UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2009-02-06 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2009-02-06 Misconduct

6 February 2009

Clearly showed on SA's talk page that he's fine with SA's current sig which is just as repetitive as reads, and actually violates the sig policy by linking to another user. Read never reverted his sig to it's previous form, always altering it and engaged in discussion to see how he could fit it in to make all users happy, this he didn't actually need to do as at no point did his sig violate policy. Instead of having this chance he was banned by hagnat, twice. Now a user boxy likes comes along and does the same thing, however he is given a chance to alter his sig and is even allowed to remain with a policy violating sig. Boxy is showing clear bias towards someone he is chummy with which is not ok for a trusted user.

From this i want read's ban reverted and hagnat misconducted for issuing a ban against someone for doing something that boxy has clearly demonstrated he feels is okay. Failing that i want to see SA alter his sig so that it is not repetitive, long or linking to Nubis. Either way boxy should be warned to demonstrate the community will not tolerate bias in its sysops.--xoxo 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First Response

This isn't arbies J3d. If Boxy is guilty of Misconduct he'll be judged so and any punishment therein will be to affect Boxy exclusively. If you beleive the Nubis/SA sig to be vandalism you'll have to address that there. As of this moment I beleive the actions to be questionable but won't rule either way until I've seen some discussion on the issue. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed those spaces, but them back if you want them but i didn't see why they were there...i don't think the sig is vandalism, however by boxy showing he is aware of the sig and not reporting it he is saying he thinks SAs and by extension reads sigs are both fine. Classic catch 22.--xoxo 05:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. In both cases, the person reverting the sig did the same thing, fixed a sig that was a significantly confusing to others, and asked the person with the offending sig not to do it again. Reads response was to make his sig shorter, but still with the same level of confusion... only after he had been escalated and taken to A/VB did Read decide to make his user page link easy to find amongst the other junk links. Angels first response was to bold the link to his user page so that it stood out from the rest of the sig. If Angels first response was further use of his obviously, and deliberately confusing sig, my next stop would indeed have been A/VB.
What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour. He gets in A/VB trouble more often, not because I'm out to "get him", but because of his actions in deliberately seeking out such drama -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:22 6 February 2009 (BST)

If you admit that Read willingly changed to make it clear it was him signing once it was apparently most of the community found it confusing then why exactly did you support him being banned for a week? --xoxo 07:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Because he only did it after it got sent to A/VB. He was being a totally unreasonable wikilawyer up to that point. Too late being reasonable, showing his bad faith -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:32 6 February 2009 (BST)

It seems likely to me read not unreasonably thought you were targeting him and thus was reluctant to change his sig substantially, the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing. Then he tried to change it but was banned before he was given a proper chance as per the sig policy. The point is the basic right of one week to get it in line afforded to SA was not afforded to read. Furthermore you seem to think the line for what is okay for each of them is totally different, hence bias.--xoxo 08:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

J3D don't be a fucking retard: the a/vb case drew his attn to the fact that the community as a whole thought it was too confusing the case was posted by Hagnuts not some random member of the community complaining about about it. It was posted by a sysop that decided he wanted to ban him over it and then did so. If some random schmuck had posted the case and a few people said "yeah, his sig bugs me" then your comment would be true. -- #99 ^DCC 08:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SA didn't get a week to change it, I did it immediately on the promotions page, and then within minutes he'd made his userpage link stand out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:04 6 February 2009 (BST)

What's missing here is the relevance of the previous case which shows him exactly what is up to the standard. You assuming SA was simply more reasonable shining Read in a worse light because he had less information, information that arises directly from the case you're disparaging him for. --Karek^maps?! 08:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this merde. If Read's sig is "broken", so is SA's. I think that's a reasonable consistency to expect. However, there is/has been a HUGE difference in attitude and behavior between SLR and SA. The latter was trolling, pure and simple... the boy has a history of doing such thing... and that's why he was "picked on" and "singled out"... But if you think SA's sig is out of line, J3D, then report it to VB. Kay? --WanYao 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And that right there is the huge difference between SA's case and Read's. Read was actually reported to VB. SA was not.

J3D, I sympathize with you. I clearly think Read's ban was misconduct and he should have been given the full week to change his sig regardless of his actions. However, boxy isn't doing anything "wrong" here that involves his sysop powers, therefor no misconduct case. No one reported SA on A/VB so he wasn't being biased in a decision. If anything he may have been negligent by not reporting him, except that that isn't misconduct any more than not reporting vandalism is vandalism.

You should have made a VB case and watched to see how he ruled before leaping here to A/M.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"You should have made a VB case and watched to see how he ruled". Nice work from a sysop, encouraging people to file cases that they don't believe to be vandalism, simply to "catch out" sysops. That's the definition of a petty A/VB case, Nubis... and just so you know, I would have ruled vandalism in a heart beat on SA's initial edit, where he included your deliberately confusing sig. But no one brought the case to VB... and I always take vandalism to people's talk pages first, if I believe them to be open to rational discussion on the issue -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:08 11 February 2009 (BST)

Ok. Misconduct by gross negligence point made. Biased behavior towards users committing the same act of vandalism. If SLR's sig was vandalism that was voted such and the ban upheld then SA's would have been even more so. Should a case be made against Cheese since he posted on that page also and didn't report the sig or can we just tack him onto this one?

I was trying to give you an out and encourage users to follow procedure, but your comment made me realize that (like SLR) you have a history that should be considered in this case and therefor warrants special treatment. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruling struck, but not reversed.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So it's misconduct now when a poster (who happens to be a sysop) follows the A/VB page guidelines, and negotiates an outcome on the user's talk page before taking it to A/VB? Noice -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:28 13 February 2009 (BST)

No, dipshit. It's misconduct when you are an ass to a guy that was trying to cut you a break and not vote on the case. You're fucking lucky that all this vote does is cancel out Conn's. Get one of your butt buddies in here to vote not misconduct on this shit and move on. Can you be anymore of a self righteous prick? Nubis kept saying there were no sysop powers used but then you got all indignant. You shouldn't have fucking replied with your snarky little oh, look a sysop encouraging petty cases bullshit..-- #99 ^DCC 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Got it... shut up and be nice to people you want to vote not misconduct on your cases. KK -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:37 13 February 2009 (BST)

And while I'm fucking at it, why didn't SLR get the "negotiation" period? You voted Hag's case not misconduct and he didn't follow the rules of A/VB. Cry me a fucking river.-- #99 ^DCC 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He did get the same treatment as I gave SA (Hagnat posted on his talk page after reverting the sig), the difference is that he decided to put back basically the same confusing sig (only shorter) instead of changing it to make it obvious whose sig it was. The cases couldn't have received treatment that was any more similar -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:37 13 February 2009 (BST)

The reason that isn't an option for me is that i believe the 2 sigs are very similar and that neither are vandalism. As boxy thinks the first one was vandalism i would expect him to think the same of the second, hence this case and not A/VB.--xoxo 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, even if SA had been reported he would have only gotten a warning.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"What J3D sees as bias caused by me, is in fact a bias caused by Read's behaviour." - Admission of bias. There should be no bias for or against any user on this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're one to talk about being biased! You have zero trust in the sysop team based on their past actions and even when they attempt to defuse the situation with you, you just can't let the past go. And if you attempt to come back at me with the they're trusted users, we must hold them to higher standards bullshit, then you will just acknowledge your bias.--SirArgo ^Talk 08:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias doesn't just mean the way you behave towards users that don't kiss your ass Iscariot but you know that, you also know that Boxy means that Read has shown a predilection towards abuse in this manner and that was being taken into consideration. I'm also pretty sure we've talked to you about trolling admin pages and yet here you are doing it with an argument a 5th grader could see through. --Karek^maps?! 08:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

When its all said and done I'm saying not misconduct in and of itself. Now I do beleive the sigs in question are Bad-faith atempts at a work of satire, but that isn't to be determined here. Choosing not to act IMHO can be misconduct, but not before the fact (i.e. the Sigs would have to be ruled vandalism FIRST then the misconduct case brought). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I tried saying that the sigs would need a VB case and boxy called me petty basically. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxy, I just want to know this. Your answer will in no way change what my ruling will be, I'd just like an answer. If you had discovered Read's sig, would you have taken the same steps as you had with me? Telling him, and asking him to change it and working it out with him? Or would you have just banned him pretty much off-right like Hagnat did?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 04:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already changed read's sig without A/VBing him, pretty much the same as I did yours, when he put an image in it and specifically nominated a pixel height way over the limit. But I will point out that Hagnat did not ban him "pretty much right off". Read had been contacted a couple of days before Hagnat even got involved, with Karek pointing out that it was against the policy, and I even said that I didn't think it was (although it was deliberately hiding who's sig it was). Karek gave a good explanation of how it did indeed break the word, as well as the spirit of the policy. Hagnat didn't get involved until after all that, and even then it was only after his fixing of the sig, a polite warning on the talk page, and a subsequent reversion and spray by read, did the escalation happen.
So in answer to your question, I do talk before A/VBing, even with repeat offenders like read, and if you had decided to continue posting with that same sig, insisting on getting a week to change your sig preferences (because you had decided to take your sig off-wiki for this drama), I would have taken you to A/VB for deliberately using a sig that was against the spirit of the signature policy, and if anyone else sent the case there, I would have ruled vandalism.
What would you have ruled (if allowed to) on that case, SA? Would you rule that a person can continue, for the whole week, to use a sig that they know is impossible to tell who posted it without looking in the page histories? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:48 14 February 2009 (BST)

Mister Box said:

So in answer to your question, I do talk before A/VBing, even with repeat offenders like read

Actually, my sig has been non-templated for a good 4 months or so now. I didn't take it off-wiki until I finally caved and copied the cool kids who put it in their prefs. Anywho, not misconduct. I knew you had already fixed his sig once, but in the past, you've been very lenient with repeat sig-offenders, and I figured if you had gotten to Read's sig before Hags did, a week ban probably wouldn't have ended up happening. That's what I thought before I asked you that question at least. Then you reconfirmed it. Bias sometimes you may be, I wouldn't know about that, but at least you're consistent. And in the case of my initial sig (the one without the bolding and stuff), if it had been templated, I'd have tried to preserve what they wanted while still making it easy to see who posted. Probably just a bolding and italicizing. But what you're saying is if that person never made an effort to fix their non-templated sig. I did, and so did Read, albeit in an apparently half-assed way. If he had in no way attempted to bring his signature in-line, I'd have taken care of the case myself, but he had, even if it wasn't a very good try. That's where I think the problem was. He tried, if Hag's would have just outlined ways to fix it, like I did by asking him to change the colour of his user link or bold it, I doubt none of this would have happened.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 03:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh you can't rule on this case...--xoxo 07:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, he can. 10bux you wouldn't be saying that if he'd ruled the way you want the case to go. --Cyberbob 08:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually i would have. He was discussing which was fine but i didn't think he'd actually rule considering how involved in the case he is, it'd be highly unethical.--xoxo 08:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody likes a liar. --Cyberbob 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter because I struck my ruling leaving Conn's as the only "uncontested" ruling which is Not Misconduct. There you have it.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unethical, really bad choice, whatever. Shit needs to end. You can't say that since Read was banned for his sig, mine should be illegal too and should have been brought straight to VB because of one thing. The people who started both cases. Hagnat is the one who did the majority of the A/VB stuff with Read, while Boxy took care of me. Hagnat has different views than Boxy on what is vandalism, and on how to go about the process of dealing with it. If Hagnat had been the one to come and tell me to fix my sig, then there might have been a case, but Boxy can be very different than Hagnat. Boxy may have said Reads signature was vandalism, but he's not the one who reported it, or even took the preliminary steps before the case. Get it? Got it? Good.

Can we archive this shit now? Everything is done and over with, no point in continuing this.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)