UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Nubis » 2009

10 September

We finally have an explanation for Nubis' inconsistent arguments and (I quote myself) "come once a month and fuck up something" attitude. Here DCC announces that he's had control of Nubis' account for at leased a year, since Grim's sysops trust stunt. This is marginally confirmed by checkuser, which, as far back as the logs go, have confirmed that a majority of their edits have come from the same IP. This is a breach of sysop trust, yada yada, but not technically a problem if the power of multiple accounts isn't abused.

However, this, brought up by Animesucks, is multi-voting, which is A/VBable regardless. Rather than take this to A/VB, I'd like the sysops to first make up their mind on whether DCC and Nubis are the same person, based on the evidence. If they are the same person then there isn't anything that can be done by his multi-account abuse except the vandal escalation as per the above vote, and this A/M case will be not misconduct. If they are different people with the access to the one account, Nubis has been in breach of sysop conduct by allowing other unqualified users use his account. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:11, 10 September 2009 (BST)

I am as about as sure as is humanly possible that they are the same person. Cyberbob  Talk  11:25, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Yarp. As bobs. -- Cheese 11:32, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Didn't Nubis also claim to be Sir Argo too? Everyone took it as a joke (I know I did...) but did anyone check? --Honestmistake 12:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis is not SirArgo. Are we going to start getting paranoid about literally every "hahaha im actually [user] guys" joke people make now? Cyberbob  Talk  12:06, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Not getting paranoid... I merely mention it as an interesting aside. In any event I am sure Argo will be along soon to tell us he is not really a cat :) --Honestmistake 17:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)

I'm cyber bob too. -- #99 ^DCC 19:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

PS Nubis is back. And where is the misconduct in this case? -- #99 ^DCC 19:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Hmm. I'd actually believe that.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:58, 11 September 2009 (BST)

That's impossible - I can't be Imthatguy and DCC at the same time! Cyberbob  Talk  03:02, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Well, whoever you are, I am agreeing with you a lot lately and it makes me wonder why. But hey, I'm agreeing with you to the point that I voted for you, so things are good whatever they are. This whole place is tripping me out.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:05, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Fucking mind games. I agree, IP details strongly suggest that they're the same person... Nubis has gone on vaction and blocked himself for a month, and neither he or DCC have said anything more.
Even if they are the same person, I'd suggest that it's still misconduct, because in that case Nubis failed to combine the DCC vandal data with his own as known alt account data should be -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:42 10 September 2009 (BST)

(Nubis is a girl.)

The A/VD thing is not misconduct IMO. It's certainly a second layer of vandalism, but it's a situation that would be relevant to any user with a "secret" alt - sysop or not. Cyberbob  Talk  12:56, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Regular users with secret alts don't have a duty to keep A/VD records accurate, or to enforce the escalation system -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:12 10 September 2009 (BST)

That's pretty tenuous. Cyberbob  Talk  13:19, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Didn't we demote Jed when it looked like he was sharing accounts? Sharing accounts is misconduct in itself, as it's a serious breach of the trust placed on a sysop. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:57, 11 September 2009 (BST)

DCC has been IP checked back in Feb 2008, indicating that they weren't sharing IPs at the time, or it would have been discovered then. That suggests a few possibilities.

• They are one, but were more careful about their IPs in the past,
• They were two separate posters, and one of them gained control of both accounts somehow,
• They have always been separate posters, but DCC has somehow managed to post from Nubis' IP lately,

-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:12 10 September 2009 (BST)

*They have always been separate posters, but DCC has somehow managed to post from Nubis' IP lately, I like the way you think.-- #99 ^DCC 19:36, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Do we dare put Nubis up for ban aversion aswell? ;) In seriousness, I also tend to agree with the theory that they are the same person behind two accounts- though in practice, they often exhibited plenty of behaviour that suggests that they were different users... Things like PT requests and such that could easily have been streamlined via Nubis (and aren't unlike his edits anyway), and what would Nubis' reasoning be for lying about this alt fiasco anyway? He would be in more hot water if they were actually two separate users... I just don't understand fair Nubis... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:43, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Actually, scrap that... After reading the talk page again, I'm fairly convinced that they were two separate users until the 'real' Nubis walked away and DCC received control of both accounts, after the "sysop trust" event... Basically, I'm going with DCC's story, it seems plausible, as per Boxy's 2008 checkuser evidence and the fact that Nubis' behaviour changed readily around the midmonths of 2008 onwards. It explains why they are technically the same person now, whilst it explains Boxy's checkuser evidence, and it explains DCC's own explaination, as well as other user's accounts of Nubis' changing behaviour over the past year. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:05, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Thank me later--CyberRead240 16:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)

I haven't got time to deal with this at the moment, and given the confusion over who has control of the account, I am temporarily demoting Nubis until we work out what is going on, and if the account is now secure. Nubis will be reinstated as soon as we can be sure of what went on, and that he has exclusive control of the account -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:48 10 September 2009 (BST)

Jinkies

Looks like you have a mystery on your hands, gang. I'll gather a few things of note and see if that helps. Let's assume that they are two different people and somehow DCC got a hold of Nubis's password, and work from there.

DCC wiped Nubis's talk page, and has claimed to be Nubis since Grim's UDWiki:Open Discussion/System Operators, which ones do you trust, which was back in May of 2008. This means that DCC has been in charge of Nubis's account for quite some time. A check of DCC's contributions show a sudden absence around the middle of May of 2008, and doesn't return until September. Nubis's contributions on the other hand, is very inactive before the same time in May, and suddenly becomes very active. So much so, that it explains why DCC has no contributions during that time period. DCC is far too busy working on Nubis's account that s/he doesn't have time to post under DCC.

This explains the noted change in Nubis's demeanor and posting habits. You can see the similarity with DCC's flurry of edits on developing suggestions here, and repeated on Nubis's account here. You can also see that Nubis was very active in October of 2008, while DCC stopped posting after the Grim Misconduct case became sysop only and didn't post again until November 12th. Again, this seems to be due to the fact that Nubis was very involved with the wiki during the month of October. Something else of interest is that Nubis refers to DCC as being female on January 12, 2009. Above, Cyberbob mentions that Nubis is female.

Assuming that DCC picked up Nubis's account at the start of the flurry of activity (May 16th, 2008), that would mean the following sysop actions were made by a non-sysop on a sysop account:

• All of the move actions since May of 2008.
• All of the block actions since May of 2008.
• All of the protect actions since May of 2008.
• All of the deletion actions since May of 2008.
• Archived the UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul 0.2 policy on May 24th, 2008.
• Ended voting on Suggestion:20080505 Nail Guns and Nail Gun Clips on May 25th, 2008.
• Tons of rulings and administration of A/VB and A/M cases, starting here. I'd list them all, but that would take a long time. A simple browse through Nubis's contributions from then on should show how many times Nubis has ruled on A/VB and A/M cases. I'll only list the A/VB cases that involve DCC.
• Nubis effectively ruled on DCC's A/VB case on October 9th, 2008. You can see how the case ended.
• Nubis reduced DCC's vandal escalation by two steps, despite there being far less than 500 edits since May 11 of 2008, when DCC's last vandal deescalation occurred.

Also, to add to the case that Anime pointed out on Nubis's talk page, you can see that there are two other cases where DCC was used as a sock on voting: The UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial and UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions/February_2009.

Prior to May of 2008, Nubis is barely involved with the wiki, but after May is suddenly very involved. It is reasonable to assume that Nubis stopped caring about the wiki, and gave the account away. Otherwise, there would likely be a number of password attempts on the Nubis account. At the very least, judging from Nubis's contributions in 2006 to May of 2008, Nubis had a habit of coming to the wiki every six to eight months. In my opinion, if Nubis was unaware of DCC's attempt to take over the account, then it is likely it would have come up before now, and not over a year later. However, if you give Nubis the benefit of the doubt, then I imagine that all of the above information would be enough to permaban DCC and his alts (if any). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:40, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Awwww, but what about all the good things that Hitler did? -- #99 ^DCC 02:39, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Nice post, Akule. At the moment, there are one of two possibilities for this - Nubis and DCC are collaborating to stir up as much shit as possible (then demote, as it's very inappropriate conduct for a sysop,) or Nubis gave his account to DCC (demote, as the account's security has been compromised, and account sharing shouldn't be tolerated.) I just don't see an "account hacking" as too likely - ether Nubis has been careless with his password, or DCC has the skillz required to hack the wiki. Neither seem too likely. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:54, 11 September 2009 (BST)

It is quite obvious what happened. DCC got Nubis' account off of Nubis, but he realized his big troll was a huge fail and finds himself possibly having both the accounts perma banned. This is something he didn't expect, he expected Nubis to be banned but not himself. Now he is making up a story about DCC being an awesome hacker who hacked Nubis account in order to save the Sysop status so he can AT LEAST stay on the wiki in some aspect, as it is the only way to salvage the situation. It is the epitome of fail troll.--CyberRead240 05:17, 11 September 2009 (BST)

And I am saying that the real Nubis gave his account to DCC around may 2008, and the real Nubis is either fucked off completely, or is now back to edit for a while so that the IPs are different until his sysopship is reinstated, and then for a bit after, until the dust settles. If Nubis gets back into Sysop you know itl happen again.--CyberRead240 05:22, 11 September 2009 (BST)

HAHAHA! I await the day that Kevan announces that the same 20 guys with 500 accounts each run this whole fuckin joke.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:59 11 September 2009(BST)

***UNIT #216 HAS GONE ROGUE//ELIMINATE UNIT #216*** Cyberbob  Talk  06:13, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but I've hardly got the time for one account, let alone 500 :/ Linkthewindow  Talk  06:28, 11 September 2009 (BST)

What's amusing is that DCC as Nubis (or whatever the theory is) was much more involved and contributed more to the wiki than the REAL Nubis ever did. Also, Akule, your ideas are way off on this "hacking the password with many attempts". Who said the wiki was the first account I took from him? Some people are retarded enough to have related accounts with the same passwords. -- #99 ^DCC 18:42, 11 September 2009 (BST)

I noticed that you contributed quite a bit to the wiki. Particularly the image categorizations. As for hacking, I don't recall saying that you did. I just mentioned that if you didn't get the password from Nubis, it would have been more likely that you would have effectively bashed out the password, and thus the logs would have reflected that. No, I agree with your statement on Nubis's page. It is far more plausible to me that Nubis got tired of the wiki, and when the whole "Who do you trust the sysops" bit came out, you thought it would be funny to pretend to be Nubis and s/he gave you the password. That is the much more believable scenario, and would fit with what I remember of Nubis's general demeanor. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:13, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Pssst, Nubis is lazy and only had/has one password for most things (UD zombie and wiki). Actually, maybe that's more like stupid which I am sure most of you will agree with. Guess the UD password (which isn't "traced") and try it on the Wiki. I also found on of his other alt accounts on here that no one knows about with the same PW. -- #99 ^DCC 02:50, 14 September 2009 (BST)

how about this

they lived together. Each logged in to a computer never checking to see who was loggedin. They break up. Out of kindness dcc unbans nubis so nub can take the account back because nubs wasn't the bad guy here. Clearly dcc was the psycho bitch. Or this could be way off base too because who the hell meets peole from the Internet? --N 06:41, 11 September 2009 (BST)

The alternatives are endless. I favour the idea that nubis has actually gone on vacation (a day or two ago), and DCC (a RL friend) has access to his 'puter and account and is doing what goons do when presented with such an opportunity...
All of which makes no difference to what we need to decide, whether the Nubis account should loose sysop status or not because he either allowed others access his account (either willingly, or not), or he is actively participating in a deception (DCC should be dealt with elsewhere) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:16 11 September 2009 (BST)

If that is indeed the case, then Nubis is in violation of reducing DCC's vandal escalation in violation of the guidelines. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:17, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Are you saying that I didn't have the required edits? Because there was a huge discussion on Nubis' page about the history wipe, Katthew/Iscariot, and all that that led to an A/M case by Iscariot. The de-escalations were allowed because of the wipe.-- #99 ^DCC 03:52, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Tell us DCC, what is your latest claim? It was all a fabrication, and you never had access to Nubis' account? You had control for months, but Nubis is back now? You still have control of it? What?
Not that anything you would say would have any credibility... but just FTR -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:02 12 September 2009 (BST)

I don't have control of that account and I never did. Nubis (and briefly Katthew, actually) lived with me during the height of The Dead. How the fuck else do you think we were able to coordinate the hordes so well? Magic? We lived together and one of the 3 of us was online all the time due to our schedules. Hence, the matching IP. (if anyone had checked Katthew's back then you would have found this out. But we were all on our best behavior and kept our collective noses clean because we knew it would be bad for all three if one got in trouble. Notice there was a point when even Katthew stopped trolling before she moved out and gave up UD completely? -- #99 ^DCC 22:29, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Actually the de-escalations were not allowed, the sysop in question was found guilty of misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:43, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Not allowed to be performed by that sysop, not not allowed to be performed at all. Cyberbob  Talk  01:53, 13 September 2009 (BST)

Not allowed period, though this only applies to the section where DCC is talking about enough good faith edits to de-escalate a user. The case is here, Katthew's circumstances are not discussed in any detail during the case and no precedent is made regarding de-escalations as DCC is apparently claiming. The case in question brought a single precedent, users may not be de-escalated before the proscribed minimums in policy, for a sysop to do so is misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:02, 13 September 2009 (BST)

You seem to be forgetting that HUGE ASS conversation on Nubis' talk page about de-escalations specifically. But that's typical for you.-- #99 ^DCC 22:31, 13 September 2009 (BST)

I see you've volunteered to go through DCC's contribs with a fine tooth comb to check for the bad faith edits and determine whether there are any two with 250 good faith ones between them. Cyberbob  Talk  02:07, 13 September 2009 (BST)

We require a date, and therefore a ruling first. When the appropriate date is judged by this misconduct case, that we are taking the sysop account to be hacked from, I shall begin to go through the histories. This means, rule, get consensus and the appropriate assurances (I hate doing work for nothing, see what happened when I tried to fix the historical groups? Boxy got misconducted for that) and I'll do you your breakdown. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:14, 13 September 2009 (BST)

My header

I get my own header, because it breaks up the walls of text and because I'm special :p

What we have here is a situation with three possible explanations:

1. They are two separate people. This would mean that this is one mighty troll job. Concerning DCC, this would only result in a single escalation (for impersonating a sysop) and only the possibility of a single misconduct ruling against Nubis. This would mean the question would have to be asked by the ruling sysop team as to whether or not it is acceptable conduct for a sysop, who should hold the trust of the user base, to cause this level of drama and potential worry around the wiki. Grim was demoted and banned for six months for enduring conduct unbecoming a sysop.
2. They were two separate people, but somewhere along the lines one user has left and the other has been given their account. What it is here is misconduct for the Nubis account, by releasing sysop only information to a non-sysop, and effectively a vandalism spree for the duration by DCC for every access of the Nubis account. This would be a demotion for Nubis under the Inactivity Policy and escalations for every type of offence committed. Give me a shout if you need these for A/VB DDR. Also, the actions for number three would immediately apply as well.
3. The accounts were always controlled by one person. That makes it an Amazing level troll job, and although owning, and indeed operating two accounts as separate entities is not illegal, operating them in concert most certainly is. Akule has demonstrated where this is the case. This is then a sockpuppet case, in such cases the puppet is banned and all warnings for the previous account are transferred to the main along with any owing from the conduct of that alt. As DCC is still commenting on this and other cases, it is fair to say that this is the main account, the Nubis account should be banned and any owing or future punishments transferred to DCC's record.

There are a couple of points of note that I'm interested in:

Cheese, Cyberbob - How long have you been aware that these accounts have been run by the same person?

Why have we only got one ruling on this case yet sysops have been commenting on this and other cases? Boxy has excused his immediate participation, but Cyberbob appears on his own case and not here?

Has anyone brought this to Kevan's attention? Given the apparent reluctance of the sysops to dive in here, his Owner Privilege ruling would end this quickly.

Also you might want to inform him due, regardless of how Nubis and Conndraka used to harp on about American law, to British statutes on the protection of information of citizens under various data protection legislation. I'm attempting to contact various people I knew at university who have since passed the bar for clarification, hopefully it'll be a non-issue and he'll be fine. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:43, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I learned about this at the same time as everyone else and I haven't voted here because I haven't made up my mind (surely understandable considering how complicated everybody's making this?) as to which bits apply to A/M and which ones apply to A/VB. Also what's with your worries about protection of information? Nobody's giving out specific locations tied to IPs or anything, are they? Cyberbob  Talk  17:49, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Perhaps you'd care to share with the group if you've made up your mind. Actually, as I understand things in the UK, liability could be a result of unauthorised individuals having access to the information, whether or not it is formerly disseminated or not. A person's location is consider privileged information, whether DCC made this public or not is not the issue, the data has be inadequately been protected as DCC did not pass the proscribed procedure for gaining access to it. Hopefully I'm completely wrong about all of this and there's a nice clear statue that shows that this has nothing to do with Kevan at all. I am concerned for him though, hence why I've asked if he has been informed, as a person who runs many sites and is heavily involved in the digital industry he might know better than I and it could be a storm in my own teacup. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:58, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Also, no "Welcome back Iscariot, I've missed you."? I'm hurt :'( -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:58, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Here's a thought, why don't you go fuck yourself? I'll make up my mind when I'm good and ready, thanks. As for the IP shit... urghsdadfdavs. Cyberbob  Talk  01:54, 13 September 2009 (BST)

You do realize that you can check and see how many times "nubis" accessed checkuser information to determine if there really was an abuse right? That's what they did for the J3D case... But don't mind me throwing in logic here. Continue with your pitchforks and torches. It's good for lolz.-- #99 ^DCC 22:21, 13 September 2009 (BST)

vote

I'm going to move this forward- it is silly to see speculations run scarce as all the evidence has already been laid out by several users. Most of the sysops have their own opinion already, I'm for calling a vote. I would like to see the opinions of the sysops to see with which this matter should be dealt. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:03, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct

1. - And a demotion. I consider Nubis' account insecure and after the last week's activity I can't vouch for the account to behave in the trustworthy manor that is expected of a sysop. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:03, 11 September 2009 (BST)
2. The best case scenario, in terms of Nubis' guilt here, is that he had his password stolen without his knowledge. If this is the case, then we still have to treat this as serious enough to warrant demotion, because we can no longer tell who is in control of the account -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:41 12 September 2009 (BST)
3. I hesitate to call it "Misconduct", as don't really know how DCC obtained Nubis' account, but yeah - it is not acceptable to have an account that has access to CheckUser running around when the identity of the person behind it has been called into serious question. Demoteplz. Cyberbob  Talk  02:22, 13 September 2009 (BST)
4. Pretty much as Bob. When we can't be reasonably sure of an account's identity or security, it should be demoted at once. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:13, 13 September 2009 (BST)

end

I'm going to close this as not specifically Misconduct, but definitely a continuation of the Demotion that Boxy brought upon Nubis' account whilst its security was being guranteed. Nothing personally in relation to either Nubis or DCC, but since we can no longer vouch for the security of Nubis' account, it seems in the best interests that its sysop status be witheld. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:12, 13 September 2009 (BST)

I think a certain date needs to be applied here, the Nubis account was up to all sorts of things, some of them will no longer apply. DCC states from after the Grim coup, a definitive date with the final ruling would be useful. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:02, 14 September 2009 (BST)

I'm also a little confused as to how you can call this "Not Misconduct" when, so far, the voting has been unanimously for Misconduct. And yet, even as you are calling it Not Misconduct, you're stripping Nubis of their sysop powers. All this without without a formally conducted and concluded Misconduct verdict or Vandalism case against Nubis.

As far as I can tell, boxy's demotion was a stopgap security measure meant to keep the situation under control until A/M and/or A/VB cases could be brought forward and decided upon. I didn't see it as a permanent demotion. I think you guys need to make an actual decision, one way or the other: is Nubis going to be stripped of their sysop powers. Or not. And do it by the book, i.e. Misconduct or Vandalism or both. --WanYao 16:55, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis is going to lose its powers for good it looks like, but I think it's not being ruled Misconduct because it wasn't the real Nubis performing Misconduct, or vandalism, but rather him being a moron in losing it/his account in the first place. So calling it Misconduct on his part makes no sense. The only way it's Misconduct is if Nubis knew that DCC was using his account and he did nothing to alert anyone to the powers being misused. And we can never prove that. It's just plain old stupidity on the real Nubis' part.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:09, 14 September 2009 (BST)

(conflicted) I stand corrected... "not specifically Misconduct"... But which is it? Either Nubis was negligent (at best... at worst, she was actively complicit in the deceit) and thus has lost "trusted user" status either way. Or Nubis is innocent of technical wrongdoing and should be reinstated as sysop as soon as their identity can be confirmed (assuming that's even possible).

imnsho there's no way to get around the fact that Nubis was either grossly negligent at best, or actually complicit in the sabotage of their account at worst. Either way, I don't think the account is "trustworthy" anymore. That's not my decision to make. But it is your job (that is, you the sysops) to make that decision.

And I'm still not quite sure how someone can be stripped of sysop powers without a Misconduct ruling... if this is possible, please explain it to me because I am apparently ignorant. --WanYao 17:17, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Edit conflictI agree, the account should not get its sysop status back. But the reason I did not call it negligence was because we have plenty of inactive sysops. That's one reason why people voted in A/RE. I will say it is likely that Nubis would still be inactive now had this event not shown up, but I think that if he had been naturally inactive he would have probably been demoted long ago for inactivity.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:21, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Also, inactivity is one example of how sysops can lose their powers without Misconduct. What we have here is an event that maybe has happened once before with the whole Amazing fiasco so it's a fairly special circumstance. I know very little about that event and I freely admit it, so maybe we should look back on how that was handled and work from there for this case.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:23, 14 September 2009 (BST)

You're exactly correct about the inactivity thing, Argo. But no one has moved to have Nubis demoted for inactivity. Other than boxy's (likely) stopgap measure demotion, nothing to date has been done about this. That's what I'm doing here: pushing to get something conclusive, one way or another, done. --WanYao 17:32, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Alright. But I don't think we can even classify this case here. I am waiting for a sysop to come along on say something, which I hope will happen soon. I don't think Misconduct is even really built for a case like this.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:40, 14 September 2009 (

I've finished the case, he's been demoted. What more could you want? If it's a bold Misconduct at the end of the case, there it is. We don't need to twist the inactivity clause of the Guidelines, based on an unprovable theory, to demote Nubis, when we just did, because he was a security threat. You're overcomplicating this procedure and now you've enticed Iscariot to do so aswell. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:16, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Date

The above debate is precisely why I think a date needs to be established over this whole controversy.

DCC stated on Nubis' talk page that he left the wiki after the Grim controversy. The Grim controversy occurred on 9th October 2008. Now there's no reason to dispute this, and the vandalism case brought by Nubis about DCC stealing his account does not contradict this either. The Dead were pretty much over as a major force by this point, dropping to the level of our normal large hordes. There is no logical reason to dispute this as a date.

If we allow a grace period for Nubis to wrap up what he had been up to on the wiki, say perhaps one month, this would mean the date that would be given in the ruling would be 9th November 2008, and any edit after this time would be considered to be made by DCC. As soon as we have a concrete date given, I see the whole thing working like this:

1. Nubis is found guilty of misconduct (allowing private user data available only to sysops to fall into the hands of another by not ensuring adequate protection of his account).
2. Nubis is warned for this.
3. Given Nubis claims to have left and not touched his account, he is demoted under the inactivity protocol as per standard procedure.
4. A vote after the chosen date is found and brought to A/VB, as we have accepted that this is after DCC has control of the account it is dealt with as a normal sockpuppet account, the Nubis account is banned and DCC receives appropriate escalations.
5. Nubis is permitted to return under a different account (I doubt he'd want the history connected if he is as innocent as he claims) in a dispensation from the normal rules regarding circumventing a ban in consideration of special circumstances. Such a dispensation would need to be in the misconduct ruling with the date to make it clear that this shouldn't be standard A/VB precedent.

What we have then is an insecure account banned and demoted, the perpetrator escalated appropriately under A/VB and the ability of someone whose account was taken from them to return and contribute to the wiki should they choose to do so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:19, 14 September 2009 (BST)

"Now there's no reason to dispute this". Of course there is reason to dispute this. The only evidence for it, is DCC saying so, and he is a lying little shite. He has also said that he's only doing this for revenge upon Nubis, so there is no way we can take his word as gospel, and as it is obvious that he has control over the Nubis account, it what it says can't be trusted either.
The only thing that is clear is that the Nubis account is no longer under securely under the control of the person who was promoted. It is unclear how it happened, and how long it has been going on, nor do I see any way to confirm it if the account ever comes back into the original Nubis' control again.
This makes a misconduct charge on the grounds of negligence the only case proven, however it is obvious that the account can no longer be trusted, so permanent demotion (to be reversed only through a show of community trust) is being applied on the grounds that this hasn't come up before, so sysop best judgment comes into it.
As to all the cases he has ruled on in the past, I don't see how we can invalidate them all, given that there is no clear date that we can trust (other than that given by DCC). Regardless, the Nubis account is only one of multiple sysops, and didn't make decisions alone. They were reviewed by the sysop team, and any decision that wasn't within the guidelines/good judgment would have been invalid. If there are any specific cases which users think were over the top, then they may be more suspect now, and perhaps could be appealed. But we will not be reviewing every single decision made in that timeframe -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:44 14 September 2009 (BST)

Not reviewing every vote under this account leads to the the possibilty of the message being given to sock puppeters that if they continue long enough the stuff they've push through won't have those votes struck. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:55, 14 September 2009 (BST)

I agree with Iscariot's initial sentiment. Sockpuppets are permabanned. Nubis has acted as a sockpuppet on several votes, therefore he should be permabanned. As Iscariot said, if the real Nubis wants to start an account, they can feel free.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:04, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Circumventing a ban on an account is vandalism and would get Nubis an immediate new perma, hence why I called for a provision being made in the misconduct ruling granting a dispensation to allow this for this time. This will only work of course if the ruling sysops believe that Nubis was ignorant of the misuse his account was going under. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:10, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Ah yes, but precedent has it that if people have used another account to vote on something, the new account is banned, and the main accoutn gets the vandal escalations of the puppet. Therefore, Nubis should be banned, and DCC should take any Nubis vandal escalations.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:33, 15 September 2009 (BST)

I'm backing Boxy on this, demotion is the only solution to this that has been unanimously agreed upon by sysops and has since been cemented into the ruling. This is over, the ruling and punishment has been given to the account in question. I think the sysops consider Nubis a closed case, hence why not many of them have revisited since the ruling. I suggest you take any thoughts of sockpuppetry/banning to A/VB, where it has already been for a week. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:50, 15 September 2009 (BST)

You are a fucking idiot. The Nubis account is CLEARLY older than the DCC account. Not to mention that the Nubis account easily has the required number of edits to de-escalate any warnings. So, guess that little system of yours won't work here..... -- #99 ^DCC 16:01, 15 September 2009 (BST)

You're saying that your account, User:DCC was made after October 2008? because according to a source, (I can't remember who it was... oh wait, it was you!) that's when Nubis became an alt of DCC. prior to this, he wasn't a puppet. After this, he may not have been, that's still unproven, but he was definitely a puppet for less time then your account has existed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:30, 15 September 2009 (BST)

This hasn't been proven to be sock puppetry, Yonnua. The most likely it's a case of an account being stolen/hacked, possibly only days ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:48 15 September 2009 (BST)

If only days ago, given his contribution pattern, wouldn't the real Nubis have posted from another IP address/account by now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:59, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Did anyone check to see where the New Nubis is posting from? -- #99 ^DCC 16:01, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Not if he's on vaction -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:01 15 September 2009 (BST)

I understand. I was assuming it was confirmed by Nubis' case on a/vb. However, Nubis doesn't say when DCC took over, so even if that's the real Nubis on there, there's no way of telling when. So yeah, demotion would be the only fair thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:38, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't that be funny if THAT was the hacked Nubis account? -- #99 ^DCC 16:01, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Can we have a moratorium on accepting or being renominated as we did with Grim to prevent this happening every two weeks until the wiki dies? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:36, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah I have to agree here. We can't just close the case as is.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:43, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Repeatedly doing that would be classed as vandalism for spamming. I don't disagree though, I'm simply hesitant that we'll be leaving this open for disinterested sysops- Boxy and myself are the only two that have returned to this case since the ruling, I'm thinking the rest want it closed also. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:49, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah. This case being ignored by sysops after they rule is a different issue. But I don't think that demotion and stern words for both the real Nubis, wherever the fuck he may be, and DCC is a good way to close it. It just doesn't seem right to me. I mean there was a full breach of the system and while we can accept that all logical and legal moves by the Nubis account can be left to rest, I don't think it is right to just let this issue go off on its own. I don't want to say a ban is in order, but I just feel something else need be done.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:57, 15 September 2009 (BST)

DDR, if you check back to the Grim ruling, I don't think many sysops actually wrote that there should be a moratorium, Conn added it and there was no opposition, since you and Boxy are the only remaining sysops with the desire to continue this for the community, I'd say that if you both agree it should be fine. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:17, 15 September 2009 (BST)

~FOR THE COMMUNITY~ Cyberbob  Talk  17:24, 15 September 2009 (BST)

SirArgo considering that demotion and escalation/banning are literally the only tools we have to punish someone with I'd like to know what use "hmm now I don't actually think they should be banned but... gosh it just doesnt feel right" is to anyone thanks in advance Cyberbob  Talk  17:26, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Also moratoriums are dumb. VB people if they start getting spammy (note: one bid is Not Spammy) but putting a total lockdown on whether someone can be nominated at all is retardedly draconian. Cyberbob  Talk  17:29, 15 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't say we shouldn't ban anyone. I just said I don't think it is in order at this point in time. It's not my fucking job to decide on that stuff. I'm sorry my opinion isn't to bury this case and forget about it so we can get onto the next petty task.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:45, 15 September 2009 (BST)

ITS NOT MY JOB TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS OKAY here have my incredibly vague, utterly useless opinion about what decisions you should be making and have at it Cyberbob  Talk  17:51, 15 September 2009 (BST)

OH LOL. You're right. Maybe it should be my job to make all of these decisions, since the administration here seems content to sit on their ass all day and once in a while make lame ass "attacks" at users when they feel like it. I do miss Nubis, whoever was controlling it.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:10, 15 September 2009 (BST)

If you're not going to offer any concrete suggestions for what should be done it would literally be more helpful not to say anything at all. You're honestly coming off as being super petulant. Cyberbob  Talk  18:12, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Alright. What I would do is what probably no one wants to do, but I would go back and search through the contributions Nubis has made since whatever date is decided to be the time DCC took over the account. Then, as Iscariot suggested, hit him up on a/vb with all of the voting he may have did acting as a sysop. If I can get a date and if people will agree with the idea, I'll go through the contribs and check myself. Then I would also instigate a vote and investigate the possibility over whether the Nubis account can be tried for vandalism due to negligence or whatever. I wouldn't look for the Nubis account to be perma'd but I think it should be watched closely for any radical changes in behavior pending it even comes back as active again. So really, as Iscariot said. I'm surprised I agree with him, but I do. And I'm sorry if I seemed rude here at all, but I think it's completely uncalled for that, with the exception of DDR, all of the sysops seem to not want to do anything about this but let it be closed, and therefore completely ignoring all of the logical and progressive steps that should be taken due to the gravity of this case.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:45, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Despite agreeing with those principles, the sad truth is we can't act on anything that we can't prove for certain, and the only thing we have been able to prove is that DCC, at one point, had control of Nubis' account and amidst his claims and actions is appears that we can no longer consider the account safe, and as such the sysops have acted within that knowledge. Anything more (including the united conclusion of when the takeover happened) is an overextension of what the sysops are expected to do with such a situation. Having said that, I don't have a problem with how Nubis' account has been dealt with, and I think pursuing DCC in the way you mentioned would be best done through A/VB. Basically, DCC is less open and shut, but my opinion is we've done as much to Nubis as we can rightly do at this point. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:45, 16 September 2009 (BST)

Alright, very true. Thinking on it for a while I guess that, sadly, this is indeed it. So it will be.--SirArgo ^Talk 05:07, 16 September 2009 (BST)

So

Just semi skimming this. What's this nonsense about trying to overturn past opinions? Am I reading that right? IF that is the case of what's being discussed my question is simply who's foolish enough to actually think that's appropriate, viable, or makes any sense? The wiki is run by a group of users, no decision is made on the authority of one alone and in the case of decisions where he's at issue as the one who took action the fact that action was not reversed is a show of consensus(silence = Consent, a basic wiki policy). The only cases that it's even relevant to discussion are very simply Misconduct votes and even that requires a show that not only is he the deciding vote but that his reasoning is clearly colored by who he is. Well, that and reassessing general votes where both participated but the issue there is that it's an extremely stupid reason to reverse decisions after so long a period of time, address recent and ongoing and everything else is irrelevant as per common sense. --Karek^maps?! 13:05, 17 September 2009 (BST)

Two words sum up the motivations of the people calling for literally everything to be reversed and literally every case of double voting to be individually punished: vindictively butthurt. Cyberbob  Talk  13:30, 17 September 2009 (BST)

One user mentioned it, Boxy added a more pheasible method and it was never spoken of again. Why did you even bring it up? Why hasn't this crap been archived already? Nothing in the case is to change. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:32, 17 September 2009 (BST)

I saw mention of it and a ridiculously long section of what looked like discussion. Don't give me attitude for thinking discussion means consideration. Maybe a sysop should archive it instead of adding pissy commentary. --Karek^maps?! 13:48, 17 September 2009 (BST)

Maybe if you actually read it and all of its subsequent reactions, or (dare I suggest) actually visit this place more than once every 3 weeks and read it as it happens, maybe you wouldn't have made such a mistake. The sysops are obliged to archive it after the community finish all related discussion (including contributors such as yourself), but whatever. Once you win your last word under this comment, I'll archive it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:59, 17 September 2009 (BST)

No, the sysops are obliged to maintain the useability of the page which requires closing and cleaning as appropriate and relevant. That includes closing closed cases and letting discussion take place where it belongs instead of getting in the way of administrative functions. Demote yourself if you're not willing to perform the duties you were promoted for. --Karek^maps?! 14:09, 17 September 2009 (BST)

Archived as Misconduct - and followed up with a continuation of the demotion that Boxy handed earlier in the case. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:16, 17 September 2009 (BST)

6th September

Because one a/m case is never enough. And before we all cry personal harassment which seems to be the latest thing, since march my view on sysops banning themselves on a/m cases hasn't changed. It is absolutely pathetic and should not be tolerated. Nubis clearly shows he has 0 respect for the rest of the admin team, and everybody else for that matter. Anyway vote not misconduct away however i wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is fast becoming a bit of a nubis trademark and demonstrates he hasn't learned his lesson whatsoever and is just trying to shut y'all up as quickly as possible.--xoxo 04:29, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Oh heres a link to the block log if you need it.--xoxo 04:33, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Thank you.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:29, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - taking a penalty for misconduct that is as harsh as anyone suggested is the way to put a case behind you, even if you disagree with the ruling. Should be more of it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:38 5 September 2009 (BST)

I don't like it because it preemptively puts a stop to the discussion. And yes, you can say "but anyone who wanted a harsher penalty could say so" and they could, but the discussion just kinda stops straight away and the case is ruled on and archived, so they usually don't.--xoxo 04:40, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - And the catalyst for your A/VB case. Cyberbob  Talk  04:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I'm still not sure whether I should be considering Nubis' self-ban a good thing or a bad thing for the case's cause at the time, but this is petty and it's been shown through multiple precedence that its within the law of the wiki. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:03, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - but I don't like it much either, because Nubis did stop the discussion and he didn't admit that he was wrong. I forsee this happening again.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:10, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Exactly. Which is why I have to ask, if you don't like it much... if it did stop discussion and she didn't admot she was wrong... and if you foresee it happening again... then why isn't it misconduct? The action did use a sysop only power, after all. And you've agreed that nubis sidestepped the normal Misconduct procedure by using said power -- a procedure which usually involves a decision of Mis or NotMis ... followed, if it's deemed Misconduct, by a discussion of the "punishment". For all we know, after that discussion, the penalty agreed upon could have been more than a 24h ban. But unilaterally bypassed that procedure... What if, hypothetically speaking, the consensus was for demotion? Why should nubis have been allowed to get away with a 24h ban?

Quite simply, sysops should NOT be allowed to pick their penalty and to vandal ban themselves... If you think about it, it's a little like them voting on their own Misconduct case... --WanYao 10:23, 6 September 2009 (BST)

He wasn't getting away with anything... a 24hr ban was never going to be handed out for that deletion, which was a picture of a naked woman, legs akimbo, with a coke bottle inserted, with the bare minimum blacked out by one of the 2stool crew. Nubis didn't file the required paperwork, but it was always going to be nuked within minutes.
And even in cases where a sysop may think to avoid a harsher penalty in this way, it simply wouldn't work... the only reason that no-one pursued it was that they agreed that 24hrs was more than enough for such minor misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:25 6 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't VB the uploader and yet I still get in trouble? That's quite fair of you, Wan. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:21, 6 September 2009 (BST)

The reason this isn't misconduct is because no one was going to hand out anything more than a 24hr ban for that case. I don't like it because I believe he hasn't accepted that he did anything wrong, but that doesn't make it misconduct. However, I would like it noted that if he does do it again I will definitely be pushing for a harsher punishment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:56, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Oh it is but in part because the last case isn't. That's the whole point. If he wants to ban himself for whatever reason that's up to him but when it's being used to try and change the way a case is going on the wiki, that's different. That's intentionally using the ability to ban oneself to alter your treatment and no different than if he did it on A/VB or A/A to provide a fait accompli case result. All of it's irrelevant because it's such a stupid case but, future reference, it's misconduct and, if I remember correctly, he's argued as much himself in the past when certain other sysops tried to do this. --Karek^maps?! 19:14, 8 September 2009 (BST)

You've seriously lost it. There was no attempt to "change the way the case was going". If it had been I would have thrown up my walls of text to shut down the conversation a la Grim. I'm very good at throwing a tantrum as we've seen. It was simply me realizing that no one was going to listen to anything I had to say, any of my evidence, and they were all jumping on the porn bandwagon yet somehow failing to do anything about it themselves in the first place. And if I argued (which I don't recall) against this type of action it was probably when the punishment that was going to be handed out would have been much worse... Which I don't think anyone is saying is the case here. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:05, 9 September 2009 (BST)

No Nubis. The thing your missing here is that it's irrelevant if that was actually your motivation it's still not something you do. Even if you're not trying to alter the case in doing so you're altering the case. A sysop can not choose their own punishment for misconduct, doing so is always misconduct. This is equivalent to banning yourself in a VB case or deleting a content/group page you made even though there are keep votes on it from people using it. --Karek^maps?! 21:48, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Always misconduct, eh? *looks at case* Welp, guess not. Might be an idea to shush up before you make yourself look even sillier. Cyberbob  Talk  00:17, 10 September 2009 (BST)

Always misconduct doesn't mean always punished. There's such a thing as an appropriate time to look the other way, generally starts when out lining it to be pointed at in the case it comes up again. Yes, it's always misconduct, no he wasn't punished for it here, more likely than not he will be if it happens again. It helps if you try and understand the whys and the whats before butting in. Boxy is the only one that's been dumb enough to come out and say anything different, even you stopped short of saying the case was unfounded, just petty, which it is but, it's pretty far from unfounded. --Karek^maps?! 20:04, 11 September 2009 (BST)

In-case you're missing it; the issue is that it was regarded as misconduct because he banned himself, not just that he banned himself. If the case was a borderline porn image that was deleted it's scheduled as vandalism, regardless of if he decides to escalate or soft warn. The conclusion of the last case basically validates the point being made here. --Karek^maps?! 19:17, 8 September 2009 (BST)

I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN. IT WAS FROM A PAGE THAT CLEARLY REQUESTED THAT THEIR IMAGES NOT BE USED AND THERE FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATION AND YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE ONES SAYING IT WAS PORN ARE THE SYSOPS THAT SHOULD BE MISCONDUCTED FOR LETTING IT GET POSTED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!--– Nubis ^NWO 00:04, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I never said you did. Try again without the "ZOMG I'M BEING PERSECUTED". My comment was regarding Boxy's in which he said it and even then all I said was 'If that was the case'. Deleting porn is valid, scheduled or not, always has been and wouldn't change the case situation because it's still an auto-delete on sight(which is what was said when the scheduled as originally up for voting anyway).--Karek^maps?! 21:48, 9 September 2009 (BST)

*copies and pastes "THAT'S WHY YOU GOT MISCONDUCTED" fifty times* --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:58, 9 September 2009 (BST)

It's funny, there should be a disclaimer for this sort of crap on A/PM. "Warning! A high tolerance for drama is required for any position in the administrative structure. Users who are promoted but then get tired of said drama are advised to mosey over to A/DM and get a life!" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:01, 9 September 2009 (BST)

*copies and pastes "DON'T BE SUCH A FUCKING RULES LAWYER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE FROM THE SITE SPECIFICALLY ASKED UDWIKI TO TAKE THE IMAGE DOWN WHEN THEY HAVE SUCH AN UNEQUIVOCAL MESSAGE ON THEIR PAGE" fifty times* Cyberbob  Talk  03:01, 9 September 2009 (BST)

You really do have a pole up your arse today, don't you? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:09, 9 September 2009 (BST)

The pole is you. Cyberbob  Talk  03:16, 9 September 2009 (BST)

I like that. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:36, 9 September 2009 (BST)

So is this case dead due to unforeseen events? Can we get some closure?--SirArgo ^Talk 15:27, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Definitely. Case closed as Not Misconduct. I will archive within the weekend. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:34, 12 September 2009 (BST)

4th September

For deleting an image without going through the correct channels. Again.

Nubis deleted image File:2cola100.jpeg citing Moviefap.com as the owner of the work in the log, as a copyright violation. Copyright violations are not scheduled deletion material unless especially asked by the owner of the copyright.

Furthermore, after seeing the image (from personal request to the uploader) the image would most certainly have passed as porn, and deletable within the moment by a sysop who was around at the time (evidently myself and cyberbob, just by clicking one link). Its pornographic nature is quite obviously the only reason Nubis bothered to delete it at all (let alone on sight), though it appears he has looked for another reason to do so, now the Porn scheduled is no longer valid..

We got rid of the porn clause for this exact reason- to make sure sysops no longer had unilateral judgement over what stays and goes, and the true thing that should have happened was Nubis should have submitted it to A/VB under a case against Nallan, the uploader, Nallan would have been warned (something we would all whole-heartedly support once seeing this image) and the image deleted as vandalism- the only legitimate deletable offence it currently stands under, Nubis knew this and ignored it.

Nubis has flimsily defended his arguments on his talk page where he attempted to twist the words of the scheduled copyright clause despite the header of said citation directly contradicting his poor interpretation of the guideline (which also follows the "header" interpretation of the scheduled submission, and always had). He continued to cite copyright lingo from the page of the holder of said image, though told that the image would still have to have been submitted through A/SD (as per the guidelines), he blanked the entire conversation as despite the entire shitstorm that's been created on his talk page, there is still no proving that what he did was within the sanctions of UDWiki's guidelines.

He's had problems like this before, which we should all recall, for example submitting multiple crit 1's to the A/D system instead of the A/SD system by accident, and then responding to subsequent legitimate keep votes by disregarding them based on the time they were submitted and deleting them anyway (for the record: his argument of "If I had gotten there before the keep votes they would have been eligible for speedy deletion and I would have done it then instead" is a retarded argument considering if Akule (or any "keep" voters) had the same time-travel abilities they could have just voted before A/D's "3 speedy-delete" threshold to legitimise said A/D voting) to which he refused to admit he had done any wrongdoing and that he had submitted it to A/SD the whole time. The reason I am adding this onto the case is because this is not an isolated incident- Nubis is the only sysop who has issues with a trigger-happy deletion finger. I submit A/U#Deletions_reversal to be read by ruling sysops, as this.

Don't misinterpret my intentions. I don't give a shit about the image and I sure as hell think Nallan's uploading of it was vandalism (1). The image should have been deleted and I don't want it back in any form but Nubis has just got to learn to just use the goddamned red tape and follow the proper procedure. We follow it not because we want to, or because we like it, but because it's there and it's our job to adhere to the rules. Nubis has been doing this too often without any repercussions other than half-arsed warnings and "It's not big enough to be an A/M case". I'm sick of his werewolf-like "come out once every full moon and fuck something up, ignorantly defend my actions and leave" attitude. The punishment can be a teaching lesson on the difference between A/D and A/SD for all I care, I just want it communally recognised that this shit is not on and that it is misonductable- especially over the time period that he's been doing it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:49, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct for about the 3rd time. I'm recommending a 24 hour ban because warnings don't seem to be having any effect at all. Like DDR, I don't dislike Nubis, I just hate his attitude and the fact he refuses point-blank, time and again not to follow rules about deletion. You've done it with templates, regular pages (this one just narrowly ruled NM) and now with images (although I'm sure there was something about images ages back, but I can't find it). I've said it several times now, and in fact I'm just going to quote myself:

Krazy Monkey said:

The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules.

Easy as that. And don't try and stretch the wording of a policy beyond what is actually there. It just doesn't work. -- Cheese 16:16, 4 September 2009 (BST)

as well as a certain removal of ones own misconduct case here--CyberRead240 16:28, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - I disagree with pretty much everything DDR has used to try and shore this case up, but I do agree that rules are rules and that Nubis did the right thing for the wrong reason. As far as punishment goes, a 24-hour ban is totally ridiculous. An official warning is all that is needed here - at the absolute most. Hagnat was far worse than Nubis when it came to ignoring red tape and he never got anything even close to a day. Cyberbob  Talk  16:35, 4 September 2009 (BST)

i knew someone was talking about me.... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:32, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Well, just don't pretend like it isn't true. You were immensely proud of your red-tape-rejecting ways IIRC. Cyberbob  Talk  03:34, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Still am... but i never avoided the red-tape to attend to my personal agenda... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

I don't think Nubis has either. I really wish people would stop being so paranoid. Cyberbob  Talk  03:45, 5 September 2009 (BST)

1. I see, so you are ignoring all of the copyrights on the webpage, the terms of Service, this wikis own terms of usage, and the other places I quoted where that site said they didn't want their images used? Convenient. You also have as much proof that they had express written permission to use those images as I have that they didn't want those images used... Oh, no, wait. The whole site has MANY examples of them saying they didn't want the images used. But, somehow what is actually written on the website regarding their property in the first place is somehow less important than your friends' "rights".

2. The Speedy Delete/Keep vote - If you notice Link said: Speedy Delete - I'll delete them myself but I've got to go now. Linkthewindow Talk 22:54, 20 July 2009 (BST) well before the keep votes were added and after 3 Speedy Deletes were lodged, but no please throw them in here because you couldn't be arsed to do anything at that time. Not to mention the policy says if they get 3 speedy deletes they are deleted. Hence, the "speedy" part.

3. Since when did a scheduled deletion have to go through A/SD? That's the whole point of scheduling something.

4. If I go ahead and ban myself for 24 hours are you going to bitch about that, too?

5. Might as well go for the trifecta here: Not Misconduct--– Nubis ^NWO 18:34, 4 September 2009 (BST)

Wait Nubis is a copyright warrior? FLIP FLOP!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:01, 4 September 2009 (BST)

??? I've never not been a copyright warrior. Perhaps you are confusing that with my "un-civility" stance?--– Nubis ^NWO 19:23, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Since when can you rule on you're own case, please unbold that part. --Thadeous Oakley 21:12, 4 September 2009 (BST)

I've addressed every single one of those points in the case, so I'll be quick. 1. I cited your reasoning but regardless of its validity it's not enough to be classed as a scheduled. 2. Again: see above for "time travel" argument. 3. It's not a scheduled. As for 4 and 5, if you wish. I don't think a ban is necessary, I just want it to be known that this stuff is misconductable and the rules are there to be followed (and that we know it). --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)

What a load of word twisting shit. Also, please don't bold a ruling you make on your own case, Newbis. Against the rules or not (I don't know and don't care) it is poor form. Are you hoping someone miscounts or something? Or hoping another sysop doesn't read it properly and sees that there is a Not Misconduct ruling and reconsiders their own thoughts? Regardless, it influences the vote and you are not allowed to do that.--CyberRead240 03:14, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Changed the ruling to italics for now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:24, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Nubis has banned himself for 24hrs, so this case is pretty much closed, and will be recorded as Misconduct. It's minor, given that everyone seems to agree that the image should have gone regardless. Just take it to A/SD or A/VB next time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:26 5 September 2009 (BST)

June 4

Again, for being premature. More accurately, he deleted his misconduct case which had barely even started. That amounts to ruling on his own case. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:54, 4 June 2009 (BST)

To be fair, Jed really hsould have actually brought something to his case.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:59, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, hey J3D and Midianian making cases against me while Iscariot is gone. Color me surprised. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:05, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Still, it should never be up to the accused to decide whether a case is valid or not. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:15, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Issuing a ban on such an obviously contentious case when only 3 or 4 Sysops have voted was obviously not a wise move, Iscariot already has a persecution complex so why feed it? Still, I am not convinced that I would call it misconduct per say... just bloody minded and stupid. However, I gotta say that deleting any ongoing misconduct case out of personal feeling is going to far, especially when it is a case against him. At the very least it looks like Vandalism (I am allowed to bold that one aren't I?) and I am pretty sure Sysops have been misconducted for ruling their own cases in the past which would pretty much count here too. --Honestmistake 19:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed. Except he issued a ban when no one had voted. He ruled solely on the case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:54, 5 June 2009 (BST)

Well, SA had voted and I had voted and the guidelines do say that a sysop can post and ban on the same person as long as a case is posted, but hey, you keep holding on to that NO ONE RULED YET! line. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

You both voted for the permaban, you tard. Perhaps you should have just prematurely perma'd him instead, if you feel so inclined to stand by that mentality. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - he was indeed ruling on his own case. He marked his edit as minor, and in the edit summary said "m (→Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration - Case has no links, does not involve a sysop power)". He ruled that the case didn't involve sysop powers, and removed it from the page, something that only sysops are authorised to finalise. I also note that DDR had already added the relevant links to the case at the time of removal, even if J3D hadn't in the first post -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 5 June 2009 (BST)

So, my removing a non-sysop case then MADE it a sysop case? (my edits are by default minor, boxy. It's a setting in my Prefs. because of all the unmerging/category editing I did. But that is such! a good justification.) --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As the Box. Even if you don't like the case, just wait until it's been dealt with rather than trying to pre-empt a final ruling. Which you have done in the past if I recall correctly. -- Cheese 08:32, 5 June 2009 (BST)

You mean against the other bullshit cases that J3D and them made against me because of a vendetta? Yes, there is clearly no pattern here. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct Knowing Nubis I don't believe he broke the line of information keeping on purpose, but I think he did break procedure enough to qualify as minor misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:16, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

As there has been a lack of discussion on this case for multiple days with plenty of time for others to rule in, I'm calling this Misconduct. Since there has been no discussion of a punishment, I believe a warning should suffice and am adding it to A/VD now.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:11, 10 June 2009 (BST)

4 June Part 1

For being premature.--xoxo 09:24, 4 June 2009 (BST)

You were premature. --Cyberbob 09:31, 4 June 2009 (BST)

That's what she said. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST)

When I saw this I considered just pasting my original misconduct case up, but I've decided to keep it simple for now. I will not be ruling in this case because of my involvement, as well as the suspicious circumstances in which J3D brought the case up instead of me (which while circumstantial, doesn't change how it looks).

Whilst Nubis has the right to rule singly on a case, there is no reason why he had to do so on this case specifically, especially given its importance. He deliberately acted before any other sysop could even log on to add their opinions onto the VB case. The only reason Nubis would do this would be to prohibit Iscariot from defending his own permaban vote. I think the latter part is bad faith and incredibly poor form, especially at the point where Nubis rushes to gather the sysops onto the VB page to vote for Iscariot's permaban, straight after his banning. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Accusation and evidence in link form, please. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:29, 4 June 2009 (BST)

From the below Misconduct case:

While now, all the sysops have gone onto the case and expressed their opinions on the permaban vote, which means they have read the case to some extent, and not ruled. For that, you may say that you ruling is no longer out of line. But you banned Iscariot based off your one ruling. You waited one day, no sysops had even had the chance to log on and read it, let alone rule, besides you and myself. We had a large enough discussion between just You, SA and myself, in that very case, and all were waiting for the other sysops to give their views on the permaban, but you cut it all short in order to rule vandalism, ban Iscariot so he could not contribute to the case, and push the vote onto the other sysops, before they had even read the case and gather and understanding for what is going on.

Because of the above, I had deemed the abnormally fast ruling on the A/VB case a bad-faith attempt at prohibiting Iscariot from being able to defend his perma-ban vote, and for that I am disheartened that I am here instead of Nubis, but that isn't relevant at this point... I could have easily beat the system by ruling Not Vandalism, but I didn't because I really thought Nubis was better than this.

D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I guess it might be an interesting note that Nubis only notified the sysops who he thought would vote yes (and eventually did). His wording suggested it was a regulatory Sysop vote to permaban a user [1][2], though despite this, he didn't notify anyone who he thought would say no, by the looks of it. I know it is circumstantial at best, but I found it worth noting because in my opinion it further questions Nubis' good faith. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I noticed that too. But by the wording of his comment posted on SA's page "Please inform the sysop team that a vote has been called on perma-banning a user." it looks like he may have expected SA to inform the rest of us. However, the fact that he informed Conn (someone who was quite likely to vote perma) and not anyone else is quite suspicious. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:14, 4 June 2009 (BST)

However, assuming good faith, Nubis may have had to run, or had to leave his computer suddenly (that said, it's Boxy, not Conn, that's on top of the list of sysops. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:19, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Or how about I knew that Conn is one of the few sysops that actually has the fucking balls to make a decision one way or the other instead of whine and say something retarded like "put it up to a community vote"? Conn and I are not friends for all I know he could vote No just to piss me off. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Leave it here until it's sorted out Nubis.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Hey, Nubis didn't have any links of my actions in my case below, either. Maybe I should just delete mine too! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This is not a misconduct case because there is no sysop power involved. I did have a link in your case, DDR. I also had a reason why I brought the case up. And not to mention, it's something you did wrong. But please, amuse me more with your quips and one liners. Also, please continue to add insightful contributions to this case That's what she said. User:DanceDanceRevolution 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST) as it helps add to the air that this is indeed a legitimate case and not just something petty. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Sorry, maybe I should have added poor sarcasm. I have no interest in establishing petty relationships of a vicious nature, Nubis. This is actually a product of my whole-hearted belief that what you did was wrong, and I added as much as I could to this case to make it as if I brought it forward myself. And regardless of the case, you have no right to just trash it, especially since this case is exactly related to that tendancy of yours. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (BST)

But you didn't make this case. And you didn't treat it seriously at all. And even your comment above is snide and sarcastic, but I love how you are trying to take the high road and say you don't want to be "petty". You are just a little troll that did some good deeds and got Ops. You are not this fair and unbiased moderator that you want to come across as. The only one this wiki has had was Karek. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:21, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Perhaps you and your paranoia complex is telling you that I am the new troll on the block, joining the J3D and Mid 'vendetta' in order to unfairly persecute you, but in truth it is so much more simple- I consider your behavior in the last week to be out of line. I never claimed to be unbiased in any way. I just explained that this is not personal, Nubis, I don't think you are a bad sysop but I can't agree with these actions- as you didn't when you put me to misconduct. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct On this case I still have reasonable belief that Nubis was acting in reasonable good faith here. Maybe not the way he should have acted but not quite close enough for me to vote misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:12, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct, because a ban is overturn-able if the next sysops disagrees with the punishment. While I do not agree with his later reinstatement of the ban, his original banning was not misconduct in itself. That said, his other cases may be ruled as seen fit.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:59, 10 June 2009 (BST)

26 March

Preemptive cunt showing once again he believes he is well above teh rules. And oh, how convienient the image is gone so the people can't judge for themselves. Wow you can be a fuckwit when you want to be. --xoxo 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And since fucknuckle has deleted the image i'll describe it as best i can. It was a low pixel presumably naked girl who had all the important parts covered with a chainsaw and a knife that had been poorly photoshopped over the top. Can the lady reupload so we can finally get the buttons taken off the control freak?--xoxo 12:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it merits a misconduct case but J3D is right that this was deleted waay too fast. It was not even unsuitable for work let alone pornographic and it had been up for deletions for less than an hour.--Honestmistake 12:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dug up from Firefox's cache for your viewing pleasure. I do not think it's porn. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also compare with this and this, images which have been on the wiki for over two years. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol... the first of those 2 is on my user page as i think Arson Lover is the last active Mistress. Both those images went through deletions if i remember rightly.--Honestmistake 13:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely its a nipple issue? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Nipples are not rude, especially in this case when the nipple is actually covered by part of the generator, or a black spot, its hard to tell due to the resolution but either way few people regard full frontal female toplessness as porn so the merest hint of aureole is pushing the definition way past reasonable.--Honestmistake 13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly "the merest hint" of areola... it's the majority of the left one! Look closer :P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:42 26 March 2009 (BST)

Yeah but even in the policy vote you link below Nubis argues several times that this sort of thing was not its target "The intent wasn't against artistic nudity in classical art, but against posting things like cam whores writing people's character's names over their tits" Thats one Nubis gem but there are many others... Now obviously this isn't classical art but its closer to art than cam whores!--Honestmistake 14:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You quote me and you don't even understand what the fuck you are quoting. Brilliant. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing I was against as a pair of tits with a shoddy generator pasted over it for a "character image" is not the same as a statue of David on a page about a museum. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many colons olo.--xoxo 15:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pft, Americans play this game, that means that we have to assume everything is pornography. On a serious note, this isn't misconduct as the orignal image prior to alterations was clearly porn. --Johnny Bass 15:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WTF has the original got to do with this? I mean if it were deleted for copyright reasons then perhaps but you might as well argue that we are not allowed pics of humans as under their clothing they are naked?--Honestmistake 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The original would have a lot to do with it as it wasn't altered in a significant enough fashion to cover up what could be called objectionable. --Johnny Bass 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not-Misconduct - as per this ridiculous scheduled deletions vote that was passed, and come to fruition. There was part of the nipples showing, some people don't like nip, can define it as porn, and I wouldn't be surprised if those images Midianian linked to would have gone if we'd had this approved at the time too -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:29 26 March 2009 (BST)

A nipple does not mean it's porn. A nipple doesn't necessarily even mean it's sexually explicit, and there's still a difference between porn and that. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitions, blah. Where do you think the girls image came from? An art book? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:43 26 March 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't be surprised if it did. But neither would I be surprised if it didn't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

or one of several British newspapers which print fully naked (BUT ARTFULLY POSED) women on page 3 and pretty much any other page if its a slow news day.--Honestmistake 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of slow news days, I'm guessing this is one, that everyone has the time and inclination to argue the merits of an image that was de-pornified with less effort and care than the cover of a Girls Gone Wild DVD. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If the picture included a text box reading "Chloe, 23, from Somerset, is really concerned about Kevan's lack of updates". Then yes, I might have agreed. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Like that?--Honestmistake 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also notice the distinct lack of nipples, meaning that this isn't porn. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you look closer you will spot some just above the 1st skull ;) --Honestmistake 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We could use more examples. Someone please upload more examples. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no, that's not a nipple, that's just the top part of the areola! No nipples in that picture. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this image acceptable.Although if it also included a Lolcat........ Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hows that for comparisson? No nipple at all here!--Honestmistake 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not-Misconduct And although I'm not going to go and delete them, both of the above examples count as porn by my communities local standards. Yes I know I live in the VERY repressed region of the U.S. But by technicalities ...the above images count as well. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"my communities local standards" is exactly what is wrong with the scheduled deletion. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's whats wrong altogether. All of us Sysops have differing views on what is right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, which causes problems in cases like these.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Both those images can (and have) appeared in family newspapers in the UK and I know folk who would count em as offensive too. The point is that such a vocal minority have to accept that most of us are not offended by such images and actually like them. None of the images is "porn" in any real sense and the fact the closest thing in this whole case is the new image that replaces the one that started this discussion seems kinda ironic.--Honestmistake 10:02, 30 March 2009 (BST)

What?! No one cared about your images, it was generally agreed upon that it was the nippled that crossed the line, and that was accepted by the majority, and no one seems to share the belief that the new image is worse, except for you. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:49, 30 March 2009 (BST)

itt honest is strangely protective of his porn. perhaps he does not know of the existence of sites dedicated to the production and display of such pictograms. --Cyberbob 13:40, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Of course I know of such sites Bob... everyone knows that spreading pornography is the main purpose of the internet. My point here is (as it was from the start) that this was not pornography. Tasteless and tacky but that is not the same. What I was arguing against was needless censorship of a harmless image without reasonable discussion, hell just asking the poster to adjust it in the first place would have been a better start than screaming OMGPORNODELETE!!! None of which changes the fact that the new image reveals a hell of a lot more flesh than the original and thus leaves a hell of a lot less to the imagination. --Honestmistake 13:58, 30 March 2009 (BST)

So do something about it, it's not going to happen on this page, no matter how long you continue to say the same things. A/D/S - A/PD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:50 30 March 2009 (BST)

I beg you to force this into a vote Honest, because I assure you that you are in fact the minority in this case. Listen to Boxy and stop flogging the dead horse without realising that you are in fact the minority that can't accept it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (BST)

If by "force to a vote" you mean write a policy then you might just get your wish. I don't want Porn flooding the wiki but having a situation with basically no guideline but that "porn" gets deleted on sight means that we have a system where 1 Sysop gets to decide what is fit for the wiki... its not really a big deal in this case but do we draw the line at any suggestion of nudity or only at certain bits being exposed or at anything which anyone feels is going to far? Only 100 years ago the western world found womens ankles to be too provocative and today we live in a world where some people consider uncovered hair to be obscene. --Honestmistake 00:33, 31 March 2009 (BST)

ugh --Cyberbob 03:43, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Honest, who are you trying to fool? Are you a troll? Because you are continuing with these ridiculous statements that I could only believe someone would say if they were taking the piss. Sysops agreed on the decision in majority as is standard. "No Misconduct" on the basis that the image that deleted did infact fit in with the guidelines. You know that does mean not just one sysop destroyed it on sight. Not only that but you still fail to prove that anyone besides you and maybe J3D believes the sysops were wrong in their decision. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:18, 31 March 2009 (BST)

nice subtle distancing from jed btw mang --Cyberbob 10:21, 31 March 2009 (BST)

I never said this was misconduct so I don't know what you are hammering on about that for... look right at the top where I disagree with J3D for bringing this here. My only objection was that it was deleted so quickly in what was a borderline case. The guidelines are too vague and that means that, YES we are looking at the opinion of 1 sysop because if just one of them decides that bikini shots are porn then they are right to delete on sight. Obviously that's an extreme example but surely you can see what I mean? Without a clear common standard it is always going to be done on an ad hoc basis by whoever see's the image. I was defending the right of this image to go through community evaluation because I don't think it was porn and would prefer in cases like this that Nubis (or Boxy or any single person) not be the sole arbiter of taste. That's it... no big agenda to fill the wiki with smut and no witch hunt to burn Nubis for doing what he felt was right just me arguing that there is a big difference between risque and pornographic and that we need something a bit clearer than "porn is to be deleted on sight" as a justification for removing such a harmless image. Oh and you want proof that I am not alone in this belief then try reading through the above comments. This really isn't getting anywhere though so how about we have any further discussion on one of out talk pages rather than Spam this one up any more than this circular argument already has? --Honestmistake 10:52, 31 March 2009 (BST)

*yawn*
Don't you have any other tricks beyond the xbox hueg paragraph of righteous indignation whenever you're attacked? --Cyberbob 10:59, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Sorry Honest, I can't bring myself to justify this with further discussion. No matter how much I try to explain, its obvious you won't understand this in the terms I describe. I'm content with how the case turned out so I shouldn't continue arguing with the only user who isn't happy. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:16, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Boobs do not equal porn. -- Cheese 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct. I like tits, but if I wanted to see them I'd go google it or something. The first image blips on my porn-dar, but these next few Honest has been needlessly uploading (And I expect to see them put up for deletions once they've seen their purpose used) don't.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The original author has taken the picture off their page after a simple request to cover up the nips, so we can probably get rid of it now. Uploading more images like it, just to post here, isn't really productive, Honest. Obviously there has to be a line somewhere around this area, or we will have people posting full frontal nudes, or rape scenes, or god knows what. Nubis defined it as exposed nipples, and know the author seems happy to have it taken down to avoid the drama. This case should be closed now, the image deleted, and if you want to avoid future incidents like it, remove the scheduled deletion section on porn, and work through the issue on A/PD -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:30 26 March 2009 (BST)

I know its not very productive but it was fun and it does kind of make my point about where we draw the line. I think Nubis was wrong to delete so soon but I don't think it was misconduct, once the case was made though here seemed as good a place as any to make the argument. One last word on the subject before I am done though; the whole thing could easily have been sorted by simply asking the original poster to change the image instead of using a bad policy to enforce some peoples views on what is and is not acceptable. Thats happened and is pretty much the best possible result in this case.--Honestmistake 23:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think no porn on UD is fine. But how is this porn??? The part in contention is a pixelated nipple which, without the context would probably be unrecognisable.--xoxo 22:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We know it is not porn in a gratuitous sense but I think its a good place to draw the line. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And you can't just say for example "Its okay because without the context, a vagina wouldn't count on porn on this wiki". We are talking about what the whole image entails, and it is my belief that a pornographic picture that merely has a knife and a gun photoshopped over it still counts pornographic, if it leaves most of both nipples exposed. The nipps cross the line in my opinion. I'm not a conservative... "This shouldn't be on the wiki" was just my first reaction when I saw it, and I still believe its right. Essentially, I don't give a toss about the image in the end but Nubis shouldn't be misconducted. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

lol jed --Cyberbob 02:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

haha, cheap laughs i know, but that still made me smile...--xoxo 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

End

I've redeleted the image in question, given that we've had the discussion, the deletion was found to be justified, the author doesn't want it (and has replaced it) and exposed nipples (and aureole count as nip afaic) seems to be a good place to draw a hard line. This has clearly been found to be not-misconduct, and can be archived -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:47 28 March 2009 (BST)

Can I just ask about this obsession with referring to nipples as "nip"? It's fucking creepy. --Cyberbob 10:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of us are sex-squeamish and can't refer to such organs in their entirety, I'm afraid. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:08, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It just seems so twistedly childish or...something. I can't quite put my finger on it. --Cyberbob 06:22, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It is pretty odd. But I think Conn was onto something when he took regional differences into account. Maybe the Box is from some real strange Australian suburb. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:01, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Get over it nip lovers :P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:50 30 March 2009 (BST)

seriously that is weirding me out I wish I was joking --Cyberbob 03:44, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Neep! -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:25 31 March 2009 (BST)

We are the knights who say Nip! --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:00, 31 March 2009 (BST)

I'd rather hear nip then hoo-hahs...--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:41, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Or bolungos. 05:09, 1 April 2009 (BST)

16 March

Nubis blocked himself for 48 hours in relation to his misconduct case further down the page in order to undermine accepted misconduct procedures and allow him to dish out his own punishment. This allows him to save face as being noble enough to accept he was wrong however more problematically it allows him to set the maximum punishment for himself. The difference between a 7 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour ban in practise is very minimal. However the potential outcome of a demotion is obviously something nubis wanted to avoid so he took the most extreme length ban that would possibly be dished out in order to make sure that didn't happen and hey, make himself look good in the process.

To the point, this shows Nubis still thinks he is above the rules and perhaps needs a stronger punishment that reflects his long history of rule breaking rather than just the individual action of overbanning iscariot as well as setting a terrible precedent for sysops being able to ban themselves as a get out of jail free card for their actions.--xoxo 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh i also forgot to mention that Nubis' self ban should not count towards any punishment as it was not the result of the case, if he wants to ban himself well that's just great but it shouldn't count as his punishment whatsoever.--xoxo 07:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

see below --Cyberbob 07:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

lolno --Cyberbob 07:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct. And this time I mean it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Whut? My "misconduct" case here is using my sysop powers to ban myself? If I edit my own page is that now a vandalism case? I know you weren't a sysop for long, J3D, but you might remember that it is the sysops that decide the punishment and outcome for misconduct cases and if they decided I should be banned longer or demoted then no matter what I did to myself I am sure one of them would carry out what ever punishment they decided on.

If I was one of the other sysops I would be pissed at your assumption that they "let me do whatever I want" and that if they wanted to demote me me just banning myself would stop them. And as far as my "history of rule breaking" not including the one below I only have 2 misconduct decisions over 3 years. Just because someone makes a lot of cases against you doesn't mean you are a vandal. Wait a minute, I think I found a quote that works here.

J3D said:

Cases that get declared not vandalism are meaningless. I could make cases against anyone for anything and that person would have a case against them forever, it'd just get declared not vandalism.

Sauce

But you go ahead and use my "history" against me. --– Nubis ^NWO 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I like it how you disregarded your history of 3 misconduct and 1 vb case and assumed when i said history i meant stuff that didn't happen.--xoxo 11:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW. What part of not including the one below I only have 2 misconduct decisions over 3 years is me disregarding my history? --– Nubis ^NWO 13:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Liar. 1, 2 and 3 plus the one below, which you've said you're not counting. Are you being deliberately deceitful? Or have you just learned mathematics from Hagnat? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't count that retarded case of Slightly Misconduct. The whole case and verdict is nonsense. Actually, if it wasn't for that case Iscariot wouldn't have gotten his little vacation and would actually be earning his way back to redemption with valid and helpful posts like above.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - if the rest of the sysops wanted a larger punishment, they would have spoken up, and still can. The offending sysop can plead no contest and a reasonable punishment themselves, as long as it's not "undercutting" what has been discussed. Precedent -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:49 17 March 2009 (BST)

Personally I thought the additional 5 and a half hours would have been enough but I feel Nubis decision was Not Misconduct. -- Cheese 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't right. A demotion was absolutely not a possible outcome in the last case. As far as I know HonestMistake was the only one to suggest it, and its a ridiculous punishment for a mistake which didn't actually hurt anyone. If the ban had gone for a week, or over the time that Iscariot was meant to be banned for, then sure, there's hell to pay. But he wasn't banned for any longer than he was supposed to despite Nubis' mistake, so there was no physical repercussion of his decision, just a mistake he made, which of course was misconduct but this isn't. No one could work out a punishment for Nubis so he did it himself, no sysops disagreed with the decision albeit General who said it was too large. Nothing to see here in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest demotion... I suggested a temporary suspension of powers equal to the difference between the correct escalation and the given escalation be considered as a possible resolution. I do not think any case of misconduct should go without consequence but I certainly did not think this one was deserving of any actual punishment and preferred what would in fact have been a form of "garden leave"--Honestmistake 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate intelligence? --Cyberbob 06:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate common sense? --Cyberbob 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate consistency? --Cyberbob 06:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate proportionality? --Cyberbob 06:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

why do you hate paragraphs? --Cyberbob 06:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no merit in arguing with you Bob, you are an ass and a troll. Once again you are posting baseless attacks just to annoy me. There is no answer to your questions because they spring from your own personal lala land rather than having anything to do with things I have said or done, you post them merely to make yourself feel big and clever when the reality is that you are neither. --Honestmistake 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestmistake said:

I see no merit in arguing with you Bob [followed by 66 words]

yeah you're p much the easiest troll evar thanks for the good time we should do it again sometime --Cyberbob 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Innit so funny how you get on my case acting like the supreme wiki-janitor when I make worthless posts anywhere, but you go on a total trolling bitchfest simply because someone has made a point you don't like...--SirArgo ^Talk 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kids, we seem to be in need of a Thank you for your input injection here. --– Nubis ^NWO 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --Cyberbob 22:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

also argo not "anywhere" as you hilariously overstate - just A/VB. if it was truly "anywhere" I'd be on your case 24/7 --Cyberbob 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I love bob's "trolling bitchfests". They honestly cheer me up seeing a funny comment of his in the middle of a drama wall. seriously, thank you Cyberbob.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

12 March

On the 11th of March Nubis banned Iscariot in accordance with a 3 to 2 Vandalism decision on A/VB. However, Nubis failed to check whether Iscariot deserved a de-escalation. Iscariot was last banned on the 30th of January and the case he was banned for this time was brought on March 5th (34 days later). He had also accumulated more than 250 edits by that time. Not only that, but Nubis jumped from a 24 hour ban directly to a 1 week ban, skipping a 48 hour ban that should have been between them. Even if this was an honest mistake, this is the level of mistake sysops should not make. Iscariot is still banned at the moment and has been so for over 24 hours already. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Add in a stated desire (more here and here) to see him banned without following proper escalation proceedings. It shows that this was not an honest mistake. --Johnny Bass 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed de-escalations is not a reason for misconduct:

Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

However, the jump to a week ban from a 24 hour is clearly incorrect. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does that read? o_O --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Green box. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Slap on the Wrist as long as Iscariot's Ban does not exceed 48 hours. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You could have unbanned him you know. -- Cheese 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct for the missing the de-escalation but Misconduct and a nice big link to this for skipping an escalation. We do have a link to VD on the vandal template for a reason. Please remember that, we don't need to give Iscariot any more reasons to think we're plotting against him. I've unbanned him now meaning he's served about 31 hours and 32 minutes, putting him 7 and 32 over a 24 hour ban. -- Cheese 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm Cheeze, you shouldn't have unbanned him yet. Im pretty sure the Majority is looking at 48 Hours as appropriate. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was at his third escalation, he qualified for a de-escalation, yet you think the appropriate action is to just ignore it and give him a fourth escalation. Care to explain why? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based my statement off of Gnome's quote above... Based on various factors I'm going to go with Misconduct with a Punishment of a ban of 7 hours and 32 minutes (or as close as we can get it). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can actually imagine you furiously back-pedalling at the top of a huge hill right now. XD -- Cheese 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine all you want, But my response actually edit conflicted with Karek's case above and wasn't awware of it until AFTER I had made this statement. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Midianian is right. --Karek^maps?! 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify before drama comes. Nubis made a mistake, an understandable one since no one deescalates Iscariot for good reason considering last time someone(Nubis) did he made an A/M case because it was a whole day too early. It's misconduct because it was a mistake with a ban and that should always be misconduct regardless of the intent behind it, banning a user for longer than they should actually be is just uncool. --Karek^maps?! 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This <--oops, wrong text in link. My bad. That didn't make sense as a reply to Karek. o_O

Iscariot said:

Aww, poor Hagnat, did you not read those wonderful boxes "Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions." I am responsible for my history, not you, not Nubis, Nubis did the wrong thing and that action should be undone. Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative. How am I meant to 'begone' when you won't allow me to work my way up the escalations tree?

And I just realized that I had accidentally replied in his comment. Surprised he didn't make a VB case for the impersonation. He can't have it both ways. Either he needs to request a de-escalation every time or we can de-escalate him when we notice. The week 48 hour ban should stay according to policy and what seem to be his wishes. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I did honestly miss the 48 hour ban by accident. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Hagnat on that. I think that screwing up a ban should always have consequences if just for the reason that it's the one thing that should be treated with the most delicacy as far as admin actions go. Well, with the exception of privacy information but, it's still a big deal and probably should have consequences. --Karek^maps?! 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

7 hours and 32 minutes of consequences? -- Cheese 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

General punishment is whatever additional time the person banned served so, I assume, yes. --Karek^maps?! 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming my subtraction is correct: Iscariot was banned at 13:16 yesterday (the 10th) and I unbanned him at 18:48 today (the 11th). 18:48 - 13:16 = 5 hours and 32 minutes....maybe I can't add up. =/ No idea how I got 7 hours. Either way it is possible to ban for that amount of time as I've tested it on myself for 7,32. Would you be willing to serve a ban of that length Nubis? -- Cheese 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me rot in peace. Second, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with ALL sysops that served since the green box was created and put on A/VB. We are sysops, but we are humans first, and threfore prone to make mistakes. Like i said to iscariot, if a sysop issues a wrong punishment (because vandal data is outdated) and another user points that out, he has the obligation to correct it and if he refuses to then its misconduct. And third, the 24h to a week ban jump is clear misconduct... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet I'm being eerily consistent with everything I've ever said or proposed. Screwing up isn't acceptable when your mistakes have consequences. This is the biggest single example of such a mistake having consequences, banning someone should not ever be something that is walked away from without some penitence and a slap on the wrist is never penitence. Just because it's an honest mistake doesn't mean it shouldn't at the very least result in the minimum punishment of time served and that the sysop in question shouldn't actually be willing to take that punishment as appropriate. Respecting starts with being willing to do the respectable thing and if anyone ever wants to be viewed as an admin/sysop they need to act like one. Isn't that what so many of you had problems with Grim over?--Karek^maps?! 10:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If a ban was wrongly issued and the user was kept banned more than it was supposed to, the sysop will be banned for the same extra amount of time the user remained banned... and the sysop himself will be the one to issue his ban. This form of punishment is not because the sysop committed misconduct (its only misconduct if he refuses to correct the ban time), but a rather old tradition we had in here that serves to keep the sysop smart about checking vandal data. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was saying, ruling, and proposing be done Hagnat. --Karek^maps?! 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that it says "You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are." It just says sysops might not be held responsible when dealing with out of date A/VD data. Not that the error will be upheld even when it's noticed. The green box is neither a "Get Out of Jail, Free" card to sysops nor a "Go Directly to Jail, DO NOT PASS GO" card to users. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Where to begin??? First I don't like Iscariots behavior but I have seen much worse in the past and been told that its perfectly acceptable on the suggestions page so I am not sure what justification for a ban there really is at all. I understand the arguments about harrasment etc but just don't think this counts as anything more than OTT Trolling. However, as a ban was the agreed on course I don't think we should be punishing Nubis for following Iscariots (not so polite) demand that he and only he should decide if he should get the due de-escalation. Basically that means that this is misconduct due to humanoid error on Nubis's behalf for skipping straight to 1 week. Even if we assume no malice its still clearly serious enough to warrant some sort of punishment... I would say loss of Sysop powers for a period equal to the incorrect ban, in this case 5 days? --Honestmistake 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's serious overkill considering that this exact case type punishment is not only used in examples frequently but well cemented in case history and precedent as whatever extra time the banned user served being given to the sysop as a ban of the same length. --Karek^maps?! 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a full ban though, I am suggesting a withdrawl of sysop only powers instead. The banhammer is a tool which we really do not want Sysops messing up with. In this case it was Iscariot (who pretty much does deserve a ban, just not this ban) but if it had been issued to someone newer and less in your face it may have gone un-noticed that the ban was longer than called for, hence a more stringent punishment than a slap on the wrist...--Honestmistake 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's stupid though. An eye for an eye, can't you see? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What has an eye for an eye got to do with it, we are looking for a suitable way to indicate that this was misconduct rather than to punish an "honest mistake" This is clearly misconduct because the ban handed out was too long, however if Nubis gets a ban under "eye for an eye" logic he will not get a ban at all because it was still within the 48hours Iscariot should have recieved. What i am suggesting is intended as a meaningful chastisement rather than a punishment. If we assume that Nubis jumped to 1 week by accident then punishment is not warranted but some action must be taken to indicate the communties disaproval of so blatant an error in such a delicate matter as A/VB. Its hardly ideal I admit but an outright ban is uncalled for and a sliding scale directly related to the size of mistake will act to focus attention when issuing bans in the future.--Honestmistake 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"Community's disapproval"? Who died and made you Voice of the Community? --Cyberbob 12:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No one died Bob, I just took it as common sense that no one in the community wants Sysops fucking up with the banhammer--Honestmistake 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You also took it upon yourself to decide what The Community thinks Nubis should receive as punishment. --Cyberbob 13:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No bob, i took it upon myself to make a suggestion for what I feel might be appropriate. A suggestion only, you will note, preficed with an "I" and ending in a "?" to show it was my opinion and only offered as a suggestion. Now if you are quite done harranguing me?--Honestmistake 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be done when you are. --Cyberbob 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot shouldnt have been banned at all. If he was entitled to get a warning struck, it would be his second warning, not his 24h ban, that would have been struck. Thus, this vandalism case would warrant him a second warning, and if he fucks up in another case it would be a ban escalation of 48h (not 24h). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot explicitly demanded that no sysop de-escalate him without his expressed wish being made clear. There is no rule saying this cannot be honoured (there is also no rule saying it must be ignored) and as such I cannot see any reason why it should not stand until such time as he changes his mind. That being the case he was on 24 hours and should have gone to 48 hours when the sysops ruled vandalism Its a technicality but an important one... its about time wikilawyering bit Iscariot in the ass! --Honestmistake 13:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You ever having sysop powers is pretty much the only thing that truly scares me on this wiki. --Cyberbob 11:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Did he even look at the example misconduct case? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestmistake being rational? Lal. --Cyberbob 11:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But seriously, I guess we gotta just throw that boy into the banzone for the time required. If the ban time of Iscariot has been agreed at 24 hours, which seems absolutely right to me, there can't be much else to worry about. At the heart of this entire problem, to me, is a simple but serious mistake at the hands of Nubis. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate Escalation

What exactly was the appropriate punishment? As Johnny Bass says here, the policy states that "the first escalation struck shall be the second warning" and "No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before.". Doesn't that mean that Iscariot should only have recieved a warning and not been banned at all? Or am I missing something? O_o --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, he should have got only a warning, not a ban. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to rules lawyer but the policy does say that a user can have warnings/bans removed and not that they must. Iscariot clearly stated that he did not want the Sysop team removing his escalations without his express permission and as far as I know he has not asked for them to be struck.

• "Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative."

That means that in all fairness he was facing a 48hour ban not a 24 (or less) There is no doubt that Nubis's mistake was misconduct but proposing he face a ban linked directly to the ban Iscariot served is nonsensical as, to my mind its a negative time period! Messing up on Vandal banning is a serious issue and deserves a very clear response to show that it is always unacceptable. --Honestmistake 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

dieplzkthx --Cyberbob 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way Bob, at what point do you think your constantly trolling me will count as harasment? Not one of your responses here (or pretty much anywhere I post) has been particularly constructive and its beginning to become annoying. --Honestmistake 13:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dammit.... alright 1 comment!!!--Honestmistake 13:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not harassing, I'm debating. If you don't like my debating style that's your lookout. --Cyberbob 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"dieplzkthx" is not debating, at best it is a request.

"You ever having sysop powers is pretty much the only thing that truly scares me on this wiki." & "Honestmistake being rational? Lal" are nothing more or less than unwarranted personal attacks and have nothing to do with any reasonable debating points you might make and even you know it. --Honestmistake 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the concept of debating techniques. Also to call those attacks "unwarranted" is a lie and you know it. --Cyberbob 00:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, he has some sort of point. If iscariot can be anal about nubis removing his warning 7 edits early, he cant blame nubis for not removing his warning when iscariot was entitled to, provided iscariot never asked a sysop to remove such warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Iscariot proved last time that he wants to be the one to ask for his warning to be removed. He just can't have it both ways because it happens to serve him better the other way this time. He still should get the 48 hour ban. But all that's irrelevant at the moment, this is a discussion about what should happen to Nubis because the ban was put down for too long.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A week is a long time to make a mistaken ban. I say give him a day-long ban as per the 'inconsistent and unsubstantiated example misconduct case result' above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Look, in the misconduct case Iscariot made about the de-escalation he even insisted that the warning be reinstated since it was struck early. But at that time he had made the missing 7 edits so common sense prevailed. Making it a week ban was truly an accident. If I had intended to "screw up" his ban I can assure you I would have gone for the perma-ban and hoped that no one noticed. I clearly didn't so it was an accident. Demoting me for a week is retarded. The punishment should be that I am banned for however long over the correct length Iscariot was banned. He wasn't banned over the 48 hours, but actually less than 48 hours, but wtf I don't care. Just so we can end this pointless argument about that asshole's wishes allow me to take care of this myself. Misconduct 48 hour ban.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work finishing this Nubis. We should have made a precedence for future cases though, it sort of leaves the issue of de-escalation. Should a users' wishes to stay escalated get priority over scheduled de-escalation? If this was already answered above, don't scream. The case started whilst I was afk so I've had a hard time understanding everything. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think anyone was actually suggesting a 48 hour ban; General consensus seemed to be 7 hours. Therefore, I plan on unbanning you after 24 hours, unless anyone has any objections?

Oh, and by the way: I rule Not Misconduct on the missing de-escalation on the grounds that Iscariot has already made it quite clear that he does not want anyone striking his warnings without him requesting it. However, the skipping of the 48 hour ban was misconduct (even though it was an accident) with, IMO, an appropriate punishment being the amout of time over 48 hours which Iscariot served. In other words, a ban term of ~-17 hours (i.e. nothing).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Finish

OK, looks like this case is all finished and stuffs, but just to throw another spanner in the works, the appropriate escalation (once the de-escalation was taken into account) should have been a second warning. When de-escalating, the second warning (if still unstruck) is the first to go, not the highest ban. "If a user has more than two vandal escalations, the first escalation struck shall be the second warning, followed by the bans in descending order of severity (If any), and finishing in the first warning." -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:53 25 March 2009 (BST)

You're missing the main question: Does Iscariot have the right to refuse a de-escalation and whose responsibility is it to monitor those? --– Nubis ^NWO 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking a policy discussion should be put up as the rules on this seem a little vague to me. --Johnny Bass 17:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

10 January 2009

Ruled on a case that he was part of.

But how is he a part of this case? It was brought by Hagnat. Well, if we look at this edit we see that Nubis adds a link to a preformed case. Then, in both their rulings, Karek and Cheese both reference Nubis' case, however obliquely. This makes Nubis a de facto part of this case and his ruling on it, and swiftly after it gets tied, proves that he knew it was wrong.

You'll notice that he was quite happy to swiftly change the verdict to Vandalism on the page, and add that verdict to the Vandal Data page, but he seemed to 'forget' the required warning on my userpage. Instead four and half hours pass until Cheese comes and issues the warning. The reason is obvious, Nubis was hoping that his contribution to the case would go unnoticed.

If a non-connected sysop wished to support Hagnat and Nubis' baseless case then we wouldn't be here. However ruling on a case you have brought or contributed to is misconduct and has been ruled so previously.

I'm wanting the warning retracted, deleted from Vandal Data and the template on A/VB reverting until a non-connected sysop adds their ruling to the case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This, however, would in my book qualify as Misconduct on Nubis' part. He shouldn't have been ruling on the case and was, for all intents and purposes, a co-reporter.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Get your head out of your ass and think about this. I was not a co-reporter. If anything I was a troll trying to start drama by linking to something that I knew would piss him off. Nothing on my sandbox page HAS ANYTHING to do with this little skirmish on A/SD. Everything on my page is from well before this report. Most of the links on my page are from previous A/M and A/VB cases. You know, linking precedent or history to show that the user knows/has been warned about this before.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe his conspiracy theory but I also don't think it was appropriate for you to rule after your comments and additions before that point. Obviously this case shows that the prevailing opinion is that the action was the correct one for the user but this is kinda like a throwback to an old case for me. It being vandalism is irrelevant to you ruling being in bad form.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've all seen what waiting around for other sysops to get off the fence and make a decision gets us. So, let me get this straight. It's a type of vandalism that he will get away with repeatedly because "punishing" him for being him is wrong and "punishing" him for his actions can be seen as only "punishing" him for being him since he is such a habitual troll? The secret is to be a troll for so long that you are never called out on it! I get it now. That's a great system.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a "soft warning" sort of case... clearly "shittting up admin pages", but a prior soft warning has been the precedent -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:10 10 January 2009 (BST)

The reason is obvious, Nubis was hoping that his contribution to the case would go unnoticed.

The reason is obvious if you make shit up. The only thing I did wrong here was not put the Warning on Iscariot's page. Who can blame me since it is a habit not to post on his page. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Not enough to warrant an issue. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an issue? Maybe not to someone whose position allows them to ignore bans and whose position means they can't actually be removed by the community they are supposed to represent, to other users maybe. If you feel my edit was vandalism, go fucking vote vandalism, don't fucking sit their and attempt to maintain your self deceiving illusion of impartiality. I'll make it easy for you, go here and copy and paste '''Vandalism''' -- ~~~~. What Nubis did was wrong, he voted on a case that the rulings of other sysops had made him part of, hence why we're here, but at least he had the balls to put his fucking signature to it. Go for it, copy and paste and follow the link, how much fucking easier do you need it? At least have the fucking guts to put your name to it, so that when the community finally get's tired of your antics they can accurately trace the stuff you had a hand in. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

lol I'm sorry... I think you have me confused with someone who gives a rats ass about any comment you make regarding me. I have my opinion on the case, I have stated it. And as far as your opinion... it doesn't matter. -snerk- maybe if and when you get off the haterade and crack cocktails I'll evaluate anything you say seriously. Until then lulz Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you scared of Conn? Come on, vote vandalism, you know you want to. There's two routes in this, the Karek route that justifiably rules that there is no case, or there's the Hagnat "Waaaaah, this user iz makin' me luk dum!" route. Pick one. You daren't because you're happy to game the system, not putting your name to a user's vandalism case whilst protecting said sysop guilty of misconduct fro punishment. Playing the system for your own amusement? Yeah, trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Conn not debate his own points? Or are you attempting to influence this case in the same way you did the vandalism case? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor Misconduct - Iscariot was warned because of their edits to the deletion page (the A/SD -> A/D move fiasco), not because of nubis contribution, which is, in fact, another case that should be ruled on in the future. If anyone find this ruling as a conflict of interest, just ignore it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry to sound like iscariot, but that's playing fast and loose with the rules, hagnat. if it's a conflict of interest then it's misconduct. or it's not misconduct -- period -- and you get on with life. but you don't just ignore vandalism rulings, for frell sake. --WanYao 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's contagious. For "frell"'s sake, Hag is saying that he is voting Not Misconduct but understands if other sysops attending won't count his vote. He's not saying he really thinks there is a conflict of interest. And he isn't saying anything is wrong with the VB ruling. He's just saying that he isn't going to get pissy if his actual vote isn't considered in the final tally of this case.

The only reason this hasn't been archived is that I am not sure if boxy was voting Misconduct or not. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Nubis has not yet brought his own case to VB and the case in question was placed by Hagnat. To my knowledge, Nubis <> Hagnat so he was not involved with the case. -- Cheese 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)