UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Conndraka/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Conndraka » 2009

April 15

Conndraka used his position as a badge of authority where it has no bearing on the case. Sysops don't have any special authority when ruling on the dupe status of suggestions, yet Con insists on his non-author re: being valid because of his sysop status. If arbitration is to decide the fate of that suggestion, arbies is the place to do it, not the suggestion page itself, where people who may disagree have no right of reply, or ability to choose an impartial arbitrator -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:07 15 April 2009 (BST)

Drama-fest please. Seriously though, is a misconduct case necessary here? Seems like a minor misunderstanding about syops abilities to me. Any personal issues playing a role here?--Thadeous Oakley 13:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

The Suggestion page itself gives certain abilities to sysops only. I was asked for an opinion by the Author and stated it under the appropriate heading. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:29, 15 April 2009 (BST)

And those certain abilities do not include the ability to decide whether something is a dupe or not. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:30, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I mearly followed what was said under [DUPE|http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions&action=edit&section=2] and since a valid statement had already been stricken improperly (as it was at the request of the author) this is merely nothing more than Iscariot (et al) throwing a fit because a suggestion they don't like would go to Peer Approved. when there is in fact enough differences to invalidate the DUPE vote. Obviously this is harassment in an effort to derail the conversation and voting on the suggestion. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:36, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Neither do they include an ability to invalidate Dupe votes if you think the suggestion is not a dupe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:07, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Nowhere in that link does it say anything about posting your opinion as to people's votes on the page. That is instructions for what to do when cycling a suggestion. You cycled nothing, so it doesn't apply, at all. You weren't acting as an arbitrator, because they are chosen by both parties, and consider the case after a discussion on A/A. You weren't acting in an official sysop capacity, because they have no special authority to rule on dupe cases... What you did do, however, was specifically use your sysop status to try to force your opinion of what is and is not a valid dupe vote onto the suggestions page. It may be a popular opinion, but you have no more right than any other person to comment on it in a non-author Re:, and you should know that -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:09 15 April 2009 (BST)

Quoting from the Voting Rules that is displayed at the bottom of every suggestion in progress:

Comments

• Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
• Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

Conndraka was not invalidating a troll-based vote. He was commenting on a suggestion. The section of note here is "Only the original author and the person being REd can comment." Rosslessness was the person being REd and CaptainVideo was the original author. Conndraka was neither of these two parties. He shouldn't have commented and his addition were blanked. He then unstruck the section, invoked his status as a sysop and made a longer paragraph attacking the person performing routine maintenance, anyone want to point me to the good faith bit of these edits? Also suggestions author are not, do not and will never have the option of overriding the voting rules at their whim, if they were I'd have the forts wiped off the map as a peer reviewed suggestion because I'd ignore certain rules that would guarantee its success and according to Conndraka I'd be allowed to do this as the author.

That being said this case is entirely pointless and I'll now spoil the ending for all viewers. Boxy is classed as voting misconduct as he brought the case (Nubis' precedent), Link doesn't get involved, SA votes misconduct in a long paragraph, Cheese votes not misconduct with a flimsy justification, Nubis votes not misconduct and comments on my post and The General votes not misconduct. The only vote that will really change in that is Cheese's which he'll do just so he can add a section about me being wrong in his ruling. Regardless the entire result will be a useless warning at the most which given what we've seen in the past will do nothing to actually improve the conduct of the sysop in question. So why are we wasting time with this? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

OK that was pretty awesome. Cyberbob 14:54, 15 April 2009 (BST)

You spoiler >:0! Though I have to admit I don't see Conndraka getting warned either. The nature of the complaint is way too thin on substance for that.--Thadeous Oakley 15:48, 15 April 2009 (BST)

How am I supposed to make a large paragraph on my vote with a small case like this?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Nubis votes not misconduct. This isn't a sysop only ability. This could be handled on A/VB and on there I could see voting Vandalism. We all know that Conn probably couldn't wield his position as a sysop as a badge of authority even if he wanted to. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:20, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Umm thanks??? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:45, 15 April 2009 (BST)

It could be worse, Conn. Iscariot could be making a case against you for using the wrong format to reply to the contended vote, too. I'm surprised he didn't, tbh. He must be slipping in his wiki-rage. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:27, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Hate to do this because it looks like I'm just being petty and trying to prove Iscariot wrong, but Misconduct. It's borderline but it does seem that Conndraka was using his sysop status as the basis for breaking the rules of the page. He was also definitely using his sysop status to rule on the validity of a dupe vote when he had no authority to do so. Also, I noticed he he used rollback to revert Iscariot's edits. While not misconduct, it does add to the tally of "sysop abilities used".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:12, 18 April 2009 (BST)

This is just LOLworthy. Since he used rollback it adds to the sysop ability tally! Dammit, Conn! Why couldn't you have hand edited that bullshit instead?! That might have been the line between Misconduct and Vandalism!! --– Nubis ^NWO 17:20, 18 April 2009 (BST)

well to be honest I've had that ability so long I forgot it was a Sysop only ability. I mean..really.. I'm closing in on three years here. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:31, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I know that it's an easy thing to forget. As I said, using rollback isn't misconduct worthy in itself but it does add to the list of sysop abilities that he used and it is the combination of them all which makes this misconduct. Firstly, Conndraka uses his sysop status as the basis for a ruling on the validity of dupe votes and breaks the rules of the page as he does so. Secondly, he uses rollback to revert Iscariot's legitimate removal of his non-author RE. Finally, he posts a response citing his sysop status as justification for breaking the rules.

That's 2 cases of using sysop status as a badge of authority, 1 use of a sysop power in a dispute with a user. In combination, this is a definite misconduct. I would probably have ruled vandalism rather than misconduct if he had done only one of the first two actions, his doing both is what tipped this to misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:27, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As the General, we aren't moderators and have no real powers on the suggestions pages (apart from sysop spam and locking closed suggestions). Captain Video is reasonably new so can be forgiven for not knowing how the arbitration system works but Conn, you've been here for a long time and should know better. Best option would have been to set up a proper arbies case and avoid getting embroiled in any potential drama. -- Cheese 12:00, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Misconduct--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:22, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Well it has become somewhat apparent that no one else wishes to make a ruling on this case, time to end the stagnancy? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:56, 25 April 2009 (BST)

A ruling has been made; it's just that nobody wants to actually do the deed of coming up with/dealing out a punishment. --Cyberbob 05:00, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Pardon me, thats what I meant. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:24, 25 April 2009 (BST)

	Misconduct!
	You'd better believe that's a paddlin'!

-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:29 25 April 2009 (BST)

Ruling

By a decent majority, this is deemed Misconduct. Since there has been no action taken thus far by any other sysops, I think it would be appropriate to issue a warning. In this case, it's Conn's second warning and any further escalations will result in a ban. Case Closed -- Cheese 10:50, 25 April 2009 (BST)

More like Miscuntduct amirite?--DiscoInferno 10:15, 26 April 2009 (BST)

12 March

His actions on the #Nubis case. He knew of the mistake and purposely refused to correct it. --Karek^maps?! 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

umm woah dude. How about giving me a chance here fella, Damn. My statements were based off of the escalations as posted on the vandal data and I wasn't going to go a researching them until the initial question of the ban length was figured out. Nubis hasn't even responded to the case yet. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

and another thing...It would be one thing If I point blank refused to do or undue something, but I hadn't (and to be honest still haven't worked through) all the details of the below case. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Bullshit. I took one read of the case and instantly gathered the following key pieces of information: 1) Nubis banned Iscariot in concordance with a 3:2 ruling on A/VB. 2) Iscariot's last escalation was on the 30th of January and consisted of a 24 hour ban. 3) This case was brought more than a month later and Iscariot had made more than 250 edits and as such qualified for a de-escalation. 4) Nubis banned him for a week rather than 48 hours which should have been the next escalation if Nubis hadn't noticed the de-escalation. The first 3 are ok and not grounds for misconduct, the last is. Simple as that. -- Cheese 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So your defense is you ruled without actually reading the case? I'm not sure how that doesn't actually seem worse. --Karek^maps?! 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheese, 3 doesn't apply - see Iscariot quote below. And if it was supposed to be 48 hours based on what was showing then I did make an honest mistake. Not Misconduct. There was no malicious intent, but just a mistake. It happens. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No malice does not equal No Misconduct... this was a mistake and you were not promoted to make mistakes (esp in Vandal cases) Its by no means 'demotion' serious misconduct but a ruling of Not Misconduct on a case like would be totally wrong.--Honestmistake 09:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way your ruling there reads like a ruling on your case rather than this one, such things tend to cause a lot of drama so you might want to unbold it? --Honestmistake 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. He either knew there was a mistake and went out of his way to not correct it or he didn't read the case summary and ruled anyway in which case he was ruling based on the assumption that you were right to ban Iscariot for however long regardless of the actual merit. Either one is misconduct. --Karek^maps?! 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Slap on the Wrist as long as Iscariot's Ban does not exceed 48 hours" seems to show pretty clearly that Conn felt the 48 hour ban was the appropriate one and should be the one served, as it wasn't at 48 hours he was right not to undo the ban until it was. IF he did not read the case properly it does call his motives into question but that doesn't really equal misconduct either--Honestmistake 09:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does! Misconduct is misuse of sysop powers. How is swaying a misconduct case (which he and only 10 others in the wiki can vote on) by making an uninformed, uneducated vote NOT misconduct? He had the responsibility to inform himself before making a decision. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops my bad, what i was trying to say was that this case should not be considered as misconductable because there is no real evidence to suggest that he was abusing his sysop powers. Conn looked at the face value of the case and acted accordingly, he seems to have seen that it was a case about accidentally skipping a step on the vandal ladder and his opinion is that that was not misconduct provided someone fixes it. It should be noted that he was the first Sysop to rule and that he had already changed his mind by the time this case was brought (well at the same time actually!) Its poor form to rule (and should be considered misconduct) without full understanding (or at least an attempt to come to one) but in this case i don't feel it should have been taken here so quickly.--Honestmistake 12:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarity though can a sysop explain how a ban period is implemnted? I mean do you set a block in place that automatically expires or does someone have to actually unblock the user when the ban period expires?--Honestmistake 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The former. --Cyberbob 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case I would think that Conn should have come back and checked to see if the ban had been reset when other sysops had made their opinion known. If he had failed to do so then that would certainly have been misconduct. --Honestmistake 13:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

15 January 2009

Conndraka created a sockpuppet account, User:Wiki Martyr, whose purpose was clearly was troll User:Iscariot -- a user with whom Conndraka has a long history of personal conflicts. The evidence that this was a sockpuppet account was provided in this vandalism case.

I expect a "trusted user" with special administrative powers to know better than to create a sockpuppet account. And to create a sockpuppet whose aim was clearly to troll another user whom they don't get along with is a blatant violation of the trust the wiki community puts in sysops to act at least somewhat professionally and impartially. At the very least, this action calls into question Conndraka's "trusted user" status -- and creates a clear conflict of interest / impartiality issue, considering that part of a sysop's job is to ban sockpuppets. At worst, it falls under the "excessive bullying" clause of the Miscinduct policy. --WanYao 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive bullying is just that, excessive. No sysop-only action was abused, and Conndraka was already warned. What is the point of this case? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, J3D did get misconducted for laughing at a sockpuppet made to troll Cyberbob rather than ban it. =/ Conn's cut out the middle man and made one himself. -- Cheese 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are different cases, and J3D was misconducted for different reasons. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. J3D's case was about being biased on a ruling and then abusing Check User. His demotion was primarily over the Check User issue. His laughing at the troll account was just what made a few people change their minds about him. It made them realize that maybe he isn't very mature.

Conn has never been considered a "good sysop". Trolling isn't misconductable until it becomes bullying. Not Misconduct.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, way to Forum Shop, Wan. Sometimes it just doesn't help though.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

bullying? yes. excessive? hardly. This case was dealt in vandalism. If the sysop in question had any history of abusing the community trust, this could be a case worth being discussed. Not misconduct --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained, Conndraka is a "trusted user" who should know better than to do something which is clearly against the rules of the wiki. Having done so, IMNSHO Conndraka has violated the whole "trusted user" thing... very explicitly. That is why this case is here, and while some of you are implying that this is a "frivolous" case, IMNSHO again, it's one of the few non-frivolous cases to have been posted here in some time. This isn't a case of mere vandalism, to be dealt with by a vandal warning. Conndraka violated all concepts of professionalism, impartiality and -- most importantly -- respect for, and adherence to, the rules of the wiki. I expect sysops not make trolling sockpuppet accounts. I don't think that's a weird, or "frivolous" expectation. --WanYao 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So sysops get double warnings or worse that for the same edit would get a single warning? If boxy decided to blank a page, he'd get two warnings, yet if I blanked the same page, I'd get only one? How is that fair? And I'm pretty sure that sysops are supposed to be treated/seen the same as any other user. They are the same thing, both users. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel this went too far... I was under the impression that sockpuppeteering is a fairly serious offence... It's certainly something that a sysop, aka a "trusted user", ought to know better than to do. It was a wilful violation of very clear wiki policy... add to that the fact that it was trolling a user with whom Conn clearly has a personal conflict... and it all falls into a conflict of interest, and becomes a violation of "trusted user" status. That's my position, and I think it's pretty straightforward. However, if the sysops aren't in accord, well, fine, I'm not going to drag this out.... --WanYao 18:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Conn should know better and that type of thing isn't something a sysops should do (or any user). Anyways... lalala. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm exactly where did the account Troll anything? Other than a statement of not being involved in an Arby there is nothing said at all. I beleive this account was banned in error, as the account isn't prohibited and made no comments, nor took any actions that could honestly be considered Trolling. I therefore appeal this ruling to the entire sysop staff and ask that the account be unbanned and the warning struck until such time that said account commits some action that directly or indirectly either vandalizes this wiki or in fact attacks another user. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

do not press the joke too far, otherwise i am going to agree with wan that this is a case of misconduct --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"against As much as I hate to agree with St. Crucifix, I do. I cannot and will not vote for demotion at this time. Now J3d must receive the sternest of warnings regarding conduct expected of a sysop with the knowledge that assisting or allowing vandalism in any form constitutes a serious breach of trust. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)"

I think that quote from the J3Ds sockpuppet case nicely sums up why this must be regarded as misconduct... I think the vandal case is sufficient to deal with the vandalism aspect but for abuse of the trust that this constitutes a little more than a slap on the wrist is called for. Other than that I must congratulate Conn for making me smile this morning when I saw the arbies comment--Honestmistake 18:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Creation of the account isn't vandalism. That should be made very much clear. Sonny wasn't escalated for creating User:Faerie Queen, he was created for using the account to harass User:Matthewfarenheit. That's the precedent behind the case and the reporting of it. And it's certainly not abuse of sysop position, that would require it not being anonymous until ZS let everyone know who it was.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While this is certainly wholly inappropriate conduct for a Sysop, we can't actually misconduct him over it. This wasn't excessive bullying and he wasn't using his Sysop status as a badge of authority. To punish him further simply for being a sysop goes against the principles of the guidelines which state that "a system operator is to be treated as a normal user".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No misuse of sysop powers. We don't trust them anyway so it can hardly be said the "trusted status" aspect is being misused. Also, i haven't actually read anywhere Iscariot saying he felt he was being harassed by this. Nubis had already removed the additional info which is far more harassing than making the account name, it was a joke and i highly doubt iscariot cares in the slightest.--xoxo 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I had removed the additional information from the 1st case. The Wiki Martyr account commented on the 2nd case. The fact that there was a 2nd case made using that name is taking the joke too far. Having said that, I don't think the Wiki Martyr account should be banned. I do think that banning the HAHAHA disregard I suck cocks account should be for the name alone. If we banned Cuntdrakka then a name like that is clearly prohibited by wiki standards.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was cuntlikka. and lol.--xoxo 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG- I agree with this. --Cyberbob 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

no wai.--xoxo 22:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No misuse of Sysop powers, unless Conndraka IP checked WikiMartyr before another sysop, for a laugh. Liberty 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct.It's a vandalism case. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)