UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2008-12-21 Misconduct: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "{{Sysop Archives Breadcrumbs|Boxy|2008-12-21 Misconduct|M|2008|Ruled Not}} ===2008, December 21=== This case...")
 
m (Protected "UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2008-12-21 Misconduct": Administration Archive ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 20:56, 7 September 2015

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2008-12-21 Misconduct


Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions | Demotions | Misconduct (TBD) | Promotions | Re-Evaluations
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

2008, December 21

This case had one vote of vandalism and one of not vandalism, other sysops had commented but not ruled. Karek, as the bringer of the case, cannot make a ruling. Yet boxy decided to warn me about it anyway, which A/VD confirms. Given the borderline nature of the case (evident in a split decision) and the fact that Nubis ruled based on a "larger case", boxy was premature in issuing a warning.--xoxo 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis + boxy = 2 -- boxy talkteh rulz 06:28 21 December 2008 (BST)
Boxy ruled vandalism, not misconduct learn to count, it tends to actually make or break your case. --Karekmaps?! 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Counting? Does that include Hagnat intentionally misrepresenting the result of the Nubis case? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Boxy didn't rule. He said warning after he'd ruled.--xoxo 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And to clarify bu ruled i mean warned on my talk page and entered me in A/VD.--xoxo 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not Misconduct - Nubis + Boxy ruling vandalism = 2, Hagnat ruling not vandalism = 1. 2 > 1 so therefore, he was within his right to warn you. -- Cheese 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It was worth a try ;) --xoxo 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, is that an admission of a frivolous case I see there? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
try reading 4 lines up, check the histories. then come back.--xoxo 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing you've written above changes the fact that you just admitted you knew that Boxy's actions were within the rules. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
*sigh*, please tell me you're playing stupid.--xoxo 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
No, but something tells me you are. This case is flawed, and your comment shows that you knew it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not Misconduct hmmmm....Precedent..... Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - In case you manage to count 1+1= -1 :P.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (Boxy)

resolved
Not Misconduct 4 (Karek, Conndraka, The General, Cheese) Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 09:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)