UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Cyberbob240/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Cyberbob240 » 2009

18 December

Now real life has let me go for a morning I have the time to write this one up.

A new scheduled deletion was proposed by Cyberbob on 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC). The Deletions Scheduling page states very clearly:

"Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp."

Anyone who even has the most basic grasp of English can see that the time that deletion should be open is two weeks, meaning that the proposed deletion should have been closed at 12:18, 10th December 2009.

Why then did Cyberbob remove the vote with nearly 12 hours left to vote?

I took the matter up with Cyberbob on IRC at the time and he replied that:

"<Cyberbob> It's not an exact TO THE EXACT MINUTE thing you know".

As we all know, it is to the full extent of the time limit, and not whenever someone feels like it's had enough time decides to close it. The time limit in this case is clearly two weeks and would therefore end at the time I mentioned above.

There was then the following exchange:

<Iscariot> You aren't going to put back a vote you have removed early to give the community a chance to vote on it, especially given the downtime earlier?

<Cyberbob> The community's had plenty of chance

<Cyberbob> That thing's had more votes on it than almost every other one in the archives

It is not up to Cyberbob to make a decision as to when the community has had enough time to vote on a proposal. Deciding in such a manner would be an act of moderation, as a sysop he should be enforcing the will of the community, which in this case is clear to be two full weeks.

Cyberbob will no doubt bring forth previous cases where scheduled deletion votes were closed early, however people going against the rules and not being caught for it in the past does not mean that such an act is permissible. If a page blanking was missed and the user responsible not escalated, it would not mean that continued page blanking would be fine. The guidelines on the page are clear, two weeks, Cyberbob did not allow two weeks, and when told refused to correct his error.

Now you're probably wondering why I didn't just revert Cyberbob's edits and let the community have the rest of its time to vote. DDR suggested the same thing on IRC. For a start I couldn't undo the edits to the protected pages Cyberbob had incorrectly edited, also he responded to DDR's suggestion with:

<Cyberbob> yes please do, the arbitration case will be ever so much fun

I had no time to engage in an arbitration case brought for bad faith reasons.

What we have here is Cyberbob closing a vote almost a day early (12 hours that he closed it before time coupled with the 9 hours of wiki downtime we had on the same day), a vote that he clearly has a vested interest in (his wanting to reduce the threshold for image deletions is widely known), and closing a very close vote (only two votes would have been required to make the proposal fail) to ensure his preferred outcome.

I therefore accuse Cyberbob of editing a protected page before time using the precedent established when Nubis was found guilty of de-escalating me early against policy. The time limit is clear and based on the remarks from the precedent "rules are rules" and he should have waited to edit the Deletion Schedule until that time. The proposal should be put back into voting for the appropriate length of time at the same time of day to allow further users to vote on it.

Or shall we allow a system where sysops can propose policies and scheduled events and close them whenever they choose, regardless of the stated time limits, to ensure their favoured outcome? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you would actually bring this case. You didn't disappoint. Cyberbob  Talk  07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RL dude, got on top of me like a drunk fat girl at a keg party.... :/ -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can sympathise, most of the second half of November was like a waking nightmare for me. :( Cyberbob  Talk  07:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I get in on the RL haet? I don has exams, jus' werk do'.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - timezones are confusing. There had been one contribution to the page in the 10 days prior to the closing of this vote, and that was 3 days before it was closed. No harm, no foul... the community had clearly had it's say -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:52 18 December 2009 (BST)

Brace for impact >_< Cyberbob  Talk  12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - As boxy. I like it when other people give me numbers. 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - As above. Cheese 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a warning one time for doing shit outside of the proper time span. Misconduct.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct I never feel cycling something you've proposed in the first place is good form, let alone early. I hope you get one hell of a wrist slapping. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

lol 12 hours out of 336 when it hadn't been touched for 36 (and before that not for 96) sure is pretty early Cyberbob  Talk  17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just you wait, you're going to get such a slapping when The General and The Rooster rule misconduct. Oh no wait. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

DDR and Red Hawk One? Cyberbob  Talk  17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

50/50 Split I reckon--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. DDR can be fickle sometimes. Cyberbob  Talk  17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

>:( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What am I looking at here exactly Cyberbob  Talk  17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comparison. I did something in the wrong time span, it got me in trouble. Same thing here, only you're doing it early instead of late. Shame on you.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey you know instead of being a little bitch about it you could maybe help set a new precedent in line with how you think things should be Cyberbob  Talk  17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Er hang on a sec, neither the A/VB case nor the Misconduct case from that situation were ruled against you. What are you going on about? Nevermind, found the one you're talking about. That's a pretty damn pathetic warning - I can't believe you wouldn't take this chance to avoid bullshit rulings like that happening again. Cyberbob  Talk  17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll think more after I go to sleep. 4 hours in two days makes me dumber than usual.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about the case :/ Not Misconduct - As Boxy, and since Iscariot is known to forge logs there is no real proof Cyberbob refused to put the vote back up. And, regarding SA's bone, SA was warned not because he closed the vote early, but because he did it to force his own vote (which wasn't compliant with guidelines) into the system. Doesn't apply here. --

 

 

 

 

09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Still yet to provide any proof that I'm guilty of this supposed forgery you continue to hark on about? Have you also told the children that you were in the channel where the conversation took place and saw Bob refuse to put the vote back up? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But forcing his own way into the system is technically what CB is doing, if unintentionally, you twit. And I didn't close it early. It was late. You're going to rule without properly reading and comprehending the shit you're using as evidence? You idiot ;)

But seriously, I was warned for the exact same thing. This entire thing is misconduct, but not really worth much more than a slap on the wrist and told to pay more attention to time spans. Just because shit is confusing doesn't absolve him of it, merely lessens the potential punishment.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh but it doesn't matter because again it wasn't the timespan which got you warned... --

 

 

 

 

22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"But forcing his own way into the system is technically what CB is doing, if unintentionally, you twit". Same. Exact. Thing.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. You were deliberately forcing your own not guidelines compliant vote into the system by means of ninjaing it in at the last minute and protecting it before Iscariot could revert- which you'd already had an edit-war over days before. Yours wouldn't have been vandalism/misconduct (the latter is where it should have been placed imo) if there was no idiotic intent- but there was and that's why it was ruled as such. --

 

 

 

 

22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you drinking tonight DDR? Yes, it was the issue. The thing you just described is me trying to force shit into the system. Just like CB did by closing the vote at a time that was too early, specifically when his side was still ahead. -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You just won't get it. Nvm. --

 

 

 

 

01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

inorite?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. But we can still make love yeah? --

 

 

 

 

01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. I don't need to be able to prove it to use it in my ruling. All that matters is who knows It's true- everyone, including myself and you :) --

 

 

 

 

11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you could prove your lies, thanks for confirming that. Also, you seem to be avoiding the point that you were present in the channel when Bob said he wouldn't put it back and you're saying there's no proof of that in your ruling.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh but my memory is oh so terrible and my logs are oh-so-tarnished with fraud, so why should I bother reading through them? --

 

 

 

 

11:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Ross asked so nicely, (minor) Misconduct. Cyberbob appears to have been aware that he was going against the rules in this instance, so it is technically misconduct on his part. All the same, the likelyhood anyone would have bothered voting in the remaining timespan is extremely low, and in the equally low likelyhood this goes through I reccomend nothing more than a warning.

In light of this, may I reccomend we have an official timesheet for administrative votes, so these sort of things don't happen again?--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary

So, 4 not misconducts against 2 Misconducts. Unless by some miracle both The Rooster and The General both rule this is going to turn out Not Miscunduct. Thanks for your time. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, we now have a precedent that allows sysops to close votes early when the result is how they like. Expect the 'crat promotion to be closed early if someone gets within two votes of Boxy. It is wrong to tell people they have a certain amount of time to vote and then close voting early, not even the Bush administration stooped that low to rig their re-election. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:/ Someone needs some more outside time. --

 

 

 

 

11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be taking the full time consider all factors before voting on all proposals, policies and elections on this wiki from now on, I will be basing this on the displayed time on the page in question. Are you going to tell me it is right to close a vote early and deny me the chance of voting when the page clearly shows I have spare time? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Cause we just made a "precedent" for it!! =D --

 

 

 

 

11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, when are you going to begin meatpuppeting Ross into crat? I'm so giddy!! --

 

 

 

 

11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point, a sysop will rollback the edits and then close the vote early, you've just ruled that they can do this whenever they choose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You idiot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:11 20 December 2009 (BST)

"This is going to turn out" NOT "this voting is closed." Jesus. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you waht ISC, I'll even go and ask the remaining sops to rule. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point. Even if they both rule, and it's a tie, it'll be Not Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well theres also red hawk one. So theoretically it still could go the other way. Even though Rooster doesn't misconduct people and the general is inactive. But as Iscariot is concerned about procedure, Ive asked all three to comment if they so wish. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late here and it probably won't make any difference but misconduct. The guidelines say that the vote should have been closed 12 hours later, Cyberbob closed it early. Therefore, Cyberbob broke the rules. Simple.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA OH WOW I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit since October was to rule on this case? Get the fuck out. Cyberbob  Talk  09:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sigh. --

 

 

 

 

12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am a Sysop and therefore I am permitted to rule on this case. I am not going to get into petty arguments over this and so I will not be responding unless a valid argument (I.e. Something beyond "Get the fuck out") is given.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"You're doing that thing again where you edit all of twice every 2 or so months" warrant a response?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, It's okay that he does that, cause he also acknowledges it, doesn't care and refuses to change. So that makes it okay. --

 

 

 

 

23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know I'm inactive and I apologise. I won't make any promises because I know you (quite justifiably) won't believe them. All I'll say is that it's better twice a month than not at all, IMHO and it doesn't affect my decision in this case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, about that. No, it's not better. Just sayin' -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

^^^ Cyberbob  Talk  05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Got to say here that it is clear that Bob has broken the rules in a most horrendous manner. Demotion is too good and he should in fact be taken outside and shot!

On a sensible note; its 12 hours people.... chances are if he hadn't done this then it would have been filed at least 12 hours late, would the entire sysop team then be here for dereliction of duty? Put simply; a sysop should not act early in any case that may prove contentious to any (vaguely) sensible user, this falls well short of that line. Bob should have left it alone and archived it when he was next online... he didn't but in this case it makes no real (plausible) difference so is worth nothing more (or less) than a slap on the wrist.--Honestmistake 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And a good slapping at that!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In summary this case is moronic. We shouldn't be hawking over the chance to misconduct/ban anyone who makes the slightest procedural mistake. While I recognize that some of the people who ruled misconduct had valid reasons for doing so, I feel that a more common-sense approach should be used in these kinds of cases. Rules schmules. "In the spirit" let me hear it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Summary

An exciting 4 for and 4 against. Will rooster rule? Personally I doubt it. But we can wait a while yet. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week now...? Cyberbob  Talk  02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just close this one early too bob, in theory it'll mean that you have precedent to back your actions. xoxo 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct: nobody cares. >.> --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-vote unbolded. A/M rulings are sysop-only, mind you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Karl for sysop! 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A/PM it up!! =D At least then the case'd be firmly decided. Are new zysops allowed to rule on previously opened but not-yet-closed VB / M cases? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course they are. --

 

 

 

 

04:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Been more than long enough, and Rooster wouldn't rule even if he were active. Closed as Not Misconduct. --

 

 

 

 

04:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

12 November

• One
• Two
• Three

Demote the cunt.-- SA 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, OH FUCKKK ITS CYBERBOB HAMMER DAT Minor Misconduct BUTAN-- SA 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor misconduct - slap on the wrist misconduct. Not even worth an official warning. Just don't do it again until A/D/S allows it, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 13 November 2009 (BST)

Minor Misconduct Forward great Consistency! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ' Not Misconduct '. xoxo 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

God i miss the days when i could say that without putting a space between my apostrophes, sob. xoxo 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else does. Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Best. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You really are the white eddie murphy. and please a/vb me for that being a racist call, you fucking piece of whitetrash shit. xoxo 09:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion, this can be archived tomorrow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:40 14 November 2009 (BST)

Finished as Misconduct, though as it is minor no official punishment was given. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

12 September

In regard to this case, bob votes on the case he brought himself. I was always under the impression that excluding open and shut cases (eg bots) that this was not the done thing. I repeatedly asked bob for precedent only to get nothing but a mention from boxy saying its okay because several of the permaed users had the same thing done. This case had 0 in common with those cases, in fact it had sysops going both ways in voting.

In short a sysop cannot both create a case AND rule on it, excluding completely obvious open and shutters. I have repeatedly requested precedent but can only assume bob has none from his silence. Should this be declared misconduct my ban should be overturned as a draw.--xoxo 00:01, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Do you ever give it a rest? --Haliman - Talk 00:05, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Do you? J3D, in essence, is right. Sysops shouldn't rule on case's they brought up themselves. However, I do not believe this would have made much difference. Even without Bob's own ruling it would still be Vandalism, so this doesn't change much. In light of recent events, I doubt making this case was a good idea. Therefore I am going to urge Bob NOT to make another vandal case against J3D as some personal retaliation, because otherwise this shit will go on and on and on...--Thadeous Oakley 00:13, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Recall that addage, "Don't feed the trolls"? Yeah... but these Aussies have created a self-sustaining, thriving interdependent ecosystem wherein no one ever need go hungry. --WanYao 01:57, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Actually Thad the case in question had bob voting vandalism (invalid as per this case), nubis voting vandalism (cough) and boxy voting not vandalism. So now tell me this is irrelevant. I was banned in the dodgiest of possible circumstances.--xoxo 08:47, 12 September 2009 (BST)

You forgot DDR voting Vandalism. Though Nubis actually didn't vote Vandalism, he said he would withhold his vote for now. So yeah, umm. I guess overturning your ban is not something you likely achieve, but Sysops should not rule on their own brought cases. It doesn't make sense anyway, why rule? Since you brought the case yourself it's pretty obvious what your ruling would be, however if you don't rule, then the fact that you brought it doesn't count as a ruling on it's own in the past. Besides, a conflict of interest much? If you bring the case, then your involved and and ruling on a case that your involved in, yeah that pretty much is unfair right. Sysops could bring up a case and immediately rule vandalism after that giving the potential vandal in question a huge disadvantage.

HELL, let's say J3D would have been a sysops during this case. Would he be allowed to vote Not Vandalism on his own case? Well? But J3D isn't a sysops so that's completely unfair. Why don't we give normal users the ability to rule on their brought case's both as case bringer and potential vandal?--Thadeous Oakley 11:06, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Don't forget that your ban length wasn't negated as per your last banning case which was reversed, J3D. Better A/M your banning sysop for that, yeah? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:37, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Actually i'm tempted to A/M you for noticing that and choosing to not mention it or decrease the ban time as per your personal vendetta.--xoxo 06:09, 14 September 2009 (BST)

Shut the fuck up, you parasite. I only remembered just then, and even if that was a lie there would be no way you could prove it, so fucking try me. Methinks you forgot to, else you would have eluded to it during the final ruling of your case, so stop blaming other people because you forgot your 'ace in the hole' and deal with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:41, 14 September 2009 (BST)

I checked the A/VB archives from 2009 and 2008, and there's no sign of precedent that I could see.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:09, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I can't remember any specific case where a Sysop has tried to rule on a self-brought A/VB case... But I interpret it as the same precedence that was demonstrated early this year on A/M- should a sysop bringing a Misconduct case be able to have their vote counted? The precedence I specifically remembered was here (read down the bottom to Liberty's tally) where sysops that bring misconduct cases' votes can count... Can anybody give me a reason why this shouldn't apply to A/VB? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:37, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I swear I remember that happening way back in the old days... I don't think it's illegal, but I do think it's considered a bit of a conflict of interest and generally avoided. Regardless, if this is such a one-sided ruling, why not just ask cheese or SA or another sysop to come in and vote; unless they're all bias...? o.0 Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 15:46, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I'd throw this case as your initial precedent. Hagnat is found guilty of misconduct for "ruling on a case that he had a vested interest in". Although Hagnat did not rule on a case that he had made himself. Looking at the case and the VB page at the moment, there can clearly be seen to be an 'air of unfriendliness' between J3D and Cyberbob, I could see it easily argued that he had a 'vested interest' in gaining J3D another escalation and closer to a another wiki break.

The problem with voting on cases that you bring yourself is that you are an involved party already. Previously, and skimming through the misconduct archives it is clear that in the past sysops voluntarily recused themselves from cases, so such a policy was not needed. Also any cases where there was not immediate vandalism misconduct case were brought against any sysop automatically issuing warnings/bans and then noting this on A/VB. Looking at the current VB page shows this to be the apparent norm now, either through not knowing or another reason by the current sysops.

We must remember that the person who set the precedent in misconduct cases (Nubis) may not have been acting in the best interests of the wiki, depending on the ruling of the case below.

Finally, do we really want sysops ruling on cases they have brought themselves? Would we be happy with any criminal case where the victim or prosecuting attorney was also allowed a seat on the jury? Creating this precedent that sysops may rule on cases they bring does not elicit faith from users regarding the impartiality and suitableness for sysop status. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:54, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Exactly, this simply shouldn't be allowed.--Thadeous Oakley 16:59, 12 September 2009 (BST)

The idea was that the sysop shouldn't be "punished" for being the one that brings the case to A/VB. If a regular user had posted it that sysop would still be able to vote one way or the other on it. It's just obvious that their vote is Vandalism. Please rewrite everything that Nubis did on here. That is great for the lolz.-- #99 ^DCC 17:16, 12 September 2009 (BST)

The simple response is the rhetorical question of "If it was such obvious vandalism, why did the sysop in question not wait for another user to bring the case?" Quite simply allowing involved parties to vote on the appraisal of whether or not such a case is vandalism is a dubious precedent. Family members of victims may not serve on juries, nor may any judge sit on any case which someone can demonstrate he has an interest in. This wiki should be no different in these regards. If J3D committed such a heinous and clearly bad faith edit that Cyberbob had to bring the case, why is his vote needed to ensure a vandalism ruling? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:22, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Your analogies are terrible and so is your strawman. Merely bringing a case does not make you involved in it (certainly not to the extent where you could be said to have a "vested interest" in it), and not every case is "hurfadurf HEINOUS AND CLEARLY OBJECTIVELY BAD FAITH". Cyberbob  Talk  17:30, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I'm curious, do you believe that sysops should be allowed to vote in cases they bring? Or that there is nothing in policy to prevent them? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:47, 12 September 2009 (BST)

The guidelines explicitly allow sysops to vote on cases they bring. Read what I post, please. As for my opinion, I think they should be able to vote on cases they bring except where there is a clear consensus amongst the other sysops that they should not. I really can't see how a situation where sysops being allowed to rule on cases they bring but if other sysops turn up and disagree with their ruling suddenly losing all say in the matter could ever work. Cyberbob  Talk  17:58, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Two points. One, the guidelines specifically give sysops the ability to rule on cases they've brought (I quoted the relevant line in J3D's A/VB case). Two, it's terribly amusing to see everyone dancing around the metric shittonne of cases where sysops have brought them and ruled on them as well, often in the same edit, with the use of the word "vote" instead of "rule" (if one of those cases becomes contentious the sysop that brought the case is counted as having a "vote" anyways so that doesn't hold water anyway), but the guidelines don't discriminate.
Sorry, but if you want to make this illegal you're going to have to go through A/PD. Cyberbob  Talk  17:07, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Also that Misconduct case of Hagnat's has nothing to do with the situation here and I'll thank Iscariot not to try and muddy the waters further with his ridiculous attempts at shoehorning as well as at pinning me down as having a vested interest in the case. I do not rule on A/VB cases based on emotion, thank you very much. Cyberbob  Talk  17:22, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I believe them to be related in spirit due to the discussion that resulted in the majority ruling of misconduct, as I have stated. "if one of those cases becomes contentious the sysop that brought the case is counted as having a "vote" anyways so that doesn't hold water anyway" - Perhaps you'd provide the links to three such A/VB cases that fit this criteria to enlighten us. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:47, 12 September 2009 (BST)

"In spirit" is one of the most done-to-death "arguments" on the whole goddamn wiki. As for your precedent request, it's a practice which has been going on for pretty much forever; I refuse to work just to satisfy your fetish for LINKZ. Cyberbob  Talk  18:07, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Just so we all know where we stand (also because I know how much people love not following instructions to read things on other pages then continuing to post as before), this is the part of the guidelines I am referring to:

When a User May be Warned or Banned

Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.

There is no mention of a delineation between "voting" and "ruling", because such a distinction does not exist except as part of J3D's desperate attempts to have his ban revoked and hurting anyone/everyone who he thinks he has a chance of "getting back at". You can argue 'durrrp conflict of interest judges dont go in teh jury' until the cows come home but ultimately you're just wasting your breath. Cyberbob  Talk  18:17, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Same page:

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

This is one of those cases in which the spirit may be contrary to the wording of the policy. This is why sysops will vote on this case, and why appropriate arguments have been made. You'll notice there's also nothing to stop you ruling Not Vandalism or Not Misconduct on cases against yourself either by policy, but people have be reprimanded for this in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:26, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Really wish you'd stop using "nothing to stop you from doing X" as an argument when the guidelines here specifically allow. You're doing that shoehorning thing again. Cyberbob  Talk  18:34, 12 September 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - unless he was voting purely on a case where it was Cyberbob vs. J3D, he has every right to a ruling. If you ruled out every sysop that has an interest in the case, none of the A/VB actives would be eligible, because J3D has created idiot misconduct cases against pretty much every one of them (see below). Template:GTIOFW -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:41 13 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I don't specifically agree with this from a user point of view- but there remains to be seen a guideline that actually prohibits a sysop from voting in a case that they brought. In terms of Iscariot's question of "If it was such obvious vandalism, why did the sysop in question not wait for another user to bring the case?", no user, lest a sysop, should be obliged to not report vandalism for such political reasons, and such a mentality is counter-productive to the wiki. As a user I see the points of many of the above member's inputs, but without policy or precedent (and I mean proper precedent, not grey interpretations from A/M cases), there is nothing to say that a sysop shouldn't be able to rule on a case they've brought, lest vote. If you don't like it, I suggest someone make an amendment through A/PD to stop this happening. I'll even help out. But in the meantime, what Bob did is technically within his powers and the precedence is being set, now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:07, 13 September 2009 (BST)

I'm closing this case. No activity on it since my ruling, if no further ruling is made within 24 hours I'll archive this as Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:50, 15 September 2009 (BST)

August 2009 (2)

This edit where bob creates a case against a user who had made only one edit (see a/vb, talk:a/bp and the below a/m case). As he has stated himself he has no specific evidence that the user is a sockpuppet and only that it came from an exchange in Newcastle, NSW (see here. Yet in his report bob states that he has "pretty conclusive" evidence that the account is an alt from the "2 Special crowd". When he writes 2 Special bob is intentionally referring to the group 2 Cool in a derogatory manner.

2 Cool is made up of myself and User:Nallan. Bob has been told on several occasions and should be well aware I do not live in Newcastle or even remotely close to it. The fact that he implied that his super secret Checkuser info had me as a major suspect is utter rubbish and is a clear example of bob using sysop only powers (the right to see checkuser information) to further his personal vendetta against me by linking me to sockpuppet allegations. Not to mention that a/vb is certainly not the place to be throwing around defamatory names such as 2 Special in official reports.

This case is about cyberbob slandering my name without reason, and that is something that no user should have to undergo on official reports, by a sysop, regardless of the history between those 2 users. xoxo 05:17, 31 August 2009 (BST)

inb4 "OMG YOO SOW BUTTHURTZ LOLOLOL"--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

do agree though--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Boxy has put "official reports" on A/SD calling you 2 stoopid before, any user can make a vandal report, this is A/A material. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And for the fact you live in sydney, it's relevant to the case so just put it on there, as I am quite sure you have. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

dude, bother reading the case. It's about way more than just him calling 2 Cool 2 Special. It's about the fact that he uses information that for privacy reasons is withheld from the general community to imply i did something which he knows full well i didn't do, for no reason other than to make me look bad.--xoxo 05:26, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And yet you and Nick have admitted several times on the wiki that you two get together at each others houses and use the wiki, sometimes whilst drunk. I'm not surprised that Bob, being bob, included you as a suspect. I doubt you are surprised either. Paranoid, yes, but it's also understandable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

While they have admitted that, we have already established that the user Buzz Killington wouldnt be for the fun or usage of either of these two because they both voted differently on the Crat election, meaning that if they wanted to gain from this, they would have had more use just changing nick or jeds vote instead. Also, if they were at each others houses, the checkuser would match up with the users house they were staying at.--CyberRead240 05:35, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Making a 2 member wiki group called 2 cool with your IRL best friend and blindly supporting its ideals through thick and thin comes with consequences, one of which is being grouped with each other. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:38, 31 August 2009 (BST)

For different reasons (my distance, his vote for SA) neither of us is in reality a suspect, so why group us together as suspects? --xoxo 05:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Because he's paranoid, hence why he shouldn't have banned it, not why he should be A/M'd for anything else. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:50, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I've never used my account in newcastle and he has never used his here. We've been present while the other person editing the wiki. However bob specifically states 2 Cool as "pretty conclusively" the sockpuppeteers when one user lives 200km from the exchange in question and the other user voted against boxy. Clearly a personal vendetta when you consider a variety of users are not mentioned in the case, eg you. The fact of the matter is bob has no evidence as to who did it and to state that it is pretty conclusively this guy who lives 200km away or this guy who voted for SA is the very definition of harassment through administration and abuse of sysop powers.--xoxo 05:41, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Just throwing this out there, but I use my work computer and home computer to make edits on here. I live less than five miles from my work. I use the same internet provider at home that my work does as well, but for some reason, both show up as completely different IPs. My work IP shows that I'm at some place that's roughly 150 miles from where I actually am. I don't know about your IP situation, but that could possibly explain something. --DBHT 20:08, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly, If I was so inclined I could successfully prove I don't even live in Newcastle. My IP permanently traces back to the Sydney CBD. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:13, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Hahaha oh dear. You'll be lucky to dodge an A/VB case for this one Jed: "Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops. " Cyberbob  Talk  05:25, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You dick, you just posted information that doesn't help yourself? Harassment of a user through administration may result in Vandal Escalations, even sysops, is what you just said. You just used Checkuser and found someone in a different city to Jed, yet still posted his name as a suspect.......that is harrassment of a user on an administration page? Are you fucking retarded?--CyberRead240 05:28, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not to mention it is furthering a personal vendetta......--CyberRead240 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el Cyberbob  Talk  05:34, 31 August 2009 (BST)

u so crazy--CyberRead240 05:37, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob is from Australia.... And he has motive to frame 2 cool peepz, i.e. a history of feuding. So it's obvious he is a PRIME SUSPECT, in fact it just HAS to be him! Well... probably... In any event, BURN THE WITCH!!!!! Then call Scotland Yard, Watson.

The absurd logic above is the very same logic that cyberbob used on his A/VB decision. However, this Misconduct case is frivolous. --WanYao 06:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Perrsonal attacks are not a sysop power. Creating A/VB cases is not a sysop power. The first case may have had merit, this one does not.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:23, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct Tag, Bob you're it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:46, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - As above. -- Cheese 07:59, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Vandalism for making a petty harassing case, J3D. This case is as slanderous as the one you are bitching about. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:47, 2 September 2009 (BST)

So you are basically saying that the two cases are identical. So if it as as slanderous, you would vote vandalism on Bob then....You really are an idiot.--CyberRead240 05:41, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm saying that either this case is an exact repeat of what was posted below (and that would make it harassment) or it isn't a sysop only ability (wild accusations are usually left to the "community" though in regards to the sysop conspiracy) hence Not Misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't make any case against you, Jed or anyone else. You're pretty thick. Cyberbob  Talk  05:53, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You made the case against Buzz Killington and cited Jeds Group, whether or not you meant just Jed and Nick, or dA hOle BBk r-TaRDz is your own business, you didn't place a proper description on who you were saying was involved, only Jed and Nick, which it has been found that it is neither of them. You didn't need to name anybody, you could have just said it is a sockpuppet of another user, and left it at that. Instead, you named names incorrectly and it can definitely be perceived as slander. Admit it bob, you said it because it was another chance to show how witty you are by saying 2 Special instead of 2 Cool (LOL THEY'RE RETARDED I GEDDIT!) and a chance to go 1 up on Jed.--CyberRead240 06:00, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry that you're physically incapable of seeing the difference between actually making a case against a user and mentioning them in one. Cyberbob  Talk  06:02, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Putting technicalities aside, you thought that the user Buzz Killington was Jed or Nick.....therefore you are making a case against them....unless you didn't think it was them and you just decided to throw their names in to slander them? OH!--CyberRead240 06:09, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I was not making a case against them. If I was going to it would have been under its own heading. You're still (deliberately I suspect - that or you're just very good at convincing yourself) not seeing the difference. Cyberbob  Talk  06:23, 2 September 2009 (BST)

;) --CyberRead240 06:26, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Nice editing skillz Cyberbob  Talk  06:52, 2 September 2009 (BST)

also cheers for all-but-confirming that you guys are simply stirring shit. If this is found Not Misconduct I will be taking Jed to A/VB (for bringing the case) and you to A/A (for playing along and making things worse). Cyberbob  Talk  07:05, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Sorry but a sarcastic wink means all that now? U mad? I think this is misconduct, thats why I argued. The wink is because you are just going to fight to the death for the last word so I was ending the conversation. Why try to manipulate what I say just because you can? Wink meant end of convo. If you use it as anything else, you are twisting my emoticons.--CyberRead240 12:54, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Sexylegsread said:

Why try to manipulate what I say just because you can?

woah. --neo the matrix 13:04, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Dont pick around my posts for something that you can find, to make me look silly, just to try to validate your own argument. --CyberRead240 13:07, 2 September 2009 (BST)

pretend i did the same thing as my last comment except quoting your entire post Cyberbob  Talk  13:16, 2 September 2009 (BST)

last word--CyberRead240 13:26, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Stop ruling on non-existent crap and make the case against him then ;) --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:10, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I have before, but apparently to prove harassment it takes years of abuse. I'm just throwing this out here to remind people that J3D has a habit of making these petty cases and was one of the reasons behind the addition of the "sysop harassment" clause. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah but, that doesn't make every case he brings harassment. What in particular shows he knows it's not a case of misconduct to begin with? --Karek^maps?! 18:25, 2 September 2009 (BST)

The fact that J3D's major complaint is that his Rep was "damaged" by some random comment?

J3D said:

This case is about cyberbob slandering my name without reason

I agree with you, Karek. Every case he makes isn't harassment and sometimes he makes valid points. But then, so did Iscariot in the beginning. He is making this about his eRep and getting his feelings hurt. He wasn't banned (unless that is his account) and he wasn't A/VB'd. There is no civility policy and sysops aren't moderators. How many more cliches do we need thrown in to see that J3D (someone that always claims he doesn't care what anyone thinks of him) is acting hurt to stir up drama?--– Nubis ^NWO 20:31, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I tend to agree that this is J3D being a bit overdone in his victimhood.... However I do think Bob is going a bit far in naming names and revealing vaguely confidential info in this case.... Even sharing an IP address is not automatically Puppeting as it happens so easily. Hell one of the reasons my girlfriend doesn't play is cos we can't really co-operate as we share a house and thus an IP address. I know Bob didn't go as far as naming towns but still, suggesting guilt for living in the same town as someone else is a tad too much... especially when its public knowledge that these guys recruited heavily from their school/college! --Honestmistake 20:50, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Case closed as Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:26, 5 September 2009 (BST)

August 2009

For permabanning a user without cause. See the case here

If cyberbob can provide proof that the account was a sockpuppet, or if I am missing important facts, then this case will be withdrawn. However, at the time I am presenting this case, there have no such facts or any confirmation of the account being a sock. --WanYao 21:35, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Question: why wait until now to make this case? You've been editing all weekend. Cyberbob  Talk  22:28, 30 August 2009 (BST)

But to answer yours: we know the edit came from a town that a bunch of the other Australian editors either live in or visit regularly, the account made what-was-at-the-time the deciding vote on the bureaucrat election on Boxy as its first edit, and we know that this sort of thing has happened before (see Shakey60). We've permabanned for less, and I did make it rather clear on the A/VB case that if any other sysop thought I was wrong I would be more than happy for them to overrule. Sysops are allowed to rule on their own cases if they see them as being fairly open-and-shut, and have been overruled plenty of times without being Misconducted for it.
It would be extremely funny if every sysop turned out here now and voted Misconduct on me (or whatever) because the case has been up for a good while and they have had ample time to overturn the ruling. Almost every other active sysop has made a number of edits in that time; any one of them could have simply voted Not Vandalism on the case and that would've been that. But hey, I'm not really expecting anything else because staying silent when it counts is what sysops do best! Cyberbob  Talk  22:44, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This is pretty petty, Wan.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:53, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This case is anything BUT petty. It has all the appearance of a sysop misusing his powers by prematurely permabanning a user on wholly circumstantial evidence. Bob didn't wait for any other sysops to pipe in before banning the user, either, he just went ahead with the perma. If he'd waited before slamming the ban hammer, there'd have been no case... If anything is "petty", it's your accusation of my pettiness, YK.

As for why I waited... Well, I don't stalk every page of the wiki 24/7... Besides, don't you think it was better that I waited, bob? You always complain about me being "reactionary" and such shyte. So wasn't it a good thing for me give you and other sysops some time to offer up a reponse to A/VB case? Come on, old mate, show some consistency here!! --WanYao 01:10, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Furthermore, check the date stamp, cyberbob. The case has NOT been up for even 2 days. Not everyone stalks to the wiki 24/7 like you, you know... As for the vote being the deciding one, what would have stopped you from backing off on making a final decision until after the VB case had gone through the proper channels? That wouldn't have been a big issue, I'd think... You should have waited until at least one other sysop chimed in.As it is, it appears like you were trying to influence the election -- in favour of one of your buddies, and against users with whom you have a running conflict. Whether or not this is true, it still has the appearance of such... And as a trusted user you ought to be intelligent and prudent enough to avoid such appearances of bias. Sorry if these critiques bug you or something... but they're totally valid. --WanYao 01:20, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A BLOO BLOO BLOO CONSPIRACY EVERYWHERE ALL AROUND US EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY Cyberbob  Talk  02:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Sorry but the argument that a sysop should be handicapped based purely on whichever users are involved in something (assuming no conflict of interest obviously) is totally ridiculous. Cyberbob  Talk  02:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Typically mature attitude there. Respond to a very serious, and unfortunately very well-founded allegation with idiocy...

Anyway... The argument goes exactly like this: your hands should be tied if there is a potential conflict of interest. That's why it's called a "conflict of interest", old chap.

Now... maybe you're feeling a little... persecuted? Well... Maybe that's because you're doing things that attract attention to yourself? You do a lot of work for the wiki, sure. But so do a lot of other people. And the work you do doesn't make the wiki your personal playground where you can just do as you please, ignoring and bending rules and codes of conduct like Hagnat on methadone. Because that's how you treat the wiki: your own personal sandbox. And any and every user who doesn't agree with you, who challenges the things you do in what you think is your little sandbox, you insult and berate like the petulant, troll-child you are. Well the act is getting mighty stale, Cyberbob. Mighty stale. --WanYao 04:43, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Meth is bad, mmkay. You wont be able to drink alcohol, so whats the point ? Try Vicodin, all the cool guys are doing it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:53, 31 August 2009 (BST)

:D --WanYao 05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - To be honest, I haven't made up my mind on whether or not Cyberbob was right in this case but I do believe that it isn't misconduct. He acted, in his opinion, in the best interests of the wiki and I don't believe it was a delibrate abuse of power. An incorrect ruling does not necessarily make it misconduct. I have, however, unbanned Buzz Killington pending input from the other sysops.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:03, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - Since when do we ban users because their IP comes from the same city as a three-man clique and a two-year disbanded group? You banned it as a sockpuppet despite its IP being independent of any known user and because you banned it after its first edit you didn't even give it a chance to prove that it wasn't a meatpuppet, by letting it edit other parts of the wiki. I know you didn't act with that intention in mind but I still think you acted too quickly in blaming the 2 cool clique (or even the 'clique' of an entire city). Obviously the account is ridiculously suspect it deserved to be on A/VB, I just don't agree with you assuming bad faith and banning a user on mere speculations. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I don't think you should be ruling on this case for the same reason you didn't rule on the A/VB case. You have a pretty obvious conflict of interest here, being probably the most likely user to have done it if it was a sockpuppet. Cyberbob  Talk  02:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Also, you say I didn't act with bad intentions in mind but rush on to say that that doesn't matter, and that the fact that I mentioned my belief of one of you guys being the person behind it is what makes this misconduct? Lol. If I was seriously into "blaming" anyone I would have put them up on A/VB too. It was just idle speculation, nothing more and it had little to do with anything except giving you guys an excuse to cry about it. Cyberbob  Talk  02:49, 31 August 2009 (BST)

"You guys". Here you go grouping me with 2 Cool and saying I shouldn't rule, because according to your theory, which you banned the user on, this user was most likely me accessing an account from someone elses house? It's all bullshit, Cyberbob, and read the ruling. You assumed bad faith and banned a user with no evidence to support it being a sockpuppet. Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:54, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You agreed not to rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, did you not? Yes you did. Cyberbob  Talk  02:56, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A case related to the unbanning of a user, and a case related to your actions in banning the user are two different things. Don't get me wrong. I want the user's vote on A/BP struck and banned if a sockpuppet. But at the moment none of us know who the hell this user is and neither do you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

It's all the same issue DDR, and you have just as big a conflict of interest in this case as you do in the A/VB case. Cyberbob  Talk  03:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I would be if I was any way affiliated with this account, but I'm afraid being in the same city as someone does not actually make them the same person. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

See I would back down here but your position here is invalidated by the fact that you were happy to not rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, as has been said. Cyberbob  Talk  03:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Again, you're twisting what happened and what's been said. I've already explained that I'm ruling on your handling of the case rather than what should have been the outcome of it, the latter of which is a matter of A/VB and is what, as a suspect, I was obliged to follow. Ruling on how you handled the case makes no difference to me either way, there's nothing I could gain from agreeing or disagreeing with it, whereas, as a suspect, there is hypothetically a goal in reversing a ban of a sockpuppet I created. Either way, I'll accept an invalidation of my vote if the sysops deem it necessary. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct As The General...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST) Unsigned "vote" struck. --WanYao 04:47, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Incredible. Cyberbob  Talk  04:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, quite... incredible, that is! That a sysop forgot to sign their vote. Well, as long as they come back and sign and stamp their vote properly, where's the problem? Nowhere! So... you can stop your frothing, Cyberbob, everything will be ok. --WanYao 05:14, 31 August 2009 (BST)

stop your frothing cyberbob *posts many hundreds of paranoid and self-righteous words* Cyberbob  Talk  05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

No paranoia. Just a straightforward presentation of facts and arguments. It's not my fault you can't follow sentences containing more than 4 words. Perhaps the ritalined-up troll-child will learn to read one day. Perhaps. --WanYao 06:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el a bloo bloo --xoxo 07:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

May I congratulate you Wan on becoming the wikimedia darling for obtuseness and self directed feigned ignorance. What happened was obvious and your bias is showing, and not helping your case at all as you now appear even more juvenile... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I found it funny- demonstrates your attitude to addressing a case- run in becuase your watchlist beeps you (you probably have 5 pages on it, right? All admin drama nests?), skim through (at leased I would assume), then make the quickest ruling possible, don't even bother double checking it, and then don't even come back to the case to see how people have responded (even if it may be something as simple as striking your fail ruling). Nice. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:03, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Ahh, shit, I forgot. You must have been ultra-busy with IRL stuff, right? Busy studying or perfecting your extensive knowledge of 'most elaborate court system on the planet' and 'learning to become a teacher' and stuffs, eh? I shouldn't have held my breath. People as brilliant as you shouldn't waste your time here when they are 'busy getting a life'. Oh, all of a sudden I'm jealous. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:08, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Fucking yes. Highlights the reason why Conn shouldnt even be here. Check the IP, if its within 18,000ks of Bob its probably his sockpuppet.--CyberRead240 15:06, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You mean I've stolen the prize for boneheadedness from you, Conn???! Anyway, I didn't know whose vote that was I struck because I didn't bother to look at the page history, so drop the bias schtick. Meanwhile, I wonder how many unsigned votes you've struck on your watch, as a matter of course, Conn? Next time, sign just your fucking vote properly. --WanYao

WanYao said:

Next time, sign just your fucking vote properly. --WanYao (No timestamp)

I'll cry if that wasn't a joke. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:17, 31 August 2009(BST)

Why would it have been a joke? I'd already said:

WanYao said:

Well, as long as they come back and sign and stamp their vote properly, where's the problem? Nowhere!

The vote been properly signed and now there's no issue. Time to move along. --WanYao 14:38, 31 August 2009 (BST)

ahahaha you're just too special. Check out how you signed your last post. The one where you told Conn to sign properly? Cyberbob  Talk  14:56, 31 August 2009 (BST)

:/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:10, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Here comes the part where half the sysop team is inactive until this boils over because they are too afraid of making a decision. I can see boxy making a ruling but thats about it.--CyberRead240 05:50, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Borkay, after reading up on this, it seems clear that Cyberbob wasn't acting in bad faith, nor abusing his power as sysop. He had good reason to believe that buzz was a sockpuppet. And there is precedent for banning socks without naming the puppet master. Having said that, cyberbob probably should have just left it open for a couple of days instead of playing banhammer whack a mole. But from where this sailor sits, it shouldn't be misconduct.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:23, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Lucky for us this sailor got raped by pirates weeks ago. Seriously though, Butthurt aside, permabanning a sockpuppet for being in a 162 km radius of two users (or three, if you count that one of the 3 suspects moved there 2 weeks ago) isn't out of line, is it? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:28, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Where does cyberbob live, anyway? Seeing as he's Australian... and has a hate-on for the users he accuses of sockpuppeting... motive, opportunity and potential proximity to the scene of the crime... that's enough for cyberbob be a prime suspect -- well, by his own logic anyway... --WanYao 00:51, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Melbourne, 1000km (like 600 miles or something you, to quote cyberbob, "amerifags")or so from syd/newcastle.--xoxo 01:49, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Dunno why you're attributing 4chan language to me when I've said repeatedly that I don't visit there and haven't for almost forever. Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

LMAO. Just when I thought you couldn't get any stupider, Wan. Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As DDR said, there was no conclusive evidence that Buzz Killington is a sock of either Jed, Nick or Read (or DDR as some of the discussion here appears to suggest) and as a result, you should have just raised your suspicions on VB and we would have given our opinions. Things like this are usually always brought up there, unilateral action and assuming bad faith are counter-productive. -- Cheese 07:56, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct He has the right to make the case and assign the punishment that is given for the infraction.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:42, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You certainly are pretty fucking dim, aren't you? There was no infraction, or perhaps you'd care to explain to us what it was? Sometimes you can make me cry Nubis. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:00, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Chill, DDR, sigh. Anyway... Nubis: permabanning a user without any legit evidence, and without any discussion with the other sysops... And doing so where there is a conflict of interest, i.e. a feud with the users accused of socking, as well as a possible vested interest in the outcome of the 'crat elections. I'd really like to understand how you just write this off as "standard procedure", Nubis. --WanYao 05:06, 2 September 2009 (BST)

First, it just happened to be a suspected sockpuppet account of that crew. If this had been a goon sockpuppet that was banned would there be this much bitching (except from the goons)? Second, in the past when sysops have not "pulled the trigger" on sockpuppet/3 edit vandals people bitch (I know this from experience). Third, he was acting within his rights as a sysop. Now if you can show me evidence that he let sockpuppet votes for other sysops go I will change my vote to misconduct in a heartbeat. It's happened before where sysops only struck certain votes when there was evidence that votes on the other side were just as shady (see the Goon's Meat Puppet Policy). --– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Oh Gawd that reasoning cant be for real...This just shows what little integrity most of the Sysop team has these days. The infraction, Nubis, has since been found to be incorrect. At the very least, Bob should be facing a ban for the amount of time he banned Buzz Killington for. If the sysop team, besides Charlie and Cheese who seem to be able to make decisions based on merit, and not on who is their FrAnDz these days, would grow a set and start banning and misconducting each other, maybe we wouldn't have this inferiority complex on the wiki that drives fresh users away. I ask you Nubis, did you even read all the cases involved to put the pieces together? Or did you just see the names of the people involved, read the first line and do your usual drivel of making a half assed attempt at an important vote. You're retarded, is what I am saying.--CyberRead240 05:46, 2 September 2009 (BST)

u mad? Cyberbob  Talk  05:55, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah, because you probably wont get stung for something you have done wrong. Highlights everything wrong with a place I once enjoyed.--CyberRead240 06:02, 2 September 2009 (BST)

That's just like, your opinion, man. Cyberbob  Talk  06:03, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, however the opinion to say Not Misconduct is held by those sysops who are seemingly all butt buddies.--CyberRead240 06:07, 2 September 2009 (BST)

That's just like, your opinion, man. Cyberbob  Talk  06:53, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Would just like to point out that the infraction has not actually yet been "found to be incorrect". I merely unbanned Buzz Killington until the case is resolved and everyone seems to be set on avoiding making a ruling on the case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:37, 2 September 2009 (BST)

You obviously don't understand that the infraction is "non existant", he banned a user because it made one edit and fell within a cities radius of Nallan and myself. And SLR who moved there a week and a half ago. Nonsensical, yes? You're just grouping yourself further with Conn and Nubis with the "Rule now, read case later" approach. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:14, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Until we have a better system to verify accounts than checkuser we have to use what we have. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

dont be mad, its just the internet silly Cyberbob  Talk  12:29, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I know I'm being mad but GGRRRRRRRRRR WTF --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:32, 2 September 2009 (BST)

I'm merely pointing out a technicality that the case hasn't actually been decided as Not Vandalism yet. That was the only point I was making (and I admit that it doesn't make much difference).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:43, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Wrong. As it stands, the only sysop with the balls to address properly the vandalism case in question is boxy -- who just voted "Not Vandalism". --WanYao 18:56, 2 September 2009 (BST)

Firstly, that wasn't the case when I made the original comment. Secondly, Boxy's "Not Vandalism" vote tallies against the implicit "Vandalism" vote made by Cyberbob.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:20, 2 September 2009 (BST)

So if boxy thinks not vandalism, why hasn't he voted here yet....--CyberRead240 04:04, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism doesn't neccessarily imply Misconduct. You are silly. Cyberbob  Talk  07:32, 3 September 2009 (BST)

moreso, he is active, so why has he neglected to vote on this. You are sillier?--CyberRead240 07:59, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Oh, thought you were saying "blah de blah why hasn't he turned up to vote Misconduct if he thought it was Not Vandalism". Sorry.
I don't know for sure why he hasn't voted on this one yet, but from his comments on the vandalism case I would assume it's because he doesn't want to get involved unless it's absolutely neccessary (due to Buzz's vote being on him). Cyberbob  Talk  08:09, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Yeah but everyone is involved in the crat elections if they voted on either SA or Boxy, so I guess that would rule out everyone....tbh I think sysops are chosen as sysops because they are deemed to be able to act objectively when needed, and I think most people have the confidence in Boxy to act accordingly--CyberRead240 08:29, 3 September 2009 (BST)

Lead by example. --WanYao 10:09, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I must confess, I don't follow your logic. Cyberbob  Talk  10:16, 3 September 2009 (BST)

FTR, I believe that the account is indeed very suspicious, and some action was warranted (I don't want such a vote pushing me over the line), however a ban was a step too far -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:38 3 September 2009 (BST)

What would you have done instead? Cyberbob  Talk  10:47, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I think it has been established that you should have just put the account up for vandalism and alerted the other sysops before it was too late to strike the vote. I'm sure DDR was around at the time--CyberRead240 11:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

If you put the account up for vandalism for being a sockpuppet vote you are supposed to ban it since that's what you do to sockpuppets that vote... You can't strike the vote, say it is struck for being a suspected sockpuppet then allow the account to remain.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:02, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I didn't ask you. Cyberbob  Talk  11:17, 3 September 2009 (BST)

I don't know... we're still to work through what to do about votes on important wiki issues that are strongly suspected of being meatpuppetry, since Kevan made it pretty clear he didn't want them affecting the running of the wiki... that's why I'm still not voting misconduct here. It's pretty clear that something had to be done, and there's no clear precedent for it yet, you used your best judgment, and were open to be overruled -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:12 3 September 2009 (BST)

OK, that's reasonable. Cyberbob  Talk  11:17, 3 September 2009 (BST)

It's been here some days without activity, it's safe to say case closed as Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:27, 5 September 2009 (BST)

July 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time. --WanYao 05:12, 17 July 2009 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give.

It.

A.

Fucking.

Rest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Header

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

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

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

No, but "excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct" is.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:19, 17 July 2009 (BST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No he doesn't. This case is a stalemate (4 nm/4m,) with one sysop (DDR) saying that his vote was very close to being misconduct. Hardly a blank check. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Closing Header

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add spamming A/VB with petty cases which, in spite of his protestations to the contrary, sure as hell looked personally motivated to an unbiased outsider. And add spamming Deletions with those requestions for the deletion of "pornographic" images... Again -- in spite of his claims to the contrary -- any reasonable person would see his behavior as trying to get the goat of people like me and Zombie Lord, who were on his ass at time. These actions did not use sysop powers, but they can easily be seen as falling under the "bullying" and using sysop-ish-ness as a "badge of authority" section of the Misconduct policy. --WanYao 06:22, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Oh... and unilaterally changing the A/VB 3rd party comment rule/box then acting on that one-man decision -- an excessive number of times. And for the most part singling out and targeting his "enemies" and critics in those vandal cases. --WanYao 06:24, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Ah yes forgot those.--xoxo 07:27, 20 July 2009 (BST)

If you want each of Bob's "crimes" to be treated separately create multiple cases so sysops can vote on them separately. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:17, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No.

They are presented together in order to establish a clear pattern of behavior, as required by the Misconduct policy. Compartmentalising cyberbob's individual acts of lunacy just waters down the obvious big picture. I refuse. --WanYao 14:05, 20 July 2009 (BST)

As we have learned from Grim and Iscariot, it takes more than this to show a "clear pattern" of bullying. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)

That's too bad. Ah well, whatever. --WanYao 15:36, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Wan, laconic in defeat? Hmmm if I didn't know better I'd say you have something up your sleeve...some kind of "backup plan", if you will... --Cyberbob 15:47, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I will.--xoxo 13:50, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Not to mention all of these have been taken into account and the rulings stand. You have already made your points above and now you are just all repeating yourselves. Deal with what the sysops vote on, please. This case will be closed this evening. Unless, of course, another sysop adds a ruling. --ϑϑℜ 06:49, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Alright, It's had its time, cased closed as Not Misconduct (as a draw between the sysop votes). --ϑϑℜ 14:11, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Damn DDR. I was going to do that >:(. But yeah, please be careful in future Bob. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:13, 20 July 2009 (BST)

i reckon we should demote the cunt--CyberRead240 14:37, 21 July 2009 (BST)