UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Vantar/2007-11-16 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Vantar » 2007-11-16 Misconduct

16 November 2007

Moved Akule's review policy out of the archives so it could be opened up for voting - despite the fact that it had been under discussion for more than two weeks. I don't think this was in bad faith, so I don't believe he deserves any real punishment... but he should be more vigilant. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The page was miscategorized and listed under UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Rejected Policies instead of UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Withdrawn Policies. The page never was under voting so I don't see how it could be rejected. I thought that it was reasonable for a user to change their mind about withdrawing a policy so I did not see a problem in letting it go back to voting. If anyone can point to a guideline or rule that I went against the spirit of with this action I would be grateful as I did look for one before and was unable to find one. If the other sysops agree that I was was wrong then I apologize and accept what ever punishment is reasonable, as well as promise to use A/DS before taking similar actions in the future - Vantar 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It was put in Rejected for a reason - it had passed its use-by date and should have been discarded in accordance with the guidelines. Akule didn't withdraw it, thus it couldn't have been considered Withdrawn. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Policies that dont go up for vote are considered withdrawn after two weeks bob. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, are they? My mistake. It was in an incorrect position. The fact remains that removing it from being archived altogether was the Wrong Thing to Do. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not misconduct, the decision to allow it to go to a vote was for the good of the wiki. The author made a reasonable request to be allowed a little leeway with the cut off date and it's quite reasonable to allow it to be brought back for immediate voting (rather than continued discussion) to avoid us having to go through the drama of any similar policy discussion again in the near future -- boxy • talk • 22:53 16 November 2007 (BST)