UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2009-10-09 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2009-10-09 Misconduct

9 October 2009

A/D policy clearly states that if a page has received 3 Speedy Deletion votes and no Keep votes it is to be deleted on the spot. Boxy did not do so based on his personal disagreement with the speedy deletion of the page in question. Warning plz. Cyberbob  Talk  02:42, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Boxy clearly states:

"Delete - group request isn't a speedydelete criteria, and given that group leadership is often less than clear to outside observers, it can't really become one

Given he voted to delete the page in question, I don't see how Cyberbob manages to reach the conclusion that he has a "personal disagreement with the speedy deletion of the page in question". Boxy's disagreement and non-deletion of the page comes from a correct reading of the deletions rules regarding the speedy deletions of pages.

The guidelines for speedy deletions clearly state:

"To be eligible for a Speedy Deletion Request, the page must fall under at least one of the following criteria: "

The votes for speedy deletion did not demonstrate any valid SD criterion. An owning group asking for a page to be deleted is not a current condition for speedy deletion. Although the group is entitled to blank the page in question and request a Crit 1 - no content - speedy deletion, simple ownership of a group page does not qualify.

As there were not three valid speedy deletions votes, this page could not have been speedily deleted by Boxy.

Not misconduct, by virtue of simple reading.

If Cyberbob wants warnings for petty cases perhaps he'll bring his own here? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:36, 9 October 2009 (BST)

lol, u mad? Cyberbob  Talk  04:42, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Oh right, we forgot to delete the page before getting it deleted, doh! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:11, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Either that, or you forgot to get "group requested" voted in as Crit 14 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:15 9 October 2009 (BST)

Frankly, Cyberbob, despite the fact that really, Boxy should've deleted it, there's nothing in the rules sayign that a sysop MUST delete it. He could have chosen not to post there at all, or even to vote keep, if he really did have a vendetta. Just calm down, and don't be so rash when making misconduct cases.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:19, 9 October 2009 (BST)

You should probably shut the fuck up. Cyberbob  Talk  07:44, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I agree with this. Especially the biased part. The only user in this whole affair that is arguably biased is you, Bob. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:02, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Please explain how I am biased and what I am biased for/against, thanks in advance Cyberbob  Talk  09:09, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Sigh. Fine. Just look at your votes and comments on the latest three deletion votes. [1], [2], [3]. They not only show personal bias against Iscariot's A/D faildetta, but also, in relation to the very deletion this case is about, demonstrates that you are just being reactionary in relation to Boxy's vote and Iscariot's subsequent keep. To me it also shows you are just trying to prove a point to Boxy regarding your opinion of what he did (read the following conversation from your tantrum on said vote). Your latest behaviour also makes me wonder why you've so suddenly reverted back to what you used to be. I liked the Cyberbob that still tried. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:30, 9 October 2009 (BST)

So you disagree that Boxy ignored the guideline that stipulates that pages which have received 3 SD votes and no Keep votes are to be deleted then and there? Because not only are your accusations of bias so bad they're kind of funny, you really should be judging the case on its merits. Cyberbob  Talk  10:01, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Upon close inspection, it is clear that South West Alliance/Ruddlebank Information does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. So those "speedy deletes" are really just "deletes". Boxy was right and you're wrong. Just calm down, read the criteria, and don't let iscariot bait you into acting like a turkey again.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:50, 9 October 2009 (BST)

You can shut your fucking mouth too. There is nothing that stipulates that a page with 3 SD votes has to fit one of the criteria, and "group request" is pretty damn close to author request. It's all just a matter of bullshit wikilawyering. Cyberbob  Talk  13:22, 9 October 2009 (BST)

beep boop excuse me citizen you are NOT ALLOWED to vote in this fashion according to bylaw 384238523095683405869.2532b!!! THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF POLICY Cyberbob  Talk  13:25, 9 October 2009 (BST)

I rawfled a little there. Come on dude, it ain't wiki lawyering. You're the one doing that. Admit you were upset by isc because he votes keep 1 million times and you took it out on boxy. Blech w/e. It's obviously not misconduct.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:45, 9 October 2009 (BST)

...I'm wikilawyering...? You... you do know what wikilawyering is, right? Cyberbob  Talk  13:47, 9 October 2009 (BST)

also I really don't get why people love to blame shit on PERsoNuL EMoSHUnZ so much; it's almost as though they want there to be some kind of evil ulterior motive they can demonise, hmmmmm. 13:49, 9 October 2009 (BST) this previously unsigned comment was made by Cyberbob

I'm sure Bob is bringing this case and it's arguments up from a rational perspective.--Thadeous Oakley 14:52, 9 October 2009 (BST)

And he's certainly arguing with one too. And yes, disturbingly enough Bob, you are wikilawyering. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:57, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Wiki iz srs bsns bob, and in all honesty, this case does kind of seem like personal agenda. If you submitted the main page of the wiki and got 3 meatpuppet speedies on it, it still wouldn't be a valid SD because the main page doesn't fit SD guidelines; the same thing is (albiet in a much subtler manner) happening here, but without the meatpuppets or vandallism attempts. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:29, 9 October 2009 (BST)

The deletion guidelines say that any page with 3 SD votes and no keeps CAN be deleted by a sysop, not that it MUST be deleted. And since when not using a tool given by the community becomes misconduct ? Misconduct is all about the misuse of sysop powers, not the lack of use of them. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:58, 10 October 2009 (BST)

A lack of use can often be more destructive than a misuse. Imagine if every sysop decided suddenly not to ban serial vandals and just to let their sprees go unchecked; this is obviously an extreme example, but would you consider that to be misconduct even though there is nothing that says a sysop MUST rule on vandal cases? Cyberbob  Talk  05:02, 10 October 2009 (BST)

Preventing vandalism while you are online is the expected duty of a system operator. It's not misuse, but negligence of their expected duties. Now, not deleting a page whose importance is null and void and which is currently going through a vote... that isnt negligence nor misuse --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:09, 10 October 2009 (BST)

Both examples involve flying in the face of policy. As far as I can tell there is nothing in the guidelines that places one policy above another. Cyberbob  Talk  05:11, 10 October 2009 (BST)

So, Nubis deletes a page that has 3 speedy delete votes well over 24 hours before it gets a half assed Keep and that's misconduct, but not deleting a page that gets 3 Speedy Delete votes right away is ALSO misconduct? You guys are fucked up. -- #99 ^DCC 06:57, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Oh, wait, I see, so a page has to get 3 speedy delete votes to be deleted but if someone wants to vote keep after the 3 speedy deletes are posted it has to be moved, but if it has 3 speedys it has to be deleted right away. Crystal clear.-- #99 ^DCC 07:00, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Which misconduct case of Nubis' are you talking about? Cyberbob  Talk  07:30, 11 October 2009 (BST)

The one which doesn't exist. I can only find a misconduct case where Nubis gets ruled misconduct for several counts of deleting things wrongly, not just the one instance on A/D where everyone turned a blind eye. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:57, 11 October 2009 (BST)

I'm really only interested in the bit where something was deleted before it had received any Keep votes. Cyberbob  Talk  08:00, 11 October 2009 (BST)

I think he's referencing this - sixth paragraph down. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:36, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Well, since all the sysops are inactive at the moment besides myself, the accused and the accuser, I may actually have the odd experience of closing this case with the one vote as Not Misconduct. Archival soon, pending any unexpected interest from further sysops within the coming day. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:44, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Such power. That reevaluation thing really gave power back to the common user. Rooster was editing yesterday, worth a nudge? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 11 October 2009 (BST)

If The Rooster couldn't bring himself to make a decision on a case like the Nubis one, I doubt he'll show up here. Still the result is effectively 2 - 1 Not Misconduct, Nubis' precedent shows that Bob automatically counts as voting misconduct, whilst Bob's own precedent states that Boxy can vote on this himself and his wording here and on A/D shows a leaning towards not misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Rooster's aware of it and we've talked about the case on IRC, so I assume he's just doing what he normally does, keeping the distance. And no, stop inventing precedences, Boxy is the accused and obviously his voting powers don't extend here- need we bring up every Nubis misconduct/vandal case in the last two years that he's tried to vote on? No, It is 1-1 counting Cyberbob's bringing of the case, Not Misconduct, case closed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:46, 11 October 2009 (BST)

Make it 2-1, Not Misconduct. Sysops are not required to delete pages the moment they have 3 Speedy Delete votes. Boxy disagreed with the Speedy Deletion because it didn't meet the criterion set out in the rules.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:41, 12 October 2009 (BST)