UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy Monkey/2010

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Krazy Monkey » 2010

24 May

Long time lurker, first time poster. Ok so way back last year a group of mine called amnesia was deleted. I complained. It wasn't restored on the grounds that it wasn't clear enough it was a groups page. But i was told if i remade the page as a clear group page that'd be fine. I did so and all was well until DDR was bored and in march decided a page that he said he was fine with having recreated [posted it on a/sd and judging by his comment drama seeking was most likely his motivation, but lets not go there.

Anyway no criteria is cited however if we try and read between the lines of ddrs post it seems he's putting it forward as a deletion work around. This is clearly invalid given that when i recreated it both him and bob approved of it as valid given that it was now a group page.

Basically i don't really care if cheese gets punished but i want my group restored, my groups template given back its link and my groups redirect fixed. Gracias. xoxo 12:49, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Oh yeah its obvs but i forgot to mention its misconduct coz he speedied something that didn't meet any of the crits since the disused group crit carked it. he also didn't cite what crit it was in the log or on a/sd so yeah. xoxo 12:53, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Correct English. That is all. --Thadeous Oakley 13:40, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Basically, from what I can tell, you made the page twice, and both times it could be classified as Crit 1 (I'd have felt more comfortable having it go through Deletions, I think, just to get some more opinions), thus, Cheese acted responsibly in speedy deleting it. DDR told you that it wouldn't be a Crit 6 if, when you made it again, you changed it to be an actual group page, with the assumption being that you'd flesh it out like, you know, an actual group page. You didn't, however, since it looks to me like you merely copy/pasted the group template and added one other one. So I can see where he was coming from in thinking that it was a Crit 6 as well, since your lack of substantial addition to the page could easily appear to be a thinly veiled attempt at circumventing the previous deletion.

As for your demands, it sounds to me like A/U is where you want to go. If you do actually follow DDR's advice and make an actual group page (rather than merely slapping on the trimmings of one), it won't be a Crit 1 or a Crit 6 any longer. —Aichon— 21:49, 24 May 2010 (BST)

One - Ha! i tried A/U last time to little effect. 2 - plz point me to this guidelines for an actual group page. The group is called amnesia ffs it was never going to have a 4000 word essay on the group on it. Its my group, i want it back! it was deleted for nooo reason apart from cheese submitting to ddr's drama stirring. If it had of A/D-ed i'd be pissed but this wouldn't be misconduct (obvs). Just because the submitter is a crat/sysop/prominant user (cbf looking up what it was at the time) doesn't mean cheese should just go ahead. Some basic research would have shown it was a case for deletions not a/sd. not cool. xoxo 12:23, 25 May 2010 (BST)

Not misconduct - many group pages with no meaningful content, nor evidence of any members whatsoever, get deleted... Crit 12 by proxy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:45 25 May 2010 (BST)

ah k. so its not a crit anymore so just push crit 12s through on other crits. makes sense. cunt. xoxo 08:23, 28 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah. WTF at poor reasoning, all you had to say box was that it was deletion workaround (which i correctly showed in the deletion request and cited accordingly), why has everyone forgotten this? --

 

 

 

 

08:36, 28 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct I can't believe how long it took me to work this out. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:48, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Only just realised I hadn't posted.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:51, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduc - Page was deleted under valid criteria. 11:16, 1 June 2010 (BST)

Closed as Not Misconduct --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:17, 1 June 2010 (BST)

23 May

As below I have proven that Woot had not broken any rules but Krazy Monkey had terminated Woot's sysop nomination. He did this as a sysop and reported Woot. If he had done this as a member it would be a VandalBan case but since he did this as a sysop it is Miscontribution.

--Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:24, 23 May 2010 (BST)

He used no sysop powers in doing that, as such this isn't misconduct. This was already explained to you, but evidently without enough pretty pictures. 21:33, 23 May 2010 (BST)

We already ruled on this case a few days ago and almost everything you said in your above comment was outright incorrect. —Aichon— 21:37, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Sexy, sexy precedents:

• Removed early due to not meeting criteria
• Removed early again due to not meeting criteria
• Removed early due to being ruled as vandalism
• Removed early due to being ruled as vandalism

WOOT has posted a grand total of 5 promotions bids and in none of them has he provided any decent reasons as to why he should be a sysop. The past 3 have been ruled to be vandalism. He really needs to stop this. If wants to be a sysop, he should actually start trying instead of posting stupid half arsed paragraphs about faggots and cocks. -- Cheese 22:36, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Already ruled Not Misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:48 23 May 2010 (BST)

19 May

Some dumb faggot deleted my sysops bid for no reason what so ever. Then all his sysops buttbuddies came to his defense and were mean to me. Being mean to another member of the community is a bannable offense now right? Anyway, restore my bid. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:15, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Ruled as vandalism a good enough reason for you? -- Cheese 20:28, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Verdict Undefined Not quite ruled as vandalism... Someone dropped the ball here.-- #99 ^DCC 02:02, 20 May 2010 (BST)

I think we're just waiting until we decide what to do with him before we fill it in, but the verdict is already defined by the votes there, and it's pretty clear what it is. —Aichon— 02:55, 20 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct Misconduct#Administrative_Abilities he used none of his special sysop powers. Bing. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:34, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct Go outside for a while, man. Smell the flowers, smell a dog, just find something better to do with your time. 20:37, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Dogs smell funny, not to mention outside is overrated --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:52, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Not a power, anyone could have moved it, and it had been ruled vandalism.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:39, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Why is it spam? I want to be a sysops. So I put in a bid. After that, I wrote my reasoning for wanting to be a sysops. Why the fuck is that spam? Lots of people do it.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:50, 19 May 2010 (BST)

They usually meet the qualifications. Come back when you 500 edits in the last 6 months. --Thadeous Oakley 21:31, 19 May 2010 (BST)

Or have a vouch from a sysop, preferably, based on what the guidelines say. —Aichon— 22:02, 19 May 2010 (BST)

"They usually" Read that carefully. It doesn't say "They have to have x or else you get banned for spamming."--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:42, 19 May 2010 (BST)

We have been over this before, you have to meet the qualifications before you can even be evaluated by the community. The reason this is vandalism by spamming is because this isn't the first time you put up a bid that isn't according to the rules. You have been warned several times beforehand. --Thadeous Oakley 07:59, 20 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - He removed a vandal edit. Simple as that, and anyone could have done it, so no use of his sysop powers was had. —Aichon— 22:02, 19 May 2010 (BST)

So far, that's 4 not misconducts to 0 misconducts - So, if we're going to get a ruling of misconduct, Boxy, SA, Red hawk, Rooster, and more importantly cheese would have to come and rule misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:01, 20 May 2010 (BST)

Just close this case, alreit? --Thadeous Oakley 08:16, 20 May 2010 (BST)

Archived -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:49 20 May 2010 (BST)

13 February

On 11 February 2010 at 05:50 Cheese deleted a page. This page was currently up for deletion with a keep vote on it. Cheese made no note of this deletion on either A/D or A/SD.

DDR challenged him on his talk page and he responded with:

"I had it marked on my watchlist from a while back and noticed it had been recreated with rubbish on it so I deleted it as a crit 6 on sight. =/ Never realised it was even on deletions. -- Cheese 20:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)"

Pages that fit the speedy deletion criteria are required to be noted on A/SD, especially after all the drama we had over Nubis going around deleting anything she/he/it wanted. Pages with a keep vote may not be speedily deleted and are instead moved to A/D for a two voting period.

Pages that fit a scheduled deletion criteria are not required to be noted on either deletion page, crit 6 has never passed as a scheduled deletion.

The only other way this page could have been deleted is if it was a vandal contribution. There was no vandal banning case open about the creator and his previous case makes no mention of this page being an act of vandalism.

We have therefore established that there is no way for this page to have been correctly deleted. It could not have been speedily deleted as there was a keep vote on the open deletion case. It could not have been deleted as per a scheduled deletion as crit 6 is no a scheduled criteria. It could not have been deleted as the result of vandalism as there has been no ruling of vandalism against the page.

This page was improperly deleted. Cheese is guilty of misconduct. This is not the first time he has committed misconduct by deleting things according to his whim without going through the established processes.

I quote Cheese himself on a previous misconduct case over deleting pages inappropriately:

"Misconduct - The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules. It's not the first time you've done it either."

He didn't take heed of his last warning, so there's little point doing it again, and he's never here for a ban to actually do anything to him. However the act was misconduct, so we have to have this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From the deletion criteria: A page that fits this criterion is immediately qualified for deletion without requiring it be nominated on the 'Speedy Deletions' page. Like I said to DDR, the page was on my watchlist, I noticed it had been re-created so I deleted it. Didn't realise it was on either deletions or speedy deletions and if I had, I wouldn't have touched it. "and he's never here for a ban to actually do anything to him." And the fact that I've spent a decent chunk of the past few months up to my eyeballs in uni work is reason to get snarky because...? =/ -- Cheese 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to quote the entire criteria so that you aren't deceiving the boys and girls?

"6. Deletion Workaround: The page is a duplicate of a page that has been deleted from a previous deletion request (please note the relevant deletion request if this is so). A page that fits this criterion is immediately qualified for deletion without requiring it be nominated on the 'Speedy Deletions' page. Recreating a page that fits this criterion will get you a polite message to stop doing so. Any further infractions of this nature will qualify as vandalism and will be treated as such. Note that criterion 6 does not apply when the page has been restored through Undeletions. "

Emphasis added.

Now, very simple question, was the page as you deleted it a duplicate? That is, an exact copy, or was it a page that happened to share the same name as a previously deleted page and actually had different content?

Did you even take the time to fulfil the rest of the criteria and leave a note on the talk page of the user doing the recreation? Or were you just acting like Nubis? I don't see you in the history of his talk page....

I'll quote you again: "The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules. It's not the first time you've done it either." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not misconduct - it was a terrible page last time it was legitimately deleted, this time even more so. Crit 6 pages are deletable on sight. Common sense should be used if the page is created for a different purpose to the original deletion, but when it is created with simply a message that the original author hates whoever deleted it, then no further discussion needs to be entered into. Nuke it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:00 14 February 2010 (BST)

Would have liked to see Izzy magically warned for shitting up A/D with nonsensical, troublemaking votes. Having said that, Misconduct. I don't find Cheese's actions to have fulfilled the criteria 6, which would have made this fine and dandy. If you actually had intended it to qualify as a C6 you would have notified the user of his wrongdoing, which should be done according to the criteria, or even made some sort of record of the deletion. Also, as he openly admitted on his talk (and on here), "Didn't realise it was on either deletions or speedy deletions and if I had, I wouldn't have touched it.". Well, The {{delete}} template was on it the whole time, so there is no real excuse there. --

 

 

 

 

10:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - The guy knew it had been deleted but didn't check A/D or A/SD? Bullshit. Cyberbob  Talk  10:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct recreation of a legally deleted page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this'll be closed as Not Misconduct. Will archive within the day. --

 

 

 

 

01:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)