UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/J3D/2008-12-17 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » J3D » 2008-12-17 Misconduct

J3D

Does it get any more obviously biased? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob.... get a life, I made a joke in good faith which may or may not be worth a warning and J3D has made a flippant comment on the resulting A/VB case showing his clear bias and personal opinion. Opinion yes, which arguably means that apparently it should be on the talk page rather than the main... still, show me exactly where he has bolded the words "Not Misconduct" or are you suggesting that an opinion is now a ruling and does not need to be bolded to count as such? --Honestmistake 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not Misconduct"? I think you think you really did get a promotion. Your case would be VANDALISM since (as far as I know) you are still a regular user. This case would be misconduct. But if this is misconduct then Hagnat and I would be on here, too. (not that that's anything new).--– Nubis ^NWO 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring this case for the ruling, you self-important twat. I brought it for the "Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?" line that J3D felt he needed to include. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So because you didn't like his commentary (that didn't include a ruling by the way) you decided that is enough for a Misconduct case? Have you been taking lessons from Iscariot? I don't particularly like J3D and his clan, but sinking to this is a pathetic low even for you. Expressing his opinion isn't a sysop ability and we're not mods and ...radda radda radda. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He pretty clearly was declaring it not vandalism. Just because he didn't bold it doesn't change his intent. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis, he started off the sentence with a otherwise unqualified refusal. Unless the english language escapes me there's not much else he could have meant with "Nup." There's not exactly 50 ways to interpret that. We've had this dispute before with most of the sysops saying the following; 'Bold a ruling, does not make'.--Karek^maps?! 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I tried thinking about this the other way. If he had said "Yup" I would have thought that was saying he agreed with the report. I think I blocked out "Nup" as stupid commentary made by a "vandal" because I tend to believe that sysops should take ruling on Admin pages a bit seriously. Actually, I tend to block out all of J3D's comments (and sorry, Bob's, too) because they have become so much white noise on those pages. I am going to say that this is Misconduct, because it is a first step in what could be a bad trend (ruling on users not cases). Mostly, because he still hasn't shown any signs of straightening up his act.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct, actually, not a case at all. You used to know when people were joking bob. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from anyone else I would have chalked it up as a joke. J3D is a special case as you well know. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct and to avoid a misconduct case of my own I'll leave it at that. _{Happy Now Cheese? ;)} Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct, the first word makes it a ruling, the rest makes it misconduct for the reason Cyberbob points out._{Placed here because Conn's prophecy was right this tiem, we disagree.}--Karek^maps?! 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If this goes down as misconduct then I'm dragging Hagnat here for ruling on this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your signature included his name at the end. At a glance it could look like he was signing. He was also ruling on the "good faith" issue of you having an "obnoxious" flashing signature. He wasn't ruling based on his feelings toward you as in this case. It wouldn't have mattered who had that signature. Flashing text is annoying. And why would you think anyone would hate you and pass negative judgment on things you are involved in? Whatever would give you that idea? --– Nubis ^NWO 15:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha Karek, ok, I await butt-buddy boxys ruling. I wonder what it will be...--CyberRead240 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person". Not misconduct though, just more shitting up of admin pages with his usual drama, which should be handled on A/VB, if anywhere -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:06 19 December 2008 (BST)

It makes me smile everytime when i see Eric Bessette in there...--xoxo 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ruling based on your personal dislike for me rather than the merits of the case. You're behaving every bit as badly as J3D. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to my opinion of J3D (ironic, wat). But if you want to take offense anyway, feel free -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:48 19 December 2008 (BST)

whups, apologies --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to catch Sysops behaving badly 2, out this summer.--xoxo 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me while I stitch up my sides. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Blatantly not a ruling, my opinion of Cyberbob is sinking even lower than previously.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Note The General changes his vote at the [1] bottom of the page to Misconduct but is abstaining from voting on demotion.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This makes me wonder how much we can get away with if we say it's not a ruling when it becomes something of an issue later.--Karek^maps?! 10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't even state it as a ruling. If you make a ruling and act upon it, that's misconductable. If you basically state "Hey guys, can't I make a biased ruling there" as a joke then that obviously isn't misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what else could possibly be meant by nup. If he's a sysop and is saying something isn't valid as vandalism that is a ruling unless he specifically states otherwise.--Karek^maps?! 14:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure he even says that much:

J3D

Nup. Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?

If it's clearly an opinion and not a ruling in this case. I will not make such a wide-sweeping statement as to set a definitive precident in all cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very common in Australian-speak to say "yeah" or "nah" or, in this case "nup", before you start your sentence. It is just his way of speaking. If he wanted to make a ruling he would have bolded it, I think.--CyberRead240 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hay Sexy - you're forgetting where the guy who brought the case up comes from. Also, those words at the start of the sentence that are supposedly so unique to Australia aren't. Even if they were, they aren't meaningless sentence particles. In conclusion, take your tiny dick out of your IRL faggot buddy's arse (given that you're even further than usual from being correct, it's not doing much good) and find something else to do plx. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is part of Jeds slang, its how he speaks and how I speak. It might be different in your hipster fucking upside down town. But in Sydney/Newcastle its pretty common. I like how you use "little faggot buddy" for anyone who is friends on here. Some repressed friendship/rejection issues perhaps?--CyberRead240 13:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Where the fuck did I say the habit itself doesn't exist? Sounds like someone needs their very-speshul eddication ramped up a notch... that aside, your attempts to try and pretend like it doesn't have any effect on the rest of the utterance are pretty retarded. I've spent two years studying shit exactly like this and while they may just be casual phenomena they aren't there just for the hell of it. Also, please quote me properly: I didn't say "little faggot buddy". I said "IRL faggot buddy"; something Freudian going on there perhaps? Methinks my comment regarding your dick size wasn't so far from the mark. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought even internet trolls didn't resort to "you haz a small dick lolz XD" and "u guise r so ghey". And don't you fucking say you have spent two years studying this shit. You just finished year 12. Shut the fuck up. You know nothing of the human psyche yet you fucking retard. When you go study human behaviour and foibles in University, then you can say you "studied" it. Sitting alone in class while the jocks throw their lunch at the back of your head for 6 hours a day is not "studying".--CyberRead240 06:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not human psyche you fucking gimp... linguistics. Hilarious of you to try and presume how I am at school - especially so when you look at the fact that you're plainly serious whereas I'm simply jerking your chain. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG DID YOU TROLL'D ME--CyberRead240 06:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

YAR I TOTALLY TROLL'D J00 --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

General, please quantify the exact difference between an opinion and a ruling, making sure to include how "Not Vandalism" is not simply a more formalised way of saying "Nup." --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is really in whether it is acted upon. So "Surely I can ban Iscariot because I feel like it" doesn't constitute a ruling, it counts as an opinion in my capacity as a user. If I said "Vandalism - Because I hate Iscariot" and then banned him, that would be misconduct. Per the rules at the top of the page:

• Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.
• Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct
• Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.
• Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).
• Warning users reported in Vandal Banning.
• Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.
• Editing of Protected pages by any means.
• Research IP activity using the CheckUser extension.
• (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.

I see nothing in those guidelines that classifies ruling on a vandalism case as a Sysop ability. Only acting on a ruling is Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at that point there are at least two things that could have been caused by the initial ruling. There's that it could have lead to no future follow up on the case, in this case because Hagnat's comment, and Nubis' announcement of indecision it could easily have been seen as a majority against punishment and been treated accordingly. It also runs into the problem that there were signs it would be a somewhat contested case, which means that if it is viewed as a ruling it's given weight, which it should have been and should be as he's commenting there and is a sysop. Basically it boils down to this, either he was ruling and I assume the above means you don't particularly deny that that is a possibility or he was spamming the administration pages and as he has a history of doing that there's grounds for a vandalism case, although at this point that would be simply petty and should probably be left at talking too about what is and isn't proper behavior for a sysop on an administration page.--Karek^maps?! 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You've got it exactly right. If we count it as a ruling, which I am included not to do (but don't rule out), and misconduct him for it or he's simply spamming up the admin pages (given that there's no actual meaningful opinion in his post).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So... which one is it? Don't make comments like that and let them go un-followed-up on. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone know, not even I would have brought this here. But since it is, I find a curious similarity between the rulings and reactions to J3D's promotion.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can go fuck yourself kthx --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob, you don't get it, I agree with you. However do you really think that sysops are going to misconduct this and forfeit their right to make sarky comments on admin pages (and then escalate normal users for the same thing)? Not a chance. The only people that are voting misconduct don't want J3D on the team and are counting on their ability to cry through a future case that this precedent would create. This case is a wonderful example of the politics of the wiki in action. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

cool story bro --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nup... Iscariot has the nail on the anvil... or something profound and proverbial like that.... It's interesting that J3D might be non-misconducted for shitting up the admin pages with a comment that is -- at best -- quite clearly ambiguous and subject to interpretation as a "No" vote -- but regular users get ban anvilled for hammering their snarky comments on the said same Adminstratey-type pages. Curious contradiction, that, n'est pas? --WanYao 14:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further information to hand

I am changing my ruling to Misconduct due to further developments.

In this case, J3D refused to do anything about a clear case of attempted impersonation of an existing user's signature because it was aimed at someone they disliked, and probably done by one of his own friends (given the location the IP came back from). He was online shortly after the account made it's first post and was reported on vandal banning, yet didn't do anything but say it was hilarious, giving the sock puppet over 2 hours to post before another sysop (me) came online (even though they didn't do anything further). J3D has shown that he will refuse to protect people he dislikes from trolling, and instead will join in with the taunting on admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:15 28 December 2008 (BST)

People yelled at me because i warned a user because of what he said in a talk page. "We don't punish users for their opinion" or something under this lines was said to me. J3D actions were his opinion, and he didnt used any actions a normal user couldnt. There was no ruling (i, atleast, dont consider it a ruling), only an annoying comment that *maybe* shouldn't have been made. You accuse J3D of being lenient to his friends, and not punish vandals who attack his opposers. The first is light version of the doctor who doesnt treat his own relatives... the doctors judgment will be clouded by his relation to the patient, and in the wiki a sysop judgment on a friends case will always be contested. That's why i rarely rule on cases brought against saromu and anime... on the second case, of allowing those whom he dislike to get trolled... well, we had cyberbob as a sysop for a year... it can't get worse than that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This case is one of vandalism, not of misconduct. That sums my point. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat, something like what happened in the impersonation case is more akin to a cop looking the other way because they dislike the person being violated. It's incompetence and more than that it's just plain ridiculous to defend that as anything but purposely looking the other way. The guy even went out of his way to make a wise ass comment on the case. From the information we do have we can reasonably conclude that he knows who it was that made the account. That is misconduct and relates by and large to why this case got made. --Karek^maps?! 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't only ignore an obvious case of vandalism, he actively encouraged it by laughing about it when an A/VB case was brought. He put his hand up for this job, twice, yet he actively encourages vandalism now he's got the job? He has absolutely no business being a sysop if he's only going to do the job when it doesn't conflict with his allegiance to his R/L buddies, and their targeting of their latest scapegoat. He has a long history of encouraging vandalism against his opponents -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:22 28 December 2008 (BST)

So you are voting misconduct because Jed did not vote when he saw the case there? Dangerous precedent, really. And duly noted. Oh and with him "encouraging" it, and you saying thats wrong etc. Well....you do it too. You might think you are subtle enough with your words that nobody gets your double meanings behind what you say, but really, anyone who finished 10th grade can see that you are perhaps the most biased Sysop on here. Don't be upset because Jed is one of the few Sysops who retained a sense of humour once getting the job.--CyberRead240 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, stop denying it and move in with him already. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't rule because i was unsure how to. I was under the impression (and i'm sure you actually said this somewhere) that i should just leave a case if i was unsure. Since it seemed likely given the timing that the account was made for trolling perma would be the most obvious choice however the IP wasn't from anyones. Permabanning the user wouldn't make any real difference. Shrug i could have permaed the user i guess, but i don't see what sysop action i misused, boxy.--xoxo 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "just leave the case because you were unsure", you decided to have a laugh about it on the admin page, about how it would inconvenience the person being targeted.

J3D said:

If you people are trying to claim it was me, firstly you can't prove anything so i don't care...

No, we can't prove it was you, but we can be pretty damn sure it was one of your real life buddies using another ISP, and given how close y'all are, it's very unlikely you knew nothing of it. Regardless of what we can prove or not, you've once again shown yourself to be totally unsuited to the position of sysop, because you will always put your buddies first, and encourage them in their vandalism.

For a month after your promotion, none of the sysops hassled you about anything, and then, out of the blue, you decide to make it look like Nick was using your account and looking up my IP addy, made a frivolous Misconduct case against me, and now twice shown your total inability to deal fairly with cases involving Bob. You got your chance to be a sysop, been given a fair chance to make a go of it, even by those opposed to you getting it in the first place, and you've blown it. If you had any decency, you'd go to A/DM yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:25 29 December 2008 (BST)

FYI, Jed lives at least 150km, roughly two hours, away from all of his "RL" buddies on the UDwiki--CyberRead240 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this slightly confused me to. However, I would like to note that you seem to be in the same area as the vandal account.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Really! Why did you look me up? Damn, I guess its Vandalism by postcode then?--CyberRead240 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because you were related to the case; I looked up the vandal, you, J3D and Cyberbob. I then then did a whois lookup and matched up the locations. It doesn't make it vandalism but it does make your testimony of J3D's innocence rather less reliable.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless i'm mistaken bob lives in roughly the same area as me...have any of you stopped to consider that possibility?? Boxy you sure can act stupidly when you want to. And yes, before you say it, so can i. --xoxo 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. He's not even in the same state and the only reason I can mention that is that you've both publicly announced where you live.--Karek^maps?! 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yawn you sound like a broken record, get over yourself plz.--xoxo 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if you think that edit was shitting up admin page (which i don't) it's still not a sysop action and thus not misconduct, i like it how you didn't bother addressing that bit.--xoxo 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruling is a sysop action. It's either vandalism or Misconduct and it looks very much like you ruled and tried to claim you didn't when it got brought here. --Karek^maps?! 05:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look like a ruling. A ruling is generally bolded. Jed knows that, you know that, I know that, fuck who doesn't know that. Your fucking butthurt attempts to get Jed sacked are fucking ridiculous.--CyberRead240 08:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why your input isn't valued here. Read the rest of the case as there is some dispute over whether or not it was a ruling and J3D's claim certainly is far from satisfactory.--Karek^maps?! 13:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (J3D)

Unresolved

Not Misconduct

1. The General Vote Changed - see edit below his ruling.

Misconduct

1. Nubis
2. Karek
3. Boxy
4. Hagnut
5. Conndraka
6. Cheese
7. The General

---

All 3 misconducts ruled on different things, how amusing. Karek thinks i was ruling, Nubis thinks i wasn't, but it's a worrying trend and boxy, well boxy just ruled based on something that happened a bit later on. So do we get a 7th party in, or what?--xoxo 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you were ruling just happens to be a major part of my consideration in the case and cements the fact that there is misconduct here. I agree very much with Boxy but see the view as two separate but extremely related cases. You're using your position to protect your friends through purposeful inaction(bias).--Karek^maps?! 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Slayer, Thari or Cheesey will have to chime in...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't rule on something that came later on, I ruled on you continuing your harassment of the user, and encouraging a sock puppet impersonator by treating bobs second report as a joke instead of banning an obvious sock puppet vandal -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:13 30 December 2008 (BST)

I didn't realise not banning someone and loling at bob were sysop functions, my mistake.--xoxo 10:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

When the decision is as clear as this, and it's one of your mates that you are refusing to take the sock puppet away from, yes. You choose to contribute to the A/VB case, yet you refused to act when the course was extremely clear. You signed up to ban sock puppets, not to taunt those being targeted by them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:22 30 December 2008 (BST)

The person who brought the case forward accused certain parties (me) of creating the account. IP check said it wasn't a sockpuppet. So i didn't rule yet explained on the case that i had IP checked, yeah i threw it a little extra somethin' somethin' but as pretty much every post on a/vb ever serves as precedent to show, that doesn't make misconduct.--xoxo 11:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet impersonation doesn't get any clearer than this, J3D. You don't say ha, ha, you will have to change your sig now in response to that. If you can't tell that this is a bad faith account, you have no right to do the job. But you of course did know that it was a vandal account, and that's the whole point... you chose not to act, and only taunt the person being impersonated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:18 30 December 2008 (BST)

Construe what you like from it, it doesn't change fact. I didn't rule on vandalism (as per your and others requests) and yet you still aren't happy. As read so often says, agenda?? :P --xoxo 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The hilarity of this all, is that it is not a sock puppet. It is someone that I know, (Jed does not, not sure if Nick knows them that well) who knows about UD and the Wiki who thought it would be lulz to do this. On msn with them, I said, yes, it would be lulz to do this. And so far it has lived up to my expectations.--CyberRead240 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sexylegsread said:

I can assure you it wasn't anyone I know.

Sexylegsread said:

It is someone that I know

Yes, hilarious. Your testimony that J3D knew nussing has convinced me -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:51 30 December 2008 (BST)

I guess I meant nobody in my "clique". Regardless, Jed knew nothing of it, until it appeared in RC. And btw, you do realize that it's spelled "Nothing" right?--CyberRead240 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Nussing" is a reference to an old TV show, but nice try on being a spelling nazi to make points. Every time you add something to this discussion you are making our case against J3D. Keep up the good work!--– Nubis ^NWO 23:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I grew sick of J3D's attitude and behaviour. When i vouched for him, i didnt expected to see a cyberbob². Changing my vote to misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that 2 is representing a squared function rather than a straight version 2... because I never abused CheckUser whatsoever and I never encouraged vandalism. All my shitstirring was purely unofficial. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Get with the times man. Things have changed since version 1.--xoxo 02:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If by "things" you're referring to your willingness to violate privacy laws and laugh at vandalism based on its target then sure. Things have changed. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

yawn. I swear you've forgotten how to joke, guess full time trolling sucks it out a'ya.--xoxo 02:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

cool story bro --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing mine as well... Something doesn't smell right. Now lets move on....Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to say misconduct as well. The ruling thing could be forgiven but blatantly ignoring an obvious impersonator of another user purely because you have issues with that user is a step too far. Especially when there is a strong possibility that at least one of you knows this person. If someone came along and impersonated the likes of Iscariot, I wouldn't let any issues I have with him get in the way of doing my job. You were promoted, J3D, because you gave the impression that you would actually grow up a bit and not cause excessive amounts of drama for shits and giggles. It seems my faith in you has been misplaced. -- Cheese 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

J3D Demotion

It is clear that this user has a history of abusing and harassing certain users on this wiki. He did so even before being a sysop and clearly continues to do so now. This behavior is not likely to improve. If we allow it to go on we will only make it harder to do the normal required sysop functions if we have to continually deal with the "drama" and shitting up of pages by his clan. He has shown no great effort to contribute since getting the position and has instead violated rules and caused needless hassles. He has not lived up to the promises he himself made when putting in for the position.

I say we take a vote to demote him (Grim Clause). Violating procedures is serious, however, abusing the community is obviously worse. There is no justification for it and it is not behavior anyone should be allowed to indulge in regardless of position or not. This pattern will only get worse. Do we really want another sysop like Grim that can't get along with the users? --– Nubis ^NWO 23:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing this for a first offence is nothing more than a witch hunt. It's nothing but the continued attack by a group of sysops who were against J3D's promotion in the first place. If this goes through I see a policy being pushed through that will demote any sysop by virtue of a popular vote. Those perpetrating this hunt will be the first to go. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He started this shitfight. Everyone left him alone for a month after his promotion, because he was doing the job he signed up for... but he got bored, and decided to liven things up, and has now proven everyone who was against his promotion exactly right by showing that he will never go against his real life friends on A/VB (friends who are consistent vandals, just like him). It's a ridiculous situation to have him in the sysop team, able to tell his vandal buddies exactly which IP/sock puppet accounts we may be suspicious of (by accessing the checkuser log), especially given that they've now shown the inclination to start impersonating their latest target -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:12 31 December 2008 (BST)

You really overestimate my friendship with read. We don't live together, i don't know what he gets up to. I had nothing to do with the haha disregard that etc stuff, in fact the whole time i've only known as much about it as you have. One day of drunken antics on the wiki and you jump immediately to demote me, classy.--xoxo 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

against As much as I hate to agree with St. Crucifix, I do. I cannot and will not vote for demotion at this time. Now J3d must receive the sternest of warnings regarding conduct expected of a sysop with the knowledge that assisting or allowing vandalism in any form constitutes a serious breach of trust. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is purely vandalism by association. I know the concept of RL friends is lost on some of you, but me and Jed knew each other in grade 8. Speak about once a month on msn or irc outside of the wiki, and see each other prbably once or twice a year when he heads up north to see other people. Jed knows nothing of the person who created the HAHAHA etc account. It is fucking amazing how this "Misconduct" case has involved 3 different reasonings, none of which are true, and all invented by, well guess who, Nubis, Karek and Boxy. There is a serious issue, and whoever cannot see that they have waited a month to smash him down with their first chance must seriously have comprehension issues. Its simple, boxy waits a month, and him and his henchmen can knock jed down for the first thing he becomes mildly associated to, all the while looking like they gave him all the time in the world, when simply, it is all a plan. Jed has done nothing wrong but "lol" at a situation. A sysop does not have to vote if they are unsure of how to do it, and he didn't. An independent person, whos identification I know (an UD user, but not a regular wiki user), is respnsible for it. I merely let them do it. Jed did nothing. Now I await for Nubis to make a comment disregarding everything I say while hiding between the shadows of Boxy and Karek, who will recite bullshit reasons in an attempt to at least ban one of us.

If Jed gets demoted from this, a witch hunt, after one thing that wasn't even his fault but was blew out of proportion by a cock like boxy and co., then we can really see how much of a power trip this place is on, and why we see a decline in wiki numbers every day.

I won't say any more, because I don't have to. The information is all there, I knew, Jed didn't, but none of us typed or saved a single page creating it. Not a sockpuppet, and not misconduct BECAUSE JED KNEW NOTHING OF IT. Even when he posted on A/VB, I hadn't spoken to him about it. Fucking agenda. This screams it.--CyberRead240 07:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

inb4 bob--CyberRead240 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not a very credible witness, Read, throughout this whole case you have changed your story depending on what can be proven at the time, until you backed yourself right into the corner you now find yourself. I gave J3D every chance to live up to the expectations of those who vouched for him, and even after he went on his bender, and decided to make it look like Nallan was accessing his account to access my IP details, I still didn't misconduct him. How did he react? He continued to bullshit me on my talk page about it, and then started in on bob, and ignored your "real life friend" impersonating him, and instead decided taunting bob on A/VB was a better option than banning the imp.

Enough rope? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:02 31 December 2008 (BST)

More than enough rope... This isn't a "witch hunt", Read. It's a justified corrective measure to deal with someone who doesn't exhibit the minimum requirements of responsibility and stability to be a sysop. You guys perceive some kind of persecution... but the fact is that your clique has acted immaturely, disruptively and trollishly for almost as long as I've been involved in the wiki... THAT is why you get "picked on"... because you're obnoxious brats, that's why. J3D is the only one of your clique whom I actually like, and he's probably the best of you lot, which isn't saying much... But IMO he hasn't lived up to the expectations of a sysop, and that's the issue. --WanYao 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm for demotion, I can bring up the fact that this is exactly the thing that was ignored during his promotions bid or I can simply point out that other sysops have been demoted for far less. In the end though it all boils down to this; Much like with Hagnat I don't think you will learn your lesson with just this case here, I think you'll ignore any non-substantial punishment we give and to make this actually a punishment it would require demotion.--Karek^maps?! 09:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it’s about time I chimed in. Me and Cheese promoted J3D in the hopes that he would show some maturity and be a useful member of the team given the chance. Now while he hasn’t been exactly been perfect (I have been following) he also isn’t a flop. I'm disappointed in J3D and I don’t like some of his conduct on the admin pages (as do the sysops, no doubt) but it’s completely abysmal to call for a demotion over this. It’s a bit similar to what some of you were trying to pull on Grim. You guys clearly despise J3D (a bit my fault) and seem to be pouncing on him the first screwup he makes in conjunction with his conduct as a sysop after only a month and a half. Comparing him to another sysop and assuming that he has no chance of fixing his behaviour is ridiculous and unfair. And frankly I don’t care what manner he was promoted him, give him his chance and if he doesn’t improve then it might be time to shunt him out but simply not for this. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 12:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't like it's something this is the first time he's done AHLG, just the first time he's done it as a sysop. He went through all of this before with Finis and even with Cyberbob in the past before getting promoted. He didn't change his behavior after nearly getting banned for it before and he makes it clear he won't change it now even though he knew where it was going.--Karek^maps?! 12:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

People can change (for the most part) on this wiki. I was knee deep in Assylum spam and I managed to "recover". Frankly, it took me until around my promotion bid to finally stop it and I was hoping the same would happen with J3D. Just give him a while longer.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 12:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have if you hadn't promoted him. But we don't need, and shouldn't expect, that kind of thing from sysops. Promotions isn't the place for them to be learning what is and isn't expected behavior, it's not the place for them to recover from being a bad user. And it certainly isn't a place for people who are going to encourage harassing other users by refusing to punish obvious vandals. That's the kind of thing they should know not to do before they are promoted.--Karek^maps?! 13:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, Gnome, wasn't his "one chance" supposedly his promotion? How many "one chances" do you plan on giving him? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No no, it's all "one chance". Karek I can admit when my argument has flaws but I still believe it's unfair to demote him like this. Take Engels idea for a broader range of opinions rather than a select group. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A Helpful Little Gnome said:

No no, it's all "one chance".

Lol? Please explain that one a little more clearly because at the moment you're making no sense at all. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his chance should be over, but I don't have much say in the matter anyway. I don't think I should be on that list below... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take yourself off it at any time. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If everyone is supah serious about demoting him, then I do have something to say. Since he was promoted based on the communities opinions, then why don't you ask for the communities opinion on whats going on? I'm not saying base his potential demotion entirely on the community, just hear out the rest of our opinions. Someone make a small outline of everything he did for others to easily see, without having to do much page scrubbing, I know most of what happened, but I can't be as positive as some of you more active peoples.

To me, this seems like a good idea, as J3D said during his promotion bid in response to one of my condition that he was going to try and get a Sysops review policy put through. This is a review right now, just by his immediate peers. Lets expand it to include everyone else, neh? Link it on the main page, make a new page on it, put it through promo/demo, just don't let the people who normally don't muck around in the admin pages not know or contribute their opinions.

Well, that's my bit right there. Ta ta.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He was NOT promoted based on the community's input. That is NOT how promotion works. He was promoted by the Crats at the time. Considering that part of the complaints against him involve meat/sock puppets I hardly think any "input" from the "community" would be valid. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I quote the promotion's page (my bold)

"Bureaucrats will review the community discussion and make a decision based upon it'. The user will be notified of the status of their request, and will be promoted should it appear that the community is willing to accept them as a System Operator."

Promotions are based upon community input. Gnome and Cheese promoted him based upon the communities input, along with their own. If you're going to say that "That is NOT how promotion works", then I expect that section to be removed from the promotions page immediately. I'm not denying that G/C may have made a mistake, but that doesn't mean that when they promoted J3D they ignored the community. Maybe one section of it (I.E. the SysOps), but definitely not all of it.

And just because he uses a meat or sock or two DOES NOT mean you can just discount the ENTIRE community. That is serious bullshit to try and call that one out.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if the part of the community they ignore is just the sysops then it is ok? That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I have heard. Especially since the sysops gave examples and links to reasons why they were strongly against his promotion (citing his "friends" as potential problems) and the "community" vouched with "He's a good'n". Yes, that is a valid reason. Good'n. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, because saying they didn't ignore the entire community is also synonymous with "Hey, its okay, as long as some of aren't ignored!"

Don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say it was okay, nor anything like it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to put words in your mouth because your last statement doesn't make sense.?? Besides, you yourself weren't entirely sure on him being promoted. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It seemed pretty simple to me. My bad. Understand that I'm not defending him, nor saying what happened in his bid was okay (hell, I haven't even actually stated my opinion on whats going on now!). In fact, if I were one of the 'crats, based off of the opinions of everyone, I wouldn't have thought twice about tossing the bid out. I just think the community should put in again how they currently feel about J3D's performance.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the "community" won't get the whole story because there are issues involving the Check User log that due to privacy concerns (for IPs) we really can't get into in the "open". Just the abuse of that feature there should be more than enough for demotion. That is one of the most powerful tools (after banning/blocking) that sysops have. Actually, I would say the most powerful since it can give you RL information about users. That is a very serious issue. Would the community really want a sysop that looks up user's details due to "drunken antics" as J3D said above? --– Nubis ^NWO 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know (Via the Box man's talk) that he abused the Check User. I personally thought there was enough information there that the community would get a good sense of how bad that was. I could be giving the rest of the community a bit too much credit though... XD. Come to think of it, half of the community probably wouldn't even bother to say anything about this.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any record of each time CheckUser is used that is available to normal users? Something like '<username1> checked <username2>'s ip address' wouldn't reveal any personal info. --Toejam 13:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. I imagine such a feature would require a software change. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You can easily hide the IP details by simply replacing it with XXX when copied from the log. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 13:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't work, it would also reveal all IP based checks, which means it would be dead obvious who's IP was whose. As for the other, without actually knowing the IP the only relevant insight that can be provided is what has already been made publicly available in the course of this case and the discussion in the Nubis one. That's really the maximum we can reveal without violating the privacy policy. --Karek^maps?! 13:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just gonna say yeah to the witch hunt chorus, but i like your idea better. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Gnome. Apart from this nice big patch of drama, he has done ok. He's been deleting stuff, moving stuff and protecting stuff as needed. Give him one last chance and if he screws up again (badly) we can think about demotion. But definitely not for a first offence. -- Cheese 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This "nice big patch of drama" that he created. That is hardly acceptable sysop behavior.--– Nubis ^NWO 23:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

being a drama whore is NOT, in and of itself, a miconductable offence. --WanYao 00:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a bully is. Continually picking on a user(s)is misconduct.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

God no. Another 2 weeks of this drama to explain to the whole wiki, time and time again, what he has done, and to constantly have to counter idiotic misinformation from Read and the other clowns in J3D's posse? FFS. How about we demote him, and then a fresh promotion bid can gauge community support? His whole wiki existence has been constant "big patches of drama". Only weeks before his promotion he was filling A/VB with idiotic vandal reports, now only weeks after his promotion, it's the same crap all over again. He's shown no inclination to change just because you gave in and promoted him, and to compare what J3D does to the Assylum nonsense is ridiculous. Assylum was nonsense, but there was no malice in it, you weren't targeting people to annoy for kicks like J3D has done consistently -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:49 1 January 2009 (BST)

Boxy, I never said the review should last a specific amount of time. We don't even have and policies to state the specifics of a review/demotion, so there aren't any actual guidelines on the process. I wouldn't have given the review more than a week.- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

J3D Demotion - Header to break up the page

Alright, I've been following this. Is this list below correct?

1. Pre-bid, concerns about behavior towards other users, several vandal warnings (including a 24hr ban.) Mostly towards his friends in real life, and Cyberbob and Finis.
2. This user puts J3D up for promotion. Concerns about behavior towards other users
3. Promotion denied by Grim and Boxy ('crats at the time.)
4. J3D applies for promotion. Sysop team says no, some in the community say yes
5. J3D gets said promotion. Some of the Sysop team says WTF, Gnome leaves, general drama
6. J3D does normal sysop stuff for a month
7. Looked up Boxy's IP adress against user proticol (see here.)
8. Gets taken to A/VB over impersonation. (are those two in the right order?)
9. Gets taken to A/M over something, most sysops reject it offhand
10. Files misconduct case against boxy
11. A/VB thingy over Cyberbob impersonation-J3D says he had nothing to do with it, certain wiki members doubt that.
12. Current demotion attempt.

Is that list correct? It may help others if we go back to A/PM, (which we should, IMO.) I'm not sure if I've got the ordering right, however, and if I've missed anything. Linkthewindow  Talk  00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "allegation" of check user abuse it is a clear case of abuse. The log is quite clear.

What does the election of Boxy have to do with this? A/MR? What happened on the Move Request page? You also missed that he filed a frivolous Misconduct case against Boxy. I don't think your sound bite list covers enough. Not to mention I agree with boxy. We don't want to have the clan flaming users and shitting up the page.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. I meant A/M, not A/MR. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're also kinda misrepresenting his promotion bid. Especially because this is exactly the kind of thing that led to his first bid failing and that's kinda not mentioned. Anyway, 17 isn't most of the community, it wasn't even a clear majority of the voters present and that's including all the "Willie-Nillies" and "Because he's my buddy" vouches and one thing that was clear was that every against had major concerns about his behavior towards his buddies and people like Cyberbob and Finis. OH but you can go back further than that, cause it really does, to the October 2008 VB archives, or even farther back to the 6 months or so of similar history with Finis because that's all very relevant to the discussion taking place now and the discussion that took place leading up to the bid/s.--Karek^maps?! 03:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks Karek. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if any other active sysops could place their vote - that way things can get moving one way or the other and we can break this cycle of endless discussion. If there aren't any others left, J3D should be demoted as the vote is currently favouring that option. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ross, Swires and The General are the only ones, although they tend to stay away from this page. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The majority of sysops voted it Misconduct. The votes FOR demotion out number the votes AGAINST. The case has been on here for 2 weeks. It seems settled.--– Nubis ^NWO 04:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if community consultation is to be put into this process, then A/PD is the place to do it, not in the middle of an already long misconduct case. J3D has been given plenty of chances, and even in this latest dramafest, he had plenty of opportunity to step back. He impersonated Nallan, and misused checkuser to look up my details, and all that happened was a discussion on A/M and my talk page. He had the opportunity to pull his head back in, but instead decided to start harassing bob, bring a frivolous A/M case against me and when his R/L friends started with the vandalism, decided to side with them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:48 1 January 2009 (BST)

BTW, they've gone all quite now, now that it's clear that the drama they were enjoying so much at the start could come back to bite them, but you can be damned sure that as soon as you let them off, they'll be back into it, as soon as they think they can get away with it again. They're here for the drama, they created it, they revel in it for as long as possible, now it's time to deal with the consequences -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:58 1 January 2009 (BST)

I lol'd extra hard at this. We are away from our computers for 30 odd hours around New Years Eve/New Years Day, and all of a sudden we have "gone all quiet". Uh, sorry to hurt you boxy, but we have other friends to play with, and most of us chose to ring in the new year with them, rather than on the wiki, as you must have done to come up with the idea of us being absent. But yeah, happy new years to all the wiki goers. I hope you all had a good time, away from the keyboard.--CyberRead240 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool story, bro'. And yet within 2hrs of me posting that... well here we are -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:53 1 January 2009 (BST)

Friends? You mean the friends you were with when you used a computer while drunk? Those the friends you're talking about? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about the time i looked up boxys IP and "impersonated" Nallan, then that was just me n nick, infact i think nick was passed out at that point, how amusing. Anyway i see sexy about twice a year, you really need to get over the whole "omgz you guys live together and mutually use both accounts" crap.--xoxo 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that A/PM is the place to do it. Someone really needs to throw together a reassessment policy, so we don't get this dramafest every time someone wants to demote a sysop. Even if it's just a rough framework that we can discuss and work on, it's a lot better then nothing. Hell, if one isn't up soon, then I'll do it myself (although it will probably fail :(. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that's even possible considering what the subject matter is, there will always be drama in calling someone unfit. Also, A/PM is promotions, I believe you meant A/PD(Policy Discussion).--Karek^maps?! 08:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean less drama. Your right, there will always be some drama, but it would be nice having some clear guidelines, too. I meant that any reassesment should go through A/PM. Obviously, the policy so that can happen should go through A/PD first. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at something along those lines. Or at least a way to make A/M a bit more scary.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(content moved from the below section)

Who the hell added this vote section? Since when does Gnome get a vote? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops... i forgot that gnome was longer a sysop --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You, forgetting stuff, again? Colour me shocked and amazed(!) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Reading through this whole discussion. I was previously prepared allow J3D another chance in this case. However, in the context of his other actions I now feel compelled to change my vote. He has shown himself to be completely unsuitable as a Sysop and, while I cannot support his demotion, neither do I oppose it. Either way, Misconduct--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine your vote is for let the community decide then. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He has shown himself to be completely unsuitable as a Sysop what part of that is unclear? While he doesn't want to call for the demotion he obviously sees J3D is not fit for the position. If anything that line makes it a FOR, but we won't put words in his mouth if he wants to keep his hands clean of this.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think outright demotion is too harsh. A community vote would work the best. --ZsL 20:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You do realise you are going directly against wiki policy with this stance, don't you? You are basically re-writting the misconduct policy via a sysop only vote, instead of the whole community. "Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive." Probably grounds for misconducting the sysop who decides to start such a process. If you don't want him demoted this time, vote against, FFS. What's the fucking problem? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:52 2 January 2009 (BST)

I'm busy at the moment, I'll look into all this later. In the meantime the only comment i saw that i should probably protested against is Nubis saying something along the lines of 'this has been here for 2 weeks, demote him'. Considering the importance of such a decision, 2 weeks from the 31st (when the "vote" was put up) should be waited and all active sysops should be compelled to vote. Of course i think this is totally ridiculous however i haven't got the time at the moment to discuss. In summation, 2 weeks = time for me to read over and respond AND time for sysops who haven't decided to decide because really, there's no reason (aside from inactivity) that they aren't weighing in. --xoxo 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which kinda makes the point for why we shouldn't wait well, aside from the fact that check user information degrades.--Karek^maps?! 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow but shit happens when i am away! Personally i do not think the laughing at bob's impersonator deserves a demotion; though it is certainly not what i would wish of him! I feel that the screams for demotion are most vocal from those who have clearly shown their bias and that is not a good thing. He was promoted because of community support and that is the foundation of the whole system.... to demote or bar from promotion those that the sysop clique dislike is to be avoided at all cost. That said, the check user abuse seems to be a very serious issue which i do not feel i know enough about to judge either way. Demotion for the actual accusation seems very harsh and stinks of witch hunting & my favoured option would be for a clear case to be made on the single issue of actual misconduct rather than the vandal lolz + hints at dark doings that we ordinary users can't be told about. As I say tho, if the user check abuse is as clear cut and serious as is suggested then i can see no option but demotion or at least a forced community revue!--Honestmistake 02:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't promoted due to community support. Rosslessness was promoted due to community support. Seventythree was promoted due to community support. J3D slipped through the cracks in the system without having real community support. That this is misconduct has been already decided, all that's on the table right now is the punishment. Forced community review isn't a punishment, it's a way for the sysops who would prefer not to take a stance on it by choosing a more legitimate middle ground to pass the buck to the community. More to the point your comment exemplifies why it's a bad idea; You can't be sure of the specifics and it boils down to he said vs he said as opposed to actual consideration of all of the facts of the case.--Karek^maps?! 02:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let the community decide is the new abstain since it isn't policy and isn't against or for. The punishment has been decided. There is nothing left to discuss.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not abstain, since i have made myself clear that i dont support J3D keeping his sysop status. But, i find it more fair to let the community decide on his fate, with my against input as part of it. Also, there is no guideline or rule on how a misconudct case should be dealt with, we do things in a case by case scenario here. Therefore you can't dismiss let the community decide as abstain votes and simply enforce your POV. Are you playing grim there ? Its strange that the misconduct is the page where users are brought to for violating the red tape, yet its one of those pages who does not have any red tape. Anyway, back on topic. This case was already settled as misconduct, why not let the community give their input here ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hagnat, start making sense and stop contradicting yourself. You say you aren't ABSTAINING, you say you don't support him keeping his sysop status (FOR), then you say let the comm. decide with my (AGAINST) input as part of it. You have hit all three options there, buddy.

As far as the community goes there have been non-sysops (the community) making comments. So, J3D isn't Grim and therefore doesn't bring out the crowds. Ok. But this has been here for 2 weeks and each issue brought up by those non-ops have been addressed.

And most people that said "Let the community decide" also said they didn't think he was right for the job in so many words. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me that the vast majority of those voting "let the community decide" are after as much popularity as they can get their grubby little hands on. Especially those spouting the "let my vote count for as much as the common man" shit. They want him gone, but they're more than happy to see him remain as long as they can appear to be giving the People a say. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's stopping them from actually making a substantial ruling here and then doing the responsible thing and, assuming he doesn't get demoted here, actually request for him to put in for a review of his own accord. That's the way this type of thing has always been done, hell it's how Cyberbob240 got demoted. Nothing good comes from forcing him into it in place of an actual decision.--Karek^maps?! 05:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been pointed out before when suggested in the past that this type of thing is not a punishment, especially for some users where the expected result is known before hand. Based on his last bid I put it to you that were he up for a bid the only difference would be that more sysops would be against him being a sysop. Bannings and Demotions, those are punishments, they are how every misconduct case has been resolved. What makes J3D warrent special treatment other than an attempt to pass the buck and take an intentionally non-commital stance? --Karek^maps?! 05:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So we have precedent where the community vote isn't a punishment. We have policy that says once Misconduct is declared the punishment is administered. And we have a punishment on the table. Honestly where is the hold up? --– Nubis ^NWO 05:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Putting it to the community" is a cop-out and an abdication of your responsibility as sysops. "Passing the buck" as I think Karek said. Do your jobs and decide one way or another on J3D's status. --WanYao 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring a page for a week and then reading it all at once is not the right way to do things. Misconduct by the way. The whole checkuser things is a step too far for my liking. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying his actions are not misconduct, however demoting J3D for allowing a vandal account to troll Bob is a massive over-reaction. His actions there deserve punishment and a very strong warning but its not even close to worth a demotion. Those wanting him demoted on the check user thing may be on stronger grounds but that is not what he has been misconducted for. Even then; unless he has used that information maliciously i think demotion is still possibly a bit strong especially when 3 of the 4 pushing for that result have a strong and obvious bias against J3D and have been against his sysopship from the start. I understand that check user abuse is serious and deals with peoples privacy but FFS make a case on that and stop trying to tag it onto an existing case--Honestmistake 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

HM actually has a point. While I understand that you're looking at "patterns of behavior" here, I think it might be more appropriate to seperate the checkuser issue from this case, and file a second misconduct based on that. I know, however, that's just not going to happen.... **sigh** --WanYao 13:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a bit late now. I guess it would be appreciated if that was done in future. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

J3D Demotion (vote)

do not edit this section unless you are sysop voting

For

1. Nubis
2. Karek
3. boxy
4. Rosslessness
5. Hagnat (changed his vote below)

Against

1. Conn

Let the community decide

1. Hagnat
2. Zs
3. General
4. Cheese
5. Thari

Pretty sure the General didn't actually say he was for this.--Karek^maps?! 06:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wan Yao, Hagnat said to demote him.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An ending

This is being decided here and now. Expressing a view that the community should decide is not an option in this case given that there has been discussion in the past about this, but it never gets implemented. Forcing such a policy through on a vote like this, where only sysops are eligible, and it's not even a vote dedicated to such a policy is not on. Take it to A/PD if you think you can make it workable. If you're not willing to vote for or against, then don't vote. In a few hours I will tally up the fors and againsts, and act accordingly, either demoting, or ruling that out and moving on to what is an acceptable outcome -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:35 2 January 2009 (BST)

It is done. 1 against demotion, 4 for demotion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:29 2 January 2009 (BST)

Actually it was 4 in favour of demotion and 6 against demotion right there and then. As a result, we put him up for re-evaluation and the community decide whether they want him there or not. And 6 hours is nowhere near enough time to let those of us who voted for the community option to let our opinions heard. At the very least you could have given us a nudge on our talk pages to let us know. -- Cheese 13:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No there wasn't 4 For - 1 Against - 4 CV. Notice that The General never indicated he wanted to be placed in the community vote section (Hagnat just put the name in there). And you can't just say that the CV votes are all against, given that Hagnat (for one) clearly supports demotion, and others hadn't committed themselves one way or the other. You all had plenty of time to vote one way or the other, because it has been made clear that CV was not an option for a long time before I started this section. Misconduct punishment is a job for the sysop team to decide. You may just as well say "let the community decide" on A/VB as well, so that popular vandals can appeal to a vote to evade warnings or bans. The majority view amongst the sysops is clear, J3D has been shown not to be suitable for the position, and he has been demoted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:34 3 January 2009 (BST)

Can we please archive this case then?--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You put this to a "community vote" and I'll consider misconducting whoever actually posts that. Dealing with Misconduct and possible demotions is part of a sysop's responsibilities. There is no such thing as a "Put it to the community" vote. Those votes do not count for anything, they're moot and to be discarded. Now do your damn job already and quit trying to pass the buck on to the "community". --WanYao 13:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's been stated above-the only way for reassessment within policy is for a demotion to happen, and someone to put him up again at A/PM. So if you want to get him reassessed, that's the only way, as far as I know. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I am being a stubborn dick about this... But it's because I am very irritated seeing some of you shirking your responsibilities as sysops -- and violating policy in doing so. I can understand that your intention is probably to be more transparent and "democratic" by putting this to a general vote. However, this is just not a place where such things are appropriate -- and even if it is appropriate, which is very debatable, atm it's counter to policy. And it really does appear like you're trying to avoid looking bad by making a decision, so are instead fence-walking. Seriously... just do your jobs and decide, one way or another. This is one of the powers you've been entrusted with... if you don't use it, then as far as I'm concerned you've lost my trust -- and thus the powers that go along with that trust. That may sound harsh, but it's the straight up truth. --WanYao 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WHICH POLICY ? There is no policy that limits how we deal with misconduct cases. And leaving the final decision to the community is also a way to deal with misconduct! Anyway, i couldnt give a bigger rats arse about this case, so if you people so desperatly want to demote J3D, just go ahead. You had my support and i just changed it to allow the common people a chance to say something... but saying that such option is an invalid one and the opinion of all those who voted for it weights nothing... that's just wrong. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Wan, you do know that I am the one who brought on this community decision thing? I don't really think it's shirking their responsibilities if one OF the community asked for their opinion to be heard on the matter. And to be frank, I didn't call for a community vote. Hagnat interpreted what I said, which was just chance for the community to be heard, and thus making this less of a witch hunt, as calling for a community decision. I specifically stated that we shouldn't base it entirely on the unwashed masses, but let their opinion be heard. Not a general vote. Just a general discussion type thing. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote boxy above:

You do realise you are going directly against wiki policy with this stance, don't you? You are basically re-writting the misconduct policy via a sysop only vote, instead of the whole community. "Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive." Probably grounds for misconducting the sysop who decides to start such a process. If you don't want him demoted this time, vote against, FFS. What's the fucking problem?

And, even if it's not against policy, it's still passing the buck. There is no need to waste time and inflame more drama on a community vote. Not when the users we've entrusted with the powers to deal with shit like this are supposed to be dealing with it.

So, if you can decide to put J3D's position up for a community vote, then I want a binding public review of all the sysop team. Does that sound fair? --WanYao 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And the opportunity for community input already exists -- right here. That's what goes on on this page. That's exactly what we're doing. Right now. Those who care enough to get involved and have their voices heard have the chance to so. Right here. --WanYao 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well.. it's not like there's an announcement on the Wiki News (Main Page). Most of the community probably doesn't know about this (and the others are not sure about posting here).

Anyway, if my opinion can be heard, this sentence: As a result, we put him up for re-evaluation and the community decide whether they want him there or not. sums what I think. --Janus ^talk 21:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the community should be allowed to decide whether J3D be removed as a sysop, given that he was promoted as a sysop due to community support in the first place. I haven't heard anyone call for J3D's demotion except a few of the sysops and Cyberbob, and a vocal minority should not be allowed to demote a sysop without considering community opinion. Just my 2 cents. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not going to happen now as there is too much chance that J3D might gain enough support to make Boxy, Karek and Nubis look stupid/petty. My main concern is that he has been demoted on the say so of those 3 alone. Hagnat clearly thinks the community should be the ones to decide in an open vote but just doesn't seem to see the point in arguing when (i guess) that his vote would then be for demotion which I suppose is fair enough. What really gets me though is that he is still being demoted for ignoring a petty 1 shot vandal account that clearly was doing no harm and showed no evidence that it was going to go on any sort of vandal spree. Yes he almost certainly should have stepped in but you can hardly blame him for finding it funny under the circumstances. Most of those looking for demotion are justifying it with an action of J3Ds that hasn't even been brought as a case.... its like Al Capone getting 30 odd life sentences for tax evasion when they couldn't pin anything else on him! --Honestmistake 21:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Honest, are you not reading EVERYTHING? He's not being demoted for that alone. He's being demoted for that, along with abusing the Check User, along with a myriad of other mess ups.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly he isn't reading at all since Rosslessness also voted demote. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I know people are using those as evidence of why but they are not the subject of this misconduct case and thus should be dealt with as different issues. I for 1 know very little about the check user abuse but have to wonder why it was not brought as a case in its own right when it seems to be the most important issue at stake. As for demotion as punishment rather than a community review... the main reason i see for that is that if he is demoted and restands J3D would NOT have a chance of re-election because there is no way Boxy would promote him even with 50+ known users vouching him. If on the other hand he faces a peer review and passes, then its not an actual promotion bid so the result would have to stand. As I say I am not at all sure he does not need demotion over the check user thing... but i am pretty sure that he SHOULD be judged on the actual case rather than the "He is guilty of misconduct here and just look at all the far worse shit that we could have thrown at him too" that we have here. What this case is is a backdoor way to demote him on a technicality rather than based on an actual serious misconduct case. --Honestmistake 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel very sorry for you that you are functionally illiterate.

• Check User Abuse can't be openly discussed here because of privacy concerns. Karek and others have pointed out why HERE ON THIS PAGE. They also pointed it out on A/VB. Boxy and I have as much of a conversation as we can "legally" have on our talk pages. The Check User abuse has been very discussed and isn't just getting "tacked on".
• 17 users vouched for him. 17 /= 50. 17 < 50. 17 is not 50. Do I need to go through this for "50+" too? Promotion is not based on popular vote anyway. It is based on the candidate.
• Community review is not a punishment. There is precedent that it is not an option. It is not an option because of precedent and the fact it isn't punishment.
• You are exactly the uninformed type of user that we can not "explain" the details of the case to. You admit ignorance, yet you still think your opinion on the case would be valid? How about I consult you on brain surgery then? I doubt you are a brain surgeon, but since you seem to think having an opinion is enough the surgery should go well. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have an opinion on this case.... this case was brought in response to J3Ds A/VB misconduct NOT his misuse of check user. That issue has been brought up as a reason why he should be demoted but that is not the same as it being a misconduct case. I do not know the full details of check user abuse because i do not need to in this case, however from what i have read it seems he has breached the rules in order to check on Boxy for no good reason. I agree that this seems serious and i have no problem with further details been made public as long as all the sysops who can look into the matter do and agree that it is serious misconduct. My point which you are deliberatly ignoring is that no misconduct charge has officially been brought on the check user problem and using it as evidence in an unrelated case is plain wrong and is making it look suspiciously like you do not have a real case to make and are just grasping at straws to be rid of a problem... Personally I am more concerned that no one has misconducted J3D for not taking steps to ensure that asshat Read has access to his account, however that is by-the-by and the fact here is that J3D has either been demoted for not banning a minor nuisance or for something which has been discussed but not brought as a case and both of those situations are wrong! --Honestmistake 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Christ... you are basing your entire fucking argument around what is possibly the most pathetic technicality I have ever seen, if it can even be called that - there is nothing to say that new evidence cannot be brought into a misconduct case. Sure, Boxy could have started a whole new case for the CheckUser stuff but that would have been a complete waste of space as there was already a discussion going. You do not have to separate every single aspect of a sysop's misconduct into separate cases, so kindly SHUT THE FUCK UP. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This is A/M, proof doesn't need to be represented to the general community just the sysops. The fact that proof for that can't be represented to the community without violating one of the wiki's most fundamental rules kinda makes your point void.--Karek^maps?! 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to realise is that this is all based on popular consensus. Promotion may not be technically based on popular acclaim, but Policy voting is. J3D's conduct is only misconduct if he fundamentally breaches the trust of the community, if the community doesn't mind, then it's not misconduct. Sysops pursuing their personal agendas to try and remove one of their own that they've dislike since he was promoted could well be the catalyst that pushes through the policy that promotions and demotions become subject to popular vote. If sysops insist on using technicalities to advance their own wishes that are contrary to the will of the community, they might find those technicalities disappearing along with their sysop status. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And you are wrong about something there Iscariot...If J3d used Checkuser, which is Sysop only ability, inappropriately i.e. used his ability to violate a members privacy without due cause/process, and a sysop files the misconduct case, and the other sysops deem it misconduct, the community at large has no voice in the misconduct proceeding at all. Now the community may decide to try and have him promoted again..which more than likely won't happen since that is under the purview of the bureaucrats exclusively. Now, I'm not saying that is right or not but that is the way it is. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite following, J3D being re-promoted wouldn't happen because as we all know promotions/demotions aren't popular votes, but policy votes are. If a user could get enough popular support to be re-promoted, and then subsequently wasn't, that same user could have that popular support put into a policy vote which will take the power off the bureaucrats. Simply put, if this is forced through against the wishes of the community, then the policy that certain sysops are hiding behind to further their own agenda might disappear in a round of voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, they can't. It's been tried before, I believe in the most recent one Kevan himself vetoed it as a valid option.--Karek^maps?! 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same Kevan who publicly stated he'd have been fine with Grim's coup if he had community approval? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Honestmistake isn't being very intelligent at the moment. Fine, fuck, the case was brought for a different reason than the Check User abuse, but damn, evidence is evidence, it should be used in an existing case instead of letting him off for one thing, and then bringing up individual cases for everything else. Besides, the two subjects ARE related. They both have to do with his abuse of his powers. If he fucks up multiple times in any category, each mess up should be considered when he finally gets to the chopping block. Not each individual thing.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Outcome

Misconduct - Demoted