UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Karek/2008

26 October 2008

Deleting the page DDR when it had already been via A/SD and ended up on A/D as it received a keep vote, which, as policy states means it is immediately moved to A/D and given 2 weeks voting. Crits stated were 3 and 9. It was only even 3 because Karek deleted all links to the page off the wiki first :S Double misconduct! Anyway i tried asking this Karek the reason for this on good ol' User talk:Karek, this was ignored, so i took it to A/U where it was denied without explanation by Nubis.--xoxo 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct - the votes on that page were rendered invalid after DanceDanceRevolution attempted to mislead the community as to the number of links to that page. Repairing the links to such redirects before the deletion is standard practice, even if not required for such speedydeletions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:42 26 October 2008 (BST)

That is not the main issue here. Leaving the validation of Crit 3ing them all aside, DDR received a keep vote and thus must go through the A/D system. Karek deleted the page without going through the proper channel, the only exception to that rule is crit 6, which it wasn't.--xoxo 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get the opinions of the rest of the sysops? On this and on a/vb, a/u, and a/d? I think Boxy might have been compromised. C'mon I know you're all there. Come out!--Nallan (Talk) 08:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Slap on the wrist Misconduct but barely. At first glance it looks as though he didn't follow guidelines as set by policy, however this situation doesn't actually have clear policy considering the possibility of vote tampering, and the fact that user redirects are as a matter of tradition, "speedy deletion fodder" (happened to be one of the first issues we were tackling when I was promoted back in the day). What should have happened was those receiving keeps should have been immediately resubmitted to A/D with the available information posted. But since Karek was operating in what he perceived as the operational parameters of the Wiki, it can't be full blown misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 14:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct I firmly believe all user redirects need to go. I will vote delete on all of them. I will deny all requests to undelete them. I will vote every (within reason) misconduct case involving a redirect deletion as not misconduct. This is my opinion that I put on the initial deletion request and hopefully I adequately explained my POV and suggestion for an alternative well enough on A/SD and my talk page. I am loathe to repeating myself on each page that this spills over on to. So please don't take my "lack of commenting" on my action as anything less than not wanting to C&P myself. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - As Nubis Said.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. --xoxo 05:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

20 August 2008

Protected A/VB and A/SD in violation of The guidelines of this wiki. It is not subject to scheduling, it was not being vandalised, and there was no protections request filed through A/PT. Relevant logs Here and Here for A/VB and A/SD respectively. Ive just unfucked them so the pages are usable again. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:02, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Those links don't seem to work. Try these: ein und zwei. -- Cheese 19:22, 20 August 2008 (BST)

There was a problem regarding that apparently protected pages don't allow normal users to see Transcluded Edit links(the whole purpose of the rework was/is to remove the ability to edit the 2000+ diff page while keeping usability). --Karek^maps?! 19:33, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I fully understand and support what you were trying to do, i just wish you did it by the book. Thats why we are here. A little more testing pre-implimentation would not have hurt either. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:43, 20 August 2008 (BST)

What does that mean in English? O_o -- Cheese 20:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I like what he is doing to A/SD and A/VB. He should have followed the guidelines in implimenting the protections part, and he should have tested it too first. Im sorry, but if what i said last was unclear then perhaps you are in dire need of something to do your thinking for you. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 20:26, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, it was pretty simple...

Also, Couldn't Karek have posted some kind of disclaimer or warning or notification that he was doing it? Quite a panic could have arisen amongst normal users if a large amount had logged on to discover the A/VB page out of action. Anything from a footnote to a WikiNews event would have greatly helped. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I got the bit you said, I was wondering about what Karek said. -- Cheese 20:57, 20 August 2008 (BST)

The A/VB and A/SD pages became locked solid, normal users couldn't edit them or their discussion pages in any way (including to make reports) Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I am glad I am not a sysop ... Because on the one hand, what Karek did was not bad faith, it was an attempt to improve things. Be bold! as the saying goes... But on the other hand, he fucked up. Badly. And, didn't go through standard procedures... So one the one hand, demoting Karek doesn't really seem to follow the spirit of policy -- because there was no wilful abuse of sysop powers going down. But on the other hand... it really made a mess... Good luck with this, ladies and Germs fans. --WanYao 23:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Before I do anything, what was the purpose of protecting those pages? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:50, 20 August 2008 (BST)

It's to do with this discussion, presumably the protection was done so that other users didn't attempt to edit the main A/VB page instead of the sections as they are meant to in this new system (sort of like people used to edit their suggestions into the category page instead of creating new pages when we changed the suggestions system). Unfortunately the section edit links show up for sysops on protected pages, but not for ordinary users. A minor hiccup, brought on by only discussing it in the sysop discussion area :-/ -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:04 21 August 2008 (BST)

You could always make a fake [edit] to fix that problem. Should be no different. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:10, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I don't believe that he's being put on Misconduct for not creating a fake edit symbol Gnome... Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (BST)

No no, just a possible solution to the edit-protected-page-problem. Although, the fake [edit] wouldn't really work with a real edit on the A/VB archive, so we might need a fake header instead? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:30, 21 August 2008 (BST)

If it is related to the discussion boxy linked (like I think it is) then it is clearly Not Misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 00:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Even though he ignored the proper procedures for protecting a page, such as submitting it to A/P or having an urgent reason? Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (BST)

You really don't understand what this is about and all you see is PROTECTED PAGE RAWR RAWR! He wasn't protecting the page to stop people from using it. Read the link boxy posted. Seriously. It was posted on an Admin discussion page. I'm sorry if that page isn't as drama filled as VB and therefore no one reads it, but it is still a legit page. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:31, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I never said he protected the page to stop people from using it, and I don't think that anyone here thinks he had malicious intent. I do, however, believe, that he ignored the proper channels and protocol for protection, and that is Misconduct. No one's saying A/AD isn't a legit page, but posting an idea on there does not give someone the authority to instantly act it out. Now please either stop screaming long enough to actually understand what I was saying, or go yell at me on your talk page. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Let me get this straight. A discussion was posted on the Admin discussion page about a serious issue with a popular page. An Admin discussion page that, well, Admins should read and discuss things on. I found it, boxy, Karek, and AHLG saw it. The discussion had been going on for over a week. So, you expected him to post a request to protect a page on a page handled by sysops (the same sysops that should have been reading Admin discussion page)? So, if sysops are supposed to be reading the Admin Discussion page and sysops are the ones that decide on Protections why should he have to post it twice and get "permission" on the Protection page when no one was objecting to it on the Discussion page? If a page is posted on A/PT it only takes one sysop to approve it. You had 3 other sysops approving it on the discussions page.

I'm the first with torches when sysops abuse their powers, but this isn't an abuse. This was trying to fix something and it not quite working out. Big deal. Nothing was lost or deleted. No one was banned unfairly. When he figures out the code (if he still works on it after this bullshit) then next time there won't be any snafus like making the page unusable for a bit. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:22, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Don't forget that A/PT also serves to let users know what pages should be protected, who requested it and why.--xoxo 03:36, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Because you all never read any other parts of the wiki? That maybe if you had taken an interest in something other than the drama fests you would have seen the discussion about trying to fix functionality of those pages. Maybe you all should have realized that it wasn't locked in a screw you way but as an unfortunate side effect that if the coding had worked the way he thought it would no one would have even noticed.

As much as I am arguing to defend this you would think that that was my name up there. But here's why.(I'm too annoyed to dig up all the links, but these are things Karek has done) Karek is sysop that wants the other sysops to be decent to the users (not a civility policy, but following wikipedia's don't feed the trolls policy) which if followed would cut down on a lot of aggression and whining about Grim. Karek is a voice of reason on the suggestions page and votes without pissing people off (as is Swiers). Karek's name regularly appears on maintenance tasks that are mind numbing and dull but need to be done. Karek is proactive in fixing this wiki. He's an intelligent sysop that still actually fucking works around here rather than just handling the easy stuff. He shouldn't get a black mark on his record for something that is ultimately for the betterment of the wiki.

You all need to decide if you are serving the interests of the wiki or serving the bureaucracy.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I don't understand the background to this case or what karek was trying to do but while it seems in good faith a disregard for the proper channels surely has to result in misconduct. I mean it's not like he's getting demoted or anything...--xoxo 01:43, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Comment removed I had the wrong user in mind. Sorry. I get you confused with someone else. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:37, 21 August 2008 (BST)

heh. jedaz? i get confused there sometimes too...--xoxo 03:03, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I really don't see the problem here. He protected a page without going through A/PT. Misconduct pure and simple. No, he wasn't abusing his powers, he just forgot to do it the way you're supposed to do things, and should get a reminder. Why can't you people just acknowledge the error, give him a warning or something, and move on? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:50, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I'm going to give you a warning about shitting up admin pages as a reminder. You just go ahead and "move on" KTHXBI.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Go ahead, you'll get a misconduct case of your own you can move on from. My point is that he's not being accused of violating the corpse of Mother Teresa with the remains of Gandhi. Just forgetting to do things properly, which he did do. Geez, the way people act in Misconduct seems like a sysop would always get demoted, permabanned, Template:Wikipedia from one case that was ruled Misconduct. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:06, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, pretty much everyone here admits that Karek ignored the proper channels, but pretty much everyone here acknowledges that he did what he did in good faith. This case should be a straight forward slap-on-the-wrist process, all this screaming and drama really isn't necessary. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Because this is a witch hunt... Because too many people are back-seat modding without all the facts, hell without even their feet out of their mouths... Yeah... this wiki is a pretty messed up little scene... And, all the uninformed backseat modding... is what causes the 90% of the screaming and the drama... **le sigh** --WanYao 18:08, 21 August 2008 (BST)

To Midianian and Tech - Your attitude is exactly the problem I'm raging against. If it is just a slap on the wrist What's the fucking point of Misconduct then? Why not just put a Warning on Vandal Data? Why even mention it at all? Just fix the edit, leave a note on his talk page, and advise him to try it on a sandbox a few more times before going live again. Does that seem unreasonable?

Misconduct is a joke because casual attitudes like yours have made it one. Think about it, if he gets a misconduct vote on this it has the same weight as if he had banned random people for no reason. For fuck's sake, Grim's last misconduct case wasn't even about using a sysop power (it was about a comment on a talk page). Misconduct cases need to be drawing and quartering offenses. If a sysop isn't going to get demoted or banned as punishment for his act why bother? Why not just handle it as vandalism? There is no demotion at X amounts of cases (guilty or not) so why keep track? There is no misconduct de-escalation either. Why can't sysops get the same rights as average users? Misconduct needs an overhaul.

(and having said that I don't think this should even be a Misconduct case)--– Nubis ^NWO 15:25, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Honestly, if this could be an A/VB style warning it'd make a lot more sense, both in execution and outcome, but because it entails the use of sysop powers I don't think it's supposed to go through A/VB. Maybe some kind of level system for Misconduct cases is in order? Or perhaps some way to try Misconduct cases as A/VB cases if the involved parties agree it wasn't too severe... Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:11, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, Misconduct needs an overhaul. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:41, 22 August 2008 (BST)

I take that back... the backseat modding is annoying, but not the biggest problem. Or, rather, a symptom of something else?[1] --WanYao 18:23, 21 August 2008 (BST)

ironyironyirony?--xoxo 07:11, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Nope, no irony at all... Behind the snideness is a very serious point... --WanYao 12:20, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct: Once again my view involves a look at the motivations of the edit. If a code monkey wanders off the reservation, he doesn't deserve to get shot. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:23, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Well said!--– Nubis ^NWO 15:25, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Ruling

In this instance, Karek's actions have been judged to be Not Misconduct. Case Closed. -- Cheese 23:02, 22 September 2008 (BST)

12 June 2008

Deleted The Forgotten Contract kills without going through either deletion page. It's deletion caused a broken link issue for this group as it was part of a redirect.--Dragon fang 06:05, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Unused/underused redirects resulting from page moves are scheduled deletions covered by the guidelines. The page wasn't internally linked anywhere, so the deletion was covered by the guidelines. Additionally, I internalized all the links on your group's page, so the link isn't broken anymore; therefore, eliminating the problem entirely. If you have any questions about wiki formatting, you can leave a message on my talk page and I would be glad to answer it. --ZsL 06:29, 12 June 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - As ZS. Case Closed. -- Cheese 11:54, 3 July 2008 (BST)

May 2008

Karek has stricken several Against votes (specifically, those of Money, Jaster, Black N Deckard and TagUrit), in my opinion unjustly, on the Third Bureaucrat policy page. He claims these are for meatpuppetry, yet on the talk page arguments for it have degraded from the original reason to:

• Claiming the users don't have enough 'valid' edits, where 'valid' is a very strict definition apparently not including location pages, the pages belonging to their group or discussion of suggestions, none of which had been ruled as vandalism;
• The users' lack of participation in earlier discussion of the policy, despite this never having been used as a reason before;
• All users voting in the same period of time, despite this period of time being very shortly before the close of voting;
• Saying that the policy they are voting for is unlikely to affect them, despite them being contributing members of the wiki the bureaucrat will have responsibility for.

At the very least, it looks like these deletions were very unfair.

I feel this is particularly bad. Not only does it seem to have been an incorrect ruling, it also looks to have been completely directed, unfairly, against Dead members who are contributing constructively to the wiki. They're a section of users I'd have thought you'd want to avoid alienating. In fact, I'd have thought you'd be positively encouraging such things. It hardly boosts opinion of the wiki if, even when Dead members genuinely contribute, they are shunned. More worryingly, however, it seems to set several precedents which could be very easily used by sysops to rule invalid a few votes to ensure one of their policy. I'm particularly concerned by the very strict definition of 'valid' edits, and how it seems ok to ignore someone's vote if the policy won't affect them: this could be abused in many weird and wonderful ways.

I've put this complaint here as striking votes seems to be a sysop-only matter. If it's not, I'll happily move this to A/VB, or wherever else it should go. --Grarr 21:58, 1 May 2008 (BST)

EDIT: Hagnat struck, without signature, Money's vote, and so (pending the approval of Vantar as he's already voted), I am adding Hagnat to this complaint as well. --Grarr 19:42, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I second this complaint for the reasons given.--דקק#99 22:08, 1 May 2008 (BST)

I'm open to hearing discussion on the matter, it's why I left the policies talk page unprotected. I do, however, believe my reasons for why I did it are very clear over there and as such I'm going to let that be my "defense" for this misconduct case instead of needlessly arguing to the point of semantics.--Karek^maps?! 22:29, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct I believe the votes in question are suspicious. Historically group page and user page edits have been discounted in establishing a users level of activity. My issue is in the one sidedness of Karak's strikes. If Money, Jaster, Black N Deckard and TagUrit "against" votes are strikeable why isn't Randyest "for" vote also struck, it seams just as questionable. Since Karak only struck votes from one side despite questionable votes on both sides I say misconduct - Vantar 22:44, 1 May 2008 (BST)

See where this is heading I want to clarify that I have no problem with the fact that votes were struck, meat puppetry = bad and all. But what karak did is more akin to election rigging since he only removed questionable "against" votes even though there we questionable votes on both sides. - Vantar 23:40, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - meat puppetry should not be allowed. Karek did the right thing by removing the four initial votes and i finished his work by removing two others. There was already a discussion about this subject going on the policy talk page, there was no need to move it to this section. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:33, 1 May 2008 (BST)

The discussion has been going on for a while. Randyest posted on the 15th. Karek removed the votes on the 29th. Today is May 1st. Are you saying it takes you 2 days to read a page? I know I call the Mods slow, but this is the worst excuse. All void votes should have been deleted when voting closed and not when pointed out. Since you are striking votes you are hardly unbiased now in this aren't you? I say your actions made you a part of this and you should be removed from deciding on this.--דקק#99 00:11, 2 May 2008 (BST)

EDIT: Not to mention we have proof and direct quotes from you on your bias towards the Dead. Since the matter directly involves the Dead as a group you should not be allowed to rule on this.--דקק#99 01:08, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I'll be damned... so you still think i'm trying to persecute you guys ? Sheesh. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:15, 2 May 2008 (BST)

If not by some few users that i know and respect that came from the SA forums, i'd love to see all of you banned from here. You can call that corrupted by the power, i call it for the good of the urban dead community --People's Commissar Hagnat-5 [cloned] [mod] 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Wonder where we got that idea? But this is actually about not doing the job properly or impartially. You should not be voting on a case you are involved in. (any further on this may need to be moved to a talk page)-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 21:41, 2 May 2008 (BST)

You are quoting something from two months ago, a lot has changed since then (including my opinion on you goons)... and the misconduct page has a little bit that says that any discussion about a misconduct case should go here, not in the talk page... not too found of it, though. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I'd say it's extremely dubious for Hagnat to be voting when one of his actions is actually cited in the complaint. I assumed that Karek was responsible for all the invalidations as he was the only one who signed, and apologise for falsely accusing him in the case of Money. On that note, would it be possible to amend the complaint (obviously with the agreement of Vantar) to include Hagnat in my complaint, for his dubiously unsigned deletion of Money's vote? -Grarr 17:04, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I like how you guys got all the facts right before creating this misconduct case. Classy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't boast about the problems caused by not signing your actions as a sysop. --Grarr 23:10, 2 May 2008 (BST)

Firstly, I think it should be noted that Karek was willing to unstrike votes if particular voters turned up and pleaded their case. That is not the behaviour of someone who is acting outside the rules. He was similarly willing to discuss the matter fully, without recourse to flame-baiting or similar tactics. Secondly, as I was the one that requested that action be taken against the (alleged) meatpuppet votes, if Karek is found guilty of Misconduct then I should take his punishment, or the equivalent (if it's psyop-specific), instead of him. Karek and I have had our (oftentimes vociferous) disagreements in the past, but I think it's clear here that he was attempting to protect this community (whilst still being open to criticism, and willing to alter edits based on that), and we shouldn't punish any contributer for doing that. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:31, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I would like to ask if there are any precedents for this sort of thing? I certainly haven't seen any, and would be surprised if there were any strikings of accounts that had contributed over a few days before voting on the policy (or whatever) in question as these guys did. Meat puppetry has been going on forever, it's a problem, but not a major one, and not something that is so simply resolved. It's just a fact of internet life that large groups can muster support for their beliefs. It's happened before with other large groups/forums... sometimes organised, and sometimes simply because a vote is mentioned on a popular thread without asking for any organised input. I don't see this as major misconduct, as Karek has shown a willingness to unstrike when the vote is backed up, but wouldn't like to see it become commonplace that users votes are struck due to their newness to the wiki... just as I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:43 3 May 2008 (BST)

If I might add AxeHack's recent promotion bid as evidence of this: he advertised for his vote on facebook in a manner far more provable and dishonourable than what was going on here, and nothing was done. Granted, he withdrew his candidacy, and I know it's not a vote like this is, but I'm sure if Karek and Hagnat justified to act in this case something should have been done there where it was so obvious.

I would, however, question you on exactly how minor this is. 'You can get it reversed if you want to' is a dubious precedent and also makes striking a terrible defence against meatpuppetry, as it's easily exploitable by meatpuppets solely dedicated to making the vote fail, and so checking the page often, but affects innocent users who have other things to do on the wiki and don't check back. It's already been shown by Vantar that there was bias for the policy, which I'd say makes this look like this was an attempt to rig, even if that attempt was mainly driven by a largely subconscious bias. And finally, I'd say he's acted very irresponsibly by effectively setting a precedent where sysops, with as muchvested interest as they like, can be modifying the results of votes. What happened to Sysops are not Moderators, anyway? --Grarr 16:28, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Just for clarification purposes - I was one of the sysops online during part of the Axehack promotion bid gunk, so I may have had a chance to strike out the invalid votes. However due to the speed at which the entire thing shot down the shitter, and the convoluted layers of accusations and counteraccusations (I beleive Axehack thought he was responding to a wave of accounts created for the sole purpose of vouching against him) it was rather hard to figure out what exactly had happened. I beleive that axehack eventualy mentioned his facebook rallying, and it was bought to someones attention (if I remember correctly) but by the time anyone was in a position to do anything about it axehack had withdrawn the bid and left the wiki for an undetermined time. Therefore there was realy no point in invalidating votes, especialy as you pointed out, and I pointed out at the time - the promotions bid relies on community diiscussion - it is not a vote.--Seventythree^Talk 16:35, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Very well. Of course, there's still no precedent of a sysop actually being able to strike votes in the first place, let alone whether they think they're meatpuppets or not, especially as they're not supposed to be moderators. --Grarr 16:44, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I have no problem with Funt taking the punishment also since he was the one that turned the discussion into a shitstorm. Users shouldn't have to plead for their votes to be valid. Don't think it's big of Karek to go unstrike a vote he shouldn't have struck in the first place. It's misconduct. He has a history of [this]. This shouldn't just be considered "minor" at this point.

If I hadn't called him out on it he wouldn't have unstruck that one vote at all. So that wasn't out of the kindness of his heart. I can't believe he thought he would get away with striking Black N Deckard's vote. That's really misconduct/incompetency. Black N Deckard has quite a few different edits. (it's nice that it is restored, but it shouldn't have been voided in the first place. And we shouldn't have had to go this far to get this addressed.) Why not make a policy that any sysop that votes on wiki policy like this is unable to remove votes. It would lessen the appearance of impropriety or possible vote tampering. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 16:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)

just as I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals - Trust me - If people aren't interested in the wiki they don't get involved. Any goon that is here has an interest in the wiki and its' policies.-- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 16:12, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I did not offer "also", I offered "instead". I'm not sure what your motives are here, DCC. Most people seem to want to come to a reasoned agreement about what happened, and to discuss it. You seem to be out for blood. If someone negotiates their position, that's a positive thing, isn't it? And yet you want to punish people for negotiating with you? Come on - give peace a chance instead of baying for blood. As for "vote tampering" - well, that's what started all this in the first place. There were still people who (after a blip of initial activity) then got called back in to bolster a vote, and who aren't really taking part in editing this wiki. This attack on Karek could be seen as rather a large smokescreen for that. You've heard of the pot calling the kettle black, right? --Funt Solo ^QT 17:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)

There's a reason why all modern Western justice systems do not allow others to stand in place of the defendants, and it's because they aren't out for blood. They're out for justice, against the person who committed the crime, to avoid anything like it happening again. And it's why we want the sysops involved, and not you, to face the punishments. We'd have no problem with you going over to A/VB and reporting yourself for flamebaiting or whatever, but in this case, we'd quite like sysop accountability, even if they do have masochist supporters willing to stand in and pay their idol's dues. You see, in this case, Karek and Hagnat took up the role of moderators, and in that role their job is to make a judgement between two conflicting points of view. The holders of the points of view are just saying what they believe, so they aren't those who should be punished. No, it's the one who claimed to be able to take these points of views, make a balanced, correct judgement on which one should be put into practice, affecting the community as a whole, but got it wrong. Except, in this case, they shouldn't really have been moderating in the first place, but we'll just ignore that for now. --Grarr 19:33, 3 May 2008 (BST)

yada yada yada... you guys are creating a lot of drama for nothing... just wait for another sysop to shows up and say his opinion on this case. sheesh. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:56, 3 May 2008 (BST)

It does take two to tango, Hagnat --Grarr 20:33, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not a sysop, but I wanna pipe in here... First, Boxy wrote: "...I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals." Uhhhhmmmmm... let's be perfectly clear here: they do it at barhah.com... I'm also under the impression that the NMC has done it... Why should barhah be able to get away with posts saying, "go vote no/yes for this ir that", but not the Goons? This hpw the sometimes flawed process of democracy works... Ever heard of vote stacking, i.e. they do it in political party nominations all the time, it sucks but it happens. Which is why some parties now require membership for a set period before you can vote... I think that decisions to strike votes should be done very carefully: I think karek was a bit heavy-handed here... And, there is a history of not deleting BOTH side of votes... So, I think a "BAD KAREK!!" is in order here... Though not a major misconduct, for reasons Funt said...

That being said... the Goons came here to break the "game". They have consistently shown a general lack of respect for the community and desire to stir shit up for the sake of stirring shit up. They are like one of those punk rawkers who goes all out to look scuzzy, and who is obnoxious and insulting to everyone... then screams DISCRIMINATION!!! left right and centre... Act like assholes, you're gonna get treated with suspicion. Simple... You brought the "persecution" (read: healthy responses to assholes) yoursevles. Deal with it, you fucking whinge fags. ---WanYao 21:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)

This just in Goons getting in trouble for being in character on the wiki but FURRIES and TRENCHIES still A OK. *sighs* *loads shotgun* My little one, someday this war will be over and you will realize that sometimes people just pretend to be things they really aren't. If you actually knew the full story you would realize that we didn't become these "assholes" until Karek unfairly banned our leader. If you are looking for a cause of all this anger that's it. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:26, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Proposal for ruling

This case is going in circles so I propose a quick ending.

The case against Karek is pretty straight forward. He used his sysop status to remove votes from the Third Bureaucrat policy voting and Grarr and others feel that the votes had no reason to be removed. I think all the sysops here would agree that there is nothing wrong with removing meat puppetry so just the fact that votes were removed is not, by its self, misconduct. However it is evident that there is atleast one vote in the "For" section that meets the strikeability criteria Karek was using. The fact that questionable votes where keep in one section while being stuck in other is troubling but I do not think that it is proof that Karek was maliciously trying to manipulate the vote; I think it just means that Karek noticed the problem in one section and reviewed the votes within tha section and striking votes accordingly but was then lax in reviewing the other section. Since this case was started Karek's actions have shown a willingness to correct any votes that should not have been struck. Votes that were perceived as meat puppetry that are shown not to be have been unstuck.Yet that does not change the fact that by failing to evenly scrutinize both the "for" and "against" vote Karek allowed for biasness to be perceived in the administrative process, but because of Karek's handling of the case once a complaint was lodged I propose a that he face no punishment beyond a formal warning not to let it happen again.

As for the complaint against Hagnat, it appears that he struck two votes after Karek had done preliminarily sticking. He didn't sign his strikes but there is nothing there that makes me belief that it is really anything more then failing to add the ~~~~ after the strike template. However by striking votes after Karek had it is implied that he is looking over the votes as well and then the issue of only the "against" votes being scrutinized resurfaces. I propose that Hagnat shares in what ever Karek final punishment be and because of his direct connection to the case request that he exclude himself from ruling in this case (He may discuss, comment, or otherwise contribute, just not rule). - Vantar 21:25, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Warnings have no place here and I'll not have any part of it. If I am to be punished it will be a punishment, not a slap on the wrist warning.--Karek^maps?! 21:57, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I agree. It's either misconduct, or it's not. Period. However... advice, critique and guidelines as to how to deal with similar situations in the future -- and caveats that failing to do differently will result in a miscunduct ruling -- that has a place here, no? --WanYao 22:31, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I am saying misconduct, and no where do i propose a slap on the wrist, I said formal warning, as in the next level one the vandalism ladder. - Vantar 01:11, 4 May 2008 (BST)

um... hi, vantar... why should that single for vote be removed again ? it's not a meat puppet, since it isnt voting together with the rest of the deads (i am not even sure if he is part of the deads) he fails to fit into that category. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:54, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Really? I could have sworn that this was the type of low activity account that had be removed If you are saying you see no reason to strike this vote but are going to say you had just cause for striking Money's then there is no question in my mind that this case is misconduct.- Vantar 01:11, 4 May 2008 (BST)

It's not only low contribution numbers, but also group behaviour that defines a meat-puppet, vantar. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:18, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Actually discounting the edit to his user page, all of his edits have been voting on issues where the dead have had a significant presence. So again I ask why is this user's vote not stuck when the others were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vantar (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Because it doenst fall under group vote... not only he vote against his peers (if he is with the goons), but also votes with a reasonable justification. Thus he can't be called a meat puppet from the goons. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:33, 4 May 2008 (BST)

How is "I don't think we need more. --Money 02:52, 22 April 2008 (BST)" not a reasonable justification or LESS reasonable than "we need a tiebreaker?" Why isn't this As a social anarchist I am against all bureaucracy. --Butters Scotch 16:46, 23 April 2008 (BST)" a reasonable justification?

And you are insane if you are saying that a group can't have more than one vote on the same side of an issue. Do you really want to have to go through every vote and check group affiliation? You know that if you try to defend this then every upcoming vote on ANYTHING will turn into this as we dig up any past group affiliation between any users that voted on the same side. Do you want this type of drama on every vote?
Are you saying we should go to a representative democracy? Why can't you understand that sometimes people that get along get along because they believe the same things?! And stop making yourself look more stupid by trying to suggest that Randyest is not a goon or doesn't fall under the REAL meatpuppet definition. He should be proof that we didn't meatpuppet this vote one way or the other. That everyone that voted voted what they really felt. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:46, 4 May 2008 (BST)

This isnt covered by policy either way. In that respect, the matter should probably have been taken to arbitration at the time, and a policy to cover this should actually be hashed out instead of making things up as you go along.

That said, meatpuppets are people too, though often misinformed, and pretty much an inevitable flaw of the democratic system. Theres nothing that allows anyone to remove votes from other users that meet the rules as they are written. You dont need to be a sysop to remove votes, it just has a more official feel if a sysop does it, and fewer people are likely to argue. This doesnt mean its an attempt to use ones status as a sysop to do it however, which is what is required for this to be misconduct. I canmt see that it has been used as such, so id have to say that while it is not misconduct, it would be vandalism of the votes of other users. Everyone is allowed their opinion. When you use a flawed system, dont be suprised when you have this kind of thing happening, there is nothing out there that allows anyone to remove votes by people they consider meatpuppets at present, and while i wholeheartedly support the creation of such a policy, provided its fair to all involved, without one at this time i am.

As any user can remove a vote, and it doesnt appear to be an attempt to use sysop power to force ones will on the wiki, my ruling on this matter is Not Misconduct, but Vandalism. You may not like the dead, but they are still users of this wiki, and players of this game. Get used to it. Besides, historically Something Awful has historically demonstrated a limited attention span to games when they dont set of an immune response in the community, like you are doing wildly now. This ruling applies to Hagnat as well. One vandal escalation. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:05, 4 May 2008 (BST)

So it's ok to abuse us because "we'll be going away soon?" In case you Mensa applicants haven't noticed we have been heavily involved with UD since at least November. That's 7 months. What's this "short attention span" that you are talking about?

Theres nothing that allows anyone to remove votes from other users that meet the rules as they are written. If there is nothing written that allows them to do it then they CAN'T do it. They are sysops and they did it. That's MISCONDUCT.

there is nothing out there that allows anyone to remove votes by people they consider meatpuppets at present, They did something that isn't allowed - that's MISCONDUCT. The ones they thought were meat puppets weren't that's INCOMPETENCE.

As any user can remove a vote, WTF? Either anyone can remove votes or no one can or only sysops can. You are all over the place here. Your ruling doesn't make any sense and the reasoning behind it is prejudiced to boot. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:46, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Um... Where did you get the idea that im toeing the party line? I honestly dont care about Something Awful. I have better things to do with my time than worry about some faceless person on the other side of my computer screen who may or may not be trolling. I have things like work six days a week, a small tumor in my chest and a nasty infection behind my ear to worry about. Ive mentioned my feelings regarding the Goons on my talk page at least once.

Removing the vote of another user without a valid reason presented by the guidelines is censoring that user and is vandalism. Altering other users votes has always been considered vandalism. Deleting other peoples comments (Votes inclusive) has always been considered vandalism. This is just another case of more of the same. The only reason this is not misconduct is because there are no guidelines that state vote removal is a sysop ability, and there is also no evidence to support the conclusion that the vote removal was done with "official sysop authority' to impose these users will upon the community. Unless either of the former actually existed or happened, it is just plain vandalism, and not misconduct.

A sysop is a regular user on the wiki empowered to do certain tasks that cannot be entrusted to all users. If a system operator misuses those abilities granted him or her by the software and/or the guidelines of this wiki, then he or she is subject to misconduct proceedings. If they do not breach those guidelines regarding the use of their abilities as system operators, yet still do wrong, it is simply treated as the edits of just another user and should be and is treated as a vandalism case.

Where the guidelines fail to cover things, we have historically not considered those actions to be actual misconduct. Its simply a learning experience, we deal with the problem as best as we can, then hash out something to cover it so it never happens again.

That said, i would support a fair policy to deal with the obvious problem of meatpuppetry on voting matters, though id much rather prefer a system where voices are weighted based on the reasoning they present rather than simply the number of people supporting that conclusion.

In conclusion, get off your cross. We need the wood. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:39, 4 May 2008 (BST)

As usual, Grimch is one of the only ones making sense... The rest of youj aren't paying attention if you don't get it. Now, Goons, quit your fucking WHINING already... --WanYao 06:43, 4 May 2008 (BST)

I'm going to agree with Grim here, striking votes isn't sysop privelege, so it's not misconduct. It's a matter for arbitration or vandalism (although the willingness to negotiate would mitigate the case). I will however unstrike the votes as there hasn't been any policy or precedence produced to back up the validity of striking meatpuppetry (despite numerous cases of it in the past, by many sections of the community) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:25 4 May 2008 (BST)

Wait wait wait, clarify here. It sounds to me like you're saying you found precedent but because you had to do it yourself it's invalid.--Karek^maps?! 15:40, 4 May 2008 (BST)

No, I found no examples of meatpuppetry being struck out (not that I looked too hard), nor do I remember any. But I've seen some pretty suspicious cases of seeming block voting over the years from all types -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:34 4 May 2008 (BST)

I'm probably too late to join the party but I'm going with Boxy and Grim. Not Misconduct, take it to Arbies or VB. -- Cheese 23:19, 6 May 2008 (BST)

As I will also vote NOT MISCONDUCT I think its a pretty fair assesment to say this is descided. I am amused that what could have been a legitimate concern got derailed into a he hates us discusion. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 17:23, 8 May 2008 (BST)

Well, I did ask if you wanted it in A/VB first, but apparently sysops are very indecisive. A/VB report is here. --Grarr

February 2008

Reason: using a sysop-spam on a suggestion, where it only applied (more spams than keeps) because he'd first removed a collection of Keep votes that he decided (completely arbitrarily) were invalid. Precedence allows Keep votes with minimal or no justification, on the basis that the justification is the suggestion itself. (You don't have to look far for evidence of this fact.)

Clearly, the voters were expressing a desire to change the game. As the suggestion covered something that has been reported as a bug several times, but not removed, it is reasonable to assume that it is a feature of the game, which people were voting in the Keep section to remove from the game, not specifically as a bug.

Essentially, Karek altered the number of votes to allow the use of his sysop-power. That's abuse of the power. That's Misconduct. I ask that the struck votes be reinstated and the suggestion itself allowed to run the course of voting without further underhand interference. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see some wrongful strikes, I had my justification. Keep/Bug meaning that it's a bug and that I want it fixed. My justification, as were others (I'm assuming), was that it's a bug (or a hack, cheating, whatever). On top of that, Engel vote stayed, which didn't even have any form of writting next to the Spam, although you can interpret it as the suggestion being a spam, but if you count it like that, then the keep/bug votes would be valid too. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Funt. He struck at least 3 votes there that were keeps while leaving an unjustified spam and an unjustified kill. Then immediately protected the page and shoved it into the archives. Its not the first time he's done something similar on the suggestions page when it comes to removing suggestions. -- Cheese 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So what? It's not like Funt doesn't frequently do the same thing, notice the long time between the removal of the votes and the removal of the suggestion before hopping on the "He dids it to removes the suggestions!!!11!1" bandwagon. I didn't strike them because I didn't care to strike them, because bug is justification for both spam and kill but not keep, it means file a bug report, when under keep it means nothing--Karek^maps?! 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's not like Funt doesn't frequently do the same thing". I deny that charge. Please provide evidence. Before you do, though, know this: I have clear examples of where I strike invalid votes whether they agree with my position or not. You, on the other hand, only struck those that disagreed with your position, and even then, only to set up a sysop-spam abuse of your powers. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, post what you think were wrongful strikes, I'd love to see this considering you think "Keep/Bug - Wut? *wants to check this*" is justification.--Karek^maps?! 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But why didn't you also strike the invalid Kill and Spam votes? Unless you were setting things up for a sysop-spam? --Funt Solo ^QT 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also worth noting Karek's initial vote, in which he says: "Every keep vote should be marked invalid and you should all be banned from voting on suggestions." This demonstrates clear bias, a motive for the misconduct and premeditation. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is only about striking the votes. As a result, take it to A/VB if you want to make a case. Any user can strike a vote, as you yourself are so fond of doing. Actually, on further inspection, none of those votes were actually justified. You have struck votes yourself that were more valid. He left everything with a justification, hence Not Misconduct and Not Vandalism. Other sysops may feel free to agree or disagree on this matter. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Karek is a giant wanker that should fuck off and die, in pain, soon, with any luck". Bias much, Funty boy? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was just the striking of votes, I'd agree that it would be an A/VB case. However, striking the votes in order to then make use of a sysop-only power: that's Misconduct. Also, you've failed to consider that he only struck votes that he considered invalid in the Keep section, ignoring similar votes in the Kill and Spam sections, which is yet more evidence of his setting this up for a sysop-spam action. Also - please point me to a "more valid" Keep vote that I myself have struck - because I don't recall anything as cut and dry as you're suggesting. Finally, I would welcome the input of other sysops: you and Karek are like a hive-mind tag-team: I've never seen you disagree on anything. (Regarding my outburst - I was annoyed at his unilateral action, but it bears little relation to the case, unless Misconduct is allowed if someone called you names (in response to having a perfectly valid vote struck out)? You're hardly one to be criticising others about their use of colourful language, are you? Didn't you call Hagnat a "pussy" for taking part in a Policy Proposal debate?) --Funt Solo ^QT 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Many times people strike votes out of one section and not others. I did check that accusation onn this case, and even with those votes gone, nothing would be changed about the situation. It would just mean 1 kill and 13 spam against 12 keeps, which is still spam territory. To crucify karek for doing in this case what others cheerfully do themselves without thought is at best inconsistent, and at worse vindictive. Striking votes to make use of a sysop power is perfectly acceptable so long as the votes that are struck are done so legally. In this case, they were. I dont see any case here beyond your unreasoning and uncompromising hatred of karek here funt, i really dont. FYI, you should recall that im perfectly willing to hoist even friends in misconduct, what with me doing it to my buddy hagnat twice recently.

As an aside to the case Funt, you have been becoming steadily more belligerent, intransigent, and vitriolic (not to mention paranoid) since you got back. Perhaps you might consider a vacation to cool off, lest you erupt in a spectacular, but otherwise harmless manner while trying to hurt those you dont like. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that "Quiet I think were being Bugged" (3rd striked vote) is less justified then "Someone kill this before too many people see it" (11th spam vote)? That would have brought it to 12 Keep to 12 Spam. Not applying the rules equaly is why we're here right now, Karak stiked the keep votes votes (but not the Spam/Kill votes) just to Sysop Spam it. - Jedaz - 23:21/19/02/2008

I only bothered striking keeps, I didn't bother removing it until Over 4 hours after the striking, which, in that time, one was unstruck in the form of a Troll vote, i.e. Funt's, one was changed from keep to kill, and 4 new users voted Spam. Even with the three votes unstruck it still wouldn't have been breaking the rules, if I, or any other sysop for that matter, decided to troll strike Funt's vote that would have been another one gone, and even ignoring that if the vote you mentioned had also been stricken the majority would still be Spam.--Karek^maps?! 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't have removed it immediatly as keeps still outnumbered the spams right up until Angels unjustified vote 5 minutes before you spaminated!--Honestmistake 10:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Grim, please stop trying to de-rail the central argument with ad hominem attacks against my character. You'll find that I get on perfectly well with plenty of contributers. The fact that I often disagree with both your and Karek's actions is not evidence that I'm unreasonable: it's simply evidence that we often disagree. To tar someone who disagrees with you as being mentally unstable in some way, strikes me as a conveniant way of adopting a spuriously superior position. Argue the case, or not at all. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you have ignored absolutely everything that has been said except the aside. Since you insist on doing this all time time i am going to take as a sign that you cannot fault the reasoning and therefore accept it, however grudgingly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're like a broken record. The rest of what you said was more nonsense, that's why I didn't respond. First, you accuse me of being "vindictive", trying to "crucify" Karek, and of "hatred" and a list of other things - when all I've asked for here is for the suggestion to be reinstated. If I really did hate Karek, I'd be after his blood, as you describe. The fact that I'm not sort of overturns your entire philosophy. I was being kind to you by not pointing that out - but since you insist. And please don't try and make out Hagnat is your friend when you tried to have him demoted. People in glass houses, Grim. I mean, can you spell hypocrisy? Can you smell it? You wear it like a cheap suit. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its vindictive because you brought it to misconduct instead of A/VB or even A/A, either of which are suitable homes for it, wheras this is, unfortunately for you, not. Also, hagnat and i get along well, and have been on good terms for a long time. A disgreement over one thing doesnt mean i cant consider him a friend, of course, since im the only person who can know my mind (Unless you want to claim telepathy). As for everything else, you have completely ignored the explainations i have made for why this is not misconduct, instead focusing on percieved personal attacks. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was reported as a bug in August and fair enough thats where it belonged but this was a suggestion looking for support from the community to emphasise that we didn't like this loophole being exploited and would like it removed.... Even the Spam votes mostly agreed that it should be dealt with and the Vote Jedaz quotes is a better justification than some others in the spam section (Kareks being notable for its outright trollishness!) This was abuse as far as I can see and no amount of back pedaling should hide that. --Honestmistake 23:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestmistake, depending on whos on trial, you either never see abuse or always see abuse. As karek has detailed below (And the history confirms), there was considerable lag time between tghe striking and the spamination, a lag time in which many users voted spam. This is not misconduct. Please take it to A/VB if you disagree with the ruling that it was fair, but considering the two actions to be connected in some form of malicious plot is absurd. Striking has never been a sysop power. Only the NOTE is, and no one used it on that suggestion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Grim, whenever I comment on a case I look at it carefully and weigh up what i think are the essential elements of it. Here Karek selectively struck votes (which is bad form but not against the rules) however dropping only the keeps served his purpose as it meant he was then able to sysop spamminate the suggestion. arguing that if he had dropped 1 of the Spam votes too would still have left it open to spamination is a white elephant. Angels vote should have been struck as it had no justification (so should whitehouses kill) and Kareks own vote was clearly trolling. Reading the votes actual text should have made it clear that almost all wanted this gone and the disagreement was only over how to let Kevan know our feelings. Bug reports are just that, REPORTS. While they do have discussion it is hardly a commonly visited page so bringing it to suggestions was a very reasonable thing to do. Removing it in such an underhand manner was to use a sysop power to further Kareks own opinion on the issue and nothing to do with neutral enforcement of the rules. That is why I say it is misconduct. As usual though when you disagree with something you attack the person not the argument... read the case again, Funt is arguing that the vote strikes where illegal (i agree) but that is not why he brought the case, it was the use of the sysop spam power which was abuse. If those votes had remained it would have been 15-14 and thus not spammable. This was clearly a cynical manipulation which put his opinion over that of a very large number of others and used a sysop power to do so. Sysop spammination can serve a purpose but in a case where so many of the community have voted, and their opinions so closely match, it would have been misconduct for any sysop to remove that from voting, let alone one that had made his opinion so painfully clear (and manipulated the voting figures!) --Honestmistake 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to attack the person. The removal of votes is not a sysop ability. you cannot misconduct for that. There was a significant lag time between the vote striking (Which was legal), and the spamination of the suggestion during which there were a considerable number of votes placed for both sides. When karek returned to the suggestion, it was eligable for sysop spamination, and he did so, completely within the rules and guidelines describing such a power. Saying that just because he was sloppy in the use of a user ability and only struck out of one category several hours earlier automatically means a subsequent removal is an abuse of power is patently absurd. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually i think if you look closer you will see that when karek "returned" (just after 17:00 I think) the vote was still not eligible for Spamination and it was only the 2 votes that followed made it eligible. If those 3 struck votes had remained it would not have been eligible, in any event are you seriously saying that Sysop spamination in a case with almost 30 votes (and a significant portion of those being keep) was the right thing to do? Sysop spam removal is supposed to be a last resort to clear out the truly worthless and not a tool to enforce sysop opinion over large numbers of other wiki denizens!--Honestmistake 10:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Striking is not a sysop action. At best this is a case for A/VB or A/A, please take it to either of those. It most certainly is not misconduct, because no administrative abilities have been misused. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this is even being discussed. It's such a pointless waste of time and energy.--Jorm 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Especially since if I have seen the whole Talk page discussion, I would have withdrawn the suggestion anyway.--ShadowScope 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - What I said above. You can't pick and choose, there was clearly invalid spam votes, some hardly had more than a number, a word and signature. Heck, how is saying "It's a bug, squish it" or "Someone kill this before too many people see it" any more justified than saying it's a bug? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to strike votes, it's not my job to strike every invalid vote, the two were completely seperate actions, as shown by the time frame, and the only reason Funt made this case is because his vote got struck, if I hadn't Spaminated the suggestion he would have made an A/VB case against me, again, because that seems to be his theme of the month.--Karek^maps?! 05:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To both: From my understanding, striking votes is a sysop or author thing. Last time I attempted to strike a vote I was notified with a polite message from Karek that I can't do that (I'll dig through my archives to see if I can find that, or if I have poor memory edit: here it is). What I really have the problem is that you removed the suggestion with a sysop spam when there is some invalid spam votes left. It's not a bad thing really, especially (from what I hear) that the author was planning to remove it anway. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:SugVoteBox Read that, specifically: "Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user." (my bold). Striking a vote is not a sysop ability, demonstrably so. Removing a suggestion without removing all invalid votes isnt a misconductable offense. It is dubius if its done immediately before removing the suggestion, and in those cases would be quite valid grounds for an A/VB case. In this case however, he didnt do it immediately. there is a lag time of almost four hours in there, during which ssomeone like funt who delights in the striking of other votes and dancing around the rules as much as he can with regards to justification could have gone and done a tit for tat striking of all the invalids in the other sections. Your ruling on this matter, demonstrably with no knowledge of the rules on the subject, demonstrates very clearly why i was against your promotion in the first place and didnt want you ruling on anything like this or vandal banning. You obviously dont have a clue and that causes no end of trouble when you make a mistake and the troll brigade uses that as a justification to up the ante. Id like to ask you to please stick with other sections of administration for a while until you learn your way around properly. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God. The ruling is in, this should be dropped, yet you are still making personal attacks on Gnome. Could you stop being the tireless rebutter for once and let it die? Or move it to his talk page if you want the circus to continue. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 19:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He posted that after the deadline too, which was why i had to respond. Its not so much a personal attack as constructive criticsm, albeit harshly delivered, of his conduct as a system operator. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm allowed to comment, the deadline is when this is archived. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AHLG, striking votes is not a stsop ability (Only using NOTE to strike troll votes is). Thats where there problem lies in this case, and is the core of the case. You are ruling misconduct based on something that anyone can do, and on a matter for which we have never, ever punished anyone before. Thats so absurd as to be comedic, if it werent for the fact that it was so depressing. Also, i seem to recall you saying, in your promotions bid not that long ago "I will not rule any cases that might be considered "not straightforward.", while you have technically followed this to the letter, you have ruled the wrong way. Please read Administrative Abilities at the top of the opage for more information. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He admits that he only struck the Keep votes he disagreed with. What reason could he have for doing so if not to then use his sysop-spam: thus, Misconduct. And I did not bring this case because my vote was struck - after all, I replaced my vote. I brought this case because, Karek, you overstepped your bounds. You abused your sysop powers. Please note that there's only one person on this page, of all those commenting, that agrees with you that what you did was fair, and not Misconduct. And I'm not trying to stir up trouble, or drama, or - as Grim put it - have you crucified, Karek. Note that in the initial report here, I set out what I want from this case: for suggestions (and that one in particular) to be allowed to run it's course without sysop interference. I have not called for your demotion (as Grim did with his friend Hagnat), I have not called for you to be warned - I have only asked that your action be over-turned so that the community here get to have their voice and not have their decisions made for them by heavy-handed idiots such as yourself. Please: before you dismiss me as a troublemaker - look to your own actions. I will admit when I'm wrong - I have no problem with that - doesn't it strike you as odd that you never do that? --Funt Solo ^QT 09:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you show which power he abused? He didnt strike for the express purpose of spaminating, because if that was the case he would have spaminated immediately. No, he went off and let it go for another several hours while others came by and voted. Your sole method to overcome this insurmountable obstacle in your case is to ignore it. But then again, thats what you have always done when faced with problems. Funt Solo, never one to let trivialities such as facts, logic, or even reality get in the way of his vindictive cases. This is a case for A/VB at best. Take it there. The only thing done of any (remotely) dubius legality is the striking of votes. The removal of the suggestion was both the only sysop ability used and perfectly legal. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you, and it is a matter of opinion. You have found as Not Misconduct, and another sysop (your peer) has found Misconduct. What is required is not for us to argue in circles, but for more sysops to place their views. I will accept whatever verdict is the outcome of these proceedings, without complaint, as I always do. Your opinion is that the delay between the striking of the Keeps and the sysop-spam prove Karek's innocence. My opinion is that Karek struck only the Keep votes, and no similar Kill or Spam votes, with the express purpose of setting it up for a sysop-spam. He was pouring all his energies into persuading people to change their votes - just look at the talk page. Grim - if he is so innocent of wrongdoing - why didn't he let another sysop use their sysop-spam ability? No - I'm sorry - but I just don't buy it. The evidence points to only one logical conclusion for me: the two actions were linked - and because the sysop-spam is a sysop-only ability, that he engineered validity for, it's Misconduct, and not A/VB. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one drawing a conclusion that isnt warranted by the facts. Dozens of people have struck votes in the past. The biggest and best reason for people only striking in opposing sections is because those are the only sections they actually read after they have voted. It happens with lots of users all the time, and in every case the explaination, whenever its asked for, is completely innocent and along those lines. Why is kareks suddenly a malicious act? Because you dont like him. There is no way one can reasonably assume malice on his part, the delay definately indicates that it wasnt done with the express purpose of spaminating the suggestion simply because it left a huge amount of time for people to reinstate their votes with justifications and other users to vote, both of which are completely beyond predictability, and could have just as easily gone the other way given the suggestion. Just because one person thinks the people voting the other way are idiots doesnt make the removal of unjustified votes from that section bad faith, nor do any subsequent administrative actions hours afterwards get tainted by those actions. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider four hours a long time on this wiki. As I said, this is based on a difference of opinion, Grim. That's why I brought the case - to let it be judged by Karek's peers. Our circular argument, as I've said, can serve no purpose other than to cement our differing views of the case. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

see my above comments for a little illumination on the 4 hour wait! It was actually more like 4 minutes! --Honestmistake 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes struck: 13:38, 19 February 2008. Suggestion removed: 17:16, 19 February 2008. Yes, that is four minutes. My mistake *rolls eyes*. Could you please try and stick to the facts? Please? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to obscure the evidence Grim...

• votes were struck at 13:38 and the total keep vs spam totals were 12-11
• Kareks next edit to page was 17:07 when the totals were 12:12
• the suggestion 1st becomes eligible for him to remove it with Rutherfords vote at 17-11
• pulled from voting by Karek at 17:16 with vote totals of 12-14 which if the perfectly valid votes had remained would have been 15-14

I was still considering my vote but it would not have been Spam, by pulling the vote early I didn't get chance to weigh in Now you may not be as good at math as you are at arguing but most people will afgree with me that the difference between spam eligability and removal was a lot closer to 4 minutes than it was to 4 hours. I have no doubt at all that if Karek could have gotten in earlier he would have making this clear abuse of the sysop spamination system for personal reasons. --Honestmistake 12:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay for Wiki Troll trying to stir up some more drama because he doesn't agree with the rules when they effect him.--Karek^maps?! 05:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. His latest reponse to me proves he has no interest in discussing matters like an adult, but intends to derail the discussion as soon as possible to turn it into a shit flinging contest, like he did the first hagnat misconduct case this year. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone let me know on my talk page when this is over, until then I'm gonna avoid this page as It's obvious what I might have to say won't matter so much as what people want to think I meant or did and why I did it.--Karek^maps?! 06:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone can look to the evidence and see for themselves what happened. The only reason I'm pointing that out here is because you and Grim are trying to derail these proceedings by painting me as the villain, instead of simply facing up to the fact that what you did was an abuse of your powers. I only ask that your actions be over-turned, and have not sought any form of punishment for you other than that. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Funt, you are wrong. In more ways than one, both regarding this case and the above statement. Everything i have posted so far stands as proof of this. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying something is so, does not make it so, Grim. There's even a question here, pointed out by HonestMistake, of whether the sysop-spam alone was pure bad faith, being used at is was (within the strict letter of the rule, if you ignore the prior removal of valid Keep votes) to remove a suggestion from voting where Karek had made perfectly clear that he hated the suggestion being in voting at all. Recall, he stated that anyone voting Keep should be banned from ever voting on any suggestion. Honestly, I don't see why you're supporting his actions when they're so clearly malicious in nature. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

They are only malicious in your paranoid little mind. Just because someone says something doesnt mean they will do it, or that everything they do is a result of that. Saying that is unpunishable, as is his removal of unjustified votes such as your original one. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruling

Not Misconduct - Even with the spam and kill vote struck, that suggestion still would have been spamminated. That was not a suggestion, it was a bug report. Concerned users about this bug should ask Kevan to pay a little more attention to it in his talk page or in the bug reports page, not in the suggestions page. Anyway, stricking votes is not a sysop action, therefore it can't be an abuse of Karek powers as a sysop. He spaminating the suggestion, though, can be considered poor form. I think that any sysops involved in a suggestion (because he voted on it or striked out invalid votes) should not be the one to rule a suggestion one way or another, and if he does, allow another sysop to protect it. I'd also like to ask users involved in this case to stop trolling others in administration pages... be a little more classy in here, people. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear on the precedent you're setting here. This wiki finds it permissable for a sysop to rig a vote (by removing only those votes they disagree with) and then close the vote using a sysop-only power? And that's not Misconduct? I'm just checking, so that I know, what kind of wiki I'm living in here. Well, that just doesn't seem just. I ask for a second opinion. If it rules the same, I'll shut up about it. (Clearly, Grim and Gnome have already cancelled each other out.) --Funt Solo ^QT 12:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, afaic, if it was a real suggestion (rather than a bug complaint), such abuse of the voting system would be miscondutable. You can't strike unjustified keep votes in a suggestion, and then ignore the unjustified spam votes in order to mod spamminate it later. But this wasn't a real suggestion. Just like clothing suggestions put in the main suggestion system, it can be removed, and the author pointed to the proper place to deal with it (either the bug report page, or Kevans talk page) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:17 20 February 2008 (BST)

Well, I disagree that it was clearly a bug report because there are interfaces in existance that incorporate the bug as part of the game. However, as the author considers it a bug, I have to bow to his judgement. As long as it's clear that this would be Misconduct on any normal suggestion, I'm happy to let this go. Thanks, boxy: that was helpful. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't blame Kevan because others have found ways to exploit the game and created third-party interfaces for the game. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And it seems we're not allowed to make suggestions that he change it, either. (By the way - I didn't blame Kevan - so don't put words in my mouth.) --Funt Solo ^QT 13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Next time use A/A or A/VB instead of calling him an idiot in the edit summary... as a user, Karek removed all keep votes without justification... you could have done the same with the kill and spam vote without justification, but you choose to call Karek an idiot and revert his edits. Once the suggestion had more spam than keep votes, karek spaminated the suggestion, and you misconducted him for that. My above comment ask sysops to avoid ruling and protecting a suggestion. I am not setting precedent for sysops to rig votes, i am setting precedent where sysops should avoid protecting a page they themselves have ruled on, excusing karek of his little fault as there was no such kind of precedent before. In the future, this might be considered misconduct because of the precedent of this case and my ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. I did not "revert his edits". I re-voted. And rather than enter into an edit war with a sysop, I called him an idiot, yes. That's because I found his actions to be idiotic. I still do. I still think he's generally an idiot, because he refuses to compromise, and always believes he's right about everything. It's nothing personal - anyone who behaves that way is an idiot. I might as easily call you an idiot for saying that I "reverted his edits", when that's clearly not the case. I mean, you can read, so what other conclusion should I come to? There's no point to A/A - people make up arbitrary rulings, which often get ignored, and the entire process takes weeks. I considered A/VB an overreaction, so didn't report there, because voters are free to re-vote if someone strikes their votes. When he used his sysop-spam and protection abilities to shut it all down, it had to be Misconduct. Now, please Hagnat, don't try and use this case to make a ruling on how I should behave - all I did was vote on a suggestion, and then react when an interfering idiot decided to impose his will on the rest of the community. That you're happy about that, makes me sad. But - boxy's addition to your ruling makes me feel safer about the extent to which sysops are going to be allowed to shit over everyone else on this wiki and go unpunished for it. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine enough with what Haggie says. I would have asked for no "punishment", (it's a silly thing in most cases), so no harm done either way. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

LOLCOMMENT - I think everyone needs to take the stick out of their asses.

1. It was a bug, should have been reported again, and it's safe to assume that Kevan would see it faster, and probably do something about it faster, if it was in the bug section. Especially if it was there more than two or three times.
2. If you use the argument "Oh noes! SA's (And others) votes should have been struck too, so it would have helped prevented teh sysops spamination", then I fully expect you all to go through every single suggestion that I haven't justified and strike my votes, along with striking them in the future, and along with striking out every single keep and kill vote that says something along the lines of "Meh", or is as unrelated to the suggestion as WTF Centaurs. If you don't plan to do that, then y'all can just shut the fuck up about the "unjustified votes".
3. The Syspam being bad faith? Really? Just because he thought it was a spam worthy suggestion doesn't make it bad faith. Hell, even if he did set it up for spamination, it doesn't matter. There's nothing in the rules that says he can't do that. Really. There's nothing that says he can't strike some votes he seen as a normal editor, and then Syspam it later. Striking votes isn't illegal. The only way it is is if you strike troll votes (I'd know, Grim tried to get me VBed because of it). And that only applies to normal editors. So, in reality, there is no real misconduct case here. Everything he did was within the boundries. Everyone else can just get over it.

Thank you, and have a nice day.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we quite done here? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This entire dog and pony show is a perfect example of the reasons why I and probably the bulk of the userbase have zero confidence in the UDWiki team. Just, you know. FYI.--Jorm 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)