone's time and that too should warrant at the very least a soft warning, possibly more because you know better. If you're making the argument that his was impersonation and yours wasn't you're fighting a loosing battle, especially because your edit obviously wasn't just for ease of navigation and they're edit was obviously a response to yours which makes that course of action seem both reasonable and allowed. You and Nubis might not get along but I'm not too sure I wouldn't have made the same call as Nubis.--Karek^maps?! 18:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Reporting blatant (and disruptive, trollish) plagiarism is not petty... Neither is correcting such (disruptive and trollish) plagiarism a bad faith edit. But, as I have said, "The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me... if not to others..." --WanYao 18:58, 24 August 2008 (BST)

So what if he trolled first, you escalated it and then filed a report when he did the same thing to you. I'm failing to see what makes his more vandalism when you were the one that changed the rules of the game.--Karek^maps?! 20:49, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Wan didn't escalate the trolling, he simply changed the header (in a neutral fashion) so that people replying to his suggestion wouldn't get take to the newer one from the automatic links on Special:Recentchanges. It's entirely reasonable for the newer suggestion's headers to be the ones that get changed, because the old one has already been established as using that header. As to the vandal report, yes it was a bit petty, but he did think better of it, and withdrew it soon after filing it (before any other discussion/decisions happened). It was basically finished -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 25 August 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - Although I disagreed with the ruling, Nubis has a right to his opinion on the issue -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 25 August 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Judged by Majority to be Not Misconduct -- Cheese 22:59, 22 September 2008 (BST)

13 July 2008

Editing the currently protected Template:DunellHillsgroups page in Bad Faith, purely to be an asshat and score points. Adding a zombie group to the pro-survivor listing is stupid and petty and considering the page is protected (and can only be edited by sysops) and in the middle of an edit war, this is an abuse of his sysop powers. -- Cheese 11:45, 3 July 2008 (BST)

I added the Dead as a pro-survivor group. How is that bad faith? How is that stupid? Are you saying that zombies can't be pro-survivor? If you are then that proves the Dead's case against the DHPD since they are almost all zombies. I only added the Dead as a pro-Survivor group since it seems that the only requirement to be a pro-survivor group is to just attack zombies (which the Dead do).

I also thought the page was unprotected since everyone was bitching at Grim for protecting it in the first place. Boxy also said he was against protecting it and didn't think editing it was vandalism but rather an "edit conflict". Everyone else is screaming Arbies. There really should be some consensus on this situation by the sysops otherwise any change to that page will result in VB and misconduct cases on both sides. Is that what you want?--– Nubis ^NWO 17:04, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but the argument "I thought the page was unprotected" is poor seeing that there is a GIGANTIC HUGE TEMPLATE telling you that it is protected. As for the dead being pro-survivor because they sometimes kill zombies (their own?), I think the few thousand harman brains they ate and are still eating outweigh that fact. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:18, 3 July 2008 (BST)

If this is ruled as misconduct i ask that karek be done for the same thing, as he also edited it to support his own personal opinion of how things should work here while it was protected. Remember, this isnt wikipedia, we dont do it their way. As a technically involved party, im not going to rule on this case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:54, 3 July 2008 (BST)

You're hilarious. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 18:08, 3 July 2008 (BST)

I'm not saying zombies can't be pro-survivors. Life Cultists are a prime example. Killing other zombies doesn't make a zombie group pro-survivor. ZKing. When the zombies are actively attempting to help, for example attacking active zombies to stop them getting at the barricades/survivors, then that would make them pro-survivor to a point. The Dead don't do that. They kill pretty much anyone. So therefore, Pro-Survivor they are not. And you, sir, have proven that you are an idiot. See Gnome's link to the template. -- Cheese 18:50, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Don't play stupid, of course "attacking zombies" isn't the only qualification (I'd say it's not even a requirement). "Helping survivors" is, and The Dead doesn't do that (as far as I know). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:16, 3 July 2008 (BST)

But that's what DHPD is doing (just attacking zombies as zombies) since they aren't repairing the suburb or reviving survivors. So what is the requirement to be pro-survivor then? It seems to just be that they want to be. How dare you tell me what my group wants. Since when did you (Cheese) get to be an expert on the Dead's strategy? How do you know what we do or don't do in DH? Do you have an alt in there?

Where does it say that I can't add my group as pro-survivor when the edit war was over removing DHPD? If some other group had requested they be added to the DH list would we have denied them? What you are all missing is that by my adding The Dead as a pro-survivor group that would be the same as saying that DHPD can stay on as a pro-survivor group since we are both zombies attacking zombies. But no, it's easier to scream misconduct and continue this flame war instead of just pointing out that my actions should have ended this mess. Good Job! --– Nubis ^NWO 03:49, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Groups that want to help the survivor cause or otherwise against zombies are pro-survivors, zombie groups eat brains, hostile groups shoot people. I think it's fair to say that the Dead's intent is not for helping the survivor cause. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:06, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Actually, they have been as helpful to the survivor cause in the suburb this month as the DHPD. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:14, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Read: INTENT. If you want to go into technicalities, I'm sure at some point every zombie group has inadvertently done something good for the humans. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:20, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Unless you are a member of the dead, you cannot determine their intent without examining their actions. If they say they are turning over a new leaf, we cant exactly say they arent until they do something that contradicts it. Not without claiming to have SUPA SEKRIT MIND READING POWERZ at least. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:36, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Lol. Hmm yes, examing their actions: check. Survivors brains eaten: check. Sudden increase in red suburbs: check. Reading wiki pages, discussion about eating brains: check. Just for you, I think I'll throw myself into a mob of them to see if I'm eaten, ok? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:41, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Meanwhile, being pro-survivor is not just killing zombies. Being pro-survivor is using FAKs and needles and constructing barricades. And/or searching to allow these things. I mean this is obvious. And Nubis conduct was in Bad Faith, this is obvious, too. I understand his point... but... --WanYao 04:51, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Nice to see that the Dead are a pro-survivor group. I'm sure when The Big Prick Moves in, the burb will bounce back in no time, given their help.
Or, in other words, common sense says this is bullshit, and the edit was a bad faith attempt expand the boundaries of the edit war that the page had been locked for. Making an edit you don;t actually believe to be true just to show that the lack of a rule against such edits is allowing somebody else to do the same is NOT good faith.  Swiers 05:19, 4 July 2008 (BST)

This is one of the more interesting misconduct cases I've seen recently. I'd like to remind the voting sysops that their decision will set a precedent. And that picking the wrong answer here could will cause plenty of drama and precedent protected ass-hattery. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:02, 4 July 2008 (BST)

"Actually, they have been as helpful to the survivor cause in the suburb this month as the DHPD." How is that exactly? I must have missed something. Ezekiel UK 17:47, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - edited a protected page in order to make a troll point trying to cause drama because he's pretending not to know the clear difference between pro-survivor mrh? cows and pro-zombie, brain eating zombies -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:55 8 July 2008 (BST)

Thank you for proving my point. Zombies are zombies. You are forcing your interpretation on them by classifying them as either Mrh?Cows or Brain Eaters. You are saying that if any zombie attacks another player they are brain eaters and any zombies that stand in revive points are Mrh?Cows, but both DHPD and The Dead have been doing both standing in revive lines and attacking zombies. So why would the DHPD get their choice of title when the Dead don't?

Have you been killed by the Mega Horde of the Dead lately? Have you been revived and rescued by DHPD lately? So how can you say you know the intent of either group?

I'm still waiting on an answer for why you were bitching at Grim for protecting the page, yet so eager to jump on the misconduct wagon for me editing it. I also want to know why adding a group is vandalism/misconduct. If I had removed DHPD I could see that, but I didn't touch them. Once again, the survivor biased wiki ops are telling the Dead how they can present themselves on the wiki. And you wonder why there aren't more zombie groups active on here. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:53, 10 July 2008 (BST)

I've actually stayed in Dunell Hills for more than just a look-through and have founds some things. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:00, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Still playing stupid, I see. It's not attacking players that makes zombies Pro-Zombie, it's attacking survivors. Attacking survivors doesn't really fit with being Pro-Survivor, now does it? And how does The Dead keep Dunell Hills survivor-free? I doubt they do it by politely asking them to leave. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:24, 10 July 2008 (BST)

being pedantic here but... attacking Pkers, Gkers and many other survivors is still pro survivor. That said I don't think anyone would seriously consider the dead to be pro survivor in any way other than that they want people to play survivors so they can eat them. --Honestmistake 11:42, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Then let's say "killing Pro-Survivors" instead of "attacking survivors". Either way, The Dead are not Pro-Survivor. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:14, 10 July 2008 (BST)

Half time

After just over a week, we have one ruling of Misconduct. Are there any other takers? There's still another 8 sysops who can rule (15 minus Kevan's 2, minus Nubis, minus Grim (involved party), minus me (I brought the case), minus the two inactives). -- Cheese 19:21, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Since there have been no further comments or rulings, I think this case can be declared closed. Nubis has been found guilty of Misconduct for editing a protected in page without good reason. To clarify this, here is a quote from our very own sysop guidelines:

• As a subset of their administration powers, system operators also have the ability to edit protected pages. Given that sysops and bureaucrats are the only users who can edit protected pages, it is expected that system operators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason. System operators are explicitly given the right to edit a page that has been protected due to constant vandalism, and changes are necessary to revert the vandalism. Requests for a system operator to edit a protected page should be placed under the Requested Edits heading on the protections page.
  

As has been judged, Nubis's edit was not in good faith and as a result, falls under the banner of Misconduct. -- Cheese 19:51, 13 July 2008 (BST)

29 May 2008

Nubis protected many images today ( [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] ) without going through the proper channels. Precedence.-THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:01, 29 May 2008 (BST)

the precedent says enough, misconduct, but since it was me whom created such precedent, i guess this need the ruling of someone else... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 04:28, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Hagnat ruling misconduct on a case involving lack of going through procedures? Oh, the irony. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 08:59, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - While I can see what he was trying to do (protecting images used on the Item pages), we all have to follow procedure. Best idea would have been to request protection and one of us would have got them. -- Cheese 10:37, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - Though it's annoying to say so. Protections must go through established procedure. This isn't exactly life-threatening though and I think that anyhting more than say, a warning or a sharp reminder to follow procedure next time would be silly.--Seventythree^Talk 11:29, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct Although as far as infractions go I think this is minor to say the least. I do think we need to look at an alteration to the protections policy though that would allow such protections to take place without the need of the red-tape. Obviously these images are permanent elements to either pages, templates or signatures and should be protected. Procedural Warning at most. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 14:23, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You know...Although I disagree with Nubis' on some of teh grounds he is arguing on...I'm going to change to Not Misconduct. Despite the personal attacks and unprofessional language (On the UD Wiki? Imagine that...) I am now convinced that what Nubis did does in fact fall within the "discretion and judgment" clause of the guideline. Next time try and contacting me on my talk page, despite what some people may think I am in fact an intelligent person with the ability to reason, when you actually use logic rather than opinion surrounded by loosely contributing facts. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:39, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Thats a pretty good idea methinks. Imma go make one up. Back soon. -- Cheese 14:51, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Just brining this to the attention of the Sysops, specifically the bit where he deletes all those images and Sysops generally agree its ok to do. I'm not putting forth a view (seriously I haven't looked at the case), just brining the link to the attention of you lot as a possible precedent.--KOOKY 18:36, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I'm just making the point that if we are going to be looking at Hagnat under a microscope and bringing forth misconduct charges even when the job done is done in good faith to the wiki, then all sysops should have to be scrutinized the same way regardless of how good or bad they are.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 21:00, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Wow. If this was the only kind of misconduct sysops did around here this place would be utopia.

Clearly knowing how to read is not required before making a misconduct charge or voting misconduct either. The section right up there that says Administrative Abilities says Protection of Pages not images. Protecting pages from editing with out going through the proper channels is understandably bad since this is a wiki and common users need to be able to freely contribute to it.

Besides, the protection page says:This page is for the request of page protection within the Urban Dead wiki. Then below that it says: A link to the page in question. Last time I checked an image was different from a page.

But if you need more evidence that this isn't misconduct I'll point out this:

Guidelines said:

The Sysop Guidelines clearly state: System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored.

Tell me - if it was truly required for images to go through that page would you have voted NO - don't protect these images that are used on the main information pages in the wiki? Images that if someone deleted them would be vandalism anyway? Were you going to change or upload a new version of these images? The pages weren't protected so you could easily change the images displayed. You would have to submit the images for deletion through the proper channels regardless of if they were protected or not.

Let me point out 9 days ago there were over 8,000 uncategorized images. Between Rosslessness and myself we have brought that number down to 3,000 while the other sysops sat with their heads up their asses not doing a damn bit of "work" around here. You know there were quite a few DHPD related images that were protected. There were SEVERAL images on sysops pages (just in so called IMAGE ARKS) that weren't categorized or really being used either. There were several more images that are clear violations of copyright that should be deleted. So, instead of complaining about the other sysops NOT doing their job you are bitching about the fact that I actually did something without going (unnecessarily) through your fucking red tape? Unbelievable. --– Nubis 21:56, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Oh Nubis, you poor, simple fool. You really think logic is going to get you out of this when your filthy goon nature is what's really on trial here? カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 22:00, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, you have been doing an excelent job with the images categorization... kudos for you for that... strangely enough, i too made several huge amounts of contributions to the wiki, and still when i protected an archive page i got misconbitrated... and please drop the persecution hat, katthew. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:08, 29 May 2008 (BST)

And nice quoting on the guidelines, but it appears there is something wrong about the trusted user part of it... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:10, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You are hardly the one to be talking. Or do I need to bring up the whole Dead of Dunell Hills mess?--– Nubis ^NWO 22:21, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I am not the one at trial here... my past actions have already been evaluated, and i have already regreated some of my actions in that occasion. This does not excuse you for breaking guidelines when i have been warned for making the same. It's strange how in your eyes my actions were misconduct, while yours here aint. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)

You're a real slimeball, you know? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:27, 29 May 2008 (BST)

It doesn't matter if you were categorising the images or not. You should still have put the images up on the protections page. They more than likely would have been protected. The images are still counted as pages in the fact that they are attached to one. If you notice, when you edit the page the image is on, you can insert text to be displayed under the image. It also has a discussion page. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, an Image Page is still a page.

That is not the issue being discussed here. The issue is the fact that you protected pages without going through the red-tape. It's an absolute bastard, I know, but rules are rules. Hence the fact that I'm trying to give us all a bit more wiggle room if this situation ever comes up again. -- Cheese 22:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)

And yeah, Conn, the fact that you and Hag are still "trusted users" is what's wrong with it.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:13, 29 May 2008 (BST) I protected IMAGES - get that through your fucking heads that IMAGES are not the same as pages. Although, honestly I don't know why I'm bothered by your lack of common sense in this matter. I figure I have at least, what room for 6 more misconduct cases before anyone starts to complain. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:17, 29 May 2008 (BST) Hagnat - Don't vandalize my fucking post either! You clearly need an image here because you assholes can't tell the difference between images and pages. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:19, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Resizing an image to imrpove conversational flow is not vandalizm; the meaning isn't changed, and image != quotable text. Repeatedly editing an image layout so that it breaks up page layout, on the other hand, IS potentially vandalism.
Anyhow, I agree this is stupid; why the hell gicve sysops the ability to do these tasks, then make them jump through hoops to do them? If the task was done in good faith, it should be like any good faith edit, and not counted as vandalism or whatever. I don't agree that they all needed protection (my "sad tree" image is no national treasure) but it doesn't do any harm, as I can't see why anybody except a sysop would ever need to edit it. As long as none of the images are ones normal users should be able to edit (IE, they have gone a long time with no edits and have a clear use, or are part of protected pages, etc) then I say its NOT misconduct.  Swiers 22:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Where in the hell does it say that you can edit someone's posts for the sake of "conversational flow"? Because there are a few vandalism cases based on the very fact that you CAN'T do that. Where does it say that you can only post images of a certain size (except in the signature guidelines?)--– Nubis ^NWO 23:03, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Use your brain. You seem to be a very logical person, which I respect. However, does it not make sense that a large image on an Administration page that has about the same level of seriousness as Vandal Banning would be a bit of a stupid idea? Think about it. If that happened on VB, that would more than likely be an instant vandal case. -- Cheese 23:06, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Your sad tree is part of a UD tradition and should be saved. And clearly those were good faith edits, but I'm not surprised that none of these Mensa Applicants can see that. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:43, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, totally agree with you there. Now say that for the fools who brought me for misconduct for making the same thing, in a smaller and more obvious case than yours. It's strange how BOTH of them didnt said a word in here yet... makes me wonder... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:50, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Um, because im busy with things like sorting out my internet and phone bills, as well as work? Because so many people have ruled already that a further ruling would be an excercise in pointlessness? Because im taking a week off the drama fest that is administration to persue other projects? Because i feel i have enough on my plate without getting involved in this drama bomb? Mix all these reasons, add a dash of chocolate, and then put them through a blender and you have why i hadnt commented until now, and why i shant comment again after now for another six days, what with me already being a day into my hiatus. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 30 May 2008 (BST)

If you want to stay away from the drama, then why did you created that arbie against conn ? You do know that drama lives there... and, heh, like any of the stuff you said ever prevented you from voicing your opinion (full o' righteous fairness and justice and puppies, in your POV) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 12:31, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Hahaaaa -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:51 31 May 2008 (BST)

Look, its fine that you dont want to be punished by this. I didnt in my case too. But five sysops have already voiced their opinion that this is a case of misconduct, while swiers just said it isnt. There is no point arguing about this, as the voice of the majority is what matters, right ? And, if this case was to be ruled as not misconduct, i would gladly request my misconduct case to be overuled accordingly --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 22:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Fuck yeah, can't wait around for anyone else to show up! Gotta push through that action before anyone who might have a solid argument shows up! Toot toot, get the fuck out of the way, it's Goddamn hagnat here to prematurely ejaculate his unwanted opinions all over the fucking wiki! --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 23:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Shoo troll! *attacks with broomstick* Back to your bridge! Away with you! -- Cheese 23:15, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah, silly precedence, but "whatever", still against the rules. Use A/PT, follow guidelines, yadda yadda. Really silly, seeing that the pages will remain protected, just like the other case. Not really abuse though, isn't that what misconduct is for? It's not like anyone is going to need to edit those pages/images. Hurr.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:41, 29 May 2008 (BST)

well, we can avoid such annoying precedence by overuling my previous case... whatya think ? :evilgrin: --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 23:45, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I'd be for that, if it was allowed. Generally, I don't think it's a problem for sysops to protect those no-need-to-edit pages against vandalism or silly mistakes. However, this wouldn't be precedence to allow them to protect random prolific (even if barely used) pages. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:50, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I don't really see the point in protecting those pages. The trenchies that comes along wanting to put a bigger guns on the firearms page are just going to upload another image elsewhere and change the page, but still, this is just like the hagnat case. No one wants them unprotected, no one is inconvenienced by them being protected, so why bother with misconduct. It's a shitty precedent, which I also ruled not misconduct on. (Oh, and images do indeed equal pages in this context, because no non-sysops can add a category to those images now... the image page has been protected) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:29 30 May 2008 (BST)

Like i already said, if nubis gets away with a not misconduct ruling, i demand my previous case (both january cases) to be overuled as well, for fairness, great justice, and all. Both cases where me doing work and simply protecting/removing pages that would eventually be protected/deleted anyway. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 12:39, 30 May 2008 (BST)

The way I see it it's either very minor misconduct if we take Hagnat's previous case as a precident, with nothing stronger than Nubis being told to use proper protocol in future, or it's not misconduct and Hagnat's ruling of misconduct gets overturned (assuming off course that the two cases are similar enougth) Either way I say we should clarify the rules a bit more to take this sort of thing into account. I personaly don't think what Nubis did was in bad faith, even though I can see that according to some interpritations of the rules as they stand and possibly some precident in other misconduct cases it was misconduct.--Seventythree^Talk 01:32, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Which case would you mean, I can think of three similar Hagnat cases off the top of my head and none of which are particularly similar to this case beyond that they involved protecting things without using A/PT.--Karek^maps?! 23:28, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Why (almost) no one here can understand that if you protect an image it is different than protecting a page is beyond me. If you protect an image the only thing that happens is it can't be deleted by a normal user (which is impossible anyway) and the category and notes on it can't change. (This shouldn't be a big deal since there are over 2600 images that don't even have categories and 4000 more that didn't until I and Ross started adding them). That means that no one was rushing around categorizing images as their usage changed or at ALL obviously! Any discussion of an image is normally on the talk page associated with the PAGE the image is displayed on. (please point out an image that has an extensive discussion on the talk page, because I am very curious to see it.) The image can still be used anywhere by anyone. It can be altered in size by the person posting it. It can be removed from any unprotected PAGE that it is being used on. It does not affect how it is used on this wiki at all. The only thing it would affect would be if someone wanted to revise the image which I do not believe is the case in any of those images. People upload an entirely new image then edit THE PAGE it is displayed on.

If you protect a PAGE NOTHING can be changed on it. There is a hell of a lot more content on a PAGE than there is on an image. Personally, I see no reason to protect non Administration PAGES because if we sysops are doing our jobs then we would notice any changes on PAGES and determine if they were vandalism or not.

Look at it this way. If Hagnat protected this page no one (but sysops) could post anything on it. But if I protected the UD Logo on this page everyone is still free to post anything they want on here. In no way am I limiting what contributions users can make to a page displaying that image. It isn't preventing any one's ability to use the image. If the page is locked down it alters users' abilities to use the page.

It is in no way Misconduct. It certainly isn't bad faith. And unlike in many of the misconduct cases against Hagnat my actions were in no way self serving or biased. I certainly don't have a "fuck the rules" attitude nor do I even show a group bias even though I am proudly a Goon. So it isn't like I went around protecting my groups' images without going through the proper channels. If you can't see what I am showing you with those links the first one is to a protected DHPD image and the next two are to the Protection pages covering that time span which don't show Conndraka submitting the images for protection. (and this one) I think there were a few more I could dig up. Like these: [38] [39] [40] [41]

If my actions are misconduct then his are clearly, too. But it was nice of you to change your decision to a warning, Conn. I bet you knew I would post this.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:24, 31 May 2008 (BST)

ummm no I didn't. And it doesn't really matter that you did. Most of those images were protected when Maxwell Hammer/Reetoric was actively vandalizing DHPD images. I was warned for it as well. But an Image does in fact count as a page although it is in a bizarre quasi-state. You can go to the image alone, the image can be given its own comments, and even given its own categories. However, I do agree with you that it most certainly isn't bad faith. Now Group affiliation has nothing to do with anything, Believe it or not if you are a "Goon" and do something I feel is positive for the Wiki or UD then I will support it. Hell I don't even have to like you to support something you do as long as I honestly feel is good. I've even voted for suggestions that Goons have put forth because they made sense. Now I understand why the majority of Goons don't like me as it comes down to a philosophical difference in information management, as well as a couple of misunderstandings that no Goon has ever tried to bother clearing up with me. Regardless, For reasons that I beleive are correct I support you in this situation. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:16, 31 May 2008 (BST)

You'll understand if I don't take your word for it that you were warned for that. Your warning in vandal data is in August. You protected the images in October. There doesn't seem to be an official warning. Maybe this is a case that calls for a soft warning. And speaking of Vandal Data I am overdue to get my warning from December struck for edits. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:12, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Yes... October 2006. I'll see if I can find the warning from Xoid. And I'll take care of that strike for you as soon as I can. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 18:04, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Protecting pages/images that are target of constant acts of vandalism without going thorugh the proper channels is within the rules, and expected from sysops to do. And we usually dont rule over cases that long in the past.

Yes, you can still use images in other pages after they got protected, but preventing its usage is not the aim of protecting them. The goal of a protection is to prevent the page/image from being changed, and to images this applies to both the image and the referring page to it (where categories, descriptions and copyright notices about the image are added). The images you protected were not the target of an active vandal (heck, they saw no vandalism at all), hence there was no need for them to be protected without going through the proper channels... or so said those who ruled misconduct in my case. It's a stupíd precedence, but once its there i think it should be served against all those who abuse their sysop rights.

If you agree that my previous cases, that serve as precedence for this case, were not misconduct and should be overuled, then such precedence wouldnt exist and this case of your would be made null and void. While such precedence exists, i can only (and sadly) say that this case is one of misconduct --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 18:56, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct, and claims that this is similar to the Hagnat case show a lack of understanding of both cases, the Hagnat case was one where possibly contributive and useful edits could have been added to the article in question, this one is not, the images are high profile and as such should be protected against uploading which, the large number alone makes the case that it was a - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karek (talk • contribs) at 23:28, 1 June 2008.

Consensus

As it stands Not Misconduct. Swiers, Karek, Boxy, and Myself see the case as being within the granted authority of a sysop, especially with good faith intentions. Cheesey, Seventythree, and Hagnat are in favor of Misconduct but only on procedural grounds, that based upon facts of the case warrant a warning at most. It is therefore my belief that we need to go grab beers at the local watering holes and call this one done and archived. Note to Hagnat, since this is an ex post facto in comparison to previous cases, I couldn't support revisiting the previous cases that fall within this guideline, however I do beleive it reverses the current precedent in such future cases that are within the same guidelines as this one. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:00, 2 June 2008 (BST)

And I believe you're a fool for saying such, it just shows you can't even be consistent with regards to past cases as a basis for future rulings except when the cases aren't exactly the same.--Karek^maps?! 05:57, 3 June 2008 (BST)

Ex post facto ? It wasnt misconduct before grim and karek argued the fuck until they got the veredict they wanted. Most sysops agreed that it wasnt worthy of a misconduct, but agreed because of grim's vitrol on how it wasnt allowed in the rules as they whey written. Less than five months later, the same issue appears in the wiki with an absurd ammount of pages, pages/images that werent even uploaded by the protecting users, and you say that now it isn't misconduct? Rules do change with time, but not in that short period of time in such informal way. Like in my case, these pages could've been improved by other users and were not target of vandalism. I am not saying i dont agree with nubis... its stupid to demand sysops to request page/image protections, as we have the tools to do it. But since a precedence for doing so is considered misconduct exists, i fail to see how this could be ruled otherwise. Either rule with the precedence at hand, or remove it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 13:56, 3 June 2008 (BST)

What I'm trying to say here Hagnat is that I agree with you, but we cant go back and change what was done in the past. But from this point forward... this case should be the bellwether in determining future cases. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 09:20, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Given how often Hagnat gets his misconduct record thrown at him the very least that should be done is that a strongly worded note be added to the misconduct report saying that as a result of community discussion such actions are no longer misconduct and that the warning was therefore only a technicality. Either that or Grim's assertion that we have different rules for different people really does look true.--Honestmistake 09:49, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Yeah but not in the way you're intending to insinuate.--Karek^maps?! 12:24, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Honestamistake says exactly what i feel about this case. Someone is being threated differently by both grim and karek, and the rest of the sysop team is going with them because they dont need to face grim's vitrol this time. It is the same shit that i have done, and even in a larger scale, yet both grim and karek fail to condemn his actions in such heated fashion as they did with mine. Grim's so-called vacation from drama was already proved to be a lie, as he created an arbie against conn, argued with cyberbob in here, and had issues with j3d for a petty redirection to his user page (both here and in #udwiki, where grim showed his maturity by banning j3d from the channel to avoid having to discuss this case with him... so much for an "official udwiki channel", heh?), and also had the time to comment on tselita's vandal case, several times. From the beginning of this misconduct case, grim said he wouldnt touch it with a mile long stick, because he knew that he would have to rule against nubis or be accused of exercising exactly what he says he doesnt like, enforcing the rules differently to users we like from the users we dislike, and from this "crime" karek has already made himself guilty of with his previous ruling of not misconduct on this case. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 00:38, 8 June 2008 (BST)

How about you read over both cases again and try to figure out what is different in the two cases before jumping to the conclusion that someone's getting special treatment, I make it extremely clear what is the determining factors in both cases and it's not who's "on trial".--Karek^maps?! 00:42, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Actually, something must have happened to your interwebs, and your comment was cut in half. People could've contributed to the article i protected, and so could the images nubis protected. Someone might think he missed a category or two, or decided to upload a different image than the already existing one.. who knows ? And my page was one that i had created based on another (it was an archive, d'uh), if people felt i made a mistake they could've reverted the page to before the archiving and/or contacted me or another sysop to make the appropriate changes. And, even though i was found of misconduct for protecting that page, no one even touched it or unprotected it. The only edit that page got was from vantar two months and a half after my misconduct case. Why no one misconducted vantar for editing a protected page ? Or nubis for doing the same in the other archives ? Threating people differently, heh ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:00, 8 June 2008 (BST)

How about you people actually try and change the rules instead of just starting to rule against them? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:33, 5 June 2008 (BST)

I guess i dont need to actually write this down, but there might be some blind people in here. I do agree that this is not a case of misconduct, i have no issues with nubis work beyond him being an arse against the dhpd, but that is something all goons are guilty of. (heh). My trouble in this case is that the administration team ruled against me in the past, mostly because they didnt wanted to face grim's vitrol and karek support of it, and now there is a similar case (not equal, because its on a larger scale and on pages the protecting user wasnt the sole contributor) and i see most of the administration staff ruling differently from what was ruled on the past, simply because they dont have grim and karek opposition against them. Ruling not misconduct on this case show two things: that grim and karek threat users differently (and so do the rest of you guys), and that the rest of you guys are weak to defend your beliefs. And ruling this misconduct, you are letting a stupid precedence go by, and making the sysop team feel more powerless than it already was. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 00:51, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Hagnat, those things you said make this and the other case not the same are also pretty big differences, not to mention the type of page, the limitations on recovering information lost from that type of page, the age of the pages in question, and the situations surrounding and leading up to the actual administrative action taken. If you would like an example of two cases that are exactly the same being ruled differently due to administrative bias I suggest you look in your own misconduct archive because there is no better example on this whole wiki of such a thing than this case. --Karek^maps?! 01:06, 8 June 2008 (BST)

the limitations on recovering information lost from that type of page - You speak like regular users could delete images... aside from this limitation of recovery, which is only an issue when a sysop deletes an image, image are no different from regular pages or, in a better comparison, template pages. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:14, 8 June 2008 (BST)

If he had been protecting things from Category:Utility Templates I would have ruled pretty much the same. I know users can't delete images themselves, they can, however, set them up in a manner that they get accidentally removed in a scheduled administrative action and the ease of doing that is unique to images, the fact that he was doing a scheduled general user task when he came across and protected images helps make the case in his favor, and, as he has pointed out, these had a snowballs chance in hell of failing. Even then, Ignoring all of that, I'll bring out a quote from me from the case that is being used to claim bias.

Karek said:

If this was your first time here for something along these lines I'd probably rule not misconduct but, your whole misconduct archive is full of stuff just like this, you know better and did it anyway in clear violation of policy. So, sorry but, Misconduct.

My stance on it then is pretty much the same as my stance on it now, there are differences in the two cases and it bewilders me that some users can not see them, but I did not rule Not Misconduct here because I think Nubis is entitled to a lighter interpretation of the rules.--Karek^maps?! 01:38, 8 June 2008 (BST)

My misconduct history if full of cases such as these because of users like grim and yourself, which dislike my work for a reason and create cases for the smallest of the issues. Also, i recently worked out on my misconduct archive, and found out how grim was wrongly accusing me of having more guilty cases than i actualy had in the past, and this vote of yours might have been cast based on this erroneous and unfair fact. And i think we already have reached a concensus that images == pages, or do you want to wave around that image nubis was using in the beginning of this case ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:59, 8 June 2008 (BST)

If you're going to accuse me of this without reason or fact behind it go ahead, but don't expect me to indulge you except to point out that I avoid making misconduct cases against people in all but extreme circumstances like the one which I filed against Boxy, which, to my memory, is the only Misconduct case I have started against anyone ever. --Karek^maps?! 02:06, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Oh please... i said people like you and grim, not exactly you and grim (although grim does create petty cases of misconduct, like the ones that serve as precedence for this case). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 02:13, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Voting

I call for a vote. Discussing this is going nowhere. Seven days for voting. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:32, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct + Overuling of Precedence

1. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:32, 8 June 2008 (BST) No longer sysop. -- Cheese 11:47, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct

1. I don't think the other case should be overruled, however the precedence is silly. The last was quite petty, this is a little more complicated due to the amount of pictures protected, but still petty. The images had little need to be altered and neither this or Hagnats case were abuse. I see little problem in protecting those, as long as it isn't a frequently updated image from some user, just use common sense. The only thing that should be done differently in these instances is making a note of it on A/PT for others to review or revert if necessary. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:54, 8 June 2008 (BST)

   To be fair it is only that large of an amount because I am very industrious once I start a project. I did in fact clear the list of uncategorized images. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:24, 8 June 2008 (BST)

2. As AHLG, Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 19:50, 8 June 2008 (BST)
3. User:Swiers (from above)
4. User:Karek (from above)
5. User:Boxy (from above)

Misconduct + warning

1. Procedures exist for a reason, and while following them all the time may seem silly in some cases, its far simpler to do so than to set silly exceptions that half the people forget, and the others ignore until it suits them, and it just creates a maze of exceptions that no one can possibly navigate until we are stuck in flamewars over pretty m,uch any excess. Misconduct is not the place to challenge the rules. It is the place to determine whether or not a sysop acted beyond the existing boundaries he or she has been set in the use of his powers. So even if, like AHLG you find no problem in him actually doing this, you are undermining the system by ruling this not misconduct. The place to take care of the rules is A/PT in the protections scheduling area down the bottom, not misconduct. I congratulate Hagnat, AHLG and Conndraka on their attempts to undermine the system from within, especially with hagnat twice going misconduct above. It appears the selfish lure of trying to get the ruling on one of his own long dead cases was enough to sway him away from common sense. As i had to say on the Jorm vandalism case: Change doesnt happen because you throw a wrench into the works. All that does is break the machine without providing for a new one. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:07, 9 June 2008 (BST)

   I don't see a problem because there is no problem. Nothing has been broken, no pages(images) have been deleted. I agree that procedure exists for a reason, just like sysops must go through A/SD to delete things (as a double check) for those trivial cases, however I'm not trying to create precedence for sysops to go around protecting random pages, filing a report and becoming immune from consequences. There is no bad faith here, or a blatant attempt to ignore the rules for the hurrs or has been in any way abuse of powers. In the future, a report should be filed on the actions (like what is usually done with moves). Really though, misconducting someone for doing something that was right (as the protection hasn't been reverting, and there is no indication that it should be)? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:15, 9 June 2008 (BST)

   And you wonder why i have often described you as clueless and incompetant. Good or bad faith has never been a deciding factor in what is or isnt misconduct. You are thinking of Vandalism. What is and always has been the tipping factor in misconduct is if a sysop has misused their powers by avoiding the systems we have in place, for good or for ill. We are not moderators. There is an entire policy dedicated to pointing that out. We are janitors. We stick to the procedures, we write new ones when needed and have them ratified by the community. We cannot make things up as we go along because we end up with an internally inconsistent bunch of mumbo jumbo that is as sturdy as a sandcastle in a cyclone. A protections request for those images, plus a protections scheduling vote would have been more than sufficient to settle this issue once and for all. It wasnt done, however. Misconduct is not the place to hammer out exceptions to rules. That is the realm of the schedulings and policy discussion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:35, 9 June 2008 (BST)

   Major disconnect there is that we are not janitors, we aren't responsible for cleaning up for everyone else's mess just expected to as members of the community, more-so we're expected to know how to do it right because we are marked as knowledgeable and trustworthy members of the community. We aren't Moderators, but you're taking that beyond it's meaning, we don't moderate user interaction, that's why we aren't moderators, we're still expected to maintain the wiki, as members of the community. We enforce the rules, ideally we wouldn't be the ones forced to interpret them too, but that is not the case here. We do have user discussion to use as a guide but, largely, the interpretation of when a rule is enforced and when enforcing it is impractical or just idiotic are left to us, the SysOps, that's in part why we even have the Misconduct system, to judge the judgement calls.--Karek^maps?! 20:54, 9 June 2008 (BST)

   Lookie here and see if you can find the exception that grants him the ability to bypass the system. if you find it ill change my decision, but i dont think you will. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:30, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   It's right around here. It's not that he's purposely bypassing the system for the sake of bypassing it, it's that he's bypassing it because it's actually foolish for him to go through the system before doing the protections. I agree there's a problem that he didn't document action taken, but aside from that he meets the common sense exceptions for judgement in that section. It's basically the kind of think Xoid is talking about here in regards to why it isn't done in the usual manner.--Karek^maps?! 16:26, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Thats a big stretch karek, Just so you know, the talk page isnt the policy thats voted on. All sorts of ideas get thrown around on those pages. While iot does give you permission to ignore the precise letter in favour of the spirit, the fact is that the whole reason the protections page exists is for the oversight of the use of that ability, and bypassing it bypasses not only the exact letter of it, but also the very spirit of having it in the first place. He should have simply filed a request. It would have been protected within an hour or two, six hours at the most. A deletions scheduling request could also have been filed for this matter, but it was not. These steps were pathetically easy and theres next to no cost involved in doing both of them except maybe a couple of hundred extra keystrokes. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:34, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Oh I wouldn't say it's a big stretch, it's more of a stretch assuming the system was written the way it was to purposely make things as hard as possible and that there was no expectation of common sense in regards to interpreting guidelines in the first place. There's certainly much to be said about the intentions of the writings of that policy in the first place which gets more to the point of why such an exception was added at all, just like the precedence one, it's a matter of making the system work for the users, it's not an excuse for everything that is done in good intentions but it pretty clearly covers cases where following the set procedure is a lesson in futility.--Karek^maps?! 16:49, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Sorry, but I just can't agree with punishing someone for a evidently proper decision, the quoted guideline rule above certainly has some merit. There is absolutely no harm done, therefore, it is not misconduct and it's not like going through A/PT would have made a difference, seeing that the images are still protected. In this case, it's clear that he isn't blatantly ignoring rules for the hurrs, or has had that attitude in the past. And good and bad faith does apply, or good and bad judgement. It is why you weren't misconducted for banning someone while being banned (despite your edit summary: Permabanned vandal. Yes im banned. I dont care.)--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:03, 9 June 2008 (BST)

   AHLG, i was wondering how long it would take someone to bring that case up. The summary for that was that i knew there would be a kerfuffle about it, and i didnt care as the prick was actively vandalising the wiki and there was no indication that there were any active sysops who would stop him. The clear difference between the two cases is that in mine there was nothing saying i couldnt do it, while in this case the guidelines clearly state it isnt allowed to protect things without an active edit war, a protections request, or scheduling. True, no harm was done with those specific protections, but look at the harm it actually has caused. Hagnat is here ruling on this and trying to rule on a closed misconduct case of his own from months ago to retroactively reverse the ruling, despite in the discussion constantly supporting a misconduct verdict on the case. Something fishy there. Im going to bring him up on charges for that later on after this is all settled. The fact of the matter is that this case actually has done harm. It has undermined the system we have in place, and done nothing to change or improve it. There were clear and easy ways to make the requests legally and the fact he elected not to do so was misconduct. I would rule the same way were it anyone here. In such cases judgement doesnt come into play, they werent under any form of threat by vandals, they certainly hadnt been vandalised at all, and it would be a simple matter to put up a protections request for them all and let them be dealt with while at the same time setting up a scheduling vote. It is not the place of misconduct to challenge policy. That is the sole realm of A/PD. You dont like the rules? You think they are stupid? On this case i happen to agree. You should write better rules, while upholding the ones we have until thats done, otherwise the whole system falls apart. Sheesh, what the fuck happened to your common sense? I direct you to this. Nothin in here says we are allowed to bypass the entire system to do whatever we feel is right. We can make decisions where policy is not in place (My banning a vandal as a banned user is one of these examples), we can ignore specific wording if need be, but nothing says we can bypass the entire system. Sysop abilities are not to be used without oversignt, because, frankly, the mahjority of sysops are fucking morons, yourself included. this means people like Nubis have to suffer the consequences of stepping outside those clear boundaries, even with the best of intentions. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:30, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   And you want to be a Bureaucrat?nothing saying i couldnt do it You were BANNED. i.e. no editing privileges what so ever...now either we are going to take good intentions into account or we are not. You are purposefully splitting hairs to excuse yourself and still allow you to persecute others. Your attitude about your "co-workers" shows nothing but your own worthlessness as a human being, and I for one am tired of it. You might be a good sysop, but your interpersonal skills (unless its with a sycophant) sucks. Take some anti-depressants and quit thinking yourself of God of all that is wiki. btw judgment, oversight, majority,and that comes from someone who can't spell worth crap. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 07:01, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Nice tantrum conn. Banning a vandal isnt editing at all, its merely utilising a sysop ability. If youd actually read the case summary you would see that almost every sysop ability is disabled when banned, except the banning function. The software drew the line, there was no policy regarding use of administrative abilities while banned, i followed through. You can accept that or you can try to beat a dead horse. I for one advocate leaving dead horses alone. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:25, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   To be fair Grim there may be practical reasons for that, and not ones of which actions are allowable, ban control is the only way to unban oneself if another sysop is abusing power and bans the whole team. Either way banning an active vandal isn't misconduct, that's already agreed upon and really doesn't matter to this case except to point out that it's a common sense action.--Karek^maps?! 16:31, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Bollocks, are you blaming me for what Nubis did? Are you crazy? And does this: System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored. ...not speak to you as "bypass the entire system to do whatever we feel is right." Perhaps not the entire wiki, just one sliver of it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:36, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Your continued ignorance is amusing. I did not accuse you of doing what Nubis has done. I accused you of being an idiot who doesnt understand the limitations on his power, and as i have on numerous previous occasions, i accused you of being inept. In any case, if a sysop can just protect pages he feels like, so long as its in good faith, then why do we even need the scheduled protections system? He bypassed the entire protections system by doing this. This is not specific wording running agaisnt the spirit of the rule, this is him violating both the spirit and letter of even having protections in the first place. Id like to take a moment to point out that if you hadnt been so eager to argue with me, id have been happy to leave this discussion with merely my vote on the issue. Just an FYI. Didnt you guys already have the argument section anyway? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:49, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   I didn't comment much there. The reason why we have A/PT is for other users to easily grab our attention and to keep track of protections, organization if you will. If a sysop can just protect pages he feels like, so long as its in good faith, then why do we even need the scheduled protections system? I'm thinking the same thing, Grim. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Well, the answer is because we cant. Thats why we have Scheduled Protections. And yet nubis did, which is why this is misconduct. In any case, thanks for all but declaring you havent a leg to stand on. It certainly makes my job easier. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:06, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Although I still agree with my stance on how page protection should be handled (in the italic quote above), for simplicity I am going to agree with you (on the points, not the attacks). I'll add more, latter, got to go.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:20, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   The answer is because not everyone is a sysop, and those who aren't need to use that page. Sysops who are acting in good faith should not have to. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 19:48, 10 June 2008 (BST)

   Look at how well you ignore the question of why we have scheduled protections in the first place. A quick reading of A/G regarding the protection of pages pops up the following few interesting quotes.

   System operators may only protect pages that users have requested be protected on UDWiki:Administration/Protections, or (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism.

   The above pretty clearly explains the times we are allowed to protect. It later mentions an exception foor protections scheduling.

   Further, except in the instance of heavy vandalism mentioned above, system operators may not protect a page that they themselves have requested be protected. It is part of a system operator's responsibility to check these pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above.

   Pretty clear that the guidelines state that we cannot protect willy nilly on our own judgement in any case we choose. You and AHLG are trying here to strip away the layers of protyection that prevent a sysop from abusing his or her powers. And believe me, the moment you succeed, ill make you regret it, not because i like abuse, but to prove the fucking point of why we have these systems in the first place. Scheduled protections exists for the express purpose of cutting through the bureaucracy in place in the case of no brainer decisions. In every other situation, a sysop is considered to be a regular user making a request, because our judgement is not intrinsically worth any more than anyone elses. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:35, 11 June 2008 (BST)

(Not a vote, clearly) I see both sides of this and completely understand the Misconduct votes. I just want to say this in my defense, that at the time before I did any of it I read the protections page and honestly believed that images were considered different entities from actual pages since protecting them does not stop usage and they aren't mentioned specifically. (you can see how strongly I believed that by what I argued.) I will accept the Misconduct decision since the Protections page is in existence, but ask for an edit stating images also need to be listed and some set policy regarding Main Page/Informational image protection. And yes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But as someone that tries to follow policy as it is written I was misled. Knowing (now) that the opinion is that images = pages I have to admit that I would probably vote Misconduct (procedural or soft warning) also. It just sucks that I have to have this kind of mark on my record though. I really think sysops should have the ability to use their own judgment to protect images, but until it is written I can see that that won't be the case in the current environment. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:07, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Well, if you're going to take that tack, you'd better stop deleting pages as well then, unless they're requested on A/SD. I can't find any SD listing for these ones you deleted. Template:Another gun template, Template:173rd, Template:HypnotoadRight, Sinclair Temp, Doctor Medicine, Cody Mac/, worthy though they are -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:47 11 June 2008 (BST)

Or just get used to seeing my name on here for thinking that sysops are supposed to be proactive and work for the wiki and not the bureaucracy.

Hmmm. The interesting thing about these: (Cody Mac - May 24th posted on SD by Pdeq) Doctor Medicine was deleted after Vantar had moved the content under the User's space where it belonged. Template 173 isn't deleted and I am not on its' history. As far as the other 3 listed I have no clue if there are extenuating circumstances to those or not.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:18, 11 June 2008 (BST)

1. User:Seventythree. (from Above).

Abstain

1. I can't be arsed getting into another flame war over this. -- Cheese 15:01, 8 June 2008 (BST)

Ruling

After over a month of this case being open there is a majority verdict of Not Misconduct. Case closed. -- Cheese 11:52, 3 July 2008 (BST)

05:23, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Banned me because I admitted that I was a "sockpuppet" which is another name for an alt account. Not a problem unless my main account is also voting on the same subject. Also because "no reasonable person would vote keep for broke redirects" to which I respond I had intended to use these pages in the future and it was completely reasonable. Nubis obviously banned me because he could not comprehend anyone anyone voting not in his favor and instead of going through the rules he decided to ban me. Vaderman! 05:23, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Aren't you now guilty of getting around a ban? That makes you deserve another ban. --Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS DORIS Hunt!} 05:24, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Vaderman! blocked. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:27, 26 August 2006 (BST)

If you want to discuss this, do not make alts, just contact me through AIM, MSN or YIM and I'll relay what you said. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:27, 26 August 2006 (BST)

You're right. Admitting that you're a sockpuppet doesn't actually make you one, any more than telling a police officer you're a criminal makes you guilty. It does, however, make you stupid. Keep up the good work. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•T•A•C•B!} 05:32, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Sockpuppets are allowed, as long as they don't vote on the same subjects as their main accouts.--The General ^{U! P! F! Mod} 07:21, 26 August 2006 (BST)

If I were you, I'd go look at vandal banning. I put him up for banning for more reason than just "he's a retarded sockpuppet." It had to do with bad faith. Hint hint: his circumventing a ban kinda proves my point. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:24, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Wait! Wait! Sockpuppets are allowed ? Since when ? If there is something wrong in democracy is when those who can change other people minds about something being a mere sockpuppet from a big company or and evil shadow lord. --hagnat ^mod 07:53, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Alt accounts are allowed, as long as they aren't used to circumvent a ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:58, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Unless the sock puppet states who their main account is how do we know if the user has voted twice or not? Quite simply we don't, and thus we shouldn't allow sock puppet accounts because of this simple reason. Anyway is there any reasonable reason for someone to have a sock puppet account on this wiki? - Jedaz 08:01, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, there is. I've explained this at length before. It's on one of BobHammero's sandbox pages. Somewhere. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:03, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Look at wikipedia.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:04, 26 August 2006 (BST)

You are all missing the point. What did the sockpuppet accomplish? Anything constructive? Okay, now anything potentially harmful? Great. Now that we're all in agreement, why the hell are we still debating this? It's not like the sockpuppet is a fucking Rhodes scholar or something. His only "contribution" was to try to obstruct the speedy deletion process. Since we're not banning Mother Teresa here, let's all just drop this. Case dismissed, Nubis is in the clear. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:11, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Agree. --overlord hagnat ^mod 20:10, 26 August 2006 (BST)